reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asserts that NATO members are not contributing their fair share financially, with 23 of 28 nations failing to meet their defense obligations. This is considered unfair to U.S. taxpayers, especially since these nations allegedly owe massive amounts of money from past years. The United States has reportedly spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined over the last eight years.

Supporting Ukraine is crucial for us because they are fighting a war that we are not involved in. It is important to engage in dialogue with our American colleagues and friends as they share the same interest. Supporting Ukraine is a cost-effective measure to ensure that Russia, under its current regime, does not pose a threat to the NATO alliance. This support must be sustained to safeguard our collective security.

I love Europe, but the US/Europe relationship is broken because of a lack of respect. Europeans look down on Americans and act entitled. We're tired of being on the hook for security, including for non-NATO countries like Ukraine. We have our own problems at home, like fentanyl deaths, struggling veterans, and education issues. Americans across the political spectrum don't want to be in a nuclear war with Russia or continue the Ukraine war. We want peace and to focus on our own issues. The recent behavior from European leaders and Zelensky suggests the relationship is over. We'll still trade and visit, but the entitlement needs to stop. Americans are angry and want to address our own problems. It's time for a change.

Germany's defense relies on American taxpayers, and we still have many troops stationed there. But will Americans keep footing the bill if you're jailed in Germany for a tweet? I doubt it. To our European friends: friendship means sharing values. But jailing people for wanting border security, rejecting election results, or silencing those you fear? That's not shared values.

The ongoing war in Ukraine has cost American taxpayers $1 trillion, with little to show for it. Despite receiving $60 billion earlier this year, Ukraine is struggling and facing significant losses. Questions about the U.S. strategy in Ukraine remain unanswered, and NATO's expansion, contrary to past agreements, has contributed to tensions with Russia. The Biden administration's approach has been criticized for lack of planning and leadership, leading to increased aggression from adversaries like China and Iran. The situation is dire, with fears of escalating conflict and potential nuclear war. It's crucial for the U.S. to negotiate a peace agreement to prevent further disaster and refocus on protecting American interests rather than engaging in a proxy war without a clear plan.

If Putin attacks a NATO ally, we will defend every part of NATO as required by treaty. It's important to clarify that we do not seek American troops to fight in Russia or against Russia.

I love Europe, but Europeans don't respect Americans, and a relationship without mutual respect can't last. We're not obligated to protect Ukraine, especially when we have our own problems at home, like fentanyl deaths and veterans needing help. We've been bailing out Europe for 80 years, and it's time for them to handle their own security. Americans across the political spectrum don't want to be in a nuclear war with Russia or continue the Ukraine war. The entitlement we're seeing from European leaders and Zelensky suggests the relationship is over. We'll still trade and visit, but the dynamic needs to change. Americans are tired of paying for Europe's security while receiving disrespect in return. It's time for the relationship to evolve.

Our payments to NATO are disproportionate and ridiculous compared to others. Solving this issue is crucial because it will allow us to address important causes like homelessness, farmers, and healthcare. Unfortunately, we don't have the funds to support these priorities because our country is financially strained. If we had better business abilities, we could generate surplus profits that could be used to defend and support our homeless, poor, sick, and farmers. Instead, we are giving money to countries that don't care about us.

