Read the full transcript of a conversation between Judge Andrew Napolitano and political scientist and international relations scholar Prof. John Mearsheimer on Judging Freedom Podcast titled “Ukraine Cannot Survive” premiered April 3, 2025.
The interview starts here:
Israel Lobby and Gaza Crisis
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Hi everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, April 3, 2024. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, a pleasure as always. I want to talk to you about Ukraine’s survivability no matter when the special military operation ends. But before we get there, I need to address some of the events of the past week since you and I were together last. The IDF has executed one after another after another, 15 United Nations healthcare workers. And outside of the Arab world, there was no outrage, no outrage in the United States and doesn’t appear to be any appreciable outrage in Israel. How strong is the Zionist vice grip that there wouldn’t be an outrage at the execution style killings of health care workers?
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, if you want to know how strong the Israel lobby is, all you have to do is look at what’s happening on college campuses. Basically you have students who are protesting a genocide in Gaza who have effectively been shut down. And in fact, these universities are in danger of being wrecked, number one, by the government and two, by rich Jewish donors. It’s really quite remarkable what’s going on. It just shows you the incredible power of the lobby.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Does the lobby control public opinion in other Western countries? France, Great Britain, Germany?
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: No, it doesn’t control public opinion. If you look at public opinion in the United States, you look at surveys, what you see is that there’s not that much sympathy for Israel. And lots of people believe there’s a genocide taking place. And I believe lots of people would criticize Israel if they felt that they could without being severely punished. What makes the lobby so deadly effective is that it basically moves in on anyone who criticizes Israel and tries to destroy their career. And in most cases, they’re successful. This is why the lobby is so powerful.
But you want to understand that there are lots of people in the body politic who are super critical of Israel. And furthermore, there are lots of policymakers who know exactly what’s going on. And I believe there are a good number of policymakers and a good number of legislators who think about this whole situation much the way we do. But you just can’t open your mouth and say that because if you do, the lobby will put its crosshairs on you and it’ll finish you off.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: In Great Britain, in France, in Germany, as well as in the United States, Professor Mearsheimer.
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Sure. And you can add Australia and Canada to that list. I can give you chapter and verse on every one of those countries. Because when Steve Walt and I wrote The Israel Lobby book, we looked at how it operated in other countries. Just look at what happened to Jeremy Corbyn in Britain. The lobby put its gun sights on Jeremy Corbyn and basically destroyed his political career. He was portrayed as this virulent anti-Semite.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: He…
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: You can agree or disagree with Jeremy Corbyn, but the idea that he was an anti-Semite is ludicrous. It’s like making the argument that you or I are anti-Semites. You know, this is ludicrous. But if you make the kinds of arguments we do and that Corbyn was making, you’re in big trouble. And for Corbyn, that really mattered.
Netanyahu’s Rhetoric and Western Response
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Here’s the root of this. I suggest, and I’m probably on safe grounds in believing that you will agree, cut number 11.
[VIDEO CLIP STARTS]
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have a fair and balanced trade relationship with the US.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Looking for Netanyahu, Chris.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: These ignorant demonstrators, who are they demonstrating for? For these murderers, these rapists, these mass killers. This is a reflection of a deep rot that has pervaded the intellectual hub of free societies. And this vilification of Israel, the Jewish people and Western values has been propagated by a systemic alliance between the ultra progressive left and radical Islam. It must be resolutely fought by civilized societies to safeguard their future. This is why we must all come in President Trump’s decisive actions against anti-Semitism.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: And we must pressure other governments to do the same.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Standard fare. I mean, I do think he’s correct when he talks about the deep rot in Western society. But the deep rot is reflected in the fact that we are supporting a genocide. We are supporting an apartheid state, that is executing a genocide. Gets back to the question you raised before about why no one in the west is saying anything about the murder of these rescue workers in Gaza last week. The answer is there is a deep rot here. There is a moral rot. And that moral rot is inextricably bound up with our relationships with Israel.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Well, so as bad as that is. And then there’s this from the former United States Ambassador to Israel, now the leading candidate to become the United States Ambassador at the UN, Chris.
