All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
24:40
Prof. Glenn Diesen : Will EU Recognize Palestine?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, July 30th, 2025.
Professor Glenn Deason joins us now.
Professor Deason, always a pleasure, my dear friend, thank you very much for joining us.
What has been the reaction in the media among the elites and among government officials to the von der Leyen Trump announced agreement involving 15% tariffs from the United States towards products coming from the EU announced a few days ago?
Well, von der Leyen tried to sell it as a victory because it came down from 30.
But of course, that's kind of how you negotiate.
Trump started high and brought it down, but that's many times fold what it used to be.
So it's been very widely condemned.
That is, it's seen as a complete capitulation.
That is, Trump got everything he wanted.
Europe got nothing.
That is, he has to pay now a lot higher tariffs to export to the United States.
Meanwhile, it has to reduce its own.
We also see that the Europeans will buy a lot more LNG from the United States, which is much more expensive compared to Russian gas.
Yet von der Leyen goes on TV saying that, well, this is much cheaper than the Russian ones, which makes no sense at all.
But, you know, we kind of decoupled ourselves from reality a while ago.
And no, well, it seems like a relationship between a master and his vassal.
And I think this is how many sees it, which is why you've seen some pushback from some European capitals who don't understand exactly what this was meant to achieve.
Has it even been reduced to writing yet, or was it just a handshake on these basic talking points?
Well, the member states, the majority of them have to approve of this.
And again, that's not really certain.
But I guess it depends how you look at it, because if you look at it as a trade deal, it's just the worst deal you can imagine.
And it even undermines the foundation of the European Union, because the whole purpose of the European Union is to have collective bargaining power.
So you can have 27 member states come together to negotiate from a position of strength, ideally have some parity with the United States.
But now that all of this is thrown away, one has to ask the question why they're part of this.
And I think, well, one of the, given that this makes no sense at all, it's worth listening to the European Union Trade Commissioner who argued that it's not only about trade, it's about national security.
And I guess this is the main objective, which is what the Europeans have been working hard for for the past few months, which is find a way of tying Trump into Europe and sorry, tying America to Europe and tying America to Ukraine, because at a time when the US attempts to adjust the multipolar world, it will have to shift its priorities to the East.
The Europeans will have their relevance further reduced.
And so this is seen as a way of keeping America attached to Europe.
So it's a very desperate move.
But only looking at economics, it's truly a horror show.
And many European leaders see it this way as well.
I suppose Mrs. von der Leyen would never admit to what you just said, but she basically capitulated to Trump so that he'll continue to fund the war in Ukraine.
She's buying into the new Trump, the neocon Trump, not the America first Trump, the one that ran for president.
That's correct.
And well, it's the same with why would Ukraine accept this terrible minerals deal where they handed over a lot of their control over their natural resources to Washington?
And it's, well, it's the same thing.
It's not economics.
It's very basic.
If you have the United States as a security provider, this role of security provider can be converted into both political and economic loyalty.
And that's what you see now in Europe.
If there wasn't this war in Ukraine, I can't imagine a trade agreement like this going through.
But it does also confirm one of my criticism of this war since day one.
That's more than three years ago.
I argued that this war would be to the last Ukrainian and to the last Euro.
And that's what we're seeing.
What is the approval process now?
Is it the European Parliament?
Is that a simple majority vote there?
Or can France, for example, President Macron is furious at this?
Marie Lepin is furious at this.
The people on the left are furious at this.
Nobody in France seems to want it.
Can they veto it for themselves?
I'm not clear about the veto opportunities.
From what I understand, it's supposed to be majority votes.
A majority of the members of the parliament or a majority of each sovereign country?
Of sovereign country, I think.
But I should have looked this up.
But it might reach a lot of resistance for this reason, that Europe is already in economic decline.
It's de-industrializing.
And this is going to intensify it to a massive degree.
So there's no way Europe can remain economically competitive with this deal.
But again, who would buy a $100,000 Mercedes for $115,000 or who would buy a British toaster for $100 when you can get it and it used to cost you $85,000?
