Maybe. But would Europe be investing in defence if Trump wasn't threatening US withdrawal from Article 5? I say this as someone who would never vote for Trump.
@@RS-uh7rz Yea Because the threat of from Russia changed when Russia invaded Ukraine. Should Europe pay the agreed price? Yes. But Trump and many Americans don’t understand that the money America pays is not charity. NATO is a wall that blocks Russia in. Preventing them from moving their military aircraft and submarines around. Military aircraft and submarines with nuclear bombs onboard. We are the watchers on the wall who guarded you while you slept through out the Cold War and still now when Russia is rattling their nuclear sabre again. I think America can do well with lowering its voice and showing some respect.
don´t be ignorant?, US spends a lot less than it says, US counts all expences to Medical,Pensions and Veteran Cost in to The Overall Budget. 272 Billion $ in 2022 Budget, then there is 72 Billion $ for humanitarian assistance and international development ? So 344 Billion $ out of Total budget 715 B $ Isn´t realy About Military or Capabilities, when you deduct this from US Military Budget ? then US in Fact Spends less than 2% of GDP on Military. Most Nato contries has Universal Health Care and Pensions + Disability pay dosen´t go in the Militarys Budget, so the Diffrence is mostly due to where you put Expences to Healthcare,Pensions and Disabillity for Military Personel. @@RS-uh7rz
The problem with Niall's argument is that the "authoritarian" model of China has been around for 3000 years. China is a paternal hierarchal society and ALLWAYS look to the state for protection- and as long as the state offers Chinese people security, peace and prosperity they will support the state. it does not matter if its a Dynasty or a one party state they don't care as long as their families are safe and prosper they will support it. This is why the West always get China wrong - they look at China through a Western lens and they are always off the mark when making predictions about China.
how did that go ? They lost Sibiria,Hong Kong, Taiwan,South East Asia and only Improved some after Taiwan,Japan and West Investments the Last 30 Years. Now its going down again.
@@mabuhayproductionltd3627 LoL, ya warna Chuck those countries BIGGEST TRAFE PARTNER.... You lens of lens from West view of TERRITORIAL GRASP and Political clout to arms wrestle. 😂
@@mabuhayproductionltd3627how did that go? They are a superpower now that you hate because they are strong. You did not see alot of things and what’s going on, it is advantageous for the chinese.
China is already a superpower. It is a tough fact. China and Russia both have a huge amount of raw material that is very important for the west and cannot be replaced 😉. You should open your eyes and mind and you will see the new biggest economy of the earth after max. 10 years passed away. You shouldn't believe in every word that the west's leader say to you. They are all politicians ... 😊.
@@hypothalapotamus5293 as a Canadian it’s odd that Stanford would host such a clearly biased institute. You cant do good research with a closed mind. Hoover need to hire a batch of lefty’s and centrists.
Niall is an extremely intelligent man, but i would argue that the person to make Germany and others, increase their security spending, was Mr Putin, not Donald Trump.
I would even argue that it was due to appeasement to Russia/Putin that the military spending was so low. What Trump said was useless and totally unneeded. Europe needs to get close to war footing when it comes to military production ASAP.
Not true. The Europeans were happy to let US defend them and fight the Russians if it comes to that. At the rate that Germans are dying and not being replaced it will be a mute point in another 50 years.
The Germans picked an excellent timing to weaned themselves away from nuclear power and chose to become Russia's best European customer of cheap gas/oil exports at less than a years time after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine. Point being, it was Germany's leaders naïve stance of pacification and fears of obtaining replenishable mass energy sources without foreign interferences
70 years of nobody wanting Germany to increase its defence spending because of you-know-what, nek minute everyone’s pissed off that the Germans aren’t spending enough on their military 😂
But that’s not even remotely true? A lot of wehrmacht officers were rehabilitated almost immediately after the end of the war. The Bundesheer was built up to be a part of NATO and a viable/strong military partner for the Western Allies. Germany just went full steam ahead with disarmament after reuiniting with East Germany. They’d rather spend the money on integrating East Germany. And fair enough, but they ARE a European leader country. And they have to be the ones on the frontlines of keeping Europe safe.
Is it serious that Mr. Ferguson wasn’t aware US didn’t have a peaceful transition of power in 2020? That’s the worry of all the leaders in Democratic world.
he lives on the other side of the country, the SF bay area/ Northern CA. people there just laugh at it and let the courts and law enforcement handle the rest. He's more worried about Asia geopolitics.
@@tomorrowneverdies567 Those are some online sources or rumors (believe it or not), certain NATO nations are sending mercenaries to Ukraine in small numbers and groups to fight against Russia. Anyway, as long as the fire is still there, it is possible to escalate.
While those points are valid, I can’t but realize how simplistic this entire thing is being seen. The US military bases in Europe and Germany arent a one sided charity by the U.S. and painting that picture is utterly ridiculous. The entire premise of US military power which combined with economic power translates into its standing on the world stage, needs military bases in other parts of the world to function. The bases in Germany are central to exerting any kind of power in the region, even down to Africa, otherwise you would need to run them off of an aircraft carrier or AWACS plane. The stability and security of Germany therefore in turn is also in the interest of the US because it not only shows alliance with Europe but because it’s invaluable to be able to triangulate everything half way around the world from a safe base. Logistics, command infrastructure etc. is vital, having troops nearby, having hospitals not within a 18hr flight but 5hr flight is priceless. Having co,and infrastructure and being able to fly drones over Africa and the Middle East is invaluable. It’s just ridiculous if you try to paint the picture that US military bases are charity organizations. That the US stations 35k troops in Germany just to deter Russia (which would need to get through multiple countries first, if the sole purpose was defending against Russia setting up camp further east would make much more sense). It is understandable that Trump drives this rhetoric, he is trying to get the best deal for his military. If it were up to him, the US would not even involve into a confrontation with Russia since Europe should be able to defend that. But he will never talk about reducing capabilities and moving for example the US Africa Command out of Germany because that’s free real estate. And it should be mentioned that US military bases in Germany function de facto as American soil, German police for example have no jurisdiction and cannot enter the area. The US isn’t paying for that, it’s concessions that were made in exchange for military deterrence (which the US since the end of the Cold War only had to sit around in Europe for, not a single soldier died defending Germany in that time.
At any rate, the notion/argument that Germany, as the leading economic power/economy in Europe, hasn't been paying its full dues commitment to NATO and has been shirking its financial duties, is plainly factually true and thus represents a totally legitimate criticism of German leadership's attitudes and conduct, over decades.
@@alancats I would like to see these facts. NATO agreed in 2014 that they would *move towards 2%* by 2024. Germany has relayed to NATO that defense spending for this year is sitting at 2,12% of GDP and therefore above the goal of 2% by 2024. Apart from all that Germany never failed to meet NATO requirements, participate in joint maneuvers or fulfill their duties. Just recently a brigade was announced and moved to Lithuania to secure the eastern flank. So to be exact, No, criticism isnt factually true. In fact, its factually false what you are writing
As an American voter who loves Germany, I can say it's not just the money that gets under people's skin. It's being mocked for how much we spend. If people in Europe keep telling Americans, they spend too much on military and not enough on our own healthcare. At some point we're going to listen. And let them pay for themselves
I mean Russia has universal healthcare alongside a majority of EU countries---even Israel has universal healthcare , but if it's a solace atleast the corrupt west Ukraine doesn't, east Ukrainians also now enjoy universal healthcare....
Fellow German here. I fully understand your point of view. Born in 1985, I grew up in a Germany where it was seen as socially acceptable to a have an underlying tone of anti americanism, anti capitalism and being against NATO. Surely there where some issues along the way supporting these notions. Some of which where buyproducts of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia and so on. Nevertheless we mustn't forget that these types of notions are only able to grow in the first place on a basis of socioeconomical wealth and the blessing that we in the west have, of having the power of self reflection. Still, I - perhaps growing older and having kids - have changed in that regard even before Ukraine. I love the west despite of its issues. I also love to have the US with all its dominant companies, the economic power and intellectual property on our side. I'm optimistic going foward. I sincerely hope Germany will manage to be a good partner for the US and its european allies. God bless you and all the best.
The best part of Trump and MAGA remaining stubborn on the border is it's caused Europeans to panic. Yeah remember who pays the bills Europe. You're welcome. Now smarten up.
@@philippkurz4327 The only way out of this mess is through it. Germany has basically been set up by its own politicians for a disaster. Reliance on Russia and China was always going to end badly. We'll all support you through it but jeeze, stop voting for self-harming Leftists.
That is indeed a good one...and now Scholz has the audacity to say "but we are spending now the supposed 2% NATO amount.!" When Poland is already at 4%. 2 were the amount in normal times. This is "Zeitenwende" now Mr. Magoo act accordingly!
