Podcasts about north atlantic treaty organization

In this episode, we pull back the curtain on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—an alliance that has been the bedrock of transatlantic security for over 75 years, and yet finds itself at a critical turning point in 2026.What is NATO?Founded in 1949, NATO began as a collective defense pact among North American and European nations. At its heart lies Article 5: the principle that an armed attack against one member is an attack against all. This "all-for-one" commitment has defined global security for decades, acting as both a deterrent against aggression and a forum for political and military cooperation. The Current LandscapeWhile the mission remains the same—safeguarding the freedom and security of its 32 member states—the environment has changed drastically. In this episode, we explore the challenges defining the current era:The Spending Shift: With the 2025 commitment to reach 5% of GDP in defense spending by 2035, we discuss what this massive investment means for national economies and the future of military readiness. Geopolitical Friction: From the fallout of the war in Ukraine to shifting relations between the U.S. and its European counterparts, we examine the complexities of maintaining consensus when political priorities diverge.A Changing Defense Posture: We look at how the alliance is modernizing its deterrence strategy to address not just traditional military threats, but also cyber warfare, supply chain vulnerabilities, and regional stability.Why It MattersWhether you're a policy buff or just trying to make sense of the headlines, this episode breaks down why NATO is more than just a treaty—it's a dynamic, evolving political machine. We move beyond the jargon to ask the big question: Can the alliance adapt fast enough to meet the security challenges of 2026 and beyond?Join us as we weigh the arguments on the future of the Atlantic bond, the debate over burden-sharing, and what it truly takes to keep the peace in an increasingly unpredictable world.NATO WEBSITE: https://www.nato.int/enSend us Fan Mail

Send us Fan MailPeaches is back for the May 13 Daily Drop—and this one starts personal.Before the military headlines, Peaches breaks down what happened right there in Las Vegas: two regular dudes stepped into chaos at a local grocery store, took on an armed shooter, protected families, and very likely saved lives. No uniforms. No backup. Just action when action mattered. Then the Ops Brief kicks off: the United States Army heads back to the southern border, Rangers bring bayonet training back from the dead, Dan Driscoll admits Ukraine's battlefield networking is ahead of us, and General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper keeps proving cheap drone kills are the future.Meanwhile, North Atlantic Treaty Organization launches a counter-drone marketplace, the United States Coast Guard suddenly bans kratom, and the Pentagon confirms the Iran conflict has now crossed $29 billion.Peaches keeps it blunt: the world is changing fast… and courage still isn't something you can automate.Bottom line: technology matters… but men willing to act still matter more.⏱️ Timestamps: 00:00 Vegas Heroes & Why This Matters 02:00 Two Men Stop an Active Shooter 05:00 Why Courage Still Matters 07:00 Army Heads Back to the Border 09:00 Rangers Bring Back Bayonet Training 11:00 Ukraine Is Ahead of Us? 14:00 Marine Recon Gets an Overhaul 16:00 Pennsylvania OTS Moves to September 18:00 MQ-9 Reaper Gets Cheap Kills 21:00 Why APKWS Is a Big Deal 24:00 United States Space Force Career Changes 26:00 Coast Guard Bans Kratom 29:00 Arctic Deployments & Icebreakers 32:00 Pete Hegseth Confirms $29B in Iran 35:00 AI Drone Targeting Expands 38:00 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Goes All-In on Counter-Drone Tech 41:00 Special Ops Across Europe 44:00 Iran Still Has Missile Sites 47:00 Final Thought—Be the Guy Who Acts

Today's top stories, with context, in just 15 minutes.On today's podcast:1) The US signaled it would stick with a naval blockade of Iranian ports, as it tries to choke-off Tehran’s oil exports and force it back to the negotiating table. US President Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday that Iran was in a “state of collapse.” His treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, later said Washington’s “maximum pressure campaign” had caused Iran’s inflation to accelerate and that the country was running out of oil storage. It would soon have to start cutting production, Bessent said.2) King Charles III called on the US to maintain its leadership role in the world, and to support Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in a remarkably pointed speech for a monarch that urged Americans to resist the pull of isolationism.Charles used his remarks to a joint session of Congress — the first such address by a British monarch in more than three decades — to argue for preserving the alliance between the UK and US. The king appealed to the shared heritage between the two nations, sprinkling his remarks with references to culture, religion and principles behind America’s decision to declare independence 250 years ago 3) With the Fed widely expected to keep rates on hold at the April 28-29 FOMC meeting, the more interesting revelation will concern Jerome Powell’s future: Will he stay on or leave the Fed when his term as chair expires May 15? Regardless of his plans, we think Powell will offer only limited forward guidance on policy at his final news conference as chair, with Kevin Walsh on track to be confirmed as his successor.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Your morning briefing. All the news you need to start your day.On today's podcast:(1) US equity-index futures rose as investors positioned ahead of a raft of earnings from the largest technology companies in what has been a generally upbeat reporting season. Markets are also awaiting a Federal Reserve policy decision. (2) The US has warned banks they are at risk of secondary sanctions if they support Chinese private refiners that buy Iranian oil, cranking up pressure on Tehran even at the cost of further irking Beijing just weeks ahead of a leaders’ meeting. (3) The shock decision by the United Arab Emirates to quit OPEC blindsided its partners of six decades. Now the cartel will have to fight to stay relevant in a fast-shifting global oil market. (4) Traders in the Treasury options market are bracing for long-dated bond yields to surge past 5% as a rally in oil prices continues unabated. (5) UBS has posted $3 billion dollars in profit in the first three months of the year - smashing past expectations. (6) King Charles III called on the US to maintain its leadership role in the world, and to support Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in a remarkably pointed speech for a monarch that urged Americans to resist the pull of isolationism. (7) The Netherlands is gearing up for a new tax on paper profits, sparking public and political opposition and opening another front in the international push to target the wealthy. Podcast Conversation: King Charles Is Doing an Impossible Job in AmericaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For over 75 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has bolstered American power and shaped the world order as we know it. But under President Donald Trump, its future is uncertain.The United States has spent the better part of a year telling its allies they're on their own. Trump has threatened to annex Greenland – the sovereign territory of NATO ally, Denmark. He skipped the Munich Security Conference. And he launched the war in Iran without consulting NATO allies.Now, the president is asking for help securing the Strait of Hormuz. And European countries are saying no.How is the war in Iran testing the alliance? And how would a U.S. withdrawal from NATO reshape global power dynamics?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Just a year after its original deadline, Canada has finally met its NATO spending target of 2% of its GDP, including investing billions in recruitment and modernizing infrastructure. Our eyes are now set on the 2035 target of 5%, which Ottawa committed to following pressure from US President Trump last year. While Canadians are feeling supportive of the government beefing up national security during this geopolitical moment, the reality of the paying the bill will fall on the shoulders of Canadians. Host Caryn Ceolin speaks to Colin Busby, director of policy engagement at the CD Howe Institute to break down what options Ottawa has to finance the sustainability of its NATO spending. We love feedback at The Big Story, as well as suggestions for future episodes. You can find us:Through email at hello@thebigstorypodcast.ca Or @thebigstory.bsky.social on Bluesky

President Donald Trump is considering moving U.S. troops from North Atlantic Treaty Organization members that have not backed the war against Iran and moving them to more supportive countries, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, while he also mulls trying to withdraw the U.S. from NATO altogether. KEY FACTS The proposal would involve removing American troops stationed in countries Trump believes were not supportive of the U.S. and Israel's war with Iran and moving them to countries deemed helpful amid the conflict, the Journal reported. The potential punishment against some NATO members is one of several being circulated in the White House, according to the Journal. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who met with Trump in a closed-door meeting Wednesday, did not speak to the validity of the Journal's report in an interview with CNN, remaining tight-lipped and saying he had a very “frank” and “open discussion” with Trump. Trump and Rutte's meeting came after Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump has considered withdrawing from NATO, the 32-member alliance that acts as a collective military defense for the countries under its banner. But Trump cannot unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NATO under a 2023 law that says withdrawal requires a two-thirds Senate approval (right now, including at least 14 Democrats supporting it) or a formal act of Congress. That law was co-sponsored by then Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Trump's secretary of state, who recently told Fox News that after the war with Iran, “we are going to have to reexamine” the U.S. relationship with NATO. TANGENT The U.S. and Iran reached a ceasefire agreement Tuesday night, with Trump saying the two countries would “work closely” to establish a regime change and remove nuclear materials. The agreement was reached after Trump threatened strikes on civilian infrastructure alongside a statement in which he said “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” Iran accused the U.S. of breaking the ceasefire after Israel conducted bombings in Lebanon. Trump and Vice President JD Vance claimed Iran misunderstood the terms of the ceasefire and that Lebanon was not included within it. WHAT NATO COUNTRIES HAVE BACKED TRUMP'S WAR ON IRAN? Canada, the Czech Republic, Albania, North Macedonia, Lithuania and Latvia are the only NATO countries to issue letters of support for the strikes the U.S. and Israel have carried out against Iran. Read the full story on Forbes: By Antonio Pequeño IV https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2026/04/08/trump-mulls-pulling-us-troops-out-of-nato-countries-opposing-iran-war-report-says/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Against the backdrop of Operation Epic Fury and President Trump's frustration with military support from NATO allies, Secretary General Mark Rutte visited Washington to discuss the alliance's evolving burden sharing. Moving away from American codependence and increasing European defense investment took center stage at this year's NATO Summit in The Hague, and we hope to see the fruits of that in Ukraine, along NATO's eastern flank, and in more balanced support for U.S. efforts in Iran. Following what he described as a “candid and frank” conversation with the President this week, Rutte shares frank insights on the alliance, its future, and America's role in addressing present day challenges in Europe.Mark Rutte took office as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 14th Secretary General on October 1st, 2024. Prior to that Mr. Rutte served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands for almost 14 years. During this time, he presided over four coalition governments, with a distinguished record of domestic and international achievements including security, defense, employment and social affairs, and economics. He was a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. He is a strong supporter of global and transatlantic cooperation.Read the transcript here.Subscribe to our Substack here.