I mean, Americans are paying a sales tax.
Trump must understand this, but he won't acknowledge it.
The tariffs are paid by the ultimate consumer, right?
Yes, and this is the point of tariffs often.
That is, if the importer has to pay a higher tax on goods from abroad, it's supposed to give advantage to domestic producers, which is why it could fit within a wider objective to reindustrialize the United States.
But if you look at the other areas of these tariffs, when, for example, the United States reduces its dependence on China, it merely imports it from other places.
So it doesn't necessarily lead to reindustrialization.
But it will weaken Europe's competitiveness if you can't get the quantity up.
But I just have to add, this is a bit self-inflicted wound by the Europeans as well, because when you're entering a multipolar world, the first rule should be to diversify your economic partnerships.
But the Europeans wanted to show their loyalty to the United States by first cutting themselves off from Russia, but also then cutting themselves off from the Chinese markets.
And the result is excessive dependence on the United States.
So on the United States, which is more powerful than Europe.
So as a result, when you enter these negotiations and America is the only game in town, Washington can demand whatever it wants.
I mean, the Europeans, they don't pursue basic national interests anymore.
Well, Washington may think that Mercedes will build a plant in Tennessee, but you can't make French champagne or Italian wine in New Jersey.
I mean, it's only so much you can transfer to the U.S., right?
Yeah, no, indeed.
But either way, it will be very bad for Europe.
But on this, you see that a lot of the German heavy industries have already begun to shut down and some are relocating even across the Atlantic because energy costs have increased a lot after the Europeans began to cut themselves off Russian energy.
And of course, Nord Stream was really damaging for the German economy because they have a lot of energy intensive heavy industries.
And a lot of them are now looking towards moving to the United States and set up there instead.
So the US will get some of this business.
But the same goes for the promise by von der Leyen that the Europeans will invest hundreds of billions in the United States.
It's a huge wealth transfer from Europe to the United States.
So Trump gets to declare himself, you know, declare victory.
But if the Europeans follow through on this, and I would say it's a big if, then, yeah, it's going to be devastating for the continents.
Which country poses the greater threat to European economic stability, Russia or the United States?
Well, at the moment, it's the United States.
And this has been an interesting ride because keep in mind that in the beginning, three years ago, you had, I think it was the French finance minister who went out and said that the objective was to destroy the Russian economy, that this was the main enemy.
And less than three years later, the rhetoric has shifted.
They're pointing out now that the US subsidies for moving across to the United States, taking over European industries, that this has become an existential threat.
So you do have more than one threat, but this is the problem.
We don't really assess in times of war, it's just in human nature as well.
Your opponents, the outgroup, the other, we exaggerate how much we don't have in common with them, and we exaggerate how much we have in common with those on our side.
So we can have the United States devastate the continent, the economies, but they can blow up Nord Stream if they would want.
And you won't get any criticisms.
But with Russia, we tend to exaggerate what's different.
Do the Europeans understand that Trump is mercurial, that he could change his mind tomorrow?
Do they understand that his tariffs have been declared unconstitutional by the only federal court that has jurisdiction over it?
And that's on appeal tomorrow?
I mean, can you trust the United States government under Donald Trump?
And if Mrs. von der Leyen says yes, I can't imagine that European leaders would agree with her.
Well, this is the problem.
This is what countries, you can add Iran to the list of countries who had their trade agreements or any security agreements cancelled and attempted to be renegotiated.
So, no, I don't think it's going to bring the stability.
But this is how van der Leyen sold it.
That is, yes, it's not a great deal.
Well, everything is going to be worse now for Europe, but at least it promises stability.
But again, this is making the EU economy into a US satellite.
What is the deal that Prime Minister Starmer cut with Trump?
Is it also for 15%?
Oh, I have to check this one actually now.
I can't remember.
I don't even know if they have cut a deal.
I have a vague recollection that they did.
I just don't.
Well, they came first out with the deal.
And again, there's so many deals going back and forth, renegotiated, and it's sometimes hard to keep track.
