All Episodes
Previous Next
May 13, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
25:56
Prof. Glenn Diesen : Is Europe Preparing for War?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, May 14th, 2025.
Professor Glenn Deason joins us now.
Professor, a pleasure as always, my dear friend.
Thank you very much for joining us.
I want to spend some time with you talking about Europe and its...
Real or imagined fears of war and its preparation for war.
But before we do, to the relevant issues that are happening as we speak, what is your take on President Trump's trip to the Middle East and his visits to Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
No, I think he still hopes to be a president of peace to bring the region together.
It doesn't necessarily seem always that this is an intention, given his very aggressive posture that is threatening some ethnic cleansing and, of course, bombing Yemen.
But he sees this as being his main tactic, that is, negotiation through strength and some strategic ambiguity.
No, I think this is the main thing he's going for, and also to try to reorganize the region a bit towards the United States.
He did have some interesting points.
He picked up on a lot of the concerns of the past decades of humanitarian interventionism, foreign nation building, and effectively argued that distancing himself from this universalism and calling for...
I mean, he effectively condemned the behavior of President George W. Bush with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, supposedly Woodrow Wilson-like, to bring democracy to other countries.
Does it matter to the Europeans the personal background of the people he's been meeting with?
Mohammed bin Salman has been found by the American intelligence community to have ordered the slaughter and dismemberment while still living of a Washington Post reporter.
And Al Jalani, according to Scott Ritter and our other colleagues, A, killed Americans with his bare hands, and B, is still killing Alawites and Christians in Syria.
Do these things matter to Europeans, or do they put all that behind them?
Or is there no European consensus on this?
Well, no, I think you're correct on both of these issues.
It's hard to speak of European consensus these days, given that there's some deep fragmentation going on.
But overall, there's also a sense of panic now.
In Europe, there's great concern.
principles is not prioritized at the moment.
So it's very hard for the Europeans to denounce Trump for any of this because the Europeans also...
Go to visit Jolani.
Keep in mind that when you mentioned the killing of the Alawites, when this happened, the EU went out on Twitter and blamed the Alawites for provoking it.
So it's not...
One of the European countries, correct me, I think it was France, was the first to recognize Al Jolani as the legitimate head of a legitimate government in a country that we destroyed, Syria.
It all happened kind of quick as well.
Keep in mind that the bounties on Jolani's head were still in place by the time...
Right, right.
The Marco Rubio State Department, Donald Trump's State Department, until a month ago, had a $10 million bounty on this guy's head.
Now he's cozying up with the president in a palace in Riyadh.
Yeah, well, this is my point.
I think all those liberal democratic values and principles, I think now it's considered a luxury which they no longer can prioritize as there's other considerations.
Indeed, after the toppling by Jolani, one of the key issues the Europeans were going for was seeking to support or push Jolani to kick out the Russians from the military bases.
So this was kind of the priority.
So everything these days is, back to zero-sum geopolitics.
So I don't see anyone really at this point in time prioritizing, yeah, we're looking at values, but even principles such as not working with Al-Qaeda is, yeah.
Are the Russians still in Syria?
Do they still have a naval base somewhere, or are they completely gone?
Has Putin given up the ghost on Syria for now?
Well, Jolani wants Assad extradited, sent back to Syria.
For me, it seems very doubtful that Russia would actually accept this, that is, to actually send...
Yes, Assad back.
It would be almost impossible for them to do.
It would be a humiliation on the international stage.
I think this is what they're pressuring, but I don't see it going anywhere, to be honest.
I think they've given up, a bit like Iran, to be honest.
They've given a little bit up on...
On the whole Syrian project.
And to be honest, I think this is more the Western problem now, because a lot of the campaign against Assad, again, it was an anti-Assad alliance.
Once Assad was toppled, what do the Turks, the Israelis, the United States, again, Juhlani and the jihadists, what do all these regional actors really have in common?
I think there will be more fragmentation.
But, of course, there is a problem for the Russian troops, which remain.
There's some reports that there's a lack of access to food, drinks, but they're still pulling out some of their troops.
Were the Israelis, I haven't seen this in public, but just trying to extrapolate the way I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks.
Were the Israelis disappointed, bitterly so, at the lifting of sanctions on Syria?