Larry Johnson and the host discuss the current trajectory of U.S. policy under Donald Trump and its implications for international law, NATO, and the global balance of power, with frequent emphasis on Greenland as a flashpoint. - They suggest Trump is making a case for peace through overwhelming strength and unpredictability, implying that international law is seen by him as a restraint US power. Johnson argues that Trump’s stance includes threats and pressure aimed at annexing Greenland, and he questions whether this represents a genuine peace strategy or a coercive strategy that disregards international norms. - Johnson catalogs a sequence of Trump-era actions and rhetoric: Donald Trump “launched the coup against the Iranian government,” was involved in discussions with Zelensky, helped Ukraine, and then “kidnapped Nicolas Maduro,” followed by an escalation that included the suggestion of a military attack on Iran. He says Trump has “declared openly” that he does not recognize or respect international law, describing it as “useless. It’s whatever he thinks is right and what needs to be done.” - The conversation notes that Trump’s position has been reflected by close aides and allies, including Steven Miller, Marco Rubio, and Scott Bessette. Johnson claims this broad endorsement signals a shift in how major powers might view the U.S. and its approach to international law, with Putin, Xi, Macron, and others watching closely. - They argue this marks a breakdown of the international system: “a complete breakdown of the international system,” with NATO potentially coming apart as the U.S. claims a threat to Greenland from China or Russia and insists that NATO is unnecessary to protect it. The debate frames Europe as being in a toxic relationship with the United States, dependent on U.S. security guarantees, while the U.S. acts with unilateralism. - The European response is discussed in detail. The host describes European leaders as having “ Stockholm syndrome” and being overly dependent on Washington. The letter to Norway’s prime minister by Trump is cited as an astonishing admission that peace is subordinate to U.S. self-interest. The question is raised whether NATO is dying as a result. - They compare the evolution of international law to historical developments: Magna Carta is invoked as a symbol of limiting rulers, and Westphalia is discussed as a starting point for the balance-of-power system. The hosts consider whether modern international law is viable in a multipolar world, where power is distributed and no single hegemon can enforce norms as unilaterally as in the past. - They discuss the economic dimension of the shift away from U.S. hegemony. The U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency is challenged as BRICS-plus and other nations move toward alternative payment systems, gold, and silver reserves. Johnson notes that the lifting of sanctions on Russia and the broader shift away from dollar-dominated finance are undermining U.S. financial hegemony. He highlights that Russia and China are increasing gold and silver holdings, with a particular emphasis on silver moving to new highs, suggesting a widening gap in global finance. - The Trump administration’s tariff strategy is discussed as another instrument that could provoke a financial crisis: Johnson cites reports of European threats to retaliate with massive tariffs against the U.S. and references the potential for a broader financial shock as gold and silver prices rise and as countries reduce their purchases of U.S. Treasuries. - The discussion examines Greenland specifically: the claim that the U.S. wants Greenland for access to rare earth minerals, Arctic access, and strategic bases. Johnson disputes the rare-earth rationale, pointing out U.S. processing limits and comparing Arctic capabilities—Russia has multiple nuclear-powered icebreakers. He characterizes Trump’s Greenland gambit as a personal vanity project that could set off broader strategic consequences. - They touch on the role of European defense commitments, with German and other European responses to defend Greenland described as inconsequential or symbolic, and a suggestion that Europe might respond more seriously by hedging against U.S. influence, though current incentives make a real break difficult. - A broader warning emerges: the possibility of a new world order emerging from multipolarity, with the United States weakened economically and politically. They foresee a period of adjustment in which European countries may reorient toward Russia or China, while the United States pursues a more fragmented and confrontational stance. - The conversation ends with mutual concerns about the trajectory toward potential geopolitical conflict and a call to watch the evolving relationship between the major powers, the role of international law, and the coming economic shifts as the global system transitions from unipolar to multipolar.

We must not abandon Ukraine or allow NATO to weaken. It goes against our national interests and the promises we've made. We need Congress to pass funding for NATO as soon as possible.

Supporting Ukraine is crucial for us because they are fighting a war that we are not involved in. It is important to engage in dialogue with our American colleagues and friends as they share the same interest. Supporting Ukraine is a cost-effective measure to ensure that Russia, under its current regime, does not pose a threat to the NATO alliance. This support must be continued to safeguard our interests.

