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

The Tucker Carlson Show

Tucker Carlson interviews Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg about the necessity of British military preparedness, questioning whether supporting Ukraine constitutes an active war with Russia. They

Key takeaways

• Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg advocates raising UK defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, noting the British military currently has under 19,000 combat-ready troops.
• Tucker Carlson challenges the material benefits of WWII for Britain, questioning how defeating Hitler improved modern sovereignty or prosperity compared to 1945.

Main topics

• British military readiness and defense spending
• Russia-Ukraine conflict and NATO Article 5

Notable quotes

"The way to avoid war is to prepare for it. And if you're prepared for war, it doesn't happen."

Conclusion

The episode serves as a rigorous ideological clash between traditional realist deterrence and

Transcript preview

Speaker 2 (0:04) Mr. Eastman, thank you very much for having us in your home. It's really pretty. I'm sad to think of it being destroyed in the war you described. What is this war and why do you have to fight it? Speaker 3 (0:15) Okay. What I've said is that the United Kingdom needs to be prepared for war. That we are coming under attack in various ways from Russia. We've had murders and attempted murders take place. There was attempted murder in Salisbury and there was a murder that took place in London by agents of Putin. that Putin has invaded Ukraine and he is making threatening noises that some Russian people close to the state, not formally of the state, have talked about the potential for nuclear war. And the way to avoid war is to prepare for it. And if you're prepared for war, it doesn't happen. So that's what I'm talking about. It's the preparedness which I'm worried that we don't have. Speaker 2 (0:57) Why would Putin want to threaten Britain? Speaker 3 (1:01) Well, he is threatening Speaker 2 (1:02) Britain already. Speaker 3 (1:02) I wonder why. Why has he tried to poison people in Salisbury? Why have his submarines been poking around near our undersea cables? Do you have any sense of why? Why would he want to do that? Well, I think he wishes to reassert the power of Russia, which in many ways is now a failing state, that its economy has been in the doldrums for years since the decline of the Soviet Union. It's lost a good deal of territory. which is a very un-Russian thing, that if you go really from the Romanovs taking charge in Russia through to the collapse of the Soviet Union, in most years, Russia expands. And then you get the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia suddenly shrinks. And it seems to me that that is looked upon by some Russians as a matter of shame and against the historic destiny of Russia. Hence, of course, the reason for activity in Georgia and more recently in Ukraine. Speaker 2 (2:03) Clearly Russia wants some control over its neighbors. It wants a sphere of influence as a nuclear-armed power. But I wonder, and assuming that everything you're saying is true and we could debate it, it still doesn't explain why Russia would want to pick a fight with Britain. It's got a much larger economy than Britain's. No, Speaker 3 (2:24) it hasn't got a larger economy than Britain's. It's got a smaller economy than Britain's. It's Speaker 2 (2:27) got a Speaker 3 (2:27) larger military. Speaker 2 (2:29) It's a much larger economy. It has much more wealth and resources. It has a much larger manufacturing sector. Its Speaker 3 (2:35) GDP is smaller than the UK's. Speaker 2 (2:38) Yeah, but GDP is not, I mean, the only measure of an economy. It's a pretty important measure of an economy. It's one measure. Speaker 3 (2:45) Russia is an economic failure. That it could have a huge economy, but it's got a small economy because it's deeply corrupt and it hasn't managed to use its resources. Effectively. And so although the population of Russia is bigger than that of the United Kingdom, very significantly, its GDP per capita is so much lower that the total GDP of Russia is smaller than that of the United Kingdom. Speaker 2 (3:12) Right. Its inherent wealth dwarfs that of the UK. It's the largest country in the world. But leaving aside that, I'm not in charge of central Speaker 3 (3:20) planning Speaker 2 (3:20) in Russia. Speaker 3 (3:20) Yeah, but inherent wealth isn't very useful, is it? There are lots of African countries that have huge resources that have never been able to use them. It depends what your timeline is. Well, if you go over hundreds of years, they haven't used them. Yeah. Russia has consistently been a poor country in spite of its resources. Speaker 2 (3:35) Yeah. Okay. I don't agree, but I will grant you that. Okay. But it still doesn't explain why Russia would benefit from fighting with the UK. Do you imagine that they want to take your territory? Speaker 3 (3:48) Russia has already shown itself to be aggressive, as we saw with the invasion of Ukraine, which was not only illegal in international law, but also against a specific agreement between Russia, the United States, the UK and Ukraine, that