Even with the accent, while listening to this guy, I thought he sounds like a right-wing American shill. And after 3 minutes of research, it turns out he IS a right-wing naturalized American shill. The way he tries to completely absolve Trump from the Iran problem was more laughable than the way he spins the idea that Trump didn’t just give Putin his blessing to invade 1/3rd of Europe. 😂
That is possible true, but the economy is far better than under Trump, the problem is that USA shifts course often and dont trust the goverment, so keep a stabel economy and pay of the debt is very hard. Bill clinton did that very well, but then came George Bush Junior@@4700_Dk
The US should have just had people pay taxes instead this whole time, as opposed to borrowing money from them, and we just should start now@@americiumamericium4442
Instead of delivering a geostrategic forecast for the first half of 21st century by drawing parallels between US - China - Soviet Union Cold War from the second half of the 20th century, it would be better to see what happened in last almost 35 years: (i) Russia and especially China have proved that capitalism can coexist with autocratic political system and that is the most important and consequential historical fact of the 21st century; (ii) Russia and especially China have built relatively strong institutional, political, ideological and social cohesion, while the West is going through institutional, political, ideological and social crisis with destabilising demographic and immigration issues; (iii) Russia and China have created new and strong international ties worldwide that have proved to be very resilient and productive, regardless of the western sanctions (BRICS is not diminishing, but growing); (iv) autocratic political systems are more efficient when it comes to making decisions, while the question of political succession is not problem per se, but is strongly related to social and economical issues.
So it is not in US interest to provide security for Europe, but did they need Europe when they invoked article 5 after 9/11? Did they need Europe in Afghanistan/Iraq?
@@turboleggy credibility, sure. But it's more than that. The US and other countries form coalitions to project power to other countries around the world.
he didn't say "Providing security in Europe is not a US interest." In reality, his position can better be paraphrased as "Providing security in Europe should be something for which Europeans are more responsible than the US." There is a major difference between those two statements, which you clearly missed. Additionally, the second statement is undeniably very reasonable. So your question about Afghanistan is completely irrelevant to this discussion, because nobody ever said anything about needing anyone. Yes, the US needs Europe, and Europe needs the US, but what was being discussed is the fact that many European nations have been relying too much on the US, without spending enough on their own defense. This position is backed up by the NATO 2% spending goal, and the proximity of Russia to Europe, with each of those points alone being enough to justify US frustration. For the record though, I hate what Trump said, because although his point may have ultimately been correct, the way he expressed it may have encouraged Putin or others to test NATO in the future, especially given Trump's influence as a former and potential future President.
If Donald Trump’s election was what changed Germany into spending more on defense, why is it “the lowest its ever been” 6 years after his election? Trump just makes it a media spectacle, he is not more effective than other presidents in this regard. He just manipulates the media with outrage. Expected Richard Walker to challenge the interviewee on this.
don´t be ignorant?, US spends a lot less than it says, US counts all expences to Medical,Pensions and Veteran Cost in to The Overall Budget. 272 Billion $ in 2022 Budget, then there is 72 Billion $ for humanitarian assistance and international development ? So 344 Billion $ out of Total budget 715 B $ Isn´t realy About Military or Capabilities, when you deduct this from US Military Budget ? then US in Fact Spends less than 2% of GDP on Military. Most Nato contries has Universal Health Care and Pensions + Disability pay dosen´t go in the Militarys Budget, so the Diffrence is mostly due to where you put Expences to Healthcare,Pensions and Disabillity for Military Personel. @@namenameson9065
@@namenameson9065 You're missing the point. The point is that there was no wave of NATO countries increasing defence spending while Trump was president.
@@namenameson9065 This was a trick question, neither is Germany's military spending the lowest now, nor did it particularly rise when Trump came into office or drop after. The interviewee was not only making things up but also did not bother to try to make it sound logical.
The money Germany is not spending on defense right now they are spending on US LNG +20% mark up, aka the Nord Stream special discount for allies 😉 - with friends like these, who needs enemies
@velvet1865 That is a fair point. Blowing up Nordstream now means its reliant on the US, if youre American thats fine but if you really did care about German self reliance its not so much. Also, it might be beneficial to remind ourselves that Germany simply has a very disadvantageous geography. There simply are no fossil fuels like the UK, Norway, the US or Russia have. And in a globalized capitalist world there is always someone who will sell fossil fuels the cheapest and on top of that prices generally decrease the bigger the order is. So as a country simply without any fossil fuels of their own a pivot to the cheapest seller makes a lot of sense economically. Politically is a different question
@velvet1865 Funny that you mention France and Russia in particular. Where do you think the Uranium for those oh so great Nuclear Power Plants of France is coming from? Oh no, its from Russia? And the EU hasnt sanctioned Uranium from Russia for that exact reason, because it would cripple France's nuclear energy? Weird, I mean France is independent if I believe your baseless takes.. hmm
@velvet1865 Ok, nice diversion. The money wasn't part of the discussion because making that a logical argument would take a lot more than just comparing base numbers but whatever, I see you like simple narratives omitting most of the facts. France could buy somewhere else but don't. Why? Cause it would mitigate the price benefits of nuclear power. Yeah thats not a great outlook. Also, France doesn't publicly say much about their uranium buys so I don't know where your numbers are from either way. Fact is, about 70+% of France's uranium comes from Russia, Usbekistan and Kazakhztan which are more or less Russian puppets (hint: look at chip sales, they have skyrocketed to these countries since the sanctions banning sale to Russia). And the fact that you think "they could buy somwhere else" is a good point is hilarious. Oil and gas can literally be bought everywhere, Uranium is a lot more complicated and while France insists they *could* do it at home, they don't because its economically not very viable. Why did Germany buy Russian oil and gas? Because it was the cheapest and economically most viable option, exactly the same as Uranium for France. And shocker for you, Germany buys no Russian gas anymore and still gets enough, from the US, Qatar and others hmm The situation with uranium in France is not comparable with Germany because Germany is open about the numbers while France knowingly keeps them secret. Because they know that it would look very bad if everybody knew they were reliant on Russian uranium.
He most of all sounds wrong. 12:57 -This guy: Germany won't hit 2% military spending, they are freeriding😂😂 -73,41 Billion Dollars in Germany's budget: "Am I a joke to you?". -This guy: "Trump is the one who made Europe move on spending when he was elected 6 years before the ukraine war started." -Also this guy: "Germany's spending is at it's lowest now, even under the Versaille treaty."
@@wk9378 Western governments don't represent Western people. Where else are there such huge anti war protests? It's nonsense to think that other regions of the world wouldn't want to maintain their dominance if they were in the box seat. Look at how China tells itself it's always been number one throughout history. Where are you from?
@@wk9378 That's at best a very naive statement. The Chinese historically believed in Tianxia - that they were supreme above all others. The Middle kingdom around which all others revolve. Had they not believed that and had they opened reciprocal embassies in Britain and China, the Opium wars could have been avoided It's more of a racial spiritual thing. The ruling class in the West has two components: the European faction which are animated by the force behind Faustian civilisation and the "other" faction whose name I'm not going to write which believe it is their destiny to rule the world
Funny thing is that the tension between China and the US always subside whenever the US has problem in the other part of the world. Remember 2001 when the tension is high between China and the US due to the Hainan incident? It subside when the 9/11 happened and the US has to go to war. This time is the same. So the tension always subside when the US call time out. From here we can see who is the source of the tension. Clearly it is not China, because if China is the source of tension, why the tension only go away when the US go away to deal with its problem in other part of the world?
LOL! You have a skewed way of what is stronger. Did you read the news about China economy recently? And let's not talk about Russia, that war will have an impact on Russia for generations. Strong countries are strong enough to protect their weakest. Weak countries have to maintain a facade.
Also USA: develops 6th gen fighters first Has 11 aircraft carriers Creating unbelievable AI technology before any other country Just saying, seems like being gay is working out well for them 😂 Commies sure do like to flap their jaws though, maybe they could weaponise that somehow?
Is Europe prepared to defend itself without "defense economy"? US will be happy to supply, but best benefit for EU is to create its defense economy that feeds its local and national economies. How do you think it works in US?
Few words about "members not paying". 1) NATO has a TARGET of 2 %, 2) 1/3 of NATO countries is over that, paying (2-4%), 1/3 close to it (1,5-2%), and 1/3 pays less 1-1,5% - including Luxembourg! 3) Comparison between the US and EU, should take into account BNP, where the US is much higher (30% if I remember correctly), so if all paid equally, the US should pay 30% more. 4) No one demands the US to pay 3,5% of it´s BNP in military spending... it is a US decision alone, where the US wants to be the strong leader in the world, and wants to have the best weapons of all. It is not Luxembourg´s fault that the US invests heavily in the military. 5) EU pays now much more than the US in aid to Ukraine.
These arguments are all irrelevant. If the American voters think Europeans should pay the majority of the costs for ensuring their own security and that the rationales for American taxpayers bankrolling the European security order no longer apply now that Russia is shown to be less of a threat than the USSR, Europe needs to be prepared to carry it's own water in matters of security. Europe is rich, far richer than Russia, and has a higher population and more sophisticated technology. Europe shouldn't even need USA to fend off Russia at all.
