Podcasts about north atlantic treaty organization

The NATO summit takes place on June 24-25 in The Hague. How should the North Atlantic Treaty Organization deal with American President Donald Trump? Can NATO work in a mode of pleasing and not provoking him? How should the Alliance spend 5 percent of GDP on defense? And what to do with Russia? At the GLOBSEC conference in Prague, I spoke with ⁠Ben Hodges⁠, a former commanding general, United States Army Europe. Listen to our conversation. And if you enjoy what I do, please support me on Ko-fi! Thank you. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ko-fi.com/amatisak

NATO held its 2025 Parliamentary Assembly in Dayton, Ohio between May 22 and 26. Though it promotes itself as a force in defense of peace and security, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's history exposes its true purpose: propping up Western imperialism and hegemony. It's an international body started with the goal of containing and threatening the Soviet Union, and since the fall of the USSR has expanded well out of its target areas of North America and the Northern Atlantic, causing death and destruction from Ukraine and Yugoslavia to Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and beyondNATO is an existential threat to countries that seek to challenge the U.S.-centered status quo and manage their own path of development that doesn't include subservience to the capitalist global order.People from Dayton and around the area recognized the severity of this threat and called for protests outside the Parliamentary Assembly. CovertAction's Rachel Hu was there to cover the events and reports on how the city spent millions of dollars on security, keeping residents away from the summit and holding extravagant fireworks events while people go hungry and don't have their basic needs met on the ground.Support the show

Good evening.  To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans:  I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.  It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.  We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.  They struck at our military and economic nerve centers.  They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.  Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day.  The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing.  The vote in the House was 420 to 1.  For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all.  And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks.  America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.  Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed.  The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels.  A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.  At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai.  And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq.  The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here.  It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.  We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011.  That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.  (Applause.)  Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated.  After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there.  Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government.  Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq.  When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war.  Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.  And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.  After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan.  I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts. Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives.  High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years.  In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.Yet huge challenges remain.  Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards.  There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum.  Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border.  And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.  Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated.  In short:  The status quo is not sustainable. As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger.  Some of you fought in Afghanistan.  Some of you will deploy there.  As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service.  And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.  Now, let me be clear:  There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.  Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.  And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less. This review is now complete.  And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.  After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.  These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.  I do not make this decision lightly.  I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.  We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources.  Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.  And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.  As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars.  I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed.  I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place.  I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.  If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So, no, I do not make this decision lightly.  I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda.  It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.  This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.  In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity.  We must

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) serves as a fundamental institution in shaping international relations, particularly between NATO and the West. Established in the aftermath of World War II, NATO was formed to ensure collective defense and maintain peace among its member states. Its creation responded to the urgent need for a stable and secure geopolitical environment in a world recovering from the devastation of war.  Its member countries agreed to mutual defense commitments, meaning an attack against one would be considered an attack against all. This principle aimed to deter aggression and promote a united front against any adversary. As the alliance grew, NATO adapted its objectives to address new global challenges beyond traditional military threats, such as terrorism and cyber warfare.   Take a listen to what Jimmy and Jean have to say about the formation and evolution of NATO. There is always more to learn!   -Jimmy & Jean

His 14 year-stint at the top of European politics has earned him a distinguished record of domestic and international achievements.Mark Rutte, born in The Hague in 1967, embarked on a career in business after leaving university and held several positions at Unilever.His career in Dutch politics started in 2002, and four years later – as leader of the VVD party – he became prime minister.During his tenure, he steered the Netherlands through times of significant national and global upheaval. From economic crisis, to the coronavirus pandemic.And now, as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 14th Secretary General, he faces his next challenge – leading Europe's response to recent Russia-US talks over Ukraine.Mark Coles takes a closer look at Mark Rutte.Production TeamProducers: Sally Abrahams, Mantej Deol, Chloe Scannapieco Editor: Ben Mundy Sound: Neil Churchill Production Co-ordinators: Maria Ogundele and Sabine SchereckCredits Joint press conference by NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte with the President of Slovakia, Peter Pellegrini, 20 Feb. 2025 Mark Rutte cycles away from his office, on his last day as Prime Minister of the Netherlands, tv47 Yes Minister, BBC TV, Comedy Greats

On today's Top News in 10, we cover:    The House of Representatives' newly created DOGE Subcommittee held its first hearing Wednesday with a focus on the “War on Waste.” The subcommittee is running parallel to President Trump and Elon Musk's audit of the federal government.    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spent Wednesday in Brussels, where he told members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to have a dose of realism about the outcome for Ukraine in its war with Russia.    The White House is turning up the pressure on federal judges who have blocked many of Trump's executive actions. White House press secretary Karoline Levitt spoke about the so-called constitutional crisis between the two branches of government at Wednesday's briefing.    Plus, our news flash:    The U.S. Senate confirmed Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence in a 52-48 vote Wednesday with Sen. Mitch McConnell as the sole Republican in opposition.    Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem retrieved the $59 million that FEMA allocated last week to house illegal aliens in New York City.    Sen. Joni Ernst and Rep. Scott Perry introduced Protecting Taxpayers' Wallet Act to rein in the amount of time federal employees spend on union business.    Keep Up With The Daily Signal    Sign up for our email newsletters: https://www.dailysignal.com/email    Subscribe to our other shows:    The Tony Kinnett Cast: https://www.dailysignal.com/the-tony-kinnett-cast  Problematic Women: https://www.dailysignal.com/problematic-women  The Signal Sitdown: https://www.dailysignal.com/the-signal-sitdown    Follow The Daily Signal:    X: https://x.com/DailySignal  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thedailysignal/  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/  Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@DailySignal  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/DailySignal  Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheDailySignal    Thanks for making The Daily Signal Podcast your trusted source for the day's top news. Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform and never miss an episode.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Human Rights Talks, we talk to Samuel Woolley, the Dietrich Endowed Chair in Disinformation Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. Samuel talks about the role of encrypted messaging apps in spreading mis-and disinformation, how it impacts diaspora communities in particular and democracy more generally, and how some organizations are fighting back. Samuel Woolley is a writer and researcher specializing in the study of automation/artificial intelligence, emergent technology, politics, persuasion and social media. He is currently the Dietrich Endowed Chair in Disinformation Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. Previously he founded the Propaganda Research Lab, Center for Media Engagement at The University of Texas at Austin. He also founded and directed the Digital Intelligence Lab at the Institute for the Future, a 50-year-old think tank based in the heart of Silicon Valley. He also cofounded and directed the research team at the Computational Propaganda Project at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. He has written on political manipulation of technology for a variety of publications including Wired, The Atlantic, Motherboard VICE, TechCrunch, The Guardian, Quartz and Slate. His work has been presented to members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the US Congress, the UK Parliament and to numerous private entities and civil society organizations. 

How will the NATO military alliance and support for Ukraine hold together with Donald Trump in the White House? Also on the programme: the United States will continue to send military support to Israel despite the passing of a deadline for improved conditions in Gaza; and, a conversation with Samantha Harvey, whose novel "Orbital" has won the Booker Prize. (Photo: ETTORE FERRARI/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock (14868645ab) NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte speaks during a joint press conference with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni (not pictured) following their meeting at the Chigi Palace in Rome, Italy, 05 November 2024. Rutte took office as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 14th Secretary General on 01 October 2024.)

