All Episodes
Previous Next
April 30, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
23:56
Prof. Glenn Diesen : [LIVE from Brussels] : What Europe Fears.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, April 30th, 2025.
Professor Glenn Deason joins us now.
Professor Deason, it's a pleasure.
I want to talk to you about what Europe fears.
But to get there, a couple of baby step questions.
Recently, President Macron of France made a very apocalyptic speech about what you have written.
And recently, the president of Poland announced universal drafting for all males between certain ages.
What's behind all this?
Well, I think there's a panic because the United States has put a lot of pressure on them.
That is, Trump has said, we're not going to hang around here for another four years.
Instead, if a piece can't be made now...
Then we'll walk away.
Now, it's not sure if this is a mere bluff or not, but if it is a bluff, then...
This will be Trump's war and also he's going to be indistinguishable from Biden.
So I think there's a lot of people now recognize that he will probably walk away, that he won't own this war simply because it can't be won.
If you don't hold the cards, then you will hand over the mess to the Europeans.
So if the Americans pull away with their weapons, their logistics and their intelligence...
Ukraine will collapse.
All the bluster and ideological sloganeering in the world won't change this.
So the Europeans now see the dilemma.
They're faced with a bad deal or a collapse in Ukraine, which will be no deal or even worse deal.
I think this is something that Trump will have to do, because if the Europeans and the Ukrainians aren't falling in line because they think he will hang around, it's necessary to pull the plug and wait for things to get much worse before they're willing to come back to him.
So I think this is what they're worried about.
Regarding Macron, I think he's been sending out statements, which doesn't really make that much sense.
So he's saying, well, you know, if Putin wants peace, he accepts 30 days of unconditional ceasefire, which is one of these things where it sounds wonderful, but it doesn't make any sense.
When they say unconditional, it means that France doesn't want to address any of the political...
Which means it's just a ceasefire without actually resolving the conflict, which means it will be temporary.
And what is Europe going to do in this temporary time?
Well, it's just going to arm Ukraine again.
It's going to possibly send its troops in.
So it doesn't really make much sense what they're doing.
I think there's panic simply.
Do the EU elites, Starmer, Macron, Mertz, van der Leyen, and of course all the folks around them and the academics around them and the media that are slavish to them.
You can define that term loosely, but I think you know who I'm talking about.
Do the European elites actually fear some sort of invasion from Russia?
Because that's what Macron sounded like in that speech.
I doubt it, because if this was the case, they would have armed themselves to a greater extent earlier.
Also, by their own statements, Macron himself has recognized for years that we have to do something about the European security architecture.
European stability can't simply be dependent on NATO moving its military infrastructure closer and closer to the Russian border.
So, in other words, this is something that Merkel...
Also argued for years, that is, Europe without Russia can't become a Europe against Russia.
Well, I think we saw this exactly what happened.
So it's hard to tell, because either they're being dishonest or they're, well, not stupid, but at least they have fallen for their own propaganda and fear-mongering.
But no, I don't think...
It doesn't make any sense.
But you have to understand that Europeans, they all came together, united under these narratives that this was an unprovoked invasion.
And once Russia had taken Ukraine, it would move along and take other European countries as well.
So on the other hand, we also said in Europe that Ukraine had to be a part of NATO because Russia would never dare to attack NATO.
So our narratives and slogans, they don't...
Well, they don't always match, but this is kind of how we got stuck in these narratives.
Okay.
Can you give us a four- or five-minute version of your otherwise lengthy and astute lecture on the roots of Russophobia, the European roots of Russophobia?
Well, Russophobia has been a problem for...
At least 200 years.
In the early 1800s, there was a lot published on this, especially around 1836.
Also, you had John Stuart Mill working on this.
Now, the main argument then was this is an irrational fear and hatred of Russia.
And as they recognized 200 years ago, the reason why it would be...
It's because there's many rational reasons to fear Russia.
However, by being irrational, by focusing more resources than necessary, making conflicts when there's possibility to harmonize interest, this would simply not be in our interest.
So the question is, why do we do it?
Well, I think this goes into...
Basic in human nature.
That is, human beings, they tend to organize in groups.
And the key instinct, as we learn in sociology, is this in-group who are us and the out-group which are them.
And Russia has always been our other, our mirror image, if you will.
