“Prepare for War” - Tucker Confronts Britain’s Most Pro-War Advocate

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 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 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 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. >> Why do why would Putin want to threaten Britain? >> Well, he is threatening Britain, really. >> 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? >> 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 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 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 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. 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 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. >> 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 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 so much lower that the total GDP of Russia is smaller than that of the United Kingdom. >> 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 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. >> 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. >> Okay. >> But it still doesn't explain why Russia would benefit from fighting with the UK. >> 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 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. >> 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 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 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? >> 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. 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 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 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. >> 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. >> Right. Except Iraq isn't didn't have nuclear weapons. >> But do you believe in territorial integrity of nation states? >> 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? >> 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. >> 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, Russia, and the United Kingdom that the territorial integrity of Ukraine would be inviable on condition that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. >> Oh, no. You are you are mistaken. The United States has never pledged to go to war with Russia. >> 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. >> So there's a treaty that obligates the United States to fight a war against Russia. >> 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. >> 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. >> 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 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 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 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? And so look, a lot has happened. There was the overthrow of the Ukrainian government by NATO in 2014. 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 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. >> 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 Russia takes Ukraine? >> Because it's strongly in our national interest and indeed of the United States. >> 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? >> 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. >> 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 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 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 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. >> 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. 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 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 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. 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, if you're interested in peace and leadership and diplomacy, then the brink of war is something you ought to watch. 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 another Gulf War in which more than a million people. >> Okay. On the on the second Gulf War, I share exactly. >> 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? >> 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. >> 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 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 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. >> 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 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 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 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. >> Then why does it why do you keep describing Putin as a dictator as distinct from Zalinski who has not been elected? >> 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. >> 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? >> It's up to him how he governs Russia. It is my business when he starts invading neighboring countries. >> 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 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 anyone. >> And this is very sensible. We do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. >> 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. >> I'm merely saying that we can't be surprised by that response because that's just the nature of great powers. 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 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 of the most powerful militaries in the world. A standing army of a million and a half. >> 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. >> 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 this? Everyone thought the Russian military was sufficiently powerful that it could roll up Ukraine in a fortnight and it failed. >> 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 >> 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 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 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. 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 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 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. >> 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 interests, expect you to agree with this for Ukraine not to be a nuclear power. 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. >> 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 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 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 France having nuclear weapons, but we didn't want >> But I feel like we're at a culde-sac right now. >> 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. 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 are signary to that treaty, does that matter? Or do you just sign these things? >> 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 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. >> 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 order of importance. And you seem to be suggesting that a nation's obligation is to something called the international order. >> 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. >> 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? >> Majority support for what? >> A war with Russia. >> Nobody wants to go to war with Russia. >> 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. >> Why would you do that? >> Well, you just spend more money on it. You recruit more soldiers. >> Owning a home has always been the core of the American dream. It's the asset that families work their lives to build. 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 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 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. 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 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 half million in the Russian army. Um, how much would that cost and where would the money come from? >> 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. >> 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 >> 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. 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. >> 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 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. >> 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. >> 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 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. 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 defended. >> So to what extent would you have to increase the size of your military to intimidate Russia which possesses nuclear and hypersonic weapons? >> Putin it's not a question of intimidating. We're not trying to intimidate Russia because we wouldn't succeed in intimidating Russia. >> 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. >> 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. >> They'll just be impressed by your resolve. In >> intimidation is throwing is suggesting that you are intending to be aggressive. >> 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. >> Scaring someone off. I'm armed. Back off. That's >> I'm armed. So, it's not in your interest to do anything. >> 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. >> But you're going to you want to tell Russia if you mess with the UK, it's just not worth it. >> We're scary enough that like go pick on someone else. That's >> Well, ideally, don't pick on anybody. 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? >> 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. >> 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. Russia is not going to invade Britain. It's got a long way to go to get here. 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 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 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 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 from >> No one's going to take you