All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 25, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
28:30
Prof. John Mearsheimer : Ukraine is Trump’s War
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom.
Today is Thursday, September 25th, 2025.
Professor John Meersharmer will be with us in just a moment on isn't Ukraine Trump's war.
But first, this.
While the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold?
It's soaring.
In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce.
I'm so glad I bought my gold.
It's not too late for you to buy yours.
The same experts that predicted gold at $3200 an ounce now predict gold at 4500 or more in the next year.
What's driving the price higher?
Paper currencies.
All around the world, they are falling in value.
Big money is in panic as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth.
That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts.
As long as paper money keeps falling, they'll keep buying, and gold will keep rising.
So do what I did.
Call my friends at Lear Capital.
You'll have a great conversation, and they'll send you very helpful information.
Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax and penalty free, or have it sent directly to your doorstep.
There's zero pressure to buy, and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee.
It's time to see if gold is right for you.
Call 800 511 4620, 800 511 4620, or go to Lear Judge Knapp.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you.
Professor Meersheimer, welcome here.
Uh, my dear friend.
Before we get into Trump's repeated insistence, articulated as recently as earlier today, just a few hours before you and I uh began our uh time together that Ukraine is not his war.
He uh apparently met privately with uh Arab heads of state and foreign ministers uh at the UN shortly after the speech he gave the other day, and according to two of them, uh said that he does not approve of uh the Israeli annexation of the West Bank and would prevent it from happening.
Is he in a position to prevent it from happening?
There's two points I would make.
First of all, what I want to know is why those Arab leaders weren't demanding that he end the genocide.
Uh annexing the West Bank is an important issue, but it's not as important as ending the genocide.
And the fact that that was not the number one topic, I find very disturbing.
Now, with regard to Trump promising these Arab leaders that uh he will not let Netanyahu uh annex the West Bank.
Let's assume that Trump makes it clear to Netanyahu that he cannot annex the West Bank.
And nevertheless, Netanyahu annexes the West Bank.
What is Trump's response gonna be?
And the answer is he's gonna go along with Netanyahu, who did.
He's not gonna challenge Netanyahu or punish Netanyahu.
That's not the way it works.
Uh it's Benjamin Netanyahu who has Donald Trump wrapped around his finger.
So Donald Trump can make promises uh forever and ever uh to Arab leaders of this sort, but in the end, they just don't mean anything.
Because as we used to say when I was a kid, talk is cheap.
I don't know if you've seen this uh clip.
It's uh very recent.
It's from my friend and uh former colleague at Fox Tucker Carlson, and it's very illuminating on the uh if it's true.
I mean it's it's true that he believes it's true, and I'm not questioning Tucker's uh credibility.
Uh one might question whether or not the people who told him about it is true, but um it's very illuminating.
Cut number 26.
I mean, BB's running around.
This is a fact.
I'm not guessing about this because I talked to people he said it to is running around the Middle East, his region and his own country and telling people point blank, just stating it, I control the United States, I control Donald Trump.
He's saying that.
And again, I'm not guessing at all.
That's a fact.
And I dare them to say that's not true because it is true and they know it's true.
So I'm an American.
How do you think it makes me feel?
Even if I didn't vote for Trump, which I did, I did vote, I campaign for Trump.
But even if I even if it was Joe Biden, I'm an American.
You can't treat, it's too humiliating.
I can't handle that.
And I shouldn't have to put up with that.
This is a country of nine million people.
I'm not saying it's I'm not even attacking the country.
I'm attacking my leaders who are allowing my nation of 350 million people to be forced into doing things that are bad for me and my children because of some other country.
Like that is a violation of the most basic arrangement we have with our leaders, which is represent us, please, at least most of the time, and they're not.
Surprised.
No, I would make two points.
First of all, I have no doubt that Netanyahu, who has made this comment recently on a number of occasions.
And in fact, I could point to where he's made it in the past and where other uh Israeli leaders like Ariel Sharon have made uh this comment uh in so many words.
