All Episodes
Previous Next
May 14, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
29:14
Prof. John Mearsheimer : An Istanbul Peace Conference?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, May 15th, 2025.
Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now.
Professor Mearsheimer, always a pleasure.
As we speak, Professor Mearsheimer, Secretary of State Rubio, Foreign Minister Lavrov, and Ukraine President Zelensky are all in Istanbul, theoretically talking about ending the No,
I don't think it's possible because I think the two sides here, and we're talking not just about the Americans and the Russians, but we're talking about the United States, Europe.
I mean, the Ukrainians do not accept any of Russia's major demands, and Russia is insistent that all of its major demands be met.
And how you reconcile those stark differences is not clear to me.
Furthermore, if you take this a step further, this whole...
The negotiation process is completely Looney Tunes.
It's not clear who's in charge, when they're meeting, who's meeting.
I've never seen anything like this.
And when you have tough substantive differences between the two sides...
To maximize your chances of getting some sort of agreement, the diplomatic process has to be handled in a smart way.
And this is anything but a smart way.
So this is nowhere.
Yeah.
President Erdogan of Turkey presided over or facilitated, I should say, negotiations back in 2022 before the first shot was fired.
When the Russians and the Ukrainians agreed on a 106-page, a 26-page agreement, every page of which was initialed, that's when Joe Biden and dispatched Boris Johnson, then the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to talk President Zelensky out of it.
Are they naive enough to think that hundreds of billions of dollars and a million lives and three years later...
Will produce a similar outcome?
It's hard to believe that they think that.
But I believe they think if they prolong this war, they can wear the Russians down and the Russians will ultimately give up and we will win.
I think this is foolish in the extreme.
I think the Ukrainian military is in deep, deep trouble.
I think the Russians are going to just conquer more territory if the war goes on and more Ukrainians are going to die.
But the Europeans themselves and the Ukrainians don't accept that logic.
And they want to continue the fight.
And what they want to do is keep the Americans in the fight with them.
Go ahead.
Here's the...
Nominal spokesperson for the Europeans, Prime Minister Starmer, just a few hours ago.
Chris, cut number one.
What's happened today is further evidence that it's Putin who is dragging his feet.
It is Putin who is causing the delay in a ceasefire.
Ukraine has long been clear several months ago now.
That they would have a 30-day unconditional ceasefire, and we have long said that it's Putin who is standing in the way of that peace.
He was the aggressor in the first place.
There was only one country that started this conflict, that was Russia, that was Putin.
There's only one country now standing in the way of peace, and that is Russia, that is Putin.
That is why we need all nations to line up together as allies.
To ensure we get the ceasefire that is so desperately needed, but also to ensure that we have sanctions in place, should Putin continue down this path of dragging his heels and not coming to the table for the ceasefire?
He takes this seriously.
This is like a mouse going after an elephant.
Does the Kremlin take this kind of a threat, a warning seriously?
Well, what the Kremlin, I am sure, understands from listening to Starmer and others like Keith Kellogg and Macron and so forth and so on, is that there's no way you're going to get a peace agreement anytime soon.
And this one is going to be settled on the battlefield.
And therefore, what Russia wants to do is Russia wants to show...
That diplomatically, it is a reasonable country.
I mean, you're not going to get an agreement, but if you're the Russians, you want to show that you're reasonable.
And you also understand that the longer the war goes on, the better it is for you.
Because you will end up conquering more territory and you'll end up doing more damage to Ukraine.
And this is in Russia's interest, given the fact that the Russians are facing this kind of intransigence from the West.
You know, we like to say that it's in Ukraine's best interest to settle the war now, which I think it is.
But that also tells you that it's not in Russia's interest to settle the war right now.
The Russians are better off extending the length of the war and gaining more territory and doing more damage to the Ukrainian military.
and turning Ukraine into more of a dysfunctional rump state.
So in a very important way, people like Keith Starmer are playing right into the hands of the Russians.
Do you see any realistic chance?
Of the Russians settling for anything less than what have been their consistent demands since February of 22?
Crimea, the Russians speaking oblasts, three quarters of which they now control militarily.
No NATO.
It may have been, I don't know if this is still on the table, a neutral status for Ukraine like Austria or Switzerland.
But do you see the Russians settling for anything less than that when they have the upper hand on the battlefield and when they have an American president who's sick and tired of paying for a war?
I think they'd be remarkably foolish.
To accept anything less than what you describe.
I think the other key issue for them is that you get a seriously demilitarized Ukraine that doesn't have offensive capability against Russia.
I mean, the thing you want to keep in mind, Judge, is that from the Russians' point of view, what's happening in Ukraine is an existential threat.