I love Europe, but Europeans don't respect Americans, creating an unsustainable relationship. Ukraine shouldn't dictate our actions, especially since we're not obligated to defend them via NATO. Europe has the means to protect itself. Meanwhile, America faces crises like fentanyl deaths, struggling education, and veteran issues. We've been in Middle East conflicts for decades and bailed out Europe in the past. Americans don't want to be in a nuclear war with Russia or remain in the Ukraine war. The American people have voted against these entanglements. The entitlement and disrespect from Europe is angering Americans. We're ready to address our own problems, especially since we contribute significantly to European security while receiving disrespect in return. The relationship needs to change.

The speaker argues that the European Union, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization should be abolished. They claim there are numerous European “x” accounts aiming to provoke Western Europeans to go to war with Russia because Western funding for Ukraine is dwindling, and they say these actors want to attack Russia regardless of US backing. A self-proclaimed “Gunther” is featured as a controversial figure who says he’s part of NATO, but the speaker notes that NATO publicly denies knowing him and that Gunther formed his own NGOs without funding. The speaker highlights Gunther’s post: Europeans will never be slaves. In response, the speaker asks why Gunther would arrest people for telling the truth online and trying to enslave them in a digital prison; they claim Gunther is misrepresenting online repression and compare digital punishment to real torture. The speaker cites a German police investigation of a Gab user who called a female politician fat, emphasizing the use of the term fat as quoted in the post. They challenge Gunther by asking if the photo shows a Victoria’s Secret model, implying a discrepancy between appearances and claims, and label Gunther as aligning with “the EU’s bitches” and lacking sovereignty. They accuse Hungary of being fined a million dollars a day for not accepting “undesirables,” asserting EU law requires such intake and that white Europeans are urged to fight against Russia while others (described in demeaning terms) contribute less. The speaker argues that Western Europe is dependent on the United States, stating that the US is the biggest financier of NATO and possesses the most powerful military, and that Europeans would be abandoned without US support. They remark that Gunther’s post demonstrates this dependence, noting Gunther’s post about Trump wanting to win and withdraw the US Navy from European seas, which would leave Europe exposed to Russia and Iran. The speaker mocks Gunther’s attempt to lead a European naval force and requests continued US Navy presence for a decade to help. Overall, the speaker frames a narrative of European subservience to the United States, critiques of EU sovereignty, and hostility toward Western multinational institutions, while repeatedly referencing Gunther as a focal figure in these exchanges.

The discussion opens with breaking news: President Trump announced that thousands of US forces stationed in Germany would be removed, prompting claims that NATO may have taken its last breath. In the same hours, Iran struck multiple targets across the Middle East, including oil infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates, with oil facilities in the UAE reportedly on fire. Iran also claimed US Navy ships were hit by multiple missiles, while CENTCOM denied the strikes occurred, though Iran maintained they did. British coverage through state media reported that a US warship turned back from the Strait of Hormuz and that two missiles hit a US warship near Jask Island after warnings were ignored; this is contested, with independent verification not established at that moment. Colonel Daniel Davis, host of The Deep Dive with Dan Davis, joins to discuss NATO, the US force presence in Africa, and the Hormuz situation. The NATO piece centers on the move to pull thousands of troops out of Germany, described as an affront to NATO structure and raising questions about whether NATO is effectively finished. Davis notes it followed French Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s remarks that the United States has no strategy, which Trump reacted to with threats to withdraw troops. He explains that pulling out could take six to twelve months due to the logistics of moving equipment and posts, and suggests the Pentagon might prefer redirecting troops eastward to Romania or Poland rather than home to the US, though Davis doubts that would happen. He argues the purpose would be to have Europe bear more responsibility for its own security, but stresses that a coherent plan with allied coordination would be required. He says NATO’s relevance began to fade after the Soviet Union’s disbandment in 1992, with the alliance failing to improve US national security and becoming a drain, and he predicts NATO may be replaced by something else, though the future shape remains unknown. He criticizes a knee-jerk, emotionally driven approach to the issue. Speaker 3 (Natalie) references Trump’s “Project Freedom,” criticized as potentially Orwellian in branding, and notes Trump’s shift from offering to escort ships through Hormuz to presenting a humanitarian-guiding service. Davis counters that CENTCOM initially stated it would not escort ships due to lacking the capacity, yet later posts suggested some ships and resources were out in support of the operation, and that two American-flagged vessels were claimed to have moved through the Strait of Hormuz (though Iran disputed this). The administration’s mixed messaging, the possibility of staging or false-flag actions, and the reality that 2,000 ships are clustered in the Persian Gulf are highlighted. There is concern that Iran might be provoked into attacking ships to justify further military responses, potentially escalating tensions and oil disruptions. The conversation then returns to the broader implications: the oil infrastructure attacks, the uncertain status of vessel movements through the Strait of Hormuz, and the risk that escalation could push global oil prices higher, with projections of spikes to $150–$175 per barrel or higher if the conflict intensifies. Davis notes that the situation could trigger broader economic pain, including energy lockdowns and disruptions in fertilizer, farming, and related supply chains, unless a diplomatic solution is found, which he implies is preferable to more military action. Finally, the discussion turns to Operation African Lion, where two US soldiers are missing and a search-and-rescue operation is underway. Davis questions the purpose and benefit of continued US involvement in Africa, arguing that similar interventions have occurred for years without clear American national interest or clear outcomes, citing Somalia as an ongoing series of airstrikes (61 in 2026 so far) without a lasting solution. He emphasizes that bombing and troop deployments have not solved the fundamental conditions and warns that continued military engagement risks reputational damage and ongoing costs. The segment closes with Davis reiterating concerns about perpetual intervention and the need for reconsidering strategic aims. The broadcast ends with the hosts inviting viewers to subscribe and share the program.