The one party system aims to foster collaboration while maintaining internal competition but the end goal is to unite not divide China. This historian boasted a lot about how the West disintegrated Soviet Union but unfortunately this would never work for China, which is regarded by more than 150 countries as their key trading partner
Niall forgets history: the decisions of a prior president are realized by the following president; Trump's cut and run negotiation with the Taliban without NATO OR the Afghan government AND the draw down of US military to an unsustainable defensive capacity, resulted in an inadequate preparation for withdrawal. Trump's Mid-East policies led to the rise of radical Israeli nationalism supported by Netanyahu and Netanyahu's misjudgment that he could support funding Hamas to balance the Palestinian Authority that led to the Hamas attack. Niall has a perspective that is limited to assuming that bad events have no historical precedent and are the responsibility of the President who inherits the misdeeds of his predecessor. In general, I accept much of Niall's perspective as valid, but not when he assumes that the inheritor of the consequence is its own cause. The Mid-East likes Trump because Trump is a dup of his own ego.
It is again a very narrow and simple minded view from some in the US and so called experts that US somehow is being taken for a ride by the European Nato members because they don't pay their share of the cost. The smart, strategic, visionary people in the US would view this as an opportunity for the US to have a much larger strategic, military and even economic footprint across Europe, which in turn enhances its own security. By making the Europeans more independent on defending themselves against the likes of Russia, reduces the US influence in Nato and across the EU. Mind you, I would much prefer to see the Europeans become less reliant on USA, but that's another subject.
If you like superficial, populist, and ideologically guided answers, then yes. I don't say he was 100 % wrong with everything he said on the interview, but much of it was (obviously intentionally) distorted or the angle was too narrow.. Taking into account that his audience are the Trump supporters and MAGA people, the bar doesn't have to be high. Those people just want to someone to confirm and amplify their preexisting beliefs and of course hear something positive about Trump.
12:57 -This guy: Germany won't hit 2% military spending, they are freeriding😂😂 -73,41 Billion Dollars in Germany's budget: "Am I a joke to you?". -This guy: "Trump is the one who made Europe move on spending when he was elected 6 years before the ukraine war started." -Also this guy: "Germany's spending is at it's lowest now, even under the Versaille treaty."
Niall is a smart guy,... Not sure how much his logic is driven by ideological prejudices. Not sure if he could compare China Soviet Union containment path and expect to see similar results. To say that Helsinki Accords were just a game to give time to USA to recover from the Vietnam debacle shall be a blasphemy if it were not true. Sad state of affairs.
Ferguson is a bit of a plum if you ask me. Hasn't quite realized that Europe would be nothing without the EU, fully in support of the United Kingdom's exit of same, and a bit of a Trump supporter. He once advised Trump to be in support of Theresa May's efforts to take the UK out of the EU as the 'best way to break up the EU'. In the same article, he adviced Trump to suck up to Putin and Xi Jinping and to support Le Pen's bid for the presidency of France. He's the kind of person who seems to hold authoritarians and totalitarians in high regard. If you get it this wrong on all of these subjects, why should anybody take you seriously? I honestly don't know why DW would choose to give this tool a platform. So, why does he hold all of these views? My bet is that he IS, as you put it, driven by ideological prejudices. He's not at all happy with immigration, particularly from Middle Eastern countries, he sees the EU as being pro Middle Eastern immigration, so... better leave it and encourage its breakup... I guess. Like I said, bit of a plum, not to be taken seriously, I certainly won't start now.
@@FC-vp9ej You will never get large group of human beings to agree on much. Word of words releases the tensions which naturally build up. In fact wars brings progress throughout human history. It just the western society has progress beyond actual war amongst ourselves and heated debate and disagreement has allowed us to question and maintain that innovating spirit and find better paths forward. It is something to be celebrated not mocked. I mean CCP keeps the Chinese under its thumb and being a yes man works great in Chinese system but shameless copying will only get you so far.
Its obvious you have never been to China. The CCP does keep people under its 'thumb' by making sure that Chinese rich and their families are prospering. That is how the CCP manages Chinese society - it actually provides services to its people trust me I have been to China several times and the people can do what ever they want and they are a very happy people. @@tommohsien888
@@tommohsien888 EU is an organization set up to avoid wars within europe and no wonder their innovation is bad now. China would rather do copying and building than bombing, its because of the nature of the chinese culture. chinese are so proud that chinese civilization is the only one that survived for thousands of years. from ancient history, chinese build the great wall to avoid wars and the most famous chinese book on war is the art of war which is all about how to avoid wars in its first chapter. so china's fate is doomed not to be innovative. sad.
Ferguson is what would be called a realist with a deeply entrenched zero-sum mindset. Ideology of democracy vs autocracy is an instrument that gives US and its allies an advantage. In his recent article "the age of amorality", he made this point abundantly clear. What matters in the end is that US and allies must prevail. If sometimes being hypocritical and betraying the rhetoric brings more advantage than harm to US interests, then that's acceptable because the end is what matters. This zero-sum mindset and the determination to retain global dominance is very much a continuation of the western mindset from the colonial times. This is not the world most people on the planet wish to live in. A better world is where the principle of democracy and law also applies to global governance and the governance of relation between nations.
Some refreshing and wise perspectives from this man. I think he is very pragmatik and very wise in regards to time and the role we sometimes forget that it has.
He danced, he's a right-wing trump apologist. I loved how the reporter corrected him when he was trying to blame the Biden administration for the trouble in the middle east.
@@TheReferrer72 I don't think so at all. I think he makes a solid point. Refusal to see that perspective is very common here in Europe where people are incredibly insistent that Europe has been doing nothing wrong so far in terms of burden sharing, amongst many other things. Trump brought the topic into the centre of discourse on the Transatlantic relationship, and put into question how much Europe could rely on the US commitment to NATO. The war just showed how relevant the discussion was.
@@tiaelago-oretukaumunika7017 12:57 -This guy: Germany won't hit 2% military spending, they are freeriding😂😂 -73,41 Billion Dollars in Germany's 2024 budget: "Am I a joke to you?". -This guy: "Trump is the one who made Europe move on spending when he was elected 6 years before the ukraine war started." -Also this guy: "Germany's spending is at it's lowest now, even under the Versaille treaty."
@@TheReferrer72 The two party system in the US is guilty in its entirety regardless of which marionet is in the house of whites, but Biden is definitely to blame as he is arming, funding and directly participating in the genocide against Palestine.
Well put. Finally some sense. It seams that there is currently a need of rushing old politics that were spoken by years from the Bidon administration, that now be addressed ASAP.
And it’s overly simplistic, one might say populism. The situation in the Middle East especially Iran wasn’t a flip on off switch and didn’t work as great as he tries to put it here. And NATO defense is much more complicated than „we set up troops here to defend your country“. The US doesn’t have 35k troops in Germany to defend against Russia, that would make little sense, not to mention they also have troops in Poland, that’s much closer to Russia. The US military bases in Germany are strategic for all US interests in Africa and the Middle East. All logistics and command runs through there, majorly Ramstein Airbase in Rheinland-Pfalz. They are free Land the US was given in return for military support in case of an attack. Since there hasn’t been one since the end of the Cold War, there was nothing to protect until today, sitting around was enough to hold up their end of the bargain while getting free access to Africa and the Middle East. Counting dollars in defense spending is overly simplistic and doesn’t even really matter to the US. If we really want to count money, US should start paying for US military bases in Europe too, which is a ridiculous concept but just as much as throwing a tantrum over 10billion in defense spending from Germany into German military industrial complex for German army.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Ferguson on one point. It was the United States, aped by UK and France, who maintained for some reason that Germany and Japan, or any other major member of the North Atlantic or Pacific alliance, be kept militarily insignificant even in the changing global security panorama of the 21st century. US politicians have just invented the weird narrative that it will no longer pick up the bill. Hence the extreme statement: "Pay me protection money or else".
This is just not true! Starting in the 1980's under Reagan, and then every single successive US president has called on NATO partners to pay more of their GDP towards defense. Your statement is a complete falsehood.
Obviously, the Abraham Accords weren't successful. If they had been successful, incorporating the Palestinian cause into the equation, then the region would still be at peace today. Niall is being a bit narrow minded here.
@@mabuhayproductionltd3627 Had the Palestinian issue been incorporated into the Abraham Accords, then it is more probable than not that Saudi Arabia would have normalized relations with Israel because it is a huge priority for the US and would provide Saudi Arabia access to the Israeli economy and tech flow which is what MBS desires. The Saudis are trying to diversify their revenues away from oil and and peace with Israel can help them get there. MBS has staked his political future on the success of Vision 2030, an ambitious development program that aims to diversify his economy away from oil. But his reforms won't succeed if the Middle East is consumed by a major war, and therefore it is in his interests to promote lasting peace with Israel.
@@mabuhayproductionltd3627 the Saudis did have peace with Israel and still do. Unofficially they had normalized relations, however, officially they did not have normalized or diplomatic relations. It’s been like that for over a decade, if not longer. In sept 2023, Saudi Arabia wad very close to signing onto the accord and establishing formal diplomatic relations. It was the October 7 of the attack that scuttled efforts. Saudi Arabia has stated their support for Palestinians. However, much like other Arab, nations they have not stepped up and taken any action to either assist, nor defend the Palestinians. it is very important to remember that words mean nothing without action. Speeches, statements, pledges, etc. do not mean anything when there is no action behind the words.
