Speaker A
Mr. Remmon, thank you very much for having us in your home. Um, it's really pretty. I'm sad to think of it being destroyed in the war you described. What is this war and why do you have to fight
Tucker Carlson interviews UK defence advocate Remmon in his home, debating whether Britain must prepare for war with Russia, NATO obligations, and Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Key Takeaways
- Remmon believes British preparedness for war is essential to deterrence and to preventing conflict with Russia.
- Carlson contends that UK support for Ukraine makes Britain a participant in the war from Russia's perspective.
- The two disagree sharply over whether the Budapest Memorandum and NATO Article 5 create binding obligations to fight.
- Both sides fundamentally disagree on the causes of the conflict and on the interpretation of historical precedents.
- The discussion highlights tensions between European and American-style views on national sovereignty, deterrence, and free speech.
What the video covers
- Remmon argues the UK must prepare for war with Russia, citing the Salisbury poisoning, a London murder, Russian submarine activity near undersea cables, and the invasion of Ukraine.
- Carlson repeatedly presses why Russia would target Britain, questioning the logic of cause and effect in the threat narrative.
- Remmon describes Russia as an economic failure with a GDP smaller than the UK's despite vast resources, attributing this to corruption.
- Carlson argues that from Russia's perspective, the UK funding Ukraine's defence makes Britain a combatant, drawing a parallel to US support for Kuwait.
- The debate centers on the 1994 Budapest Memorandum: whether the US and UK made binding commitments to Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for nuclear disarmament.
- Remmon contends NATO Article 5 is a request rather than an automatic obligation to go to war, while Carlson disputes the framing of the agreements.
- Discussion turns to deterrence, with Remmon arguing preparedness prevents war and Carlson suggesting that projecting weakness or aggression can make conflict more likely.
- Historical analogies are invoked extensively, including the Cold War, World War I and II, appeasement, and Hitler, with the two sides disagreeing on their lessons.
- Carlson raises concerns about nuclear escalation, noting threats from both Russia and the US, and questions whether Russia would ever use nuclear weapons offensively.
- The conversation closes with Carlson arguing that the greater threat to British freedom comes from its own government's policing of free speech rather than from Russia.
Chapters
- 00:00Opening and Remmon's case for UK war preparedness
- 03:00Why would Russia threaten Britain?
- 06:30Russian economy and the territorial integrity debate
- 09:50Budapest Memorandum and NATO obligations
- 16:00Deterrence, the Cold War, and nuclear escalation
- 25:00Public opinion, social spending, and domestic politics
- 33:20Historical analogies: WWI, WWII, and appeasement
- 56:00Free speech and closing remarks
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
it? Okay. Um, what I've said is that the United Kingdom needs to be prepared for war. That we are coming under attack in various ways from Russia. We've had murders and attempted murders take place. There was attempted murder in
Speaker A
Salsbury. Uh and there was a murder that took place in London by agents of Putin that Putin has invaded Ukraine and he is making threatening noises that some uh Russian people close to the state not formally of the state have talked about
Speaker A
the potential for nuclear war and the way to avoid war is to prepare for it and if you're prepared for war it doesn't happen. So that's what I'm talking about. It's the preparedness which I'm worried that we don't have.
Speaker A
Why do why would Putin want to threaten Britain? Well, he is threatening Britain, really.
Speaker A
Why? I wonder why. Why? Why has he tried to poison people in Salsbury? Why have his submarines been um poking around near our undersea cables?
Speaker A
Do you have any sense of why? Why would he want to do that? Well, I think he wishes to um reassert the power of Russia, which in many ways is now a failing state. that its economy has been in the doldrums for years since
Speaker A
the decline of the Soviet Union. It's lost a good deal of territory, which is a very unrussian thing that if you go really from the Romanovs taking charge in Russia through to the collapse of the Soviet Union, in most years, Russia
Speaker A
expands and then you get the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia suddenly shrinks. And it seems to me that that is looked upon by some Russians as a matter of shame and against the historic destiny of Russia. Hence, of course, the
Speaker A
reason for activity in Georgia um and more recently in Ukraine. Clearly, Russia wants some control over its neighbors. It wants a sphere of influence um as a nuclear armed power.
Speaker A
But I wonder, and assuming that everything you're saying is true and we could debate it, it still doesn't explain why Russia would want to pick a fight with Britain. It's got a much larger economy than Britain's by I think
Speaker A
basically No, no, no. It hasn't got a larger economy than Britain. It's got a smaller economy than Britain's. It's got larger military much larger economy. It has much more wealth and resources and it has a much larger manufacturing sector.
Speaker A
It GDP is smaller than the UK's. Yeah. is not I mean the only measure of an economy important measure of an economy no it's one measure we can Russia is Russia is an economic failure that it could have a huge economy but
Speaker A
it's got a small economy because it's deeply corrupt and it hasn't managed to use its resources effectively and so although the population of Russia is bigger than that of the United Kingdom very significantly its GDP per capita is
Speaker A
so much lower that the total GDP of Russia is smaller than that of the United Kingdom.
Speaker A
Right. Its inherent wealth dwarfs that of the UK. It's the largest country in the world. But leaving aside that, I'm not in charge of Yeah, but inherent inherent wealth isn't very useful, is it? There are lots of African countries that have huge
Speaker A
resources that have never been able to use. Depends what your timeline is. Well, if you go over hundreds of years, they haven't used them.
Speaker A
Yeah. Russia has consistently been a poor country in spite of its resources. Yeah. Okay. I don't agree, but I will I will grant you that.
Speaker A
Okay. But it still doesn't explain why Russia would benefit from fighting with the UK.
Speaker A
Do you imagine that they want to take your territory? Russia has already shown itself to be aggressive as we saw with the um invasion of Ukraine which was not only uh illegal in international law but also against a specific agreement between
Speaker A
Russia, the United States, the UK and Ukraine that in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, Russia and the other signatories would allow its territorial integrity to be maintained.
Speaker A
I I we can debate why that war started. I have a completely different view from yours, but I you know these are subjective questions. But I feel like we're avoiding the question I have asked you now three times, which is why does
Speaker A
any of that add up to Russia threatening the UK? Do you believe in cause and effect? Do you think there's some reason that Russia Why Why do dictators attack? They do because they care. You're nowhere near Russia because Barus, but we have the
Speaker A
NATO agreement with Poland which must feel under attack. We know that the um Baltic states feel threatened. We know there have been cyber attacks on the Baltic states, right?
Speaker A
So, of course, we should be concerned about our fellow NATO members and we have article 5 of NATO which would then involve us and we've got Russia saying Bell's things about the United Kingdom.
Speaker A
So, of course, we should be Do you have any sense of why? I guess it's So, here's here's the point that I'm attempting to make and I just think it's important to understand it whether or not you approve of it, which is that
Speaker A
from the Russian perspective, you are helping to fund a war against Russia and so therefore you're a combatant in that war. They feel this way about the United States as well and Germany, NATO. But that is a legitimate perspective. Can
Speaker A
you not see that? That there's a reason that they're mad at the UK? Well, Russia invaded Ukraine, right? But this is not Ukraine. This is the UK.
Speaker A
That's right. And um what the UK is doing is supporting Ukraine in defending its territory against Russia. So you are participating. This is exactly the same as America helping Kuwait rescue itself from Iraq.
Speaker A
Right. Except Iraq isn't didn't have nuclear weapons. But do you believe in territorial integrity of nation states?
Speaker A
In my own for sure. I'm not sure the territorial integrity of someone else's state is even my life for. The question is should first of all can you guarantee it?