in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, Russia and the other signatories... would allow its territorial integrity to be maintained? Speaker 2 (4:18) We can debate why that war started. I have a completely different view from yours, but these are subjective questions. Speaker 3 (4:25) But Speaker 2 (4:26) I feel like we're avoiding the question I have asked you now three times, which is why does any of that add up to Russia threatening the UK? Do you believe in cause and effect? Do you think there's some reason that Russia is mad Speaker 3 (4:39) at the UK? Why do dictators... They do because Speaker 2 (4:42) they can. But you're nowhere near Russia. This is not Belarus. Speaker 3 (4:45) But we have the NATO agreement with Poland, which must feel under attack. We know that the Baltic states feel threatened. We know there have been cyber attacks on the Baltic states. So, of course, we should be concerned about our fellow NATO members. And we have Article 5 of NATO, which would then involve us. And we've got Russia saying bellicose things about the United Kingdom. So of course we should be a war. But do you have any sense of Speaker 2 (5:09) why? I guess it's, so here's the point that I'm attempting to make, and I just think it's important to understand it, whether or not you approve of it, which is that from the Russian perspective, you are helping to fund a war against Russia. And so therefore you're a combatant in that war. They feel this way about the United States as well. And Germany, NATO. But that is a legitimate perspective. Can you not see that? That there's a reason that they're mad at the UK? Russia invaded Ukraine. Right, but this is Speaker 3 (5:37) not Speaker 2 (5:37) Ukraine, this is the Speaker 3 (5:38) UK. That's right, and what the UK is doing is supporting Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity. Speaker 2 (5:44) Fighting a war Speaker 3 (5:44) against Russia, so Speaker 2 (5:44) you are participating in Speaker 3 (5:46) a Speaker 2 (5:46) war. But this is exactly the same as America helping Kuwait rescue itself from Iraq. Right, except Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons. Speaker 3 (5:54) But do you believe Speaker 2 (5:54) in territorial integrity of nation states? In my own, for sure. I'm not sure the territorial integrity of someone else's state is worth risking my life for. The question is, first of all, can you guarantee it? America did. So do you think that was wrong? Speaker 3 (6:11) Probably. Because the Speaker 2 (6:12) quid Speaker 3 (6:12) pro quo was that Ukraine would have kept its nuclear weapons. So you're saying Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons. Well, there were many Speaker 2 (6:17) subsequent arrangements that were violated on all sides. Speaker 3 (6:21) No, this is the fundamental point, which we're trying to get away from. Speaker 2 (6:24) So let me Speaker 3 (6:24) put this back to you. Please Speaker 2 (6:25) do. Speaker 3 (6:25) The United States made an agreement with Ukraine, Russia, and the United Kingdom that the territorial integrity of Ukraine would be inviolable on condition that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. Oh, no, you are mistaken. The United States Speaker 2 (6:39) has never pledged to go to war with Russia. I didn't say it did. Okay, then what you're saying is immaterial, actually. Speaker 3 (6:45) No, I'm saying it made this agreement. with the other parties. So Speaker 2 (6:49) there's a treaty that obligates the United States to fight a war against Russia? No, Speaker 1 (6:51) it Speaker 2 (6:51) doesn't Speaker 3 (6:52) obligate it to fight a war. Okay, Speaker 2 (6:53) then it's irrelevant Speaker 3 (6:53) what you're saying. I'm saying that if you don't think America has an interest in this, it shouldn't have signed the treaty, and then Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons. Speaker 2 (7:01) There is no treaty that obligates the United States, I'm speaking with authority on this, to fight Russia on the basis of what Russia did in February of 2012. I'm well aware of that. Speaker 3 (7:10) I'm well aware of what was said in relation to the nuclear weapons. It is not an agreement to go to war, nor strictly speaking. is Article 5 of NATO. It's not a requirement to go to war. It's a request that can be ignored. It's not an automatic act of war that the member state affected can call upon Article 5. I'm aware of that. But Speaker 2 (7:29) it Speaker 3 (7:29) doesn't require an automatic response. But what you're saying is that this treaty that was signed... where Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons was entirely pointless. Well, Speaker 2 (7:36) of course I'm not saying that at all. What Speaker 3 (7:38) I'm saying is that there have Speaker 2 (7:40) been many subsequent agreements since, including a verbal agreement, which has been testified to by people who are present, that the United States would not expand NATO to Russia's borders, which is an understandable concern of Russia. You don't want nuclear weapons controlled by another country on your borders. Why would you? And so, look, a lot has happened. There was the overthrow of the Ukrainian government by NATO in 2000. A lot has happened. All sorts