This is about the security of our world and the United States of America.

George Bibi and Vlad discuss the United States’ evolving grand strategy in a multipolar world and the key choices facing Washington, Europe, Russia, and China. - The shift from the post–Cold War hegemonic peace is framed as undeniable: a new international distribution of power requires the U.S. to adjust its approach, since balancing all great powers is impractical and potentially unfavorable. - The U.S. previously pursued a hegemonic peace with ambitions beyond capabilities, aiming to transform other countries toward liberal governance and internal reengineering. This was described as beyond America’s reach and not essential to global order or U.S. security, leading to strategic insolvency: objectives outpaced capabilities. - The Trump-era National Security Strategy signals a reorientation: U.S. priorities must begin with the United States itself—its security, prosperity, and ability to preserve republican governance. Foreign policy should flow from that, implying consolidation or retrenchment and a focus on near-term priorities. - Geography becomes central: what happens in the U.S. Western Hemisphere is most important, followed by China, then Europe, and then other regions. The United States is returning to a traditional view that immediate neighborhood concerns matter most, in a world that is now more polycentric. - In a multipolar order, there must be a balance of power and reasonable bargains with other great powers to protect U.S. interests without provoking direct conflict. Managing the transition will be messy and require careful calibration of goals and capabilities. - Europe’s adjustment is seen as lagging. Absent Trump’s forcing mechanism, Europe would maintain reliance on U.S. security while pursuing deeper integration and outward values. The U.S. cannot afford to be Europe’s security benefactor in a multipolar order and needs partners who amplify rather than diminish U.S. power. - Europe is criticized as a liability in diplomacy and defense due to insufficient military investment and weak capability to engage with Russia. European self-doubt and fear of Russia hinder compromising where necessary. Strengthening Europe’s political health and military capabilities is viewed as essential for effective diplomacy and counterbalancing China and Russia. - The Ukraine conflict is tied to broader strategic paradigms: Europe’s framing of the war around World War II and unconditional surrender undermines possible compromises. A compromise that protects Ukraine’s vital interests while acknowledging Russia’s security concerns could prevent disaster and benefit Europe’s future security and prosperity. - U.S.–Europe tensions extend beyond Ukraine to governance ideals, trade, internet freedom, and speech regulation. These issues require ongoing dialogue to manage differences while maintaining credible alliances. - The potential for U.S.–Russia normalization is discussed: the Cold War-style ideological confrontation is largely over, with strategic incentives to prevent Russia and China from forming a closer alliance. Normalizing relations would give Russia more autonomy and reduce dependence on China, though distrust remains deep and domestic U.S. institutions would need to buy in. - China’s role is addressed within a framework of competition, deterrence, and diplomacy. The United States aims to reduce vulnerability to Chinese pressure in strategic minerals, supply chains, and space/sea lines, while engaging China to establish mutually acceptable rules and prevent spirals into direct confrontation. - A “grand bargain” or durable order is proposed: a mix of competition, diplomacy, and restraint that avoids domination or coercion, seeking an equilibrium that both the United States and China can live with.