Darrell Castle talks about whether or not the United States should leave NATO and whether that decision would bring about a new U.S./Iran order in the Middle East. Transcription / Notes: THE END OF NATO Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. This is Friday the 10th day of April in the year of our Lord 2026. My beat today is once again war but I am so tired of war each week that I have decided to carve a niche out of the unexpected results of our current war and that is NATO and its possible end for the United States. I'm sure you all know what NATO is but as a refresher it is a treaty (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in which the U.S. along with the other members agreed to come to each other's aid if attacked. The purpose was to prevent and protect against a Soviet attack in Europe like the NAZI's had done. Everything worked fine when there was a Soviet Union to fight and to protect against. The cold war justified the massive defense spending by the U.S. which allowed Europe to rebuild from the war's devastation and to provide generous welfare benefits to its citizens. The fall of the old enemy, the Soviet Union, triggered a crises in NATO because there was no longer a justifiable reason for its existence. The collapse of Russia and with it, communism, put the alliance under tremendous strain especially when rising debt levels in the U.S, caused economic hardship. People would ask why are American forces still deployed in Europe. Why can't Europe protect itself from perceived threats. Why do our families have to bear the brunt of Europe's defense. NATO continued to exist although the reason for its formation no longer existed. The reason smells like the Military Industrial, Intelligence, Security Complex and I am sure that was a lot of it, but some vehicle of justification had to be found for NATO's continuation and so found it was. NATO still exists today, and American troops are still deployed in Europe today although the reason is now obsolete. Moving the alliance to the borders of Russia along with a coup that replaced Ukraine's government of pro-Russia elected officials with anti-Russia officials might justify its existence. Who knows, maybe a new war could be started that would require hundreds of billions in new spending. That is exactly what happened and the Obama, Biden, and Trump administrations have handled it the same way. Pour money and weapons into Ukraine to fuel its war against Russia. Make the war last longer and be much worse than it otherwise would be. Perhaps if Ukraine were allowed to use American weapons to attack deep inside Russia then Russia would be provoked enough to attack outside Ukraine but so far that has not happened. Meanwhile back to present day and we find that although the U.S. poured hundreds of billions into Ukraine ostensibly for the defense of Europe, when President Trump decided to launch a stupid, pointless, unprovoked attack against Iran Europe seemed to want no part of it. Trump seemed to think that Europe should have been willing to support the U.S. out of gratitude for all the money and all the graves of America's sons scattered across Europe. NATO was much weaker than when the U.S. and Europe saw Russia as an existential threat. The Ukraine war, despite all the bluster and propaganda, proved that Russia could not even conquer that small corner of Ukraine on the border of Russia. My theory, then, is that Europe no longer feels threatened by Russia despite all the rhetoric to that effect but it does feel threatened by the millions of Muslims it has invited into its countries and who now live among European populations. So, Europe offers no help in Trump/Israel's war against Iran. Shockingly, even with our long special relationship with the UK, Prime Minister Starmer would not allow the U.S. to use bases in England, which the U.S. at least partially paid for, to refuel and rearm aircraft used against Iran. Many U.S. administrations, including the Trump Administration, have criticized Europe for not bearing more of the expense and sacrifice for its own defense, Trump has said that this is not 1949 which was the year NATO was founded and Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself. This hostile rhetoric back and forth along with the changing political climate in Europe in which the European general outlook was fast becoming one of subservience to the new global world run or at least managed by the bureaucrats in Brussels. Trump, J.D. Vance, and Marco Rubio have all made it clear that the U.S. would not follow that path so Europe says no help in Iran. Even the European effort to keep the Strait open is virtually nonexistent. There is nothing in the NATO charter that requires member states to support the U.S. efforts in Iran. The U.S. was not attacked which would have triggered the article 5 common defense clause so there is no Charter obligation in their eyes. How about just friendship and gratitude as Trump would put it. I suppose the Europeans say that friendship doesn't extend that far and in fact we don't even like you because you are crass and won't play by our globalist playbook so why should we anger all the Muslims in our countries. Supposedly, Iran has missiles that could reach Berlin and possibly even further and they have proven that these missiles are still there and they cannot be stopped if fired in volume. So, I understand why Europe does not want to support the U.S. in its attack on Iran, but I don't understand why the U.S. remains in NATO. I am very onboard with Trump's constant threats to leave NATO because the time is long passed when that should have been done. Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen because leaving NATO would require congressional approval and I don't think there is nearly enough support in congress to leave. Of course, another aspect is that the U.S. created NATO and accepted the defense of Europe not as a protection racket but as a strategy to keep European nations from building armies and invading each other which lead to two world wars. To me, this NATO issue along with the two-week ceasefire in Iran represent the best possible chance for a new order to emerge from the chaos. Not a new world order as traditionally talked about but an order in which the U.S. adopts a foreign policy designed to truly benefit the U.S. and its people. That would mean ending the special relationship with Israel and the beginning of treating it like we treat any other country. Ending the special relationship with Israel is job number one if Trump truly wants to extricate the U.S, from the Iranian war, and I think he does. Israel and its American lobby obviously do not want the war to end even if the Strait remains closed and the global economy suffers. It appears that he is not any more grateful than NATO for U.S. help. If that is the case and Trump constantly threatens to leave NATO because “they have been of no help to us “then why doesn't he threaten Israel with abandonment. The answer to that question would certainly explain a lot. The two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan, apparently, was something that had great promise for a new U.S./Iran agreement that could have remade the Middle East. The idea of joint U.S. and Iranian control of the Strait makes sense to me and I saw it as a way to pay for the rebuilding of Iran by charging all those European and Asian tankers a toll for passage. Before the war about 127 ships per day on average passed through the Gulf and now it is 6. If each of 127 ships was charged an average of $100,000 for passage that's roughly $355 million per month using my crude math. That money would go a long way toward rebuilding Iran from the rubble it now is. Reports say that the U. S. alone has dropped some 32,000 bombs on Iran since the attacks started and that figure doesn't include what Israel has dropped. In any event the U.S. taxpayer pays for all of it and we are U.S. taxpayers and therefore responsible. This is a free country right or at least that's how much of the world views it so since we are a “democracy” we the people are responsible for its actions. That sounds good in theory but in fact we have no real way to change anything and when we are given the illusion that we can all we seem to do is make a terrible situation worse. My toll charge system probably would not work because it would increase the price of everything but for the U.S. I'll wager its cheaper than war. Here in the real-world Trump reportedly told the Iranians that they have a chance to be Persians again. That is a tremendous offer and it shows he does understand at least some of the history of the Persian people. Iran was created by Great Britain from ancient Persia after World War 1 and Trump is offering them an olive branch they could use to regain control of their oil and shipping from Lloyds of London and the English banking system. Why not leave NATO for a new order in the Middle East. Why not, well I'm glad you asked. The answer is Israel, its American lobby, and the neo-con globalist war party that seems to own everything including all our lives. It is probably more than a coincidence that J.D. Vance is going to Pakistan to continue the very intense negotiations that brought this cease fire to life. J.D. is probably the least neo con of anyone in the administration. Could this really end in 5 weeks. Vietnam 15 years, Afghanistan 23 years, Iraq 18 years approximately so we'll see. Finally, folks pray this cease fire accomplishes more than the neo con war party wants it to accomplish and pray for peace. At least that's the way I see it, Until next time folks, This is Darrell Castle, Thanks for listening.