Speaker A
America did. So do you think that was wrong because because the quid proquo was that Ukraine would have kept its nuclear weapons. So you're saying Ukraine should have kept it.
Speaker A
Well, there were many subsequent subsequent arrangements that were violated on all sides. But no, this is the fundamental point which you're trying to get away from. So let me put this back to you. The United States made an agreement with Ukraine,
Speaker A
Russia, and the United Kingdom that the territorial integrity of Ukraine would be inviable on condition that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.
Speaker A
Oh, no. You are you are mistaken. The United States has never pledged to go to war with Russia.
Speaker A
I didn't say it did. Okay. Then it's what you're saying is immaterial. I said no. I'm saying it made this agreement with the other parties.
Speaker A
So there's a treaty that obligates the United States to fight a war against Russia.
Speaker A
It doesn't obligate it to irrelevant. I'm saying that if you don't think America has an interest in this, it shouldn't have signed the treaty and then Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons.
Speaker A
There is no treaty that obligates the United States, I'm speaking with authority on this, to fight Russia on the basis of what Russia did in February of 2012.
Speaker A
I'm well aware of that. I'm well aware of what was said in relation to the nuclear weapons. It is not an agreement to go to war, nor strictly speaking is article 5 of NATO. It's not a requirement to go to war. It is a
Speaker A
request that can be ignored. um it's not an automatic act of war that the member state affected can call upon article 5, but it doesn't require an automatic response. But what you're saying is that this treaty that was
Speaker A
signed where Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons was entirely pointless. Well, of course I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is what I'm saying is there have been many subsequent agreements since including a verbal agreement which has been testified to by
Speaker A
people who are present that the United States would not expand NATO to Russia's borders which is an understandable concern of Russia. You don't want nuclear weapons controlled by another country on your borders. Why would you?
Speaker A
And so look, a lot has happened. There was the overthrow of the Ukrainian government by NATO in 2014.
Speaker A
A lot has happened. All sorts of things have happened. My only point is right now we're on the brink of a nuclear exchange and the question is why and I don't understand why it's in Britain's interest to be at
Speaker A
war with Russia. What I am arguing is that if we are prepared for war, war becomes less likely. That's the whole basis of deterrence. It's the whole reason but if you stop fighting the war, they will be less likely to nuke you.
Speaker A
Oh no, that's not true. If you if if you don't support Ukraine, if you allow Russia to take Ukraine, then it moves on to the next object. But why is it up to countries today to decide whether or not
Speaker A
Russia takes Ukraine? Because it's strongly in our national interest and indeed of the United States.
Speaker A
Uh because the one fundamental thing of the world order is the integrity of nation states. If all nation states are up for grabs for who whichever country wants to take it, then why shouldn't China take Taiwan tomorrow?
Speaker A
Well, I I I don't know whether the UK would be worried. Would you worry to be a I assume that's going to happen. Of course.
Speaker A
So you don't mind nation states? I mind a lot of things, but it's the question is not simply do I think it's wrong. The question is can I do anything about it and at what cost to my own
Speaker A
population? So it's a much more complicated calculation than the one you're presenting. You can if you project strength and I'm afraid what the West did towards Russia was protect project weakness that the agreements um made uh over the Crimea by Germany and
Speaker A
France made it look to Putin that he could do what he wanted. He then miscalculated with Ukraine and found that the West was not going to go along with that. And it's very important that you don't allow dictators to miscalculate. Same is true
Speaker A
of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein thought that he had had a message from the CIA, and I'm sure you know all of this, that invading Q8 would not upset the Americans.
Speaker A
And that's when you project weakness, you make war more likely. Well, the Cold War was one of the most intense moments in our history. Regular people lived in fear of getting blown up by a nuke. No one had any idea how that war would end.
Speaker A
It's easy to think that we knew for 50 years, but we didn't until the end that we would win. So, if you like history, you probably do like history, you ought to learn more about this portion of American history. And that's why you
Speaker A
ought to watch a movie called The Brink of War. It's streaming now on Angel. The Brink of War takes viewers inside Ronald Reagan and Michael Gorbachev's negotiations to end their country's stalemate, and it shows how much the rest of the world sat on the edge of its
Speaker A
seat to see what would happen. Millions of lives were at stake. Now, unlike the leaders we have now, Reagan understood that preventing a conflict was the only good outcome for the US. Nuclear war is the ultimate disaster.
Speaker A
That's wise. And that wisdom guided him along the path to peace. Though he could have chosen war, he didn't. So, watching this film makes you realize how much modern Washington differs from previous generations and not for the better. So,
Speaker A
if you're interested in peace and leadership and diplomacy, then the brink of war is something you ought to watch.
Speaker A
Join the Angel Guild to stream today at angel.com/tc. Well, I I think if you truncate the story, you can tell yourself that. But you are truncating the story because that war ended in 1991, the first Gulf War, and then 12 years later, there was
Speaker A
another Gulf War in which more than a million people. Okay. On the on the second Gulf War, I share exactly.
Speaker A
And now there is on the 22 years later, another Gulf War and Iran is using Iraq as a staging base to hit the United States. So, how did this work?
Speaker A
Okay. On the second Gulf War, I share what I think is your view. I think you supported it at the time, but now I think it was a mistake.
Speaker A
I thought it was a mistake when I went to Iraq in December of 2003. I knew immediately it was a mistake, and I've been apologizing ever since. Let me do so again. I apologize because I think it was a mistake, too. I
Speaker A
agree with you that the first Gulf War I think was absolutely right because it was about the territorial integrity of nation states. I think there's one fundamental Well, if it was right then, how did it result in another war less than 15 years
Speaker A
later? Because the other war was none of our business. It was the internal affairs of Iraq on a pretext of nuclear weapons that didn't exist.
Speaker A
But hold on. The the two wars are completely different. Um and actually the George Bush senior got it right because he had the opportunity to take Iraq at the end of the first Gulf War and he said no that is not the objective
Speaker A
of this mission. The objective of the mission was the territorial integrity of Kuwait. Now, where I think I disagree with you is that the fundamental building block of any form of world order is the nation state. And that
Speaker A
therefore it's in all our interests to protect the nation state. Because if aggressors can invade one nation state and get away with it, they will carry on and then you've got no global order at all. Where I think we have made a
Speaker A
mistake is in liberal interventionism, which I am opposed to. I think it is not my business how Iraq is managed internally by Iraqis. That is a matter for them. Or how Putin manages Russia.
Speaker A
Then why does it why do you keep describing Putin as a dictator as distinct from Zalinski who has not been elected?
Speaker A
Well, he was seven years. He's canceled the elections and banned the largest Christian denomination in the country and imprisoned people for criticizing him. So he's not addicted.
Speaker A
It would be very difficult for me to criticize him on canceling elections. exactly what the UK did during the first world. If you're not a liberal interventionist, why is Putin's form of government even material? Why do you care?
Speaker A
It's up to him how he governs Russia. It is my business when he starts invading neighboring countries.
Speaker A
But the question is not whether or not you approve of one nation's territorial expansion or its need to control its neighbors, which is, by the way, the state of play for all great powers. No country with nuclear weapons will
Speaker A
tolerate another nation's nuclear weapons on its border. Of course. Well, that's the Cuban missile crisis. Yes, of course. Well, it's the current Iran war because Israel, a nuclear armed power, did not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And I'm not criticizing
Speaker A
anyone. And this is very sensible. We do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Speaker A
I don't want anyone to have a nuclear weapon. I'm just saying I want I want Britain to have nuclear weapons. And I don't mind the United States having I don't want anyone on our trails to have them.
Speaker A
I'm merely saying that we can't be surprised by that response because that's just the nature of great powers.
