All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
26:55
Prof. Glenn Diesen : Is German Militarism Coming?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Tuesday, July 15, 2025.
Professor Glenn Deason joins us now.
Professor, thank you very much for your time for accommodating my schedule.
Much appreciated.
Yesterday, I want to talk to you about German militarism and European militarism and whether it's a myth or reality.
But before we get there, yesterday, President Trump announced a most unusual mechanism for supplying Kyiv with weapons originating with the CIA, not the Defense Department, and being paid by NATO and then NATO distributing them.
At least that's our understanding of this.
What is your take on this?
Well, there's many different interpretations of what Trump is doing.
Some suggest that he wants to scale back the empire.
Others, I guess including myself, believe that he's seeking more return on investment.
So if we can continue to weaken Russia and keep the Europeans loyal while the Europeans are paying the United States as opposed to the US providing its security for free, then that would be preferable.
So it's also some differences in terms of wondering if Trump is being extremely belligerent either to keep the Hawks within Washington quiet or if Trump indeed is on the side of the Hawks now.
My impression, because I've been a little bit on the fence, but it appears to me that Trump is aligned very much with the Hawks on this one.
And there seems to be a common thread here, that is, whatever America first used to mean, at the moment, it means depopulating Gaza, bombing Iran, continuing the Biden war on Russia, and also preparing allies for possible war on China.
So yeah, that's my impression.
Trump said as recently as yesterday it's still Biden's war.
I think he's wrong.
I think it's his war now.
It's reported that Trump asked Zelensky if they can strike Europe, no, sorry, strike Moscow so Putin would feel the pain.
Again, this very much sounds like it's Trump's war at the moment.
It's crazy if they strike Moscow.
You're talking about nuclear war if they strike Moscow.
Yeah, it could mean exactly this.
And again, this is the huge pivot that he's taken.
Remember that at the beginning of his presidency, Pete Hegseff came out and said that, well, to end the war, Ukraine had to be neutral.
There wouldn't be any American security guarantees and there would have to be territorial concessions on behalf of Ukraine.
And the whole premise was a recognition that it was NATO expansionism that had triggered the war.
And then Trump also said this was Biden's war because they were the one who's pushing NATO expansion.
Well, what has happened now?
We see the NATO Secretary General Mark Grutte arguing that, well, nothing has changed.
Ukraine is still destined for NATO membership.
And Trump has no comments whatsoever on this.
So whatever he was pushing in the past, it doesn't appear that this is the case anymore, unless he's playing some 4D check, which no one, which is difficult to interpret.
I mean, no one who understands the Russian mentality and recent Russian history can possibly speak of Ukraine's membership in NATO and expect to be considered rational or understanding, can they?
No, and this is, as you said, this is Russian history.
With the exception of the Mongols, all its most devastating invasions have come from the West, the Poles, the French, the Germans, and of course, having an entire Cold War with NATO nuclear weapons aimed at it.
And for the past 30 years, the main security concern of Russia, something that has united the entire political sphere from the left to the right, has been the concern of NATO expansionism, that it will be encircled by NATO bases, something that the West has acknowledged.
And they see this as an existential threat, which means they're prepared to fight till the end.
So whatever the Americans and Europeans are planning, hoping to possibly engage Russia in a direct war, there's no defeating Russia here.
It's the world's largest nuclear power.
It sees this as a threat to its existence.
If the West is able to accrue sufficient conventional capabilities to defeat Russia, then it's my belief that Russia would lean into using nuclear weapons as an equalizer because he can't lose this.
It would be as if the Russians pushed regime change in Mexico, placed this military missiles there to strike inside the US, and a compromise would have to be a ceasefire, which would allow the Russian missiles to remain in Mexico.
It would never happen.
So it's a very strange path we're taking, and there's no real discussion about this.
It's all whether or not Putin is bad or not.
Refresh my memory.
Are Japan and South Korea in NATO?
So far not, but this could be nowhere near the North Atlantic, that's for sure.
Well, neither is Georgia, but geography doesn't matter as much anymore.
And NATO is continuously expressing the intention of going global.
So we moved very far away from the era of the Cold War, when NATO was a status quo defensive alliance.
Now it's an expansionist alliance, which goes to war against countries which hasn't threatened it.
So Yugoslavia, Libya, and now fighting Russia in Ukraine.
Because however we want to portray this war, it's not a war between primarily Ukraine and Russia.
It's between NATO and Russia.