President Donald Trump is considering moving U.S. troops from North Atlantic Treaty Organization members that have not backed the war against Iran and moving them to more supportive countries, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, while he also mulls trying to withdraw the U.S. from NATO altogether. KEY FACTS The proposal would involve removing American troops stationed in countries Trump believes were not supportive of the U.S. and Israel's war with Iran and moving them to countries deemed helpful amid the conflict, the Journal reported. The potential punishment against some NATO members is one of several being circulated in the White House, according to the Journal. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who met with Trump in a closed-door meeting Wednesday, did not speak to the validity of the Journal's report in an interview with CNN, remaining tight-lipped and saying he had a very “frank” and “open discussion” with Trump. Trump and Rutte's meeting came after Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump has considered withdrawing from NATO, the 32-member alliance that acts as a collective military defense for the countries under its banner. But Trump cannot unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NATO under a 2023 law that says withdrawal requires a two-thirds Senate approval (right now, including at least 14 Democrats supporting it) or a formal act of Congress. That law was co-sponsored by then Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Trump's secretary of state, who recently told Fox News that after the war with Iran, “we are going to have to reexamine” the U.S. relationship with NATO. TANGENT The U.S. and Iran reached a ceasefire agreement Tuesday night, with Trump saying the two countries would “work closely” to establish a regime change and remove nuclear materials. The agreement was reached after Trump threatened strikes on civilian infrastructure alongside a statement in which he said “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” Iran accused the U.S. of breaking the ceasefire after Israel conducted bombings in Lebanon. Trump and Vice President JD Vance claimed Iran misunderstood the terms of the ceasefire and that Lebanon was not included within it. WHAT NATO COUNTRIES HAVE BACKED TRUMP'S WAR ON IRAN? Canada, the Czech Republic, Albania, North Macedonia, Lithuania and Latvia are the only NATO countries to issue letters of support for the strikes the U.S. and Israel have carried out against Iran. Read the full story on Forbes: By Antonio Pequeño IV https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2026/04/08/trump-mulls-pulling-us-troops-out-of-nato-countries-opposing-iran-war-report-says/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

April 3, 2026April 4 is the anniversary of the creation of NATO - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, After WWII, the US and its allies recognized the importance of peacetime alliances, The pact enlisted the US to stand behind the security of Western Europe, All 12 member states agreed to defend one another against an attack by a third party, Since 1949, the alliance has expanded to include 32 countries, Originally concerned mainly with resisting Soviet aggression, recently NATO has resisted the aggression of Putin's Russia, NATO countries stand together without being identical, creating a diverse organization dedicated to the cause of freedom and peace. Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

The New York Times has printed an article with the headline "A North American Treaty Organization Without America?", apparently having spent the entire Ukraine war completely unaware that NATO stands for North ATLANTIC Treaty Organization. Reading by Tim Foley.

What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, commonly referred to as NATO? Glenn breaks down the history of NATO's creation, what it was originally intended for, and how, somewhere along the way, the reasons for America's continued membership in NATO began to diminish. Glenn reacts to Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's argument on birthright citizenship. How can somebody so unqualified be on the Supreme Court? Texas AG candidate Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) joins to discuss his thoughts on the 14th Amendment. Retired NASA astronaut Charlie Duke, who was the youngest astronaut ever to walk on the moon, joins to discuss his reaction and thoughts on the Artemis II launch. Glenn warns that America must continue to lead the way in space exploration or risk a global adversary like China taking the lead. Hoover Institution senior fellow Victor David Hanson joins to discuss the conflict with Iran, whether it was avoidable or inevitable, and what he thinks the outcome will be. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman joins to discuss why the Artemis II launch is a critical investment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, commonly referred to as NATO? Glenn breaks down the history of NATO's creation, what it was originally intended for, and how, somewhere along the way, the reasons for America's continued membership in NATO began to diminish. Retired NASA astronaut Charlie Duke, who was the youngest astronaut to ever walk on the moon, joins to discuss his reaction and thoughts on the Artemis II launch. Hoover Institution senior fellow Victor David Hanson joins to discuss the conflict with Iran, whether it was avoidable or inevitable, and what he thinks the outcome will be.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's top stories, with context, in just 15 minutes.On today's podcast:1) President Trump finally tried to sell the American public on his Iran war. But his primetime address five weeks into the messy conflict instead underscored the US president’s growing defensive posture, as pressure mounts on global shipping routes, gas prices and his political party. Trump said the US operation was close to completion, in an attempt to reassure a skeptical public. Still, the speech lacked new announcements — most notably a precise timeline for an exit. He also pledged more aggressive actions in the next two to three weeks, including potential strikes on electrical plants. The president also did not present any new arguments or explanations for the war, instead reiterating his desire to destroy Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities. Likewise, there was no concrete plan for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a vital energy thoroughfare. While he said diplomatic discussions continue, he shared no breakthroughs on ending the conflict. Treasury yields climbed and the dollar pushed higher as Trump’s remarks triggered gains in crude oil. US equity futures retreated.2) European allies are skeptical President Trump will actually pull the US out of NATO. But they still fear the president’s renewed threats to do so are eroding the military alliance at a precarious moment. Trump on Wednesday capped mounting US critiques of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with a suggestion that he was strongly considering leaving the alliance. His comments came after Secretary of State Marco Rubio, typically seen as Washington’s NATO defender, chided the alliance for its “very disappointing” response to the war in Iran. While the rhetoric isn’t particularly novel — Trump and his cohort have long bashed NATO allies as free-loaders who don’t help the US — the president’s latest ire is posing a greater risk to the alliance as his war in Iran deepens and he looks for people to blame, according to officials familiar with discussions among allies.3) NASA’s crew of astronauts launched to space and reached a stable orbit, kicking off a landmark journey that will take them closer to the lunar surface than anyone has been in more than 50 years. The initial phase of the 10-day mission to lap the moon, a multibillion-dollar feat about a decade in the making, clears a major hurdle for NASA and its legacy aerospace contractors as the agency works to establish a base on the lunar surface and ultimately venture to Mars. The crew’s Lockheed Martin Corp.-built Orion capsule, stacked on the shoulders of Boeing Co.’s Space Launch System rocket, thundered off the launchpad at 6:35 p.m. local time at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The rocket system, taller than the Statue of Liberty, reached speeds of around 17,500 miles per hour as it hurtled to space. It blazed a trail of fire and smoke as it climbed and eventually shed its spent side boosters, which provided extra thrust.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd asks the most uncomfortable question in American politics: is the country's current dysfunction a problem that can be resolved at the ballot box, or are we living through a pre-Civil War style pressure buildup where fundamental divisions keep getting papered over rather than addressed? He draws a striking parallel between today's hyperpartisan era — where both parties are simultaneously fighting each other and tearing themselves apart internally — and the post-Jackson period of American politics, when the country flipped back and forth between parties without ever resolving the underlying wound of slavery. He traces the arc from the Compromise of 1850, when Millard Fillmore believed he'd saved the republic, through the repeal of the Missouri Compromise that led to Bleeding Kansas, to James Buchanan handing Abraham Lincoln a country already on fire — and asks whether modern America can heal its divides without mass violence. He closes with Lincoln's insight that you couldn't solve the divide by managing it — but insists it doesn't have to take a hot civil war to resolve America's fractures, even if it increasingly feels like the country still isn't ready to do the hard work of actually turning the page. Then, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan — the moderate Democrat, former tech entrepreneur, and Harvard-educated candidate for California governor — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a policy-dense conversation about what's wrong with California governance and how to fix it. Mahan argues that California has enormous resources but isn't delivering better results, and that the best form of resistance to Trumpism isn't performative opposition but good governance that actually improves people's lives. He walks through his record in San Jose — where he prioritized basic dignified shelter over expensive permanent housing and is now leading the state in reducing unsheltered homelessness — and makes the case that expensive housing is fundamentally a public policy failure driven by environmental review processes that needlessly slow construction. On AI, Mahan notes that Silicon Valley's libertarian tech culture has historically disengaged from civic life, but warns that AI is coming fast and California has both the responsibility and the opportunity to set guardrails that could become the national standard — particularly around transparency in government data use and serious law enforcement around data violations. The conversation gets politically candid as they navigate the tensions within the Democratic Party. Mahan argues that California Democrats can't blame anyone else for the state's governance failures, that every year revenue goes up faster than population growth yet outcomes get worse, and that highly organized interest groups end up wielding a veto over meaningful change. He opposes the proposed California billionaire wealth tax — not because he's defending billionaires, he insists, but because taxing the ultra-wealthy needs to happen at the federal level to avoid driving companies out of state — and disagrees with Newsom's handling of Proposition 36, arguing the state should force people into either treatment or jail rather than allowing open drug markets. On California's jungle primary, Mahan dismisses concerns about two Republican candidates advancing as overblown, pushes back on the idea he should run as an independent, and contends that Democrats need to update their platform and make government actually work rather than relying on "resistance warrior" posturing. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the creation of NATO in 1949 and asks whether an alliance built on stability and values can survive a transactional president like Donald Trump, and answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CHUCKTODDCAST at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/chucktoddcast Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 01:00 Reaction to March Madness 03:15 Nats are 2-1! 08:45 Trump orders TSA workers to be paid via executive order 09:45 Both parties are fighting each other, and also infighting 10:45 The house has the hardliners, the senate has the compromisers 11:15 Is the country ready to move on from dysfunction & hyperpartisanship? 13:30 For the 21st century, the country has flipped back & forth between parties 14:15 Similarities to the post-Jackson era of American politics 16:30 Problems and divisions were left unresolved 18:00 The wound over slavery was never healed, pressure kept building 19:00 Fillmore offered the compromise of 1850, thought he saved the republic 20:45 The Missouri Compromise was repealed, led to conflict in Kansas 22:30 Buchanon handed Lincoln a country already on fire 23:15 Can modern America heal its divides without mass violence? 24:15 8 million turned out for No Kings protests 25:45 CPAC was completely different universe compared to No Kings 27:00 Trump’s poll numbers are tanking on multiple issues 27:45 Democrats brand is still worse than Republicans in polls 28:30 We don’t seem to have the leaders we need to turn the page 29:15 The economy is a mess and it’s almost entirely Trump’s fault 30:15 The GOP hasn’t finished its own internal reckoning 31:30 It feels like America still isn’t ready to turn the page yet 32:30 The two parties have two fundamentally different visions for America 35:00 Will 2026 be a paradigm shift, or yet another pendulum swing? 36:00 Lincoln understood you couldn’t solve the divide by managing it 39:00 It doesn’t have to take a hot civil war to solve America’s divides 47:00 Mayor Matt Mahan (San Jose) joins the Chuck ToddCast 48:30 What got you into politics and made you want to run for mayor? 50:30 What are the other Dems in the race missing that you can bring? 51:45 California has a lot of resources but isn’t delivering better results 53:00 San Jose become the place where Palo Alto workers actually live 54:30 Why has San Jose lacked a real urban center? 55:45 Tech sector is very libertarian & didn’t really engage the community 58:15 Concerns that AI is coming quickly & can do both good and harm 59:45 If California puts guardrails on AI, that could become national standard 1:01:00 Government has responsibility to be transparent about AI data use 1:02:30 California has to create framework for AI security, regulation & transparency 1:03:15 The unknown of AI has created fear amongst the American public 1:04:30 The lack of trust in AI is because social media has been such a negative 1:06:00 There needs to be serious law enforcement around data violations 1:07:15 Media literacy & critical thinking need to be taught in public schools 1:08:45 What are you getting right in tackling homelessness in San Jose? 1:09:45 Prioritized basic dignified shelter over expensive permanent housing 1:11:00 San Jose is leading California in solving homelessness 1:12:00 California hasn’t built enough shelter or treatment facilities 1:13:00 Expensive housing is a public policy failure 1:13:45 Why does environmental review have to slow down construction? 1:15:00 Environmental impacts go far beyond just clean air & water 1:15:45 Technology can drastically speed up environmental review 1:17:00 Infill construction permits should be approved/denied in 30 days 1:18:30 Are tenant protection laws sufficient to protect ADU renters? 1:20:00 22% of new housing built in San Jose is ADUs 1:20:30 Are taxes too high in California? 1:21:15 California has one of the most progressive tax structures in the country 1:21:45 Gas tax is one of California’s most regressive, EV owners need to pay 1:23:15 A per vehicle flat fee for both gas & EVs makes the most sense 1:25:00 Every year revenue goes up faster than population w/ worse outcomes 1:26:15 What has Newsom gotten right & wrong? 1:28:30 Disagreed with Newsom on Prop 36 & force either treatment or jail 1:29:30 Highly organized interests end up getting a veto over change 1:31:30 Best form of resistance to Trumpism is good governance 1:32:30 The math problem for Democrats in California’s jungle primary 1:33:15 The concern over two GOP candidates winning is overblown 1:36:15 Voters are skeptical of both parties, why not run as an independent? 1:38:00 Democrats need to update the party platform & make government work 1:39:30 Voters frustrated with Trump gravitate towards “resistance warriors” 1:41:00 California Democrats can’t blame anyone else for California’s governance 1:41:30 Better ways to make tax code fairer than proposed billionaire wealth tax 1:42:30 Taxing the ultra wealthy needs to be done at the federal level 1:43:15 Opposing CA wealth tax isn’t defending billionaires 1:45:45 California’s governor race still shaping up 1:47:30 ToddCast Time Machine April 4th 1949 1:48:15 12 countries met to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 1:49:30 League of Nations didn’t have any binding enforcement mechanisms 1:50:30 Breakthrough came via the Vandenberg Resolution 1:51:30 Article 5 allowed constitutional discretion, made ratification possible 1:52:45 In 1955, West Germany was admitted, but it was uncomfortable 1:53:30 NATO has a simple purpose, deter the Soviet Union 1:54:00 NATO continued to grow eastward 1:56:15 Trump believes NATO should do whatever he wants them to 1:56:45 Trump has made NATO believe America’s help is conditional 1:57:45 Can an alliance built on certainty function in this era? 1:59:00 What happens to Ukraine portends whether NATO can survive 1:59:15 Ask Chuck 1:59:30 Why has job creation stopped being part of our political discourse? 2:03:30 What other points of leverage like the Strait of Hormuz exist in the world? 2:05:30 Trump conflates political asylum with insane asylums? 2:06:30 Democrats' problem less about leaders & instead poor messaging? 2:09:45 A 2/3rds vote in the senate as a check on the pardon power? 2:11:15 Will attorney John Morgan run for governor? 2:07:45 Thoughts of putting all parties on the same primary ballot?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd asks the most uncomfortable question in American politics: is the country's current dysfunction a problem that can be resolved at the ballot box, or are we living through a pre-Civil War style pressure buildup where fundamental divisions keep getting papered over rather than addressed? He draws a striking parallel between today's hyperpartisan era — where both parties are simultaneously fighting each other and tearing themselves apart internally — and the post-Jackson period of American politics, when the country flipped back and forth between parties without ever resolving the underlying wound of slavery. He traces the arc from the Compromise of 1850, when Millard Fillmore believed he'd saved the republic, through the repeal of the Missouri Compromise that led to Bleeding Kansas, to James Buchanan handing Abraham Lincoln a country already on fire — and asks whether modern America can heal its divides without mass violence. He closes with Lincoln's insight that you couldn't solve the divide by managing it — but insists it doesn't have to take a hot civil war to resolve America's fractures, even if it increasingly feels like the country still isn't ready to do the hard work of actually turning the page. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the creation of NATO in 1949 and asks whether an alliance built on stability and values can survive a transactional president like Donald Trump, and answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CHUCKTODDCAST at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/chucktoddcast Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 01:00 Reaction to March Madness 03:15 Nats are 2-1! 6:45 Trump orders TSA workers to be paid via executive order 7:45 Both parties are fighting each other, and also infighting 8:45 The house has the hardliners, the senate has the compromisers 9:15 Is the country ready to move on from dysfunction & hyperpartisanship? 11:30 For the 21st century, the country has flipped back & forth between parties 12:15 Similarities to the post-Jackson era of American politics 14:30 Problems and divisions were left unresolved 16:00 The wound over slavery was never healed, pressure kept building 17:00 Fillmore offered the compromise of 1850, thought he saved the republic 18:45 The Missouri Compromise was repealed, led to conflict in Kansas 20:30 Buchanon handed Lincoln a country already on fire 21:15 Can modern America heal its divides without mass violence? 22:15 8 million turned out for No Kings protests 23:45 CPAC was completely different universe compared to No Kings 25:00 Trump’s poll numbers are tanking on multiple issues 25:45 Democrats brand is still worse than Republicans in polls 26:30 We don’t seem to have the leaders we need to turn the page 27:15 The economy is a mess and it’s almost entirely Trump’s fault 28:15 The GOP hasn’t finished its own internal reckoning 29:30 It feels like America still isn’t ready to turn the page yet 30:30 The two parties have two fundamentally different visions for America 33:00 Will 2026 be a paradigm shift, or yet another pendulum swing? 34:00 Lincoln understood you couldn’t solve the divide by managing it 37:00 It doesn’t have to take a hot civil war to solve America’s divides 42:30 California’s governor race still shaping up 44:15 ToddCast Time Machine April 4th 1949 45:00 12 countries met to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 46:15 League of Nations didn’t have any binding enforcement mechanisms 47:15 Breakthrough came via the Vandenberg Resolution 48:15 Article 5 allowed constitutional discretion, made ratification possible 49:30 In 1955, West Germany was admitted, but it was uncomfortable 50:15 NATO has a simple purpose, deter the Soviet Union 50:45 NATO continued to grow eastward 53:00 Trump believes NATO should do whatever he wants them to 53:30 Trump has made NATO believe America’s help is conditional 54:30 Can an alliance built on certainty function in this era? 55:45 What happens to Ukraine portends whether NATO can survive 56:00 Ask Chuck 56:15 Why has job creation stopped being part of our political discourse? 1:00:15 What other points of leverage like the Strait of Hormuz exist in the world? 1:02:15 Trump conflates political asylum with insane asylums? 1:03:15 Democrats' problem less about leaders & instead poor messaging? 1:06:30 A 2/3rds vote in the senate as a check on the pardon power? 1:08:00 Will attorney John Morgan run for governor? 1:04:30 Thoughts of putting all parties on the same primary ballot? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