[VIDEO CLIP STARTS]
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: A government can do in two months more than any organization can do in its lifetime. And so when we talk about the importance of a bipartisan fight against anti-Semitism, which of course I endorse, and I, as my predecessor said, I condemn anti-Semitism on the right and on the left, I’m an equal opportunity condemner of anti-Semitism.
REPORTER: You are alluding to Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, none of them are any good.
On the right, on the left. I don’t like any of these anti-Semites, and I’m not shy about it. But the government, a government, the United States government or the government of France or the government of any other country has the power to rein in anti-Semitism in a much more effective way. And, you know, people say, well, you know, the governments are not in the business of changing the way people think. That’s true. But, you know, to my thinking, most people who are, you know, anti-Semites, most of these people running around are, we’re not going to win their hearts and minds because they don’t have hearts and they don’t have minds. So, you know, how are we going to… There’s no reason to think we’re ever going to convince them, but we can deport them, we can put them in jail, we can make their lives miserable, we can cut up their funding. And that’s what the Trump administration is doing for the first time.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Free Speech Under Threat
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: On the basis of the exercise of the most fundamental Western right, Western recognized right. It’s universal right, the freedom of speech. This guy is a thug, but he’ll probably be confirmed if Trump nominates him.
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: But I’d like to ask you a question, Judge. I think you misidentified him. He’s not going to be the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. he’s going to be the Israeli ambassador, isn’t he?
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: One would think so. He is the former US Ambassador to Israel. He is an American. Maybe he holds dual citizenship. The inside the Beltway gossip mill says he’s the leading candidate because he’s a longtime Manhattan friend of President Trump to replace Elise Stefanik, who of course never got the job, but she was the nominee.
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I was, of course, being facetious, but the key point here is the point that we have reached in our society is one where anybody who protests against the genocide in Gaza is identified as an anti-Semite. You want to think about that? This is really ludicrous. I hate to use hot language like this because I’ve been sort of training myself over the years to stay away from hot language because it’s not very effective in forums like this. But this is ludicrous, right? People who were out legitimately protesting a genocide, exercising their freedom of speech, are turned into anti-Semites. They’re deported, they’re put in prisons in Louisiana. They’re taken off the street by groups that look like the Gestapo at work. You just sort of wonder what is going on here? Have we lost our minds?
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: What happens where you are at the University of Chicago? I mean, it seems that the Trump administration has targeted universities along the East Coast. Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Tufts. What about the University of Chicago? Extremely high end. Some would say the best academic institution in the country. I say that as a Princeton graduate.
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, you’re right. I mean, they’ve gone after four Ivy League schools. Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and Penn.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: I forgot about Penn. Of which the president himself is a graduate.
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Yes, exactly. Those are sort of the Big Four. And of course they went after that student at Tufts, but they have not come after the University of Chicago, not come after Stanford. My guess is that it’s only a matter of time before they go after other schools off of the east coast and outside of the Ivy League. I mean, what’s really remarkable here is it seems to me that the Trump administration is bent on wrecking universities.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: I mean, here’s an interesting clip from a longtime friend of mine, Daniel McAdams, who’s a serious libertarian thinker and he is the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute. Basically saying what we’ve been saying. But it’s fascinating warning that, you know, if Trump gets away with this, he could be replaced by a left wing president that would come after the people that are now cheering it. Number 24, Chris.
[VIDEO CLIP STARTS]
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The First Amendment is under siege and the people cheering it on, they don’t understand. Especially when in the First Amendment issue, the people that happen to be here and they may have written an op-ed saying that, well, maybe Israel shouldn’t have slaughtered so many people in Gaza. Boom, she was praising Hamas and therefore she’s been sent to some prison in Louisiana. I mean, the people who are cheering that they should stop for a second and think, because that can go around and it’s going to come around to Americans who are opposed to this administration’s Israel policy, that’s next.
