All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 19, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
25:06
AMB. Chas Freeman : Can the US Bring Peace?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Tuesday, August 19, 2025.
Ambassador Chaz Freeman will be with us here in just a moment.
But first, this.
We all know how devastating war is.
Lives lost, communities destroyed.
But war can also threaten your financial freedom.
That's where America is heading, our growing involvement in global conflicts.
It means more spending, more debt and a weaker dollar.
That's a direct hit to your wallet.
So here are three things to keep your eyes on.
Exploding debt, declining dollar, rising prices of gold and silver.
These things are already happening.
Goldman Sachs predicts gold could reach $4,500 an ounce by 2026.
Why?
Because central banks and smart investors are buying gold hand over fist.
They know what's coming and they're hedging against it.
Currency collapse, inflation and market volatility.
Gold has been a trusted store of value for thousands of years and today we need that protection more than ever.
Call Lear Capital now at 800 511 4620 or visit learjudsnap dot com dot No one is going to protect your wealth for you.
You need to do it yourself and now is the time.
Ambassador Freeman, welcome here, my dear friend.
Well, Alaska wasn't exactly Nixon visits China now, was it?
No, I guess not.
But it was important, very important, because for the first time since the end of the Clinton administration, really, we have a president who is listening to his opposite number in Moscow.
willing to talk to him.
The entire Biden administration, there was no dialogue at all.
So this is an improvement.
And in fact, I think some of what has been set in motion is quite promising as a peace process for Ukraine.
We're not there yet, but people are talking about things sometimes in a very confused way.
I think, for example, the Europeans who came to Washington yesterday all bent over about security guarantees, never said security guarantees of what?
Russia would be quite willing, I think, to provide security guarantees alongside the United States and others for Ukrainian independence and neutrality, exactly as the Soviet Union did with the United States, Britain, and France in creating the independent neutral state of Austria.
There are precedents here, not just Austria, but earlier Belgium, created as a buffer and a bridge between potentially warring parties.
And I think we're beginning to see some exploration of the crucial question in any negotiation.
which is what do the parties need?
Obviously, Ukraine needs its independence.
It needs the right to join the European Union.
Union, a process which would facilitate reform and the end of corruption in Ukraine, the poorest and most corrupt state in Europe.
Obviously, Europeans want a buffer between themselves and Russia.
Obviously, Russia wants a buffer between itself and Western Europeans.
So there's the making of a deal here and Ukrainians should welcome return to neutrality, which was the state in which they were born as an independent nation, and pledges from powerful neighbors like Russia, like Poland.
and NATO member countries, other NATO member countries to preserve their independence and their neutrality.
And this is how peace might come to Europe.
The treaty establishing and guaranteeing the independence of Austria after World War II actually permitted a, in those days, Soviet, as opposed to Russia, a Soviet official to sit on the Austrian version of a National Security Council to guarantee neutrality.
And at first it seemed intrusive, and then it was helpful and worked out and they relied on this person to be their pipeline to Moscow.
It seems almost fanciful that that could happen with Ukraine, but as you say, there's precedent for it, and I don't really see any other resolution here.
The war will end either by military triumph or a recognition that military triumph is coming, and we might as well save lives while we can.
I quite agree.
I would note one other thing about the 1955 Austrian state treaty, which is clearly a model for Ukraine, it does not mention a commitment by Austria to neutrality.
But everybody involved, the guarantors of the Austrian state, the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, and France, understood that the fundamental premise was Austrian neutrality.
And so did the Austrians, and they have prospered under the arrangements that the great powers made for their survival as their emergence as an independent state in a state of neutrality.
So I think...
That is exactly why the Russians went to war to prevent that.
The solution is not a military presence in Ukraine.
It is a political arrangement for a security architecture in Europe in which Ukraine is guaranteed its independence, its neutrality, and its relationship with the European Union.
But some of these guarantees, I think, in the European mind, mind involve boots on the ground.
I mean, it's inconceivable to me that Russia would accept boots on the ground, whether they're French, German, Italian, British, or American, no matter what they call themselves.
No, I think you're absolutely right.
They won't accept that.
That's why they went to war in 2022 against Ukraine.
And I mean, it's one of the reasons.
The other reason, of course, was that the Ukrainians were busily trying to forcibly assimilate and oppress Russian speakers in the East.
But I think Europe has got to ask the question, what is it they want to guarantee?
Do they want to guarantee the continued division and conflict in Europe?
That's the course they're on now.
Or do they want to guarantee a stable peace in Europe as a whole and cooperation with Russia and the United States on an independent basis?
I think the latter is in their interest.
They need to discover that.
In March of this year, I was invited to interview along with two others.
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.
I'm going to play a little clip in which he addresses this very issue of troops on the ground in Ukraine.
You know, his answers to our questions were about 15 or 20 minutes long.
So during this clip, you'll see me sitting there like a bump on a log while he's giving one of these long answers.