La creación de la North Atlantic Treaty Organization en 1949 marcó un punto de inflexión definitivo en la configuración del mundo de posguerra. Más que una alianza militar, fue la institucionalización de un bloque defensivo frente a la percepción de amenaza soviética y, al mismo tiempo, una respuesta al temor persistente en Europa Occidental: volver a quedarse sola ante una agresión. La experiencia de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y las dudas sobre el compromiso estadounidense, marcado por pulsiones aislacionistas, pesaban en la memoria de sus dirigentes. En este episodio analizamos cómo nació la OTAN, qué problemas buscaba resolver y por qué redefinió el equilibrio estratégico global durante la Guerra Fría. Te lo cuentan Antonio G. y Dani C. Casus Belli Podcast pertenece a 🏭 Factoría Casus Belli. Casus Belli Podcast forma parte de 📀 Ivoox Originals. 📚 Zeppelin Books (Digital) y 📚 DCA Editor (Físico) http://zeppelinbooks.com son sellos editoriales de la 🏭 Factoría Casus Belli. Estamos en: 👉 X/Twitter https://twitter.com/CasusBelliPod 👉 Facebook https://www.facebook.com/CasusBelliPodcast 👉 Instagram estamos https://www.instagram.com/casusbellipodcast 👉 Telegram Canal https://t.me/casusbellipodcast 👉 Telegram Grupo de Chat https://t.me/casusbellipod 📺 YouTube https://bit.ly/casusbelliyoutube 👉 http://casusbelli.top ⚛️ El logotipo de Casus Belli Podcasdt y el resto de la Factoría Casus Belli están diseñados por Publicidad Fabián publicidadfabian@yahoo.es 🎵 La música incluida en el programa es Ready for the war de Marc Corominas Pujadó bajo licencia CC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ El resto de música es propia, o bajo licencia privada de Epidemic Music, Jamendo Music o SGAE SGAE RRDD/4/1074/1012 de Ivoox. 🎭Las opiniones expresadas en este programa de pódcast, son de exclusiva responsabilidad de quienes las trasmiten. Que cada palo aguante su vela. 📧¿Queréis contarnos algo? También puedes escribirnos a casus.belli.pod@gmail.com ¿Quieres anunciarte en este podcast, patrocinar un episodio o una serie? Hazlo a través de 👉 https://www.advoices.com/casus-belli-podcast-historia Si te ha gustado, y crees que nos lo merecemos, nos sirve mucho que nos des un like, ya que nos da mucha visibilidad. Muchas gracias por escucharnos, y hasta la próxima. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