But that is Not what Israel can and will accept (unless Iran is out of Hamas/Hizbolla,Syria,Lebanon), People of Israel have left the 2 State solution, that could Only ? Be possible if Israel also had peace with Iran (and that is Highly unlikely). So Israel has to fight and win, and likely the whole thing would End with an Israel and Maybe US Strike on Irans nuclear production sites in Iran, If not then Iran would very soon have Nuclear weapons and US/Israel would be forced to act@@GentlemanJack705
Unfortunately while the strategy of containment allowing the pathologies of the one party state, the Soviet Union, did play out to its demise, it didn't remove the continuation of the one party state that just continued under a different flavor. And here we are today with Putin in Ukraine.
A minute ago (meaning decades)the world was frightenend about Gemany getting involved and building up a viable Bundeswehr in Defence and Military Build Up Spending for obvious reasons. As a German for people to ask Germany to be wehrhaft again and evolving frim defence into attack mode is highly questionable. Never again is the current phrase against fashist tendencies here. At the moment we have fashist partie reaching a third to a fifth of the vote. Just imagine for a minute they came to power with a Bundeswehr armed and resourced to the teeth. A worried German.
As an American, I can say that its time to move on. We need to stop dwelling on the ghosts and mistakes of the past in the previous century. The world has moved on and its time for Germany to move on as well.
That was a good litte chat. It is amazing to me that hearing two intelligent people enthusiastically talking about complex political subjects instills a sense of well being. They didn't agree on everything, but they liked each other and had good will.
You do realize that the US government practically is overseen by the US military right? US 'democracy' is only used as a procedure to 'legitimize' the government so it does not matter who is in power - the Neocons run the US government.
Look into your own backyard. European Commission is authoritarian. EU Parliament is a bunch of corrupted people. You are not thinking for yourself, you are repeating what you've heard from your so called "leaders".
In the 5,000 years or so of written history of China, never once in their dynasties emperors were elected ala western democratic style. They were all autocratic rulers, China thrived and fell, and they survived to this day. Probably the only country with continuous civilisation for more than 5,000 years.
@@Liboch If mere existence is how we judge a country, I guess China takes the prize. But it's not, we judge a country based on their commitment to human dignity and freedom. While Western democracies were enshrining human rights into their constitutions, China was actively trying to starve 30 million of their own people to death.
I encourage you to differenciate between historical facts, political analysis and political statement. There was little of the first two and more of the latter.
@@bonniebluebell5940 Lots of smart people have lots of takes on the current state of affairs. We need more ideas - not less. We got some serious problems and we are not addressing them adequately. If he is right by precisely 1 thing, and that thing is used as the basis of a real solution that's good.
@@swordarmstudios6052 Absolutely and our perspectives may also change from time to time in accordance with the facts on the ground. That is why I am always interested in what he has to say. All the best!
Trump did so many correct moves. If he had not "threatened" Germany to not defend them from Putin they would not have done anything at all, but trust in the US forces. We need to be strong together. .
12:57 -This guy: Germany won't hit 2% military spending, they are freeriding😂😂 -73,41 Billion Dollars in Germany's budget: "Am I a joke to you?". Edit: -This guy: "Trump made Europe move on spending when he was elected 6 years before the ukraine war started." -Also this guy: "Germany's spending is at it's lowest now, even under the Versaille treaty."
The USA and UK have always pursued their own politics. Here, in EU we do not even understand what is going on in Red Sea. Please explain, Mr Ferguson. Explain historically. The rest is very clear. It has been clear for a long time.
@@Ankit-d9f4u Sorry, I can't seem to find anyone named "there are many". I don't think you are much of a historian tbh. Maybe you're schooled in the Putin and Xi variety of Marxist revisionism? Yeah, that sounds about right.
US elecetions are interesting in the sense that their results swing many domestic issues that other countries don't even have: abortion, gun rights and boarder control; but what it almost never changes is foreign policy from the perspective of the grand scheme.
During his presidency, Trump said that it was absurd for the US to pay for Europe’s defence against Putin while Germany closed its nuclear reactors and made itself dependent on Russian gas. The German diplomats laughed at him. Subsequent events proved that Trump was absolutely correct.
Ferguson is on the far right of US foreign policy. A real warhawk. Such people are invited at the Munich security conference. Big NATO spender US has always benefitted enormously from this huge dominance. A strong own European defense was the last thing they wanted. But never expect a modern journalist to ask one critical question.
Are you sure that the passing of time is in western interest? It looks like China and Russia will be stronger in ten years from now? Is the west delusional?
Trump didn’t get Europe to invest in defence.
Putin did.
Maybe. But would Europe be investing in defence if Trump wasn't threatening US withdrawal from Article 5? I say this as someone who would never vote for Trump.
Trump tried. They laughed at him. Remember? Laugh it up Europe.
@@RS-uh7rz
Yea Because the threat of from Russia changed when Russia invaded Ukraine.
Should Europe pay the agreed price? Yes. But Trump and many Americans don’t understand that the money America pays is not charity. NATO is a wall that blocks Russia in. Preventing them from moving their military aircraft and submarines around. Military aircraft and submarines with nuclear bombs onboard. We are the watchers on the wall who guarded you while you slept through out the Cold War and still now when Russia is rattling their nuclear sabre again. I think America can do well with lowering its voice and showing some respect.
don´t be ignorant?, US spends a lot less than it says, US counts all expences to Medical,Pensions and Veteran Cost in to The Overall Budget. 272 Billion $ in 2022 Budget, then there is 72 Billion $ for humanitarian assistance and international development ? So 344 Billion $ out of Total budget 715 B $ Isn´t realy About Military or Capabilities, when you deduct this from US Military Budget ? then US in Fact Spends less than 2% of GDP on Military. Most Nato contries has Universal Health Care and Pensions + Disability pay dosen´t go in the Militarys Budget, so the Diffrence is mostly due to where you put Expences to Healthcare,Pensions and Disabillity for Military Personel. @@RS-uh7rz
and still irrelevant
without USA they poses no threat
The problem with Niall's argument is that the "authoritarian" model of China has been around for 3000 years. China is a paternal hierarchal society and ALLWAYS look to the state for protection- and as long as the state offers Chinese people security, peace and prosperity they will support the state. it does not matter if its a Dynasty or a one party state they don't care as long as their families are safe and prosper they will support it. This is why the West always get China wrong - they look at China through a Western lens and they are always off the mark when making predictions about China.
how did that go ? They lost Sibiria,Hong Kong, Taiwan,South East Asia and only Improved some after Taiwan,Japan and West Investments the Last 30 Years. Now its going down again.
@@mabuhayproductionltd3627
LoL, ya warna Chuck those countries BIGGEST TRAFE PARTNER....
You lens of lens from West view of TERRITORIAL GRASP and Political clout to arms wrestle. 😂
@@mabuhayproductionltd3627how did that go? They are a superpower now that you hate because they are strong. You did not see alot of things and what’s going on, it is advantageous for the chinese.
China is already a superpower. It is a tough fact. China and Russia both have a huge amount of raw material that is very important for the west and cannot be replaced 😉. You should open your eyes and mind and you will see the new biggest economy of the earth after max. 10 years passed away. You shouldn't believe in every word that the west's leader say to you. They are all politicians ... 😊.
@fc7424 while food in China costs only ¥0.75 😂
The problem with Dr. Niall Ferguson is that his views have never really evolved beyond the British colonial era.
Still 10 times better than Peter Zeihan.
You're quite right. He's such a plum.
Here here. Also, whenever Niall is on a panel with Kotkin he actual turns green with envy. Such a child.
The Hoover institute must be on hard times now that the neocons are out.
@@hypothalapotamus5293 as a Canadian it’s odd that Stanford would host such a clearly biased institute. You cant do good research with a closed mind. Hoover need to hire a batch of lefty’s and centrists.
Niall is an extremely intelligent man, but i would argue that the person to make Germany and others, increase their security spending, was Mr Putin, not Donald Trump.
I would even argue that it was due to appeasement to Russia/Putin that the military spending was so low. What Trump said was useless and totally unneeded.
Europe needs to get close to war footing when it comes to military production ASAP.
Not true. The Europeans were happy to let US defend them and fight the Russians if it comes to that. At the rate that Germans are dying and not being replaced it will be a mute point in another 50 years.
He went down the party political route years ago! Take everything he says with a grain of salt these days.
I would say it was mostly Putin, but I do think Trump's rhetoric has probably helped push a few European politicians om defense spending.
The Germans picked an excellent timing to weaned themselves away from nuclear power and chose to become Russia's best European customer of cheap gas/oil exports at less than a years time after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine. Point being, it was Germany's leaders naïve stance of pacification and fears of obtaining replenishable mass energy sources without foreign interferences
70 years of nobody wanting Germany to increase its defence spending because of you-know-what, nek minute everyone’s pissed off that the Germans aren’t spending enough on their military 😂
This 😂
It’s no longer 1945. The situation today is what matters.
They are part of NATO and NATO members are supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense. WW2 has nothing to do with it.