of things have happened. My only point is right now we're on the brink of a nuclear exchange. And the question is why? And I don't understand why it's in Britain's interest to be at war with Russia. What I Speaker 3 (8:14) am arguing is that if we are prepared for war, war becomes less likely. That's the whole basis of deterrence. It's the whole reason. How about if you stop fighting the Speaker 2 (8:23) war, they will be less likely Speaker 3 (8:24) to nuke you. Oh, no, that's not true. If you don't support Ukraine, if you allow Russia to take Ukraine, then it moves on to the next object. Speaker 2 (8:34) Why is it up to the UK to decide whether or not Russia takes Ukraine? Speaker 3 (8:40) Because it's strongly in our national interest and indeed of the United States. In Speaker 2 (8:43) what Speaker 3 (8:43) way? Because the one fundamental thing of the world order is... the integrity of nation states. If all nation states are up for grabs for whichever country wants to take it, then why shouldn't China take Taiwan tomorrow? Speaker 2 (8:57) Well, I don't know whether the UK can Speaker 3 (9:01) affect... Speaker 2 (9:02) Would you be Speaker 3 (9:02) worried? I assume that's going to happen, of course. So you don't mind nation Speaker 2 (9:07) states Speaker 3 (9:07) invading each other? I mind a Speaker 2 (9:08) lot of things, but the question is not simply do I think it's wrong. The question is... Can I do anything about it? And at what cost to my own population? So it's Speaker 3 (9:17) a Speaker 2 (9:17) much more complicated calculation than the one you're presenting. Speaker 3 (9:21) You can if you project strength. And I'm afraid what the West did towards Russia was project weakness, that the agreements made over the Crimea by Germany and France made it look to Putin that he could do what he wanted. He then miscalculated. with Ukraine and found that the West was not going to go along with that. And it's very important that you don't allow dictators to miscalculate. Same is true of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein thought that he had had a message from the CIA, and I'm sure you know all of this, that invading Kuwait would not upset the Americans. And that's when you project weakness, you Speaker 2 (10:00) make war more likely. Well, the Cold War was one of the most intense moments in our history. Regular people lived in fear of getting blown up by a nuke. No one had any idea how that war would end. It's easy to think that we knew for 50 years, but we didn't until the end that we would win. So if you like history, you probably do like history, you ought to learn more about this portion of American history. And that's why you ought to watch a movie called The Brink of War. It's streaming now on Angel. The Brink of War takes viewers inside Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev's negotiations to end their country's stalemate, and it shows how much the rest of the world sat on the edge of its seat to see what would happen. Millions of lives were at stake. Now, unlike the leaders we have now, Reagan understood that preventing a conflict was the only good outcome for the U.S. Nuclear war is the ultimate disaster. That's wise, and that wisdom guided him along the path to peace. Though he could have chosen war, he didn't. So watching this film makes you realize how much modern Washington differs from previous generations, and not for the better. So if you're interested in peace and leadership and diplomacy, then the brink of war is something you want to watch. Join the Angel Guild to stream today at angel Speaker 1 (11:15) .com. Have you ever heard of the Pelosi stock tracker? Well, here's the stock trading app behind it. Most of us don't have access to classified information, yet our politicians seem to. For years, they've been publicly trading stocks, with some being oddly timed around certain legislation. Well, this team said, if you can't beat them, join them and build. autopilot it connects directly to your brokerage account like a robin hood or schwab and mimics nancy pelosi and other politicians stock trades automatically so instead of debating what stocks to buy you just trade alongside them hands-free and the key thing here your money stays in your own account the app already has 1.3 billion invested so far so if you wanted to check it out search autopilot in the app store or go to join autopilot.com that's join autopilot Investing has risks like the loss of principal. Speaker 2 (12:31) And Iran is using Iraq as a staging base to hit the United States. So how did this work? Speaker 3 (12:36) Okay, on the second Gulf War, I share what I think is your view. I think you supported it at the time, but now I think it was a mistake. Speaker 2 (12:43) I thought it was a mistake when I went to Iraq in December of 2003. I knew immediately it was a mistake, and I've been apologizing ever since. Let me do so again. I Speaker 3 (12:50) apologize. Okay, because I think it was a mistake too. I agree with you. that the first Gulf War, I think, was absolutely right because it was about the territorial integrity of nation states. I think there's one fundamental. Speaker 2 (13:00) Well, if it was right, then how did it result in another war less