Yeah, this is, well, again, this is an interesting move because usually the United States, also by extension the Europeans, tend to fall in line with what Israel demands.
But on this issue, it appears that, you know, they went ahead.
Prioritize the removal of sanctions despite Israel's opposition.
So again, there's a desire to make sure that whoever is in power in Syria becomes loyal to the West.
Now, this is not quite unique.
We often create these myths or stories about leading the free world and all, but there's been...
Throughout the Cold War alone, there's been so many cases of Western countries, and I guess primarily the United States, toppling democratically elected leaders in order to install dictatorships as long as they're loyal to Washington and the Europeans.
So it's not really that big of a deviation from what's happened throughout history.
Is there a general feeling in Europe over this $400 million gift that the Qataris want to make ultimately to Donald Trump himself?
I know now that it says it's going to go to the Defense Department, and then when he leaves office in three and a half years, it'll go to his library foundation.
But as a practical matter, it's a gift to him.
Nobody else is going to How do the Europeans feel about something like this?
Or, stated differently, do the Qataris give away?
This kind of cash or something of this value, and don't expect anything in return.
Well, I think the key word there, which I was going to comment on, was a gift.
I don't think there are any gifts in at least great power politics.
The Qataris are obviously buying goodwill.
Again, this is not a new thing either.
The Clintons are the Clinton Foundation.
There are many ways to grease the politicians now.
Buying off Trump, again, of course, is very transactional, which is why you see the approach it takes to also allies, the idea they should pay for their security.
This was kind of the idea behind the mineral steel with the Ukrainians.
So I think there's a general understanding that you make deals with the United States.
Perhaps more directly with Trump and you buy some goodwill.
I think maybe Trump is more blatant than others with this.
But again, it's not a new thing.
It's something you see.
It's kind of ironic that the gear in the plane insisted upon by the Secret Service and the Defense Department Will cost about a billion dollars and will take about two to two and a half years.
He may not even get to use it while he's president.
If he does, it'll be at the tail end of his term.
Okay, I get that and I appreciate that understanding.
In the last week, Polish President Tusk, French President Macron, British...
Prime Minister Starmer and German Chancellor Kurtz all took a trip to Kyiv.
The trip coincided with the Russian.
Should have been European.
Should have been worldwide, but it appears just that it was in Moscow.
Maybe you can tell me why.
Celebration of the end of World War II in Europe.
What are the four of them trying to accomplish or demonstrate?
By this trip to Kyiv, coinciding with the three-day celebration in Moscow.
Well, I think they wanted to take obviously some attention away from the celebrations, but it's also an effort by the Europeans to still seem relevant.
Keep in mind that the Europeans are quite worried that they've been excluded from the negotiations, that is.
Peace in Ukraine now will be decided primarily in Moscow and in Washington.
So they want a greater role.
But of course, there's some problems.
Even though they want to be more involved in Ukraine, nobody wants to pick up the phone and call Moscow.
So there's too many contradictions.
Furthermore, they're not really willing to...
I think they got stuck in this narrative of unprovoked invasion.
So they can't really talk to the opponent.
They can't really deviate from the push towards war.
And even though they want to be part of negotiations, they don't really want actually any negotiations.
The main objective of this, of course, is to pull the United States into the war.
But there's also concerns that they're very divided.
They don't have a role.
So at least my interpretation of this is to show that the Europeans are standing strong, they're standing together, and they're still showing their full support for Ukraine.
Again, the problem behind this is a great facade, and this is a very European thing.
There's a strong sentiment about something.
They come together, they take the group picture and send a strong message in a stern letter.
But none of this really means that much anymore because as Macron said only a few days ago on French TV, they don't have any more weapons to send.
They sent what they had and what remains is the need for drone security.
So it is a weird thing to watch, to issue threats and ultimatums to Russia when Russia is actually winning.
But I think this is the compensation, a lot of chest beating, as there's nothing else, no other cards to play.
Here's a weird thing to watch.
Prime Minister Starmer touting, I don't know why they called it this.
This is one of George Bush's biggest blunders.
Calling the people who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq the coalition of the willing.
But anyway, they've chosen that phrase.
Here's Prime Minister Starmer on all of this just three days ago.
Cut number three.
No more ifs and buts.
No more conditions and delays.
Putin didn't need conditions when he wanted a ceasefire to have a parade.
But he doesn't need them now.
Ukraine has shown the willingness to engage.
Again and again.
But again and again, Putin has refused.
So we are clear, all five leaders here, all the leaders on the meeting we just had with the Coalition of the Willing, an unconditional ceasefire, rejecting Putin's conditions, and clear that if he turns his back on peace, we will respond.
Respond with what?
I mean, isn't this like a mouse threatening an elephant?
Yeah, very much so.
But it's also, it's not being a...
It's being very dishonest as well.
Again, all this word sounds very nice.
Unconditional ceasefire.
All unconditional means is that they don't want to talk about the political settlement.
Now, you can't have a durable ceasefire if you don't actually address the underlying causes.
So, you know, they demonize the Russians for setting conditions.
But in any conflict resolution, you do...
You do look for solutions.
And again, this idea that we need an unconditional ceasefire, again, I would love to see a ceasefire, but they have to put forward some proposal.
They can't even call the Russians to set up a format.
What is the purpose of the ceasefire?
Who will monitor these kind of things?
And so it looks to me a bit like a narrative control because...
Yes, suddenly now we have to have a ceasefire now, unconditional.
Otherwise, suddenly it's the Russians who refuse to talk, not us.
But again, this comes after three years of not talking to the Russians, still not talking to the Russians.
You anticipated my next question.
Why don't they just pick up the phone and call Foreign Minister Lavrov, whose English is as good as any of theirs, and start a dialogue?
Or is this the Joe Biden, Antony Blinken mindset that the Russians are so evil we won't even talk to them?
No, it's exactly that.
And it's also the idea that we have to isolate the Russians.
But these are two mutually exclusive things.
You can't say that we're ready for a ceasefire and start talks, but we won't talk to them before the ceasefire begins.
And this is the main...
The Russians say, we don't want a ceasefire before we address the underlying causes, because they did this with the Minsk agreement.
And indeed, the Europeans have already said they won't accept any of the terms the Russians have said.
The new German foreign minister even said that NATO expansion, Ukraine's path to NATO was irreversible.
They're not even going to discuss the core of any security.
Any peace agreement.
But at the same time, they want a ceasefire.
So for the Russians, they ask, well, why do you want a ceasefire if you refuse to talk about the political settlement?
And the Europeans are quite open.
They want to send more weapons into Ukraine because they see the front lines collapsing.
The British are talking about sending their jets in and having troops on the ground.
So it's seen as...
Yeah, an effort to prolong the war instead of continuing it.
And this is, I think, the main division.
What comes first, political settlement or the ceasefire?
Now, there could be an avenue for convincing the Russians to accept a ceasefire, but then at least have an agenda of what should be done during the ceasefire.
Are we going to sit down with the Russians?
Are we going to talk about mutual expectations and demand?
But as you said, they won't even call.
So you have to ask whether or not they're being genuine.
Indeed, you can ask, why does Zelensky, after three years of refusing to talk to the Russians, now suddenly say, well, I want to meet Putin.
I'll meet him now on Thursday in Istanbul.
I will only talk to him.
And this is the only thing.
You know, this is impossible.
You can't organize a presidential meeting, you know, security issues.
What agenda?
What are they going to talk about?
How would this be organized in two, three days?
It's not going to happen.
So it's all theater.
Now, of course, the European newspapers can print, ah, Zelensky takes the first step.
He pushes for peace.
Putin shows that he wasn't really interested in peace after all.
So, again, it's narrative control, I think.
It's a great shame because people continue to die in huge, huge numbers on the front line.
President Putin's rather candid response to a lot of this.
He even refers to these five.
But by the way, who's the fifth?
So there's Starmer, Macron, Tusk, and Mertz.
Who else was there?
Von der Leyen?
No, that's a good question.
Yeah, all right.
Well, maybe we'll come up with it.
But whoever they were, I've never heard Putin say this, and I'm assuming the translation is accurate.
He calls them idiots.
Here.
Here he is yesterday.
Cut number five.
We must not be afraid.
Anyone who starts to get scared will lose everything right away.
But it's absolutely necessary to understand what might happen.
And we need to be ready for any actions from our possible future adversaries.
They do many things to their own detriment.