So when we saw ourselves as European, we argued that the Russians were Asiatics, we were civilized, they were the barbarians.
We were liberal democracies, then they were communists.
This was more during the Cold War.
And after the Cold War, we reinvented these dividing lines because we never unified Europe.
We maintained the Cold War dividing lines.
So then we recast this as liberal democracies versus authoritarianism.
And this is kind of the lens everything has to be seen through.
It's simply saying that the world is divided between...
Good and evil.
And we attribute bad intentions to Russia, always, no matter what it does.
So this makes it very difficult to find an actual peace with Russia, because if you think that they are always evil, always have bad intentions, you can't really find any compromise at all.
And I think this is how we always get stuck.
And this is also the huge danger of rassophobia, simply because we end up pursuing very irrational policies.
Mm.
Do the EU elites believe that Trump will close the spigot of arms to Kyiv as Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio have threatened?
I mean, Vance and Rubio threatened two weeks ago.
That in one week the spigot could close.
It obviously hasn't closed.
There was that chance 15-minute huddle in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican between Presidents Zelensky and Trump, but the spigot hasn't been closed.
So my question, do the elites believe it will be closed?
It's hard to say.
I think that the main...
Thought is that there's many who believe that Trump would do this.
However, the Trump administration is also acting, using a lot of bluffing in its policy.
So we saw this with the tariffs, the threatened tariffs on everyone, and everyone would fall in line.
However, when they don't fall in line, such as the Chinese, then they have to walk this back.
And Trump has been very clear that...
The purpose of pulling away from Ukraine, that is cutting off weaponry and intelligence, would be to put pressure on the Ukrainians and Europeans to fall in line.
But if this is the point, what happens if they don't fall in line?
Will he still do it?
And this is kind of the main uncertainty.
And this is the key problem in...
With the Trump administration, I think this is part of a deliberate policy to have this strategic uncertainty.
Some refer to that as the madman theory of Nixon.
You should never know what he will do next because it's very unpredictable.
And this makes the rest of the actors in the international system more cautious and fearful.
More cautious about aggravating.
No, they can be as cautious and fearful as they want, but if they don't have the assets, if they don't have the resources, how are they going to replace for Ukraine what Trump will stop supplying them, if you follow me?
Well, there is no way.
And indeed, NATO was losing the war against Russia that is a proxy war, as everyone from Rubio to Boris Johnson have recognized that it is.
Panetta as well, by the way.
And if NATO with the Americans couldn't defeat the Russians, it makes no sense at all that if you take America out of the equation, that somehow the Europeans are going to do this.
I think if you look at the front lines now, they're cracking everywhere.
Things are going from bad to worse.
So, no, I don't think they have a plan, the Europeans.
They don't have the means.
They don't have a proper plan how to end this.
And you see this when they undermine Trump's peace negotiations.
They don't actually have an alternative plan either.
The only thing they know is that they don't want this bad peace because...
For so long now, for the past at least 11 years, they've been doubling down every time the conflict has escalated.
So it's too much political credibility which risks being lost.
And also NATO itself, by the way, if you follow the European media now, the concern is that if NATO loses the war in Ukraine, NATO itself will effectively be dead, something I think is quite possible.
Very interesting.
If NATO loses the war in Ukraine, there's no way NATO can prevail in the war in Ukraine, particularly with Donald Trump's attitude about it.
I mean, do you think he can negotiate for peace, or do you think he's going to end up turning off the spigot, walking away, and blaming it on Joe Biden?
It is interesting he still talks about Biden.
He still talks about it as recently as today.
He's been in office 100 days.
He dominated American politics like no president since FDR.
And he's still talking about Biden.
Yeah, it's not really relevant to the present, I guess, unless you want to cover for your own mistakes.
But I think what Trump, again, I think many of his instincts on Ukraine was correct.
That is, as he says, Ukraine doesn't hold any cards.
The war has been lost.
We don't have the weapons.
They don't have the manpower.
The war is over.
Meanwhile, the Russians are ramping up in a big way.
But I think what he misunderstands and fails to appreciate is that the Russians do consider this to be an existential threat.
That is, they can't accept NATO entering into Ukraine.
So this idea of having to restore neutrality of Ukraine, which includes no European troops in...
Ukraine.