Speaker A
Okay. Yes. My question is what can you do about it? So you have said that weakness abets bets aggression which is an often repeated axiom which sure is entirely true but it can't be true but what's your option? So Britain right
Speaker A
now has uh apparently a military strength of under 19,000 ready for combat. So for perspective, you know, there are battles in the first world war in which Britain lost more than 19,000 in one day. So that's nothing. Russia has one
Speaker A
of the most powerful militaries in the world. A standing army of a million and a half.
Speaker A
Well, that's not necessarily the same as one of the most powerful militaries in the world, is it? A very large number of troops is not necessarily a powerful army.
Speaker A
No, it's not. That's right. But and I'm not. And by the way, it's hard to know exactly how powerful the Russian military is. It's very easy to know how powerful the the British military is, which is not at all. So like what is
Speaker A
this? Everyone thought the Russian military was sufficiently powerful that it could roll up Ukraine in a fortnight and it failed.
Speaker A
Well, they could send hypersonic missiles into Kiev today and end the war. Were relying on Putin's restraint not to do that. They could also nuke Ukraine if they wanted. They could, but that would be I'm just saying as as a material fact
Speaker A
they have restrained themselves to a land war with people where they were thought to be overwhelmingly powerful and they've turned out not to be. Well, they could be overwhelming powerful if they wanted to. Like this afternoon, well, they use nuclear weapons, but
Speaker A
without they use hypersonic weapons, which can't be stopped. If if they took it up to an enormous stage, but actually in 2022, people thought Russia would walk in and roll up Ukraine within a fortnight. That's all the Do you disagree that they could, if they
Speaker A
wanted to today, end this war? Of course they could. Well, I think if they took it to another level, they would they would risk if you keep pushing them, they'll do it.
Speaker A
And maybe that's the basis of this conversation which is why are you pushing them to I'm not pushing them. I'm pushing us to be prepared because they are making attacks on the west and we know this they are making cyber
Speaker A
attacks. They are making but do you see a connection between what the west is doing and Russia's attacks on the west or is this just what would be the other explanation for why they're the reason for Russia going into
Speaker A
Ukraine? uh what allowed them to do it was our weakness earlier over the Crimea and that made it look as if we didn't really care and then it turned out that we did care.
Speaker A
I never cared for the record at all. So that's my position. You see, I cared because we had signed a treaty about the nuclear weapons being given up by Ukraine as had your country and that as it was overwhelmingly in our
Speaker A
interests, expect you to agree with this for Ukraine not to be a nuclear power.
Speaker A
We didn't want small You keep referring to an event from 35 years ago that is one small part of a long no. This is fundamental because Russia would Russia would not have evaded invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons.
Speaker A
Well, Ukraine being the most corrupt country in Europe might have already sold those nuclear weapons to bad actors around the world, which is one of the reasons that the United States forced them to get rid of them. I was there for
Speaker A
this. I remember I'm not denying this. I'm not denying that Ukraine has had enormous corruption. And still, I'm saying that's why the rest of the world felt Ukraine could not be trusted, not because we didn't want them to have
Speaker A
sovereignty, but because we wanted to protect their sovereignty and for them not to have nuclear weapons. because we didn't want smaller states to have nuclear weapons. We could live with Russia and China and India and Pakistan and Israel and the UK and
Speaker A
France having nuclear weapons, but we didn't want But I feel like we're at a culde-sac right now.
Speaker A
This is fundamental because that you have to go back to why is it in our interest for Ukraine's territorial integrity to be maintained? First of all, because the nation state is the fundamental of global order. Without the nation state, there is no global order.
Speaker A
not an internationalist. And then there is the issue of is America's word worth anything. Do you have an interest? If you persuade a state to give up nuclear weapons and say that you believe its territorial integrity should be maintained and you
Speaker A
are signary to that treaty, does that matter? Or do you just sign these things?
Speaker A
We have never signed a treaty. Well, we haven't. And that we have. So we haven't you're not listening. No obligation. You seem you you seem to be devoid of nuance that the two questions are not the same. Just because you've
Speaker A
signed a treaty does not automatically commit you to fighting a war doesn't suggest the course of action that you're suggesting. So the treaties to this the treaty is pretty important.
Speaker A
Here's what I'm saying. Let me ask you an interest in the territorial integrity. Let me ask you this question. There's a hierarchy of responsibility uh that a nation and an individual faces. We've got all kinds of obligations but we have to put them in
Speaker A
order of importance. And you seem to be suggesting that a nation's obligation is to something called the international order.
Speaker A
No. Over and above the interest of its own population. I don't agree. No, that's not what I've said. The national interest is my biggest concern.
Speaker A
Okay. And the national interest is served overwhelmingly by the integrity of nation states. Is do you have majority support for war with Russia here in the UK?
Speaker A
Majority support for what? A war with Russia. Nobody wants to go to war with Russia.
Speaker A
Okay. But that's why there's increasing support in this country for building up our military so that we are able to defend ourselves.
Speaker A
Why would you do that? Well, you just spend more money on it. You recruit more soldiers.
Speaker A
Owning a home has always been the core of the American dream. It's the asset that families work their lives to build.
Speaker A
Place of stability, security, and actual wealth. But too many homeowners right now are stuck swiping credit cards to cover groceries, paying a survival tax of 20% interest or more. So, we're against it. We always say that, but you
Speaker A
can't buy a house without debt right now. Almost anybody has to take out a loan. So, the question is, who you going to get a loan from? Why are you handing your money to big banks when you can
Speaker A
keep it for your family? Our friends at American Financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners tap into their hard-earned equity. They're supporting Americans looking to fulfill the American dream of owning a home.
Speaker A
American Financing saves its customers an average of 800 bucks a month. That's nearly $10,000 a year. It's not just a loan. It's a total financial reset. And so, American Financing is worth looking at. They're called America's Home for
Speaker A
Home Loans for a reason. Find out more at 800685696. 800685-5696 or visit americanfancing.net/tucker. So if you go from a fighting force of under 19,000, which is bigger than Estonia's, which is 5,000, but still somewhat less than the 3 and a
Speaker A
half million in the Russian army. Um, how much would that cost and where would the money come from?
Speaker A
Well, there's plenty of money. We're just spending it all on welfare at the moment. We're about to spend 400 billion pounds a year on welfare.
Speaker A
On welfare, what specifically what you mean by welfare? Well, welfare benefits people who are out of work. Some of that's on pensions, but our welfare benefit system has been ballooning. If we could take even a part of that
Speaker A
and you could spend that on bombs. So, what are you doing? That's a fair point, right? We've got a crazy welfare system.
Speaker A
I mean, this country is not being wellrun. We are spending much more money than we have. And our defense spending is pitifully low. It's even lower than it seems because we're at 2.7% of GDP.
Speaker A
Is there a public demand for more defense spending? The public is getting increasingly worried. The world is getting Do you think that the average Britain, if given the choice between food and housing assistance or unemployment benefits, would instead choose to forgo
Speaker A
those in favor of more bombs? I think the country at large is deeply fed up with people on welfare who have made it who have made it a lifestyle.
Speaker A
I bet that's true. But do you think if you put it up to a vote, a national referendum, I think you would find that people want defense and that they'd be willing to reduce social spending.
Speaker A
I think they want to reduce social spending anyway. Okay. I think they might rather have the social spending in tax cuts, but people are deeply fed up. Do you know in this country there are 6 million wonderful people who we should really admire who
Speaker A
work even though they would be better off on benefits. Oh, I'm I'm aware and I would never defend your disease tax at all. I agree.