The speaker asserts that NATO's defense spending target of 5% of GDP is a political decision made to appease Donald Trump. They describe NATO's posture towards Trump as servile, likening it to wayward children seeking redemption from a father figure. The speaker states they will only believe the 5% figure when each NATO member's parliament approves it. They also claim that increased military spending is meaningless without a defense industry to execute revitalization plans. Ultimately, the speaker believes the 5% figure is a politically meaningless statement.

If Ukraine's military doesn't halt the Russian invasion, it won't be long before our NATO forces have to fight on the border.

We neglect our farmers, while the homeless, sick, and other problems persist in our major cities. Yet, we spend billions defending countries that are wealthier than us. Instead of raising taxes, we should lower them. Our payments to NATO are disproportionate and absurd. Our country is in financial ruin because we engage in unnecessary actions. If we focused on our own interests, we could generate profits and use them to support our homeless, poor, sick, and farmers. We should prioritize spending on those who truly care about us, rather than giving money to countries that don't.

Europe faces no external threat from state actors like Russia, which is an artificial construct of political elites in NATO seeking enemies to justify their existence. The real threat to NATO is the fragility of the European continent and the political volatility of its members. Centrist, Eurocentric governments are being challenged or toppled by internally focused national movements prioritizing their own nations over a collective European vision. This internal dysfunction poses the greatest threat to NATO. NATO's focus on external threats, including seeking conflict with China, distracts from the real issue: dysfunction within Europe.

America protects and defends countries like South Korea, Japan, Canada, and all of Europe. In exchange, South Korea steals the automobile and electronics industries, Japan closes its market to American cars, Canada runs up a massive trade deficit, and Europe has a $300 billion trade deficit with the United States. America is getting ripped off by every other country in the world, resulting in the deindustrialization of the heartland, destruction of the American dream, and the eradication of the industrial and manufacturing base needed for national security. This has to stop, especially with $36 trillion in debt.

The speaker states that they personally know the current NATO Secretary General, Mr. Rutte, who is a former Prime Minister of the Netherlands. They mention having visited the Netherlands for a discussion, describing Rutte as an intelligent, systemic, and effective example, and noting that the Netherlands’ economy is in good shape, “this part of his merit.” The speaker then criticizes Rutte for what they perceive as push for war with Russia, asking rhetorically what Rutte is saying about war with Russia and asserting that “they want to prepare for war with Russia.” The speaker contends that Rutte should read a specific source: the new US National Security Strategy. According to the speaker, the United States is a key player in NATO, its creator, main sponsor, and “all the main means come from the US.” They claim that “money, technologies, weapons, ammunition” all originate from the United States, calling this the foundation of NATO’s resources. The speaker asserts that in the new NATO national security strategy, Russia is not identified as an enemy or a target. Despite this, the General Secretary of NATO is preparing with them for war, and the speaker questions whether Rutte can read, implying a belief that the strategy does not designate Russia as an enemy, yet there is a push toward preparing for conflict. Overall, the speaker juxtaposes Rutte’s economic leadership in the Netherlands with a narrative of impending confrontation with Russia, emphasizing the reliance of NATO on U.S. resources and critiquing the alignment between the US strategy and the perceived stance of NATO leadership toward Russia.