When President Trump threatened to annex Greenland earlier this year, the vast Arctic island with a population slightly larger than Burlington was dragged from the periphery of world affairs to the center. The threat that the U.S. might forcibly take Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark, threatened to unravel the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO.How did Greenland become a geopolitical flash point? What is the experience of traveling through its frozen landscape? And what may be next for the island's peoples?On this Vermont Conversation, I talked with two people with first-hand experience in Greenland. Vermont journalist Adam Federman has traveled and reported on Greenland for The New Republic and In These Times. Federman, who lives near Middlebury, is Reporting Fellow with Type Investigations. Rob Reynolds is a Los Angeles-based artist who has travelled extensively with scientists in the Arctic gathering images that are currently part of an exhibit called Zero Celsius at Mad River Valley Arts. Reynolds will participate in a public conversation with author Bill McKibben in Waitsfield on March 14.The Arctic is warming faster than any place else on Earth, and some projections indicate that the Arctic Ocean could have ice-free summers as early as 2030. This will have global ramifications as sea levels rise and inundate low-lying population centers, and new shipping corridors open up.These climate-driven changes could lead to “the prospect of open military conflict in a part of the world that has been spared. I find that terrifying,” said Federman. The race to exploit natural resources in previously inaccessible landscapes “has tremendously dangerous implications for the people who live in that part of the world.”For Rob Reynolds, Greenland is “a place of wonder. It's a place of awe. It's a place unlike any other that I've ever been to.”“The thing that that is most staggering to me about Trump's almost provocative light hearted threat to take Greenland by force … is that people live there. And the great lesson that Greenland has to teach us is that conservation is something that we should be thinking about. We shouldn't be thinking about taking it. We should be thinking about keeping it frozen.”Federman said that Trump's Greenland provocations are “a new form of imperialism.” That has unexpectedly led to “greater indigenous power in this part of the world.” Greenland's parliament “has clearly rejected the notion that the United States could somehow come in and take over.”“It's taken many, many years, but Greenland does now have a seat at the table and cannot be ignored.” 

Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump set off a firestorm with comments dismissing the military contributions of fellow NATO members during the war in Afghanistan. This follows the president's aggressive bid for Greenland, a self-governing territory of NATO-ally Denmark, which brought into question whether NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, could survive without America, its strongest and richest member. And while some kind of agreement on Greenland now seems to be on the table, and Trump appears to be backing down, today we're asking what damage has already been done to NATO. How does this latest challenge to its existence compare to conflicts the military alliance has faced before? Aaron Ettinger, a professor of political science at Carleton University, joins us for a conversation about how NATO's past and present could inform its future.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

PREVIEW — General Blaine Holt (USAF, Retired) — Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons Deployment in Belarus. General Holt confirms credible intelligence reports documenting Russian Federation deployment of tactical nuclear weapons throughout Belarusian territory as part of a calculated strategic deterrence framework. Holt characterizes this nuclear positioning as a deliberate Russian strategic communication, intentionally ensuring that American intelligence collection systems detect these weapons systems to credibly demonstrate Moscow's resolve and existential commitment to military confrontation, thereby distinguishing this deployment from hollow threats or bluffing tactics. Holt emphasizes that this nuclear weaponization of Belarus represents a fundamental escalation in regional threat posture and North Atlantic Treaty Organization security concerns. 1910 VILNIUS, LITHUANIA

 jQuery(document).ready(function(){ cab.clickify(); }); Original Podcast with clickable words https://tinyurl.com/22y38c45 Contact: irishlingos@gmail.com  Your browser does not support the audio element. America is asking Ukraine to relinquish the Donbas region. Meiriceá ag iarraidh ar an Úcráin réigiún Donbas a ligean uaithi. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that he is willing to cooperate with the United States on the peace plan that that country has drafted regarding the war in Ukraine. Tá sé ráite ag Uachtarán na hÚcráine Volodymyr Zelensky go bhfuil sé sásta comhoibriú leis na Stáit Aontaithe maidir leis an bplean síochána atá dréachtaithe ag an tír sin faoin gcogadh san Úcráin. What is needed now, he said, is beneficial work, which must be undertaken honestly and enthusiastically. Obair thairbheach a theastaíonn anois, arsa sé, a gcaithfear tabhairt fúithi go hionraic agus go beo. That's what Zelensky had to say about the American plan, however, he did not give any details and it seems from his measured and concise speech that he is really against it. Sin an méid a bhí le rá ag Zelensky faoi phlean na Meiriceánach, áfach, níor thug sé aon sonraí agus dealraíonn sé ón gcaint thomhaiste ghonta a rinne sé go bhfuil col aige leis i ndáiríre. US Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll was in Kiev yesterday, where he discussed the plan first with representatives of the Ukrainian Government and then with Zelensky himself. Bhí Rúnaí Arm na Stát Aontaithe Dan Driscoll i gCív inné, áit ar phléigh sé an plean le hionadaithe ó Rialtas na hÚcráine i dtosach agus le Zelensky féin ina dhiaidh sin. A US government spokesman claimed that one of those representatives, Rustem Umerov, accepted the plan after proposing several amendments. Mhaígh urlabhraí ó Rialtas na Stát Aontaithe gur ghlac duine de na hiondaithe sin, Rustem Umerov, gur ghac sé leis an bplean tar éis dó roinnt leasuithe a mholadh. According to the plan, which has not been published but has been seen by the Reuters news agency, Ukraine would cede every inch of the Donbas region in the east of the country to Russia and the number of soldiers in the Ukrainian Army would be halved - in exchange for promises about Ukraine's security. De réir an phlean, nach bhfuil foilsithe ach atá feicthe ag an ngníomhaireacht nuachta Reuters, ghéillfeadh an Úcráin gach orlach de réigiún Donbas in oirthear na tíre don Rúis agus laghdófaí faoina leath an líon saighdiúirí atá in Arm na hÚcráine – é sin mar mhalairt ar ghealltanais faoi shlándáil na hÚcráine. The plan also states that Russia, Ukraine and the European Union would sign a non-aggression treaty; that no soldiers from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be sent to Ukraine; and that the number of member states in that organization would not be increased. Deirtear sa phlean freisin go síneodh an Rúis, an Úcráin agus an tAontas Eorpach conradh neamhionsaithe; nach gcuirfí chun na hÚcráine aon saighdiúirí ó Eagraíocht Chonradh an Atlantaigh Thuaidh; agus nach gcuirfí le líon na mballstát san eagraíocht sin. In addition, the international sanctions imposed on Russia since that country invaded Ukraine in early 2022 would be gradually lifted. Ina cheann sin, chuirfí deireadh de réir a chéile leis na smachtbhannaí idirnáisiúnta atá curtha ar an Rúis ó rinne an tír sin ionradh ar an Úcráin i dtús 2022. Russia would be invited back to participate in the G8 forum of countries and the United States would enter into a wide range of economic agreements with Russia regarding energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers and rare earth minerals in the Arctic region. Thabharfaí cuireadh don Rúis a bheith rannpháirteach an athuair i bhfóram thíortha an G8 agus dhéanfadh na Stáit Aontaithe raon leathan socruithe eacnamaíochta leis an Rúis maidir le fuinneamh, acmhainní nádúrtha, infreastruchtúr, intleacht shaorga, ionaid bhunachar sonraí agus mianraí tearcithreacha i réigiún an Artaigh. It is not known whether the Americans have discussed the plan with other European countries yet, but yesterday the European Union Foreign Ministers indicated that they were not overly impressed with what they had heard about it. Ní fios ar phléigh na Meiriceánaigh an plean le tíortha eile san Eoraip fós ach inné thug Airí Gnóthaí Eachtracha an Aontais Eorpaigh le tuiscint nach raibh siad róthógtha lena raibh cloiste acu ina leith. RTÉ News and Current Affairs Cars destroyed after airstrike by Russian military forces on the city of Odesa in southern Ukraine last night Nuacht agus Cúrsaí Reatha RTÉ Gluaisteáin scriosta tar éis ionsaí aeir a rinne fórsaí míleata na Rúise ar chathair Odesa i ndeisceart na hÚcráine aréir