Thank you.
Are you there, Professor?
Oh, yes, I'm here.
Okay, all of a sudden, we lost you.
You were saying it was an internet glitch.
The last thing I heard you say, there were so many deals going back and forth, it's sometimes hard to, and that's when the program ended.
Yeah, no, as we saw, for example, with the Chinese, the tariffs come up, they negotiated down, then they're, yeah, they're pulled back.
So it's, yeah, it can get difficult to follow some of these tariff levels and agreements which are actually being made.
While President Trump was seated next to Prime Minister Starmer in Scotland on Monday, he issued a sort of veiled threat to President Putin.
I mean, to those of us who believe we understand the Russian mind, the Russian culture, the Russian history, this is ridiculous, but this is what he said.
End the war, end the special military operation.
He calls it a war, not an SMO, in 10 to 12 days or else.
And the or else will be secondary tariffs on the Chinese or the Indians or whoever buys anything from Russia.
But how do the people in the Kremlin view a threat like this?
Well, until recently, it was 50 days.
Now it's down to 10 days.
I mean, this is my point.
It's very hard to follow the logic.
It could be once Tayden 10 days is over, it could be further extended.
He's going to put huge tariffs on the countries who still trade with Russia.
Yet today he puts 25% tariffs on the Indians and he justified it by the Indians buying Russian weaponry and Russian energy because this is what keeps the killing going.
I mean, he sounds very much like Biden now, but this is my point.
he's already been doing some of this.
So I think they're quite...
They really thought that it was possible to make a deal with Trump.
But it is worth noting that the Russians invaded in 2022 with the special military operation for primarily the purpose of ensuring that Ukraine would have its neutrality restored.
In other words, there wouldn't be any NATO expansion.
Now, the Russians have fought for more than three years, and now Trump says, well, we just have to finish it now.
But ceasefire is not necessarily the same as peace.
If they do not get the neutrality back to Ukraine, they see another war coming down the road once NATO begins to entrench itself in Ukraine, which would maybe be a world war.
So they're not going to accept this.
And they see Trump becoming more and more like Biden.
Aren't we in for almost a certainty that the Russians will now go to Kyiv?
They will go as far west as they need to in order to secure what their original objectives were.
And nothing President Trump says to the contrary, no threats from him will deter, will interfere with that.
Do you agree?
No, I agree.
I'm not sure if they will take Kyiv, but at least that's the direction they're going to go.
That will be one of their options.
And it's just, again, the point of departure when you assess what the Russians are going to do is assess, well, begin with their main security concern.
Again, this is what we're not allowed to say in Europe, but the main concern of Russia is NATO going into Ukraine.
So if they can get a deal for restoring Ukraine's neutrality and accept the territorial losses, then it could stop here.
You can even see possibly the Russians giving up some claims for territory they're not yet holding.
But as we see, the NATO Secretary General Rutes still talks about Ukraine becoming a part of NATO.
You see Trump now, he stopped talking about NATO expansion.
Instead, he's calling for unconditional ceasefire, which means that none of the objectives of Russia would really be achieved.
So if this is the case, if there won't be any agreement with the West, then how can Russia ensure that Ukraine territory won't be used as a launching pad for NATO against Russia?
Well, then it has to strip Ukraine of this territory.
So I do think if there is no peace, and that's what Trump is signaling, then Russia will march, it will take Odessa, it will take Kharkov, maybe Sumy, even Kiev.
And the rest, whatever remains of Ukraine, they will likely destroy everything of vital infrastructure, anything that can use it as a functional proxy against Russia in the future.
So there's a devastation awaits, and the Russians will now have to set far greater territorial objectives in order to achieve their objective of without a peace agreement.
So it's incredibly tragic what's happening.
Some of your colleagues on this show have recently opined that President Zelensky is in his last days.
I don't mean on earth, but I mean as the head of the government, that the U.S. has made it clear that they want to change and they already have their eye on candidates to replace him.
Do you hear that?
Do you understand it?
Is that belief rational?