Nonsense. Plenty ofeople were wanting Germany to spend more on defence - at a minimum to meet the 2% of GDP requirement.
But that’s not even remotely true? A lot of wehrmacht officers were rehabilitated almost immediately after the end of the war.
The Bundesheer was built up to be a part of NATO and a viable/strong military partner for the Western Allies.
Germany just went full steam ahead with disarmament after reuiniting with East Germany. They’d rather spend the money on integrating East Germany. And fair enough, but they ARE a European leader country. And they have to be the ones on the frontlines of keeping Europe safe.
Is it serious that Mr. Ferguson wasn’t aware US didn’t have a peaceful transition of power in 2020? That’s the worry of all the leaders in Democratic world.
he lives on the other side of the country, the SF bay area/ Northern CA. people there just laugh at it and let the courts and law enforcement handle the rest. He's more worried about Asia geopolitics.
Hes delusional
Everyone else must’ve missed the Second Civil War that you claim occurred and was miraculously won by Biden.
Something is wrong with this neocon.
So wrong he's.... Right?
Get it? *politics*
Open your eyes. It's not a Cold War, it's a Hot War.
Yes, between Ukraine and Russia. Not between NATO and Russia.
@@tomorrowneverdies567 Open your eyes. NATO soldiers are fighting Russian soldiers.
@@joelau2383
Really? Which country's army are they?
@@tomorrowneverdies567 Those are some online sources or rumors (believe it or not), certain NATO nations are sending mercenaries to Ukraine in small numbers and groups to fight against Russia. Anyway, as long as the fire is still there, it is possible to escalate.
It's all relative. It's cold compared to the nuclear hot counterfactual
Niall is fast becoming the prime candidate for the next secretary of state
While those points are valid, I can’t but realize how simplistic this entire thing is being seen.
The US military bases in Europe and Germany arent a one sided charity by the U.S. and painting that picture is utterly ridiculous. The entire premise of US military power which combined with economic power translates into its standing on the world stage, needs military bases in other parts of the world to function. The bases in Germany are central to exerting any kind of power in the region, even down to Africa, otherwise you would need to run them off of an aircraft carrier or AWACS plane. The stability and security of Germany therefore in turn is also in the interest of the US because it not only shows alliance with Europe but because it’s invaluable to be able to triangulate everything half way around the world from a safe base. Logistics, command infrastructure etc. is vital, having troops nearby, having hospitals not within a 18hr flight but 5hr flight is priceless. Having co,and infrastructure and being able to fly drones over Africa and the Middle East is invaluable.
It’s just ridiculous if you try to paint the picture that US military bases are charity organizations. That the US stations 35k troops in Germany just to deter Russia (which would need to get through multiple countries first, if the sole purpose was defending against Russia setting up camp further east would make much more sense).
It is understandable that Trump drives this rhetoric, he is trying to get the best deal for his military. If it were up to him, the US would not even involve into a confrontation with Russia since Europe should be able to defend that. But he will never talk about reducing capabilities and moving for example the US Africa Command out of Germany because that’s free real estate.
And it should be mentioned that US military bases in Germany function de facto as American soil, German police for example have no jurisdiction and cannot enter the area. The US isn’t paying for that, it’s concessions that were made in exchange for military deterrence (which the US since the end of the Cold War only had to sit around in Europe for, not a single soldier died defending Germany in that time.
At any rate, the notion/argument that Germany, as the leading economic power/economy in Europe, hasn't been paying its full dues commitment to NATO and has been shirking its financial duties, is plainly factually true and thus represents a totally legitimate criticism of German leadership's attitudes and conduct, over decades.
@@alancats I would like to see these facts. NATO agreed in 2014 that they would *move towards 2%* by 2024.
Germany has relayed to NATO that defense spending for this year is sitting at 2,12% of GDP and therefore above the goal of 2% by 2024.
Apart from all that Germany never failed to meet NATO requirements, participate in joint maneuvers or fulfill their duties. Just recently a brigade was announced and moved to Lithuania to secure the eastern flank.
So to be exact, No, criticism isnt factually true. In fact, its factually false what you are writing
As an American voter who loves Germany, I can say it's not just the money that gets under people's skin. It's being mocked for how much we spend. If people in Europe keep telling Americans, they spend too much on military and not enough on our own healthcare. At some point we're going to listen.
And let them pay for themselves
I mean Russia has universal healthcare alongside a majority of EU countries---even Israel has universal healthcare , but if it's a solace atleast the corrupt west Ukraine doesn't, east Ukrainians also now enjoy universal healthcare....
Fellow German here. I fully understand your point of view. Born in 1985, I grew up in a Germany where it was seen as socially acceptable to a have an underlying tone of anti americanism, anti capitalism and being against NATO. Surely there where some issues along the way supporting these notions. Some of which where buyproducts of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia and so on. Nevertheless we mustn't forget that these types of notions are only able to grow in the first place on a basis of socioeconomical wealth and the blessing that we in the west have, of having the power of self reflection. Still, I - perhaps growing older and having kids - have changed in that regard even before Ukraine. I love the west despite of its issues. I also love to have the US with all its dominant companies, the economic power and intellectual property on our side. I'm optimistic going foward. I sincerely hope Germany will manage to be a good partner for the US and its european allies. God bless you and all the best.
The best part of Trump and MAGA remaining stubborn on the border is it's caused Europeans to panic. Yeah remember who pays the bills Europe. You're welcome. Now smarten up.
@@philippkurz4327 The only way out of this mess is through it. Germany has basically been set up by its own politicians for a disaster. Reliance on Russia and China was always going to end badly. We'll all support you through it but jeeze, stop voting for self-harming Leftists.
That is indeed a good one...and now Scholz has the audacity to say "but we are spending now the supposed 2% NATO amount.!" When Poland is already at 4%. 2 were the amount in normal times. This is "Zeitenwende" now Mr. Magoo act accordingly!
Even with the accent, while listening to this guy, I thought he sounds like a right-wing American shill. And after 3 minutes of research, it turns out he IS a right-wing naturalized American shill. The way he tries to completely absolve Trump from the Iran problem was more laughable than the way he spins the idea that Trump didn’t just give Putin his blessing to invade 1/3rd of Europe. 😂
Hoover Institute is filled with right-wing shills.
Thanks for writing this, now I don't have to.
You're right. I've never liked him because of the way he supported Brexit and still does.
34 trillion reasons is why the U.S. cannot afford another Cold War.
US has pleanty of Money, its the lacking will thats the problem
US cannot just print money what will happen when countries start dumping the US treasury bonds are dumping
@@mabuhayproductionltd3627Have you heard of Jerome Powell ? Head of the FED, “the U.S. path is NOT sustainable.”
That is possible true, but the economy is far better than under Trump, the problem is that USA shifts course often and dont trust the goverment, so keep a stabel economy and pay of the debt is very hard. Bill clinton did that very well, but then came George Bush Junior@@4700_Dk
The US should have just had people pay taxes instead this whole time, as opposed to borrowing money from them, and we just should start now@@americiumamericium4442
Instead of delivering a geostrategic forecast for the first half of 21st century by drawing parallels between US - China - Soviet Union Cold War from the second half of the 20th century, it would be better to see what happened in last almost 35 years: (i) Russia and especially China have proved that capitalism can coexist with autocratic political system and that is the most important and consequential historical fact of the 21st century; (ii) Russia and especially China have built relatively strong institutional, political, ideological and social cohesion, while the West is going through institutional, political, ideological and social crisis with destabilising demographic and immigration issues; (iii) Russia and China have created new and strong international ties worldwide that have proved to be very resilient and productive, regardless of the western sanctions (BRICS is not diminishing, but growing); (iv) autocratic political systems are more efficient when it comes to making decisions, while the question of political succession is not problem per se, but is strongly related to social and economical issues.
So it is not in US interest to provide security for Europe, but did they need Europe when they invoked article 5 after 9/11? Did they need Europe in Afghanistan/Iraq?
Actually no, not really.
@@todortodor12not really? That sounds like a cowardly yes to me.
@nom_chompsky us needed a coalition for credibility not to actually kill enemies
@@turboleggy credibility, sure. But it's more than that. The US and other countries form coalitions to project power to other countries around the world.
he didn't say "Providing security in Europe is not a US interest." In reality, his position can better be paraphrased as "Providing security in Europe should be something for which Europeans are more responsible than the US." There is a major difference between those two statements, which you clearly missed. Additionally, the second statement is undeniably very reasonable.
So your question about Afghanistan is completely irrelevant to this discussion, because nobody ever said anything about needing anyone. Yes, the US needs Europe, and Europe needs the US, but what was being discussed is the fact that many European nations have been relying too much on the US, without spending enough on their own defense. This position is backed up by the NATO 2% spending goal, and the proximity of Russia to Europe, with each of those points alone being enough to justify US frustration.
For the record though, I hate what Trump said, because although his point may have ultimately been correct, the way he expressed it may have encouraged Putin or others to test NATO in the future, especially given Trump's influence as a former and potential future President.
Just as the carpenter Fukuyama said, it's the end of history.
That guy is fukuyama version2, a lower version.