In the years following the end of the Second World War, the post-war world that many in the West hoped for never materialized.  Their former ally, the Soviet Union, turned from friend to foe. They installed puppet communist governments in all of the countries they occupied when pushing their way to Germany, and now the concern was that the Soviets would try to take over the rest of Europe.  In response, twelve nations in Western Europe and North America joined together in a military alliance, the likes of which hadn't been seen before in history. Learn more about NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, how it formed, and how it evolved on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Sponsors Quince Go to quince.com/daily for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order! Mint Mobile Get your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com/eed Stash Go to get.stash.com/EVERYTHING to see how you can receive $25 towards your first stock purchase. Newspaper.com Go to Newspapers.com to get a gift subscription for the family historian in your life! Subscribe to the podcast!  https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/ -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Austin Oetken & Cameron Kieffer   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/  Disce aliquid novi cotidie Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Polish officials say during a massive Russian air raid on Ukraine, 19 Russian drones entered Polish airspace. They say NATO forces scrambled and shot down at least four of those drones. Russia says no Polish sites were targeted for destruction, but Poland says the incursion was an intentional act. Poland has invoked Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Join this channel for exclusive access and bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g/join Five Minute News is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world. Visit us online at http://www.fiveminute.news Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/fiveminutenews.bsky.social Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/fiveminnews Support us on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/fiveminutenews You can subscribe to Five Minute News with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill. Please subscribe HERE https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g?sub_confirmation=1 CONTENT DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this channel are those of the guests and authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Anthony Davis or Five Minute News LLC. Any content provided by our hosts, guests or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything, in line with the First Amendment right to free and protected speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." Words do not merely describe reality — they shape it. The United States is now offering its own example of this.On Friday, the US president signed an executive order restoring the historical title "Department of War" to the Pentagon. Even though Congress has yet to approve it to make the renaming permanent, the symbolism is powerful, revealing a shift in how Washington wishes to present itself to the world.The US changed the name of its War Department to the Department of Defense in 1949 after World War II and at the dawn of the nuclear age. At that time, the US lawmakers emphasized "defense" to signal restraint and deterrence, as new international institutions such as the United Nations were being established to safeguard peace. That choice of words carried weight. It underscored that military power was to be exercised with caution and with the aim of preventing conflict.The latest reversal, however, highlights a different mood in Washington. Supporters of the change argue that the original name reflects the US' history of strength and victory, pointing back to the world wars. Yet behind this rhetoric lies a message aligned with a more assertive and transactional view of security. The move fits into a wider policy pattern: the use of force in the Middle East, backing military offensives by allies, and calls for partners in Europe and Asia to assume greater financial burdens for US protection.Domestically, the decision has understandably provoked debate, if not strong opposition. Democrats in Congress quickly voiced their objections, calling the move "childish" or "dangerous". Think tanks and historians have also raised concerns that reintroducing the "Department of War" label risks undermining the US' "moral standing", particularly given the lessons of the nuclear age. Even among the public, the debate reflects fatigue with military campaigns abroad. Many Americans, after two decades of costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, fear that glorifying "war" rather than "defense" could mark a return to open-ended conflicts.In a survey carried out by CGTN among 14,071 respondents from 38 countries from 2023 to 2024, 61.3 percent of the respondents believed that the US is the most combative country in the world, and 70.1 percent thought that the US waging wars abroad has caused serious humanitarian crises worldwide.Allies are equally attentive. European governments, already unsettled by Washington's imposition of unilateral tariffs and its calls for higher defense spending, now face the additional challenge of explaining to the public why they should rally behind a "Department of War" of the US. And for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has long presented itself as a defensive alliance, the optics of following a country that openly embraces the rhetoric of war may prove problematic.In Asia, too, US partners are watching closely. Some may fear that Washington is signaling a readiness to escalate conflicts in the region, while others may interpret the move as a prelude to shifting US resources inward. Reports that the Pentagon is drafting a new strategy, possibly downgrading the focus on the "Indo-Pacific" while prioritizing the Western Hemisphere and homeland security, will only add to the uncertainty, particularly among the US' regional pawns, such as the Philippines. If the allies and partners of the US sense that Washington is more aggressive in tone and less reliable in commitment, confidence in the US alliance system may weaken further.History offers perspective. The change of name from "War" to "Defense" was not mere semantics. It reflected a determination that in the nuclear age, stability depended on restraint, multilateral cooperation and an emphasis on peace. In today's uncertain world, that lesson remains valid. At a time when conflicts in Europe and the Middle East continue, and when the global community faces transnational challenges from climate change to public health, what is most needed is dialogue, coordination and restraint, not signals of confrontation.Language matters. The words governments choose shape perceptions, expectations and policy paths. The international community should therefore pay close attention to the implications of this renaming. It is a reminder that the US, as the world's largest military power, carries a special responsibility to lead not toward war, but toward peace. Only by upholding this responsibility can Washington, by giving the right answer to the fundamental question of war or peace, truly contribute to the common aspiration of all nations: a world defined not by conflict, but by peace and development.

It's Tuesday, August 19th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson 1,500 Christians hiding in Somalia, Africa International Christian Concern reports that there are still at least 1,500 Christian believers hiding in Somalia, Africa. This country is the second most dangerous place on earth for Christians, according to the World Watch List.  Somali Christians are often killed, on the spot, when their faith is discovered – murdered either by Islamic militants or even their own family. Somalia is also the sixth poorest nation in Africa, and the highest percentage of Muslims of any nation in the world with 99.8% of the population identifying as Muslim. The only possible exception is the population on the island of Maldives, located 470 miles off the coast of India in the Indian Ocean. Citizens there are required to nominally follow Sunni Islam. So, technically it is 100% Muslim.  However, a 2020 census revealed that 0.29% identify as Christian. Socialists lost in Bolivian election The socialists lost ground big time in Bolivia's election over the weekend.  The socialist candidate, Eduardo del Castillo, only took 3% of the vote. The more conservative candidate, Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, took 30.4%. And the more centrist candidate, Paz Pereira, captured 30.7% of the vote, at last count. A run-off will be in the works. Psalm 75:6-7 is clear that God is sovereign over the nations. “Exaltation comes neither from the east nor from the west nor from the south.  But God is the Judge: He puts down one, and exalts another.” Brazilian Supreme Court put Jair Bolsonaro under house arrest The Brazilian Supreme Court has resumed its campaign to silence Jair Bolsonaro, the previous president and conservative leader of the South American country. The court ordered his house arrest, after Bolsonaro addressed a crowd by cell phone.  His alleged crime was that he said, “Good afternoon, Copacabana. Good afternoon, my Brazil, a hug to everyone. This is for our freedom.” U.S. State Department Deputy Secretary Christopher Landau lambasted Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.  Landau called the court's actions “unbridled Orwellian impulses … dragging his Court and his country into the uncharted territory of a judicial dictatorship.” Putin wants 20% of Ukrainian territory under Russian control President Donald Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy yesterday at the White House, in hopes of working a peace deal in the Russian-Ukrainian war, reports The Epoch Times. Zelenskyy was quite reverential, unlike his last visit to the White House, where he angered Vice President Vance and President Trump alike. ZELENSKYY: “Thank you very much for your efforts, personal efforts to stop killings and stop this war. Thank you.” President Trump seemed hopeful, referencing a trilateral agreement between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. TRUMP: “If everything works out well today, we'll have a trilat. And I think there will be a reasonable chance of ending the war when we do that.” At issue is Russian President Vladimir Putin's insistence that Russia retain 20% of Ukrainian territory now under Russian dominance. Trump has signaled on Truth Social that “Ukraine must be willing to lose some territory to Russia.” Also, Trump is pressing Ukraine to abandon any commitment to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO.  Last week, Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine would not be giving up land to the “occupier.”  Isaiah 2:3-4 reminds us “[The God of Jacob] will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” Newsmax ordered to pay $67 million to Dominion voting machines The conservative news organization, Newsmax, has agreed to pay Dominion voting machines $67 million for suggesting the company had rigged the 2020 election in which President Donald Trump lost to then Democrat candidate Joe Biden. Newsmax issued a statement complaining that the Delaware judge presiding over the case had not offered a fair trial. And Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy noted that “The actions taken against Newsmax, and earlier against Fox News, represent a direct attack on free speech and a free press.” He also encouraged all businesses to leave Delaware, a liberal bastion in the U.S.   Back in 2023, Fox News was saddled with a $790 million payout in a similar lawsuit.  The almost $1 billion was quite a take for Dominion, a company earning less than $100 million a year, per an estimate from CBS News.  Stock valuation through the roof Stock valuation is way, way high on the S&P stock index.  Price-to-earnings ratios are scraping 30 at 29.88, the highest since 2020 and the 2009 recession. The price-to-earnings ratio is the ratio of a company's share or stock price to the company's earnings per share.  Price-to-earnings ratios averaged about 15 for a hundred years, prior to the stock market craziness of the 2010s and 2020s. The NASDAQ 100 price-to-earnings ratio is 42, the highest in recorded history. Another index, known as the Buffett Indicator, comparing the valuation of the 5,000 largest companies to the Gross Domestic Product is 210.11%, the highest in history. Before the 2009 recession, the Buffett Indicator  hit a high of 109%, and before the dot-com crash, the indicator hit an unprecedented 135%.  270 million babies killed by in vitro fertilization And finally, Life Site News reports that 270 million babies have been aborted by the in vitro fertilization procedure since the idea was conceived in 1978. The calculation is based on the estimation of 16 embryonic children killed for every live child born.  About 17 million children have been produced by the IVF procedure. Those 270 million IVF abortions add to about 65 million legalized abortions since 1973, and millions more by the abortifacient intrauterine device or IUD, and other abortifacients. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, August 19th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