This is not a minor matter for them.
This is life and death.
Most people in the West reject that view.
They say this is not an existential threat.
But what they think doesn't matter.
The key issue is what the Russians, and especially Putin, think on this issue.
And they have made it unequivocally clear since April 2008 that Ukraine and NATO is an existential threat.
And given that perspective...
Those demands that the Russians are making are reasonable.
They may not be reasonable from our point of view or from Ukraine's point of view, but from their point of view, they're reasonable.
And they're not going to quit on those demands, especially because, as you said, they are now winning on the battlefield.
And if anything, the situation deteriorates further for the Ukrainians and the West on the battlefield.
Here is Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Istanbul earlier today.
Chris, cut number two.
There is ample evidence that neither Berlin nor Paris nor Brussels, and especially London, they really don't want any peace at all in Ukraine.
They decided that since the United States is moving away from active support, which, by the way, will be projected onto NATO as well, then Europe needs to think about itself somehow.
Macron has already come up with some kind of European army and is ready to put its nuclear warheads into the common pot.
And in this situation, according to our information, they still have conversations with each other.
It is impossible to stop the mobilization of Europe against Russia.
And in this sense, Ukraine is an invaluable tool.
That's pretty dangerous stuff, isn't it?
It is impossible to stop the mobilization of Europe against Russia.
They have put, they are ready, speaking of the French now, maybe the French and the British, to put nuclear warheads into the common pot?
This is obviously a response to Prime Minister Starmer because he says, and especially London, and he did make these comments after Prime Minister Starmer, pardon me, made his.
I think that the foreign minister, Lavrov, is worrying about a threat that's not going to materialize.
He's assuming that the Europeans can come together in some meaningful way and create a This is simply not going to happen.
If anything, the Europeans are going to squabble among themselves.
They don't have much military capability to begin with.
They're all in economic trouble.
And the idea that they're going to turn each one of their militaries into the Wehrmacht is not going to happen.
And with regard to nuclear weapons, French...
French nuclear weapons matter for virtually zero in the Ukraine conflict.
And the same is true of British nuclear weapons.
So I think that Mr. Lavrov can relax.
He doesn't have to worry much about the Europeans presenting a military threat.
The big problem that he faces is that, as you said, and as Lavrov himself said, The Europeans are not interested in peace.
They're interested in continuing the war.
But the Europeans want the Ukrainians to do the fighting.
The Europeans don't want to build up a formidable military capability and do the fighting themselves.
I wonder how interested in peace the Americans are.
Chris, I don't remember or see the number of the cut, but it's a photograph of a certain United States senator accompanying Secretary of State Rubio.
Do you see who's next to Secretary Rubio there in Istanbul?
Lindsey Graham.
I mean, where the heck are they going to go in negotiating some kind of peace with Senator Graham, the arch warmonger himself, right there?
Well, the answer is they're not going to go anywhere if Graham or Keith Kellogg...
That might have been General Kellogg there as well.
I don't know.
I think it was.
Chris, can you put the second picture up, please?
I think that is General Kellogg on my left as I look at the picture.
Yes.
And I think Lindsey Graham is in the middle and Rubio, of course, is on the right.
It's quite a triumvirate.
And there are three people who are basically not interested in cutting a deal with the Russians.
Rubio, we have to qualify that with regard to him because he is working for Trump.
But the fact of the matter is that...
You have this big split in the administration that we talk about all the time, where Trump is on one side, Vance is with him, and then you have this cast of characters that was just in the photograph who tend to be on the other side.
And the only interesting question is whether Trump is going to put those three people to the side and he's going to negotiate a deal with the Russians.
Trump wants peace.
Unlike Kellogg, unlike Lindsey Graham.
There's no question about that.
They're on opposite ends of the dipole.
But the question is, will Trump say, enough is enough, and I'm going to cut a deal?
But even if he does that, I want to remind you that you still have to worry about how to bring the Ukrainians and the Europeans on board.
Because there are four players in this situation.
Russia, United States, Ukraine, and Europe.
So that was not General Kellogg, even though it did physically resemble him.
I don't know if General Kellogg is that large, but the facial features and the hair are comparable.
That is either the Ukrainian foreign minister on the left or the Ukrainian defense minister.
So apparently the Americans were meeting with the Ukrainians.
Before they met with the Russians.
But you mentioned Kellogg, or I mentioned Kellogg.
This fellow looked like General Kellogg.
Kellogg released plans, this is incredible, for NATO in Ukraine.
Now why is he doing this while Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff are trying to negotiate for peace?
Because he must know that that is the quintessential non-starter.
NATO and Ukraine.