And we're merely using Ukrainians as human resources and territory to fight this war.
Let me go back to something you said earlier.
Is it your impression, is it the general impression in Europe that the neocons are triumphant in Trump's inner circle?
Well, it does appear so from his language, that he's more or less becoming indistinguishable from Lindsey Graham.
And this is very strange because Trump, I think it was in a podcast with Joe Rogan.
He recognized that his first administration had been hampered by the neocons, Bolton, Aldis or Blaine.
But now, of course, he has done exactly the same thing again.
Is there any difference between John Bolton and Lindsey Graham?
Well, they're all pretty much pursuing the same neocon objective, which is that American security has to depend on hegemony, and that hegemony comes through military dominance and the use of military force.
I don't see how this essence has really changed.
So, no, I don't see the biggest differences.
Of course, Bolton has become recognized as extremely hawkish, but I still haven't seen a war that Lindsey Graham didn't like.
Right, right.
As long as he doesn't have to.
But if you can add one thing, I remember back in 2003, the neocons in the US were very much despised across Europe as the United States was preparing for the invasion of Iraq.
These days, the neocons are seen as saviors because the early rhetoric of Trump suggested he wanted to end the war in Ukraine, which created panic across Europe.
Now, the more hawkish, the better.
If America will go into a direct war with Russia, that just means America's devoted to this war.
So this has become the new Europe.
So Bolton, Lindsey Graham, these are now no longer people who create a lot of concern in Europe.
So where are the European governments going to get the money from to pay the CIA?
Never mind where the CIA is going to get the gear from.
They probably have their own army that we're not supposed to know about.
But where are the European governments going to get the money from?
That's the big question, because that's the new division of labor.
That is, the United States will not donate any more weapons to Ukraine, but they will sell it to the Europeans so they can use it and send it to Ukraine.
However, there's a problem in this plan.
That is, the Europeans don't really have the money to buy the weapons, which the Americans don't really have to sell.
And the Ukrainians don't have the manpower to actually fight with this weapon.
Good point.
And they don't have the time or the ability to train the manpower to operate these things.
And how many of them are?
If Russia sends a thousand drones, can NATO possibly give Ukraine enough air defense to shoot them down?
No, probably not.
And you can't just rebuild an entire army this quick either.
And this is the problem.
But if you're to achieve this, what you would need is a ceasefire.
Under a ceasefire, the Ukrainians would have time to recruit, well, they call recruit, but that means snatching people off the street to fill the ranks.
The Europeans would have time to either accrue the money or ramp up military production and the Americans as well.
So the only way they can continue the war, at least the intensity, which is coming to now, would be first to have a ceasefire.
And this is one of the reasons why it's very difficult to convince the Russians that we're genuine in pursuing a peace when all we're asking for is a ceasefire, but refuse to discuss an actual political settlement.
You think that Trump thinks he can actually talk Putin into a ceasefire?
My own view is that Trump does not understand Russian history or Russian thinking.
No, and I think a lot of whatever trust or hope they had in Trump appears to be going away rather quickly.
I think the attack on Iran also increased the concern significantly in Moscow, because in this instance as well, Trump was reassuring everyone that negotiations were moving fast forward, even as he was preparing a sneak attack on Iran.
And much like what happened on the attack on the Russian nuclear bombers, that is the nuclear deterrent of Russia, we saw that the drones were smuggled into the country to then launch them at more short-range distances.
Then we saw the exact same thing happening in Iran.
So I think there's a lot of distrust happening.
And even if they would trust Trump, which they don't, then he can change his mind in 20 minutes or he goes away and then another administration comes in.
So this idea that it's all personal, if he has a nice talk with Putin, compliment him a little bit, then somehow Putin's going to push its vital national security interest aside.
It's not going to happen, especially if you take into account what Putin often, well, at least commented in the past, which is that a lot of American presidents come in with high ambitions in terms of changing relations with countries such as Russia, but shortly thereafter they're told that this is not going to be the case after all.
And they essentially all fall in line with the permanent bureaucracy or the deep state, as it is often referred to.
Here's President Putin saying just that.
Now this is May of 2017, but it's profound.
Chris Cut number seven.
I have a certain perspective.
You see, I've already spoken with one U.S. president and another and a third.
Presidents come and go, but the policy doesn't change.
Do you know why?
Because the power of the bureaucracy is very strong.