Speaker A
This is crazy. No, no, I'm I'm in full agreement with you. The question is, should you take that dividend, that savings, and spend it on a pointless war that you can't possibly win that will only get your citizens? won't fight a war if we are
Speaker A
defended. So to what extent would you have to increase the size of your military to intimidate Russia which possesses nuclear and hypersonic weapons?
Speaker A
Putin it's not a question of intimidating. We're not trying to intimidate Russia because we wouldn't succeed in intimidating Russia.
Speaker A
I'm totally confused. Okay. It's a question of being taken seriously. What's the difference? Putin did not take Ukraine seriously. He thought he could invade it and take it over very quickly.
Speaker A
What's the difference between intimidating someone and and being taken seriously? I thought they're identical concepts, aren't they? I don't think they are. Intimidation.
Speaker A
They'll just be impressed by your resolve. In intimidation is throwing is suggesting that you are intending to be aggressive.
Speaker A
It's suggesting there's a penalty for messing being That's right. No, no, I don't think that is right. I think intimidating is showing that you want to be aggressive whereas um showing resolve.
Speaker A
Scaring someone off. I'm armed. Back off. That's I'm armed. So, it's not in your interest to do anything.
Speaker A
That's okay. So, we're saying the same thing. We're saying broadest sense, but I don't think it is intimidating because different forms of because we're not going to intimidate Russia, nor do we want to.
Speaker A
But you're going to you want to tell Russia if you mess with the UK, it's just not worth it.
Speaker A
We're scary enough that like go pick on someone else. That's Well, ideally, don't pick on anybody.
Speaker A
But how much do you think you would from the condition of the British mil military right now like how much would you have to spend? How many people would have to join the British military in order to have that effect on Russia?
Speaker A
Well, it's a question of building up our overall defense expenditure. The interim target is 3 and a half% of GDP. Whether that's enough is highly debatable, but it's much more about equipment than it is about numbers.
Speaker A
Okay. So, you wouldn't have to have a larger fighting force. I I I'd be very surprised if you needed it, but it's not going to be a war on British soil.
Speaker A
Russia is not going to invade Britain. It's got a long way to go to get here.
Speaker A
It's a question about working. We could take out your capital city instantly. It could, but then we could take out Moscow. I mean, if if you want to get to nuclear war, but the reason we don't get to nuclear war is that both sides are
Speaker A
armed. So, you're totally convinced that Russia would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstances offensively? One could never go that far. The whole point of well both Russia and the United States, President Trump are both openly threatening to use offensive nuclear
Speaker A
weapons, both to use tactical nuclear weapons at the moment, lowuc nuclear weapons. They're the same thing. Just and the reason the Cold War strategy worked is because deterrence work. But to make deterren work, you have to be strong. And there is no deterrent really
Speaker A
if you go from step one to nuclear weapons in one fell swoop. If your only real defense if Russia does something in Poland or Estonia is to go to nuclear war, nobody's going to take you seriously on that. No one's going to go
Speaker A
from No one's going to take you seriously if you use a nuclear weapon. I think they will take you very seriously.
Speaker A
No, no, they're not going to take you seriously that you would use a nuclear weapon because it wouldn't be proportionate.
Speaker A
So tell me how this plays out. You've got to have the interim levels of defense as well. You can't just go from we're all pacifists, but if you really do something nasty, we'll nuke you because nobody will believe that you
Speaker A
would use the nuclear bomb in those circumstances because the um level of aggression would not be high enough. So would it be worth using a nuclear weapon against Russia to preserve the world order and to deter territorial aggression against sovereign states like
Speaker A
I think ultimately nuclear weapons serve a very useful purpose as being the final threat useful in what way to useful that that the whole cold war strategy worked.
Speaker A
Russia and America did not go to war because both sides realized that the other could wipe them out.
Speaker A
talked about using nuclear weapons. But but is using nuclear the actual use of nuclear weapons is that ever justified?
Speaker A
I think justified in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes. I think it was justified in bringing the Second World War to an end. Yes. Unquestionably.
Speaker A
Unquestionably. Unquestionably. Yes. I thought the the um number of lives are So it's justified to kill people who did nothing wrong.
Speaker A
Well, we're not talking about people who did nothing wrong. That the Japanese populations of crowded cities are not responsible for the war. women and children getting we were we were in a state of total war.
Speaker A
Okay. Well, I I think we were not in a state of total war. Actually, there were no Japanese troops on American soil. We were not in a state of total war. That's not even close to a state of total war.
Speaker A
They had attacked um American soil four years before and then they were losing. But we were not in a state of total war. And but I'm asking you a theological question which is is it ever allowed under the precepts of say Christianity
Speaker A
to kill people who did nothing wrong to kill women and children. Does it meet Aquinus's um test of a just war?
Speaker A
It does not. I think it does. How? Well, um are you legitimate authority? Yes, you are. Uh is it an important cause? Yes, because you have been attacked and you're defending yourself.
Speaker A
And is it proportionate? Yes, because it actually shortens the duration of the war. That's not the definition of proportionate. Proportionate means that you're responding in a way that is not grandly larger than the initial attack.
Speaker A
the the um overall other words, if I you punch me in the face, I can't shoot you.
Speaker A
The um yes, but this is different means of killing people. But I'm zeroing out.
Speaker A
You're not talking about a punch in the face. You're talking about is it legitimate that talking about killing people's kids?
Speaker A
Nothing to do with it. That's okay. Because why? We were at war with the whole country.
Speaker A
We're at war with the kids and it ended the war. Yes. The Japan was at war with the United States and the United Kingdom. We were So if another nation says they're at war with us, it's okay to kill our kids.
Speaker A
But we don't want to be at war with other nations. No, I'm asking an abstract question.
Speaker A
Clearly fluent. It's not a ridiculous English question. Um, Japan had attacked the United States had its kids attacked.
Speaker A
Started a war. Why not kill the people who started the war? And um, well, we did in the end. We um u the Japanese prime minister tried to commit suicide and we spent ages getting them back to good.
Speaker A
We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima, Nagasaki. And you're saying the war? Well, I think it was justified. I think the nucle use of nuclear weapons at the end of the second.
Speaker A
So what you're saying as a Christian is yes, it is okay to children who did nothing wrong.
Speaker A
Do you feel that that is a Christian position? Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of just war.
Speaker A
Really? Has any pope since Aquinus uh confirmed that? Have there been any papal statements saying yes under certain circumstances it's okay to kill other people's kids.
Speaker A
The the church has preached for centuries that there are conditions of adjust. I don't think there any statement since 1945 from and I'm not Catholic so you know I'm not an expert but you are. So you tell me there's
Speaker A
as a Catholic you think that the church endorses killing people's kids. Since 1945, there's only been one explicitly um ex catheter statement by the Holy Sea by the Holy Father.
Speaker A
I guess the question is if you are willing to kill non-combatants who committed no crime if you're willing to murder the innocent, then in what sense are you better than the people you were fighting?
Speaker A
Well, that once a war is engaged with the whole point of what I'm talking about to go back to the opening part of your question. Finish the thought once.
Speaker A
We'll come back to it because it's to avoid war and you avoid war by being strong. Once you're in war, you are justified in winning the war.
Speaker A
You can behave like an animal once the war starts. If the risk to you is sufficient, you can use nuclear weapons. I think that is morally justifiable. I mean, even leaving aside the details of America's use of those two bombs, there was no
Speaker A
risk to the United States. Japan was in no condition to invade the United States. It never put troops on our shores. So, there was no risk.
Speaker A
It attacked you, but it wasn't likely to put It detected territory. Yes. Right. And state. Oh, was it state? There wasn't state then. Of course, you're quite right.