The US election is approaching quickly with implications for America's allies in the world. Professors Margarita Šešelgyte (Vilnius University), Daunis Auers (University of Latvia), and Andres Kasekamp (University of Toronto) join a roundtable discussion on the impact that a Kamala Harris or Donald Trump presidency could have on the security and future outlook of the Baltic countries and broader Europe, and how people in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are feeling about the state of democracy in the US. This episode was recorded on September 25, 2024. TranscriptIndra Ekmanis: Thank you everyone for joining me in this discussion today. As we all know, the US presidential campaign has been rather unprecedented on many fronts this cycle. There's been the late change in the candidates at the top of the Democratic ticket from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris. And now we've had already multiple assassination attempts on the Republican candidate Donald Trump.And we know that whatever happens in November will certainly have effects on Americans, but it will also have reverberations around the world. And so I'm very glad to today be in discussion with you all about the potential impacts in the Baltic countries. But before we jump in, I'd like to ask you all to briefly introduce yourselves.Andres Kasekamp: I'm Andres Kasekamp. I'm the Professor of Estonian Studies at the University of Toronto. I used to be the Director of the Estonian Foreign Policy Institute in Tallinn and a Professor at the University of Toronto.Daunis Auers: Hi, I'm Daunis Auers, a professor at the University of Latvia and also the director of a new think tank Certus in Riga.Margarita Šešelgytė: Hello, I'm Margarita Šešelgytė, and I'm a professor of security studies, but also a director of the Institute of International Relations and Political Science at Vilnius University.IE: Well, thank you all. So, I'd like to start with what is perhaps top of mind when people are thinking about the impacts of the US elections on the Baltic countries, and that's security, NATO, and Russia's war in Ukraine.So if we start with NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania marked two decades in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization this year. The alliance itself is now 75 years old, celebrating at its summit in Washington, D.C., hosted by president and at that point in time, still beleaguered Democratic candidate Joe Biden, where Biden underscored NATO unity. And during the summit, it was widely reported that the allies were working to “Trump proof” the Alliance as polls showed that Biden was slipping in the presidential race.Trump, of course, is remembered as deriding the Alliance, threatening to pull out entirely during his presidency. And at the same time, he is also somewhat credited with pushing member states to up their defense spending. With Biden out, of course, the calculus has perhaps changed a little bit.Vice President and now candidate Kamala Harris represents some measure of continuity with the Biden administration, though we know that her foreign policy experience is not necessarily as deep as Biden's. But a Harris presidency would be more compatible theoretically with the tradition of America as a stable leader in the transatlantic relationship.And obviously a strong NATO is critical to the security of the Baltic States. So, I wonder how you perceive the candidate stances on NATO and how they align with Baltic interests.AK: All right, briefly, Trump would be a disaster and Harris, indeed, would represent continuity with, with Biden. It goes back to the nature of the candidates, right, that Trump is a purely transactional individual, and doesn't seem to understand how NATO works.He's always said that the NATO countries owe the Americans money. It's not an organization where you pay a membership fee, so he simply doesn't get it. It is sort of partly true that European members who weren't doing enough spending on their own defense budgets, have been frightened into contributing more.Trump has something to do with it, but it has more to do with Russian aggression, in the region. So starting already in 2014 when Russia seized Crimea, European countries started increasing their spending. With the Harris presidency, it would be sort of more of the same, which is better than Trump, but it's certainly not as good as America could do, because Joe Biden has been failing Ukraine recently and placing these unreasonable restrictions on Ukraine's right to strike at Russian targets to defend itself.And hopefully Harris wouldn't continue that weak kneed policy.DA: I agree with what Andres has said, but I think it's quite interesting to look at the perspective also of Baltic Americans who after all will be voting in the election, unlike, I presume, the three of us—Margarita, Andres and I—who, as not being American citizens won't have a vote in the elections.And traditionally, there's been quite a lot of support for the Republican Party amongst the Baltic diasporas, because during the Cold War, the Republicans were seen as having the strongest backbone in defending Baltic interests. And much of this support actually carried over into the Trump era with a significant portion of Baltic Americans, especially from the older generation, still holding out support for Trump.And what I thought was interesting was that after Trump announced J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential candidate, the attitudes of many Baltic Americans actually changed because a lot of the affection for Trump is deeply personal, connected to his charismatic personality, the way he speaks, the way he does business, the way he calls back, sort of an ancient era of essentially a white America, from the 1950s.J.D. Vance doesn't have this affection. And when J.D. Vance was announced as the vice-presidential candidate, people were bringing out his notorious op-ed in the New York Times on April 12th, which was very defeatist in its nature, calling out various quotes that he had of not really caring who won in the war between Ukraine and Russia.And this was the moment that a number of Baltic Americans turned away from the Republicans and turned towards the Democrats. So, I would perhaps highlight the role of J.D. Vance in furthering support for the Democrats at least amongst the Baltic community in the United States.MS: I totally agree to what has been said already, but then I'd like to look from a more systemic perspective, and just to add to what has been said: We live in a very volatile security situation at the moment and this dynamism, security-wise, will not be changing pretty soon because there are some changes in the balance of power the rivalry between autocracies and democracies.So where do we stand as Baltic countries? We are small countries, and we have a major war in our region. And therefore, for us, it is essentially important to have our allies strong and to have our allies helping us. The United States is our main ally when it comes to security. Yes, we are members of NATO, but in terms of deterring Putin, one has to think about deterrence as a psychological concept.Putin is less afraid of NATO as overall organization than he is afraid of the United States of America. So having this in mind, the one who sits in Washington D.C. in the presidential position for us is essential as well. In Athena, we had already two elections this year, presidential and European Parliament elections, and the parliamentary elections are coming in October.But we're joking that the elections in the United States are more important than the elections in Lithuania and the change would be felt stronger of who comes to power in the United States.Interestingly enough, one of our media outlets just recently published a survey asking Lithuanians: Who would be a better president for Lithuania in the United States, Trump or, Harris? The majority of Lithuanians, 66 percent, said Harris and only 12 indicated that that could be Trump. So, for us, it's very important. It matters. We follow this election very, very closely.And I would say there are two points which are particularly important for Lithuania. Yes, NATO and US presence in the region. And we don't know what position Harris will take or if she will be more involved in the Pacific. But it's about stability. That's important.And another very important question, and it's very intertwined, is the war in Ukraine. And we already heard what Trump was saying about Ukraine, that when he becomes the president, he will seek for a certain deal. And for us Baltics, it's clear that no deal with Putin can be achieved at the moment, and it would be dangerous, and it would endanger our situation. So it's not acceptable.IE: You're actually running into kind of my next question here, which is exactly about Russia and Ukraine. And as we know, the Baltic states have been among the most ardent supporters of Ukraine following the full-scale invasion in 2022. Also, we know that the Baltic leadership has been quite hawkish warning about Russia for some time.And as you just mentioned, Donald Trump has refused to say that he wants Ukraine to end the war. He often talks about his rapport with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Harris, on the other hand, has called Putin a dictator who would, “eat Trump for lunch.” She has condemned the Russia's actions in Ukraine as crimes against humanity and underscored the US commitment.But as you also mentioned, there has been a slow roll of US advanced weaponry and providing the ability for Ukraine to hit targets deeper into Russia, something that is actually being talked about right now at the UN General Assembly.Could you say a little bit more on the candidates' stances on Ukraine and Russia and in the war more broadly, what that means for Baltic leaderships and Baltic publics?DA: I think that the presidential debate, which I think looks like being the only debate between the two candidates, pretty accurately sketched in the difference, between the candidates. President Trump very much was hooked into the Kremlin narrative.He said that he was for peace, which we understand here in Europe as meaning you are for Russia because you bought into the narrative. He even mentioned that the United States holds some responsibility for the war as opposed for it to be a decision made by Russia to invade a sovereign country.I think we quite clearly saw that one of the candidates is, despite the macho image, quite soft on Russia. And the other one is fixing more clearly with the governing elites in the Baltic States perspective on, the war on Ukraine. One thing we should mention, however, there is an undercurrent of support for Trump in the Baltic States.In, Latvia, there is a political party named Latvia First—where did they get that name from—which sits in the parliament in opposition and is clearly Trumpian. They managed to have one MEP (Member of European Parliament) elected to the European Parliament. And in one of the debates, he was asked a very technical question about how he would vote on a trade deal with certain countries.He said, “well, I would do whatever Trump does. If it's good enough for Trump, it's good enough for me.” And he pretty much attached this to any other form of foreign policy. Now, this is a minority party, but we should recognize that there is some support for the Trumpian position albeit not in a governing position in the Baltic states. I'll hand over to Andres now.AK: Well, the same applies for Estonia, where the major opposition party EKRE (Conservative People's Party) on the far right is very clearly Trumpian. There's also, more alarming in this case, a lot of the mainstream media, like Postimees and the foreign news desk of the national broadcaster seem to normalize Trump.They don't point out his really deviant and demented behavior but treat him like a normal candidate. So, I also feel that there are plenty of people in Estonia who think that Trump has some good ideas, or at least they're so angry at the woke folks, that they're willing to entertain Trump, not recognizing the great damage that Trump would do to the Transatlantic Alliance and how he would put NATO deterrence, its credibility, in question.And I think that's what Margarita was saying earlier, right? Deterrence is psychological. It's not only what we do, it's what Putin believes, right? If Putin believes that the United States is ready to defend us, then he will be deterred. And that's, that's the bottom line.And with Trump, that's the one thing that's been consistent. I mean, he flip-flops on everything, criticizes everything, but the one thing he's been consistent on, he's never said a bad word about Putin, which really is not just odd, but quite alarming.MS: Well, I just want to add on what has been said in terms of the differences between the Harris and Trump. We don't know exactly what the policies of Harris will be because we don't know her so well, but for us, the most important thing is the stability, because if Trump becomes US president, it's not only what he does, but what kind of messages he sends.Andrus was already mentioning the messages for Putin, what's happening in Putin's head, understanding what Trump's messaging is. But also for the world, we are more secure and stronger together in European Union, in NATO, as transatlantic family and community.If Trump comes to power, the world will become a more dangerous place, because there will be more rifts and disagreements between allies, and we will be seen as weaker as a transatlantic community, not only by Russia, but by China, by Iran, by North Korea. So, it is a very dangerous scenario for us small states, because we cannot change the system. The system affects us.DA: And in the event of a Trump victory, I think there would be a much greater focus from policymakers in the Baltic states on the diaspora community in the United States. The diaspora community played a very important role in the Baltic accession to NATO in the late 1990s, early 2000s. And clearly one thing that Trump does listen to is voters, supporters, and interest groups in Washington. And I think the role of JBANC (Joint Baltic American National Committee) and also the three national lobby groups of American Latvians, American Lithuanian, and Estonian Americans will simply grow in importance, hugely. We can expect them to have quite a lot of communication and cooperation with our foreign ministries and with our embassies, even more so than at the moment.IE: Yeah, that's a really fascinating point too, that the impact of the diaspora lobbying groups in the United States. You all are touching on something that I also wanted to get at, which is the impact of the US elections on European solidarity. You mentioned how Trump's America first agenda has also emboldened right wing politicians in Europe and the Baltics.He has a close relationship with Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary. Who has also even spoken at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference in the United States, but has been in some ways a thorn in the side of the European Union particularly around Russia.During his presidency, Donald Trump also often tried to bypass European institutions, kind of favoring a bilateral approach and personal appeals to national leaders. Harris presidency represents more of a stable transatlantic relationship, but there's also the concern that, as Margarita mentioned, that there's going to be a shift in attention to the Indo-Pacific. The People's Republic of China is seen kind of as this coming-up threat.So, some questions here. What is the situation of the European Union? How united or divided might the block be with either candidate? How is Europe thinking about retaining the focus of the United States as opposed to a shift to other global regions?Where do the Baltic states fit into that? Maybe we start from the Lithuanian perspective this time.MS: It's a very tough question. I think that when the war in Ukraine started, the European Union has surprised itself by its unity. And over the last three years, I think that this unity pertained, and we continue to be united.We sometimes disagree on how fast Europe has to be in providing certain aid for Ukraine. We sometimes disagree on how strict we have to be on punishing Putin in terms of sanctions, et cetera, et cetera. But in general, there is a consensus that we're sitting in the same boat, and this is a European war andI think that this is very important.Therefore, there is an appetite to continue supporting Ukraine until the end of the war, until the victory. But the problem is that there is this unity, which is very strong on the decision takers, decision-makers' level. But if you scratch the surface, you see that there are many different opinions.Businesses, communities, general society, different players do not share the general decision-makers' opinion, not in every country. States of the European Union are facing their own economic, political, and identity problems. And what makes me anxious is the tide of radical populism in certain European countries, and in particular in the biggest countries who matter a lot in the decision-making of the European Union.And maybe in the next two or three years, we won't be seeing those radicals overtaking the government. Well, let's hope fingers crossed that in Germany, the elections will not bring AfD (Alternative for Germany) to power. However, it reduces certain policies, international policies, foreign policies, to a minimal level rather than emboldening them.So there could be some steps back, which might be quite dangerous in these final stages of the war, or what we are seeing now, when at least Ukrainian side is trying to search for certain agreements. So, yes, there is a unity that also benefits the Baltic countries.European countries are listening to what we said more and Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, in her State of the Union speech, said we should have listened more to the Baltic countries. But I guess the appetite to listen to Baltic countries is shrinking a bit for the time and also when we propose certain solutions, they still seem very provocative and more provocative than some of the EU countries would like to take.AK: Let me just add that in American debate, when they talk about Europe, they talk about Europe as kind of lagging behind and being a slacker in support for Ukraine, which is absolutely false, right? The United States is obviously spending more in absolute terms than any other country in terms of military. But as a whole Europe is providing more altogether.And of course, we should really be looking at the contribution in terms of the percentages. And here, the three Baltic states, from the beginning, have been the leaders, along with some other countries like, like Denmark and Sweden, who have given a percentage of their defense budget to Ukraine, which is much greater than the percentage that the Americans are giving.Americans are actually being quite miserly, even though the sums sound huge. And of course, in the American case, the money, which in the US political debate seems that it's just being handed over to Ukraine, is actually going to American manufacturers. And a lot of the money is actually just nominal sums, which are old American armament, equipment, and ammunitions, which were destined to be written off. In any case they're given some monetary value.So, this is something that's really caught on in the narrative in the US: The Americans are paying so much, and the Europeans are doing so little, which is certainly not the case. When you look at the three Baltic states, which have been, continue to be in the lead, and that leads to what Margarita was highlighting.Our establishments, our political leadership in the Baltic States are very firm on Russia, but as a society, there's a cost to that. If we've all raised our defense spending, that means cuts in societal programs, and that leads to dissatisfaction and unrest.So, that's difficult for the governments to keep a check on.DA: Europe is changing. We see this in the European Parliament elections in 2024, that you have this growing support for political parties on the fringes, which we sometimes call as populists, and the support for the centrist mainstream parties, which we typically understand as the liberals, the center right, the Christian Democrats, or the European People's Party and the centrist socialists are declining.Now, they still make up a majority, and we see this in the European Commission as well. The European Commission, which is likely to be approved over the next couple of weeks under Ursula von der Leyen, is still a centrist European Commission, but Europe is changing. And I think it's quite interesting if we look at the Baltic States here.30 years ago, as the Baltic States were just beginning to build democracies and capitalistic systems after 50 years of Soviet occupation, they were quite crackpot, right? I was reading some newspaper articles from the early 1990s, and the one that stayed with me—it's a casual throwaway article written sometime in late 1992 about, oh by the way, 62 prisoners escaped to prison yesterday, and they haven't been caught yet.And the next day, it's not even on the front page of a newspaper, because there's some kind of mafia killing that's being reported on. And that's how things were 30 years ago. Today, the Baltic states are a sea of tranquility. We see that our political systems are actually far more stable, if you look at recent indicators, than the Nordic states.You look at the profile of our governments, the female prime ministers that we had in office in the summer, Europe's first, openly gay president. We have very progressive political systems, and it's Western Europe where democracy is declining in quality, where crackpot political parties are appearing, where you have extremely dodgy political leaders being elected to lead governments and extremely odd parties coming into governments or propping up minority governments.Europe is changing quite a lot, which is unfortunate for the Baltic States in a sense, because just as we have achieved a level of normality. Lithuania is achieving huge economic success as being the fastest growing economy in Europe in the 21st century, the rest of Europe is fraying.Fortunately, there's still a majority, let's say a mainstream majority, which favors support for Ukraine and whose policies broadly align with the very centrist and mainstream policies that all three Baltic governments have long been adopting. But things are changing and there is a risk that the longer the war possibly drags on in Ukraine, the more—I'm sure that opinion in the Baltic states won't change because this is such an existential issue for us—but elsewhere in Western Europe, we might see these radical populist forces rise even further and perhaps begin to fray away at the coalition, which is still broadly supportive of Ukraine. But it is being chipped away at almost monthly, I would say.IE: I want to put a pin in some of the things that you just touched on around the state of democracy, maybe we can turn back to that in a moment.Perhaps we can briefly turn to the impacts of either candidate on US trade policy and energy.MS: It's a global issue. And globally, it is important when it comes to the general situation in transatlantic community, the feeling of trust. But when it comes to Baltics, I don't that it has this direct link to what is important for us. I believe that neither decision-makers nor society are looking in particular what Trump or Harris are saying in terms of energy policy and trade.Okay, he [Trump] can increase tariffs for Latin products, but there are now so many going to the United States.DA: For the Baltic States, our biggest trading partners are our Western neighbors. In the case of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, are one and two. Then the Nordic countries, Poland, Germany, and so on.I took a look at the data for 2022, and the United States was Latvia's 11th biggest trading partner: small, single digits. Latvia for the United States was the 117th biggest trading partner. So, when it comes to economic relations, including also energy, it's not a critical relationship.Politically, the relationship is very, very important. But economically, when it comes to trade, it's marginal.AK: Well, let me just add that for the bilateral relationship, it's not important, but the tone that the US administration sets is not a good direction for the Baltic states. Trump initiated this protectionism, and Biden unfortunately has continued in that same vein.And we don't really know how Harris will continue Biden's legacy on that front. But in any case, the world has become more protectionist. And the three Baltic states have been amongst the biggest champions and beneficiaries of free trade, right? And for an open, globalized economy. This wave of protectionism, which Trump initiated, and Biden has continued in a general picture, is bad for the world and bad for the Baltic states.DA: There is an alternative view to that, Andres, which is that, because of the policies, the global value chains are becoming more compact, they're becoming more localized. And as the global value chains are, let's say, semi-returned to Europe, away from Asia, then the Baltic States together with Poland and other countries are expected to be the big beneficiaries of, say, manufacturing returning to Europe.I don't think it's such a black and white picture, but a collapsing global trade is necessarily bad for the Baltic States. It depends on the domestic policies which are adopted that can seize the opportunity in a sense.MS: And when it comes to energy, if the United States chooses to become the major player in the world in terms of energy supply, it could change and change in general, the picture of the world that we have.But that is a big question: the tracking issue, getting further away from the green plan or implementing this plan. There are advantages and disadvantages of either path.In order to stop climate change, I think fracking would be quite a bad decision because it's increasing dependency on this fuel. But when it comes to changing the power balance, that could be the way to end the war in Ukraine, pushing Russia to the corner, because the bulk of its budget comes from natural resources.This would add more competition: increasing the supply of energy resources in the world's market.IE: For a non-question, that actually was a quite interesting response.But to come back to the idea—Donna you were talking about people's feelings of democracy and the shift in the way that the Baltic states perhaps are perceiving or showing off their strength, in democracy—you all sort of mentioned attitudes on the ground.I'd like to explore that a little bit more. I mean, Margarita noted that people think of the American elections as potentially more consequential than the upcoming elections in Lithuania. Do you feel that on a day-to-day basis? Is it just in surveys or are people paying attention? Do they care?And how do they view the state of democracy in the United States, which I think is a big question on this side of the Atlantic.DA: Well, I think we clearly see that the media in Latvia, at least, are following this election much more closely than previous elections. Certainly, that's because of the nature of the election taking place at a time of war, not so far away from us.But it's also because of the candidates and especially Trump. I mean, Trump is news. He's magnetic. And there is a feeling about, “Wow, look at this guy.” Some people look at him in awe. I would say a majority look at him in confusion as to, as to why is it that he's so attractive to American voters.But certainly, the nature of the candidates, as well as the context of the election, is something which draws public attention. And we see a lot of newscasts, a lot of discussion shows, both on television and online portals, dedicated to the American elections more so than in previous years.AK: In fact, as soon as we finish recording this, I will have to go to an Estonian webcast to discuss the US election. So, indeed, there's plenty of interest and a realization that this matters to us in the Baltic states quite a bit, but that's been the case for previous US elections as well.Trump just adds this more of a circus atmosphere to it that was perhaps not present and a sort of polarizing view. But when you talked earlier about the impact of Trump on Europe, I can remember back to when Obama was elected, right?And the response in Europe was: Western Europeans loved him. Eastern Europeans were a little bit more skeptical, but even the Western Europeans who loved Obama were very disappointed by the man because he was focused on a pivot to Asia. And he didn't give the Europeans the deference and the time of day that his predecessors had.So that's already a shift that's been going on for quite some time and Biden has been the throwback to the way things were, but I think we can expect that Biden will be sort of the last real trans-Atlanticist American president.MS: Yeah, I just want to pick what Andras was mentioning in terms of the policies of the potential US leader, President Harris or President Trump, and the consequences for the Baltic countries. I think that this pivot to Asia is very consequential, and the consequences are increasing with time.And first of all, it was more economic and political, but now it's also related to defense. We've seen, one of the former advisors of Trump, Elbridge Colby, say that Taiwan and the security of Taiwan, would be a more important issue than the security of Europe or Eastern Europe and that he would advise Baltic countries to not stop at 3 percent spending from GDP, but continue spending more for defense and reaching perhaps 10 percent, which is a lot of money.And I don't think it's attainable in the near future. However, the US Pivot to Asia had an effect on Lithuanian policies. If your major ally pivots to Asia, you have to pivot there as well. I think that there is more Asia in Lithuania and there is more Lithuania in Asia in the Indo-Pacific at the moment.First of all, it started with the hosting of Taiwanese representation in Vilnius under the name of Taiwan, which became a major issue for China. A major argument with China ensued on economic, secondary sanctions that China was threatening with political ranting and a lot of other things.But then due to this disagreement, we discovered a lot of potential for cooperation in this area. At the moment, the economic relationships with Indo-Pacific countries are increasing quite speedily. And there are more of those countries, like South Korea and Japan, in Lithuania, both politically, but also economically.And we are also discussing our security corporation, particularly in the era of cyber security. I think that this is an important turn for Lithuania, probably for other Baltic countries to a less extent, but still, and this is also a certain security net for us. If there will be some more speedy pivot to Asia under the Trump presidency, we might also try to ask our friends in Taiwan to say some good words about Lithuania and our security to the ear of Trump, because Trump most likely will listen what Taiwanese are saying.IE: Well, you've kind of tackled the last question head on, which is what are the Baltic States doing to ensure their own futures? Regardless of who ends up in the White House in November. I want to open it up for any last words or thoughts on the subject.Any final conclusions that you'd like to share?DA: Well, I think a big development, possibly a positive outcome from the events in Ukraine, is the additional impetus for Baltic cooperation. Because Baltic cooperation really has lagged for the last 30 years. If we compare the way in which the Baltic states work with each other to our closest neighbors, the Nordics, we don't really cooperate. We've imitated some of the institutions of the North, but we haven't really enacted them. We haven't sort of like full-bloodedly, adopted them. But we can see that when it comes to defense, there are some very serious initiatives, which have moved ahead recently.I think procurement is one of the big areas where we see Latvia cooperating with Estonia, for example, in air defense systems, in buying training grenades. We also have a cooperation between Latvia and Lithuania on respirators. We have the Baltic defense line—although that seems to be being executed individually by each state—but it was still a common announcement with a common aim, and so on. It would be great if this was an impetus for even further Baltic cooperation, because there are many areas where we would benefit from cooperating with each other in a sort of Nordic style politically, economically, culturally, and so on.Because we are an extremely dynamic region of Europe, especially if we look at the Lithuanian economy, which is to an outsider, an amazing story. What's happened there over the last 20 years is a story to tell, and there is a common identity and common political structures which can be built upon, beginning with this enhanced military cooperation, but taking that to various political and economic levels as well.So that's one thing that I would end on attempting to be more positive.AK: I would just add and expand on Daunis, for the regional cooperation, of course, is much wider. It's a Nordic Baltic cooperation, which is the most intense and active at the moment. And the one good outcome of Putin's invasion of Ukraine has been Finland and Sweden joining NATO, which has given a real impetus to Nordic Baltic cooperation, which was already strong in all other fields.But now with defense cooperation also, we're all much closer together in the region and it's one of the most dynamic regions in the European Union.MS: I guess I'm obliged to step even further on the European level. I don't know how strong this political will and commitment in the European institutions and in some European countries will continue to be. I guess it will depend at the end of the day on the level of a threat—but we will not be living in a less threatening environment in the future—and the appetite to build strong defense industry and defense in Europe.That's a very, very important step forward. And if one thing is to come from the Ukrainian War, I would say that this would be a very, very important thing for the future of the European Union as the player in international politics.IE: Well, Professors Kasekamp, Šešelgytė, Auers. Thank you so much for your time for your commentary and we really appreciate you taking the time to speak on this subject. Thank you very much. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fpribalticinitiative.substack.com

The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Monday called for de-escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict after recent reports of Ukrainian troops entering Russia's border region of Kursk.8月12日，据报道，乌克兰军队近日攻入俄罗斯本土库尔斯克州。中国外交部呼吁缓和俄乌冲突。In a statement, the ministry said China will continue to maintain communication with the international community and play a constructive role in promoting the political settlement of the crisis. It added that China calls on all parties to abide by the "three principles" of no expansion of the battlefield, no escalation of fighting and no fanning of the flames by any party.发言人表示，中方注意到有关情况。中方在乌克兰问题上的立场是一贯的、明确的，呼吁各方遵守局势降温“三原则”，即战场不外溢、战事不升级、各方不拱火。In stark contrast to the Joe Biden administration reaffirming the United States' "unwavering support for Ukraine" in a document issued on Friday, four days after Ukrainian forces entered Kursk, Beijing's statement reflects China's neutral stance and its earnest desire to see an early political settlement of the crisis.8月9日，与美国总统拜登在乌突袭俄库尔斯克四天后发布的文档中重申美国“坚定不移地支持乌克兰”形成鲜明对比的是，外交部的声明反映了中国的中立立场及看到政治危机早日解决的热切希望。The fact sheet "US Security Cooperation with Ukraine", issued after Ukrainian forces advanced into the hinterland of Russia's Kursk region, testifies to the Biden administration's intention to take credit for the "achievement" to give a boost to the Democratic Party ahead of the upcoming US presidential election.在乌突袭俄库尔斯克后发布的《美国-乌克兰安全协议》表明了美国总统拜登将“成就”归于民主党，在即将到来的美国总统大选之前提振民主党。To date, the US has provided more than $55.4 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the conflict began on Feb 24, 2022, according to the document.协议表示，自2022年2月24日冲突爆发以来，美国迄今已向乌克兰提供了超554亿美元的军事援助。With Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump attacking its strategic misjudgment and lack of means to end the conflict, the protracted hostilities between Russia and Ukraine have become a negative asset for the Democratic Party in the run-up to the November elections.随着共和党总统候选人唐纳德·特朗普抨击（民主党）战略误判和缺乏结束冲突的手段，俄乌之间长期的敌对关系使得民主党11月大选前面临负面资产。The Biden administration had long hesitated to allow Kyiv to use NATO weapons to attack Russian targets beyond the border, not to mention supporting it to enter Russian territory, for fear of triggering an open conflict between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.美国总统拜登长期以来踌躇是否允许乌克兰使用核弹袭击俄罗斯边境，担心引发俄罗斯与北约之间的公开冲突。So by finally giving Kyiv the green light and all necessary intelligence and material support to launch the surprise attack, Biden is ensuring that his proxied aggression against Russia gets a new lease of life even as he prepares to leave office.通过最终给予乌克兰军事援助并允许乌克兰袭击俄罗斯，美国总统拜登在即将离任前夕确保民主党针对俄乌冲突有所行动。While the battlefield gambit may have been a morale booster for the Ukrainian forces, Kyiv will be clearheaded that the progress the Ukrainian forces have made on Russia's land so far is temporary, as it will be very difficult for them to hold on to their gains. It will also know that the consequences and possible costs of the move remain to be taken into account.尽管军事战略鼓舞了乌方士气，其也清楚地认识到，乌克兰军队迄今为止在俄罗斯边境及境内取得的进展是暂时的，此举的后果和成本仍多方考虑。It is the US' shortsighted prodding of Ukraine to carry the fighting to Russia that has rendered all previous efforts to seek an early end to the Ukraine crisis in vain. The strategic purpose of the latest US-sponsored Ukrainian offensive is ill-defined, and is unlikely to give Ukraine the upper hand in the fighting. And before it takes back its lost land by force, Moscow might not consider any talks.美国给予乌方军事援助，提供军事武器使乌方突袭俄方，使得此前寻求双方早日结束争端的乌方所有努力付诸东流。美国发起的乌克兰最新攻势的战略目的不明确，而在使用军事力量夺回国土前，俄罗斯方不会考虑任何谈判形式。While the Ukrainian offensive may have served the needs of US domestic politics, the question is for how long that need will continue to prolong the Ukraine crisis.尽管乌克兰发起对俄罗斯的攻势可能满足了美国内政的需要，但此举对于解决俄乌争端并不起根本作用。There is no doubt that regardless of how the Russia-Ukraine conflict unfolds, Russia's ambition to remain a world power based and rooted in Europe will not change. Nor will its stance on matters concerning its core interests and its firm resolve to preserve a safety zone on its periphery change.无论俄乌冲突如何发展，俄罗斯立足欧洲、扎根于欧洲的世界大国的雄心都不会改变，其在涉及其核心利益问题上的立场和在维护周边安全的坚定决心也不会改变。While China is accused by the US and NATO of siding with Russia, the Chinese position and role with respect to the conflict have to do with the characteristics of how it approaches international relations. As neither the creator of the conflict nor a party to it, China respects both countries' reasonable needs on security and sovereignty. As such it opposes the groundless expansion and aggression of NATO, which embodies Cold War thinking.尽管美国和北约指责中国与俄方一道，但这与中国在国际争端的立场和处理国际关系的特点有关。中国既不是危机制造者，也不是当事方、参与方，尊重两国在安全和主权方面的合理需求。因此，中方反对北约毫无根据的扩张和侵略，即北约冷战思维。Instead of trying to take advantage of the crisis or profit from it, as the US is doing, China has made low-key but consistent efforts to promote dialogue between the two parties so they can arrive at a solution to resolve their differences.中方并未试图利用危机或从中获利，而是低调但始终如一地努力促进俄乌双方对话，找到解决冲突的方案。Despite the continued warmongering of the US that is fanning the flames of the fighting, China will continue to work for peace as long as there still exists a ray of hope.尽管美国持续鼓动乌方，给予其军事援助，但只要还有一线希望，中国将持续为和平而努力。North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)n.北大西洋公约（北约）