We're only playing about a minute and a half of it, but it's very telling in light of this conversation yesterday about security.
Whose security and what are they guaranteeing?
Chris Cutt, number 25.
Europe and the UK, They certainly want this to continue.
The way they received Zelensky in London after the scandal in Washington, it's an indication that they want to raise the stakes and they are preparing something to pressure Trump administration back into some aggressive action against Russia.
We are philosophical about this.
We know what we are doing.
But I am mostly amazed with this peacekeepers obsession.
Peacekeepers, let's stop.
Macron says let's stop in one month.
Peacekeepers would be deployed.
Then we'll see what to do next.
It is first, it is not what we say is required for the end of this war.
which the West waged against us through Ukrainians with their direct participation of their military.
know this.
If negativism NATO expansion is recognized, at least by Donald Trump, as one of the root causes, then the presence of the troops from NATO countries under any flag, in any capacity, on Ukrainian soil is the same threat.
Then the presence of any troops from any NATO countries under any flag on Ukrainian soil is the same threat as what we face now.
I think it's important that two things.
President Trump has talked about coordinating European guarantees, security guarantees for Ukraine.
He's not talked about directly joining.
Steve Whitcoff, his emissary, has talked about an Article 5 NATO North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5 type guarantee.
for Ukraine, but of course that would require a treaty and Senate approval, and there's no indication that the Senate is prepared to ratify such a treaty if presented with one.
So I think what would the word coordination that the president has used is an appropriate word.
The United States is in a position to help broker a solution between Europeans and other, I mean the Western Europeans and the Russians, between Ukraine and its neighbors, including Russia.
But this is pretty far away from the United States and the case for a direct American interest is not as compelling as people have tried to make it out to be.
So I think there's a lot more.
distance to travel before we get to a solution but Sergei Lavrov the Russian foreign minister is absolutely correct peacekeepers will not produce a peace they will produce a truce a continued stalemate like the one in Korea which has never been resolved constant danger of war breaking out again that is something that is emphatically not in anyone's interest not Western Europeans,
not Ukrainians, not the Russians or Poles.
So I think there needs to be, as the president has suggested, if there can be a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky as a kickstart to a later
trilateral, that's going to have to be followed by some kind of conference, perhaps resembling the Congress of Vienna, perhaps resembling something else, but maybe the Treaty of Westphalia, a reorganization of European security architecture on the...
on a collective basis not between ukraine and russia not between the united states and russia but between all of the participants and interested parties.
Not easy, but that is where we have to head.
What does security guarantee mean other than troops on the ground inviting attack?
No, I think that's the point.
Austria had a security guarantee that has guaranteed it for now 70 some years.
And there are no American or Russian or British or French troops on the ground in Austria at all.
And yet it has a security guarantee.
Switzerland has a security guarantee dating from 1820.
There are no foreign troops in Switzerland.
You know, sir, I think it's entirely possible people think about security guarantees in a purely military sense, that guarantees that military force will be used.
It does not prevent it.
Well, do you think that President Putin, more likely than not, you know, there's no transcript available, and this is what he said he did, so I think it is more likely than not that he did do this, lectured President Trump on the genesis and causes.
of the special military operation in Ukraine.
And if so, it might be the first time, because Trump has a very short attention span, as we all know, that he heard this.
this version, this understanding of things going back to the coup in 2014 and beyond.
And they also wonder if there wasn't any finger wagging because it was you, President Trump, who armed the Ukrainians to the teeth during your first term in office.
I suspect that President Putin did not emphasize that point, even though it is valid.
I believe you're correct.
This is probably the first time that President Trump has had a chance to listen directly to the Russian view of Russian interests and how they were threatened by the previous administration, which President Trump correctly blames for provoking the war.
So yes, very educational, very important, and I think a major advance toward some possible later meeting of the minds on how to make peace in Ukraine.
At the moment, there's an agreement that there should be peace.
but there's no agreement on how to achieve it.
The special envoy, Steve Whitcoff, used an odd phrase and the president picked up on it.
Our friend and colleague Aleister Crook attributed it to a mistranslation or a misunderstanding.
The phrase is land swaps.
What land swaps?
What Russian land is going to end up in the custody or propriety of the Ukrainians?
President Putin doesn't even have the authority to do that under the Russian constitution, even if he were inclined to do so.
No, I think the only thing that can possibly refer to is the Russian repost to the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk.
The Russians have now taken adjacent areas of Ukraine, Ukrainian territory, Sumi, and moving toward the direction of Kharkiv.
So that's the only thing it could possibly refer to.
In other words, the Russians seem to be willing to give back that part of the land.
On the other hand, they're very clear.
They're insisting on the entire territory of both Lugansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast.