Succession problems in autocracies. How about Cuba? 64 years!!
Niall is an historian. When it comes to encouraging rearmament in various countries, we need to pause for thought
If Donald Trump’s election was what changed Germany into spending more on defense, why is it “the lowest its ever been” 6 years after his election?
Trump just makes it a media spectacle, he is not more effective than other presidents in this regard. He just manipulates the media with outrage. Expected Richard Walker to challenge the interviewee on this.
Uh, because Trump isn't in office anymore? Dur.
don´t be ignorant?, US spends a lot less than it says, US counts all expences to Medical,Pensions and Veteran Cost in to The Overall Budget. 272 Billion $ in 2022 Budget, then there is 72 Billion $ for humanitarian assistance and international development ? So 344 Billion $ out of Total budget 715 B $ Isn´t realy About Military or Capabilities, when you deduct this from US Military Budget ? then US in Fact Spends less than 2% of GDP on Military. Most Nato contries has Universal Health Care and Pensions + Disability pay dosen´t go in the Militarys Budget, so the Diffrence is mostly due to where you put Expences to Healthcare,Pensions and Disabillity for Military Personel. @@namenameson9065
@@namenameson9065
You're missing the point.
The point is that there was no wave of NATO countries increasing defence spending while Trump was president.
@@namenameson9065 This was a trick question, neither is Germany's military spending the lowest now, nor did it particularly rise when Trump came into office or drop after. The interviewee was not only making things up but also did not bother to try to make it sound logical.
The money Germany is not spending on defense right now they are spending on US LNG +20% mark up, aka the Nord Stream special discount for allies 😉 - with friends like these, who needs enemies
After the US destroyed it. Lmao
@velvet1865 That is a fair point. Blowing up Nordstream now means its reliant on the US, if youre American thats fine but if you really did care about German self reliance its not so much.
Also, it might be beneficial to remind ourselves that Germany simply has a very disadvantageous geography. There simply are no fossil fuels like the UK, Norway, the US or Russia have. And in a globalized capitalist world there is always someone who will sell fossil fuels the cheapest and on top of that prices generally decrease the bigger the order is. So as a country simply without any fossil fuels of their own a pivot to the cheapest seller makes a lot of sense economically. Politically is a different question
@velvet1865 Funny that you mention France and Russia in particular.
Where do you think the Uranium for those oh so great Nuclear Power Plants of France is coming from?
Oh no, its from Russia?
And the EU hasnt sanctioned Uranium from Russia for that exact reason, because it would cripple France's nuclear energy? Weird, I mean France is independent if I believe your baseless takes.. hmm
@velvet1865 Ok, nice diversion. The money wasn't part of the discussion because making that a logical argument would take a lot more than just comparing base numbers but whatever, I see you like simple narratives omitting most of the facts.
France could buy somewhere else but don't. Why? Cause it would mitigate the price benefits of nuclear power. Yeah thats not a great outlook. Also, France doesn't publicly say much about their uranium buys so I don't know where your numbers are from either way. Fact is, about 70+% of France's uranium comes from Russia, Usbekistan and Kazakhztan which are more or less Russian puppets (hint: look at chip sales, they have skyrocketed to these countries since the sanctions banning sale to Russia).
And the fact that you think "they could buy somwhere else" is a good point is hilarious. Oil and gas can literally be bought everywhere, Uranium is a lot more complicated and while France insists they *could* do it at home, they don't because its economically not very viable. Why did Germany buy Russian oil and gas? Because it was the cheapest and economically most viable option, exactly the same as Uranium for France.
And shocker for you, Germany buys no Russian gas anymore and still gets enough, from the US, Qatar and others hmm
The situation with uranium in France is not comparable with Germany because Germany is open about the numbers while France knowingly keeps them secret. Because they know that it would look very bad if everybody knew they were reliant on Russian uranium.
yes, with friends like republicans who needs enemies
Niall is an intellectual who sees China and Russia as his enemies. The opinions he offers would be consistent with that line of thought.
China and Russia are enemies of democracies.
I also think the nondemocratic powers are the enemy...and that containment is the best strategy
A whole lot of other people see it that way too. The middle east is not our enemy. Chinese authoritarian AI is a threat to the survival of all life
More than a historian, he sounds like a lobbyist for the arms industry.
Unfortunately it’s time to wake up. Maybe we’ll be at the point where we wished we were in the 90ties when 2050 comes around.
Like a hopeless salesman peddling expired candies
He most of all sounds wrong.
12:57 -This guy: Germany won't hit 2% military spending, they are freeriding😂😂
-73,41 Billion Dollars in Germany's budget: "Am I a joke to you?".
-This guy: "Trump is the one who made Europe move on spending when he was elected 6 years before the ukraine war started."
-Also this guy: "Germany's spending is at it's lowest now, even under the Versaille treaty."
this guy is a classic idelogist. Classic hawkish perspective. nothing new-
In the US, he would be a neocon.
He doesn't want war with anyone from this conversation. Nothing hawkish about it.
Indeed.
@@middler5 Zero sum game is hawkish and meddling in the internal affairs of other countries (Taiwan) is hawkish.
what cold? is the 500,000 bodies of men not enough to call it hot?
Korea and Vietnam killed millions too.
There were Soviet Afghan war and Vietnam casualties, but it was still a cold war.
We need to be trying to maintain peace because the potential for this whole situation to spin out of control and get really nasty is huge
Western idea of peace is based on the need for the continuance of Western world domination.
@@wk9378 Western governments don't represent Western people. Where else are there such huge anti war protests?
It's nonsense to think that other regions of the world wouldn't want to maintain their dominance if they were in the box seat. Look at how China tells itself it's always been number one throughout history.
Where are you from?
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp But the diff is that even if they are able to, the Chinese never attempted to dominate the world. Its a cultural thing.
@@wk9378 That's at best a very naive statement. The Chinese historically believed in Tianxia - that they were supreme above all others. The Middle kingdom around which all others revolve. Had they not believed that and had they opened reciprocal embassies in Britain and China, the Opium wars could have been avoided
It's more of a racial spiritual thing. The ruling class in the West has two components: the European faction which are animated by the force behind Faustian civilisation and the "other" faction whose name I'm not going to write which believe it is their destiny to rule the world
Thank you both for this interview.
Niall used to be a Historian, at some point he became a counter-historian and a cheap propagandist. Hey ho, he has gone on to the dark side...
and Joe Biden and the democrat party are the gospel of christ.
right.. i noticed this also
Funny thing is that the tension between China and the US always subside whenever the US has problem in the other part of the world. Remember 2001 when the tension is high between China and the US due to the Hainan incident? It subside when the 9/11 happened and the US has to go to war. This time is the same. So the tension always subside when the US call time out. From here we can see who is the source of the tension. Clearly it is not China, because if China is the source of tension, why the tension only go away when the US go away to deal with its problem in other part of the world?
YUP
Exactly. None so blind as those who will not see.
Russia - China: *Getting stronger*
USA: What is a woman?
you: where is my brain?
LOL! You have a skewed way of what is stronger. Did you read the news about China economy recently? And let's not talk about Russia, that war will have an impact on Russia for generations. Strong countries are strong enough to protect their weakest. Weak countries have to maintain a facade.
100% accurate 😂
Also USA: develops 6th gen fighters first
Has 11 aircraft carriers
Creating unbelievable AI technology before any other country
Just saying, seems like being gay is working out well for them 😂
Commies sure do like to flap their jaws though, maybe they could weaponise that somehow?
@@HaleG9 get some sense
Good interview, and all valid points! Europe needs to step up for its own defense
"Iran was contained by sanctions" LOOOOOLLL we can see that indeed
A “defence economy” ?
That kind of says perfectly which lobbyists are paying his trip
Is Europe prepared to defend itself without "defense economy"? US will be happy to supply, but best benefit for EU is to create its defense economy that feeds its local and national economies. How do you think it works in US?
@@somedude2734 In the US the military industrial complex is very powerful and so are the richest. In EU the politicians are in power.
BRILLIANT!! PERFECT!!
Enough already! ¡Ya basta!
Somebody has to explain it to the Germans.
And nobody can do it better than Niall Ferguson.
The headline is Orwellian. No chance for peace when too many rely on war .
Russia can withdraw from Ukraine anytime they like.
Few words about "members not paying".
1) NATO has a TARGET of 2 %,
2) 1/3 of NATO countries is over that, paying (2-4%), 1/3 close to it (1,5-2%), and 1/3 pays less 1-1,5% - including Luxembourg!
3) Comparison between the US and EU, should take into account BNP, where the US is much higher (30% if I remember correctly), so if all paid equally, the US should pay 30% more.
4) No one demands the US to pay 3,5% of it´s BNP in military spending... it is a US decision alone, where the US wants to be the strong leader in the world, and wants to have the best weapons of all. It is not Luxembourg´s fault that the US invests heavily in the military.
5) EU pays now much more than the US in aid to Ukraine.