From March 22, 2014: On March 19, the Center on the United States and Europe (CUSE) hosted NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for a Statesman's Forum address on the importance of the transatlantic alliance and how the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is evolving to address new common security challenges. As the crisis in Ukraine shows that security in the Euro-Atlantic area cannot be taken for granted, the secretary-general discussed NATO's essential role in an unpredictable world. He outlined the agenda for the September NATO summit in Wales as a critical opportunity to ensure that the alliance has the military capabilities necessary to deal with the threats it now faces, to consider how NATO members can better share the collective burden of defense and to engage constructively with partners around the world.Anders Fogh Rasmussen took office as North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 12th secretary-general in August 2009. Previously, he served in numerous positions in the Danish government and opposition throughout his political career, including as prime minister of Denmark from November 2001 to April 2009.Brookings Senior Fellow and CUSE Director Fiona Hill provided introductory remarks and moderated the discussion.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 75th anniversary celebrating the creation of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, creates an opportunity for those in the war machine to double down their commitment to war and for peace advocates to amplify their calls for non-violence. David Swanson, co-founder and executive director of World BEYOND War and long-time peace advocate, joins host Robert Scheer on this episode of Scheer Intelligence. Swanson talks about his new book with Medea Benjamin, “NATO: What You Need To Know,” and how it analyzes what NATO means today as a worldwide enforcer of U.S. led military power, having grown from a 12-member organization to 32 members and “partnerships” with more than 40 non-member countries and international organizations. According to Swanson, NATO's original function as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union has outlived the fall of the communist state and transformed the organization into a rapidly expanding extension of the U.S. war machine. “You don't have to ask informed historians or intelligent peace activists. The Secretary General of NATO says it; they now wage wars, not just in defense or what they call deterrence.” What was once envisioned as an adjunct to the United Nations addressing war and peace has now evolved, with NATO extending its reach far beyond the Atlantic to forge partnerships with Asian countries in a militarized response to China's rise. Swanson does not make light of what this will mean for the future: “It's the end of everything. It's the end of all life on earth. There's no small nuclear war. There's no tactical nuclear war, and yet this is where we're headed.”

That's the message from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization this week as it marks its 75th anniversary at a Washington summit. President Zelensky is using his time in Washington to drum up a sustainable support pipeline for his country, where US weapons have proved crucial in recently stabilizing Ukraine's frontlines. Meantime, in a striking development, NATO has called out China for the first time, criticizing Beijing as a "decisive enabler of Russia's war against Ukraine." Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba joins the program from the NATO summit to discuss all of this.  Also on today's show: Dr. Anthony Fauci; Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week in Washington, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will celebrate its founding seventy-five years ago. The party seems likely, though, to be as much a campaign event for Joe Biden's reelection as a platform for affirming and renewing the alliance in an increasingly dangerous world.   It comes as Team Biden struggles to persuade panicking Democrats that he should remain their nominee. But a man in Biden's clearly enfeebled condition will likely be unable to stay awake throughout, let alone effectively run, the three days of meetings.   So, will the leaders of NATO's member nations be complicit at this critical juncture in the sort of fraud concerning Biden's physical limitations that has been perpetrated by both domestic and foreign interlocutors for the past three and a half years? Doing so would undermine, rather than shore up, Americans' necessary support for the alliance.   This is Frank Gaffney.

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. President Joe Biden gave the nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to the outgoing head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Biden spoke at an event celebrating NATO's 35th anniversary. The weekend before, critics of the alliance gathered for their own event, called “No to NATO, Yes to Peace.” A coalition of France's left and center-left parties won a majority of parliamentary seats, delivering a defeating blow to the far right, which was projected to win the weekend elections. A weeklong nationwide senior citizen climate justice protest came to San Francisco today, where several dozen activists rallied downtown to protest against Citibank and the impact of its investments on climate change. An inmate at the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, California, died of what is believed to be heat stroke over the weekend. Business, labor, and community leaders met with local officials outside San Jose's Diridon train station today to urge the Biden administration to fund what they say is a much-needed San Jose BART extension. The post President Joe Biden welcomed NATO leaders to Washington, celebrating the transatlantic alliance's stout unity against Russia's Ukraine aggression and America's commitment to the alliance – July 9, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.

In this episode, GSB takes a look at how the 75th Anniversary Summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization aims to shape the future of the Alliance. The summit takes place in Washington, DC, from 9 to 11 July, and is being billed as a celebration of the Alliance, often termed the most successful in history. There will also be attention to NATO's recent efforts to rebuild its capacity to deter and defend against threats, notably from Russia, but with an eye on China too. In this episode, host Neil Melvin is joined by Oana Lungescu, RUSI Distinguished Fellow and the longest serving NATO Spokesperson (2010–23), and the first woman and first journalist to hold the post, as well as Ed Arnold, RUSI Senior Research Fellow. They discuss the main agenda items and decisions that will have to be made by the Alliance at Washington, as well as how NATO aims to set its future trajectory.

Hans Labohm, an economist and former expert reviewer for the IPCC, discusses his skepticism towards the current climate change narrative. He critiques the alarming predictions about global warming, CO2 emissions, and climate policy, presenting data that contradicts these claims. Labohm argues that CO2 is not a threat but rather benefits the environment and questions the effectiveness of policies like the Paris Agreement. He also touches on the societal and economic impacts of climate alarmism and the consequences for those skeptical of mainstream views. 00:00 Introduction to Hans Labohm and Climate Hysteria 00:59 Historical Climate Fears: From Cooling to Warming 01:32 Media-Induced Panic and Public Perception 03:39 Examining the Facts: Temperature and CO2 Data 11:47 Sea Level Rise and Ice Melt: Myths vs. Reality 14:42 Biodiversity, Glaciers, and Climate Refugees 17:47 Climate-Related Deaths and Weather Extremes 20:10 Polar Bears and Developing Countries 24:06 The Paris Agreement and Climate Policy 29:02 Critique of Mainstream Climate Narrative 33:39 Personal Journey and Professional Challenges 38:22 Future Outlook and Final Thoughts Hans Labohm studied economics at the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands (Holland). After his study he did his military service. Subsequently he joined the Netherlands Ministry of Defense and was posted at the Netherlands Permanent Representation at NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in Brussels. Thereafter he joined the Netherlands diplomatic service and was posted in Stockholm. After that he held various functions at the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague before he became deputy head of the policy planning staff. Subsequently he was posted at the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) in Paris as deputy Permanent Representative. After a couple of years he was posted as a senior visiting fellow and advisor to the board at the Clingendael Institute of International Relations in The Hague. In 2007 he was expert reviewer of Assessment Report number 4 (AR 4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Today, he is editor in chief of the website Climategate.nl. He is lead author of 'Chronicles of Climate Hysteria', which has recently been published Slides for this podcast: https://tomn.substack.com/p/chronicles-of-climate-hysteria Dutch site: https://www.climategate.nl/ Published April 10, 2024; “Chronicles of Climate Hysteria” on Amazon: https://a.co/d/5ofgz3Y Please support Cartoons By Josh: https://cartoonsbyjosh.co.uk/donate ———————— AI summaries of all of my podcasts (plus transcripts of recent podcasts): https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1 X: https://x.com/TomANelson Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/ About Tom: https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2022/03/about-me-tom-nelson.html Notes for climate skeptics: https://tomn.substack.com/p/notes-for-climate-skeptics ClimateGate emails: https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO /ˈneɪtoʊ/ NAY-toh; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord, OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance of 32 member states—30 European and 2 North American. Established in the aftermath of World War II, the organization implements the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington, D.C., on 4 April 1949. NATO is a collective security system: its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties. НА́ТО, Организа́ция Североатланти́ческого догово́ра, Североатланти́ческий алья́нс (англ. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO; фр. Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord, OTAN) — военно-политический блок, объединяющий большинство стран Европы (включая Турцию), Соединённые Штаты Америки и Канаду. Основан 4 апреля 1949 года в США с целью защиты Европы от возможной угрозы советской экспансии. Тогда государствами — членами НАТО стали 12 стран: США, Канада, Исландия, Великобритания, Франция, Бельгия, Нидерланды, Люксембург, Норвегия, Дания, Италия и Португалия. Это «трансатлантический форум» для проведения странами-союзниками консультаций по любым вопросам, затрагивающим жизненно важные интересы его членов, включая события, способные поставить под угрозу их безопасность. Одной из заявленных целей НАТО является обеспечение сдерживания агрессии или защиты от неё в отношении территории любого государства — члена НАТО.

The relationship between the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is at the heart of efforts to help Ukraine after Russia's 2022 invasion. How do the alliances work together and how can further cooperation help?   In this episode of The Sound of Economics, Rebecca Christie speaks with Oana Lungescu, who served as the longest serving NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Spokesperson and is now a Distinguished Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, and Guntram B. Wolff, Senior fellow at Bruegel,  to discuss NATO and the EU.  How do they each contribute to Europe's defence strategy? Where do they overlap and not? How will they work together to find the necessary financing to help Ukraine and coordinate defence procurement in the future? They also discuss the role of NATO members who are not part of the EU such as Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States under the current political climate.