than 15 years later? Because the other Speaker 3 (13:05) war was none of our business. It was the internal affairs of Iraq. on a pretext of nuclear weapons that didn't exist. But hold on. The two wars are completely different. And actually... The George Bush senior got it right because he had the opportunity to take Iraq at the end of the first Gulf War. And he said, no, that is not the objective of this mission. The objective of the mission was the territorial integrity of Kuwait. Now, where I think I disagree with you is that the fundamental building block of any form of world order is the nation state. And that therefore it's in all our interests to protect the nation state. Because if aggressors can invade one nation state and get away with it, they will carry on. And then you've got no global order at all. Where I think we have made a mistake is in liberal interventionism, which I'm opposed to. I think it is not my business how Iraq is managed internally. by Iraqis. That is a matter for them. Or how Putin manages Russia. Then why do you keep describing Speaker 2 (14:12) Putin as a dictator, Speaker 3 (14:13) as Speaker 2 (14:14) distinct from Zelensky, who has not been elected in seven years? He's cancelled the elections and banned the largest Christian denomination in the country. And imprisoned people for criticizing him. So he's Speaker 3 (14:26) not a dictator. It would be very difficult for me to criticize him on canceling elections. It's exactly what the UK did during the first and second World War. I'm Speaker 2 (14:32) merely saying, if Speaker 3 (14:32) you're not a liberal interventionist, why is Speaker 2 (14:34) Putin's form of government even Speaker 3 (14:36) material? Speaker 2 (14:37) Why do you care? Speaker 3 (14:38) It's up to him how he governs Russia. It is my business when he starts invading neighboring countries. Speaker 2 (14:43) But the question is not whether or not you approve of one nation's territorial expansion or its need to control its neighbors, which is, by the way, the state of play for all great powers. No. country with nuclear weapons will tolerate another nation's nuclear weapons on its border, of course. Well, that's the Cuban Missile Crisis, yes. Of course. Well, it's the current Iran war, because Israel and nuclear-armed power did not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And I'm not criticizing anyone involved. And this is very Speaker 3 (15:09) sensible. We do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I don't want anyone to have a nuclear weapon. I'm just saying that Speaker 2 (15:12) this is... I want Speaker 3 (15:12) Britain to have nuclear weapons, and I don't mind Speaker 2 (15:14) the United States having them. I don't want anyone else to have them. I'm merely saying... That we can't be surprised by that response because that's just the nature of great powers. Okay? Yes, that must be right. My question is, Speaker 1 (15:25) what Speaker 3 (15:27) can Speaker 2 (15:27) you do about it? So you have said that weakness abets aggression. That's right. Which Speaker 1 (15:33) is Speaker 2 (15:33) an often repeated axiom, which I'm sure is entirely true, but it can't be true. Speaker 2 (15:39) But what's your option? So Britain right now has apparently a military strength of under 19,000 ready for combat. So for perspective, you know, there are battles in the First World War in which Britain lost more than 19,000 in one day. So that's nothing. Russia has... One of the most powerful militaries in the world, a standing army of a million and a half. Speaker 3 (16:03) Well, that's not necessarily the same as one of the most powerful militaries in the world, is it? A very large number of troops is not necessarily a powerful army. No, it's not. Speaker 2 (16:09) That's right. And by the way, it's hard to know exactly how powerful the Russian military is. It's very easy to know how powerful the British military is, which is not at all. So, like, what is this? Speaker 3 (16:19) Everyone thought the Russian military was sufficiently powerful that it could roll up Ukraine in a fortnight. And it failed. Speaker 2 (16:25) Well, they could send a hypersonic... missiles into Kiev today and end the war, we're relying on Putin's restraint not to do that. They could also nuke Ukraine if they wanted. They could, but that would Speaker 3 (16:37) be... Speaker 2 (16:37) I'm just saying, as a material fact, they have restrained themselves to a land war with people. Where Speaker 3 (16:44) they were thought to be overwhelmingly powerful. And they've turned out not to be. Speaker 2 (16:49) Well, they could be overwhelmingly powerful if they wanted to this afternoon. Well, Speaker 3 (16:54) they Speaker 2 (16:54) used nuclear weapons. They used hypersonic weapons, which Speaker 3 (16:57) can't be stopped. They took it up to an enormous stage. But actually, in 2022, people thought Russia would walk in and roll up Ukraine within a fortnight. That Speaker 2 (17:06) was all the experts. Do you disagree that they could, if they wanted to today, Speaker 3 (17:10) end this war? Of course they could. Well, I think if they took it to another level, they would. risk other people. If Speaker 2 (17:16) you Speaker 3 (17:16) keep pushing them,