South Korea and China have a complex relationship characterized by economic interdependence, strategic competition, and regional security concerns. Navigating this delicate balance has been a defining challenge for every South Korean president. Newly elected President Lee Jae Myung has assumed power at a time of increasing US-China strategic competition as well as uncertain global supply chains and growing threat from North Korea. Could this new administration mark a shift in Seoul's approach to Beijing? Or will President Lee maintain strategies similar to that of President Yoon?To discuss ROK-China relations, and President Lee's approach to this intricate issue, we are joined on the podcast today by Dr. Ramon Pacheco-Pardo. He is a professor of international relations at King's College London and the KF-VUB Korea Chair at the Center for Security, Diplomacy and Strategy in the Brussels School of Governance. He is also an adjunct fellow with the Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the author of several books on the domestic affairs and foreign policy of South and North Korea.  Timestamps[00:00] Start[01:44] “[P]ragmatic diplomacy centered on national interests”[05:06] State of Play for Sino-South Korean Relations[09:56] Balancing Between the United States and China[14:47] China Taking Advantage of US-ROK Frictions [19:03] Economic Interdependence as a Leverage[25:39] Xi Jinping Attending APEC South Korea 2025[31:11] American Pressure on Allies to Protect Taiwan

In a 2012 opinion piece bemoaning the state of the US Senate, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank cited a “leading theory: There are no giants in the chamber today.” Among the respected members who once walked the Senate floor, admired for their expertise and with a stature that went beyond party, Milbank counted Sam Nunn (D-GA). Nunn served in the Senate for four terms beginning in 1972, at a moment when domestic politics and foreign policy were undergoing far-reaching changes. As a member and then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had a vital impact on most of the crucial national security and defense issues of the Cold War era and the “new world order” that followed—issues that included the revitalization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military capability, US-Soviet relations, national defense reorganization and reform, the Persian Gulf conflict, and nuclear arms control. In this first full account of Nunn's senatorial career, Frank Leith Jones reveals how, as a congressional leader and “shadow secretary of defense,” Nunn helped win the Cold War, constructing the foundation for the defense and foreign policies of the 1970s and 1980s that secured the United States and its allies from the Soviet threat. At a time of bitter political polarization and partisanship, Nunn's reputation remains that of a statesman with a record of bipartisanship and a dedication to US national interests above all. His career, as recounted in Sam Nunn: Statesman of the Nuclear Age (University Press of Kansas, 2020), provides both a valuable lesson in the relationships among the US government, foreign powers, and societies and a welcome reminder of the capacity of Congress, even a lone senator, to promote and enact policies that can make the country, and the world, a better and safer place. Frank Leith Jones is professor of security studies and the General C. Marshall Chair of Military Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. His published work includes Blowtorch: Robert Komer, Vietnam, and American Cold War Strategy. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. 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

In a 2012 opinion piece bemoaning the state of the US Senate, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank cited a “leading theory: There are no giants in the chamber today.” Among the respected members who once walked the Senate floor, admired for their expertise and with a stature that went beyond party, Milbank counted Sam Nunn (D-GA). Nunn served in the Senate for four terms beginning in 1972, at a moment when domestic politics and foreign policy were undergoing far-reaching changes. As a member and then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had a vital impact on most of the crucial national security and defense issues of the Cold War era and the “new world order” that followed—issues that included the revitalization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military capability, US-Soviet relations, national defense reorganization and reform, the Persian Gulf conflict, and nuclear arms control. In this first full account of Nunn's senatorial career, Frank Leith Jones reveals how, as a congressional leader and “shadow secretary of defense,” Nunn helped win the Cold War, constructing the foundation for the defense and foreign policies of the 1970s and 1980s that secured the United States and its allies from the Soviet threat. At a time of bitter political polarization and partisanship, Nunn's reputation remains that of a statesman with a record of bipartisanship and a dedication to US national interests above all. His career, as recounted in Sam Nunn: Statesman of the Nuclear Age (University Press of Kansas, 2020), provides both a valuable lesson in the relationships among the US government, foreign powers, and societies and a welcome reminder of the capacity of Congress, even a lone senator, to promote and enact policies that can make the country, and the world, a better and safer place. Frank Leith Jones is professor of security studies and the General C. Marshall Chair of Military Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. His published work includes Blowtorch: Robert Komer, Vietnam, and American Cold War Strategy. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In a 2012 opinion piece bemoaning the state of the US Senate, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank cited a “leading theory: There are no giants in the chamber today.” Among the respected members who once walked the Senate floor, admired for their expertise and with a stature that went beyond party, Milbank counted Sam Nunn (D-GA). Nunn served in the Senate for four terms beginning in 1972, at a moment when domestic politics and foreign policy were undergoing far-reaching changes. As a member and then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had a vital impact on most of the crucial national security and defense issues of the Cold War era and the “new world order” that followed—issues that included the revitalization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military capability, US-Soviet relations, national defense reorganization and reform, the Persian Gulf conflict, and nuclear arms control. In this first full account of Nunn's senatorial career, Frank Leith Jones reveals how, as a congressional leader and “shadow secretary of defense,” Nunn helped win the Cold War, constructing the foundation for the defense and foreign policies of the 1970s and 1980s that secured the United States and its allies from the Soviet threat. At a time of bitter political polarization and partisanship, Nunn's reputation remains that of a statesman with a record of bipartisanship and a dedication to US national interests above all. His career, as recounted in Sam Nunn: Statesman of the Nuclear Age (University Press of Kansas, 2020), provides both a valuable lesson in the relationships among the US government, foreign powers, and societies and a welcome reminder of the capacity of Congress, even a lone senator, to promote and enact policies that can make the country, and the world, a better and safer place. Frank Leith Jones is professor of security studies and the General C. Marshall Chair of Military Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. His published work includes Blowtorch: Robert Komer, Vietnam, and American Cold War Strategy. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In a 2012 opinion piece bemoaning the state of the US Senate, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank cited a “leading theory: There are no giants in the chamber today.” Among the respected members who once walked the Senate floor, admired for their expertise and with a stature that went beyond party, Milbank counted Sam Nunn (D-GA). Nunn served in the Senate for four terms beginning in 1972, at a moment when domestic politics and foreign policy were undergoing far-reaching changes. As a member and then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had a vital impact on most of the crucial national security and defense issues of the Cold War era and the “new world order” that followed—issues that included the revitalization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military capability, US-Soviet relations, national defense reorganization and reform, the Persian Gulf conflict, and nuclear arms control. In this first full account of Nunn's senatorial career, Frank Leith Jones reveals how, as a congressional leader and “shadow secretary of defense,” Nunn helped win the Cold War, constructing the foundation for the defense and foreign policies of the 1970s and 1980s that secured the United States and its allies from the Soviet threat. At a time of bitter political polarization and partisanship, Nunn's reputation remains that of a statesman with a record of bipartisanship and a dedication to US national interests above all. His career, as recounted in Sam Nunn: Statesman of the Nuclear Age (University Press of Kansas, 2020), provides both a valuable lesson in the relationships among the US government, foreign powers, and societies and a welcome reminder of the capacity of Congress, even a lone senator, to promote and enact policies that can make the country, and the world, a better and safer place. Frank Leith Jones is professor of security studies and the General C. Marshall Chair of Military Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. His published work includes Blowtorch: Robert Komer, Vietnam, and American Cold War Strategy. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