It doesn't matter if they wear the EU hats or call themselves peacekeepers or coming as NATO.
They simply won't accept this.
This is why they invaded to begin with, knowing that it could escalate to a nuclear war.
They see this, again, this is something they can't accept.
So I think Trump is more of a...
He focuses more on, I guess, the art of the deal, how to do the negotiation tactics.
So I think he wants to come up with an extreme punishment or a reasonable deal and then hope that he can gradually or very quickly move different parties towards where he wants it.
The problem is he doesn't have any leverage with the Russians.
For one, given that the Russians see this as an existential threat, they will...
Never accept any situation where the Europeans or any NATO countries end up in Ukraine.
And so they want it more.
And second, the Russians have the means as well.
They can stay this one out.
They have diversified their economy, so they're not that vulnerable to sanctions.
And they're building up an immensely powerful military force, which makes sure that they don't have to make any concessions.
It undermines effectively what they see as this existential threat.
Just as a final note, this was effectively Obama.
I know we aren't allowed to say this anymore because this is what the Russian narrative is, but this was Obama's comments as well back in, I think it was 2015 or 2016, that the Russians had advantage.
It was more important for them, and also they had the logistic advantage, which is logistic is really the key in this war.
Also, what we see now is the industrial might and economic flexibility.
But either way, I think he doesn't appreciate that the Russians can't really move that much on this.
Here's President Trump just yesterday in an interview being asked about if there is no peace, will he cut off military aid?
And you have your finger on the pulse, Professor Deason, but here's what he said.
If there is no peace deal, will the U.S. cut off military aid?
I don't want to tell you that.
I'm not going to tell you whether or not I would or not.
I want to leave that as a big fat secret because I don't want to ruin a negotiation.
But I will tell you, I was not happy when I saw Putin shooting missiles into a few towns and cities.
And that was not something that I like seeing.
And I thought it was inappropriate.
But I think the whole war is inappropriate.
All right, he deviated away from the question.
I understand he doesn't want to answer it.
He wants to use it as sort of a bargaining chip.
He's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
He's blaming Putin for attacking residences in Kiev.
He's been doing the same thing in Yemen for the past four or five weeks.
But your thoughts on this kind of a give and take?
Yeah, well, some of the logic goes similar to what Macron was saying.
That is, if Putin wants peace, why is he attacking Ukraine?
Well, because, again, they need a political settlement.
But I think you're correct when you said he's talking out of both sides of his mouth there, because if he does say that, well, we'll walk away...
If there is no deal, well, wonderful.
Then why would the Russians make any huge concessions?
Because if America walks away, this whole thing will be over fairly quickly.
On the other hand, if he says, no, we will not walk away...
Then the Europeans and the Ukrainians, they don't have to move an inch because they want to keep this war going, but they can only keep it going if the Americans stay in the war.
So it's very difficult to bring the parties together.
That being said, I do believe that Trump genuinely wants this war over.
I think he doesn't see any American interest in it.
He sees that the war is lost.
There's no way of winning this anymore.
So I do think that he's correct, but I don't see any more...
I was more optimistic before in terms of getting a peace deal, because if he wants a peace deal, he doesn't have any leverage with the Russians.
It has to be the Ukrainians and the Europeans, which he puts all the pressure on, because it is a horrible deal, but it's the only deal.
But because it's so horrible, it's going to be very difficult to get through in either Ukraine or Europe.
Do the Europeans want Trump to fail and the war to continue, and the U.S. to continue paying for it?
Oh, definitely.
Well, they're quite open about this as well.
Now, they often frame their policies as being an altruistic language.
So, for example, they say, well, we're forming a coalition of the willing, so we will assist with...
Any ceasefire agreement.
So we're going to put in troops to monitor this.
This is not helping or assisting with a ceasefire.
What they're doing is they're sabotaging it because they know very well that the Russians would never accept a ceasefire if they fear that the Europeans will use this time either to send weapons or to move their troops into Ukraine.
This is quite evident.
They don't have a peace proposal, so they believe that more pressure will have to be put against Russia.
And this is what they've said for more than three years.
We want Russia, we want to negotiate from a position of strength, which means we need more weapons.
This is what they said from the beginning of 2022.
This is what they're saying in 2025.
Nothing has changed.
