Prof. Glenn Diesen: Is German Militarism Coming? (Transcript)

So that’s my impression.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Trump said as recently as yesterday it’s still Biden’s war. I think he’s wrong. I think it’s his war now.

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: Yeah. It’s reported that Trump asked Zelensky if they can strike Moscow so Putin would feel the pain. Again, this very much sounds like it’s Trump’s war at the moment.

The Nuclear Risk of Escalation

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: That’s crazy. If they strike Moscow, you’re talking about nuclear war.

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: 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 Hegseth came out and said that 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.

The whole premise was a recognition that it was NATO expansionism that had triggered the war. And then Trump said this was Biden’s war because they were the ones pushing NATO expansion.

Well, what has happened now? We see the NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, arguing that 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 four-dimensional chess, which is difficult to interpret.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: 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?

Russia’s Historical Security Concerns

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: And this is, as you said, Russian history. With the exception of the Mongols, all of Russia’s 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.

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 it can’t lose this.

It would be as if the Russians were pushing regime change in Mexico, placed its 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.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Refresh my memory, are Japan and South Korea in NATO?

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: So far not. But this could be coming.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: They’re nowhere near the North Atlantic, that’s for sure.

NATO’s Global Expansion

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: 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 haven’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.

The Neocon Influence on Trump

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: 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?

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: Well, it does appear so. From his language, 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, all these were blamed. But now, of course, he has done exactly the same thing again.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Is there any difference between John Bolton and Lindsey Graham?

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: 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.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Right, right, right. As long as he doesn’t have to fight it.

Europe’s Changed Perspective on Neocons

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: But if I can add one thing, if 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.

The Financial Reality of the New Strategy

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: 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.

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: That’s the new division of labor. 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. 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 these weapons.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: 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 there? If Russia sends a thousand drones, can NATO possibly give Ukraine enough air defense to shoot them down?

The Ceasefire Dilemma

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: No, probably not. And you can’t just rebuild an entire army this quickly either. And this is the problem. But if you were to achieve this, what you would need is a ceasefire. Under a ceasefire, the Ukrainians would have time to recruit, which they call recruit, but that means snatching people off the street to fill the ranks.

Europeans would have time to either accrue the money or ramp up military production, and Americans as well. So the only way they can continue the war at the intensity which is coming 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 peace when all we’re asking for is a ceasefire, but refuse to discuss an actual political settlement.

Trump’s Misunderstanding of Russian Psychology

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: 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.

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: 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.

Much like what happened with 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 shorter 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 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 a vital national security interest aside, it’s not going to happen.

Especially if you take into account what Putin often 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.

Putin’s Insight on American Presidents

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Here’s President Putin saying just that. Now, this is May of 2017, but it’s profound.

VIDEO CLIP BEGINS:

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have a certain perspective. You see, I’ve already spoken with one US 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.

VIDEO CLIP ENDS:

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: 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. It’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.

The Military Industrial Complex’s Influence on American Politics

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: 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 have the people on their payroll who then later go into government.

George Kennan made an interesting comment, I think was in 1987, in which he wrote, “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.” 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.

I think this is a great shame because Trump’s abandonment of this, if he ever had any intentions of pursuing peace, will have wide ramifications. 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 with the Minsk agreement.

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. The same can be said with China.

They’re all now coming to the conclusion that the United States can’t be trusted and its diplomacy is pure theater. 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.

German Rearmament and NATO’s Military Buildup

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: 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?

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: 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 restoring peace through mutual understanding and cooperation. But now they become one of the most hawkish countries in Europe.

Comparing Chancellor Merz to Historical German Leadership

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Scott Ritter, whom you know and who appears on this program at least once a week, has not hesitated to say that under Chancellor Merz, Germany could become the Fourth Reich. And that Merz – in fact, Professor Doctorow, your friend and colleague agrees with this – could be the most dangerous German chancellor since Hitler. Do you agree?

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: Well, I haven’t heard any German chancellors speak in this manner since Hitler. 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.

He used to also advocate for Taurus 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.

All restraint has been thrown away. The whole 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. Then after the war, it became this peaceful country, always choosing peace over military solutions. All of this appears to be gone now, at least among the leadership, but the people seem to more or less blindly follow. All of this seems oddly familiar.

Pressure for Russian Retaliation Against Germany

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Is there pressure on Putin, President Putin in his inner circle to strike munitions plants in Germany?

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: Yes, there is. They always had this dilemma between – 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.

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.

I actually used to work in Russia as a professor at the Higher School of Economics. The head of my department there was Professor Sergey Karaganov. He was an advisor to everyone from Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and then Putin. He’s also been pushing for this, that Russia now has to take a stand and actually strike German production facilities.

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. 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.

Trump’s 50-Day Ultimatum and Russian Response

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: 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?

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: Well, it’s hard to say. Trump could walk this back next week already. There’s been too many bluffs. I think he seems to have outspent this coercive language, the effectiveness of it, because he uses these threats. Some countries fold, others 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 ceasefire. But as I said before, the 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.

This is seen as something that will prolong the war. 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.

Trump’s Confusing Statements on Arms Shipments

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: So 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 Kiev. 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 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 Pete Hegseth, who interestingly is now out of the picture on the arms coming to Kiev, 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 to say here.

VIDEO CLIP BEGINS:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is there any concern about the US stockpiles?

TRUMP: There was a pause in delivery of weaponry to Ukraine in order to evaluate, apparently the US stockpiles.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What came out of that evaluation?

TRUMP: 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, 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.

VIDEO CLIP ENDS:

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Sounds like he’s trying to justify his own ignorance of what Hegseth was doing. I don’t know if Hegseth’s 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.

Analyzing Trump’s Contradictory Messaging

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: Well, as you said, I’m not a psychologist, but the back and forth – I don’t think truth is guiding his statements that much. I think it’s more what he wants to communicate. 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 – how can he not know that this is going on in your own administration – then suddenly he switched around and he knew everything.

It’s just narrative building effectively. What storyline are you trying to sell?

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Right.

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: But you’re correct. It doesn’t really matter at this point anymore. I think Trump will continue to sell 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 left the stockpiles.

I don’t think it’s going to matter to that great of an extent and it’s not going to deter the Russians either. If anything, this kind of revealed the belligerence of the Trump administration and 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? It’s problematic on many levels.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Well, thank you Professor Diesen, 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.

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: Thank you, Judge and have a nice holiday.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: 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 – Max Blumenthal. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.

Related Posts

• Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Regime Change in Venezuela (Transcript)
• Transcript: Zohran Mamdani’s Historic Victory Speech – November 4, 2025
• ‘All Tricks And No Treats’: Barack Obama At Rally For Spanberger (Transcript)
• Who Really Runs the World – Jeffrey Sachs on Fidias Podcast (Transcript)
• Transcript: Former Congressman George Santos on Tucker Carlson Show