This year, NATO marks its 75th anniversary, while the Baltic countries celebrate 20 years as members of the alliance. Dr. Lukas Milevski speaks about the history of that inclusion, and shares his thoughts about the future.Milevski is a tenured assistant professor at Leiden University, where he teaches strategic studies in the BA International Studies and MA International Relations programs. He has published widely on strategy, including two books with Oxford University Press: The Evolution of Modern Grand Strategic Thought (2016) and The West's East: Contemporary Baltic Defense in Strategic Perspective (2018).Baltic Ways is a podcast brought to you by the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies, produced in partnership with the Baltic Initiative at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AABS or FPRI.TranscriptIndra Ekmanis: Hello, and welcome to Baltic Ways, a podcast bringing you interviews and insights from the world of Baltic studies. I'm your host, Dr. Indra Ekmanis. And today we speak with Dr. Lucas Milevski, a tenured assistant professor at Leiden University, where he teaches strategic studies. This year marks 75 years of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and 20 years of the Baltic states' inclusion in that alliance. Dr. Milevski gives us his insights into the history, and what may be next for the Baltic states as part of NATO. Stay tuned.IE: Thank you so much for joining us today on Baltic Ways. Perhaps we can start with you telling us a little bit about yourself, your background and how you came to be involved in this field of study.Lukas Milevski: I'm Lukas Milevski. I'm presently an assistant professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands. And for an American audience, it's worthwhile to mention that in the Netherlands, assistant professor is a tenured position. And I research and write about military strategy in general, theory, history, contemporary analysis, as well as contemporary military defense.I am a Latvian American dual citizen, so I've also maintained both a personal and a professional interest in Baltic defense. I published my first piece on that topic way back in 2010 when I was still a master's student. I published a book on the subject, The West's East: Contemporary Baltic Defense in Strategic Perspective, in 2018, and have continued writing on the topic regularly ever since for various venues, including FPRI's own Baltic Bulletin.IE: Well, thank you for sharing that background. We are here to talk a little bit about NATO today. NATO this year celebrates its 75th anniversary in April. In March, the Baltic states also celebrate 20 years of being in the alliance, having joined in 2004. As we commemorate these milestones, how would you describe the organization's evolution, its history with the Baltic states from your perspective?LM: So 75 years of history is quite a bit, especially for an international alliance. And I'm sure there will be plenty written on this history to mark the 75th anniversary. So what I'll do now is just sketch out certain inflection points in NATO's history and the degree to which the Baltic states featured in those points or experienced consequences as a result, whether positive or negative.So the first inflection point is obviously 75 years ago itself, when NATO was founded. In the words of Lord Ismay, who was its first Secretary General, NATO was founded to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out. We don't consider that second purpose relevant anymore, but the other two have remained wholly relevant.The Baltic states during this time were, of course, occupied by the Soviet Union, and simply formed part of the enemy for NATO. The next real inflection point was the end of the Cold War and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, which allowed the Baltic states to spring out of national captivity, and begin plotting their own national courses again. Unsurprisingly, this pointed them toward NATO, which in any case, had lost its primary reason for existence and only awkwardly found itself seeking organizational purpose in intervening in the Western Balkans as Yugoslavia collapsed. During the 1990s, there was a Western defense professional debate about Baltic membership in NATO, which played out in various venues, including professional and academic journals.Notably, there were some quite prescient arguments that leaving them out of NATO would ultimately be destabilizing as they would present power vacuums, which would only invite invasion at some subsequent undetermined later date. You know, essentially exactly what happened to Ukraine.IE: Right.LM: The next key inflection point was the terror attack on, terror attacks on 9/11, which finally gave NATO a mission again, counterterrorism, and incidentally the only invocation of Article 5, NATO's mutual defense clause, in the history of the alliance, by the United States. In the early atmosphere of the war on terror, Russia was a quasi ally, and this atmosphere helped, perhaps enabled, the Baltic states to slip into NATO and the European Union simultaneously in spring 2004 — March for NATO, May for the EU.The relatively warm atmosphere between NATO and Russia, and NATO's counter terrorism and counter insurgency focus, somewhat precluded NATO membership from meaning terribly much for the Baltic States. There is no real contingency defense planning for national defense, for example. Because the only threat was Russia, and the West mostly did not see Russia as a possible threat, the Baltic states and maybe some other Eastern Flank countries excepted. The one exception to this relative negligence was the Baltic air policing mission, which began right from the Baltic accession to NATO and continues to the present day. It took until the next inflection point in 2008, Russia's invasion of Georgia, to shake NATO's complacency about Russia, albeit not by that much.IE: Yeah.LM: Baltic defense planning became permissible, but without a proper political decision, more sort of as an annex to defense planning for Polish defense. And then NATO and most of its constituent countries sank back into unwarranted complacency. The story somewhat repeated in 2014. Russia invaded another country, NATO responded, including this time by redefining Russia as a potential enemy and moving some tripwire forces into the Baltic states.IE: Can you say what that means? What a tripwire force is?LM: Idea of a tripwire force is simply to have forces from other member countries present in the region so that if Russia were to invade, they'd not just be shooting at local Baltic armed forces, but also those of ideally each of the other member states as well. And this would then immediately, in principle, involve those other states in Baltic defense.So NATO moves some tripwire forces into the Baltic states. This was probably mostly due to strenuous U.S. pressure on European member states, which seemed rather unwilling at the time. Nonetheless, this was done, and then afterward NATO slipped back into a certain degree of unwarranted complacency, again, particularly the European member states and the Western European member states.And finally, most recently, 2022 and the renewed Russian invasion of Ukraine. Baltic defense is again high on the agenda. NATO's four deployed forces, the tripwire forces, are to be expanded from battalion size to brigade size, basically from 1,000 men to about four to five thousand-ish. And the unwarranted complacency about Russia has yet to return.Hopefully it won't, but of course we don't know the future. As a result of this infection point as well, Finland and, finally, Sweden have also joined NATO, thereby turning the Baltic [Sea] into a NATO lake and increasing military and naval security in the region. But what we really see as a history is that NATO has only gradually, and mostly unwillingly, paid any attention, let alone serious attention, to Baltic defense.Fortunately, for most of that history, it turned out not to be a fatal mistake. And we can now hope, and perhaps work, to develop NATO defense planning and policies finally to ensure real Baltic defense. This is work not only by NATO or the larger states, but also, and of course crucially, by the Baltic states themselves, and we do see that this is happening.IE: Yeah. It strikes me that, you know, we have many headlines in U.S. outlets since 2022 and the Russian invasion — full scale invasion of Ukraine — featuring Baltic leaders. Just the other day I heard Kaja Kallas on, on NPR's “Morning Edition,” for example. And so this has become kind of a mainstay.I wonder if you can tell us — we talked about that now the Baltics are here in NATO for two decades — and over the last two decades, how has NATO's presence influenced regional security dynamics in the Baltic region? Maybe, the addition of Finland and Sweden and the creation of Lake NATO, if you will. But also how have the Baltic states themselves influenced NATO?LM: So NATO's presence in the Baltic Sea region, particularly with the accession of the Baltic states, resolved the one major geopolitical issue which I already mentioned, the notion of the power vacuum in between NATO and Russia, at least in this region, which could have — and knowing Russia — would have eventually invited trouble. And so in principle, this issue is no more. But in practice, as I was sort of saying, in terms of defense planning and everything, this remains a work in progress. So besides this key point, NATO's presence in the Baltic region over the last 20 years hasn't really affected security dynamics all that much, I think, for a number of reasons.First of all, besides the Baltic region's national forces — the local Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian forces and so on — the NATO presence itself has been quite minimal for most of those two decades. The air policing mission since 2004, the tripwire forces from 2016 onward, but the additional NATO non-Baltic physical, material, military manpower capability to affect security dynamics meaningfully has not really been there.It's only now, you know, in the past few years that we've been seeing some actual substantial change. As I also already mentioned, for most of the past 20 years, NATO has not been focusing on territorial defense, but it's been looking halfway across the world, generating expeditionary capabilities to wage war in Afghanistan.So the alliance had little time, little capability, and little desire really to consider the Baltic seriously. Third, for the early years of the war on terror, Russia was, as I said, something of an ally. And moreover, it was also wrestling with its own internal security issues. Its war with Georgia in 2008 showed major problems in its armed forces, which it spent the next few years fixing, or at least thinking it was fixing them.And as a bit of an aside on this war: This, the Russian perspective, is very distinct. They feel like they almost lost the war because of how poorly their armed forces performed, hence the need to reform them. And then of course, after Georgia, it focused on supporting the Assad regime in Syria and then add into all this is its perpetual fixation with Ukraine in 2014, even prior to 2014. And of course, after 2014 as well. So there's a good recipe for Russia also perhaps not dedicating an enormous amount of attention to the Baltic states either, and I'm no fan of Russia, but I think it's notable nonetheless that at the worst of the 2008 financial crisis, and Latvia was hit harder than most, there was no special Russian attempt to exploit the crisis to topple the Latvian or any other Baltic government.You know, nothing beyond the usual corruption, money laundering, subversion, and general criminality. Why not is a different question, and one which we can't answer. You know, even if we had Putin here on a table, and we cracked his skull open with a hammer and chisel, presumably we would find that he had a brain, but that wouldn't tell us anything about his thoughts. So we don't know why they didn't do anything, but it is perhaps notable that they didn't really do anything — at least nothing special.Finally, if you look at the defense literature, once Western military analysts began paying attention to the problems of Baltic defense again after 2014, the recurring theme which you see is one of apprehension: That Russia has the advantage in the Baltic Sea region. Because with its missiles — anti-ship missiles, anti-air missiles — it could create a Baltic bubble, from which, it could deny access to NATO forces. So there's a distinct sense in which it's actually been Russia which maintains an advantage in the Baltic Sea region.And this is only beginning to change now as a result of the war and its consequences. Both in terms of Finnish and Swedish accession to NATO, as well as in terms of damage to Russia's own armed forces. And in terms of Baltic influence, I see relatively little. As mentioned, improvements of Baltic defense have generally followed Russian aggression, and usually have been as little as NATO believed it could get away with, especially the Western European countries. Is that changing now? We'll see.IE: Yeah, well, tell us tell us in a little bit about — I mean, I feel like there was a lot of conversation early on in after the renewed invasion about the Baltics kind of having this “we told you so mentality,” to their Western Western European partners and to their American partners too in some to some degree. And then, yes, we have seen kind of these incremental shifts in the way that NATO is taking their Eastern Flank a little bit more seriously. You mentioned the increase in their tripwire forces. But what about tangible sort of feeling on the ground? How do you assess NATO's ability to deter a potential threat and uphold security? What are some of those key challenges, or maybe opportunities, in the Baltics? You talked about the Russian advantage. And maybe aside from NATO, what are the steps that the Baltic states are taking on their own? We have a lot of talk about defense investments in the Baltic states themselves. So, I'd love to hear your thoughts.LM: Yes. Well, to start with deterrence, the problem with deterrence is that, sort of, to deter, the infinitive verb is grammatically correct, but strategically inaccurate. We cannot deter. The other side chooses to be deterred. We can provide the reasons for them to choose to be deterred, but beyond that, it's fundamentally out of our hands. And we have a hard time knowing what the other side is thinking. You know, again, think of poking around Putin's brain, it tells us nothing. Worse still, he has to believe that anything we try to do is to strengthen deterrence. You know, truly, if we're putting forces into the Baltic states, it's for the purposes of deterrence and not something else, invasion.IE: Right.LM: But what the Russians are doing is giving constant signals that they don't trust the NATO presence in the Baltic states. They feel like a country under siege and generally speaking, they're paranoid of surprise attacks. So in communicating this to us, are they telling the truth or are they just cynically trying to dissuade us? Or is a little of Column A, a little of Column B, depending on the person speaking at that moment? We don't know, but this complicates the picture.It does not, however, mean that we should appease them and not try to strengthen deterrence. We obviously should. That's part of NATO's core mission. So then, going to what NATO is trying to do or what it can try to do — NATO's fundamental posture to try to instill deterrence rests on Article 5, the Mutual Defense Clause, as well as extended nuclear deterrence. In abstract, the latter is always a hard sell, just like it was during the Cold War. The notion of extended nuclear deterrence is that, essentially, the United States would protect Europe with a nuclear umbrella. It's extending its hand, willing to take nuclear blows to protect its allies. But would the United States, or for that matter Britain or France, you know, really sacrifice Washington, D.C., London, or Paris for the sake of Tallinn, Riga, or Vilnius?That's impossible to know, but at the same time, it's not a possibility that the Russians can ignore. So, allies never find it particularly compelling, and this was true during the Cold War as well, but adversaries do still have to take it seriously. Article 5, meanwhile, depends on NATO's ability actually to sustain a major military operation in the Baltic states, something which it is still in the process of trying to develop. It might also rely on keeping substantial forces positioned in the Baltic states, something which it is also developing. I mentioned the forward deployed forces expanding from battalion to brigade size, which will help with that. Germany is planning on deploying an entire brigade into Lithuania. And so this will all help with that.Is this enough to present a sufficiently credible threat of successful defense that the Russians would think better of any hypothetical future invasion? We simply don't know. Prudence is pulling us in two ways. We don't want to leave the Baltics undefended because that might invite invasion. But at the same time, we don't want to put too much in because the Russians might take that really seriously the wrong way. We need to find somewhere a middle ground, notwithstanding all of NATO's and especially all, all other American commitments elsewhere in the world.So, it's a thorny problem.IE: Yeah.LM: As for the Baltic states themselves, they face a wide variety of challenges to improving their own defense. The most fundamental one is that the Russian threat can be quite multi-dimensional, and so the Baltic states need to have some sort of capability to answer, to some degree, each of those dimensions, even without NATO support, to buy time for NATO support to arrive.You know, we're talking from land invasion with heavy armor to airborne coup de main, such as what Russia tried to do in the very first days of their invasion, renewed invasion of Ukraine back in February 2022. Russian air and missile strikes against land, sea, and air targets, cyber attacks, and electronic warfare, and many other forms of attack.You know, Russia can make the life of a Baltic defense planner really difficult, just as it currently is for Ukrainian strategists. So the Baltic challenge is spreading their limited budgets around in ways which are, or at least appear to be, good enough. At least good enough to be able to blunt an initial attack and buy time.So for this reason, Latvia and Estonia jointly procured a German IRIS-T medium range air defense system, which has been doing excellent work in Ukraine to help contribute against the missile plane and the possibility of an airborne coup de main threat. If you have air defense, it's less likely that Russian helicopters will get through, that Russian missiles will get through, and so on. Baltic states are developing a Baltic defense line, and they are expanding their armed forces, including reintroducing conscription, in Latvia's case, to help defend against a major ground invasion. They are procuring coastal defense systems to deny Russia the ability to attack them by sea.And this is all very good. It's very important. It's demonstrating a clear will to defend to the rest of NATO that the Baltic states will defend themselves in the hypothetical event of invasion. And so it puts additional political and moral pressure on the rest of NATO also to step up more. But of course, the Baltic states, on their own will, will simply never be enough to defend successfully against a country with a military the size of Russia's.This is an unavoidable fact. And this is the final challenge for the Baltic States, that ultimately they cannot guarantee their own national security, their own national survival by themselves without NATO support if Russia were really to try to challenge it with a major invasion.IE: Yeah. You mentioned this kind of goodwill, or moral pressure that is also part of the Baltic states' defense plan in some ways. And I am thinking about that in their accession and the way that the Baltic states responded and showed up, for example, in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. So, I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about how the Baltic states have contributed to NATO's missions and operations. Whether or not their participation has shaped any of the alliance's strategies or priorities.LM: So ever since they regained independence and developed their own armed forces, the Baltic states have tried to be good citizens of the liberal international order and have committed forces to international operations, including NATO, but also EU missions, UN missions, other allied missions — of course, within the scope of their own available resources.For most missions over the past 30 years, the Baltic commitment has been small, both comparatively and sort of absolutely. And of course, the degree of commitment for each mission in which the Baltic states individually or collectively have been involved has also varied over time.So just to sort of touch on a few examples, they sent soldiers to the various missions resulting from the violent collapse of Yugoslavia. Even today, Latvia and Lithuania are still contributing to KFOR in Kosovo. Lithuania has one soldier there, but with a Seimas mandate for up to five, while Latvia has committed 136 military personnel to that mission.Estonia, meanwhile, participated in the French Operation Barkhane in Mali, originally dedicating 50 troops and raising the number to 95 in 2019, until the end of the operation there in 2022. And Estonia's participation in Barkhane was appreciated in Paris and led to a considerable amount of French goodwill.So this indicates the importance of not just NATO missions, but looking beyond NATO missions, to other missions, because, yes, a lot of countries are part of NATO, they're also part of EU, membership overlaps, and even contributing to other states' national missions can have beneficial consequences within the NATO context.IE: Sure.LM: Most prominently, of course, the Baltic states had all contributed troops to the wars in Iraq as part of the Coalition of the Willing, as well as to the International Security Assistance Force, the NATO force in Afghanistan. So from the Baltic point of view of the past 20 years, which is totally understandable, the United States was always going to be the single most important guarantor of Baltic military and national security.The subsequent question — the degree to which Baltic involvement has led to influence — is much less clear. For one, you know, much of that would happen behind closed doors. But it is fair to say that there were some early attitudes toward the Baltic states, which were quite fundamentally not promising, notably from some Western European countries.The most infamous example is probably Jacques Chirac's outburst, as president of France in 2003 — and this was admittedly, you know, a year before Baltic accession to NATO and the EU — dismayed by the Vilnius letter, which a number of current Eastern Flank countries drafted in support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and publicly criticized those Eastern Flank countries, or now Eastern Flank countries, for failing to take the opportunity, and this is a quote, to 'shut up.' So there's always been this sort of sense that the older member states, particularly in Western Europe, simply know better than the newer Eastern Flank members, including, totally absurdly, about Russia.This has proved a rather difficult cultural bias for the Baltic states and other Eastern Flank countries to overcome. And one in which the star player in any Baltic success, as I've already said, really has been Russia for consistently defying European expectations and European excuses for Russian behavior.So from 2022 onward, the older Western European member states have finally, and I do think it's finally, begun learning a bit of humility, which opens up more space and willingness to listen to others. The U.S. pattern in all this has been notably different pretty consistently for most of the past 25 years. New administrations entered the White House seeking cooperation with Russia. Bush, after 9/11, when he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul, famously. Obama, when he sought to reset relations with Russia. Trump, with his near total subservience to Russia. Yet almost as consistently, the outgoing administration had become totally disillusioned about Russia as a result of outrageous Russian behavior. Bush after the invasion of Georgia, Obama after the invasion of Crimea and Donbass. Only Trump didn't experience that. And with the Biden administration, which came in in 2020, it at least entered office finally already wary of Russia. So the U.S. track record is actually quite different from the Western European track record. It's much more variable, much more uneven, but at key moments, it's been much more in favor of Russia, of Baltic defense, and of supporting the Baltic states.IE: Yeah. So NATO leaders are going to gather in D.C. in July, for the summit that marks the 75th anniversary of the alliance. But we're also coming up on the American elections in November. So I wonder how you see the US elections impacting NATO, especially as we are looking again at a rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and what you might see for the future of NATO in the coming years — particularly for the Baltics, but more generally too.LM: This is, of course, the big question, and the correct answer is, it's impossible to say. It'll be hard enough to imagine, even when we know who the next president will be, let alone now. But we can talk about what we know now, and try to think about the future.Because both Trump and Biden do have presidential track records now. And Trump's isn't as bad as everyone imagined beforehand, but that's largely because policy is slow to change. And throughout much of his administration, the Department of Defense was following plans already laid down and confirmed and set in motion by the previous Obama administration. Moreover, Trump actually had intelligent adults in the room with him for much of his administration, and the Senate in particular remained very pro-NATO. Both of which limited the negative consequences.In the unfortunate event of a Trump victory in November, the basic policy reality that change is hard to achieve will remain in force. But he is unlikely to have in the room nearly the same number or quality of intelligent adults as before. The Republican contingent in the Senate may also become less pro-NATO as well, with Mitch McConnell passing the torch — his pro-NATO attitudes being one of his very few virtues.On the other hand, you know, we can, and if you like, should, hope for a Biden victory. Then hopefully there won't be much change, at least for another four years. So just a continued trajectory for strengthening Baltic defense further. Or we might even plausibly expect, or hope for, at least, change for the better, as the Republican Party, which has been held hostage by Trump over the past half year or so in particular, will lose the need to try to deny Democrats political victories in the lead up to the national election, which is something they're doing now.But besides the variable of the U.S., there is still Europe, and it remains a variable as well. One increasingly highlighted as Trump has had contact with Orbán recently.IE: Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary.LM: Yes, who is also quite pro-Russian. But so in Europe too, a certain degree of pro-Russian feeling is spreading. Most recently With Robert Fico, a Slovakian populist, being elected prime minister in Slovakia. Moreover, many European countries still are not hitting the 2 percent of GDP mark agreed upon nearly a decade ago now, in September, 2014. And even if they were, the money spending practices of certain number of states is quite suspect. Now, regardless of the amount of money, the German defense budget is in an absolute state and one which more money on its own simply will not change at this moment. You need to change the processes, the bureaucracy, and the practices first before more money will make much of a difference. We have seen, however, a recent headline from Trump saying that if European NATO members were to pay more then, he'd be more amenable to staying in NATO.So he's shown some degree of flexibility, whether that's just for show or real is a different question. But nonetheless, Trump is trying to soften some bits of his sort of anti-NATO rhetoric. And even as the war continues in Ukraine and even assuming NATO countries individually and in cooperation are able to return to supporting Ukraine effectively, the next years will see NATO as an alliance, or its member states as individuals, addressing a wide variety of problems to both improve the quality and the quantity of the defense which can be provided — to the Baltic states, to Europe in general. Every Western military is probably feeling a certain sense of crisis in the face of what they see going on in Ukraine right now. And, going, sort of going back to the professional literature which I read on military strategy and all that, there have been some expressed doubts as to whether or not the U.S. could actually wage war. A major war going back to well before the Russian invasion in 2022 and what we see going on now and the difficulty of winning on the battlefield and so on and so forth. There's a lot of thinking going on, so a lot of this doesn't have much to do necessarily with political leadership, but it's just how militaries are trying to reimagine how they might want to, or perhaps might need to do things on and off the battlefield in order to continue being effective organizations for national defense. So the presidential race is a big story, but there's plenty of other stories, as well.IE: Yeah. So reminding us there's plenty going on beneath the surface beyond political leadership changes. Well, Dr. Milevski, I want to thank you so much for being with us on Baltic Ways, for giving us your insights as we are approaching these significant milestones, this significant year for NATO, for the Baltics in NATO. And we really appreciate your commentary.Thank you. Thank you so much.LM: Thank you for having me.IE: Thank you for tuning in to Baltic ways. A podcast from the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies produced in partnership with the Baltic Initiative at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. A note that the views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AABS or FPRI. I'm your host Indra Ekmanis. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fpribalticinitiative.substack.com

GUEST OVERVIEW: Hans Labohm studied economics at the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands (Holland). After his study he did his military service. Subsequently he joined the Netherlands Ministry of Defense and was posted at the Netherlands Permanent Representation at NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in Brussels. Thereafter he joined the Netherlands diplomatic service and was posted in Stockholm. After that he held various functions at the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague before he became deputy head of the policy planning staff. Subsequently he was posted at the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) in Paris as deputy Permanent Representative. After a couple of years he was posted as a senior visiting fellow and advisor to the board at the Clingendael Institute of International Relations in The Hague. Today, he is editor in chief of the website Climategate.nl

North Atlantic Treaty Organization celebrates it's 75th anniversary. Adam and Curtis discuss the past, present, and future of the organization.

On Legal Docket, Supreme Court Justices scrutinize the standing of doctors who sued the FDA's changing guidelines for the abortion drug Mifepristone; on the Monday Moneybeat, the muddled ethics of crypto entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried's upbringing that culminated in a 25-year prison sentence for fraud; and on the World History Book, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization turns 75. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donate.Additional support comes from HomeschoolDiploma.com. A remarkable education deserves a distinguished finish. From beautiful customized diplomas to regalia and invites, HomeschoolDiploma.com can help you celebrate with dignity and meaning! HomeschoolDiploma.com – elevating graduation for home and private schoolsFrom Lutheran Public Radio. Streaming sacred music for the 50 days of the Easter season at: LutheranPublicRadio.org.And from Southern Seminary--with an opportunity to embark upon a lifetime of ministry faithfulness during Preview Day on April 12th. sbts.edu/preview

Max Pearson presents a collection of this week's Witness History episodes from the BBC World Service.It's 75 years since the founding of Nato. In 1949, a group of 12 countries formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to block the expansion of the Soviet Union.Professor Sten Rynning, the author of "Nato: from Cold War to Ukraine", talks about some of the most significant moments in Nato's history.It's 30 years since the beginning of the Rwandan genocide. We hear from one of the survivors. This programme contains disturbing content.Plus Britain's Mirpuri migration, the origins of the Heimlich Manoeuvre and Britain's first nudist beach.Contributors: Sten Rynning - Professor of War Studies at the University of Copenhagen Riyaz Begum - migrated from Mirpur to London Antoinette Mutabazi - Rwandan genocide survivor Janet Heimlich - daughter of Dr Henry Heimlich Adam Trimingham - Brighton based journalist David Johnson - nudist (Photo: British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin signs the North Atlantic Treaty. Credit: Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Join me for a one-on-one discussion with former Secretary of Defense, former director of the CIA, White House Chief of Staff, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and former U.S. Representative from California, Leon Panetta.

Am 4. April 1949 gründeten zwölf Staaten die North Atlantic Treaty Organization, kurz: NATO, also das westliche Verteidigungsbündnis ? das Gegengewicht zum Warschauer Pakt. Das Gründungsdatum jährt sich 2024 zum 75. Mal. Der einstige Zweck gilt den Mitgliedsländern wieder als zentral: Sie wollen gemeinsam Stärke zeigen und so einen potenziellen Angreifer von vorneherein abschrecken. Verteidigt worden wäre das Bündnisgebiet während des Kalten Krieges in Bayern ? an der einstigen innerdeutschen Grenze. Kilian Neuwert hat sich für die BR 24 Reportage auf Spurensuche begeben. Denn das, was einst zu gelten schien, wirkt heute wieder brandaktuell. Mit einem deutschen Heeresgeneral ist er zu den Anfängen von dessen Karriere zurückgekehrt.

Efter andra världskriget stod Röda armén, starkare än någonsin, i Berlin och Stalins ambitioner var fortfarande oklara. Trots att freden var vunnen så var ideologiernas krig inte slut.Vad skulle möjligtvis kunna stoppa Röda Arméns framfart i Europa efter krigsslutet 1945? Under de omedelbara åren efter andra världskriget väcktes rädslor för ett helt nytt scenario. I avsaknad av industriell och militär förmåga riskerade Europa att domineras av ett kommunistiskt Sovjetunionen. Endast en stark västlig politisk och militär allians kunde garantera att Europas nyvunna frihet skulle förbli.I detta avsnitt av Militärhistoriepodden diskuterar idéhistorikern Peter Bennesved och professorn i historia Martin Hårdstedt bildandet av Nato och dess första år fram till Suezkrisen.North Atlantic Treaty Organization, bildades i flera steg, och kan ses som ett resultat av den oroliga stämning som rådde i Europa under efterkrigstiden. De första alliansfördragen skrevs redan 1946 i och med Dunkirkfördraget mellan Storbritannien och Frankrike, och snart följde Brysselfördraget 1947 där även Beneluxländerna ingick. För att en västlig allians på riktigt skulle kunna hävda sig mot den enorma numerär som Sovjetunionen klarade av att stampa fram, skulle det dock krävas stöd från andra sidan Atlanten.USA var under efterkrigstiden det enda landet som hade någorlunda förmåga att utmana Sovjetunionen, och gjorde så framförallt med sin nya innovation atombomben. Men var USA intresserat av att garantera Europas säkerhet vid ett eventuellt tredje världskrig? Det var inte helt säkert. Starka politiska krafter i USA önskade att landet återigen tog en isolationistisk riktning i sin utrikespolitik. Men tack vare att Truman lyckades vinna valet 1948 med sitt interventionistiska politiska program, och tack vare den så kallade Vandenburg resolutionen, godkänd av den amerikanska senaten samma år, öppnades möjligheten för USA att delta i en försvarsallians med de europeiska staterna. Eventuellt spelade också den norska statsministern Halvard Lange en särskild roll i detta drama.Washingtonfördraget, traktatet som ledde till bildandet av Nato, kunde således skrivas under 1949, och därmed sattes de grundläggande formerna för en helt ny typ av allians med USA som den yttersta garantin för säkerheten. Kärnan blev den så kallade ”artikel 5” som underströk att en attack mot en alliansmedlem var att betrakta som en attack mot alla.Nato var dock från början endast signaturer på ett papper, och innebar inte någon omedelbar ”organisation”. Det skulle ta några år till någon faktiskt militärplanering och något högkvarter kunde ta form. Framförallt skulle Koreakriget tvinga fram en på förhand strategisk planering för alliansländerna.Ganska snart stod det också klart att de olika medlemsstaterna varken var jämbördiga eller hade liknande visioner om vad Nato egentligen skulle vara. Vem som skulle ha inflytande över dess strategiska planering och kontroll över kärnvapnen blev en stridsfråga. Precis som det alltid varit i Europa, krävdes ett särskilt stort tålamod för att få till kompromisser som tillfredsställde både brittiska och franska intressen. USA, som såg sig som den fria världens försvarare, var inte heller särskilt förtjusta i de forna europeiska stormakternas koloniala reflexer och lustar. Suezkrisen 1956 skulle bli den första prövningen för Nato.Bild: general Dwight Eisenhower framför den första Nato-flaggan, 8 oktober 1951. U.S. Army - US Army, International Press Pool, släppt tis 9 okt 1951, Wikipedia, Public Domain.Klippare: Emanuel Lehtonen Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rolf Schwarz has served as a political adviser for the Middle East and Africa at NATO Headquarters and as a professor at the NATO Defense College. He is a senior adviser at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Mr. Schwarz holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, University of Geneva He is the author of several articles and books, notably a book on state-building and post-conflict peacebuilding, as well as articles on sustainable development and United Nations Sustainable Development (SDG) financing. In his most recent book - NATO and the Middle East: In Search of a Strategy – he traces the history of NATO over seven decades and looks at whether NATO has managed to promote regional stability and peace in the Middle East.   NATO, has worked closely with the UN and other partners that would project and increase stability in the region.

Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, gives his take on how the U.S. election may influence European policy on national security, with implications for the defense and cybersecurity sectors.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the impact of the US election on global security and markets. It's Thursday, February 15th at 3pm in New York.Last week I was in London, spending time with clients who – understandably – are starting to plan for the potential impacts of the US election. A common question was how much could change around current partnerships between the US and Europe on national security and trade ties, in the event that Republicans win the White House. The concern is fed by a raft of media attention to the statements of Republican candidate, Former President Trump, that are skeptical of some of the multinational institutions that the US is involved in – such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. Investors are naturally concerned about whether a new Trump administration could meaningfully change the US-Europe relationship. In short, the answer is yes. But there's some important context to keep in mind before jumping to major investment conclusions.For example, Congress passed a law last year requiring a two-thirds vote to affirm any exit from NATO, which we think is too high a hurdle to clear given the bipartisan consensus favoring NATO membership. So, a chaotic outcome for global security caused by the dissolution of NATO isn't likely, in our view.That said, an outcome where Europe and other US allies increasingly feel as if they have to chart their own course on defense is plausible even if the US doesn't leave NATO. A combination of President Trump's rhetoric on NATO, a possible shift in the US's approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the very real threat of levying tariffs could influence European policymakers to move in a more self-reliant direction. While it's not the chaotic shift that might have been caused by a dissolution of NATO, it still adds up over time to a more multipolar world. For investors, such an outcome could create more regular volatility across markets. But we could also see markets reflect this higher geopolitical uncertainty with outperformance of sectors most impacted by the need to spend on all types of security – that includes traditional suppliers of military equipment as well companies providing cyber security. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization regularly appears in newspapers and political science scholarship. Surprisingly, historians have yet to devote the attention that the organization's history merits. Timothy A. Sayle, an Assistant Professor of history at the University of Toronto, attempts to correct this. His fascinating new book, Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order (Cornell University Press, 2019), examines the history of NATO from its founding in the late 1940s through to its expansion in the post-Cold War era. Sayle shows how NATO wasn't just any organization; it was, he writes, “an instrument of great-power politics and the basis for a Pax Atlantica.” Taking his readers deep into the decision-making of NATO and its member states from the 1940s to the 1990s, Sayle provides a new, innovative international history of the second half of the twentieth century. Enduring Alliance should interest historians and scholars from across subfields—military history, U.S. foreign policy history, Cold War history, and global governance studies. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization regularly appears in newspapers and political science scholarship. Surprisingly, historians have yet to devote the attention that the organization's history merits. Timothy A. Sayle, an Assistant Professor of history at the University of Toronto, attempts to correct this. His fascinating new book, Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order (Cornell University Press, 2019), examines the history of NATO from its founding in the late 1940s through to its expansion in the post-Cold War era. Sayle shows how NATO wasn't just any organization; it was, he writes, “an instrument of great-power politics and the basis for a Pax Atlantica.” Taking his readers deep into the decision-making of NATO and its member states from the 1940s to the 1990s, Sayle provides a new, innovative international history of the second half of the twentieth century. Enduring Alliance should interest historians and scholars from across subfields—military history, U.S. foreign policy history, Cold War history, and global governance studies. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization regularly appears in newspapers and political science scholarship. Surprisingly, historians have yet to devote the attention that the organization's history merits. Timothy A. Sayle, an Assistant Professor of history at the University of Toronto, attempts to correct this. His fascinating new book, Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order (Cornell University Press, 2019), examines the history of NATO from its founding in the late 1940s through to its expansion in the post-Cold War era. Sayle shows how NATO wasn't just any organization; it was, he writes, “an instrument of great-power politics and the basis for a Pax Atlantica.” Taking his readers deep into the decision-making of NATO and its member states from the 1940s to the 1990s, Sayle provides a new, innovative international history of the second half of the twentieth century. Enduring Alliance should interest historians and scholars from across subfields—military history, U.S. foreign policy history, Cold War history, and global governance studies. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization regularly appears in newspapers and political science scholarship. Surprisingly, historians have yet to devote the attention that the organization's history merits. Timothy A. Sayle, an Assistant Professor of history at the University of Toronto, attempts to correct this. His fascinating new book, Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order (Cornell University Press, 2019), examines the history of NATO from its founding in the late 1940s through to its expansion in the post-Cold War era. Sayle shows how NATO wasn't just any organization; it was, he writes, “an instrument of great-power politics and the basis for a Pax Atlantica.” Taking his readers deep into the decision-making of NATO and its member states from the 1940s to the 1990s, Sayle provides a new, innovative international history of the second half of the twentieth century. Enduring Alliance should interest historians and scholars from across subfields—military history, U.S. foreign policy history, Cold War history, and global governance studies. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization regularly appears in newspapers and political science scholarship. Surprisingly, historians have yet to devote the attention that the organization's history merits. Timothy A. Sayle, an Assistant Professor of history at the University of Toronto, attempts to correct this. His fascinating new book, Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order (Cornell University Press, 2019), examines the history of NATO from its founding in the late 1940s through to its expansion in the post-Cold War era. Sayle shows how NATO wasn't just any organization; it was, he writes, “an instrument of great-power politics and the basis for a Pax Atlantica.” Taking his readers deep into the decision-making of NATO and its member states from the 1940s to the 1990s, Sayle provides a new, innovative international history of the second half of the twentieth century. Enduring Alliance should interest historians and scholars from across subfields—military history, U.S. foreign policy history, Cold War history, and global governance studies. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization regularly appears in newspapers and political science scholarship. Surprisingly, historians have yet to devote the attention that the organization's history merits. Timothy A. Sayle, an Assistant Professor of history at the University of Toronto, attempts to correct this. His fascinating new book, Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order (Cornell University Press, 2019), examines the history of NATO from its founding in the late 1940s through to its expansion in the post-Cold War era. Sayle shows how NATO wasn't just any organization; it was, he writes, “an instrument of great-power politics and the basis for a Pax Atlantica.” Taking his readers deep into the decision-making of NATO and its member states from the 1940s to the 1990s, Sayle provides a new, innovative international history of the second half of the twentieth century. Enduring Alliance should interest historians and scholars from across subfields—military history, U.S. foreign policy history, Cold War history, and global governance studies. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd This week our guest is Vijay Prashad. TRANSCRIPT Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Dr Wilmer Leon (00:14): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon, and I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I, we have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between the current events and the broader historical context in which they occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the impact on the global village in which we live on today's episode. The question is, is the West's hegemonic control over the rest of the world on the decline? If so, is it salvageable for insight into this and other issues? Let's turn to my guest. He's an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He's a writer and fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of Left Word Books and the director of Tri Continental, the Institute for Social Research. He's a senior non-resident fellow at Sean Yang Institute for Financial Studies at the Remnant University of China. He's written more than 20 books, including the darker nations and the Poor Nations, and he's the author of the article, hyper Imperialism. He's Vijay Prade. Vijay, welcome to the show. Vijay Prashad (01:45): It's great to be with you. Yeah, truly. Dr Wilmer Leon (01:48): Thank you so much for giving me time in your peace. Hyper in imperialism. Well, in fact, let me start this way. Lemme start this way back in 2016 at the Democratic Convention, then Vice President Biden said, we do not scare easily. We never bow. We never bend. We never break when confronted with crisis. No, we endure, we overcome, and we always, always, always move forward. We are America second to none, and we own the finish line. Don't forget it, Vijay. The undefeatable indispensable America are terms that are often used, well worn tropes, the realities that are existing all around us. Make these statements trite and meaningless to me. Your thoughts? Vijay Prashad (02:47): Well, it's interesting Wilmer, because Mr. Biden made those comments, as you said in 2016. In 2023, the United States forgot to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Munro Doctrine. Now, for those who don't know the Munro doctrine, it was enunciated by James Munro. The idea was pretty simple. Ro was saying for this new country, 1776 Revolution, 1923, Monroe Doctrine, I mean in the 18th century, a decade was a very long time. I understand that, not like now where you're sometimes just goes by so quickly. Time seems to have speed it up, but nonetheless, a young country in 1823, Mr. Monroe says at the time that, look, we just told the British Empire to go out of our shores. Not exactly because Britain still had Canada as a colony, but nonetheless Britain out of a part of North America. The United States hadn't yet ejected the French from all of North America, and there was also pockets of other Europeans involved in North America, let alone South America. (04:13) So nonetheless, quite audaciously, Mr. Monroe said, with the backing of the whole political class. Don't forget, Jefferson had already foreshadowed some of this stuff in his speeches, but Monroe said, look, Europeans, this hemisphere, the Americas from the tip right down to TGA del Fuego is not yours. The Americans will determine the destiny of this hemisphere. Now, of course, he then said something else which is, well, we in the United States have a manifest destiny, very delightful term from Christian eschatology about the city on the hill, the church at the town square and so on. We have a manifest destiny. We are Europeans. We are Europeans who have gone beyond the Europeans in Europe, and we want to make it clear not only as Europeans, because there are Europeans in South America as well, but we want to make it clear that it's America for the Americans, except when we say Americans, we mean those from the United States of America. (05:23) So that in fact the Monroe Doctrine, noble words as well, the MRO doctrine basically says the whole Americas is the domain of the United States. The United States therefore can intervene anywhere in the Americas when it feels that its interests or the interests of an enlightened civilization are threatened. And therefore we had a range of interventions, military interventions, most of Central America, much of the Caribbean, Haiti, colonized recolonized United States goes into Dominican Republic, the assault on Cuba after 1959. And so all done on the basis of Thero doctrine of 1823. Now, it's interesting because Wilma, I could make an argument what the United States did subsequent to the So-called Spanish-American War where the US seizes, the Philippines seizes, Puerto Rico seizes Cuba. You see, it's a very good example of Thero doctrine being, well, it's America for the Americans, but really Americans means the United States of America. After the Spanish American War, 1898, the United States starts to globalize the Monroe Doctrine. (06:44) And in fact, that's what happens in the aftermath of World War ii because by the aftermath of World War ii, the United States did have the technology therefore could actually have a global MRO doctrine, military bases having ships that could cross the Pacific Ocean pretty rapidly, oil fired ships could get through the Panama Canal, could go out to the Suez Canal. You had an amazing global military footprint bases all over the world and so on. That was the global MRO doctrine. Well, what's happened is that as a consequence of a number of different factors, including in the United States, the government no longer wanting to regulate the rich and therefore harvest taxes from them for a host of reasons. That's one, the lack of any kind of consensus among the elites in the United States, deep partisanship and so on. And then the trauma of this third grade depression, all these factors came together to basically signal a decline of US global power. (07:57) That is, you still have the rhetoric of the Monroe Doctrine, Mr. Biden's speech in 2016, but you don't have the realities of the Monroe Doctrine. You can bomb any country around the world, but you really can't have legitimacy over them. If a country, for instance, on the African continent needs to have a bridge built, they turn to China now to get money for that bridge to build the bridge. The United States very good at bombing the bridge, not so good at building the bridge. And I think that itself, the bridge story is a way to encapsulate the nature of the decline. In other words, US still has immense military power, spends with its allies, three quarters of world military spending, but just doesn't have the resources to do the kind of development aid it used to build the legitimacy that it once did. You said shop won cliches, tired language and so on, reporting to Mr. Biden. Yes. And the reason for that is not because Mr. Biden is out there flogging old clothes. It's that no us politician in fact can flog anything but tired. Shop one rhetoric and belligerence, they can do that legitimately, but they can't go out there and say for instance, to the people in the Sahel, Hey, listen, don't do all these cos we'll come in, we'll build a factory. We'll build a bridge for unbelievably to even once hear them say, we'll build a school, we'll build a hospital. Not going to happen Wilma, not in our lifetime. Dr Wilmer Leon (09:43): You just mentioned that the United States has extraordinary military supremacy, but the irony in that reality is the United States for all intents and purposes, hasn't won a conflict since World War ii, unless you want to throw Grenada into the conversation. United States had its hin parts whooped in Vietnam. The United States had its hin parts whooped in Afghanistan, 20 years in Afghanistan, what two and a half trillion dollars wasted, and we wound up turning the country back over to the same folks that we were fighting to take it from. We lost in Iraq, we lost in Libya. Now we've been outmaneuvered in Ukraine and of all people, Ansar Allah in the Red Sea is having traumatic impact on international trade. So yes, the United States has military superiority, but it seems as though the nature of warfare has gone almost asymmetrical and the United States hasn't been able to keep up. Vijay Prashad (11:05): Well, one of the issues is the difference Dr Wilmer Leon (11:08): Is that assessment accurate? Vijay Prashad (11:10): Very accurate. I mean, look, let's just take one of your examples. Let's take the example of Afghanistan. You said over $2 trillion spent by the United States doing what? And that's a key thing. Doing what? I want to come back, Wilma to that distinction between blowing up the bridge and building the Dr Wilmer Leon (11:30): Bridge and building the bridge. Vijay Prashad (11:31): You see, because the United States can win battles, it can win a military confrontation. You can win a battle. I mean, I was there and saw the destruction of Iraq after 2003. You can destroy power plants, take out bridges, just level the government buildings to all those things win. But war have never, never been won merely by battles. Now, there could be lots of examples in the ancient world when an army was in fact defeated and another army came in and occupied and conquered and oppressed people. But in a way that's still not a victory in the war because unless you are able to do something for the people you've occupied, unless you are able to create legitimacy for yourself as a new government, a new king, a new ruler or whatever it is, there's no way to win the war. War just merely by force. (12:31) So in the case of Afghanistan, it is absolutely true. When the US went in there in October of 2001, the bombing was ferocious. The Taliban fled from Kabul, from Jalalabad. The Taliban remnants of them that had been sitting near the Pakistan border just ran across the border to Pakistan. They fed. I mean, you remember the battle of Torah, Bora when apparently Osama bin Laden was holed up in a cave there, the United States was ping those mountains. The Taliban was fleeing. They don't want to fight a direct battle. Nobody wants to stand Wilma in a plane and be taken out by a drone. Okay? The United States can do that. Incredible technology as a young person sitting in Nevada in Las Vegas with a toggle stick in a red button can kill somebody in the of Afghanistan, in Pakistan. Extraordinary technology having chased out the Taliban, having bombarded the infrastructure. (13:34) What happens next? Here, let's go to Iraq where it's clear, clearer. Lots of journalists looked at this closely. I mean, pram Chatterjee wrote a great book called Iraq Inc. In other words, Iraq Incorporated. What did he mean by that? What he meant was it was open season, Wilma, there's a Hollywood film about this. A bunch of, let me just speak pretty straight with you here. A bunch of jackasses from God knows where Republican party people showed up in Iraq, got contracts from the US government, from the people who were the vice councils of the United States in Iraq. They didn't build anything. Let's go back to Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, they began to count Wilma, and this is horrifying. They began to count educated. When they say so many hundreds of thousands of children are in school in Kabul, okay, how do you know that so many hundreds of thousands of children are in school in the area around ka? (14:43) How do you know that all across the country? How do you know that? Well, we know that because somebody invoiced the government for chairs. So if I invoice for a hundred thousand chairs, the US government and the Afghan government stunningly and scandalously said, we have a hundred thousand people in classroom. Meanwhile, a hundred thousand chairs were not even delivered. I just invoiced you. I took the money and ran. You never saw me again. I mean, you look at the audits done by the US government of the spending in Afghanistan, scandalous spending. So you can win the battle. You can't win the war. You're not building schools, you don't have kids in classrooms. Then families say, what's the point of throwing out the Taliban and bringing you guys in because you are just corrupt. Those people, they may have their problems and indeed, my God, they have their problems. (15:42) They want gender segregation. No girls in schools and so on, but at least they're not corrupt. That's what people started to say again about the United States government in Iraq, the same thing. People go, why is there this attitude? Let's make a quick buck. Why? Because people have been learning this since at least the Reagan administration in the United States. This cannibalization of society is not something that only happens abroad. You are familiar with that Within the United States, there's so many. There are even terms where it boondoggles. The US military forgets hundreds of millions of dollars. They can't find where that money went. I mean, this is annually. There are reports that come out on this money forgotten, this boondoggle culture among the elites. It makes them mediocre. They don't want to work to be an elite. They want to inherit elite status. Everything is about an inheritance. (16:46) They don't want to work hard. They don't want to do anything. It's interesting because in Afghanistan, the British, for all their flaws, they said, well, we have experience of three to 400 years of colonialism. The British were saying, you people don't have the staying power. Well, actually, Rory Stewart and others who were saying things like that, they were not right. It's not a question of staying power. It's a question of did you want to win the war or did you just want to win battles and then come in there and quickly make a buck and flee, go off somewhere else? As I said, a Hollywood film was made about this. It's in the culture, this conversation. I'm not making this stuff up. It's real. So yes, United States very big military capable of blowing up bridges just to repeat that, but not so committed to building them. (17:39) And that's how you lose your legitimacy. If you no longer give people something that they want or they need, you don't address their problems, you're not going to be credible. Look, during the pandemic, the Chinese announced that they've ended absolute poverty in China, so enormous fe, the United Nations celebrated it and so on as we speak, Wilma, I was reading a story that there's a bill sitting in the US Congress about tax credits to be given to families so that millions of children in the United States can for the period of just this calendar year, be outside poverty. I mean, how does a story like that look around the world here at the Chinese saying, we've eradicated absolute poverty and here's the United States Congress debating whether or not to eradicate poverty, mind you, whether to pass tax credit so that for one year so many tens of millions of children in the United States can be above the poverty line. (18:43) I mean, what's going on, Wilma? This is something for people in the United States to reflect on very seriously. Is this the country that looks credible to the world? When you have somebody saying, we own the finish line. I mean, what a revealing statement that is. Joe, Joe Biden. I mean Joe, nobody owns the finish line, Joe. That's why it's a finish line. If you own the finish line, Joe, there's no race. You rigged the race, and that's exactly the attitude that people in the United States need to confront. You can't live in a society that's rigged against you. You have to fight to build a society where people feel like something is there for them, and that attitude then will create new speeches. People will realize we're not a city on the hill. We don't have a manifest destiny. There is Noro doctrine. We're just people. (19:38) We live on the planet. We've got to collaborate with others, whether it's the people in Yemen or other people in Libya or indeed the people in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I want a cell phone. I want to use their cobalt. I want to use their cold tan, but they have a right to live decent lives. I need to pay them. The corporations need to pay the people in the Congo that are digging that stuff up with their fingernails, and that's the scandal, and that's the discussion around that scandal that needs to happen in a place like the United States. Dr Wilmer Leon (20:14): And to Joe Biden's point and to your response about owning the finish line, if you claim to own the finish line, then that means that you control the finish line, and that also means that you can move the finish line. And that takes me to Tony Blinken term. Well, George HW Bush talked about the new world order, and then Tony Blinken comes in with not international law, but what's the term that Tony Blinken always loves to use about the controlling order? I can't remember the term that Tony Blinken loves to use, but it's where basically what he's saying is we have the rules, we set the laws. You all just follow what we say. Vijay Prashad (21:09): Yeah, this is his phrase, the rules based information, Dr Wilmer Leon (21:11): Order based order. Exactly. Exactly Vijay Prashad (21:14): Why you forgot it, Wilma. This is a because Dr Wilmer Leon (21:17): It has no definition. Vijay Prashad (21:18): No, it means nothing. And also it's one of the things that was there when Mr. Blinken was nominated for this job. You remember this very well. They praised him saying He's fluent in French. I thought, and I'm sorry to be so blunt, and I know that a lot of your listeners are serious people and they don't like this kind of talk, but I felt that Mr. Blinken, if he doesn't make sense in English, can't be making sense in French. So there's that rules based international order. What other kind of international order could there be? Tony? That's the question to ask him are they're all rules based. The question is who makes the rules and does everybody abide by the rules? Okay, we actually have rules that are based on Dr Wilmer Leon (22:13): Do we even know what the rules are, Tony? Yes. Vijay Prashad (22:17): In fact, that's the interesting part, Wilma, because okay, the question to ask them is what's the basis for your rules? In fact, the most consensus treaty document we have in the modern world since 1945, the document with the greatest consensus is the United Nations charter. There is no other document which has almost all countries signed onto it, okay? It's the greatest consensus document that we have in human history till now. Maybe there'll be another one, but the UN charter is paramount, and in fact, I would say that most people around the world want to live in a rules-based order, which is grounded in the rules, which we've all accepted by treaty, which is the UN charter, not the rules being something invented by the United States government at its whim by let's say the group of seven countries by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, by the 14 Eyes Intelligence Network. (23:22) They don't get to make the rules and impose them on us. I mean, what's really, really interesting in this period is that for the first time in my mind, since the 1970s, for the first time, we see heads of governments who are not necessarily leading political forces that are anti, whether it's the president and prime minister of Namibia, their political formation isn't anti systemic. Even in fact, Ali Pando and Il Rama, South Africa, these political forces are effectively telling the United States, now, we don't like your rules. We don't think your rules are good. Why? Because we think they are capricious and we think you don't follow them. What's the point of having rules if you don't follow them? So for instance, when international courts, the International Court of Justice demanded a ceasefire in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In fact, just a month into that conflict, they called for a ceasefire. (24:29) A thousand people had died at that point. By the way, now, 25,000 Palestinians and counting dead, the ICJ didn't exactly call for a ceasefire. They said that we see that it's plausible genocides, an enormous admission by the ICJ, and then they said, you must do everything to end the genocide. Well, that means a cease file. They don't use that language. They don't say secession of hostilities. Nonetheless, what's interesting is people around the world, whether it's again in Namibia or it's Indonesia or it's in Bolivia, people, ordinary people not talking about governments, ordinary people are saying to their newspapers and so on. When I meet them, as I travel around the world, people say this to me, what they are saying is, look, when it's an African leader indicted in the international criminal court, the west goes all in. They demonize the person, and in some cases these people deserve to be in front of the ICC. (25:27) They've done bad things, but the level of demonization, the music is cranked up really high. These people are bad. They're committing crimes against humanity and so on here, 17 judges, 15 sitting judges of the international criminal court, the judge from Israel, the judge from South Africa, 17 judges basically to a account of most of the time, 16 to two, in some cases, 17 to one. The Ugandan judge was the outlier, and in fact, even the government of Uganda disassociated itself from her saying she doesn't speak for our government. In fact, very interesting and we can talk about that if you'd like, but most cases 1716 to two was the count, which means that the international criminal court, the court of the United Nations has basically said Israel's actions are plausible genocide. What does the United States, Canada, almost the entirety of the west do within our, they defund the United Nations Agency for the Palestinians Honora, within hours of this coming out, this order that the Algerians wanted carried immediately to the Security Council United States, I mean around the world, people are saying, you people are not credible, Mr. (26:49) Biden, you are not credible, and anyway, you are a one term president because you've lost left liberals in your own country. They're not going to vote for you after this and you've lost the election. I mean, Mr. Trump is going to come back, whatever that means, maybe catastrophic, but he's coming back. That's probably a foregone conclusion without legitimacy, Mr. Biden, Mr. Macrow, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Soak, Mr. Schultz, I mean, you're so bent out of shape about Ukrainians because as people at the time were saying that these are white babies with blue eyes and blonde hair, but Palestinians, brown skin, black hair and so on, some of them have by the way, blonde hair, but nonetheless, not white, irrelevant. We're not even talking about the war in the Sudan. We're not talking about the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We're not even talking about the ceaseless destruction of Yemen. (27:49) The reason the US and Britain are nuts, they think a couple of missiles will scare the Yemenis. Forget it. They've taken much more and more than that from the Saudis for a decade. They're not scared of anything and they've been hardened. What has hardened them? Not Islam, not some inherent accusation that they're terrorists. What has hardened them is your bombing. It's British and US ammunition used by the Saudis bombing them relentlessly for 10 years. People look at all this and say, you never complained about any of that. One Russian tank crosses the border. One Ukrainian is killed and suddenly you are outraged and you say, open the doors, all Ukrainian refugees allowed, but Syrians, you still remain in the camps in Greece or in Turkey, wherever Palestinians, we don't apply. And so on. The stock hypocrisy, racism, a lack of concern for human life, what I consider to be an international division of humanity. (28:57) That's what's really been drawn. There's an international division of humanity and the other side of that division, the prime minister of Namibia, the president of Indonesia, even the Indian foreign minister, right-wing government, they are now speaking from the other side of the international division of Vanity saying no more. I mean, Mia Amor Motley, the prime minister of Barbados last year convened a group for an emancipation conference. A former president of Nigeria was there, the former Prime Minister Addison from Jamaica, and they basically said, we're going to have reparations from the west. This is Barbados tiny country just thrown off the monarchy. And what happened this year recently, the African union's 55 countries, the 20 countries of the Caribbean community gathered together and said, reparations now of putting it on the agenda. This is not a radical demand, by the way. It's a pretty milk to demand, but it's actually showing this new mood. They're saying, we're fed up with your hypocrisy. We're fed up with your intervening, your attempting to foist the international monetary fund on us sending your warships to scare us. It doesn't work anymore. People, you politicians are too mediocre. You don't scare us, and Trump is that dog that western civilization is going to let loose against the world bark all night Wilmer, he'll bark all night, but he won't have the guts to bite anybody or to enter the house. Dr Wilmer Leon (30:34): You mentioned about Ansara la in Yemen and the fact that United States can't scare them, that takes me back to President Putin's statement. When Joe Biden first sent the USS Gerald Ford Aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean, and Putin said, why are you doing that? Who do you think you're going to scare? These people don't scare. And in fact, Al Hhi in Yemen said, we want to fight you. They are saying, and who would think that this small country called Yemen where most people couldn't find it on a map of Yemen is saying, we want to fight you. Please. That's an amazing, amazing reality, and you also mentioned about not following that we have this rules-based order and we don't even follow the rules. Well, Joe Biden has just signed an executive order where he now says the US may sanction Israeli settlers who attack Palestinians. Now that's an interesting contrast or conflict or just total confusion. When the United States is sending weapons, sending money, logistical support, targeting support to the IDF to attack Gaza, but now seemingly for political reasons, he wants to issue this executive order and oh, by the way, Joe Biden's administration approved the sale of the very weapons that the settlers are using to murder Palestinians, but now he wants to try to sanction them for using the weapons that he sent Vijay. It's insanity. Vijay Prashad (32:45): You put it very, very well. I mean you put the point very plainly, but let's again look at this executive order. I think they named four people in this, and one of them in fact has already made a public statement saying, listen, I don't have any bank accounts in the United States. I'm not affected by this not planning to travel. There don't have any assets there. This is just symbolic. One of the people named has already said that this is bogus, not a critic of this, but what Biden doesn't do here and doesn't have the guts to do is there are thousands of US citizens in these illegal settlements. This executive order doesn't touch a US citizen in an illegal settlement who goes and shoots a Palestinian. It doesn't touch that person. This is just directed at those who are Israeli citizens, but not US citizens. Many of the US citizens are also Israeli citizens. They have joint citizenship, but this is not, he is immunized US citizens in this. That's one point. Secondly, he doesn't really sanction anybody. I mean, you want to give a real sanction, sanction Israeli politicians who are inflaming the settlers. What about putting them on the list? I mean Dr Wilmer Leon (34:08): Smoke trick for example. Vijay Prashad (34:10): Exactly. Why should they not? Why should universal jurisdiction not cover them? You look back at the international criminal court warrant against Mr. Potent and his minister of children, they were accused and maybe there is an accusation to be made there. They were accused of removing children from a war zone in Ukraine. They were accused of removing children from the war zone. Now, fourth Geneva Convention does say that population transfer is illegal, but let's have a discussion about that removing children from a war zone, is this appropriate? Should they have been removed to Russia? Did they go with the consent of their parents? There could have been a range of discussion and debate. I don't remember any debate. I just remember being told that this is a war crime and the ICC indicted him. Now, the Israelis have already killed over 11,000 children. They didn't remove children from a war zone in the way that the Russians did. (35:13) They did remove children from a war zone, but by killing them, 11,000 of them in body bags, 11,000 of them and no ICC warrant and no statement from the United States government instead this ridiculous executive order that's supposed to modify his base. You see what's been happening is I watched these videos, Mr. Biden traveling around the country, the United States trying to drum up support for his failing election campaign and at every single stop, it seems to me, or at least that's what circulates, I know this is not exactly a scientific assessment what you see circulating, but at many campaigns stops. He starts speaking, he's talking about a woman's right to choose whatever he's talking about. People yell, genocide, Joe, they yell, seize fire. Now they yell, stop supporting Israel and he is a dear in headlights as any of us would be a caught between a really bad policy that you can't defend and a base that is angry with you because let's not forget that this is a base that might not be scared into voting. Again for the Democrats, this is a base that might say, really, Trump is so bad and you were so great, you authorized a genocide against the Palestinians. I don't think this base is coming back. Dr Wilmer Leon (36:37): Lemme quickly say to that point. That's a great point and I've been saying for a while that in 2020, Joe Biden was talking about how horrific Donald Trump was and he was making a lot of promises about what he would do. He had no track record as a president. Now in 24 he has a track record as a president and he's now starting to make some of the very same promises in 24 that he made in 20, and folks are comparing his promises and his rhetoric to his record and they're saying You didn't do it then why are you going do it now? Vijay Prashad (37:21): In fact, worse than that, the people who are out there at these rallies saying genocide, Joe sees pie. Now these are people with a modicum of interest in what's happening outside the United States. They're not people who are going to focus on quite correct issues like for instance, a woman's right to choose. There is some difference between the candidates and so on. Not that the Democrats have done much to defend the woman's right to choose or on the question of immigration. I mean the Democrats haven't done much better than the Republicans in some cases, maybe even worse Dr Wilmer Leon (37:54): Because it's more important to them as an issue, as a political wedge issue than it is for them as a solution. Vijay Prashad (38:04): Correct? Exactly. So what you have is you have people genocide, Joe Ana. These are people who are saying, I'm not a single issue voter. I'm not going to be wedged by you back into the fold. You can't wedge me and you can't wedge me because I'm looking at these other things. And there are lots of young people in that cohort and one of the areas where they're looking at is Cuba. This July norm Chansky and I are going to release a book called On Cuba, which is where the reason I know all this stuff about the MRO doctorate, and I mean I'm not a scholar of all this, but we had to study this to understand US foreign policy against Cuba. We did a deep study. It was a pleasure to work with. No on this book, it's not an interview book. We wrote this together. (38:51) We discussed and talked and went through it and so on Cuba, there's a section in the book toward the end where Mr. Biden says, during the campaign says that I am going to reverse Trump's unfortunate strangulation of the people of Cuba. We are going to remove Cuba from the state sponsored on terrorism list. We are going to roll back the 243 extra sanctions, no more talk as John Bolton did of axis of whatever it is of tyranny and so on. Bolton speech, none of that. Biden said all that there, this video of him saying all that. It's not like some private interview, which he then denied. He said this in front of the cameras. Well, then he came into office, he won the election, came into office. Jen Psaki at the time, spokesperson was asked, what about the reversal? He can by executive water get rid of some of these sanctions. (39:52) You can start the process to remove Cuba from the state sponsor of terrorism list and so on. Because Cuba, after all is a state sponsor of healthcare for the world, not terrorism, a bad idea Trump, and now Biden Biden didn't do anything and Jen Psaki said, it's not on our agenda. Now what you just said ferociously, I'm going to reverse Trump's. It's not on our agenda now. Then there was some small protests in a small town, a few hours outside Havana, which the anti Cuban people in Miami blew up and said, it's a big protest in July and so on, he is going to overthrow the government. Then Biden entered and said, we are going to tighten our grip on the island because we have to support the people fighting. So not only did he not do what he said because it was not on the agenda when he started to do something about Cuba, it was in fact Trump plus. (40:52) So in that case, what the heck, man? I mean, where are you genocide, Joe? That's what people are calling him more and more. That is not a good look for a president or for a person running for president of the United States on the Democratic ticket because I admit to you, I know a lot of the people on the left and so on, but don't underestimate the power of that small section of left liberals because they are the activists. They are the ones that go door to door In South Carolina for instance. There is no such thing as a democratic party. There are only motivated activists who are the people. It's mostly middle-aged women and young college students who go door to door distributing things, talking up candidates, going into churches, talking to their friends and so on. If that crucial section is started to call him genocide Joe and say, ceases fire now, and to ask questions like, why are you trying to suffocate the people of Cuba? (41:58) Why can't you pass a proper infrastructure bill? Why are you arresting and deporting people at the border? Activists say that you lost the election because there's no body else to substitute for them. You can have as much astroturfing as you want. You can get all the high rollers around the United States to give your campaign money. You can hire people to go with clipboards, but they don't have the passion to stand on the door, stop to stand at the front door, knock on the door, say, listen, you got to vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. They're just going to stand there with a clipboard. Say, I have been told to say, please vote for Mr. Biden, it's chat GPT, man, you don't win elections with chat GPT, you win elections with passion. It's not going to be there for them, and I think they have made a huge, huge error trying to believe that these little executive orders will claw back that section. (42:56) The only thing that's going to claw back that section is something that neither of the political parties can do. Mr. Trump can't do it either. None of them can break with the Israeli ruling elite, none of them. None of them will offer a robust criticism of Israel. That's a serious problem for the American elite. The American public on the other hand, has already broken that consensus. You've already seen the polls, Wilma, a majority maybe up to something like two thirds of the United States. Public no longer wants the US to support Ukraine with money. Correct? Two thirds of the US public, correct. A majority of Republicans don't want the United States to support Israel in this war. A majority of Republicans, that's interesting. 40 some percent of Democrats have turned against this war. That's compelling evidence to my mind once more of the great disjuncture in US politics between the people's mood and their opinions and what the governments want to do. (43:56) Nancy Pelosi was confronted by some protestors from Port and what did she say? She said, oh, you are all doing the work of Russia. Russia. I mean for God's sake to use this kind of language against US citizens who have a First Amendment right to protest the FBI, my God, I can't believe I'm going to say this. I just got word this evening before we spoke. The FBI has made a public statement Wilmer saying that we will not investigate people who are conducting nonviolent protests on behalf of the Palestinians because those people doing the protests have a First Amendment right. The FBI has said that Dr Wilmer Leon (44:38): Mean because Nancy Pelosi called upon the FBI to investigate those protestors saying that they were operatives of Russia and here was her rationale. Putin has a message saying that there's genocide in Gaza and these protestors are saying that there's genocide in Gaza. So because the protestors have the same message as Putin, ergo or Ipso facto, they must now be operatives of Russia when everybody on the planet should be opposed to genocide. Even Nancy Pelosi should be opposed to anybody in their right mind should be so even if Putin is the autocrat, is the dictator, is the madman, is whatever is the evil villain is a swamp monster and an evil villain. A broken clock is right twice a day. So the issue on Gaza, he's right on that issue. Vijay Prashad (45:59): Well, I'm actually personally invested in this particular part of the conversation because some months ago, the New York Times basically accused me of being an agent of the Chinese government. It was a ridiculous article. I mean, I was embarrassed to read it, not embarrassed for myself, embarrassed for the New York Times. I was like, man, you guys wrote some pretty shoddy articles with the name Judith Miller attached to them that basically made the case for the United States to go to war illegally against the Iraqi people. You got some pretty bad journalism under your hat, the gray lady all these years, but this particular article was really bad because it essentially took certain quite trivial facts like I run a research institute, I also work for a media house. I have people who donate to these things. I can't travel to the SA region on money. I borrow from my friends. I need donors for this because when I publish things, I can't get enough newspapers to pay me enough to actually travel to places. You got to forward fund a lot of these projects. I'm not embarrassed to say that I don't come from money. I'm not independently wealthy. I don't have that kind of trust fund that would enable me to live the kind of Dr Wilmer Leon (47:26): George Soros won't back you, so Vijay Prashad (47:28): Yeah, he's not going to back me. I've got to find people, and by the way, the Chinese government gives me zero money. In fact, my post at the Chang Yang Institute of Financial Studies is non remu. I don't make any money at all. They don't pay me for anything. The reason I took that position is I was keen to interact with Chinese scholars. I wanted to have a place where I could sit down and listen to what Chinese scholars are thinking and saying, almost no place in the world that allows that unless you get involved somehow with a Chinese institution because they don't trust. You can't just show up in Beijing and say, Hey guys, I want to talk to you so I don't have any Chinese. They know that. By the way, the New York Times know that they knew the provenance of the funds. (48:09) They knew everything they had all the material, the questions that the journalists asked me. I'm going to give this to you just because it's so funny. David, far andhold the journalist, senior journalist New York Times wrote big questions like, for instance, are you paid by the Chinese government? Do you take orders from the Chinese government? I mean, I felt that this is not journalism's McCarthyite hearing. It's the kind of question you'd expect some off the wall, right-Wing congressman to ask you, Lindsey Graham, that kind of thing, going from McCarthy to Lindsey Graham and to somebody as mediocre as Marco Rubio who read that article and the next day asked the Department of Justice to investigate all the projects named in it. Fortunately, either the Department of Justice is doing an ongoing investigation that I don't know about or they decided not to take Mr. Rubio seriously, which I think is probably what happened. (49:10) But the point reason I'm raising this is that it's really interesting in the United States unable to have the argument. Why can't Nancy Pelosi have the argument about Gaza unable to have the argument about Russia, let's say, or unable or unwilling to have the argument about China? They simply want to repress you. They want to say anybody who doesn't follow the line saying China is evil, Russia is evil. The Palestinians are terrorists. Anybody who moves even one millimeter from that general line, they just want to repress you. They want to delegitimize you. They want to basically put you in jail. They don't want to have the argument with you, and that I think is depressing for the whole situation of the culture in the United States, the political culture, the conversations, I mean for God's sake. I watched a couple of the Republican primary debates before the Iowa caucuses. (50:14) I watched a few of them. The level of conversation was abysmal. It was juvenile. Juvenile. There are real problems in the world. I mean real problems that guy Ram, he actually did a favor for us culture because we Ramas proved once and for all that all South Asians aren't at the caliber of doctors and whatever. There's no model minority. I mean there's mediocrity even amongst South Asian Americans, mediocre. He's out there as an attack dog of somebody just sort yelling at people. I felt bad at moments even for DeSantis, for God's sake, let the man try his best to put an argument on the table. Don't keep interrupting him and saying, Ron, you is Ron, you're that. And then DeSantis piling on Nikki Haley, I thought, God, you are just a bunch of people that if I saw you in the bar, I would get out of there, get into my car, drive across town. (51:16) I would prefer to buy a bottle at a liquor store and sit in my car, not car. I would prefer to sit in the anti room of my house and drink it by myself. I don't even want to be within sight of you when I'm having a drink, let alone let's say in front of a congressional committee. Really mediocre level of discussion if that's the standard of discussion, no wonder that if they are challenged, let's talk about Gaza. They'll just say, you are a Russian agent. Get out of the room. I don't want to talk about, I just heard Megan Kelly who had Trump on her show for an hour. She has a YouTube type show. Anyway, Megan Kelly was on a podcast I was listening to a very, very interesting, she was talking a little bit about this, about the fact that the deterioration of the ability to actually have a discussion about ideas, the big ideas, you want to have a discussion about immigration, let's have a discussion about immigration. Let's not demonize all sides and not talk to each other about how to understand these issues. (52:29) There is no space for that and therefore Nancy Pelosi turns around and says, FBI investigate them. They're criminals. And fortunately somebody at the FBI had managed to read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and decided, Hey, listen, they have a constitutionally protected right to speech as long as they are nonviolent. Now, I found that an interesting part of their statement because in fact, I'm not even sure that's necessarily true because for instance, this goes back to Dr. Martin Luther King's letter from Birmingham jail. Does nonviolence include, for instance, resisting chaining yourself to a wall, blocking a street and so on there? I think we could have an interesting discussion with the lawyers at the FBI that What do you mean by nonviolent? I mean, if I go and lock myself into the office of a congressman, are you still going to say I a right to that speech? Because after all, you can't lionize the civil rights movement and then criminalize its tactics today, which is exactly what they seem to be doing. Nancy Pelosi will stand up there and say, the great Dr. Martin Luther King, when I marched with him across Selma, as you know, every living American politician marched across Selma with Dr. Martin Luther King. I marched across, but then if you try to march across the Brooklyn Bridge, you are an agent of Russia. Dr Wilmer Leon (54:00): You were mentioning the United States is better at blowing up bridges than building bridges, and the Washington Post has a very interesting article. China sets sites on Taiwan's three remaining tiny Pacific Islands, and here's an interesting element of this as China. This is from the Washington Post as China Vs. With the US for power and influence in the Pacific. It has tirelessly tried to pry allies away from Taiwan. By many means, chief among them money, it has offered much needed funds to struggling island nations like Nru and allegedly doled out envelopes of cash to officials and accusation. Beijing denies China has approached Pacific politicians as they travel overseas, inviting some to lunch and surveilling others what they're slaying out. I mean, that sounds like lobbying to me. And what they don't say in the peace is, well, China's not assassinating rulers in these islands. China isn't involved in their elections. China isn't overthrowing their governments. China isn't involved in China, is engaged in building relationships with countries, and they're doing it by determining what the country needs, seeing what China can provide and how there can be a win-win. And that's not rhetoric. That's, as you know, that's an actual policy strategy of the Chinese government win-win, and somehow the Washington Post makes it out to be nefarious, and there's something spooky going on here because China's actually building relationships with these people not coming in, building air bases, army barracks and shooting people. Vijay Prashad (56:12): Well, there's something in this Taiwan China story that the Washington Post also won't cover. There's something really interesting. Well, firstly, it is settled treaty position of the United States that Taiwan is basically a part of China that was established when the United States agreed to remove the Republic of China from its permanent seat at the UN Security Council and replace it with the People's Republic of China. This was right there in the 1970s, part of the Nixon Mao negotiations and so on. Okay, so why is the United States so desperate to hold on to Taiwan? Lemme give people a little glimpse into things that don't get talked about. Taiwan is the home to a company called TSMC. TSMC is one of the world's largest chip manufacturers. In fact, 90% of the advanced chips used in cell phones and other electronic gadgets made by TSMC. The United States worried about eight, nine years ago that if China was able to incorporate Taiwan, not necessarily by political incorporation, but even just economically, what was John Adam's statement? (57:29) That by the natural force of gravity, Cuba will fall into the US lap. They were salivating about that, by the way, because it was about the Mississippi River and the slavery complex. They wanted Cuba part of that big slavery kind of economy down the Mississippi River all the way to Cuba, like the force of gravity. Cuba will fall in. Well, United States worried by the force of gravity. Taiwan is going to fall into the lap of China, economic links, everything that post. So United States government then started talking to TSMC saying, look, you have to set up a factory in the us and indeed United States opened the door in Arizona. They built a big factory. Washington Post ran a story about it. It was a huge thing. Lots of engineers came from Taiwan. The factory went nowhere. Why the Taiwanese engineers said, we can't work in these conditions. People just don't. They don't work. I mean, whatever they said, I'm not even judging anybody, but they turned home. That's what they said. That's what they said. I mean, I don't know. I wasn't there. Dr Wilmer Leon (58:33): They couldn't find the workforce that they needed to perform the tasks that needed to be performed. That's what they said. Vijay Prashad (58:41): That's what they said. And then they went back home. So TSMC still in Taiwan and actually also on the Chinese mainland produces a lot of these advanced chips. Now, United States tried to squeeze China's ability to buy these chips, but what they're really worried about is that TSMC will come to the realization that they cannot, absolutely cannot accept the US sanctions on China that prevent TSMC from selling chips to China, because China is one of the biggest markets for those advanced chips. There's also a Dutch company that produces very advanced electronic equipment for Chinese. They cannot afford to stop selling to China, and because of that, the United States will buy to anything to maintain Taiwan. But there's a real worry that they can't control it because in Taiwan, people are saying, sanctioning China is bad for us, bad for our economy. That's the natural cause of gravity. John Adam's statement didn't work for Cuba. It might work for Taiwan. Dr Wilmer Leon (59:51): And as we get out, what did Joe Biden, or what did members of the administration say when Nancy Pelosi was getting ready to go over there and there was all this concern that China might shoot her plane out the sky and all this other kind of stuff. The Biden administration said, if conflict breaks out between China and Taiwan, the United States will blow up TSMC. The United Vijay Prashad (01:00:21): Imagine that Dr Wilmer Leon (01:00:22): Threatened to blow up the TSMC factory on the mainland of Taiwan on the island of Taiwan. If conflict broke out, that to add additional validity to your statement, that's how and what that also did, as they say, necessity is the mother of invention that forced Huawei to develop. Just speaking on the cell phone side of things that motivated Huawei to expedite their chip development, their phone development, and they now have developed this, I can't remember the name of the phone, but their latest cell phone also now has satellite capability. Vijay Prashad (01:01:14): Imagine that. (01:01:16) Look at what I would be able to do with a phone like that, Wilma. I mean, the fact of the matter is just to underline all these points and give you the bottom line. The fact of the matter is it's very clear that we are at a fork in the road. The legitimacy of the old colonial countries of the global North has declined precipitously ever since the war in Ukraine and this war in Gaza. And at the same time, the kind of confidence in the global south, the new mood in the global south has really altered the confidence levels has risen. That's where we are. You asked at the beginning of the show, can this be turned around? I don't think so. I think what people in the United States must try to do is to recognize that everybody who lives on this planet earth is equal, and the people in the United States are not more gifted or more entitled or anything very good people in the United States, but nothing special compared to other people in the world. We got to live as a planet. We have to collaborate. We can't talk about finished lines and races. That's not where we're going. This is a human family and we have to treat each other in a better way than we do our own families Dr Wilmer Leon (01:02:40): And the solution to the conflicts are not military. One of the things that I have been saying about the conflict in Gaza is that Israel has bombed the world into reality, and people now see the horrors that have been ongoing for the last 75 years. It's playing itself out on their cell phones. It's playing itself out all through social media, and people are now finally looking at this, and they are, it's similar to, I believe it's similar to what Dr. King's strategy was with the children in the protests and the nonviolent protests. Do not respond to the brutality. Let the world see the brutality for what it really is and people will be aghast. And now the response in Gaza has bombed the world into reality and people all over the world, with the exception of Joe Biden and Tony Blinken and Samantha Power, who by the way wrote a book about genocide and now people on her staff are resigning their positions, asking her, well, wait a minute. I thought you wrote a book about your side. How can you back this play? The responses to the solutions to these problems are not through sanctions, and they're not through militarism and violence. They are through negotiation and accommodation, and the sooner the United States understands what Brix understands and what the Chinese cooperative and so what all of them understand, the better off we're going to be. Vijay Prashad (01:04:32): I mean, I agree with you fundamentally got to hope and believe that these changes, this new confidence arising in the world is going to provide a path out of the madness. We are at a fork in the road. Let's not choose madness. Dr Wilmer Leon (01:04:49): Let's not choose madness for no one wins in that debate. Vijay Prade, thank you so much for joining me today. Folks, I want to thank you all for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow, leave a review, share my show with those and love, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. Peace. I'm out