Speaker A
In December 14, but the point is we were not at risk from an invasion by Japan in any sense. Okay. It was a defeated nation. We already firebombed Tokyo.
Speaker A
Yes. Uh multiple times. You see, that's where do you think the firebombing of Tio is justified?
Speaker A
I don't think killing the innocent is ever justified under any circumstances. And I think the basis of Western civilization is justice for the individual. I believe that blood, guilt, and group punishment are anothetical to our entire civilization. They're the things we
Speaker A
fight against. That's why the Gulog was wrong. That's why what's happening in Gaza is wrong. It's always wrong to kill people who did nothing wrong. And if we don't think that, then on what basis are we administering our own justice systems
Speaker A
that take such exquisite care to punish only the guilty? I don't even understand what you're saying.
Speaker A
I think it's very difficult to have fought the Second World War without innocent people being killed.
Speaker A
I don't know if no one tried, but maybe I never understood why fight the Second World War in the first place.
Speaker A
Well, that's a very fundamental question. Well, how about the First World War? Well, let's stick to the Second World War. No, let's start with the first which we were on the second um the second world war Hitler would have taken as
Speaker A
much as he could have done. Okay. As he was showing and did you really want him well Hitler said that 15% of Poland was once Germany and it was given to Poland at the Treaty of Versail that was German
Speaker A
territory with Germans. That was his case and by the way that was true except except the Polish borders had been cut out.
Speaker A
Look I'm not here to defend Hitler. I'm just saying the idea that Hitler just randomly rolled into Poland is a lie and everyone believes it because they know nothing about the actual facts. But the truth is Germany had big pieces of it
Speaker A
carved off, including part of Prussia and it was given to this other country. Infuriated the Germans. Maybe it shouldn't have, but it did. And that was a justification for it. The UK had nothing to do with it at all. And
Speaker A
destroyed their empire and their country fighting this war that they still pretend was a good idea, but it wasn't.
Speaker A
It was fundamental. It was it was the classic good versus evil. Has the UK benefited from it?
Speaker A
We did the right thing. Is it a better country than it was to have defeated Hitler? Yes.
Speaker A
So the UK is a better country now. It's a healthier country now. We otherwise we'll be speaking German.
Speaker A
I who cares? There are a lot of people in Britain who can't speak English.
Speaker A
So it would be nice to have like at least a European language spoken in your country.
Speaker A
No, I see no advantage of speaking German over any other language. We want to speak English. Thank you so much. But the point is a war should benefit if a war is fought with the children of your citizens which it is
Speaker A
then that war should benefit those citizens and it did benefit this country benefited this country.
Speaker A
Can you tell me how but as I said to you otherwise Germany would eventually have invaded us.
Speaker A
So you um Germany we've had 80 years to assess. Tell me the benefits now sitting 80 years later as the grandson of I'm certain people who fought in that war I am.
Speaker A
Well my grandfather is um too old. He was in the first world war on the second world war and my father was too young.
Speaker A
So we we sort of missed a generation. I'm saying now that we've had and as a as a a lover of history, why don't you tell me the ways in which Britain benefited from and I'm going to use air
Speaker A
quotes here winning the Second World War because from my perspective it looks like the empire ended, India was lost two years later. The United States took over the world and has had troops here ever since. You lost your sovereignty
Speaker A
and your selfrespect and this beautiful country has been destroyed. We certainly didn't lose our self-respect over winning the war. I mean in terms of self-respect though that's a rather ethereal benefit. Our self-respect was hugely maintained by defeating the greatest evil the world
Speaker A
has known. Then why would you allow foreign troops on your soil ever since? Because we wanted to stop the Russians.
Speaker A
Okay. But I mean it's kind of a prerequisite of sovereignty and self-respect not to have foreign soldiers on your soil for 80 years.
Speaker A
They're allies. We're in NATO together. Call them whatever you want, but there's still foreigners on your soil.
Speaker A
Yep. They're very welcome here. I I know that's part of But they're part of defending um our shared interest, which we have, and our shared interest is the nation state. And maintaining its integrity and not having people thinking
Speaker A
because there was a treaty some hundreds of years ago and Poland once had a bit of it that was Germany, we can now say we're going to take it. merely I'm merely saying we cannot we cannot allow you use the phrase nation state but it
Speaker A
has no meaning if the nation state has no sovereignty this nation state has sovereignty how can it have sovereignty when it has foreign troops on its side we were able to um pull out of the European Union that showed us an
Speaker A
exercise in sovereignty you well that's all I WAS ON YOUR SIDE THERE AND I FEEL SO SAD about what happened but my point is if you don't have sovereignty if you can't make decisions that are rooted in the core
Speaker A
interest of your own population, then how are you a nation state? Well, we do make interests that are in the core interests of our population.
Speaker A
Well, you're just telling me that you may need to prepare for a war. Yes.
Speaker A
On behalf of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. And why is that in our interest? Because if the territorial integrity of nation states is surv is is protected, there's much less need for us to go to war.
Speaker A
What about your own integrity? Aren't you aren't you getting invaded by people in boats all the time? Why don't you use a military to protect your own borders?
Speaker A
Oh, look, I'm not going to disagree with you on that. We should definitely be But you're not calling for conscription or defense buildup or 3% of GDP to go to a military response to an invasion of your own country.
Speaker A
I I think you can do it without a military response happens. I I think the Rwanda scheme would have worked.
Speaker A
No, but why not? If you're so willing to commit military force and lives of Britain to defending Ukraine, why not commit them to defending your own country? Because because the the small boats is a civil matter rather than a military matter.
Speaker A
Really? What percentage of your population is foreign born? 19%. 19%. How what was the percentage 20 years ago?
Speaker A
It was about 8%. Okay. What was the percentage 40 years ago? It was 2%. So like, okay, look, I think our immigration policies have been catastrophic. I think we've got it hopelessly wrong.
Speaker A
But it's not immigration, it's an invasion. Um, and so why not use the military? Because actually the small boats is not the biggest part of it. The biggest part of it which is now coming down thankfully but needs to be reduced much further is
Speaker A
legal immigration. But you've also got the problem of visa overstaying which is a massive problem and we don't even know the details of it.
Speaker A
So you're already admitting that you're not a nation state because you can't control who comes in and out of your own country.
Speaker A
No no what I am saying is that there are failures in the administration. Every country has How do we define nation state?
Speaker A
How? Well, let's deal with the first point first. Every nation has crime that takes place in it. This is crime that is taking place in this country. This is civilian crime. It's not military crime.
Speaker A
There are things you can do. As Donald Trump has shown, you can get a grip on the new flow of illegal migrants. It turns out even in America, it'd be very difficult to remove the illegal migrants who are already there.
Speaker A
Well, we're not even trying. Well, there just for the record. Okay. Well, that's I'm glad you said that because it's not for me to um make any disappointment.
Speaker A
The UK is not alone in lacking self-respect, willingness to protect itself. It doesn't stop you being a nation state, but we have a serious political problem of immigration which we need to deal with and particularly of illegal immigration and we need to be deporting.
Speaker A
I'm just not sure what a nation state is because the countries that you have described, Ukraine specifically, which has been completely controlled by NATO and the United States and the US intel agencies since at least 2014 and we know
Speaker A
that it's on tape. How is that a nation state? That's a proxy state. That's a country controlled by a larger power.
Speaker A
Very interestingly, I think um I think you make a very important point about Ukraine.
Speaker A
Um the Ukraine was to a significant extent in 2022 still Russian speaking. Putin has created a strong feeling of Ukrainianism by his attack.
Speaker A
Sure. Yeah. And has strengthened Ukraine as a nation state. It's a very interesting side effect.