In a 2012 opinion piece bemoaning the state of the US Senate, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank cited a “leading theory: There are no giants in the chamber today.” Among the respected members who once walked the Senate floor, admired for their expertise and with a stature that went beyond party, Milbank counted Sam Nunn (D-GA). Nunn served in the Senate for four terms beginning in 1972, at a moment when domestic politics and foreign policy were undergoing far-reaching changes. As a member and then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had a vital impact on most of the crucial national security and defense issues of the Cold War era and the “new world order” that followed—issues that included the revitalization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military capability, US-Soviet relations, national defense reorganization and reform, the Persian Gulf conflict, and nuclear arms control. In this first full account of Nunn's senatorial career, Frank Leith Jones reveals how, as a congressional leader and “shadow secretary of defense,” Nunn helped win the Cold War, constructing the foundation for the defense and foreign policies of the 1970s and 1980s that secured the United States and its allies from the Soviet threat. At a time of bitter political polarization and partisanship, Nunn's reputation remains that of a statesman with a record of bipartisanship and a dedication to US national interests above all. His career, as recounted in Sam Nunn: Statesman of the Nuclear Age (University Press of Kansas, 2020), provides both a valuable lesson in the relationships among the US government, foreign powers, and societies and a welcome reminder of the capacity of Congress, even a lone senator, to promote and enact policies that can make the country, and the world, a better and safer place. Frank Leith Jones is professor of security studies and the General C. Marshall Chair of Military Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. His published work includes Blowtorch: Robert Komer, Vietnam, and American Cold War Strategy. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In a 2012 opinion piece bemoaning the state of the US Senate, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank cited a “leading theory: There are no giants in the chamber today.” Among the respected members who once walked the Senate floor, admired for their expertise and with a stature that went beyond party, Milbank counted Sam Nunn (D-GA). Nunn served in the Senate for four terms beginning in 1972, at a moment when domestic politics and foreign policy were undergoing far-reaching changes. As a member and then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had a vital impact on most of the crucial national security and defense issues of the Cold War era and the “new world order” that followed—issues that included the revitalization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military capability, US-Soviet relations, national defense reorganization and reform, the Persian Gulf conflict, and nuclear arms control. In this first full account of Nunn's senatorial career, Frank Leith Jones reveals how, as a congressional leader and “shadow secretary of defense,” Nunn helped win the Cold War, constructing the foundation for the defense and foreign policies of the 1970s and 1980s that secured the United States and its allies from the Soviet threat. At a time of bitter political polarization and partisanship, Nunn's reputation remains that of a statesman with a record of bipartisanship and a dedication to US national interests above all. His career, as recounted in Sam Nunn: Statesman of the Nuclear Age (University Press of Kansas, 2020), provides both a valuable lesson in the relationships among the US government, foreign powers, and societies and a welcome reminder of the capacity of Congress, even a lone senator, to promote and enact policies that can make the country, and the world, a better and safer place. Frank Leith Jones is professor of security studies and the General C. Marshall Chair of Military Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. His published work includes Blowtorch: Robert Komer, Vietnam, and American Cold War Strategy. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a 2012 opinion piece bemoaning the state of the US Senate, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank cited a “leading theory: There are no giants in the chamber today.” Among the respected members who once walked the Senate floor, admired for their expertise and with a stature that went beyond party, Milbank counted Sam Nunn (D-GA). Nunn served in the Senate for four terms beginning in 1972, at a moment when domestic politics and foreign policy were undergoing far-reaching changes. As a member and then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had a vital impact on most of the crucial national security and defense issues of the Cold War era and the “new world order” that followed—issues that included the revitalization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military capability, US-Soviet relations, national defense reorganization and reform, the Persian Gulf conflict, and nuclear arms control. In this first full account of Nunn's senatorial career, Frank Leith Jones reveals how, as a congressional leader and “shadow secretary of defense,” Nunn helped win the Cold War, constructing the foundation for the defense and foreign policies of the 1970s and 1980s that secured the United States and its allies from the Soviet threat. At a time of bitter political polarization and partisanship, Nunn's reputation remains that of a statesman with a record of bipartisanship and a dedication to US national interests above all. His career, as recounted in Sam Nunn: Statesman of the Nuclear Age (University Press of Kansas, 2020), provides both a valuable lesson in the relationships among the US government, foreign powers, and societies and a welcome reminder of the capacity of Congress, even a lone senator, to promote and enact policies that can make the country, and the world, a better and safer place. Frank Leith Jones is professor of security studies and the General C. Marshall Chair of Military Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. His published work includes Blowtorch: Robert Komer, Vietnam, and American Cold War Strategy. Arya Hariharan is a lawyer in politics. She spends much of her time working on congressional investigations and addressing challenges to the rule of law. You can reach her at arya.hariharan@gmail.com or Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Wednesday, July 16th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Christians losing property rights in India, Nepal and Pakistan International Christian Concern reports Christians are losing their property rights and access to land in South Asian nations like India, Nepal, and Pakistan. In particular, India's second-most populous state of Maharashtra plans to demolish hundreds of church buildings within six months. Officials claim the structures are unauthorized, and many of them are in tribal areas.  The government also plans to enact an anti-conversion law. Such laws are often used to target Christians in the country. Currently, 12 of 28 states in India have anti-conversion laws. South Asian nations like India are ranked on the Open Doors' World Watch List as some of the most difficult places to live as a Christian.  World population growth slowing down Pew Research recently released world population projections for the next 75 years. The global population more than tripled over the last 75 years from 2.5 to 8.2 billion people. However, population growth is expected to slow down, only reaching 10.2 billion by 2100. Currently, the most populous countries in the world are China, India, and the U.S. China's population is expected to shrink by more than half over the next 75 years, while the U.S. and India are expected to grow slightly.    Global population growth is projected to primarily come from nations in Africa like Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, and Tanzania.  10th anniversary of undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood This week marks 10 years since the Center for Medical Progress released their first undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood. Executives for the abortion giant were caught discussing how they sold the body parts of murdered babies. The undercover investigation has contributed to efforts for defunding Planned Parenthood. Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue, served as a founding member on the board of the Center for Medical Progress. He said, “I am honored to have been a part of this historic investigation, even though it came at great personal cost to those of us involved in revealing the horrific truth about the illicit trade in aborted baby parts. Today's Planned Parenthood is vastly different from what it was in 2015. It is a weaker organization with waning political influence that is now collapsing from within.” Proverbs 6:17 says that among the seven things God hates are “haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.” Trump threatens Russia with tariff to get peace deal with Ukraine In a public meeting with NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte at the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened severe tariffs on Monday if Russia doesn't come to a peace deal with Ukraine in the next 50 days. TRUMP: “One of the reasons that you're here today is to hear that we are very unhappy, I am, with Russia. We're very, very unhappy with them. And we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days, tariffs at about 100%. You'd call them secondary tariffs. You know what that means.” (His comments occur at the :45 mark of this video) Trump also said the United States will sell top-of-the-line weapons to countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In turn, NATO countries would then be able to provide such weapons like the Patriot air defense system to Ukraine.    Trump wants Federal Reserve to lower interest to save trillion dollars The U.S. consumer price index rose by 0.3% last month. That put the 12-month inflation rate at 2.7%. Prices have been generally decreasing over the last year, but the inflation rate is still above the Federal Reserve's target of 2%.  Trump responded to the news by calling on the Fed to lower interest rates by three points. He said this would save an estimated one trillion dollars on debt payments.  Bible readers most likely to volunteer in community And finally, the American Bible Society released the fourth chapter of its State of the Bible USA 2025 report. The chapter evaluated activities that promote wellbeing like physical exercise, spending time with a friend, volunteering in the community, meditation, and praying to God. The study found people who engage the most with the Bible are also the most likely to engage in those activities, especially volunteering in the community.  Such activities were also associated with higher levels of hope and lower levels of stress, anxiety, and loneliness. However, people who attend church regularly experienced even better results in those areas. 1 Timothy 4:8 says, “For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, July 16th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

rWotD Episode 2993: Luis Veiga da Cunha Welcome to random Wiki of the Day, your journey through Wikipedia's vast and varied content, one random article at a time.The random article for Monday, 14 July 2025, is Luis Veiga da Cunha.Luis Veiga da Cunha (born 1936 in Lisbon), is a Portuguese scientist, Professor at the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering of the NOVA University Lisbon. He graduated in Civil Engineering at the Technical University of Lisbon and he holds a PhD degree from the same university. His main professional interests are related to Environment and Natural Resources Policies and Management, with a special emphasis on Water Resources.He worked in Portugal until 1983 in teaching, research and consulting activities. During this period he was involved in numerous research projects and undertook consulting and teaching work in Portugal and in several foreign countries.Between 1971 and 1983 he was Director of the Division of Hydrology and River Hydraulics of the National Laboratory of Civil Engineering, LNEC in Lisbon, where he initiated the development of several new lines of research in the areas of water resources management and planning and of sustainable use of water resources. He was Visiting Professor at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, Colorado) for the full academic year 1975-1976.Between 1983 and 1999 Veiga da Cunha lived in Brussels where he served as Administrator of the Scientific and Environmental Affairs Division of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This Division was the executive arm for the programmes initiated by two Committees of the NATO Council: the Science Committee and the Committee on the Challenges of the Modern Society. The programmes of these two committees were originally intended to foster scientific, technological and environmental cooperation between the North American and the European NATO countries. Later, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, they mainly focused on cooperation between NATO countries and the so-called partner countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Among his responsibilities while serving at NATO, he launched and directed various programs in the area of the environment, in particular the Special Programs on “Environmental Security” and “The Science of Global Environmental Change”. Each of these areas developed into a large number of projects and about 60 books have been published based on the results.In 1999 Veiga da Cunha returned to Portugal, as a full Professor at the Nova University of Lisbon. He also became a member of the National Council on Environment and Sustainable Development since 2001 and of the National Water Council since its creation in 1994. From 2001 to 2005 he has served as the Portuguese national delegate to the NATO Science Committee.He was a member of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations (1999-2001) and a Lead Author of the chapter on Water Resources of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, published in 2001. He was also author and coordinator of the chapter on Water Resources of the Portuguese National Projects SIAM I and SIAM II (Climate Change in Portugal: Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures, 2001-2006).He was founder and the first President of the Portuguese Water Resources Association (1977–78) and Director of the International Water Resources Association. He was Director of the International Water Resources Association and Chairman of the Committee on River Hydraulics of the International Association on Hydraulic Research. He has been a member of the Editorial Board of Water Policy, the official science and technology journal of the World Water Council. He has also been a member of the Editorial Board of Water International, the journal of the International Water Resources Association. From 2010 to 2013 he was a member and coordinator of the "Gulbenkian Think Thank on Water and the Future of Humanity", an international group of reflection established by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation that gathered eleven distinguished scientists and experts in global water issues. The book "Water and the Future of Humanity" (Springer) was published in 2014, as a result of this work. Veiga da Cunha is a member of the Portuguese Academy of Engineering and a member and of the French Water Academy.He is the author of more than one hundred publications, including about 30 books and book chapters on environmental issues and particular on water resources related topics.He was awarded the Portuguese Order of “St. James of the Sword” (Grand-Officer) for scientific and cultural merit, and the French “National Order of Merit” (Grand-Officer). He was Minister of Education of Portugal in 1979-1980.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:24 UTC on Monday, 14 July 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Luis Veiga da Cunha on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Russell.

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

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

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

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.

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)

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.