There’s no question about it, because they’ve already dealt with people who are permanent legal residents here. So it’ll be Americans next. And when a Biden or a Kamala or whoever comes next has that in his or her tool belt, man, can you imagine if you say something bad about a trans person, anything that’s high on their agenda, the precedent has been set. I mean, it’s just kind of depressing how stupid most people are.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: There’s a colloquy in the Pentagon Papers, oral argument before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court thought the colloquy was so important, they never do this. They reproduced a portion of the oral argument in the actual opinion. It’s Justice Douglas asking the government lawyer, does “Congress shall make no law” really mean no law? And of course he doesn’t answer. He obfuscates. That was the point of reproducing the oral argument. If what Daniel McAdams just predicted is true and it’s close to what you’ve been saying, we are in for extremely dark times. And I suppose that even though the president has been my friend for 40 years, I have some sort of a target on my back.
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I wouldn’t be surprised at all. Make sure you pay your taxes.
Ukraine Situation
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Let’s go to Ukraine. Do you see any connection between Trump green lighting the slaughter in Gaza and complaining about Putin foot dragging? This is paraphrasing Trump in the negotiations for peace in Ukraine. Do you see any connection there? Is Trump trying to accomplish anything domestically to give him leverage, foreign policy wise?
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I don’t think so. I think that they’re separate issues. I think that Trump has just decided that he’s going to let Israel do whatever it wants. It will have zero political repercussions, and if anything, it will strengthen his hand. It would not make sense, I think he reasons, to get tough with the Israelis. So I think that’s his policy there.
And with regard to the Russian situation and more particularly the Ukraine war, I just don’t think he understands what’s going on there. And I think the people around him don’t understand. I think his most reliable person on this issue, Steve Witkoff, is really a novice. He has no experience in foreign policy and as a diplomat, and he just doesn’t understand this case very well. So I think it’s going to take the Trump administration a while to figure out what they have to do to shut this one down.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: What do you think they need to know of which they are currently ignorant with respect to the special military operation in Ukraine?
Russia’s Position on Ceasefire
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: They have to understand that the Russians are not interested in a comprehensive ceasefire, period. What the Russians want is they want to cut a deal that shuts this down once and for all. They want a genuine peace agreement, and then once everybody’s on board in terms of fixing in place a genuine peace agreement, then they’ll agree to a ceasefire. So what’s going on here is that Trump is just wasting his time trying to get a comprehensive peace agreement because the Russians would be foolish to agree to such before they get all of the details for a final peace agreement settled.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Chris, do you have the clip of Ursula von der Leyen saying she’s going to raise 800 billion euros. Why is the EU suddenly so bellicose? Is it because Trump is cutting them loose before we run the clip? But I’ll run it for you. It’ll aggravate you, but I’ll run it for you.
[VIDEO CLIP STARTS]
URSULA VON DER LEYEN: We had a very good meeting of the coalition of the willing. The coalition of the willing has gotten bigger, stronger and very determined. I have basically three key takeaways. The first was a broad discussion on how to step up in the support for Ukraine in the short term, financially and military wise. The military needs that are there in Ukraine that have to be fulfilled, but also the financial needs. And here I can contribute that we will front load the EU part of the G7 loans for Ukraine.
Second topic, keep up the pressure on Russia. It was very clear that the sanctions stay in place. What we want is a just and lasting peace agreement. That is the goal. And the third key takeaway was on the long term support for Ukraine and our own European defence posture. Here, of course, the Readiness 2030 plan is crucial. It provides up to 800 billion euros of defence investment possibilities for the member states. And this means, for example, joint procurement with Ukraine, joint procurement with Ukraine in the European Union, but also in the Ukrainian defence industry. It’s strengthening the defence industrial base of Ukraine. And of course we need also a credible deterrence and defense posture in the European Union and thus we have to develop our own defense industrial base.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
European Response to Trump’s Policy
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Is Trump responsible for this nonsense by basically saying or giving the impression to Europe you’re on your own?
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, he’s giving them more than the impression. I think he’s basically told the Europeans that they’re largely on their own, that we’re going to greatly reduce our commitment to Europe, if not eliminated altogether. We’re going to focus mainly on China. And in terms of dealing with Ukraine down the road, you are principally responsible. And the Europeans are stepping up to the plate. And stepping up to the plate in their mind means continuing the status quo with even harsher rhetoric.
This is like what would have happened if Joe Biden or Kamala Harris had gotten elected in 2024. We’d be at this point with them in charge. Right. But in fact, Donald Trump, who’s a real anomaly with regard to Ukraine, got elected and he’s pursuing a policy that’s 180 degrees out from what Biden and from what the Europeans want to do. And the end result is that you see this big divide between the Europeans on one hand and the Americans on the other.
Ukraine’s Future Prospects
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: What is your opinion of the likely outcome of the special military operation in Ukraine. I don’t necessarily mean when it’s going to end or how many people are going to die, but can Ukraine survive this? Professor Mearsheimer?
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, I think Ukraine will survive because I do not believe the Russians are going to try to conquer all of Ukraine. The question is, what is that Ukraine that survives? What does that rump state look like? And the fact is, the longer the war goes on, the more territory the Russians capture and the smaller that rump state will be and indeed the more dysfunctional it will be.
If you want to know how I think this one is going to end, let me just start by saying I had hoped that the Trump administration would quickly figure out what the Russian demands were, meet those demands and shut this war down very quickly. It does not, I’m sad to say, look like that’s what’s happening. So I think the war is going to drag on and the end result is that the Ukrainians are going to lose on the battlefield. They’re already losing. And as we withdraw our support, which is eventually going to happen because all that weaponry and all that money in the Biden pipeline is going to go away and Trump is not going to replace it.
So the Ukrainians are going to be in a really tough spot. The Europeans can only pick up the slack to a certain degree and the Europeans will squabble among themselves anyway. So I think that what you will see happen with the passage of time is that the Russians will make more and more progress on the battlefield. The Ukrainians will be disadvantaged more and more moving forward. The Europeans won’t be able to help them. The Americans will say we’re not going to solve the problem. And I think at some point everybody will get together and accept the fact that the Russians have won and you’ll get some sort of either frozen conflict or you’ll get a genuine peace agreement.
Zelensky’s Difficult Position
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Professor or Colonel MacGregor and Scott Ritter, our principal military commentators on this program, are of the view that President Zelensky is really, really in a difficult spot, that the Azov battalion, the hard, harsh nationalists who don’t want to surrender under any circumstance, are no longer in one cohesive unit and are now spread throughout the military and the government and that in fact they provide the personal security for President Zelensky. How could he possibly defy their ultra nationalist demands to fight until the last Ukrainian?
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: He can’t. I mean, this is what happens when you fight a protracted war like this. Right wing elements become more and more powerful. Think about what happened in Germany after World War I, you had all these right wing groups, all these militant right wing groups, all these radical groups. In fact, you had radical groups on the left as well.
So when this war finally ends and there’s no more shooting in Ukraine, you should expect the politics in Ukraine to be ugly in the extreme, because this is the way these things work out. So I think that what Scott and Doug are saying is exactly right.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Here is President Putin on the influence of the Azov Battalion. Cut 15 Chris.
[VIDEO CLIP STARTS]
PRESIDENT PUTIN: The current civil authorities in Ukraine have no legitimacy. In accordance with the country’s constitution, Ukraine has held no presidential election. While according to the constitution, all key officials are to be appointed by the President, including regional government bodies, governors, and so on. So if the President is illegitimate, so are all the others.
So under these circumstances of de facto illegitimacy, neo Nazi formations receive additional weapons and recruit new personnel. What does this lead to? What could it lead to? It results in de facto power being in their hands. This in turn means that it is already unclear with whom to sign documents and what effect such documents might carry. For tomorrow, new leaders may come to power through elections and declare, we do not know who signed those papers. So goodbye.
The issue is not just this uncertainty. It is that these neo Nazi formations, such as Azov, among others, are effectively beginning to run the country. This raises the question, how is it possible to conduct negotiations with them in such situations? International practice follows a well established path. Within the framework of the United nations peacekeeping operations, there have been several cases of what is termed external governance or temporary administration. This occurred in East Timor, I believe, in 1999, in parts of the former Yugoslavia and in New Guinea. In short, such precedents exist.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Do you agree with that?
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I think that there is zero chance that the United Nations is going to move in to Ukraine and run the place. And I would say I understand Putin’s concern about having Zelensky sign anything and then some future government come in and throw that agreement in the waste paper basket. I understand that, but the question I would ask Putin is who does he think is going to replace Zelensky if they have an election?
Is somebody going to come into power who’s interested in cutting a deal with the Russians and having good relations with Russia for the foreseeable future? I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think that you’ll get somebody who is to the right of Attila the Hun in power in Ukraine, and that person will be deeply interested in continuing the fight against Russia one way or another.
So I do not see a happy ending here. You know, Putin places a lot of emphasis on denazifying, getting rid of the fascists, getting rid of the right wing elements in Ukraine as a war goal, an important war goal. I don’t think that’s achievable, to be honest, for the reasons that we’re talking about.
US Defense Secretary’s Taiwan Comments
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Professor John Mearsheimer, thank you very much. Thanks for letting me go. Oh, I gotta ask you one or two other questions. Forgive me, because we discussed this before you came on air. Earlier this week or over the weekend or late last week, the Secretary of Defense of the United States was in Japan boasting about how the United States would defend Taiwan if the Chinese decided to use a military force against it. I don’t know what prompted him to say this. Knowing him personally, I know that he’s rather bellicose and likes to boast about what he thinks the military can accomplish. How wise or foolish was it for him to make a statement like that in Asia?
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, first of all, you want to remember that this is all part and parcel of the pivot away from Europe. Hegseth has been the point person on this whole issue, saying that we are going to greatly reduce our presence in Europe and we’re going to focus on East Asia. And this is just another manifestation of that policy at work. So this has all sorts of bearing for what’s going on with regard to Ukraine.
Second point I would make is the fact is, given Trump’s behavior, people in East Asia, especially in countries like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, are really beginning to wonder whether they can depend on the United States, whether the United States has their back. And the scenario that most people worry about the most is China attacking Taiwan.
So the reason that the defense guidance, which was released about a week and a half ago, was leaked about a week and a half ago, focuses not only on East Asia, but in particular focuses on Taiwan, is I think the United States is interested in shoring up its deterrence vis a vis Taiwan. We don’t want to send a message to the Chinese that we will not defend Taiwan and therefore give them a possible thought that they could invade Taiwan and get away with it. So I think that’s what’s going on. He’s just trying to firm up deterrence vis a vis the Taiwan scenario.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Here’s what happens. Chinese forces advance towards Taiwan after US Defense pledge. Beijing deploys aircraft carrier in its second big naval exercise near the island in a month as a furious response to Pete Hegseth’s deterrence comments. Could the United States be foolish enough to think that it could defeat the Chinese army, navy and air force in that part of the world. We’re not talking about defending Los Angeles. We’re talking about defending Taiwan.
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Just a quick point. It’s very important to understand that the Chinese have been behaving in provocative ways towards Taiwan long before Hegseth made those comments. Right. The Chinese are determined to put enormous pressure on Taiwan to bring Taiwan to its knees so that it can reincorporate Taiwan into China. That’s what’s going on here. And Hegseth is responding to that.
That’s not to say that the Chinese have not responded to Hegseth. This is exactly what you got, what you would expect to get. You’re going up the escalation ladder and this is very dangerous. I don’t deny that for one second.
Now your question is, do we think we could win a war against the Chinese? I think the answer is probably no. But the question you really want to ask yourself is do you think the Chinese think they can win a war against us? The answer is probably no. And what Hegseth is doing here is trying to make sure that that’s what the Chinese think, because that’s the best way to produce deterrence in this very dangerous situation.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Professor Mearsheimer, thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Thank you for letting me ask questions all across the board. As always, a pleasure. Look forward to seeing you next week.
PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Likewise. Have a good weekend.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: And you too. Thank you. And coming up at 4 o’clock today, madder than a wet hen. I’ve been saying it all afternoon, but it’s true. I’m still getting emails and texts from him on the tariff issue. Professor, the great economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Judge Andrew Napolitano for Judging Freedom.
Related Posts