So someone gets elected, comes in with their own ideas, and then people show up with briefcases, well-dressed, wearing dark suits like mine, but not with a red tie, more like a black or dark blue one.
And they start explaining how things should be done.
And everything changes right away.
You see what I mean?
This happens from one administration to the next.
He's right.
He's right.
It almost doesn't matter the promises that presidents make.
One of our podcasting colleagues, Tom Woods, has a phrase that'll resonate with you because you understand American politics.
No matter who you vote for for president, you end up with John McCain.
Whether it's Barack Obama or Donald Trump, the attitude is the same about Russia.
Well, this is what was referred to as the military-industrial complex gaining too much influence over politics.
It's done this through direct lobbying.
It's also through the think tanks, which are essentially creating the knowledge which the politicians base their decisions on.
Even the think tanks even have the people, well, have the people on their payroll who then later goes into government.
And George Kennan made an interesting comment, I think it was in 1987, in which he wrote, you know, if the Soviet Union would sink into the sea tomorrow, America would need to find a new enemy very quickly because the military-industrial complex has taken such a key position in the American political system.
So I agree with that phrase.
No matter who you vote for, you get John McCain.
So I think the Russians are reaching the same conclusion.
It doesn't matter who sits on the throne.
The levers are being pulled somewhere else.
And I think this is a great shame because one of the Trump's abandonment of this, if he ever had any intentions of pursuing a peace, will have wide ramifications.
That is, whatever you think of Russia, their main policy in the 90s was to get along with the United States.
Over the past decade with the conflict in Ukraine, they've gone to great lengths to try to calm the situation down, which is why they stood by for eight years, sorry, seven years with Minsk agreement.
And again, whatever you think of Iran, they've also gone to great lengths to try to get along with the US, not necessarily because they like the United States, but just because they recognize it's in their interest to get along with the US.
And same can be said with China.
And they're all now coming to the conclusion that the United States can't be trusted and its diplomacy is pure theater.
Now, this is not good news for the United States when the trust is gone and people don't believe it has any intentions to actually honor its diplomatic goals.
Tell me what's going on in the major NATO countries with respect to rearmament.
Germany in particular, Great Britain, France, Italy, whatever other countries are doing this.
Is it fair to say that Germany is marching toward militarism?
No, I think that's very fair.
The United States has made it clear it wants the Europeans to take leadership in terms of confronting and fighting Russia, and Germany has answered that call.
They seem to envision a leading role for themselves to counter Russia in Europe.
Again, it's a very strange development given that throughout the Cold War, they were more focused on finding peace through mutual understanding and cooperation.
But now they become one of the most hawkish countries in Europe.
Scott Ritter, whom you know and who appears on this program at least once a week, has not hesitated to say that under Chancellor Mertz, Germany could become the fourth Reich and that Mertz, in fact, Professor Doctorow, your friend and colleague, agrees with this, could be the most dangerous German chancellor since Hitler.
Do you agree?
Well, I haven't heard any German chancellors speak in this manner since Hitler, when the way he's talking about confronting Russia, he's arguing that Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is an attack on all of Europe and that they will continue this fight against Russia.
So he used to also advocate for terrorist missiles, that is for German missiles to be used to strike deep inside Russia.
So I share that sentiment.
If there's someone worse than him preceding him, I would like to know who exactly that would be.
So all restraint has been thrown away.
And again, the whole post-Cold War, sorry, post-World War II transformation of Germany, in my opinion, has been reversed.
It had a very militaristic view.
It was very antagonistic towards Russia.
And then after the war, it was supposed to be this peaceful country, always choosing peace over military solutions.
All of this appears to be gone now, at least among the leadership, but people seem to more or less blindly follow.
So all of this seems oddly familiar.
Is there pressure on Putin, President Putin, in his inner circle to strike munitions plants in Germany?
Yes, there is, well, they always had this dilemma between, you know, do they retaliate against NATO for what is becoming increasingly direct attacks on Russia?
If they do so, then they risk World War III.
If they don't do it, they will embolden NATO to go further.
Now, given that Germany is now positioning itself as the leading power against Russia, and also it's not a nuclear power, it does present itself as a good target.
And well, I actually used to work in Russia as a professor at the Higher School of Economics.
The head of my department there was Professor Sergei Karagunov.
He was an advisor to everyone from Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and then Putin.
And he's also been pushing for this, that Russia now has to take a stand and actually strike German production facilities.
So not necessarily go to war with Germany, but what the Germans have done in terms of killing Russians by far outweighs any strike on any German production facilities.