If anything, it's a non-starter.
If anything caused this war, it's NATO and Ukraine.
Am I right?
Of course.
But he, General Kellogg, is like Keith Starmer.
He wants to undermine the peace process.
He is not interested in peace.
He's interested in continuing the war, and General Kellogg believes that we can win the war.
He's foolish in the extreme on this issue, in my opinion.
But he does believe it.
Many others believe it, especially in Europe, but even in the United States.
In a very important way, Trump is something of an outlier here.
He and a handful of his lieutenants.
And again, the question is whether or not Trump is finally going to say, enough is enough.
We're going to settle this one.
Switching gears to the Middle East, where Trump is as we speak.
Is he sick and tired of Netanyahu?
Oh, I think he's been sick and tired of Netanyahu for a long time.
How could anybody not be sick and tired of Netanyahu?
I mean, I think about 95% of the Israeli public is sick and tired of Netanyahu.
But they can't get rid of him.
That's the Israeli public.
And Trump can't seem to get rid of him either or do much about the fact that he is sick and tired of the man.
You know, we talk about the neocon influence on President Trump and the neocons with which he surrounded himself.
Marco Rubio was a neocon until three months ago.
Pete Hegseth a neocon.
Sebastian Gorka a neocon.
Here's what Trump said two days ago on May 13. About Western neocons and the damage that they have caused.
Chris, cut number 11. Before our eyes, a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts of tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos.
This great transformation has not come from Western intervention.
The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.
We're not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons, or liberal non-profits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop.
Kabbalah, Baghdad, so many other cities.
Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves.
In the end, the so-called nation-builders Wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.
They told you how to do it, but they had no idea how to do it themselves.
Peace, prosperity, and progress ultimately came not from a radical rejection of your heritage, but rather from embracing your national traditions and embracing that same heritage that you love.
So dearly.
This is a profound repudiation of the foreign policy of every one of his predecessors, going back to George H.W. Bush.
Yeah.
I mean, I'd make two points about Trump.
One is, I do not believe he's a warmonger.
I do believe he likes to avoid war and that he does privilege commerce and economic intercourse.
The problem with Trump, though, is the execution.
And it gets back to what we were talking about a few minutes ago with regard to the split inside of his administration with regard to Ukraine slash Russia.
There's also a big split inside his administration regarding the Middle East, in particular regarding Iran.
When you look at his administration's ability to execute policy in the Middle East, it's a mess, just like it is a mess in Ukraine.
And the $64,000 question is whether at some point Trump is going to just take the reins and change the situation in the Middle East.
Professor Mearsheimer, there is no split in his administration on Israel, is there?
No.
But that doesn't mean that he, if he wanted to, couldn't take measures that the Israelis did not like.
I tend to think that that's almost impossible to do, but I may be wrong.
But what will it take to get Netanyahu, short of removing him from office, to stop his mass murder, which continues...
Day after day, hour after hour.
We just saw before you came on here, I can't run it because it's too incendiary, a missile striking a hospital as people were walking in and out.
And you can see the people who were walking in and out have been incinerated at the end of the video.
It's horrific.
Well, he has to decide that he is going to put...
Enormous pressure on Netanyahu to get him to agree to a ceasefire.
You want to remember that right before he was inaugurated on January 20th, he sent Steve Wyckoff to talk to Netanyahu, and they got a ceasefire.
And that ceasefire lasted a few weeks.
Then the Israelis walked away.
But that's one example of where Trump was able to get Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire.
There's no question that the administration has the ability and has the wherewithal to exercise a huge amount of coercion over Israel because Israel is so dependent on the United States.
But the problem, as we've talked about ad nauseum, is that the lobby invariably gets in the way.
And when Trump or any other president plays hardball with the Israelis, the lobby moves in and the president, whoever it is, backs off.
And the question you have to ask yourself is, given The genocide in Gaza, and given the fact that more and more people in the mainstream media are saying this is a genocide, and more and more people in the mainstream media, not the alternative media that we occupy, but the mainstream media are saying that this has to cease, may mean that he is willing to put Pressure on Netanyahu to end the genocide and to move toward a ceasefire.
But then the question is, what does he do after that?
What is the future of Gaza?
And that's another huge question looming out there.
Right.
Well, further to what you just said, Professor Mearshamer, about the mainstream media, I mean, the largest cable network in Europe is Sky News.
Here is a Sky News reporter.
I don't know her.
Her name is Yalda Hakim.
Ripping the Israeli ambassador to the UN.
I think he's the ambassador to the UN.
We know him.
He's very strident.
Danny Dannen.
Watch this.
Cut number 15. We have briefed this council in great detail on the extensive civilian harm that we witness daily.