These arguments are all irrelevant. If the American voters think Europeans should pay the majority of the costs for ensuring their own security and that the rationales for American taxpayers bankrolling the European security order no longer apply now that Russia is shown to be less of a threat than the USSR, Europe needs to be prepared to carry it's own water in matters of security. Europe is rich, far richer than Russia, and has a higher population and more sophisticated technology. Europe shouldn't even need USA to fend off Russia at all.
The one party system aims to foster collaboration while maintaining internal competition but the end goal is to unite not divide China. This historian boasted a lot about how the West disintegrated Soviet Union but unfortunately this would never work for China, which is regarded by more than 150 countries as their key trading partner
Niall forgets history: the decisions of a prior president are realized by the following president; Trump's cut and run negotiation with the Taliban without NATO OR the Afghan government AND the draw down of US military to an unsustainable defensive capacity, resulted in an inadequate preparation for withdrawal. Trump's Mid-East policies led to the rise of radical Israeli nationalism supported by Netanyahu and Netanyahu's misjudgment that he could support funding Hamas to balance the Palestinian Authority that led to the Hamas attack. Niall has a perspective that is limited to assuming that bad events have no historical precedent and are the responsibility of the President who inherits the misdeeds of his predecessor. In general, I accept much of Niall's perspective as valid, but not when he assumes that the inheritor of the consequence is its own cause. The Mid-East likes Trump because Trump is a dup of his own ego.
It is again a very narrow and simple minded view from some in the US and so called experts that US somehow is being taken for a ride by the European Nato members because they don't pay their share of the cost. The smart, strategic, visionary people in the US would view this as an opportunity for the US to have a much larger strategic, military and even economic footprint across Europe, which in turn enhances its own security. By making the Europeans more independent on defending themselves against the likes of Russia, reduces the US influence in Nato and across the EU. Mind you, I would much prefer to see the Europeans become less reliant on USA, but that's another subject.
A Niall Ferguson interview is always a treat, thank you
If you like superficial, populist, and ideologically guided answers, then yes. I don't say he was 100 % wrong with everything he said on the interview, but much of it was (obviously intentionally) distorted or the angle was too narrow.. Taking into account that his audience are the Trump supporters and MAGA people, the bar doesn't have to be high. Those people just want to someone to confirm and amplify their preexisting beliefs and of course hear something positive about Trump.
@@adoatero5129 and I suppose Stanford is a bastion of right wing extremism? Please.
12:57 -This guy: Germany won't hit 2% military spending, they are freeriding😂😂
-73,41 Billion Dollars in Germany's budget: "Am I a joke to you?".
-This guy: "Trump is the one who made Europe move on spending when he was elected 6 years before the ukraine war started."
-Also this guy: "Germany's spending is at it's lowest now, even under the Versaille treaty."
I love hearing Niall's voice!
Soviet Union naively believed gentlemen. They are strong, intelligent enemies and deadly enemies. Thanks to open our eyes.
it was not naive during Stalin's time. but the generation that grew up in the socialist cocoon after ww2 was in fact naive.
“It was trumps mistake to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal to begin with” gut punch, debate over
Niall is a smart guy,... Not sure how much his logic is driven by ideological prejudices.
Not sure if he could compare China Soviet Union containment path and expect to see similar results.
To say that Helsinki Accords were just a game to give time to USA to recover from the Vietnam debacle shall be a blasphemy if it were not true.
Sad state of affairs.
@@FC-vp9ejMaking money? China's GDP per capita is ridiculous.
Ferguson is a bit of a plum if you ask me. Hasn't quite realized that Europe would be nothing without the EU, fully in support of the United Kingdom's exit of same, and a bit of a Trump supporter.
He once advised Trump to be in support of Theresa May's efforts to take the UK out of the EU as the 'best way to break up the EU'. In the same article, he adviced Trump to suck up to Putin and Xi Jinping and to support Le Pen's bid for the presidency of France. He's the kind of person who seems to hold authoritarians and totalitarians in high regard. If you get it this wrong on all of these subjects, why should anybody take you seriously? I honestly don't know why DW would choose to give this tool a platform.
So, why does he hold all of these views? My bet is that he IS, as you put it, driven by ideological prejudices. He's not at all happy with immigration, particularly from Middle Eastern countries, he sees the EU as being pro Middle Eastern immigration, so... better leave it and encourage its breakup... I guess. Like I said, bit of a plum, not to be taken seriously, I certainly won't start now.
@@FC-vp9ej You will never get large group of human beings to agree on much. Word of words releases the tensions which naturally build up. In fact wars brings progress throughout human history. It just the western society has progress beyond actual war amongst ourselves and heated debate and disagreement has allowed us to question and maintain that innovating spirit and find better paths forward. It is something to be celebrated not mocked. I mean CCP keeps the Chinese under its thumb and being a yes man works great in Chinese system but shameless copying will only get you so far.
Its obvious you have never been to China. The CCP does keep people under its 'thumb' by making sure that Chinese rich and their families are prospering. That is how the CCP manages Chinese society - it actually provides services to its people trust me I have been to China several times and the people can do what ever they want and they are a very happy people. @@tommohsien888
@@tommohsien888 EU is an organization set up to avoid wars within europe and no wonder their innovation is bad now. China would rather do copying and building than bombing, its because of the nature of the chinese culture. chinese are so proud that chinese civilization is the only one that survived for thousands of years. from ancient history, chinese build the great wall to avoid wars and the most famous chinese book on war is the art of war which is all about how to avoid wars in its first chapter. so china's fate is doomed not to be innovative. sad.
Outlast Russia and China? Absolutely not. Definitely, definitely, definitely not against China.
Great interview.
Ferguson is what would be called a realist with a deeply entrenched zero-sum mindset. Ideology of democracy vs autocracy is an instrument that gives US and its allies an advantage. In his recent article "the age of amorality", he made this point abundantly clear. What matters in the end is that US and allies must prevail. If sometimes being hypocritical and betraying the rhetoric brings more advantage than harm to US interests, then that's acceptable because the end is what matters. This zero-sum mindset and the determination to retain global dominance is very much a continuation of the western mindset from the colonial times. This is not the world most people on the planet wish to live in. A better world is where the principle of democracy and law also applies to global governance and the governance of relation between nations.
Niall is a hack political ideologue, not a historian. Any "fact" he tells you, get a second and third opinion.
very much
Wonderful insight, thank you
No chance for imperialism this time.
Hopefully not. The new imperialists are China and Muscowy. The rest of us got smarter.
Once NIall was a genius. Not he is just a sellout to the Cabal. But I guess they pay pretty well.
I feel like Mr Ferguson dodged some questions instead of answering them.
This guy is constantly on the verge of ranting.
Scottish are very passive - aggressive
Some refreshing and wise perspectives from this man. I think he is very pragmatik and very wise in regards to time and the role we sometimes forget that it has.
China is also waiting for the pathology of democracy to playout.
LOL! Only time will tell.
So glad Niall is an American now.
Trump?🤣
It's nice to see a historian who doesn't know history well.
why dont you teach him
@@samehmohamed2027I would wager this guy is not a historian, or someone who would be interviewed for his opinion 😂
Mr.Ferguson is a sophisticated war mogerer!
Yes Boris.
100%
Is it me or he danced all around the last question?
He danced, he's a right-wing trump apologist. I loved how the reporter corrected him when he was trying to blame the Biden administration for the trouble in the middle east.
It's not you.
@@TheReferrer72 I don't think so at all. I think he makes a solid point. Refusal to see that perspective is very common here in Europe where people are incredibly insistent that Europe has been doing nothing wrong so far in terms of burden sharing, amongst many other things.
Trump brought the topic into the centre of discourse on the Transatlantic relationship, and put into question how much Europe could rely on the US commitment to NATO. The war just showed how relevant the discussion was.
@@tiaelago-oretukaumunika7017
12:57 -This guy: Germany won't hit 2% military spending, they are freeriding😂😂
-73,41 Billion Dollars in Germany's 2024 budget: "Am I a joke to you?".
-This guy: "Trump is the one who made Europe move on spending when he was elected 6 years before the ukraine war started."
-Also this guy: "Germany's spending is at it's lowest now, even under the Versaille treaty."
@@TheReferrer72 The two party system in the US is guilty in its entirety regardless of which marionet is in the house of whites, but Biden is definitely to blame as he is arming, funding and directly participating in the genocide against Palestine.
Excellent and very thoughtful interview. Niall Ferguson is delivering a very important points to the European and US audiences and policy makers.
in short:"we are going to sell more weapons" lol
Well put. Finally some sense. It seams that there is currently a need of rushing old politics that were spoken by years from the Bidon administration, that now be addressed ASAP.
This was actually a very interesting interview. It altered my perspective a little as an European.