It's Thursday, January 25th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Myanmar military deploying air strikes to destroy churches A report by the Myanmar Witness project confirmed that multiple air strikes destroyed churches in Myanmar last year. Christians in the Buddhist-majority nation have faced high levels of persecution, especially in recent years. The airstrikes hit churches in Myanmar's Chin State which is predominately Christian. Since 2021, internal conflict in the country has destroyed 67 church buildings in the state.  Benedict Rogers with Christian Solidarity Worldwide wrote, “Bombing churches is much more than just collateral damage. Targeting them is part of a deliberate strategy.” Please pray for our persecuted brothers and sisters in Myanmar. Matthew 5:10 says, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” Sweden voted in as newest NATO member On Tuesday, the parliament of Turkey approved Sweden's bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Turkish President Recep Erdoğan is expected to sign the legislation. Sweden applied to the western military alliance in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine.  Sweden is one step closer to joining and only needs the approval of Hungary now.  49 U.S. abortion mills shut down last year Operation Rescue released its annual survey of American abortion facilities for 2023. The report found 49 abortion mills shut down last year. Another 88 shut down in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The latest update from Operation Rescue noted even more mills shut down since November of last year. Sadly, the pro-life group said there has been an “alarming rise in dangerous mail-order abortions.” Political independents are the largest voting bloc Gallup reports that political independents remain the largest voting bloc in U.S. politics since 2008. About 43% of American adults identified as independents last year. Republican and Democrat identification tied at 27% each. Democrat identification is down from a 38% high in 2008, while Republican identification is only slightly down from 28% over the same period. United Methodist Church lost 25% of congregations over sexual perversion Last week, The Lewis Center for Church Leadership released its final report on disaffiliations from the United Methodist Church. The mainline Protestant denomination lost 25% of its congregations since 2019 over the issue of Biblical marriage. Many churches are joining theologically conservative denominations instead, like the Global Methodist Church. 37% of teens working or looking for work The U.S. Labor Department reports that 37% of teenagers were working or looking for work last year. It's the highest labor rate for high schoolers since 2009. Younger workers also saw the largest increase in starting pay last year. Teen workers are reversing decades of decline following the COVID-19 pandemic. Ohio legislature vs. Governor on transgender agenda Ohio's legislature has voted to override Republican Gov. Mike DeWine's veto of Ohio House Bill 68.  The bill prohibits transgender surgeries and drugs for minors and bans men, pretending to be women, from playing in women's sports. Ohio's Senate voted to override the veto yesterday. The state's House voted the same way earlier this month. Pastor Mark Robinette died in house fire trying to save his two sons And finally, it is with heavy hearts that we share the news of the tragic deaths of Ohio Pastor Mark Robinette, age 55, as well as two of his sons, Gideon, who was 17, and Liam who was 10. A fire broke out at the family's house in the early morning hours on Tuesday. As flames engulfed their dwelling, Pastor Mark got most of his family to safety. His last selfless act on this Earth was spent trying to rescue Gideon and Liam, but the flames took all three. Pastor Mark leaves behind his beloved wife Andrea and six children — Nathanael, Elizabeth, Benjamin, Rebekah, Anna, and Valiant. He was a selfless man, always ready to run to the aid of anyone in need, physically or spiritually. Pastor Mark worked in full-time ministry for over 30 years and was the founding pastor of Foundation Church of Mount Sterling, Ohio. Gideon was a bright, generous, and loving young man, always ready to help anyone. And Liam was a shining light of joy and a blessing to all. They will be greatly missed by their community.  Pastor Mark was a two-time Associated Press award-winning investigative journalist, wrote for numerous magazines and newspapers, and authored the book Myanmar Gold, introducing the world to the incredible indigenous church leader, Naing Thang, in Myanmar. Pastor Mark also founded Mission to Myanmar, as the New York Post reported, Missions to the Americas, Foundations of Grace Publishing, and the Chin Heritage Foundation. He even contributed as a writer to this very newscast. Above all, Pastor Mark Robinette is remembered for his passionate love for God and for the church, loving others and laying down his life to the very end. Proverbs 3:5-6 was often on his lips and exemplified in his life: "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.”  Please keep the Robinette family in your prayers and consider giving a donation through a GoFundMe campaign linked in our transcript today at TheWorldview.com.  Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Thursday, January 25th in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Congress approved a bill this week that bans any American President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO. What is NATO? NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In NATO, as of 2023' there are currently 31 members within NATO. Here below are links to resources used in this episode: 1st segment: https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-barring-president-withdrawing-nato/ 2nd segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=gHnC7gWrPmrKgQVk&v=snXhtOpSXtI&feature=youtu.be https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/index.htm https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html 3rd segment: https://www.britannica.com/facts/North-Atlantic-Treaty-Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_General_of_NATO --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/nrodyunknown/message