Speaker A
That may be right. But I'm I'm I'm merely saying the pretense that Ukraine is this like sovereign country when it's controlled by larger powers is grading because really the choice is between a Ukraine controlled by the east Russia
Speaker A
or the West the United States. That's the choice. No one's actually suggesting Ukraine should be able to make independent decisions. They tried to do that in 2014 and we overthrew the government.
Speaker A
I don't I don't think that's right. I think that the American interest is in having an independent Ukraine that makes its own decisions.
Speaker A
Really? What if an independent Ukraine wanted to link up with Russia because they have a lot more in common with Russia than they do with most of Europe.
Speaker A
I think under current circumstances that is extremely unlikely. Well, it is now. You're right. But in 2014, it was moving that direction and the US government just kind of overthrew the government.
Speaker A
Well, you then got the invasion of um Crimea at about that time and so you got active attack from Russia which was deeply problematic. But I I I I think we're we're beginning to lose um the wood for the trees because
Speaker A
the world is built up of nation states and nation states are the legitimate building blocks. They sometimes are badly governed. They are sometimes dictatorally governed but nonetheless they have an inherent legitimacy. And if you don't believe in the nation state,
Speaker A
what do you replace it with? You replace it with the nation state. That's why I don't believe in NATO.
Speaker A
So we agree we agree on So how is NATO consistent with your your concept of the nation state here? You have a supra because you national organization that's over these NATO is by far and way the best super national organization because
Speaker A
it is a voluntary grouping with no ability to compel. So the nation state retains its nation state capability within NATO. is not like the European Union or the International Criminal Court any of these things which seek to override
Speaker A
your sovereignty by a higher sovereignty. NATO requires the cooperation of states within a structure but they are always the individual nation states except when you're at war when you agree that your troops may be commanded by an ally but we've agreed to
Speaker A
the command of troops by allies in wartime long before uh we had um NATO.
Speaker A
That's that's the norm of international affairs for hundreds. Yeah. I mean, you still give up your own sovereignty because you wind up in a place where you're like, no, really, we have to defend No, you don't because as we were
Speaker A
discussing earlier, Ukraine or Estonia or Ukraine is not a member of NATO. No, but I'm saying I'm aware of that.
Speaker A
I know you are. Um um you don't get obliged to, you get asked to. Article 5 is not.
Speaker A
No, I understand that and that's that's important. Like we just let's just reinsert common sense here. I just want to tie a bow on our previous conversation which is how specifically did the UK benefit from its heroic victory in the Second World War?
Speaker A
Like what are the material or spiritual benefits? Like what how do you see this country as better than it was in 1945?
Speaker A
Well, I I think if you think of it in terms of peace, there has now been peace in Europe between the major nations since 1945.
Speaker A
And in the history of the UK, our prosperity has always depended upon peace. So we So is this a richer country than it was in 1945?
Speaker A
Much richer. Materially much richer. Really? Oh yeah. GDP growth per cap GDP growth from 1945. What was the unemployment rate um in 1945?
Speaker A
Everyone was in the of course war, right? It's unfair question. I agree with that.
Speaker A
But we've we've got much more welfare. I'm not saying we've got no problems, but has our GDP grow grown in real terms of national strength or prosperity at all.
Speaker A
It is of prosperity. Of course not. It's it's a measurement of money. How much money is in the system, but it doesn't account for where it goes.
Speaker A
Okay. We are better fed. We are better housed. We have um conveniences that weren't even thought of in 1945.
Speaker A
Happier country. Happiness is a different concept. Suicide rate, higher or lower? Oh, it's much higher.
Speaker A
Well, that actually depends. Um the thing about suicide is that it depends on uh the reporting of the rate. In 1945, there's much more stigma around suicide and therefore people were much more likely to was a Christian country. Now it's mostly
Speaker A
atheist country. Yes. Yes. I think that's great tragedy. Yeah. Um but the point is I mean you're an Episcopalian, aren't you? But but you don't believe in half things the Episcopalian church now says.
Speaker A
I don't believe in witchcraft. So No. Nor do I. No. I'm out on that question.
Speaker A
You want to come over to Rome? Well, I certainly believe uh in Rome's position on murdering innocents. I'm totally opposed. So I admire I admire that. Whether in the womb or in Hiroshima, they're against it and so am
Speaker A
I. I I think the killing of the unborn child is the greatest tragedy of the West.
Speaker A
But you bottom line think I just want to get this on tape. You think the UK is a stronger, better country now than it was in 1945? Yes, I do. I think we have all sorts of problems. I think we have bad
Speaker A
governments. I think immigration has been terribly badly handled. I think we have too much state control. But of course, in 1945, we had masses of state control. Um, and I think there are huge ways in which we can improve the
Speaker A
country. But are we a better country in 1945? Are we a better country for the fact that we defeated Nazism? Yes. I think Hitler was one of the great evils the world ever saw and it was a good
Speaker A
thing to ensure that that was destroyed because it would have destroyed us otherwise. Yeah. I'm against the Nazis, against Hitler. I don't think it was a good thing for you uh at all. But, you know, I don't live here. So, I'll I'll leave
Speaker A
it. I also I don't think you you mentioned touched on India. I think it was very unlikely that we would have kept India much longer anyway because the first world war India was going the first world war is a
Speaker A
different question. Okay. So but without even getting into all of this I'm just trying to get to the core question here which is is it worth it? So Britain lost I think just in deaths in the Second World War I
Speaker A
40 450,000 maybe. Okay. But let me the point you've really challenged me on is the idea that being prepared deters war.
Speaker A
The experience of the UK in 1914 and in 1939 was that because we were thought to be soft, our enemy didn't take us seriously.
Speaker A
You joined both of those wars. You were not attacked in either war. We joined both of those wars. Um what are you even talking about? the the the Kaiser knew that there was the guarantee to Belgium and he thought the
Speaker A
British wouldn't do anything about it. He thought we weren't interested. We would not do anything. So you went, so so we we we unfortunately our enemy in 1914 and in 1939 on both occasions thought we were weak and a
Speaker A
feat and would cave and therefore felt it was free to So you're saying to protect Belgium, it was worth destroying all of Europe and losing 1.5 million Britons.
Speaker A
You don't always listen if I'm talking. What I said was that the enemy felt free to invade because we were seen to be weak.
Speaker A
That's not the same as saying it's the right thing to do. Attacked them. They did not attack you.
Speaker A
If Well, we went to help the French. If we you attacked them. We had a treaty with Belgium, but we went to help the French who were falling back remarkably quickly in August 19.
Speaker A
But you attacked the Germans. They did not attack you. They attacked Belgium with whom we had a treaty on their way through to attack France.
Speaker A
But can't you take a big picture of you and answer the question. Was it worth losing?
Speaker A
No, because I I'll happily come to that question. But I'm trying to make a point that you seem to wish to refuse to make allow me to make that had we in 1914 been projecting strength. Had the Kaiser
Speaker A
thought there was a big British army and the British will take this seriously, he would not have gone through Belgium. And if he had not gone through Belgium, we would not have gone to war. And it is the projection of strength that avoids
Speaker A
war. And this is what we should be doing now. We should learn from history that if your enemy thinks you are weak, then you find you get into war by accident.
Speaker A
If you show that you are strong, then the invasion doesn't take place. And if Hitler had thought we were strong, then Poland would not have been invaded.
Speaker A
Hitler did not want to go to war with the UK. He thought we wouldn't do anything about Poland. as we done nothing repeatedly said I do not want to go to war with the UK acknled as we done
Speaker A
nothing about Czechoslovakia he thought we'd do nothing about you acknowledged that Hitler said repeatedly in public and through diplomacy I do not want you seem to be putting more trust in Hitler than I would he said all sort
Speaker A
he signed an agreement with Neville say that I really don't care what he said because he said to he signed a piece of paper with Neville Chamberlain saying he would not invade I'm very surprised you're verging on defending Hitler I think this
Speaker A
is not really what you want to be doing yeah I guess I'm just a secret Nazi Um, I'm actually not a secret Nazi.
Speaker A
I'm reassured. And hardly a public Nazi. I'm someone who tries to think clearly about cause and effect.
Speaker A
Yes. And this is the point. The cost of the first world war is going unagnowledged by you. So the high school you went to is called Eaton. Eaton lost,00 This is a high school,00 students from just from one school.
Speaker A
It was,200. Was it 1200? Okay. We we we effectively lost a full 5-year period if you ever gave me.
Speaker A
Well, you lost the entire nation and all of Christian Europe. You ought to go and speak at Eaton.
Speaker A
I don't think I would be welcome at Eaton. Oh, I'm sure. Um I doubt it.
Speaker A
I think you would. Um but here's my point. And if you do, you should go to the college chapel because it is the most moving thing as you go past this list of names of all the people who were killed
Speaker A
and it is equivalent to a full five-year cohort. And you don't think that's a waste? I I I haven't actually answered your question on whether it was right to go to war in the first world war. I think
Speaker A
it's a very different question from the second world war. But when you see those boys names, it was terrible.
Speaker A
But can anyone look at their mothers and say your son died for a good cause protecting Belgium?
Speaker A
Which we'd created. Um it's always worth reminding the Belgians that. Um and Queen Victoria seems like a bigger lesson to me. I think the lesson is the war would not have happened if we had projected strength.
Speaker A
Who knows? But we know that the war wasn't worth fighting in the first place. And that seems like the overriding lesson.
Speaker A
I think I think the difficulty I can draw many lines in the sand. It matters at what point I do that right.
Speaker A
If you if you appear strong both sides during cold war the whole time appeared strong and therefore there was no hot war.
Speaker A
The lesson I would draw is the appearance of strength is the best guarantor of peace. The Kaiser referred to the contemptable little army that we've sent over.
Speaker A
Why would you draw the line there? Because he thought it was meaningless. But why do you care?
Speaker A
Why was the first world war necessary? Um, in traditional British political terms, it was to maintain a balance of power on the continent because we felt threatened otherwise. and we felt threatened by Germany in our imperial possessions and by the buildup of the
Speaker A
German Navy. I I'm not clear that the First World War was the right war to fight. I am clear the Second World War was, but what I'm connection between the wars.
Speaker A
Um this is the question really of the Treaty of Versailles. The really interesting thing on the Treaty of Versailles is we make the terrible mistake of letting the French lead the negotiations because if you go back to the Congress of Vienna which was led by
Speaker A
um Castle Ray, Castle Ray's peace treaty with France, Napoleon said these are the terms I would have given Britain had I defeated Britain. We were so generous that Napoleon himself said these were as generous as terms as he would have given
Speaker A
had he won and that led to 100 years of peace. So I don't think we make a catastrophic mistake in versail. Yes, of course we did. But there's a great difference between seeing why things happen and viewing that as a
Speaker A
justification. And we would critical difference is being willing to apologize for mistakes. We would have avoided the Second World War if we had been strong and if we had rearmed earlier. And that's my worry now is that we aren't learning the lessons of how we
Speaker A
got into those two world wars because we are weak and we do not have the defense expenditure.
Speaker A
I just I mean not to get crazy with alternate history or whatever, but you've just described two wars that killed millions and millions and millions of people, tens of millions of people and totally destroyed your country and depopulated it in some
Speaker A
places. And both of them were initiated in the defense of small basically irrelevant countries that are not contiguous to Britain. that you had no co cultural history with. You had no connection to whatsoever. And on the basis of some theory that you keep
Speaker A
repeating 80 years later, you destroyed your entire country and got millions of people killed. Maybe that's one lesson.
Speaker A
We really didn't destroy the entire country that um there was a very large cost. But I think you need to go back go back to the Napoleonic wars. Were the Napoleonic wars worth fighting? Is it worth trying to stop a dictator having a
Speaker A
commanding position in Europe? And it has usually been seen to be in British interests to stop that happening.
Speaker A
Do you think that as in business the cost needs to be part of the calculation, the potential cost? So you're a businessman, right? So you don't you don't just look at the potential upside course and that's absolutely right. And
Speaker A
this is why I was going on about the Congress of Vienna because the Congress of Vienna led to 100 years of European peace. So we got the peace right after we'd got the war right. In the first world war, whether or not we got the war
Speaker A
right is a arguable point, but we unequivocally got the peace wrong. And that then didn't lead to, you see, we got the peace of the second world war right and have had 80 years of peace since pretty much the wars that have
Speaker A
taken place within Europe have been sideshows and that allows for prosperity. So if you get stability that is hugely beneficial for your country.
Speaker A
So you did a segment on GB news recently which precipitated this conversation actually in which you were speaking with a former labor adviser whose name I can't remember um but more on on the other side of British politics from you and you but
Speaker A
you're both in agreement that we need to confront Russia. We can't it's the most important thing to restrain this monster poop.
Speaker A
I don't want to confront Russia. I just want us to be prepared. I don't want us to be aggressive. Well, the UK is confronting Russia because it's funding we're helping funding the No, it's fighting a war against Russia right now.
Speaker A
We're helping Ukraine defend the its territorial integrity in Russia. Anyway, you are you can No, no, no. They're fighting a war. You are fighting a war.
Speaker A
We are not fighting war with Russia, but Ukraine is and we are supporting Ukraine, but we are not directly at war with Russia.
Speaker A
Your citizens haven't died yet in great numbers. But I I would argue that the United States and Britain are both fighting a war against Russia because if we are, we should do it properly because I don't think we are. And in
Speaker A
that conversation, he said, "The first thing we're going to need to do, not in Russia, but here in the UK, is round up people who disagree with the program and put them in jail." And I was finding a historical precedent
Speaker A
for that, but I can't think that this is necessary. All good, all right. Now, the British government did that in the Second World War immediately.
Speaker A
It did in the Second World War. I knew a wonderful man, amazing man. uh now gathered to his father's uh who was rounded up in uh 1939 when war was declared was put in an enemy aliens camp um and in Shropshire
Speaker A
um and he was German Jewish and all Germans were round up. He was a fighting age. The day he left the camp he joined the British army and he ended the war as a brigadier. Amazing.
Speaker A
Yeah, he sounds like a very forgiving man. He was a wonderful man. He sounds it. Um, but I'm not talking about people who are rounded up as potential foreign nationals.
Speaker A
We can't round up people for their expression opinions. And people must be free to oppose.
Speaker A
But the British government has never apologized for violating its own ancient principles by rounding up not simply members of the opposition party, but their families.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. And I'm talking about the Mosley, but also everyone who worked with the Mosley, all the whole leadership and their wives. And no one's ever apologized for that. And it does raise the question in America. You arrested the Japanese,
Speaker A
didn't you? Hundreds of thousands of them. Some of them, in fact, I think I think the majority were American citizens.
Speaker A
And does America apologize for that? Yes, but not enough. As far as I'm concerned, you can't arrest your own citizens because of how they look. Like, that's what we're fighting against.
Speaker A
Not going to disagree with you on that. So if there was an attempt, and there has been an attempt already in Britain to penalize people for opposing a war with Russia, George Galloway was accused of being a foreign agent or
Speaker A
something. He's from here as you know. I know George. Yeah. You think he's a foreign agent?
Speaker A
No, I don't think George is a foreign agent. George is a very brilliant orator and an interesting political figure.
Speaker A
Yes. One of the best orators in modern British politics. Um his views are completely bonkers, but um that's another matter. We don't need to go into George's.
Speaker A
Yeah, but I mean he's okay. I'm sure he thinks that of you, too. I'm sure he does. I'm sure he does. Um, and you're being very gracious about him as a person. And I, by the way, I He's charming when you meet him.
Speaker A
He's so charming. But the point is the British government, a good Catholic as well.
Speaker A
He is great supporter of the um old life leftist rather wonderfully. He met Pope Francis and told him, I heard this on the grape vine, so I hope it's true. He told him that he shouldn't be so mean about the
Speaker A
Latin mass. So, um, I'm rather pro George Galloway. I am too. But the point is George Galloway can't live in the nation of his birth because he opposes George should be free to say what he says um what he wants. We should I'm I'm
Speaker A
very worried as a much broader point about free speech in this country. Uh we can't simply adopt a first amendment because with an uncodified constitution it doesn't work. But we have historically protected freedom of speech through the way politicians have behaved
Speaker A
and we are now attacking freedom of speech and I'm deeply concerned about that. Of course, if people want to be Russian apologists, they should be free to do so and they will be ridiculed for it.
Speaker A
But they should be free to do so. Should journalists be should Britains be allowed to watch RT or any other news source they want to in their own country?
Speaker A
Of course they should. Good. I'm very against banning things. Um, if you think of Lord Horhore in the Second World War, Germany calling, Germany calling. Um, he was a source of ridicule and actually the more people listened to
Speaker A
him, the more ridiculous they thought the Germans were. So I would never ban things because you get propaganda broadcast to you and you laugh at it. The British laugh at most things most of the time. Of course, if we had RT coming through all the
Speaker A
time, we'd be giggling at it thinking that's rum old stuff. I think that's a that's a that's a wise and evolved point. My final question to you is if for whatever reason Britain's war and America's war against Russia
Speaker A
provokes Russia into responding against the UK and the United States and I pray that that doesn't happen. But if it does and Britain are killed, will you be able to say to their surviving loved ones it was worth it that your child died? This
Speaker A
is the most important question. Is a war worth your own life? Yes. And the freedom of the United Kingdom is certainly worth my rather elderly life.
Speaker A
It won't be much use to anybody. But you cannot say this country must be strong and must be ready to go to war without thinking that if it came to a bomb dropping on your house, that is a bomb
Speaker A
you would have to accept. I just don't understand given what you've already just conceded that the government of the United Kingdom is punishing and prohibiting people and ideas it doesn't like. Russia is not doing that. So how is
Speaker A
what to you? You can't say in Russia it's doing it in spades. It's beating people up. It's restoring them. It's murder.
Speaker A
Well, it's no your citizens poisoned people in this country. Russia has put fewer people in jail in the last year for they just social media posts than the UK have.
Speaker A
They just accidentally fall out of windows in Russia. Look of nobody say anything. If you're a Britain, neither of us live in Russia.
Speaker A
But if you're a Britain, you live in this country and your ancestors have lived here for thousands of years.
Speaker A
The threat to your freedom comes from your government, not Russia. I am not in favor of the way um free speech is being policed in this country.
Speaker A
So why not try to overthrow your government? Well, I hope to stand at the next election. We have a democracy that functions.
Speaker A
But if they're oppressing you, if you can't say what you think, that's oppression. They're not oppressing um anything that I have tried to say. But I think Wait a second. That's not how free speech. I I'm aware of that, but I need
Speaker A
to continue that they are applying laws to my mind um much too rigorously on people who are saying things that are unpleasant but not dangerous.
Speaker A
So you agree with that? Um I'm not saying anything that is bordering on that. I'm not justifying acts of violence. I'm not pointing towards violence. I'm not doing any of those sorts of things. I think a state is entitled to say that if you put on
Speaker A
the internet um let's go and string up Mr. X that that should be illegal.
Speaker A
But I don't think it should be illegal to say I wish Mr. X were strung up.
Speaker A
Exactly. And that's the standard that we have in the United States. And unfortunately we have been eliding the two and people have been prosecuting for expressing a desire rather than threatening an action. Well, you're being very generous to your own
Speaker A
government. Many people have been prosecuted for expressing views that don't touch on violence at all.
Speaker A
There have been completely mad policemen who have gone around to people who've been rude about school teachers or praying outside abortion clinics.
Speaker A
Uh, which is dreadful. So, my question is why is that not a much bigger problem than anything Russia is doing to you?
Speaker A
Because we have a functioning democracy. We'll have a general election and I hope we will have a conservative government that will um restore freedom of speech.
Speaker A
Because I think people are getting increasingly angry about how their freedom of speech, how could it be a functioning democracy without freedom of speech?
Speaker A
Well, because the limits that there are at the moment are to my mind wrong and should not be allowed, but they are not affecting normal political discourse.
Speaker A
You know that um I'm very against people praying outside abortion clinics being arrested. I think it's quite improper and is against freedom of speech, but that is not at risk of determining a general election.
Speaker A
They are not stopping people from saying um I I think Andy Burnham is a useless prime minister. There's no there's no threat of that. So there are there's some overzealous enforcement of laws that are meant to stop um harassment
Speaker A
which to my mind go much too far. But there has been as yet no attempt to stop free political speech.
Speaker A
Really? So if I say free Palestine, if you say free Palestine, I can get from the river to the sea. I want Palestine to be free, which I don't say, but I I don't know why you wouldn't say that.
Speaker A
I can be arrested for that in the UK. Many have been. Well, I think they've only been arrested for saying that if they've been saying it in a way that appears to threaten violence on marches. Don't think they if
Speaker A
you put that on your Twitter. Elderly women have been arrested. I don't think they pose a Well, I happen to think this has been completely stupid that that they banned whatever the organization is called Palestine Action, I think.
Speaker A
Um, and then they've arrested elderly people who belong to it, which has made the government look stupid. That that's But what about the elderly people? What about them? Who cares about the government? Look, the good government is stupid,
Speaker A
right? I mean, the reason this matters is that governments have power to stop terrorist organizations. Quite right. They need to have that power. But what they've done um with Palestine action is confused the people who support it politically with the people who are bad
Speaker A
people who want acts of violence and therefore they've arrested elderly people who to my mind very silly people but nonetheless are entitled to their view. I I don't think the arrest of people for um uh supporting a political
Speaker A
view is right. I do think it is reasonable to arrest people who propose and prepare acts of terrorism.
Speaker A
I agree. So, we're agreeing on that. But yes, um the there has been overzealous efforts.
Speaker A
And as I say, I think it's made the government look very foolish. And this is one of the great things about having freedom of press and so on which we still have is that governments when they are overzealous which is in the nature
Speaker A
of government doesn't really work because they get to look ridiculous. I hope you're right. I I'm not pessimistic about the ultimate success of free speech in this country.
Speaker A
Um well I'm I'm rooting for that and I'm rooting for the country itself and I'm rooting for peace and I hope you don't pick a fight with Russia. We're not picking with Russia. We just want to be strong.
Speaker A
And I am grateful for all the time that you have spent graciously. It's been a pleasure to meet you entertaining my nasty questions.
Speaker A
No, they're not nasty at all. I don't I don't have a concept of nasty question.
Speaker A
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Respoke. Thank you. And thank you truly for your graciousness.
Speaker A
Pleasure. Pleasure. Thank you.
Topics:Tucker CarlsonRussiaUnited KingdomUkraine warNATO Article 5Budapest Memorandumnuclear deterrenceSalisbury poisoninggeopoliticsinterview