They're apparently willing to accept the line of control, the battlefront in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson as the de facto border that obviously is constitutionally difficult for them they would have to they would have to have a treaty they would have to amend their constitution to to yield those portions of those oblasts that they claim but do not control but
i don't think that's an insuperable obstacle nor do i believe that uh president putin uh absolutely will not meet with president Zelensky even though he's been very reluctant to do this in the past.
And President Zelensky, I note, who always refused to talk with President Putin, now appears to want to do that.
So these are important changes.
Agreed, agreed.
And for all of our criticism of President Trump and his lack of understanding of the history here, he did break the ice.
I mean, Joe Biden refused after one initial meeting early on in the presidency even to speak to Vladimir Putin and even to allow his Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, to speak to Sergei Lavrov.
type of wall of separation in your view and mine was just horrible and made things worse.
It's always better, of course, to talk.
Do you think that Trump and you and I and your colleagues on this show have been back and forth on this so many times?
Is he a neocon or isn't he?
Do you think he's kicked the neocons and General Kellogg under the bus on this by recognizing no NATO and the legitimate territorial Russian claims?
I think he certainly contradicted their warmongering attitude.
And he has come to a new level of understanding of these issues.
There's no doubt about it.
Unfortunately.
particularly there are spoilers not only in his own cabinet and his own entourage, but of course the Western Europeans are not putting forward any proposals for peace.
Although they talk about peacekeepers, they don't describe how you get to a peace with peacekeepers at all.
They talk about continuing the war.
And so President Trump seems to be very sincere.
in his desire to go down as a peacemaker and to make peace in Ukraine, even if at the moment he probably doesn't have a clear idea of how to achieve that.
And I guess his golf buddy, senior senator from South Carolina, is not whispering in his ear these days.
Well, he may be, but he's not apparently having much effect.
I want to go back for just a moment, if I might, to what I think was a very crucial moment in the Biden administration when there was a meeting between President Biden and President Putin.
And apparently in that meeting, we now know from various sources, President Putin said, look, if you continue to insist on NATO enlargement to include Ukraine, we are going to take military action.
to stop that.
And Biden apparently said, bring it on.
We'll sanction you to death.
And so there's more and more evidence that this war was unnecessary.
The phrase unprovoked aggression is completely wrong.
There was a provocation.
It was clearly understood by the Biden administration that there would be a Russian military response.
They went ahead anyway.
Wow.
I want to play for you a clip from yesterday.
This is Chancellor Mertz and President Trump, not exactly a buddy buddy buddy in the clip on the issue of ceasefire you know trump as recently as on his air force one flight from washington to anchorage was interviewed by my friend and former colleague brett baer at fox news and said i want a ceasefire and i'll be bitterly disappointed or maybe he said very disappointed if there's no ceasefire at
the end of the day 24 hours later he was saying, we don't need a ceasefire.
I understand why we can't have one.
My goal is a big picture peace treaty.
Here's a chance.
The next steps ahead are the more complicated ones now.
The path is open.
You opened it last Friday.
But now the way is open for complicated negotiations.
And to be honest, we all would like to see a ceasefire, the latest from the next meeting on.
I can't imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire.
So let's work on that and let's try to put pressure on Russia because the credibility of these efforts.
we are undertaking today are depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations from next step on.
So I would like to emphasize this aspect and would like to see a ceasefire from the next meeting, which should be a trilateral meeting wherever it takes place.
Well, we're going to let the President go over and talk to the President, and we'll see how that works out, and if we can do that.
I will say, and again I say it, in the six wars that I've settled, I haven't had a ceasefire.
We just got into negotiations, and one of the wars was, as you know, in the Congo was thirty years.
30 years, 31 years long.
Another one that we settled last week with two great countries was 35 years going on and we had no ceasefire.
So if we can do the ceasefire, great.
And if we don't do a ceasefire, because many other points were given to us, many, many points.
Well, I think anybody in that room believes that he settled those that he alone settled those wars, but that's just his style.
I think Chancellor Merz said that he couldn't imagine progress without a ceasefire first.
That, I think, shows a lack of imagination on his part.
Yes.
Ceasefires do not produce peace.
Ceasefires freeze conflict unless they are part of a broader agreement, and they result from that broader agreement.
So what happened at Anchorage, the most important thing was President Trump's realization, which he just expressed obliquely in that meeting, that a peace must precede a ceasefire.
It is the basis for a ceasefire.
A ceasefire in and of itself accomplishes nothing but freezing motion on the battlefield.
And the Russians have no incentive to agree to such a thing in the absence of concessions from Ukraine on the various issues they've raised.
Neutrality, no membership in NATO, protection for Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine, and a broader discussion of European security issues.
Those discussions have not taken place.
Ambassador Freeman, a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you very much for your time.
We didn't even get a chance to touch on Israel, but we'll do that next week and we'll look forward to seeing you again then.
Thank you.
Coming up later today at 11 this morning, Colonel Bill Astor and at 2.45 this.
▲
Export Selection