You people does not study your history
If you have study your history you will not have conflict with Russia
And it’s overly simplistic, one might say populism. The situation in the Middle East especially Iran wasn’t a flip on off switch and didn’t work as great as he tries to put it here. And NATO defense is much more complicated than „we set up troops here to defend your country“. The US doesn’t have 35k troops in Germany to defend against Russia, that would make little sense, not to mention they also have troops in Poland, that’s much closer to Russia. The US military bases in Germany are strategic for all US interests in Africa and the Middle East. All logistics and command runs through there, majorly Ramstein Airbase in Rheinland-Pfalz. They are free Land the US was given in return for military support in case of an attack. Since there hasn’t been one since the end of the Cold War, there was nothing to protect until today, sitting around was enough to hold up their end of the bargain while getting free access to Africa and the Middle East. Counting dollars in defense spending is overly simplistic and doesn’t even really matter to the US. If we really want to count money, US should start paying for US military bases in Europe too, which is a ridiculous concept but just as much as throwing a tantrum over 10billion in defense spending from Germany into German military industrial complex for German army.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Ferguson on one point. It was the United States, aped by UK and France, who maintained for some reason that Germany and Japan, or any other major member of the North Atlantic or Pacific alliance, be kept militarily insignificant even in the changing global security panorama of the 21st century. US politicians have just invented the weird narrative that it will no longer pick up the bill. Hence the extreme statement: "Pay me protection money or else".
Times change. Russia is not the USSR. Europe should be able to handle Russia by itself.
I strongly disagree with your comment. It was internal forces that kept German defence spending low.
This is just not true! Starting in the 1980's under Reagan, and then every single successive US president has called on NATO partners to pay more of their GDP towards defense. Your statement is a complete falsehood.
Obviously, the Abraham Accords weren't successful. If they had been successful, incorporating the Palestinian cause into the equation, then the region would still be at peace today. Niall is being a bit narrow minded here.
And why didn´t Saudi make peace with Israel then ?
@@mabuhayproductionltd3627 Had the Palestinian issue been incorporated into the Abraham Accords, then it is more probable than not that Saudi Arabia would have normalized relations with Israel because it is a huge priority for the US and would provide Saudi Arabia access to the Israeli economy and tech flow which is what MBS desires. The Saudis are trying to diversify their revenues away from oil and and peace with Israel can help them get there. MBS has staked his political future on the success of Vision 2030, an ambitious development program that aims to diversify his economy away from oil. But his reforms won't succeed if the Middle East is consumed by a major war, and therefore it is in his interests to promote lasting peace with Israel.
@@mabuhayproductionltd3627 the Saudis did have peace with Israel and still do. Unofficially they had normalized relations, however, officially they did not have normalized or diplomatic relations. It’s been like that for over a decade, if not longer. In sept 2023, Saudi Arabia wad very close to signing onto the accord and establishing formal diplomatic relations. It was the October 7 of the attack that scuttled efforts.
Saudi Arabia has stated their support for Palestinians. However, much like other Arab, nations they have not stepped up and taken any action to either assist, nor defend the Palestinians. it is very important to remember that words mean nothing without action. Speeches, statements, pledges, etc. do not mean anything when there is no action behind the words.
but why could they do it formally then, if they where so close ?@@carlyar5281
But that is Not what Israel can and will accept (unless Iran is out of Hamas/Hizbolla,Syria,Lebanon), People of Israel have left the 2 State solution, that could Only ? Be possible if Israel also had peace with Iran (and that is Highly unlikely). So Israel has to fight and win, and likely the whole thing would End with an Israel and Maybe US Strike on Irans nuclear production sites in Iran, If not then Iran would very soon have Nuclear weapons and US/Israel would be forced to act@@GentlemanJack705
Excellent interview
Dry interview, pale compared to Jaiveer Shergill from India.
Unfortunately while the strategy of containment allowing the pathologies of the one party state, the Soviet Union, did play out to its demise, it didn't remove the continuation of the one party state that just continued under a different flavor. And here we are today with Putin in Ukraine.
A minute ago (meaning decades)the world was frightenend about Gemany getting involved and building up a viable Bundeswehr in Defence and Military Build Up Spending for obvious reasons. As a German for people to ask Germany to be wehrhaft again and evolving frim defence into attack mode is highly questionable. Never again is the current phrase against fashist tendencies here. At the moment we have fashist partie reaching a third to a fifth of the vote. Just imagine for a minute they came to power with a Bundeswehr armed and resourced to the teeth. A worried German.
As an American, I can say that its time to move on. We need to stop dwelling on the ghosts and mistakes of the past in the previous century. The world has moved on and its time for Germany to move on as well.
This guy is a great analyst.
Great Video!
October the seventh and April 13 brought a new paradigm
Very precise. I like hiw he talks
he's one of the best interviewer on the internet right now. Way better than Tucker Carlson
That was a good litte chat. It is amazing to me that hearing two intelligent people enthusiastically talking about complex political subjects instills a sense of well being. They didn't agree on everything, but they liked each other and had good will.
One wonders about the delusion of the Western world.
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is still following this informative content cheers Frank 😊
Yet again his interview demonstrates that DW is the best English language news available. Sad for the BBC.
Niall was tired of this reporter before the interview was over.
Wao! This guy is straight up!
Piles of deception and deceit!
Authoritarian regimes, once they go down the wrong path , it's very hard to auto correct , which is not the case , for democracy .
You do realize that the US government practically is overseen by the US military right? US 'democracy' is only used as a procedure to 'legitimize' the government so it does not matter who is in power - the Neocons run the US government.
Look into your own backyard. European Commission is authoritarian. EU Parliament is a bunch of corrupted people. You are not thinking for yourself, you are repeating what you've heard from your so called "leaders".
In the 5,000 years or so of written history of China, never once in their dynasties emperors were elected ala western democratic style. They were all autocratic rulers, China thrived and fell, and they survived to this day. Probably the only country with continuous civilisation for more than 5,000 years.
who are these democracies China was around most of the west were living in caves
@@Liboch If mere existence is how we judge a country, I guess China takes the prize. But it's not, we judge a country based on their commitment to human dignity and freedom. While Western democracies were enshrining human rights into their constitutions, China was actively trying to starve 30 million of their own people to death.
I encourage you to differenciate between historical facts, political analysis and political statement. There was little of the first two and more of the latter.
Nail Fergusson is one my favorite intellectuals.
When he makes a suggestion grounded in history, we should listen.
Absolutely. A great "historian". I do not agree with his anachronistic perspective on the current state of affairs.
@@bonniebluebell5940 Lots of smart people have lots of takes on the current state of affairs.
We need more ideas - not less. We got some serious problems and we are not addressing them adequately.
If he is right by precisely 1 thing, and that thing is used as the basis of a real solution that's good.
@@swordarmstudios6052 Absolutely and our perspectives may also change from time to time in accordance with the facts on the ground. That is why I am always interested in what he has to say. All the best!
Trump did so many correct moves. If he had not "threatened" Germany to not defend them from Putin they would not have done anything at all, but trust in the US forces. We need to be strong together.
.
The Cold War Never Ended . . . . . . . it Heated Up.
Of course.... and I wonder why, hmmm
As a greek person, I fail to see what NATO offers to Greece, and I demand Greece exits NATO immediately.
@@tomorrowneverdies567 if that was to happen, you would be learning turkish my friend.
Its not a Cold war, it is very very "Hot" for Ukrainians.
Niall, what happened to your idea of Chimerica?
12:57 -This guy: Germany won't hit 2% military spending, they are freeriding😂😂
-73,41 Billion Dollars in Germany's budget: "Am I a joke to you?".
Edit:
-This guy: "Trump made Europe move on spending when he was elected 6 years before the ukraine war started."
-Also this guy: "Germany's spending is at it's lowest now, even under the Versaille treaty."
The USA and UK have always pursued their own politics. Here, in EU we do not even understand what is going on in Red Sea. Please explain, Mr Ferguson. Explain historically. The rest is very clear. It has been clear for a long time.
Boy did he sidestep that question about Russia spurring spending rather than Trump’s bloviating
West always think as "We" and "They".
China and Russia always think ONLY WE !
Evil mindset.
Money Laundering mindset
This guy is one of the most nonsensical historian ever to exist lol
What historians do you recommend?
Countries which breed like rabbits are not to be taken seriously.
@@stephenhill545 they are far more important than irrelevant country like UK can even think of
@@Disorder327 there are many but this particular guy is pro British and don't consider anything which goes against the narrative propagated by UK
@@Ankit-d9f4u Sorry, I can't seem to find anyone named "there are many". I don't think you are much of a historian tbh. Maybe you're schooled in the Putin and Xi variety of Marxist revisionism? Yeah, that sounds about right.
US elecetions are interesting in the sense that their results swing many domestic issues that other countries don't even have: abortion, gun rights and boarder control; but what it almost never changes is foreign policy from the perspective of the grand scheme.
During his presidency, Trump said that it was absurd for the US to pay for Europe’s defence against Putin while Germany closed its nuclear reactors and made itself dependent on Russian gas.
The German diplomats laughed at him.
Subsequent events proved that Trump was absolutely correct.
A good interview, but I also have to say: Britain, heal thyself?
Lobby for more defense spending. Let's go.
Ferguson is on the far right of US foreign policy. A real warhawk. Such people are invited at the Munich security conference. Big NATO spender US has always benefitted enormously from this huge dominance. A strong own European defense was the last thing they wanted. But never expect a modern journalist to ask one critical question.
I like this guy!
Are you sure that the passing of time is in western interest? It looks like China and Russia will be stronger in ten years from now? Is the west delusional?