So this translates, you know, negotiating from strength, it translates into reality.
Of prolonging the war, keep the fighting going.
If I just add one more thing, not everything is altruistic.
Many of the Europeans, from the Germans to the Danes to the Baltic states, Poles, they're all saying the same thing.
It's better if the war goes on for a few more years, because then we have time to prepare.
So again, as the German intelligence chief said, keep the war going for another five years.
Then at least the Russian anger will be directed at the Ukrainians.
So they're essentially the meat we are sacrificing here.
Does Germany have a new government yet?
I think Mertz is coming in.
I'm a bit uncertain.
No, I don't think Mertz has...
I'm just wondering if you put together his coalition because the impression of them here in the U.S. And that is reinforced by your colleague, Professor Gilbert Doctorow, is that Mertz is the most militaristic, or will be,
he's not the chancellor yet, will be the most militaristic German chancellor since Hitler.
Well, it's not wrong.
It doesn't take that much because what we're known from the...
Germany since World War II, they've been very cautious.
Again, they focused on creating more trust and being not too militaristic, simply because of their history, but also not to antagonize the other Europeans.
So now you have a German chancellor who is standing up in the Bundestag saying...
Russia hasn't just attacked Ukraine.
They've attacked Europe.
Now we have to arm ourselves to the teeth.
Germany should become a big military power.
And again, the language is something I haven't seen before.
So again, if there would be anyone else since Hitler, I'm not sure who he would rival then.
He hasn't taken over yet, but I'm not sure of the date, though.
Can he amass the resources to replace the U.S. aid to Kiev if Trump turns off the spigot?
Can Mertz do that?
I don't see it.
Again, the German economy, it used to be the engine of Europe.
It's not anymore.
Germany is quite broken.
A key part of their economic model was their connection with Russia.
This is a historical thing, by the way, that the German economy and the Russian, they're quite complementary.
You know, they had a model where they had a lot of industry, especially a lot of heavy industry, which is energy intensive.
So they got cheap energy from Russia.
This fueled the industrial might of Germany.
And then they would have a huge Russian market, which would be available to the Germans because the Russians believed that one day they would be embraced by Europe and be included into some common European home.
And none of this happened.
And now that they cut themselves off from the Russian market and the Russian energy, a lot of this is failing.
And of course, there's more problems with the German economy.
They never digitalized their industries properly.
They have problems with infrastructure, skilled labor, labor costs.
So there's a lot of problems which hasn't been addressed.
And I think this is why a lot of the political class is now leaning into the idea of a geopolitical EU, that is one that seeks unity not based on common economic interests, but more external enemies.
So this is, yeah, I don't see the economic possibility of a social problem.
Will Mrs. van der Leyen get her wish of becoming the commander-in-chief of the European military?
The thought of that is repellent, but it seems like they're marching in that direction.
Well, it is a terrible thought, but it's quite possible.
You have to understand the logic that is going on in the EU.
For many years, the Germans as well as the French, they were warning the Eastern Europeans, let's not be too aggressive towards the Russians, let's focus more on trust-building instead.
And because we bought into this narrative that it was an unprovoked invasion, Putin's new Hitler, they want to restore the Soviet Union, the logic is that the Eastern Europeans got it right, the Russophobes in the Baltic states, for example.
So the idea is...
They had it right along.
Let's give over the car keys to them.
So now we put people like Kaya Callas as the foreign policy chief of the European Union.
And you see the Germans now emulating this kind of crazy rhetoric.
You see it from Nelena Baerbock.
You see it from Mertz himself, which is just incredibly aggressive in his language, where he's saying, in fact, Germany is at war with Russia.
They're talking about sending the long-range terrorist missiles to...
To Ukraine, which will likely be operated by German soldiers.
So Germans will now launch long-range missiles into Russia.
There's some historical precedents there.
They've done this in the past.
And unlike the Americans and the French and the British, they don't have nuclear weapons.
So the temptation for Russia to retaliate if Germany strikes them is going to be quite big.
So I think this is a future generation might curse his name.
Professor Deeson, thank you very much.
Thanks for allowing me to pick your brain on all these subjects, and thank you for sharing your knowledge with our viewers.
I hope we can see you again next week.
Oh, sure.
Anytime.
Thank you, Judge.
You're welcome.
▲
Export Selection