Yeah, that's what I'm hearing as well.
And it appears to be some moves in that direction.
So Zelensky has fallen a bit out of favor with many Western countries.
Obviously, some of it was because of this pushback against this so-called anti-corruption agencies.
But no, the EU has threatened to cut off his funds.
The entirety of Western media has smeared him.
And now you see the Americans and the British looking towards having him replaced With someone possibly like Saluzhny, or not necessarily Saluzhny.
There's also other candidates.
However, he does command a lot of respect across Ukraine.
On the other hand, he could be seen very much as a puppet of NATO.
Were you surprised at the level of public demonstrations, which you know the military could have stopped like that, public demonstrations in Ukraine against President Zelensky and against this bizarre proposal of his to have him control rather than have him control the ethics and corruption investigators rather than have them remain independent as they had been?
Well, it's been growing concern about Zelensky's authoritarianism.
That is, there's political prisoners, there's a difficult climate for journalists.
And there's, yeah, even among former allies, you hear now concerns about Zelensky becoming a dictator, that is becoming or already become even prominent people like the former president Poroshenko, who used to stand by Zelensky, now arguing that he's behaving like a dictator.
And so it doesn't surprise me that there's a growing opposition.
It is interesting, though, that this is what made the West define, well, stop calling Zelensky Churchill, because Zelensky has committed a lot of crimes in Ukraine, as I said, going after political opposition, independent media, going after the church, and grabbing people off the street.
A lot of terrible things have been done, but this is the one which apparently made the West go all up in arms, which suggests to me that this could be used as an opportunity to have him replaced.
Got it.
Got it.
Let me ask you about the recognitions of Palestine.
France has announced that it will soon formally recognize Palestine as an independent state.
Sir Kier Starmer says this will happen from his perspective in September.
If the Israelis don't stop the war and stop the starvation, it's unlikely that they will voluntarily do that.
Is this a trend?
Is this a thumbing the nose to Donald Trump?
It could be.
It could also be more domestic pressure growing.
I mean, you can have, I guess, two hypotheses here.
One is because for two years now, these states have not just stood by and watched, they are complicit in genocide.
They supported it.
They provided political cover and military supplies.
So either, you know, the reason why they're taking these steps is because they become more concerned that this is more blatant, more ruthless, getting out of control, and this conflicts with their values.
Or what I think is more likely is that they don't want to be held accountable for their crimes.
So rhetorically, they're doing one thing, but the actions suggest something very different.
And it's not new.
We've seen that they've called on Etanyahu to respect humanitarian values, but the weapons will still flow.
So I tend to be a bit of a cynic.
Yes, no, you're not being cynical.
You're being astute.
I mean, Donald Trump sat next to Kier Starmer on Monday, wringing his hands about starvation.
Well, he's paid for and caused the starvation, and he could stop it with a phone call.
Yeah, and he also, if I'm not mistaken, went extra length and argued, well, you have all this aid, but Hamas stealing it.
So it is becoming quite grotesque.
But it also is a common theme now of Donald Trump, that he's taking a very key role in all of these conflicts.
But he still presents himself as a mediator.
You see this in Ukraine.
And again, Ukraine is a conflict primarily between NATO and Russia, but NATO's fighting with Ukrainian manpower.
And in NATO, US is the main actor, but still he's sending the weapons.
CIA is still there.
They're providing the intelligence, the logistics, but still he takes the role of a mediator.
And you see now the same in the Middle East.
He stands on the sideline, concerned about how Hamas is stealing the aid.
That's why there's starvation.
And essentially, yeah, not taking the role as an aggressor.
I think it's becoming a bit more and more absurd to the point that I think more people will start to divorce themselves from this narrative.
Yes.
Professor Deason, thank you, my dear friend.
Thanks for letting me go the full spectrum of subjects of interest to us.
Appreciate your time.
We look forward to seeing you again.
I look forward to coming on your show soon.
Yes, always a pleasure.
Thank you, Judge.
Thank you, Professor.
All the best.
▲
Export Selection