And the reason is quite straightforward.
It's obvious that they basically own us.
My second point is I agree with everything else that Tucker Carlson said.
This situation is absolutely disgraceful.
It's unbelievable that a small country like Israel is basically running our Middle Eastern foreign policy and having a profound effect on our foreign policy in other areas of the world.
Something should be done to put an end to this.
Uh the influence that the lobby has uh on American foreign policy, and here of course we're talking about the Israel lobby, uh, in my opinion, is unacceptable and needs to be stopped.
What American foreign policy should reflect, pure and simple, is the American national interest, not Israel's national interest.
We should support Israel when Israel is doing things that are in our national interest.
But when Israel does things that are not in our national interest, we should definitely not support them.
But the situation now is one where we support Israel unconditionally.
So if they do something that's not in the American national interest, we have to support them anyway.
You know, at the risk of getting a little on the philosophical side, which of course I don't mind doing with you, but there's also a practical aspect to this.
I thought he was 100% correct, and what he said at the end was very profound.
I'll say it a different way.
This violates the social contract that we have with our leaders.
We presume that the people that we elect to office will do what's in the best interests of the United States.
That is not what Donald Trump or any of his predecessors have been doing with respect to Israel.
I agree completely, but it's very important to emphasize that there's another social contract, which is of enormous importance that is being violated here, and that is that citizens have a social contract with their government.
And that means that their loyalty is to the American government.
And basically, what you have in the Israel lobby are a large number of citizens.
And I want to be very clear, these are not only Jews, they're Christian Zionists like Mike Huckabee as well, who have a profound loyalty to a foreign country, which on certain occasions gets in the way of their loyalty to the United States, which is another way of saying they are violating the social contract.
If you're an American citizen, you have to be, in my opinion, by definition, America first in your outlook on what.
Professor, there are people in federal prisons who have been prosecuted and convicted for doing with countries America hates what Mike Johnson and Mike Huckabee do with Israel.
I fully understand that.
But the point is what Mike Huckabee and what Mike Johnson are doing is fundamentally wrong, and it is violation of the social contract.
In the case of Huckabee and Johnson, I would argue it's even more egregious because they're public officials.
Your comment is about the APAC crowd that puts uh Israel first, and now it's iron grip on people like Johnson, which unfortunately today includes more than half the Congress of the United States.
Yes.
And let me make one further point on this.
You should understand that these people who are profoundly loyal to Israel, right?
The Mike Johnsons, the Mike Huckabee's, people in AIPAC, and so forth and so on, right, are influencing American policy on the foreign policy front.
And this involves the commitment of American military forces on certain occasions.
Right.
Life and death decisions involving U.S. military personnel.
And policymakers, whether they're in Congress or in their or they're in the executive branch, who are making decisions about where we should intervene around the world to fight wars, should be making those decisions based simply on what is in the American national interest.
They should be going to enormous lengths to protect the lives of American soldiers and do what's best for the United States and in effect do what's best for those American soldiers.
But that's not what's happening here.
We are basically pursuing a foreign policy that sometimes calls for employing military force to support the interests of a foreign country.
And in some cases, that's not in the American national interest.
And this, in my opinion, is an unacceptable situation.
This is in effect what Tucker Carlson was getting at.
Let's um let's go back to uh where we started.
What would happen if Trump said publicly to Netanyahu, don't you dare think about annexing the West Bank.
What would APAC and that crowd do?
Well, it's hard to say.
I think the APAC crowd doesn't want to pick a fight with Trump on this issue at this point in time.
The more interesting question, in my opinion, is what the APAC crowd would say if Netanyahu just went out and annexed the West Bank after Trump told them not to.
Would they stand behind Trump or would they stand behind Netanyahu?
Oh, there's no question what they would do.
Their loyalty is to Netanyahu, not to Trump, not to the United States.
Of course.
That's exactly right.
But I think beforehand, beforehand, they would put pressure on Netanyahu not to pick a fight with Trump.
Look, Israel and lobby are in deep trouble today.
The last thing they want to do is pick a fight with Trump.
Tell me if the following will in any way uh influence Trump and Netanyahu on attacking Iran.
This is uh a brief clip from the president of Iran, with whom I was privileged to meet yesterday.
This is not a clip from that meeting, it's a clip from what he said at the United Nations earlier, uh what he said at the UN yesterday afternoon, right after the lunch meeting I had with him.
Chris.
I hereby declare once more before this is assembly that Iran has never sought and will never seek to build a nuclear bomb.
We do not seek nuclear weapons.
This is our belief based on the edict issued by the Supreme Leader and by religious authorities.
Therefore, we would never sought weapons of mass destruction, nor will we ever seek them.
Whereas those who disturb the peace and stability in the region are lies in Israel, but Iran is the one that is being punished for those actions.
There is a poem that roughly says something to the effect that someone in one side of the world does something to disturb the peace, And someone else is punished for those actions.
Probably we'll go in one ear and out the other in Tel Aviv and Washington.
Well, there are two points to be made.
One is that the Israelis are not simply concerned about whether or not uh Iran is now pursuing a bomb.
They don't want Iran to have as a nuclear enrichment capability.
And the Iranians refuse to get rid of their nuclear enrichment.
Well, the enrichment is used for perfectly lawful, utterly acceptable civilian medical and energy-based purposes.
That's correct.
Uh they're not building a bomb, which would be a violation of the NPT, and they're allowed to have nuclear enrichment capability.
And uh the Israelis, however, feel that's unacceptable, and the Israelis want them to give up completely their nuclear enrichment capability.
Well, why is it acceptable for the Israelis to have a nuclear weapon with no constraints and no inspection and no acknowledgement whatsoever?
Well, this is international politics.
Don't forget the United States has nuclear weapons as well, uh as does Pakistan, uh India, and so forth and so on.
So there's no real fairness here.
Uh, but the point is, even if Iran can show, and it did this, by the way, when it signed up to the JCPOA that it's not pursuing nuclear weapons, even if it can show that, as long as it's pursuing nuclear enrichment, uh, the Israelis are going to do everything they can uh to put an end to that enrichment capability.
Second point I'd make you, and we never want to lose sight of this, is that the Israelis have another objective, which is to wreck Iran.
They're not simply interested in doing away with Iran's nuclear program, they want to turn Iran into Syria, and they will continue to search for ways to do that for the foreseeable future.
Chris, can you put up the um uh full screen from uh president uh Trump on he wants uh Ukraine to win?
I'm sure you've seen this, Professor, but so we're on the same page.
I'll just read the relevant part.
I think Ukraine, this is from the president himself.
I think Ukraine with the support of the European Union is in a position to fight and win in Caps, all of Ukraine back in its original form with time patience and the financial support of Europe and in particular NATO, the original borders from where this war started is very much an option.
Why not?
How do you view this?
Is this um delusional?
Is this uh 180-degree U-turn?
Uh is this uh let me throw the other side off so they will think I don't know what I'm talking about.
Is this a negotiating technique?
What's your take on this?
Well, first of all, I think it's preposterous to say that Ukraine can now take back all of the territory that it has lost to the Russians, and he says later in the text they can take even more territory, implying that they can go to Moscow.
Uh this is preposterous.
This is not it's not even conceivable, is it?
No, it's not conceivable, and he, of course, doesn't tell us how it can be done.
But the much more important message of this tweet is that he is washing his hands of the Ukraine conflict.
He has come to the conclusion that he cannot settle it, because even if he and Putin can reach an agreement on what the settlement should look like, he can't get the Ukrainians and the Europeans to buy it.
So he understands that this has to be settled on the battlefield.
Now, what he's trying to do is pass the buck to the Europeans and the Ukrainians.
If you look at that sentence that you just had up on uh the screen, he said that the European Union, see what it says.
It says that I think Ukraine with the support of the European Union is in a position to fight and win.
He didn't say the United States.
Yeah, but he also said in particular, NATO, which is a funds three quarters, it's three-quarters funded by the U.S. No, but it's the financial, it's attached to the word financial.
He's protecting his rear end here for when Ukraine goes down by saying, And he says this later in the tweet that he will continue to provide financial support.
If you go to the end of the tweet, he says, I'll continue to provide financial support to the U to the Europeans who can give it to Ukraine as they see fit and they can do with it what they see fit.
And then he says at the end, he wishes them good luck, right?
Wow.
This is not this is not the United States.
This is something, Professor.
Distancing, he's distant distancing himself from this conflict.
He's turning it over to the Europeans and the Ukrainians.
It's very clear.
Now he's not cutting off weaponry or the financial aid to the Europeans that could be used to buy weaponry, because when Ukraine goes under, he wants to say he is not responsible.
That's why he's constantly saying it's not my war.
It's not my war.
He wants to say it's Biden's war.
He gave financial aid, right?
And that financial aid could be used to build weaponry.
But it's up to the Europeans and it's up to Ukraine to win back all that territory.
But Professor, we both know he could stop the war with a couple of phone calls if he blocked American armaments from making their way to Ukraine, no matter who's paying for them.
And then he'd get blamed for losing the war.
Wow.
Well, he's going to lose the war on the battlefield, and he'll claim it's not his.
But to your point, this reinforces your point.
Uh, President Zelensky yesterday asking for more help from the G7 and the G20.
Chris cut number 27.
Yesterday.
Yesterday we had a good meeting with President Trump, and I also spoke with many other strong leaders, and together we can change a lot.
Of course.
Of course, we are doing everything to make sure Europe truly helps.
And of course, we count on the United States.
I appreciate the support we are receiving.
Yes, much depends on the G7 and G20.
But in the end, peace depends on all of us, on them.
United nations.
Sounds like maybe he got the same message from President Trump that you've just uh articulated.
Uh Trump was attempting to articulate in his truth social.
Sounds like you may be right on the mark, Professor.
I'm fully confident that I'm correct on this one.
He he's been positioning himself for a while now to make sure that when Ukraine goes under, that he's not blamed.
Look, Trump is sophisticated enough to understand that the situation on the battlefield cannot be rescued, that Ukraine is in desperate straits, and there's nothing we can do about it.
And he also understands that he can't get the Europeans and the Ukrainians to play ball with him.
So what choice does he have?
And the answer is you want to walk away and you want to make sure that when Ukraine goes down, you don't get blamed.
You make it clear it's not your war, and you make it clear you did everything you could diplomatically to solve it.
And by the way, one other dimension to this is the whole business of sanctions.
You notice in the tweet, the tweet that was just put up, there's no mention of sanctions.
Nobody's talking about sanctions anymore.
They're off the table.
And sanctions were supposed to be the magic bullet that was going to win this war for our side.
But he's not talking about sanctions.
Well, he you and I know that the sanctions have not only failed to damage Russia, they've put it into a position of uh economic self-sustainability.
Yes, but that's not his concern.
His concern is who's going to get blamed.
Right.
And people are going to say that he didn't put sanctions on Russia, and that would have turned the tide.
He's protecting himself by saying, I am willing to put sanctions on, but the Europeans have to put sanctions on as well.
These are the secondary sanctions against India and China.
And of course, the Europeans have said we won't put sanctions on India and China.
So Trump's response is well, as I told you, I'm in favor of sanctions.
I want to help the Ukrainians, but I'm not going to do it by myself.
Why should the Americans pay the price and the Europeans not pay the price?
We want the Europeans to go along with us.
They won't go along with us.
Therefore, we're not going to put sanctions on.
This is how he's protecting himself.
He is basically trying to get out of this war because he knows it's a lost cause.
Chris, do we have the clip of uh Trump on Air Force One ignorant of uh the fact that we buy uh a billion dollars worth of uh uranium from the Russians?
Watch this, Professor Mirash.
You've been calling on Europe to stop buying Russian oil.
The U.S. has imported 755 million dollars worth of Russian uranium and plutonium so far just this year, and that's up from the Biden administration last year, about a hundred million dollars.
Uh, can you ask Europe to clock off purchasing those kinds of products?
Yeah, do you know anything about that?
Well, yeah, absolutely.
But uh this goes back not only drill, baby drill, but we've got a mine, baby mine.
We allowed ourselves to fall in underdependence of both China and Russia for critical minerals.
Uh using America buying uranium from Russia is not acceptable.
And so we're working very hard in Sector of Energy, Chris Wright, uh myself to make sure that we've got a plan so that the United States can get back into domestic and restranium production as quickly as possible.
Uranium out of the ground overnight, and Trump didn't know that we were buying that much from him, and Biden didn't put the sanctions on uranium because we need it.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you think Trump cares whether we're buying uranium from the Russians?
Absolutely not.
But he's also doesn't care.
Apparently, when he's caught with his pants down being inconsistent on I want the Europeans to stop buying oil, but we'll keep buying uranium.
Consistency is somebody once said it's the hobgoblin of small mines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, it's a great uh great one liner.
Before I let you go, why do we have a fleet off the coast of Venezuela?
God only knows.
Uh I mean, it kind of looks like we're going to try and do regime change in Venezuela, uh, which I think would be a major mistake.
Uh the idea that the Maduro government is any sort of meaningful threat to the United States is not a serious argument.
And no more or less a threat than the Panamanian government was when President George H.W. Bush dispatched Marines to kidnap uh Manuel Noriega.
Yeah, well, the truth is that any time there is a country in the Western Hemisphere that is either genuinely left-wing or is antagonistic towards the United States, or both.
Uh we invariably think long and hard about toppling that government, and in many cases, we do that.
And I think this is a foolish policy because those countries are not in a position to threaten our national interest uh in any meaningful way, whether they're run by a communist dictator or not.
It just really doesn't matter.
Uh but that's not the way we think about it.
And Maduro is one of the big public enemies in the Western Hemisphere.
And to the man who said he never read the Constitution, he's certainly not going to ask for a declaration of war on uh Venezuela before he starts using the military to uh capture the president and bring about the regime chance.
They probably already have somebody in uh ready to uh replace him.
I think he's a grad student in Miami.
I'm not making this up.
Uh, one Guaido, the one that they all like, just now a grad student in Miami.
And you could also rest assured not at the University of Chicago, but in Miami.
To bring the University of Chicago into the story, you can rest assured that they've turned to some lawyers, probably from the University of Chicago, who for clever explanation who come up with a clever explanation why this is perfectly legal.
Yeah, I'll tell you where they did not turn to lawyers, and I'm not the only one who's been asking for this.
A lot of people across the ideological spectrum have been asking for the administration's legal justifications for the murders of these people in The speed boats uh on the high seas, and the DOJ has yet to produce one.
I don't think they have one.
This has been going on for four weeks now.
Yeah, there is none.
That's another one of our reprehensible policies.
The idea that you have these people in a speedboat who you just blow out of the water.
You have no idea exactly who they are and what they're doing.
And furthermore, you have a Navy and a Coast Guard that can go out and stop these boats and find out what they're doing.
And if they do get into a firefight with the Navy or the Coast Guard, then you have uh uh, you know, then you can use the American military, but just to sort of blow these people out of the water, uh, it's just hard to believe that we do things like this.
Uh we're we're imitating the Israelis.
We are.
We are nation incorporated.
We are unfortunately uh we have become what we once condemned.
Uh, Professor Umirsheimer, always a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you for letting us go.
Let me letting me go across the board on all these various subjects, which I know are second nature uh to you, but very much of interest uh to uh the audience uh that loves to listen to you.
Thank you, my dear friend.
My pleasure, Judge, and I look forward to seeing you next week.
As do I, all the best.
And coming up uh today, one more to go from the UN.
At least I think he's from the U coming to us from the UN, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, four o'clock this afternoon.
▲
Export Selection