Death, injury, destruction, hunger, disease, torture, other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
We have described the deliberate obstruction of aid operations and the systematic dismantling of Palestinian life.
This degradation of international law is corrosive and infectious.
It is undermining decades of progress on rules to protect civilians from inhumanity and the violent and lawless among us.
That was Tom Fletcher.
Ambassador Danon, he goes on to say, stop the 21st century atrocity in Gaza.
Will you act now decisively to prevent genocide in Gaza and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law?
I just want to get your reaction to what Tom Fletcher was saying.
We are in this war because of Hamas, period.
If you want to blame somebody, blame Hamas.
Ambassador Danon, I'm not talking about Hamas.
A terrorist organization.
I am talking about you, the State of Israel, as a responsible actor.
For the last 19 months, the world has been watching the way that you have prosecuted this conflict, the way that aid has been prevented from reaching the most needy.
In the last two months, 73 days, we have seen that there has been no aid that has entered Gaza.
So while you can deflect and say that this is Hamas' responsibility, The only starvation in Gaza is the starvation of the hostages.
What a cold-hearted SOB he is, and what an uplifting statement from mainstream media from this reporter.
He would have been right at home in Nazi Germany.
Yes.
Yes.
I mean, but this is just one example of what's going on.
If you read editorials in The Guardian, editorials in The FT, editorials in The Economist, What Piers Morgan is saying, all sorts of people are now speaking out against the genocide.
The pressure is building.
And as I said to you before, the issue on the table is whether or not Trump will be able to ride this wave and put great pressure on Israel to put an end to the genocide and do something for the plight of the Palestinians.
I want to ask you one or two other questions, a little bit off the beaten path.
Does the United States need a Defense Department budget of $1 trillion?
It's almost absurd to say this.
$1 trillion, as Trump and Hegseth have proposed.
No, they don't.
They could spend substantially less money, and we would be more secure than we are now.
And what all this defense spending does is it allows us to run around the world and get into trouble.
If we had a more limited budget, we would prioritize what are the principal threats that we face in the world, and we would focus on those threats, and we would not run around the world creating other threats that weren't there until we turned them into threats.
So I've long been in favor of decreasing the defense budget, not simply because we could spend that precious money elsewhere.
We're not spend it at all, but also because it just leads to unending trouble.
Were you, as a graduate of West Point and a veteran of the Air Force, at all scandalized when Trump embraced a former al-Qaeda commander who now claims to be the president of Syria?
And who, according to our people, Scott Ritter among them, with his own hands, killed Americans.
That's obviously my first instinct.
But then I say to myself, look...
American presidents sometimes do these sorts of things.
I mean, take Franklin D. Roosevelt.
He had to basically become an ally of Joseph Stalin in World War II for the purposes of defeating Adolf Hitler.
I'm sure it was very distasteful for Roosevelt to have to jump in bed with Stalin.
But sometimes you do what you have to do.
And the question you want to ask yourself is, how should we think about Syria today?
The fact is that this former terrorist is now the head of Syria.
And we, I believe, have a vested interest in turning Syria into a functioning state.
Going to war against al-Jelani because he was a terrorist who killed Americans wouldn't be in the interest of the Syrian people, and it wouldn't be in our interest either.
You know, you bite your tongue and you do what you can to help him turn Syria into a viable state.
Let me pick up on that and further your argument.
I can't imagine that Netanyahu and his government were pleased when Trump embraced this guy and said, I'm going to drop the sanctions.
They don't want that, do they?
No.
The sanctions against Syria.
Yeah, no, that's exactly right.
There are actually two cases now where Trump has acted in ways in the Middle East that the Israelis are not happy with.
One is Syria, as you described it.
The other is with regard to the bombing campaign against the Houthis.
Yes, which Trump announced would end without even, apparently, without even giving the Israelis a heads up.
Can the White House do anything without Mossad knowing about it in advance?
Well, I think you can rest assured that most of the time they're fully aware of what's going on.
But again, with Trump, a lot of what happens happens inside his head.
Yes.
There's not a lot of evidence that he brings in his kitchen cabinet and they sit around and talk about what to do, and then there's an opportunity for leaks.
A lot of the time, his closest advisors are caught with their pants down when he makes a decision to do something that really is a radical departure from the existing policy.
So I think with regard to Trump, Mossad may be having as much trouble trying to figure out what he's doing as we are having.
Professor Mearshamer, thank you for a great conversation.
Meaningful, informative, your usual affable style.
Thank you so much, my dear friend.
Looking forward to seeing you next week.
My pleasure, and I look forward to next Thursday as well.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection