0:15 [Music] [Music] Everyone, Judge Andrew Npalitano here for judging freedom. Today is Thursday, May 15, 2025. Professor John Mirshimer joins us now. Professor Mir Shammer, always a pleasure. Uh, as we as we speak, Professor Mayor Shammer, uh, Secretary of State Rubio, uh, Foreign Minister Lavough and Ukraine President
1:02 Sinski are all in Istanbul theoretically talking about ending the uh, Russian Ukrainian special military operation. Is it realistic to think that uh a settlement of of any significant magnitude will come out of this? No. Uh I 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 uh the United States, Europe, and Ukraine on one side and Russia on the other side uh have fundamentally different goals. I mean, the Ukrainians do not accept any of Russia's major demands, and Russia is
1:47 insistent that all of its major demands be met. And how you reconcile those stark differences uh is not clear to me. Furthermore, if you take this a step further, this whole negotiation process uh is completely looney. uh it's not clear who's in charge, when they're meeting, who's meeting. Uh I've never seen anything like this. And uh when you have a tough uh when you have tough substantive differences between the two sides to maximize your chances of getting some sort of agreement, uh the diplomatic process has to be handled in a smart way. And this is anything but a smart way. So nowhere. Yeah. Uh,
2:34 President Erdogan of Turkey presided over or facilitated, I should say, negotiations back in 2022 before the first shot was fired when the uh Russians and the Ukrainians agreed on a 106 page a 26-page agreement, every page of which was initial. That's when Joe Biden and dispatched Boris Johnson, then the prime minister of Great Britain to talk President Sinski uh out of it. Are they naive enough to think uh that uh hundreds of billions of dollars and a million lives and three years later will produce a similar outcome?
3:21 It's hard to believe that they think that. Uh, 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. Uh, 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. And uh go ahead here. Here here's the nominal spokesperson for the
4:08 Europeans, Prime Minister Stormer just a few hours ago. Chris, cut number one. What's happened today is further evidence uh that it's Putin who is dragging his feet. It is Putin who is um causing the delay uh in a ceasefire. Ukraine has long been clear um several months ago now uh that they would have a 30-day unconditional ceasefire. Um 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. uh there was only one country uh 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
4:53 why we need all nations to line up together as allies uh to uh ensure we get the ceasefire that is so desperately needed but also to ensure that we have sanctions in place um should Putin continue down this path of dragging his heels and not coming to the table for the ceasefire. takes this seriously. This is like a mouse going after an elephant. But 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 Mcronone and so forth and so on is that there's no way you're going to get a peace agreement anytime soon. And that this one is going to be settled on the
5:39 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 intrigence 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 uh also tells you that it's not in
6:25 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 rum state. So in a very important way pe people like Keith Stormer are playing right into the hands of the Russians. Do do you see any realistic uh chance of the Russians settling for anything less than what have been their consistent demands since February of 22. Crimea, the Russians speaking oblasts, 3/4 threequarters of which they now control militarily. Um no um no NATO. It may
7:12 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 I think they'd be remarkably foolish uh 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
7:59 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
8:44 Russian foreign minister Sergey Lev uh 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
9:30 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 obvious a response to Prime Minister Starmer because he says and especially London and he did make these comments after Prime Minister Stormer, pardon me, made his I I think that uh uh the foreign
10:18 minister Lavrov is uh worrying about a threat that's not going to materialize. He's assuming that the Europeans can come together and some meaningful way and create a potent military that can threaten Russia and that they can use French nuclear weapons or maybe French and British nuclear weapons to gain coercive leverage over Russia. This is simply not going to happen. Uh 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, you know, turn each one of their militaries into the Vermacht is not going to happen. Uh and with regard to nuclear weapons, French nuclear weapons matter for virtually zero uh in the Ukraine
11:04 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 uh 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
11:50 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 on my left as I look at the picture. Yes. And I think uh Lindsey Graham is in the
12:36 middle and Rubio of course is on the right. Uh it's quite a triumvirate and uh there are three people who were 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 and 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. Uh Trump wants peace unlike Kellogg, unlike Lindsey Graham. There's no question about that. Uh
13:23 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. Uh Russia, United States, Ukraine, and uh 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 uh or the Ukrainian defense minister. So apparently the Americans were meeting with the Ukrainians before they met with
14:09 the Russians. But you 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 Witco are trying to negotiate for peace? Because he must know that that is the quintessential non-starter, NATO and Ukraine. If anything is 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
14:55 continuing the war. And General Kellogg believes that we can win the war. Uh 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 uh gears to the Middle East, where Trump is as we uh 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 I think uh about 95% of the
15:43 Israeli public is sick and tired of Netanyahu, but they can't get rid of him. That's the Israeli public. And uh 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 uh President Trump and the neocons with which he surrounded himself. Marco Rubio was a neocon until three months ago. Pete Hegsth and Neocon, Sebastian Gora, 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
16:29 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. No less the gleaming marvels of Riad and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation builders, neocons or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Cabal, 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
17:16 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. Well, this is a profound repudiation of the foreign policy of every one of his predecessors going back to George HW Bush. Yeah, I I mean I'd make two points about Trump. One is I do not believe he's a
18:01 wararmonger. Uh I I do believe he likes to avoid war and that uh he does privilege commerce and economic intercourse uh over military might. Uh the second thing is I think his instincts on the Middle East are basically right. Uh 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 Russia. There's also a big split inside his administration regarding the Middle East in particular regarding Iran. And when you look at his administration's ability to execute policy uh in the Middle East, it's a mess just like it is a mess in Ukraine.
18:50 And the $64,000 question is whether at some point Trump is going to just take the reigns uh and change the situation in the Middle East. Professor Mir Shimemer, 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. Uh, I tend to think that that's almost impossible to do. Uh, 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
19:35 air. I can't run it because it's too incendiary. Uh a missile striking a hospital as people were walking in uh 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, uh, 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 Witco 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
20:22 where Trump was able to get Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire. There's no question that the administration has the uh the ability, it 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 adnauseium, is that the lobby invariably gets in the way. And when Trump or any other president plays hard ball 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 uh 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
21:08 alternative media that we occupy, but the mainstream media are saying that this has to cease may mean that he is willing to put uh 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 Mir Sharma, 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 Yaalda Hakeim ripping the Israeli ambassador to the UN. I think he's the ambassador to the UN. We know him. He's
21:55 very strident. Danny Dannon. 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 inhumity and the violent and lawless among us. That was uh Tom Fletcher and Ambassador Danon. He goes on to say, "Stop the 21st
22:40 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 Don, I am 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 2 months, 73 days, we have seen that there have been no there has been no aid that has entered uh Gaza. So
23:27 while you can deflect and say that this is Hamas's responsibility, at the end of the day, you are the governing power in Gaza, you have a responsibility to ensure that there is no famine and starvation in Gaza, which is what the world, including your allies and partners, are now accusing you of. And it's gone beyond accusation. They are saying that they are seeing it in real time take place. So the the only starvation in Gaza, the starvation of the hostages. What a cold-hearted sob he is. And what a 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
24:14 example of what's going on. If you read editorials in the Guardian, editorials in the FT, editorials in the Economist, uh what Piers Morgan is saying, all sorts of people are now speaking out against the genocide. uh the pressure is building and as I said to you before the issue on the table is whether or not uh Trump will be able to ride this wave and put great pressure on Israel uh to put an end to the genocide and do something uh for the plight of the Palestinians. Uh I want to ask you one or two other questions a little bit off the uh beaten path. Do does the United States need a defense department budget of1 trillion?
25:02 It's almost absurd to say this $1 trillion dollars as Trump and heth have proposed. No, they don't. They could send spend substantially less money. Uh and uh 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. uh if we had a more limited budget, we would prioritize uh 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 or not spend it
25:49 at all, uh but uh 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 uh al-Qaeda commander who now claims to be the president of Syria and who according to our people Scott Ritter are among them with his own hands killed Americans. That's obviously my first instinct. But then I say to myself, look, uh, American presidents sometimes do these sorts of things. I mean, take Franklin D. Roosevelt. He had to basically become an
26:36 ally of Joseph Stalin in World War II for the purposes of defeating Adolf Hitler. Uh, 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. Uh going to war against Al Galani 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. Okay. I think that, you know, you bite your tongue and you do what you
27:22 can to help him turn Syria into a viable state. Let me pick up on that and and further uh your uh 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 uh 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 Houthies. Yes. Which which Trump announced would end without even apparently without even
28:07 giving the Israelis a heads up. Although can the White House do anything without MSAD knowing about it in advance? Well, I think you can rest assured that most of the time they're uh fully aware of what's going on. But again, with Trump, a lot of what happens uh 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. uh 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
28:53 Mossad may be having as much trouble trying to figure out what he's doing as we are having. Professor Mir Shammer, 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. And coming up uh at 4:00 this afternoon on all of these topics, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. And at 4:30 from Istanbul, Aaron Mate, Judge Npalitano for judging freedom. Heat. Heat. [Music]
29:45 [Music]