It seems like, well, they definitely won't do this or that because it harms them.
But they do it anyway, idiots.
Please excuse me.
But, well, what else can you say?
Their economies, the leading economies of the world, are going into recession.
They fall into recession just to harm us.
It's like buying a ticket and not taking the trip just to spite the conductor.
What is that supposed to be?
To a large extent, thanks to the efforts of businesses and the energy of entrepreneurial work, Russia's economy is demonstrating resilience and developing.
Let's start at the very end, Professor Deason.
I don't think there's any dispute at all, but that Russia's economy is demonstrating resilience and is developing nicely.
In fact, it's in a lot better shape.
Again, correct me if we have a different understanding, more your field than mine.
It's in much better shape now than it was before the West imposed their sanctions.
Well, let me just say, I think the fifth person is probably Zelensky who is referring to.
Oh, God.
No, I think the economic development is, no, it is something that they've been working on for a while.
Again, this is what I find frustrating because I was arguing on the first day of sanctions that they wouldn't work.
And the reason is because I used to work as a professor in Moscow in 2018, 19, and 20 on the issue of the development of the...
The Russian economy because they were trying then to make their economy sanctions proof.
That is, they pursued more technological sovereignty.
They tried to fill in key gaps in their supply chains by having some import substitutions.
So often you saw that when the Europeans put sanctions on the Russians, it was areas which also hurt the Europeans.
When the Russians did it, it often had strategic So they wanted to develop key strategic industries, for example, the tech sector.
They also wanted to develop agriculture.
So in key areas where they could develop key, well, strong international competitiveness.
So they've been working on this for quite some time.
They've had very conservative fiscal policies, avoid taking on too much debt.
So, yeah, overall, they've been preparing for...
For this potential that they would end up in a conflict with the West.
So, no, I think to some extent they see themselves also liberating part of their economy from, well, let's call them rent seekers in the West.
And they've been able to actually grow the economy quite well.
And it's not just that the economy is going up.
You also see it throughout society that the standard of living is increasing in many places as well.
And this is all happening while they're fighting a very expensive war, and the West has thrown all sanctions at them.
So it is quite an interesting thing to see.
What do you think we can expect in Istanbul?
I mean, are Putin and Zelenskyy literally going to be in the same room?
I can't imagine they would.
It's not how negotiations usually work.
That is, they start at very different places.
And how you usually would do it is you have a negotiation team from both sides.
They discuss, they flesh it out.
And usually when you kind of reached an agreement, you're ready to sign.
This is when...
The leadership would come in.
This is for many reasons.
It's also not to create any political pressure that would result in the collapse of the negotiations to begin with.
However, there could be a scenario that if, of course, Putin and Zelensky both...
To shake each other's hands, being very symbolic, let's at least start diplomacy again and talk.
Again, I think this could be very positive, and again, I would applaud it.
Anything to get an end to all of this killing.
However, I suspect that this is a political stunt, and if that's the case, which likely is the case, I can't imagine him actually showing up for this.
We talk about political stunt.
Could you imagine if the person standing between the two of them was Donald Trump?
Would that be the political stunt of the ages?
Well, as Trump said after the big drama in the Oval Office, so this is good TV at least.
I think that's how it could be interpreted.
Whatever you think of him, he does know good TV.
He puts on a good show.
Not always appropriate for international politics, but he knows how to draw a crowd.
Right.
Professor Deason, always a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks for all your writings, and thanks for letting me pick your very fertile brain.
We'll look forward to doing it again next week, my friend.
Thank you.
Anytime, Judge.
Of course.
Thank you.
So, normally I would just sign off and tell you who's coming up next, and I'll do that in a minute.
But earlier this week, some of our guests mentioned this allegation of the use of illegal, controlled, dangerous substances on a train by Prime Minister Starmer, Chancellor Mertz, and President Macron.
I must tell you that I and my team and this show reject those allegations.
In fact, though they are rampant in social media, though they appear to be generally believed by our friends in Russia, they have been totally debunked, and we debunk them and dissociate ourselves from them.
Having said that, at 3 o 'clock today, Bill Giraldi with some new information.
Who do you think was on Air Force One with Donald Trump that also works for Prime Minister Netanyahu?
▲
Export Selection