So this is something I'm sure the Russians are considering.
From what I understand, there hasn't been any decisions to actually do this, but I do think it's an option as Germany continues to escalate this war.
Is there pressure on Putin to escalate the war in Ukraine?
I mean, is this 50-day period that Trump gave him anything that's going to cause him to lose sleep?
Or did Putin himself tell Trump this will be over in 50 days?
Well, it's hard to say.
I mean, Trump could walk this back next week already.
So there's been too many bluffs, I think.
There seems to be he kind of outspent this coercive language, the effectiveness of it, because he uses these threats.
Some countries fault, other reject it, and then he just walks it back.
So I'm not sure if they take it that seriously, but also even if they did, what exactly are they expected to do?
There's no peace proposal on the table.
There's only capitulation.
Or actually, they ask for a ceasefire.
But as I said before, ceasefires were openly referred to by the Europeans as a temporary pause.
That is, the ability to ramp up industrial production, rearm Ukraine and retrain soldiers which can be recruited.
So this is seen as something that will prolong the war.
So they're not going to do this.
They see this as capitulation and they see it this way for very good reason, because Europeans very much confirmed that it is.
Last week, there was a dispute in the White House when Trump acknowledged that he did not know who ordered a pause in the shipment of arms to Kyiv.
And he gave sort of a double talk answer.
Well, nothing happens without me knowing it, but he had already said he didn't know about it.
Yesterday he came out with an answer just as confusing.
However, it does state in it, I know what Pete was doing.
Pete is the reference to Secretary of Defense Peg Seth, who interestingly is now out of the picture on the arms coming to Kyiv almost as if the president doesn't trust him.
But I want you to listen to this.
I know that you're not a psychiatrist, but see if you can figure out what Trump is trying, as smart as you are, what Trump is trying to say here, Chris, cut number 14.
Christian, is there any concern about the U.S. stockpiles?
There was a pause in delivery of weaponry to Ukraine in order to evaluate, apparently, the U.S. stockpiles.
What came out of that?
Evaluation.
I mean, this was a very big, what we're talking about today is a very, very big day.
And what Pete was doing, and me too, I knew what Pete was doing, was evaluation because we knew this was going to happen.
And now we actually announced it.
They voted on it.
It's all been done.
So obviously that has a big impact on, you know, when you say pause.
Obviously, you're not going to be doing things if you don't know what's going to happen here.
But we were pretty sure this was going to happen.
So we did a little bit of a pause.
Sounds like he's trying to justify his own ignorance of what Hag Seth was doing.
And I don't know if Hag Seth, if his motivations were political, because I don't believe he's a neocon, or if his motivations were practical, because the United States stockpiles are low.
I mean, where is this gear going to come from that the CIA, of all people, is going to sell to NATO?
This is truly crazy, Professor.
Yeah, well, as you said, I'm not a psychologist, but the back and forth, I mean, it's not, I don't think truth is guiding his statements that much.
I think it's more what he wants to communicate that is, well, first, of course, arguing that the pause is not his fault.
So he says he doesn't know about it.
But then once that is framed in a way that makes him sound incompetent, that, you know, how can he not know that this is going on in your own administration?
Then suddenly he switched around and, you know, he knew everything.
So it's just narrative building, effectively.
What storyline are you trying to sell?
But you're correct.
It doesn't really matter at this point anymore.
I think Trump will continue to sell any weapons to the Europeans.
This can still be sold to the public as some kind of America first, given that they're killing Russians, but with weapons that have been paid for by the Europeans.
But at the end of the day, it's not that much left in the stockpiles.
So I don't think it's going to matter to that great an extent.
And it's not going to deter, I think, the Russians either.
if anything, this kind of revealed the belligerence of the Trump administration and even the belief that whatever peace agreement they might be able to negotiate, how endurable would it actually be?
Would the United States and the Europeans actually abide by it?
So it's problematic on many levels.
Well, thank you, Professor Deez and a pleasure, my dear friend.
I will be traveling, so we won't be going live for a little bit, although Chris will be doing a lot of posting, but we'll look forward to seeing you at the end of the month.
Thank you, Judge, and have a nice holiday.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And you as well with your family.
Coming up later today at 3 o'clock this afternoon, Professor John Mearsheimer at 4 o'clock from Capitol Hill.
I don't know what he's doing there, but he'll let us know.
▲
Export Selection