It's Wednesday, November 8th, A.D. 2023. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Nepalese pastor's year-long prison sentence upheld Last month, the Supreme Court of Nepal upheld a one-year prison sentence for a pastor. Officials charged Pastor Keshab Raj Acharya under the country's anti-conversion law. His wife told Christian Today the government is using the case to set an example and deter Christians in the Hindu-majority country from sharing their faith. The anti-conversion law went into effect in 2018. Since then, Nepali Christians have faced increased persecution, including false accusations and violence. In Matthew 5:11-12, Jesus said, “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in Heaven.” Russia withdraws from treaty Russia formally withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe yesterday. In response, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, known as NATO, also pulled out of the Cold War-era security pact. The treaty was meant to keep the Cold War powers from amassing troops near each other's borders. This comes less than a week after Russia also revoked its ratification of a nuclear treaty that banned nuclear weapons tests. This only increases the already high tensions between NATO and Russia since Russia invaded Ukraine last year. Speaker Johnson: We need to secure American border before Ukrainian border Speaking of Ukraine, the U.S. House of Representatives is considering linking aid to Ukraine with increased security at the U.S.-Mexico border. Republican Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana is the new House Speaker. He told Fox News we have to secure our border first. JOHNSON: “We can do all of these things together. But when you couple Ukraine and the border that makes sense to people because they say, ‘If we're going to protect Ukraine's border, but we have to take care of our own border first.' And that's what we're saying. This is policy changes that are necessary. “There's a growing consensus in the Congress, certainly amongst Republicans, but also even some across the aisle who recognize we have to change what is happening. Over 6.3 million illegal crossings since Joe Biden took office.” The House also approved aid for Israel last week in a plan to reallocate over $14 billion away from the IRS. Christian wins public school religious liberty case A Christian woman who was a public school student in Chicago won a $150,000 settlement last month in a religious liberty case. Back in February, Mariyah Green sued the Chicago Board of Education for a Quiet Time program that was implemented at her school during the 2018-2019 school year. The program, known as Transcendental Meditation, was originally developed by a Hindu. Green said the school expected her to chant a mantra and honor Hindu deities as part of the program.  Despite what she believed to be an attack on her faith, Green told The Christian Post she hopes God continues to use her to "spread the Gospel and also to help people.” Texas vs. Planned Parenthood The state of Texas is taking Planned Parenthood to court in a $1.8 billion fraud case. Texas accuses the abortion giant of fraudulently obtaining state Medicaid funds. Texas terminated Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider back in 2021. The judge in the case is U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. He was appointed by President Donald Trump. Kacsmaryk is also the judge who ruled back in April against the FDA's approval of the Abortion Kill Pill.  Fifty-three percent of mothers who abort their unborn babies due so chemically. 37% of Americans think we did not evolve A new poll from Suffolk University/USA TODAY asked people across America what they believe about evolution. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said humans evolved into their present form without divine intervention; 24% said humans evolved but under God's direction; and 37% said humans did not evolve but were created in their present form by God. Belief in creation by God without evolution was strongest among Republicans, older people, and people with no more than a high school degree.  Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Franklin Graham preached in Rome, Italy And finally, nearly 20,000 people attended an outreach event in Rome, Italy this week led by Evangelist Franklin Graham with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. It was the largest evangelical outreach event in Italy's history. Before the event, Graham said, “Rome is filled with centuries of history, culture and religion, but I'm not coming to talk about these things. I'm coming to Rome to share how we can all have a real and personal relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ.” GRAHAM: “Will you invite Christ to come into your life? If you've never done that, if you're here tonight and you're not sure that your sins are forgiven, you can make sure right now. You're not coming to Franklin Graham.  I cannot save you. You're coming to Jesus Christ. So come!” This week also marks the birthday of Franklin's father, Billy Graham. He was born on November 7, 1918 in Charlotte, North Carolina. The evangelist preached to some 215 million people across 185 countries and territories in his life. Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Wednesday, November 8th in the year of our Lord 2023. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The Ukraine War has exposed a lot when it comes to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — otherwise known as NATO. Aside from the "renewed mission" and "unity" that has emerged to help Ukraine confront the Russian invasion, there are downsides. NATO has a limited capacity of weapons stores and manpower and the US is taking on a disproportionate share of the leadership and resource sharing. Dr. Maitra Sumantra, a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, says it's past time for Americans to rethink further expansion and scaling back the US dominance of this organization. We talk about where the support exists for this kind of dramatic shift, and how resistant the political establishment here and in European capitals would be toward such change.In the first segment, Kelley and Dan talk about the new UN-approved, Kenyan-led security mission in Haiti.More from Sumantra Maitra:Europe's Revealed Preferences, The American Conservative, 10/423 Britain's Military Enlightenment, The American Conservative, 8/14/23Pivoting the U.S. Away from Europe to a Dormant NATO, Center for Renewing America, 2/16/23 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit crashingthewarparty.substack.com

*) South Korea holds rare military parade amid North's nuclear threat South Korea kicked off its first large-scale military parade in a decade, showcasing weapons ranging from ballistic missiles to attack helicopters. The parade marks the country's Armed Forces Day, normally a muted event relative to the massive events the North has staged under leader Kim Jong-un. In a speech, President Yoon Suk Yeol warned the North against using nuclear weapons and pledged to ramp up support for the military and the defence industry. *) Ukraine says Russia's Black Sea Fleet commander killed Ukraine's special forces have killed Moscow's top admiral in Crimea along with 33 other officers in a missile attack last week. Admiral Viktor Sokolov allegedly died in the attack on the headquarters of Russia's Black Sea Fleet in the port of Sevastopol. Sokolov was the commander of the Black Sea Fleet and one of Russia's most senior navy officers, had been killed. The Russian Defence Ministry did not immediately respond when asked to confirm or deny the allegations. *) Ratifying Sweden's NATO accession bid not 'urgent': Hungary's Orban Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has told parliament that ratifying Sweden's NATO bid was not "urgent". Hungary has still not voted to approve the Nordic country's entry into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Orban accused the Nordic country of having challenged his country's "democratic nature". *) China sentences Muslim Uighur scholar to life in prison: rights group China has sentenced a well-respected Uighur Muslim academic to life in prison on charges of "endangering state security", a US-based rights group has said. In a statement, the Dui Hua Foundation said Rahile Dawut, 57, lost her appeal against her original conviction in December 2018. Rights advocates have accused China of launching a mass internment campaign targeting Uighurs, along with abuses such as forced sterilisation and cultural repression. And finally… *) Striking Hollywood writers reach 'tentative' deal with studios Striking writers have reached an "exceptional" deal with Hollywood studios that could see them return to work. The Writers Guild of America told members no one is to return to work until specifically authorised to but picketing has been suspended following the deal. Thousands of film and television writers began striking in early May over demands including better pay for writers and protection from artificial intelligence.

They promised the Russians “not one inch eastward” when discussing the future plans of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or as it is known to the world: NATO. It only took eight years before that promise was officially broken into pieces and scattered to the wind, so anything that NATO tells Russia with regard to the situation in Ukraine should not be trusted under any circumstances. They have a long history of lying to everyone about what they are actually doing. The truth is that NATO is the largest terrorist organization in the world, and its crimes have been documented for more than half a century starting with Operation Gladio and running through the modern-day Ukraine intervention. Not only are they terrorists, but they also qualify as “war criminals” for supplying the Zelensky regime with illegal and internationally banned munitions such as cluster bombs and depleted uranium artillery shells. On the path towards world government, one will see the footprints of NATO disguised as a defensive force for good, but those who understand what this organization actually is realize that the footprints were made by goosestepping authoritarians seeking to control the planet. Freeworld NYC 9/11 Live Event Tickets: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/free-world-nyc-tickets-667727369537Christian Yordanov's Detoxification Program: https://members.christianyordanov.com/detox-workshop?coupon=MACRO Sponsors: Emergency Preparedness Food: www.preparewithmacroaggressions.com Chemical Free Body: https://www.chemicalfreebody.com Promo Code: MACRO C60 Purple Power: https://c60purplepower.com/ Promo Code: MACRO Wise Wolf Gold & Silver: www.Macroaggressions.gold True Hemp Science: https://truehempscience.com/ Haelan: https://haelan951.com/pages/macro Solar Power Lifestyle: https://solarpowerlifestyle.com/ Promo Code: MACRO LegalShield: www.DontGetPushedAround.com EMP Shield: www.EMPShield.com Promo Code: MACRO Coin Bit App: https://coinbitsapp.com/?ref=0SPP0gjuI68PjGU89wUv Macroaggressions Merch Store: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/macroaggressions?ref_id=22530 LinkTree: linktr.ee/macroaggressions Books: HYPOCRAZY: https://amzn.to/3VsPDp8 Controlled Demolition on Amazon: https://amzn.to/3ufZdzx The Octopus Of Global Control: Amazon: https://amzn.to/3VDWQ5c Barnes & Noble: https://bit.ly/39vdKeQ Online Connection: Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/Macroaggressions Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/macroaggressions_podcast/ Discord Link:  https://discord.gg/4mGzmcFexg Website: www.theoctopusofglobalcontrol.com Facebook: www.facebook.com/theoctopusofglobalcontrol Twitter: www.twitter.com/macroaggressio3 Twitter Handle: @macroaggressio3 YouTube: www.youtube.com/channel/UCn3

At the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, Turkey agreed to support Sweden's bid to join the alliance. This paves the way for Sweden to become the 32nd member nation following closely behind Finland, which became a member earlier in the spring. The expansion of NATO is something Russia and President Vladimir Putin have used as a key rationale for the war against Ukraine – saying it jeopardizes Russia's security.Timothy Sayle is an associate professor of history and director of the International Relations Program at the University of Toronto. He's also the author of Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order. He's on the podcast to explain the history and tension between NATO and Russia and what more countries joining the alliance tells us about the current state of global affairs.Questions? Comments? Ideas? E-mail us at thedecibel@globeandmail.com

It's Wednesday, July 12th, A.D. 2023. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Finish Christian politician fights bogus “hate crimes” charges again Finland's former Minister of the Interior is facing court proceedings all over again for her Christian beliefs. In 2019, Päivi Räsänen shared her Biblical views on marriage and sexuality. In response, officials charged her with hate crimes. Last year, a court acquitted Räsänen, but now she has to defend herself again after the government appealed the ruling. Writing about her ordeal in The Critic, Räsänen warned on Monday, “It's not just Finland that has reinvigorated the witch-hunts against those who hold different views to the approved state orthodoxy. Across the West, ‘hate speech' laws are cropping up time and again.” Matthew 5:11-12 says, “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in Heaven.” Sweden gets greenlight to join NATO Speaking of Nordic countries, Sweden got approval from Turkey's President to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO on Monday. As a NATO member, Turkey's approval was critical for Sweden to enter the military alliance. Until now, Turkey had opposed Sweden's entrance. Sweden, along with Finland, pursued NATO membership last year after Russia invaded Ukraine. Finland officially joined in April. And, with Turkey's approval, Sweden is set to be the 32nd member nation. Gallup poll: Big business and Congress least trustworthy Gallup released a new poll on Americans' faith in major societal institutions. Only small business and the military garnered public confidence from a majority of U.S. adults. Big business and Congress were the least likely to have public confidence.  Only 32% of respondents said they trust the church or organized religion, down from 37% in 2021. Overall, an average of 26% of Americans have confidence in major U.S. institutions, down from 48% in 1979.  Tennessee's anti-transgender law A Tennessee law that protects children from transgender drugs and surgeries went into effect on Saturday. A U.S. appeals court struck down a preliminary injunction on the law that blocked its enforcement. Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee's Attorney General, said, “The case is far from over, but this is a big win. The court of appeals lifted the injunction, meaning the law can be fully enforced, and recognized that Tennessee is likely to win the constitutional argument and the case.” America destroys last chemical weapons The U.S. destroyed its last chemical weapons last Friday at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Richmond, Kentucky.  Since the 1940s, the facility housed rockets filled with a deadly toxin, known as GB nerve agent. At its height, during the Cold War, the stockpile weighed in at 30,000 tons.   Dr. William LaPlante with the Defense Department said, “This is the first time an international body has verified destruction of an entire category of declared weapons of mass destruction.” Psalm 46:9-10 says, “[The Lord] makes wars cease to the end of the Earth; He breaks the bow and cuts the spear in two; He burns the chariot in the fire. Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the Earth!”  Worldview listeners weigh in from Kansas, Montana, & South Africa Worldview listeners continue to email me about why they like the newscast at Adam@TheWorldview.com.  (Remember to include your whole name, city and state, and your country if outside America.) Caleb Hayden in Wichita, Kansas wrote, “Adam, I've been enjoying the daily news review, especially the focus on persecuted Christians abroad. Keep up the great work!” Jodi Icopini in Billings, Montana wrote, “I greatly appreciate The Worldview. In recent months, I gave up mostly all of my mainstream social media. That had been my primary source of news. Being able to listen to The Worldview each day keeps me plugged in enough so I know what's happening in the world, but without the reliance on social media which had become a huge burden for me. This fall, I plan to start each of our homeschool days listening to The Worldview with our two teenagers who remain in our homeschool. We are blessed to have such a great resource. Thank you for all that you do.” And Belinda and Andre DuRand in Cape Town, South Africa wrote, “Dear Adam, We have been listening to your newscast for a few months now. We really like feeling in touch with other Christians out there in the big wide world, and knowing a little of what other Christians are experiencing. Thank you.  In addition, we loved your interviews with Rhonda Stoppe, author of Moms Raising Sons to be Men. We don't have sons, but we were so inspired that we have shared the podcasts with ALL our friends and family who have sons. Wishing you all the best in your work for Christ.” 6 Worldview listeners gave $540 Recently, 6 Worldview listeners gave donations toward our $80,000 goal by Monday, July 31st to keep this unique Christian newscast on the air.  Unfortunately, it's the fewest number of donors since we kicked off our month-long fundraiser on July 4th. We thank God for Hershel in Bellevue, Idaho who gave $15 and Paul in Brush, Colorado who gave $25. And we're grateful for the generosity of Joseph in Burnet, Texas, Richard in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Marty in Winchester, Oregon – each of whom gave $100 as well as Ted in Rockaway, New Jersey who gave $200. Those 6 donations add up to $540. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please. (Drum roll sound effect) $12,778.88. (Crowd cheering sound effect) In order to hit our $40,000 immediate goal by this Friday, July 14, we still need to raise $27,221.12.  I wonder if at least 10 new folks will step up to the plate today? I'm looking for 10 Worldview listeners to pledge $100/month for 12 months. Then, we would need 13 to pledge $50/month for 12 months.  And another 26 listeners to pledge $25/month for 12 months.  Just go to TheWorldview.com and click on “Give” at the top right to give what the Lord is prompting you to donate to keep this weekday newscast on the air.  Make sure to select the “Recurring” tab if that's your wish. Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Wednesday, July 12th in the year of our Lord 2023. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, met at the annual summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. Debate continues over whether to invite Ukraine to join the alliance. John Deni, research professor at the U.S. Army War College, joins us. And, Vietnam has banned Greta Gerwig's "Barbie," set to premiere later this month. In the movie, star Margot Robbie stands in front of a controversial map that reflects China's disputed claim to the South China Sea. And this isn't the first time this issue has caused controversy in Hollywood. Aynne Kokas, author of "Hollywood Made in China," joins us. Then, what does it mean to call the economy "good" or "bad"? The ups and downs of the job market can be one sign of economic health, but there are many others. Kate Raworth, author of "Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist." joins us.

Moscow's invasion of Ukraine eroded the concept of neutrality as an effective policy in a polarized world. That's especially true for countries in close geographic proximity to Russia. Recently, Finland joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, ending 100 years of neutrality. With 830 miles of border between Russia and Finland, NATO's newest addition changes the strategic balance in Europe. These major geopolitical shifts are likely to outlast the actual Russian invasion of Ukraine. What does that mean for the global world order? The Altamar hosts are joined by Mika Sinuhe Wallinheimo, Finnish Member of Parliament since 2011. Altamar's ‘Téa's Take' by Téa Ivanovic examines the increasingly conservative youth vote in Finland and Sweden.   ----- Produced by Simpler Media

Former President Donald Trump was indicted this week. He was arraigned in a New York City courthouse on Tuesday and plead not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records.Extreme weather continues to ravage many parts of the South. At least 32 people have been killed in the region by multiple tornadoes.Sunday's NCAA women's basketball championship game drew record viewership this year. The LSU Tigers defeated the Iowa Hawkeyes 102 to 85.Meanwhile overseas, Finland joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization this week, doubling the alliance's border with Russia. Now, all eyes turn to Sweden as the country faces an uphill battle for membership.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find us on Twitter @1A.

Earlier this year, Finland and Sweden applied to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But both of their applications were held up, due to an objection by Turkey. NATO being a mutual security alliance, any one member can prevent new countries from joining. To fully understand the background dynamics at play here and to explain the agreement that the three countries recently signed, allowing the applications to move forward, Lawfare Publisher David Priess spoke with two people who have covered Turkey from a multitude of angles. Nick Danforth is the author of The Remaking of Republican Turkey: Memory and Modernity since the Fall of the Ottoman Empire. He has also covered U.S.-Turkish relations for the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Bipartisan Policy Center. Rachel Rizzo is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Europe Center, where she focuses on European security, NATO, and the trans-Atlantic relationship. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is having a moment. The alliance dates back to the early years of the Cold War, and ever since, it has seesawed in and out of favor with Western leaders. But now, as Russia continues to wage its attack on Ukraine, NATO has assumed some of its old relevance. Guest: Mary Elise Sarotte, professor of Historical Studies at the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins University. She's also a research associate at Harvard University's Center for European Studies. Her most recent book is Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Dear Prudence—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices