Transcript of Tucker & Piers Morgan Debate Foreign Aid, Hate Speech, NATO, Gun Control, & Is Zelensky a Dictator?

Beers Morgan. Telling off-colour jokes off camera. Thank you so much. No, my pleasure. We are in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. We are. I'm not going to ask you how you wind up here, but I'm glad to see you.

Well, we're both here for the same reason, actually.

We've both gone into the oil business. Yes. I never... Yeah. So I want to ask you, I want to start just on a very hostile note, okay? Because I feel like that's a good way to frame that.

Good. Let's start having me to continue.

Zelensky is a hero. How could you say that?

I don't agree with you about him or Ukraine. I went to interview him in Kyiv. He's an extraordinary story, obviously, this comedian who becomes President, having played a- The pianist. Comedian who was a President in a comedy show. I've seen what you said about it. What's interesting to me on a bigger picture about Ukraine, Russia, your views, a lot of conservative views in America, is that 30 years ago, there would have been no element of resistance from the conservative side about taking on a Russian dictator who had invaded a European country. I know it's a lot more complicated. I know the history, but a lot of very smart people on a lot of people you've interviewed. I do learn a lot each time I talk to them about all the history, obviously. My brother was a British Army colonel. My sister married a British Army colonel. They've all engaged in conflicts around the world, and so it's complicated. There's no doubt that on the Russian side, they believe they are provoking to doing this. I know that you have sympathy with that view. There's also no doubt from the Ukrainian side that they believe since the '90s, they've been this sovereign democratic country, albeit not perfect, you think deeply flawed.

I think they've been imperfect, trying to improve And Zelensky has actually, I think, been a force for good, not bad. But ultimately, what's happened now is that you have a situation where, as Donald Trump told me recently, it's just the mowing fields now, where you have thousands of young men being killed, often on a daily basis, both sides. No one's winning this war, it seems to me. And if anyone is going to win, it's likely to be Russia, not Ukraine. Then what happens? And that concerns me enormously. If the West allows Putin to just take the land he's taken, what guarantee do we have? He won't try and take the rest of Ukraine. He took Crimea. He's back for more. I think he wants the whole of Ukraine. I think he won't stop there if he's allowed to get it. I think he's a pretty ruthless evil Russian dictator.

How are we defining, just to find the term so we can follow the same? What's a dictator?

A dictator to me is somebody... Well, I would start by saying you have no respect for democratic norms, a free and fair election.

An unelected leader would be a dictator.

Well, you wouldn't argue that Putin, for example, has free and fair elections?

No, I'm not that interested, actually. Are you not? Not really. It's not my country. I'm interested in my leaders, whether they have the consent of their people. It's not of great interest to me. I do think Putin is way more popular than Joe Biden. To his people. Yes. More popular in Russia than Biden was ever popular.

I wouldn't dispute that. Why are you so against Zelensky?

No, I'm just trying to understand when you dismiss Putin as a dictator, which is totally fair, I guess, but I'm just trying to understand what you mean by dictator. So the first criterion for dictatorship is that you're not elected. And what else? Because Zelensky's obviously not elected either. Yeah. So I'm just trying to figure out what you're talking about.

Well, your comparison Zelensky and Putin over the last two years, I found baffling because you seem to think there's some moral equivalence between the two. And Zelensky hasn't illegally invaded another country. Do you not have a problem with what Putin's done?

Hold on. I just want to know what a dictator is. I just want to know. I mean, Maybe he's a better guy than Putin or whatever, and you could say some things about one or not the other. But if we're just going to define dictator, the first feature of a dictator is he's not elected. So Zelensky is not elected. He's also, well, he's banned a religious denomination. He's murdered his political opponents. He has banned a language group. Those all seem like features of dictatorship to me. Now, he has the support of the British intelligence agencies. That doesn't mean he's not a dictator, though. That sounds like a dictator. I mean, if I gave you a piece of paper and I'm like, Here are some qualities of a European leader, you would say, Well, that guy, that's not legitimate. That guy's a dictator. I can't support that. But his name's Zelensky, and he was once a comedian, and he does my show, so he's not a dictator. I think it's a dictator.

Well, I would argue that if you look at the history of Ukraine since the '90s, since it became a, I want to have a better phrase, democratic country, as I would say. Well, I mean, by the same criteria you support, Putin being a popular This country, I think just under 90% of Ukrainians voted for it. You wouldn't dispute that.

Well, first of all, the country had a coup sponsored by the United States government, the CIA, in 2014. Everything that happened subsequent to that, I don't think we could call part of the democratic process. But just Zelenski, personally, is not elected. He's not an elected leader. He rules by force. There's no election that gives him legitimacy. That's not a defense of Putin. It's merely an attack on the idea that Putin is the only dictator in this contest. How is Zelenskyy not a dictator?

Do you think Putin is a dictator?

I guess, yeah. I mean, I guess. I mean, if I stand up outside the Kremlin and say, down with Vladimir Putin, I'm probably in trouble. That's why I don't live in Russia. Right.

I certainly think that Ukraine has had a lot of corruption.

No, but is Zelenskyy a legitimate? How is he legitimate if he's not elected? How could you support an unelected leader?

Well, he's the President of the country.

Well, he calls himself that, but there's no election that made him President. He blew past the election and said, Oh, there's a war. We can't have an election. We're going to change the Constitution. So how is that a legitimate leader? How could you support something like that? That seems, I don't know, like a dictatorship.

Well, I would categorize my support for him as supporting him against an illegal invasion by Russia.

So this is why we support Stalin Hitler because- In a way, we had that debate. Hitler is bad, so Stalin wants to be good. But no, Stalin is also a dictator. How about we just don't support dictators if we're against supporting dictators? Or you could take my position, which is I don't want a dictatorship in my own country because I live in a free country. But we're going to have relations with the country that helps us most up to a certain limit. We're not going to be allies with Stalin because that's too evil. We're not Winston Churchill or FDR or something. We're not going to go that far. But in general, we will deal with countries that help us. But when we start having moral conversations about other countries, then we have to stick by our own standards. By your standard, you're supporting a dictator. I wonder how you can do that, Piers Morgan.

I'm not saying they're morally pure in Ukraine. I'm not saying they're not riddled with corruption. But how is he not a dictator? Here's my point to you. My defense of them-bloodthirsty dictator. Bloodthirsty dictator. My defense of them is based on the illegal invasion by Russia. You and I can argue about whether Russia was goaded and provoked into doing that. I do not think anything justifies what they actually did.

That's a totally fair position. I guess I disagree, but I don't think what you're saying is crazy at all. How is that more illegal than running a country without an election and banning a religious denomination? I don't understand that. So, yeah, you could certainly say Putin did a lot of bad things. I would readily agree to that to the extent I understand it. But we're supporting my government and your government, particularly, are supporting this dictator in Ukraine who's oppressing Christians, who is banning people's native language and books in their native language. He's a book burner. That's totally cool because we Great Putin? That's not totally cool, is it?

Would you just let Putin take Ukraine?

I would say, let's have an election in Ukraine and let the Ukrainian people elect their own leader and get rid of the midget dictator who now oppresses them, Zelensky. I would definitely not support a guy who's not elected as a democratic figure because by definition, he's not. By definition, I don't care who his enemies are. He's not worth calling a beacon of democracy. If he doesn't even have... Why not have an election in Ukraine today? Because we've got a war. We had elections in our country during the Second World War, so did you. Why not hold him to democratic standards?

I've got no problem with saying he should have an election.

What about banning a Christian denomination?

Yeah, I don't agree with any of those things.

Well, how could we ever support that?

Because ultimately- We're paying for that. Because ultimately, we have to make a calculation about whether we're happy with Russia invading what is a sovereign European democratic country.

It was not a sovereign country. It was controlled by the United States. They installed their government in a coup in 2014. It's a very They're a puppet of the United States and Great Britain. But they are not sovereign.

Do you think they're a democracy?

Well, their leader is not elected. So by definition, they're not a democracy. It may be a great place to vacation or we're getting a lot of money from defense deals or they've got pretty women. There are lots of great things you could say about the Ukrainians. They're actually great people from what I can tell. I know a bunch of them. They're awesome, but they're definitely not a democracy.

Should Putin just take the land?

No.

So what happens?

I don't know. We should stop paying for the slaughter of the entire Ukrainian population. Because you don't know.

I mean, either he's allowed to take it or he isn't. Either we now say, yes, you take- Why is it up to us?

I don't understand. Who else can stop it? Well, I don't know. I mean, when Congo invades its neighbors, it's not axiomatic that we should be involved.

When Sadam invaded Kuwait, why did America go and support that? Because there's oil here. Did you support that?

Well, I was in college and drunk.

Did you basically agree with it?

Yeah, I mean, I had a lot of dumb ideas.

Storming normans was good.

I thought it was okay to drink beer in the morning.

Do you think, looking back at it, was it to do what America did with the Allies? British were there, too. I don't know. Expelling from Kuwait? It wasn't a NATO country.

Well, that's the war that in theory I would support. You say we have energy interests in this region. We want to keep it stable. When you start getting theoretical, like we're preserving democracy by supporting dictator.

We take energy from Ukraine, though. This is an energy component of that.

Maybe. I don't see that- What I'm thinking is that the- What I don't like is the moral overlay because it's fatuous and fraudulent. This is not a democratic country. He is a dictator. We've supported many dictators. We've supported Mobutu in Zair, which no longer exists because he was a bullwork against the Soviets, we thought, and a million others.

No, but you've already said that you would support the expulsion of Saddam from Kuwait. I don't know that I would. Led by America. Well, you just said you did, right?

No, I said I was drunk in college. I haven't really thought. I said, But theoretically, you could make the case, we're the United States, we need cheap energy. We're going to go to war to preserve cheap energy. That's not a crazy thing to say. Maybe I could support That's what we're doing now. We're doing that. Right.

So what's the difference, I don't think, between that and what's happened with Russia and Ukraine? Well, because we need Ukraine's energy. We need Ukraine's wheat? We do. 25% of the world's wheat comes out of Ukraine.

I'm aware, which is why you probably don't want to kill all of its farmers and sell all of its farmland, which is what we've allowed to happen. We're not kidding.

The Russians are.

Well, no, this war wouldn't exist if it weren't for the money and arms that we're sending to Ukraine. It would have been over in one day.

It never would have started if we hadn't said- When you say over, what do you mean? What would have happened?

I think it's very clear, and I don't know that anyone would disagree with this, that Russia would not have invaded Eastern Ukraine if the Biden administration hadn't sent Kamal Harris to the Munich Security Conference in February of 2022 to say to Zelenski, on camera, we're going to make you a NATO country, meaning we're going to put American NATO arms on the Russian border. You would not allow Chinese... Your country probably would, but you shouldn't allow Chinese missiles in Scotland peering over Hadrian's wall aimed at London. You'd be like, No, you can't do that on our border. The Russians are like, No, you can't do that on our border. And we're like, Shut up, you're Russian. You have no right to determine what happens on your border. Piss off.

But it's the That actually happened. My point is, if the defense of expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was that we have energy interests in that country. Well, no one ever said. And therefore we should kick him out. But that's obviously what we all knew. It was done very quickly and competently by General Norman Shorsh and it was great, great military operation. But shortly, the principle and ideology is not different. What's interesting is every Republican- They're idiots.

They support the Ukraine.

No, I mean, every Republican in '91 would have supported that conflict.

Well, whether or not Republican members of the Senate support something is. Every Republican voter, I think, would have supported it. What's interesting- Thirty-five years ago, I'm just saying- What's changed is a lot of Republican supporters now, Conservatives in America, are against supporting Ukraine anymore.

I'm curious about that change in what has been 35 years. There's been a real sea change. It may be because Americans are understandably war weary. They're fed up with spending a lot of money on foreign wars, foreign conflicts. There's a good argument America hasn't really won a foreign war since World War II. You look from Vietnam onwards, endless quagmas, endless problems, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on and so on. I look at what's happened in Ukraine, and I'm just looking at it pragmatically. Do we just let a Russian... Do we let Russia, led at the moment by Vladimir Putin, who are categorized as a dictator, do we let him just take what he wants? Even if he uses it and dresses it all up as, I'm doing this because I fear about NATO encroachment, which may well be his reasoning, may well be his reasoning. But many people think it's not his reasoning. Okay.

Many people think. Why would you want How do you put US missiles on Russia's border?

I don't understand. It's so obviously unacceptable for any sovereign nation to tolerate that. Here's the other part of the argument.

He has nuclear weapons. Why would we want that?

We have nuclear weapons, too. A lot of the argument- You guys have nuclear weapons?

Yeah.

We do. Yes, we have nuclear weapons.

Why?

Why? Nuclear is a terror.

Great Britain has nuclear weapons? Yes, we do. Do you think that's a good idea?

Yes, absolutely. You know why?

You're freaking me out.

If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, they wouldn't been invaded. Can we agree on that? We told them to give up their nuclear deterrent.

They wouldn't have been invaded if the West hadn't said, We're going to use you as a staging ground for intimidating Russia. Why would we want to do that? Why not just allow what What we've done is pushed Russia into the Chinese orbit.

And many people would say-How does that help us? Many people in that region say, actually, what's happened to Ukraine is precisely why they should have been in NATO, because if they had been in NATO, Putin wouldn't have invaded them. Okay. And also they say- Many people say that. I would also say if we hadn't collectively basically bullied Ukraine into giving up their nuclear deterrent, he wouldn't have done it either because they would have had a nuclear weapon to defend themselves. This is super crazy. Is it crazy?

Yes, it is. Crazier than your theories? Well, actually, I have a million theories, but these are not among them. It's not a theory to say that Russia moved into Eastern Ukraine because the United States wouldn't give up on pushing for Ukraine admission into NATO, when NATO did not want Ukraine. That's also the criteria for admission.

But I think you're only giving half a picture. I'm not oblivious to that, but I would add this component to it, which is also not surely beyond the realms of fantasy. Vladimir Putin knows that a lot of that part of Eastern Ukraine, they still speak Russian. He has resented the breakup of the Soviet Union, famously, and that actually he wanted to take back land that he believes- Banning people who speak in their language. Should belong to Russia. Okay.

In general, possessions are overrated, but there are some things you really would not want stolen. To me, family shotguns, including a whole bunch of them I got from my father, are at the top of that list. So I keep my dad's shotguns in a Liberty safe because it's safe and it's also really attractive. Liberty Safe just created something really cool. It's a limited edition safe that commemorates the inauguration of Donald Trump, America's 47th President. The original design celebrates Trump and his swearing in while upholding Liberty's equipment to building their safes right here in the United States, and they went all out on this one. It's the Special 47 Edition. It features a one-of-a-kind artwork that pays homage to the President. It's very, very cool. Not all safes are created equal. There are plenty out there, and a lot of the manufacturers slap an American-signing name on the label, but they are not made here. They're from China or other foreign markets. Liberty safes are made in the United States. For over 30 years, Liberty has made its safes right here, and that matters, because when you buy a Liberty Safe, you're supporting American workers and American values.

Their products are more than just a place to protect your dead shotguns, for example. They are a symbol of this country. So celebrate this historic moment. Secure the things that you want to keep forever in a Liberty Safe. Visit libertysafe. Com or find a Liberty dealer, a retailer near you to order your limited edition safe today. Liberty Safe made in America.

Okay. Do you accept that?

I think it's true of... Look, I'm not an expert. I've interviewed Putin. I I've been there a couple of times. I don't speak Russian, so I hope I don't get over my skis and pretend to know things that I don't. But what's very obvious is they have an interest and have for over 300 years in controlling Crimea, where their fleet is based. They had a referendum in Crimea. The people of Crimea are Russian and want to remain part of the Russian Federation. So he didn't take Crimea. It's Russian. It's filled with Russians. They had a referendum that nobody disputes. People should be allowed to choose their own That's the basic preceptive democracy.

But you did take Crimea. Okay.

Should people be allowed to choose their own government?

Yes.

Okay. So the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to align with the Russian government. So that's illegitimate. Why?

When did they Why did they come to that?

Right after the coup in '15, I think. Right.

So after they'd been invaded. Why do you think so many Russians vote for Putin in Russia?

I don't think it was invaded. Russia has controlled Crimea for 300 years. Yeah, but it wasn't.

It wasn't Russia's. And in the same way that you say the people of Crimea voted overwhelming in favor, of course they did. They would have been killed if they hadn't. Same way as in Russia.

In a secret ballot? The same way Russia-Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. So you're saying that the election was conducted under duress and people's votes were known to the Russian government? I don't think that's true.

I think it was a secret ballot. I'm saying it's exactly the same way that people in Russia vote for Putin. You think it's an overwhelming show of support for him. A lot of it is driven by fear.

Okay. That may or may not be true. I don't know. But the only measure we have of popular consent is an election. When conducted by secret ballot, if we think it's not the 2020 election, it's a legitimate election, that's what we go with. Have you ever met anybody who believes that if a free and fair referendum were held once again in Ukraine, that Ukraine would vote, rather than Crimea, would vote to align with the Zelenskyy government in Kyiv. I don't think so. It was 97%. Look, I'm just saying self-determination is the core idea in democracy. They don't have it in Ukraine because they haven't had an election. They ignore the election because it's run by a dictator called Zelenskyy. If you wanted to say he's a dictator, that's fine. You support a dictator. The US, your government has supported many dictators, so is mine. That's a fact of life. There are very few democratically elected leaders. Sometimes even our leaders aren't really democratically elected, as you know. I just don't like the moral bullshit shit that attaches to all of this. That's fair enough. Where we tell the population, We're on the side of democracy, and he's Winston Churchill.

I don't claim his Mother Teresa against Hitler.

No, but you have, though. You've like, He's a marvelous person.

I like him. I'm allowed to, aren't I?

I guess you like dictators. I've never said to Putin, he's a marvelous person because it's a little dictatory for me. I think he's really smart. I admire what he's done to Russia, but I'm not going to sniff his jock because he's a dictator. But you're like, Oh, I love that. Zelenskyy, he's Oh, great.

I do like him.

How can you like a man who's a dictator?

I don't think he's a dictator.

In what sense? He's not elected. He rules by force. He rules with guns. He kills his opponents. He's assassinated a ton of people, including I know someone he tried to assassinate, fact. How is that worth supporting? Do you feel a little guilty for supporting someone like that?

No, I don't. Really? No, I think we should try and do more to help him win.

How rich do you think he's gotten from this war?

I have no idea.

Does it bother you that he's gotten rich?

He's not as rich as Vladimir Putin.

Well, I mean, if all comparisons are to Putin, then all bets are off.

Putin is financially raped and pillaged his country for maybe 30. Maybe.

I don't know. Maybe. I don't. He's not an accountant.

Okay, let's see. He has. He's got a personal net wealth of 100 billion rubble, whatever it is.

I guess, how we would know that. But great, he does. He's evil. We'll just stick with that. But the question is, why would you support personally a dictator who's gotten rich on a war in his country who bans a Christian denomination and who murders his political opponents.

Well, he literally only been the leader of his country. Does that bother you at all? He'd been leader of his country for two years. He's done a lot of oppression in two years. He didn't get rich on corruption in two years.

But can I ask you, when you talk to his Why don't you say, Why don't you have an election? Why don't you stop murdering your political opponents? Why don't you let people practice their Christian denomination? Why don't you let Russian speakers speak Russian and read Russian books? That's what non-dictators do.

Did you say any of that to Putin?

Of course not. Why Because I'm not his friend. I don't have the relationship with Putin that you have with Zelensky. I didn't tweet after my interview, You're a very handsome man. I love you.

I love you. I didn't call him a very handsome man. I think you did. I don't think he's a very handsome man.

Okay, hot, hot is maybe what you said.

I don't think I called him hot.

Okay, You said, I really admire you, and I think you're great.

But you're asking me to ask all the questions of Zelenski. You didn't ask Putin.

Because he's a personal friend of yours. I'm not friends with Putin.

I'm not a personal friend of Zelenski. I read your Twitter feed. I admire him.

You can't fool me, Pierre Zorkin.

You can't miscategorize me. I'm not a friend his. I've only met him once, but I do admire his fortitude as a leader. I love the fact he stayed in Kyiv when the Russians went in. He could have fled. Many would have done that position. Everyone thought the Russians would win in a few days. They didn't. I agree. I do admire the fortitude that he showed as a leader. Those characteristics I like.

It doesn't mean he's- I think you called him a magnificent leader. In fact, I'm pretty sure. I think he has been. Okay. So I'm just asking, since I didn't call Putin a magnificent leader at all- But nor did you ask him any of the questions that you want me to ask. I didn't feel I didn't want to do what everybody does, which is, You're so bad, Vladimir Putin, meaning I'm so good. I'm going to give you a moral extra. I'm like, Whatever, it's your country. Country is actually doing great. I was super impressed by Moscow. I recommend it to everybody just because it's beautiful and orderly, which I like. Not moving there. They don't have freedom of speech, which is a prerequisite for me. But I didn't feel like that was my job. I just want to hear what the guy says. We're fighting a war against him, and no one's heard him speak.

Why do you believe him?

I don't know that I do.

Do you believe his reasoning?

I believe something.

You believe the reasoning for the war. You're fully all in on the Russian- There's no question about that.

There's a lot of questions about it. I don't really think so. I don't think any informed person... Bill Burns, the head of- Only 10% of people in Eastern Ukraine actually want Russia to take them over. Okay. I don't know how we know that, but I believe that, but it doesn't- It's a poll.

Same poll, you're quoting me about Crimea.

That wasn't a poll, it was an election. Which are critical to democracy. I don't know if you knew that. But you're a magnificent leader.

An election is a poll. They're called polls.

An election is a poll. A poll is not an So there are different criteria for a poll.

A poll can be an election, yes.

Now we're getting metaphysical. But I would just say, if you believe in democracy, you believe in elections. If you have a leader who's not elected, he's not a democratic leader, he's a dictator, which is Okay, that's fine. It's a foreign country. I wouldn't call any dictator magnificent just because it seems a little more-How could Zelenskyy have an election in the middle of a war?

Out of interest.

I don't know. How did Franklin Roosevelt do that in the middle of the Second World War? How did he do that?

Because no one had invaded America.

Okay.

But how about the- The people could actually vote. You've got half of Ukraine.

There are people making billions of dollars in business in Kyiv today. How about the non-occupied parts of the country? Just make a good faith effort to have an election, but he doesn't want to because I think he's pretty darn unpopular because he is a lackey of Western powers who sold his country out. And Ukrainians know perfectly well that he's getting rich. And so is the entire leadership. I was in course of France two weeks ago, which is probably the richest town in Europe. It's a ski town in France, near Geneva. Everybody at the Hermès store was Ukrainian, using my money to buy $100,000 handbags. Nobody seems to care about that. I care because that's not freedom fighting, that's grifting, that's theft. And everybody in Europe knows that. And you know that, too. Go to Romania. All their high-end car dealerships are sold out because Ukrainians have bought the car.

To be clear, what the hell is this? Okay, so when Putin invaded Ukraine, you'd have given him what he wants? Take whatever you want?

Well, as I've said, and I really mean it from my heart, I have no... I'm not getting rich from this. So I'm saying what I sincerely believe, which is pushing Ukraine to join NATO. When NATO doesn't want Ukraine, there's no strategic reason, no actual reason to have Ukraine or to have NATO at all. We shouldn't have NATO at all.

That's preposterous.

What's the point of NATO? To keep peace. To keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. Oh, well, it's been 35 years since they just did.

To keep peace.

How's that worked? To keep peace. We now have the bloodiest war in 80 years in the middle of Europe because of NATO. So how's this peacekeeping?

Or you could argue, as many people do, that actually the reason is because Ukraine wasn't in NATO. Had it been, Putin wouldn't have invaded.

That's just super crazy. This is like an addiction, and I've been through addiction, so I'm not judging at all, but it's like, I feel really shitty. I've got to have a glass of vodka to feel better.

Are you mocking my mental health?

Yes. But I'm also saying that I've lived this, so I know what it feels like. It's the thing that is killing you, it's truly killing you, whether it's NATO or vodka, you become convinced it's saving you. So you wake up hungover and you're like, Oh, I feel so bad. Give me a screwdriver. And if a screwdriver, you feel better, and you don't realize that you're starting the cycle again- Would Putin have invaded Ukraine if it had been a member of NATO?

No, he wouldn't have done. Because then America would have been obliged.

Here's what I know. For a fact, Putin said this for 20 years. Ukraine cannot not be a member of NATO. They will not accept that anymore that we would accept Chinese missiles in Tijuana or you would accept Sri Lankan missiles in Glasgow.

You're just not going to accept that. Nato is a defensive organization. How is itoffensive. Because it has never acted proactively, aggressively.

Where were you when the Yugoslavi War was going on? They were bombing the shit out of Christians in Yugoslavia. Do you remember that? Yes.

That was pretty offensive. Nato has always operated in a defensive capacity. How would... Really? Yes.

That's how they created Kosovo defensively?

It was defensive.

Oh, it was? Yes, it was. Who was the aggressor there?

My brother-in-law was literally there. Just a minute.

What you're saying is insane.

It's not insane. Nato has never actually acted unilaterally. The Soviet in classes- He's never attacked anybody without being attacked. It's always been defensive.

Okay. Who in Yugoslavia attacked NATO?

Look.

Just note, here's the point where you just submit defeat. Bow your head and be like, You know what? I bow before superior knowledge. I totally got this wrong. I can't believe I had such a silly idea.

I'm sorry. Where you think nice good guys in Yugoslavia-I'm not saying they're nice good guys.

I'm just saying that was not a defensive action. That was an offensive action. Bill Clinton's like, I don't like what you're doing. I'm going to use NATO to kill you. And he did and then created Kosovo as a NATO base.

Because they were absolute genocidal maniac.

They may have been naughty. I'm not defending their behavior.

But that's what they were being defended against.

Who are we defending?

The Yugoslavians. They were being pillaged and raped and murdered.

By other Yugoslavians?

Yes. Okay.

This is getting intense.

Nato is a defensive organization. You can say it all you want.

Just like you can say, Zelensky's a beacon of democracy when he's not elected and he's banning parts of Christianity, but he's a dictator. So just to be clear. It's better just to be honest about what things are.

Just to be clear, you would have let Putin take what he wants. Because what's the alternative? When he invaded Ukraine.

So I try and deal, especially as I get older, in the world of reality and achievable goals. And here's the reality. Russia is a nuclear-armed power. It's the largest country on Earth by landmass. It's also the remnants of a global empire. So they have a sense of themselves as a global player, and they are because of energy and resources in general, uranium. I mean, they have a lot of resources the world needs. So they're a real country. They're not Afghanistan. You can't just tell them what to do. Get in line, bitch. They're not going to accept that. They have said, since the fall of Soviet Union, you cannot have NATO on our border because it's a critical national interest of ours. So unless you want to risk nuclear war, which we are now doing, you can't move NATO to their border, whether you want to or not. That's just a fact. If you do, you're going to get a war. We've known that since the fall of the Soviet Union. We promised not to do it. And we tried to bring... He has to be in NATO in 2000. He asked George W. Bush to be NATO.

Nobody can test that. This evil dictator who wants to invade Lichtenstein asked to be in NATO. Why wouldn't we let him in NATO? Why did Condi Rice say, Oh, it can't be in NATO. Why do we have morons like Condi Rice in our US government? I don't know.

So When he invaded, though, what would you let him do?

We're in a hall of mirrors now.

Not really. We're in a very clear moral moment in history where Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine. It is a European country.

And we side with the dictator. It has been independent from Russia since the mid '90s. But what do you do?

You let him take it.

There's nothing moral about this. Look, in the real world, we do things we can't achieve. And if we can't achieve something, we don't try and do it because millions will die as we're watching.

What do you let him do then?

Well, you start with a realistic understanding of the limits of your power, which is all adults have to do. My neighbors may offend me. I want them to turn down the music. I can't just go over there and shoot them. I just can't. It's against the law, and I'll pay a penalty if I do that. So I have to negotiate with them. Will you please turn down the music? Shut up. No, please do it. If they won't, I maybe threaten them. I live in the material real world.

But once actually he's invaded, what do you do?

Then you have to decide, is it worth Is it worth it?

That's interesting to me.

A million Ukrainians are going to die. Their farmland is going to be sold to BlackRock. The Ukrainian nation will cease to exist. They'll flood it with third-worlders.

So what do you do?

What would I do? I would say, if I took over the government in January of 2022 and we're on the verge of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would say, Guys, it's not worth trying to impose something that this country will never accept, because if we try to do that, we'll get a war.

Do you let Putin take Ukraine?

You don't let anybody do anything. You You're either doing what you don't. You're either doing what you're doing because you're gambling with the other people's lives. By the way, if a million Brits had died, you might have a different perspective, but it's very easy to be like, Oh, more Ukrainians should die for the cause of democracy.

Let me assure you, if Russia invaded Britain, that would not be the view of the British people. Our view would be to fight to the last man and woman to kick him out. But my question really is- Do you really think so? My question is not- He just got invaded over the last 40 years and did nothing.

So I don't think so. I don't think you would do that. I think you'd be like, We can't fight We look back because we have nuclear weapons, but no real military. So we'd like to negotiate just like all concorded nations do. They negotiate on the basis of reality. What can I actually achieve?

But respectfully, you're not answering my question, which you don't have to because you're interviewing me in this bit. But the question is, once Putin invaded, do you let him take the whole country? What do you do?

If I were in charge then? Yes. If I came in in January of 2022, I would say to the State Department, I would say to the NATO leadership.

I'm talking about February, end of February, early March.

At that point, I'm cleaning up a mess caused by the previous administration. Yeah, so assume it's happened. Let's say I'm Donald Trump who's actually coming in in that exact circumstance.

And he's now wrestling with this very problem.

He certainly is.

And it's- He doesn't want to give Putin the win. And that's my point to you. Do you actually want him to win?

Well, I mean, If your load star is whether other people win, you will lose. That's a shitty way to go through life. If I'm trying to prevent you a win, no, I'm trying to win. I'm trying to win for my wife, my children, my neighborhood, my country.

But once he's invaded-I don't care whether you win. But once When the country is invaded, what do you do?

Your victory has nothing to do with anything. What I care about is my victory.

You're in this as much as we are.

No, I care about my country and whether we win, which is good for us because I'm in charge of my country. This is theoretical. I'm in charge of nothing.

Is it good for America that Putin wins?

This whole thing has been a disaster for... We're going to lose the US dollar over this, okay? Because we follow the advice of people like Boris Johnson who have no skin in the game whatsoever, but they get to feel like a moral charge, be like, We're on the side of democracy. Okay. It's so infuriating. I'm sorry to be so mean to the Brits because it's our fault, too.

We can take it.

In fact, we started this, But you guys went along like a little Pekingese. You shouldn't have done that.

But why are you not answering my question?

What would I do if I were Trump right now?

No, once he invaded Putin, what do you let him take?

Why call Putin, let him take.

I would say, at that point, to what extent can you clean it up?

You call Putin and you say, All right, this happened. First thing we're going to do is recognize it's not in our interest, your interest, the world's interest to have NATO missiles on your border. We don't want that. There's no to want that because we don't want to drive you into the arms of China. You are really part of Europe, and you should be part of the West because the West is a Christian world that has a lot in common culturally, religiously, linguistically, historically, and we want to be a block against the rising.

Obviously. And he says, Actually, I want Ukraine.

If you're the leader of the United States, your number one goal is to keep Russia, the world's largest landmass, with some of the world's deepest energy reserves from aligned with China, which has too many people, not enough land and not enough energy. So if they get together, they create a block that is bigger than you economically and militarily. So you cannot let that happen. That's number one goal. You cannot let that happen. And that retard in charge of our country just allowed that to happen because he hates the United States and acted against his interest consistently from day one, 2020 to January 20th, 2025, when he left, thank God. So that's the goal. Do not allow... To the extent you can control it, Do not allow Russia to align meaningfully with China. They have much more in common with us. They're part of Europe. You guys don't want to admit that, but they are.

I don't want to be pedantic.

You're not being pedantic.

What do you let Putin take?

I don't care. What I care about- You don't care? I care, but what I care about is the balance of power in the world. If the West finds itself in a place where it's got a much smaller collective economy and a much less powerful collective military than the East, then we're in serious trouble. There's no balance in the world. The Chinese are in charge of everything. So you can't let that happen.

But if you roll over and you let Putin take what he wants- Roll over.

It's all this deck measuring contest.

It's so dumb. Let me just respond. Roll over. Let me just respond. If you roll over and you let him take what he wants in Ukraine? Why should China not go and take what they want in Taiwan, for example? They would just take- They are going to take what they want in Taiwan. I'm not sure they will, especially with Trump as president. It's part of China. I don't think they will.

Okay. Why do we get to dictate what China does with Taiwan?

There's There's spheres of influence. You'd be happy for them to take back Taiwan?

I'm not happy. I'm not happy with any conflict ever. I hate violence. I'm a Christian. I'm just saying that great countries have spheres of influence. Saudi Arabia, where we are now, everyone's like, Oh, the Saudis are interfering in Yemen. Yemen's right there. It's in their world. They have an absolute interest in making sure that nothing crazy goes on in Yemen. We have the same interest in Mexico and in Canada. We have some crazy cross-dressing Prime Minister in Canada. We kick them out because they're on our border. That's what great powers do. That's what they've always done. That's what they always will do. So it's totally fair for us to recognize that the countries around Russia, no, we shouldn't be invading or torturing them or oppressing them, of course. But that's their sphere. And big picture, holy smokes, you do not want the two largest powers in the world, apart from the United States, to get together and align against us.

Why do you support Israel against Hamas, for example? Why do you support America giving them billions of dollars? Well, I don't. You don't support Israel being supported by America?

I support Israel in the sense that I really like Israel. I brought my family on vacation.

But do you agree with America supplying them with a lot of arms?

To the extent that it helps the United States, I'm for it, of course. I think what we need is- So you do believe in America interfering in countries a long way away.

It just depends which country.

No.

Your principle, it doesn't really apply in Israel.

I'll articulate it for the third time, just to be totally clear. I believe the United States, like every country, It should, to the extent that it can, act on behalf of its own people and their perceived interests. We can debate what those interests are.

But that doesn't apply in Israel.

I don't know what you mean.

America is supporting Israel because it's an ally.

I don't even know what those words mean. I'm just saying my principle is- They're an ally, right? I don't know what that means to be an ally.

I mean, we have no- It means that when Israel wants to attack in Gaza and attack Hamas, America will help it because it's its ally.

That's not what it means to be an ally.

So it gives it billions of dollars worth.

That's not what it means to be an ally, okay?

Well, it fundamentally does.

I have no greater allies than my own children. When they come to me and say, I want to do this, I assess whether it's good for them or not. If I don't think it is, I don't support it. Because they're my true allies. They're my children.

But why would you support America getting involved in Israel?

Just because a country that's your ally says, I want to do this, does not mean axiematically you support it. Maybe it's not good for you or me.

So Do you support America supporting Israel to the tune of billions of dollars? It depends.

If you can make- What's in America's interest?

It depends in all cases.

It's not just about Israel.

But do you support what's happening then in the support in the attacks in Gaza, for example? Because I don't see the difference between that and what's happening in Ukraine. This is a long way away from America. There's no direct involvement with America. There's no main land involvement with America. And yet you think it's right that America supports Israel. Put words in your mouth. But you don't think it's right- I don't think those are the words that came out of my mouth. You don't think it's right America supports Ukraine when Russia invades it.

I have a simple solution. Let me explain what I think. And then that way we'll get- Am I wrong? We'll get right to what I think. Am I wrong? I actually tuned out midway through. I'm not exactly sure what you said.

You can't tune out when I'm right. I did. Just because I'm right. You can't tune out.

I didn't follow everything you said.

You can't tune out when I'm right.

No, it was more a lecture about what I think, and then I'm like, Wait, I know what I think. I think I'm the world's expert on what I'm thinking. I think I'm the uncontested premier of my own head. That is true. I'm going to It's a overload its contents on you right now.

Explain what is America's national interest in Israel?

I'll define the parameters as well because I'm happier with that. I would say I support the right of all sovereign nations to act within what they believe is their own interest. We don't always know our own interest in our personal lives or between nations. We think it's good for us, but it may not be. The vodka in the morning analogy. Not good, actually, but I thought it was. Now I know it's not. But to the extent that we think we know, I think countries should act on behalf of their own citizens. That's the basic idea in democracy. You could make a case that whatever we're giving to Israel this year in the form of direct aid, military assistance, loan guarantees, however we're doing it, is good for the United States. I think you just have to make that case.

Why is it good for the United States?

You could make that case. But why is it? I'm not convinced.

What is the case?

Well, I don't know. You'd have to be an advocate for it. You are a vociferous advocate for it. So why don't you tell me?

For what?

For USAID to Israel in the current conflict.

Actually, I haven't expected a view about that at all. I'm just curious about the difference in your- You're not an Israel hiter, are you?

Why are you hiting Israel? Not at all. Why are you attacking Israel? I don't know why. What problem do you have with Israel, Piers? I have no problem with Israel. The presser like this. They secretly hit Israel.

I have no problem with Israel whatsoever.

It feels like you do. Is Netanyahu a dictator?

Actually, I don't like Netanyahu. I think you should- You hate Israel. I think you should go. Let me just I'm going to ask you one more time. Hang on.

Now we're getting into... I'm not comfortable with this.

Here's my question.

Should I be platforming you? That's my question. You just said you don't like Netanyahu.

I'm trying to work out whose brand suffers more when we platform each other. But let me ask you this.

Let me ask you this. I'm going to need a second.

One more time, just quietly for the people at the back. You don't like America getting involved in helping Ukraine against Russia because there's no national interest for America in doing that in your eyes.

Well, there's a negative national interest. I found one. So I get that. We're losing the US dollar as the world's deserve currency because of this war. All right. Fine. There's no greater national interest.

Your position is America first. There's no interest for America. Shouldn't be doing it. Every country should act for this. It's a problem between Ukraine and Russia. Okay, that's fine. A lot of people have that view. I respect it. What I can't understand is the difference in your logic and principle about supporting Israel in its war with Hamas, which is many thousands of miles away from America. There's no direction.

If I've been a great advocate for the war, it goes. I missed that part of the conversation.

Well, you support America supporting Israel. You don't support America supporting Ukraine.

I don't support America supporting any nation on the planet to its own detriment. Every element of our foreign policy should serve the United States. That's the point of our government is to serve the people who live there called citizens. That's what democracy is. There's no other reason. If I'm in charge of a country and I decide, actually, I should do this because people who pay me want me to do it or I'm making money to do it, then I'm by definition illegitimate. That's not democracy. That is a species of oligarchy or whatever. You could assign a name to it. That's not democracy. I just believe in our system, and our leaders should act on behalf of their own people or what they think is their own people's interests. I would apply that to Israel. I'd apply it to Ukraine. I think there have certainly been times where where we have benefited from our alliance with Israel. It's an alliance? Just like we have an alliance with our country?

They are allies then.

I don't know what ally means.

It's short for alliance.

Yeah, you're right. It is. It's so funny.

I never knew that. I've got you. You got me. You've literally just-When it comes to etymology, you are the unchallenged king. Boom.

You're blowing my mind, Piers Morgan.

My English linguist-I was about to say, you guys invented the language. You know what? It is our language. You lot fucked it up. But we actually...

It's our language. As a PG Woodhouse fan, I totally agree.

It's a root, not a route. It's Iran, not Iran. It's a hurricane, not a hurricane.

Hurricane is embarrassing.

These are all our words. We gave them to you. You don't have hurricanes. You changed them. We have hurricanes.

You don't have hurricanes or pucasians?

We have one in '87. It locked down all the trees in my house. You had a hurricane?

Yes, '87. I think it's a typhoon when it happens.

Famously, the BBC Weatherman, at the time, announced on the BBC main news on the night, there were people ringing saying, Is there going to be a hurricane in the UK? And no knew what it meant. Let me tell you, there is not. Four hours later, every tree in south of England fell down. Are you serious? Yes. But we called it a hurricane, is my point.

Yeah, well, you don't have enough experience. As someone who spends a lot of time in Florida, it's a hurricane. It's also a cocktail. Of all the New Year's resolutions you're likely to put off, the one you're most likely to put off and keep putting off is buying life insurance. You should have life insurance. It's crazy not to because the future is unknown. You got to life insurance. But you may not have life insurance because it's a huge hassle and it can be a huge ripoff. But there is an answer. Policy genius. It makes it very easy and much cheaper. You can find life insurance Policy has started just 292 bucks per year for a million dollars of coverage. And some options, and this is the best part, are 100% online and lets you avoid unnecessary medical exams. The guy with the gloves. You don't want that if you can avoid it, and you may be able to avoid it. 40% of people wind up looking back and wishing they'd had better life insurance or any life insurance. It could have helped their families enormously. Policygenius can fix that for you. Peace of mind. That's what they're really selling.

The address, policygenius. Com/tucker, or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much money you could save and how much hassle you could save. Policygenius. Com/tucker. Ash Tucker. Would you kill Putin if you could?

Would I? Not personally, no.

But do you think it should be the policy of the UK government, the US government? Because it is now the policy to kill Putin.

No, I would prefer the people of Russia to vote him out. But I also feel the same way about Netanyahu and the people in Israel.

So you're not calling for the assassination of Netanyahu or Putin? No. Do you think that if Putin were to leave, either by force or choice, that Russia would have a more pro-western leader Afterwards?

Not necessarily, no. Okay. Highly unlikely.

Highly unlikely. I think that's a fair assessment. Then why would you want... Since there's no evidence that the majority of Russians don't want Putin, there's overwhelming evidence that they do want Putin, So he appears to be the choice of his own country, which you may not like or whatever, but it seems true. And he's the most pro-western leader we're likely to get in our lifetimes. Then why are we against Putin exactly?

Because I don't believe him in the way that you seem to.

I don't believe I don't believe anybody.

He has this very well intention, perfectly reasonable, understandable reason why he had to illegally invade a democratic country and take a third of his people and take a third of his land of people. And you think that's fine?

And I'm saying- I think it's hilarious when you make reference to what's legal in the middle of a war. What's illegal? When your country and mine blew up Nord Stream and destroyed the Western European economy, was that legal?

You're talking to the editor of the paper that opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq. You supported that?

What? I supported the invasion of Iraq. That was illegal, too. I've apologized for 22 years, but I wanted to do so.

You said that was illegal?

I don't even know what that means.

Breaking the law. What law? Against international law.

Who makes international law?

The international community.

International community? What do they mean?

Do you Is there anything like... You don't believe in international law? I don't even know what that means.

Who is the international community? Is it Iran and the international community?

Do you think any invasion of a sovereign during credit-Not at all. Can be legal?

I don't even know what you mean by legal. It's wrong. Lawful. What law? Are there international policemen? Who are they? What are you even talking about?

You don't think they're international laws?

No, I think they're moral laws, and that's what I care about. Certain things are wrong, regardless of what the leadership of any country says.

You don't believe that. You believe there are actual laws, don't you?

Not international laws. There are no international laws. Really? Are there international police? Are there international courts?

You don't believe in the international courts? Yes, they're all international courts. Really?

So who's punishing international courts? Other than Milosevic.

Do you believe in the Geneva Convention or not?

I believe in the ideas behind the Geneva Convention, absolutely. But it's universally disregarded, including by your country, which I think is biowequence, by the way. You should get on that, find out. Those are prohibited, but I think you guys have them. You're in violation.

If that turns out to be true, I would be violently opposed to that.

But you know that it is true.

I don't actually.

I think you should find out. I'll look into it. I mean, there are bio labs in Ukraine. What are bio labs doing in Ukraine, do you think? Are you comfortable with that?

No, it wouldn't be if they're there.

But you said Zelensky was a fabulous leader. Why would he have bio-labs?

I like him personally.

The dictator with bio weapons. I'm not into it. I'm sorry. I guess it's against international law, so I'm opposed. No, look, I'm just saying international law is a theoretical concept, and it's literally theoretical because it's not enforceable, and we know that because it's not enforced. So what matters is what's the interests of your country and what's right and wrong. And I'm a Christian, so that's pretty clear for me. All this shit is wrong. It's completely wrong. It's wrong to send cluster bombs to Ukraine, which you supported. I'm totally opposed to that. Cluster bombs to kill more kids? Why? That's wrong. I don't care if international law says it's wrong.

Was it wrong for America to use atomic bombs in World War II?

Absolutely. To use nuclear weapons? Yes.

To win the war? Of course. To save many hundreds of thousands of more people dying? That's what happened. I You don't...

This is what we refer to in the business as a theoretical assertion. Not really.

It's literally theoretical. Whether you agree or don't agree with the use of nuclear weapons, nobody disputes the fact that it brought an end to a war which, had it been allowed to carry on for another six months to a year, would have killed many more people.

Why Nagasaki? Why drop it on Japan's Christian population? Is there some reason Hiroshima wasn't enough? No, because they wanted to test a different variety of atomic weapon. I'm against that. I'm against killing civilians. I'm against firebombing cities. I'm against bio weapons. I'm against chemical weapons.

What weapons do you support?

I guess conventional weapons.

How big a bomb do you support?

Look, if you're intentionally killing civilians-Is it a question of just a scale?

It doesn't To some extent it is, yeah. If you believe in a big bomb and it kills 500 people, but you don't agree with one that kills a thousand, what's the difference ideologically?

It depends who they are. I think you can say there are- After Pearl Harbor, you think it was wrong with the Japanese refusing to surrender vowing to kill as many people as they possibly could, that America decided to use these two most powerful weapons to bring an end to the war.

That's one way to put it. I would say it's more morally justified what America did than what the British did, for example, in carpet bombing Dresden. Dresden, yeah. I think there was more justification because they were trying to bring an end to the war as quickly as they could to avoid potentially millions more people dying.

It's no defense of Imperial Japan or Pearl Harbor or Franklin Roosevelt for allowing Pearl Harbor, which he did. It's not a defense of any of that to say, if you're intentionally killing civilians, you probably shouldn't beat your chest and brag about it. Maybe you can make the case. I agree with that. Maybe you make the case that we had to do it or whatever, but you You should weep, and that's evil, and you should just say it's evil. I know it's really threatening toBen Shapiro to say that or whatever. Is it evil? To kill civilians on purpose? Yeah, it is. I think it is. Really? Kids and children. Well, how is it not, actually? In a war? We can call it whatever you want. How is it right to kill women and children?

I didn't say... Well, because I think there's a moral right behind you. If you are literally-To kill women and children? If there's a world war that threatens the entire world.

Yes. Some people killed your kids like your eight-year-old. How is that morally justifiable?

Well, because actually you have to... Well, by your criteria-That's disgusting. Okay, so no war is morally justified?

I think it's pretty hard to justify. I mean, yeah, I'm sure. Any war? A pure defensive action, sure. But all I'm saying, look, it's all ugly. It's all hard to stomach. I've actually seen some of it up close. It's super ugly. You can say you hate it.

The fact you quibble with it being morally justified.

To intentionally kill non-combatants, women and children, I think we can say that's wrong. In fact, I thought that was the thing we were fighting against. And censorship and dictatorship, people ruling without being elected, people using force to get their will. I thought that was the whole thing we were fighting against. So how about we don't become that? And I'm just saying all kinds of decisions are made under duress. I have made decisions under duress foolishly that I'm ashamed of, including supporting the Iraq war. But why are we defending it? I just don't understand that. We're defending it, of course, because we're still doing it. A lot of people are getting rich, and a lot of people find meaning in their otherwise barren lives, rather than raising decent children, having a productive life, making something, they exist to destroy. I just think that's evil.

You think no military action is morally justifiable, though? I didn't say that. Are you implying that?

I'm not implying it. I never imply anything. I just say things.

It's the death of any innocent people.

Implying things is for girls. I'm just telling you what I think.

If you kill any innocent people, civilians in a war, you think it's all morally lacking in justification? Because I would argue against that.

Right. You're arguing against the construct that you created in order to argue Not really. I'm being super straightforward.

If you're- Is there any form of warfare that's morally justified? Let me finish.

I'm saying when you intentionally kill women and children, when you wage war through fear by murdering the civilian population, I don't think that's a good thing, and I don't think you should be defending it, and I don't know why it's such a threat to say that out loud. If you're firebombing someone's city, as we did Tokyo, as you guys did Dresden, and a lot of other cities, by the way, in both of those countries, if you're dropping atomic weapons in the middle of town on a Catholic church, I don't know why you have to look back 80 years later and be like, That was a great thing. It wasn't a great thing. It was a shameful thing. We should be better than that because we're not savages, because we're Christians.

I don't agree with you. I don't agree with it. Okay, apparently you don't. I don't.

You said, right in the camera, it's okay to kill eight-year-olds because it's war. It's not okay to kill eight-year-olds.

I didn't say anything is okay. What I said is, it's morally justified, because when you have an enemy that is prepared to put six million Jews into gas chambers and murder six million people, they are prepared to do anything, and you have to stop them. Then any response you give to me is morally justified.

Any response?

Well, pretty much. If you're taking the war to them to try and end the war and trying to defeat a dialysis group like the Nazis, yes, it's morally- A nihilistic group?

Says the guy who's defending the murder of eight-year-olds, they're nihilistic.

I'm not defending the murder of any eight-year-olds.

What you're doing is expressing a species of nihilism. The whole point is we are better than you because we have limits. There are some things I'm not going to rape your wife. I'm just not. How do you stop? Hold on, let me Okay. I am not going to behave like an animal. You are. That's why we're at war. You bombed preemptively my Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor. We weren't even at war. Why did you do that? That's outrageous. We're going to punish for doing it. I get it. But we're not like you.

Not punish, defend.

If it was not defending. There was no threat of invasion. If you're the United States, you live in a tiny island nation. I think there was a real threat.

To have an attack Pearl Harbor, that is a form of invasion, isn't it?

It was not an invasion. It was an attackIt's a mass attack on America. I'm not defending Pearl Harbor. I don't think Roosevelt should have let it happen, which he did.

But once it happened, what do you do?

You attack them back. I get it. I'm not- So you agree? Okay, but hold on. There are finer distinctions here. Not really.

You attacked them back. Let me finish my fucking sentence. Was it morally defensible to attack them back? Stop.

Okay. Yes, it was morally defensible to attack them back. Thank you.

Thank you. You agree with me. It depends what attack means. You agree with me. You didn't qualify it. You didn't qualify it.

This is like crazy.

You didn't qualify it.

You say it's okay to molest children. Why do you say that? You're like, I didn't say that. No, you just said it. It's okay to molest children. Why would you be in favor of child molestation?

Nobody's talked about molesting children. You just said it was morally justified for America to- That's what you're doing. You're taking the parts of the dialog. It's hilarious. America.

It's like hilarious.

I've never said anything like that. You said America attacking after a call.

They end the interview and they're like, What just happened?

That's what you'll be saying that.

He just told me what I believe, and then he attacked me for believing it. That's so hilarious. I love that. It's like a species of masturbation. You don't need another person present.

Don't look masturbation. It's making love to someone you love.

Okay, let me just say, you don't ever want to wind up in a place where you're defending the killing of children. You just don't. Now, you go into That wasn't what I was doing.

I was saying there's moral justification. That was very much what you were doing.

No, no. You said it was morally justified to kill children.

I said, Morally justified-It's not. No, no. Morally justified to drop bombs which end a war. Yes, I do believe.

Can I ask you, since we're still on Hiroshi Nagasaki, Hard to say to make the case for Nagasaki, but whatever. Why not, if you have this fantastic new weapon and you want to prevent, somehow you're required to invade Japan. I don't know why we'd be required to invade Japan, by the way. No one ever answers that question. They just attacked you? No, they attacked us four years earlier, and we've now beaten them and driven them out of the Philippines and Malaysia and all this stuff. We've won. Why do we have to invade mainland Japan? No one ever answers that question. We just have to because we have to. Okay, I'm not second-guessing the military leadership of the Second World War, but I am second-guessing It's like this. Why wouldn't you bomb just military installations? Why drop these bombs in the middle of a city when you know that overwhelmingly, the incinerated people will be civilians? Why would you do that? I would not do that. I would say, I have the bomb, okay. We're going to drop it on critical military infrastructure, arms manufacturing plans, on a fleet.

Why would you drop it on-Because when the enemy is not making that calculation, you have to stop them.

Stop them from what? Not being invaded?

Stop them from killing your civilians, killing your people.

Japan, in the summer of 1945, was in no position to kill any American civilians, period. So I think they flared a couple of firebombs over Oregon three years before, but The point is, look, I understand people do their best under pressure. They make mistakes. I've made a million of them. I'm not judging even Harry Truman, who I do think was a pig, but whatever. I'm not even judging. Maybe we would have done the same thing. I'm just saying, 80 years later, why Why defend that?

What's the point? I think it was morally justified.

To kill 200,000 civilians? Yeah. So then we wouldn't have to invade, which we didn't have to anyway.

To save potentially millions of lives being killed, yes.

Of our invaders, of their country? Of both sides.

To bring an end to the war.

How about just not invade them?

They wouldn't surrender. You got to bring the war to an end. But they had lost.

But why do you have to invade them?

Because they refused to surrender.

Okay, but we'd kicked them out of all of their colonies. We'd driven them back to their island.

You don't dispute dropping those bombs at the end of the war, do you?

Well, I am disputing it. That's what I'm doing right now.

You did it in the War.

Disputing that it ended the war? Sure, of course.

So the means and effect were correct.

I'm also not disputing that bringing down the Twin Towers changed the United States. If you commit enough killing, you will change people's behavior, including getting them to surrender. My only question is, is it worth it? And what are you becoming when you participate in it? I think that's a meaningful question that nobody addresses. Who am I? I'm a decent person. I am an imperfect person. This how Americans, I think, should think of themselves, and mostly do. But I am also a representative of an enlightened country, product of an enlightened civilization called Western civilization. There are certain things I will not do, even if they benefit me. I'm not doing that because I'm not that guy. I don't kill children. I don't rape women. I don't send women into battle to defend me, which I guess we now do. That's wrong.

So you would condemn what Israel has done in Gaza, for example?

I don't want to be involved in it.

I mean, nearly 20,000 children are said to have died.

I don't think that that is a...

By your criteria, you can damn it. Is it morally justified?

That is a calculation that Israel has to make. I don't want to have anything to do with that. You have no view?

No view?

It's hard to take a lecture from someone who just admitted that he hates Israel in every fiber of his body. I never said. You said that. You said that on camera.

Now you're distracting. No, I'm not distracting. Oh, yes, you are. You're the one who said that. You're not distracting.

You said, I hate Benjamin Netanyahu.

No, I didn't. I said, I don't think you should be leader anymore.

You hate him. You have an irrational hatred that I don't know where it comes from. I can't account for what's in your soul. I don't have an X-ray into what's deep inside you.

But all you said was I hate him. I have no problem saying that I think Israel's response has gone way too far. Way too many civilians have been killed. What I'm surprised about is that you, having lectured me about the deaths of eight-year-olds, you don't want to morally condemn what Israel has done in God. I'm curious as to why. Are your criteria? Yeah.

My criteria apply solely, and this is a thread of consistency throughout my arguments here and everywhere for the last 20 years. They have to with the behavior of the United States, which is my country. It's been my family's country for hundreds of years. I pay my full taxes. I feel very vested. I'm a shareholder in my country. It's behavior matters greatly to me. I'm implicated in its behavior. I don't want the United States to participate in things that are counter to its interests or counter to the values of Western civilization. That's really simple. Other countries do all kinds of abominable things, including cannibalism, a lot, actually, and human sacrifice, a lot, actually. Okay, they're not my country. I don't want the United States involved in anything that's morally indefensible or counter to its own interests, period.

So Israel's dropping American bombs on Gaza, killing lots of children. I'll tell you what I think. Hang on. Don't tell me what I think. You think the killing of civilians is morally indefensible.

Let me tell you what I think.

So American bombs are being used to kill a lot of children and women in Gaza.

I hate that.

Is it morally indefensible? Now you don't want to say?

I'm in the process of telling you. Go on, then. Stand back. Let the flower bloom. Okay? Stop tending the garden, pierce. I hate the fact that civilians are killed with American weapons. I hate it. I hate it in Ukraine. I hate it in Gaza. I hate it in the occupied territory, whatever we're calling them these days. I think in the specific case of Israel, we have been closely aligned with the Israeli government since 1950s. We're actually instrumental in the creation of Israel, so since the late '40s. I think that there are times when our interests have aligned, and there are times the transfer of military technology to China being one of them, where those interests diverge. I would very much appreciate an environment in the United States where Americans could speak openly about what their money is doing in a bunch of different foreign countries, including that one. I think that we should reassess all our relationships, all our alliances with our allies on the basis of whether or not it's good for the United States on a bunch of different levels, economically, whether it's good for our internal politics, whether it's good for our power abroad, et cetera.

Yes, I really think that we need a much more honest conversation about our relationship with Israel. I I feel, if I can just say one thing and brag, I feel like I'm one of the only people in the United States who's not emotional on the topic. Everyone's so emotional about it. They hate Israel. They love Israel. It's like, I'm American, okay? I like Israel. I don't love any country other than my own. And I think we should have a rational conversation about this. At this point, as you well know, we don't. That's my actual position.

Yeah, for what it's worth, my position is, Israel had a fundamental duty, not just a right, but a duty to defend its people after October the seventh, given the horrendous scale of that attack. My only question I kept asking repeatedly from about the first couple of weeks onwards was, what is a proportionate response? What is morally justified?

In general, your relationships with your neighbors are your problem in my home. My neighbors, I own my house. I can't leave easily.

But it's also an American problem because American military is being used.

You make calculations about your behavior based on what you can achieve based on what you think your interests are. And that's true at the homeowner level, and it's true at the nation level. You deal with your neighbors, and that's your problem. If you're in a fight with your neighbors, it's up to you to resolve it. It's not my problem. I do not have to resolve your disputes with your neighbors. And that is true of Ukraine, and it's true of Israel. I'm sorry. I wish you well. Obviously, I like Israel because I like going there. I know Israelis, and I really like them.

I like Israel.

It's the best. I mean, to visit, it's the best.

I like Israeli people. I do, too. I like Palestinian people, too, that I've met.

I do, too, and there are a lot of Christians. The one thing, I'll just be honest, since you're pushing me on this, that makes me a little bit emotional is there are a lot of Christians, Christian-Arabs. Having traveled a lot, I can say this is a matter of personal preference. I really like them. I've never met a Christian-Arab that I didn't like, actually. I think they're really amazing people. A lot of them have been killed or mistreated with American money and weapons, and I think it's disgusting. I think it's especially disgusting that Christian leaders in the United States have said nothing because they're bullied and bought off. I think they should feel shame because they've dodged their duty, which is to speak up on behalf of their brothers in Christ. They haven't. There are Christians in Gaza who are killed. There are a ton in the West Bank. By the way, that's the cradle of Christianity. The Pope- Where's the Church of the Nativity? It's in Bethlehem.

That's what the Pope calls a church in He's absurd. I can't. Yeah, but he actually calls a Catholic church in Gaza every night to see how they're doing. Every night, apparently, he calls.

Yeah, that's the Pope thing. I'm not getting involved. I'm not a Catholic, sorry. You're going to have to deal with them. It's your Pope, not mine. We were in a meeting here at TCN the other day, and I looked around the room and every other person had a ruddy vitality, pink cheeks, alertness, bright eyes, full mental acuity, and a cheerfulness you could almost smell. And I asked, why does everyone look so good? And part of the answer, of course, is they like what we do for a living. It's really interesting. We think it's important. But another reason everyone looks so good is because they'd all had a great night's sleep. I'm not making this up. Almost everybody here uses a new sleep technology from a company called 8 Sleep. They sent it to us, and everyone here loves it. It's called the pod. It's a high tech mattress cover, effectively, that you add to your existing bed. You don't need a new bed or anything like that. You just throw this over what you have. What it does is it adjusts the temperature of your bed, warmer or cooler, depending on what as you want, and it maintains an ideal sleeping environment all night long.

I didn't know this, but as you progress through different phases of sleep, your body's needs change. And 8 Sleep automatically keeps things exactly where they should be in the sweet spot through the entire night. It's been proven to increase the quality of your sleep, the amount you sleep every night. It improves your recovery time from physical exertion, and it may even improve your cognitive performance and enhance your overall health. It seems to be doing that in our office. It learns and adapts to your sleep patterns over time and automatically adjusts the temperatures throughout the night through each phase of sleep. It does this independently for each sleeper on either side of the bed. That's pretty cool. You can sleep well and feel much better and be more effective the next morning as we are here. Try it for yourself. Go to 8sleep. Com/tucker. Use the promo code Tucker to get an extra 350 bucks off the pod4ultra. You can try it with zero obligation for a month, and if you don't like it, just send it back. Again, that's 8sleep. Com/tucker. Better sleep today and look great in your morning meetings, as our guys do.

No, but in general, I'm speaking about the United States, protestants, the United States, that's the world that I'm from that I understand. They have an obligation to stand up for their brother Christians around the world, and they don't in this specific case because they're intimidated. I think that's really shameful, and I think they should feel ashamed for it. It's not a political question. It's not, do you hate Israel? It's like, I don't hate Israel. Anybody who murders Christians, defenseless Christians, the religion of peace, the actual religion of peace, I'm opposed to that, and we should just say that. It's not controversial. It should not be controversial. It just shows how totally afraid and lacking self-confidence Christians are to just say, I'm sorry, I'm not attacking me, but I'm opposed to that. You can't use my money to kill Christians, blow up a church. No. Or to storm the church of the Nativity. That's my religion. No. You don't get a dollar if you do that. And by the way, we're not giving you any money until you promise to treat Christians as equals. You know what I mean? That's how I personally feel, and I think all Christians should feel that way.

It's not an attack on anybody. It's just a baseline demand of dignity and respect, and they don't get it. That makes me emotional.

Yeah, look, fundamentally, we're not a million miles apart, and neither of us like war. Nobody who likes war should ever be-One of us likes dictators. No. You do.

I didn't tweet out, I love you Vladimir Putin. You didn't need to.

You said it in your eyes. But I didn't say it on Twitter. You know what? You should have been on Twitter. You just said everyone thought you did.

I don't give a shit what people think, but I didn't tweet, Vladimir Putin, you're fabulous.

You didn't need to. I I need to. Body language said it for you.

Start humping his leg in the interview? No. Anyway, no, I'm against dictatorship, and I don't want to send money to dictators. Does it bother you that your tax dollars go to a dictator?

No, because I don't see Zelensky as a dictator in the way that you do.

If your Prime Minister decided not to have another election- Zelensky literally been leading for what?

Two years? Two years, I think he'd been in charge. Putin, what's he into? Nearly 30 years now?

I think Putin has been in 24. 24? I'm not defending Putin. I'm just saying all dictatorship is bad. A little dollop of dictatorship is as bad as a mouthful of dictatorship. I'm just against dictatorship. I'm for democracy. Inspiring, passionate, determined, and resolute. That's what you called Zelensky.

Oh, I thought you were talking to me. I thought that was your out for me.

Inspiring, He's about to say thank you, Piers. And very handsome, though. That's implied.

I would agree with all of those things. He would. Yes. I think the courage, the moral courage he showed on the night that the Russians invaded when people thought they would sweep through Kyiv and almost certainly kill him, the fact he immediately went on social media and people around him had said, I'm not leaving. I'm staying here for you. That's moral courage of the kind we saw with Trump when he stood there and got back up and went fight, fight, fight. I'm surprised you don't admire that. When he assassinated his political opponents or when he steals USAID or he allows his generals to sell half the missiles they get from the United States, the Mexican drug cartels, and Iran, and everyone else in the black market, is that inspiring? Well, you're making a lot of allegations against him. Those are facts. Okay, you say they're facts, but other people dispute them.

Who disputes that they're selling weapons in Ukraine on the black market? I don't think anyone disputes.

I'm sure that's happening.

Oh, it's happening. Who disputes that Zelensky's murdered his political opponents? No one. Has he?

You think he personally has ordered the murders?

Well, he's in charge of the country. He's the dictator. Do you think he has? He's the dictator. You just said he did. Well, I mean, in the same sense that we would say- You wouldn't dispute that Vladimir Putin does that relentlessly, that he imprisons and tortures and kills his political boss. No, I think there's a long history of that in the region, poisoning your enemies. Putin has done that. It seems clear to me. I'm not sending him money. I'm not calling him passionate, determined, resolute, and handsome.

You hate this.

I love this.

I don't hate it. No, because I keep asking you the same question, and for some reason, you don't want to answer it.

I've answered all questions. Let me ask you a really easy question. Now that you have been, like me, fired from your cushy mainstream media gig, how much happy are you and why? Looking back at the television networks and newspaper, how many newspapers do you work for?

I ran two of the big ones in the UK. Yeah, right.

But over your whole career, how many did you work for?

I worked for three. Four, actually, Okay, right.

So you've been at every stage of British media, looking back, how do you feel about them?

I think I had the best of it, really. I certainly think in newspaper terms, it was before the internet had really taken hold. And so you were the receptacle for news for people. There weren't many television networks. You didn't really have cable television when I was running the papers. So papers have much more influence and much more power because they were bringing the news to people. People woke up in the morning and they would read their paper to find out what had happened. That doesn't happen anymore. People already know what's happened. There are millions of news networks all over cable news. There's millions of internet sites. You can get the news. Everyone knows what's going on. The point and relevance and power and influence of newspapers has dissipated. They can still break big stories and have big influence. If I was running one again, A, I'd be completely digital by now. I'd just abandon print papers altogether. But the economic model is very difficult if you do that. You don't make as much from the digital side as you do from print. They've got to weigh up and somehow get through it. But I would invest heavily in investigative longer term journalism because that's how you can now bring news to people they don't already know.

Well, sure. But I meant all true, totally true. But I'm really asking about the honesty level. So now you have a gig where you can say whatever you want, you're your own boss, you can make a real living. I have no idea how you're doing, but given your numbers are huge, so I bet you you're probably making more than you made before. We're in that range anyway. So it's all great. But the greatest part is you can say exactly what you want. How would you compare that to your previous gig?

I would say the difference is we can't get canceled. Who's going to cancel us? Eat ourselves. So we have a complete freedom and a liberation from the restrictions inevitably come with working for big companies. Big companies in the media have really struggled, I think, to move with the way young people now get their information. They don't really understand the big legacy media companies is that young people do not watch linear television. They don't read print newspapers.

What they really struggle with is to stop lying. They can't stop lying. They're compulsive liars.

And they have controlled the way news is terminated. The thing about you and me and other people that do this, whether you're on the left or the right, there's no control. We don't get control by anybody. We're only answerable to ourselves and what we want to do. I think I'm like you in the sense of we're not politically aligned in many ways, but we love talking to each other, love debating, love arguing, love asking questions, love learning.

I think we are politically aligned.

We are in many ways.

You do own guns. I know that you do. I know that you do. I know that you think this whole Ukraine thing is insane.

Let me tell you. Well, I don't.

But let me tell you- I know that you do. I can see it in your eyes.

How do I get out of this? There's a lot of military in my family who know how to use guns better than me.

I know, but not all use of guns is equal, right? Some is counterproductive.

You know the thing about guns? I'll just say this for your audience It will all be looking at me thinking I'm the 2A gun grabber. The reality is this complete cultural difference. In my country, everybody used to have a gun. Everybody used to in the old days. Now, very few people have guns. There are incredibly tight restrictions. The consequence of that is we have almost zero gun crime.

Is your country...

Is London safe now? No, I'm about to come to that. The problem we have is with knives. I'm not saying for a moment, you get rid of all the guns, nobody gets killed. Of course they do. We have a knife crime problem epidemic in our country.

No, you have a people problem. You have the people who stab each other, and you didn't used to have that.

Well, we did.

No, you didn't. We did. I mean, it's measurable. How many people got stabbed in London in 1970 or shot compared to now? Sure, but there are-It's a massive increase because the The people, the attitudes of the people, the actions of the people are totally different. You've got different people and different behaviors. You can't admit that because I'm not sure why.

No, because actually, there are lots of white English people who stab each other. Oh, I know. Right. Oh, I know. It's not just about the influx of migrants, if that's what you're saying.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I do think immigration has changed your country for the much, much worse.

Well, it's certainly changed the country.

Much worse. That's my opinion. But it's not just immigrants who are behaving badly at all. There are a lot of native an Indigenous Brits who are behaving badly. That is totally true. There are a lot of immigrants in your country who are superior, actually, if we're being totally honest, who are really impressive. I'm not making Blake in a statement. I'm just saying that the behavior has changed of the people who live there. You can't be trusted with guns now because you're out of control.

None about that. I just know we have very tight gun laws and no gun violence. The interesting... Well, very little. My question for you- But do you own a gun secretly? I do not, no. Do you want to? You know why I get five years in prison if I got caught with it?

So They're afraid of your government, which doesn't trust you because it's a dictatorship.

Let me ask you a question about guns since you raised it. I'm curious. It said there are over 400 million guns in circulation in America. Hope so. And it's apparently a million new guns get sold every month. So that number exponentially rises. The number of mass shootings in America is also rising. Do you think anything should be done about that? If I had my time again talking about this with Americans, I would never have been so censorious. I would never have been talking about gun control. The word control alienates Americans. But what I would have said was, how do you make it safer? How do you stop so many people getting shot? What do you do about it?

Will you ban SSRIs immediately. Immediately? You ban? Ssris. You ban whole categories of psycho-absolutely, immediately. The truth is that drugs and alcohol drive a lot of our social ills, a lot of them. When people are sober, and I would say if you're on Xanax or Prozac, you're not sober. I agree. But certainly alcohol and meth, most of our social problems are either caused or exacerbated exacerbated by the drugs that people take. That's just a fact. Mass shootings are definitely in that category. Look, as you found out, your knife crime has just exponentially jumped recently. That's not because there are more knives People use them at dinner every night and have for hundreds of years, since the Roman times, they've used knives and not stabbed each other. It's because people are behaving differently. Why is that? That's true. I must say all the gun control people who want to send all the guns to Ukraine so they can go kill other Eastern and Europeans. It's weird. Do you think that's weird?

No. One of the things that's weird about the question I asked you is simply that if I was an American-There's a lot of gun crime in Ukraine.

Are you adding to that?

Well, it's a war. It's a different thing.

It's gun crime. I call it gun crime.

People getting killed with guns. You think Ukraine defending itself is a crime?

I think there are a lot of people getting killed with guns, and I think it's really sad, and we should disarm Ukraine.

Really?

Well, sure. People are getting killed with guns. They shouldn't have. They should be strict controls on guns in Ukraine. They're automatic weapons. You guys are sending automatic weapons to Ukraine to kill other human beings. I just think that I'm just not comfortable with that, morally.

See what you're doing, Tucker?

You're doing the British Cheshire cat thing with me.

No, because I think it's a fatuous argument, but it's fine.

You're avoiding asking-Fatuous meaning brilliant?

You're avoiding answering my question.

Which is why do we have so many guns? Because we're free.

No, no, didn't ask that.

Because we're free because no one can tell us. We can't defend ourselves.

We all used to have guns, too.

Now we don't. Then you guys, after the Second World War, which was like a liberation war, and you won, you lost all your freedom, and now you can't even express your political opinions, or they put you in jail. How did you win? How did you win? Is that what victory looks like? You lose all your rights, your economy gets destroyed, you get caught by bankers, and all of a sudden, Oh, I won.

We won because I'm not conducting this interview in German, which I would have been. So it's a linguistic thing. I'd rather not speak German and be goostepping around my yard in England. Goose-stepping? Yeah.

But you are goostepping. People are arrested for praying.

We literally won our freedom from people.

Where's your freedom?

You can get arrested I'm as free as you could possibly want a human being to be.

You can't defend yourself. You can't control who comes into your country, and you can't criticize government policies, or you get arrested. So how are you free? You're a slave, aren't you? No.

Really? How free are you? We have cultural problems in our country and societal problems.

Could you go on Facebook right now and say, I don't want any more immigrants in my country. They're making it worse.

You could say that, what you couldn't say, because a lot of these stories, I have to say in America have been spun completely disingenuously. There's one case, for example, I see everyone I'm trying to send me as an example of Britain's gone mad. Elon Musk has done it. He's a guy who got seven years in prison. Actually, what he was doing, this guy, was he was orchestrating and directing rioting on hotels containing asylum seekers because he had a incorrect belief that someone who had stabbed three young girls to death and stabbed loads of others in a horrific attack was an illegal asylum seeker.

Maybe he doesn't want asylum seekers in his country. Is that okay?

Fine. It's not okay to have no asylum asylum seekers. It is not okay to allow too many people to come in. Why is it not okay to have no asylum seekers? It's not okay to have a broken asylum system as we have.

Why have any asylum seekers?

Because I believe you should as a good country. Why? Because we're a caring, compassionate country. And by the way, Britain, for all your knocking of Britain- How is that caring and compassionate?

Your native population is in massive decline. How is that compassionate to your people?

Britain actually is one of the most tolerant multicultural countries in the world to this day.

Then why do you have so many stabbings?

We have a problem with stabbings, but you know what? How many people get killed by stabbings a year in Britain compared to-That's evidence, dude, that you have a problem.

We're very compassionate. We do have a lot of stabbings.

Fine. But by your criteria, they're just defending themselves. Haven't they got a right to bear arms? Okay. Well, hang on.

You didn't have really any stabbing. A year's ago, now you got a ton of stabbing, but everything's totally fine. If you complain about it, you're going to jail.

Do the British people have a right to bear arms, Tucker?

All free people have a right to defend themselves. Bear arms?

Of course. Yeah. They can carry knives. Why are you annoyed about the knife crime?

I'm against all crime. Look, here's my only point.

I'm sure if they use a Tucker Carsten argument, well, the other guy's got a knife, I better carry one.

In the United States, which is governed by a system we inherited with great gratitude from you, from the English, a person has a right, which is we believe God given. It's inherent. We're born with it because we're not slaves, we're free people, to say what he thinks is true, period. And government has to not only not infringe on that right, but protect it. It exists to protect that right. Your system is a little different. We took it a little and enshrine that in our Bill of Rights, which unfortunately, you don't have. I bet you wish you did. But from an American perspective, the idea that you would ever punish someone for talking- But that wasn't why that guy was punished. That may be right. I would not contest that.

It is right.

He was literally inciting a ride. But you would also not contest that there are hundreds of people who've gone to jail in the last five years in the UK for expressing opinions. That is a fact.

It depends what you think that opinion is. Most of them have been directing violence or inciting violence. That's different. Expressing an opinion- I don't think that's right, I don't think they were charged with that. That is right. Also, look at the case of Tommy Robinson. Tommy Robinson, most Americans I speak to, think he's in jail as some political prisoner like Nelson Mandela for having views about- Or Julian Assange. Yeah, but that's not why. Tommy Robinson is in jail because he defamed a young Syrian refugee. He defamed? Yeah, he lied about him. Okay. Well, he did. But he was then... No, the guy eventually- How many of your leaders have gone to jail for lying? What?

How many of your leaders have gone to jail for lying? They lie constantly.

Every time they speak, they lie. Not enough.

Not enough. Right around zero, actually. But they throw powerless people in jail for saying things they don't like.

You also have a defamation law in the United States. People have gone to jail for breaking that law. That's happened. So you're not so pure yourself. Do you have criminal Yes, you do. Criminal defamation, you do. Go and check it.

Okay. There's a lawyer sitting right there, but he's occupied.

You've had people go to prison in America for defamation, for libeling people, for saying things that you don't like. It's happened.

I'm just pausing because I don't know if that's true. It's true. I think I would be opposed to that.

It is true.

Do people go to jail in the United States for defamation? Yeah. They face civil judgment.

They face civil judgment. People have gone to jail.

I think you're making this up out of nothing. No, no.

Go and check it.

Let me check with an actual American. You're an American, right? This is my college roommate.. But this is my college roommate as an attorney.

That's a civil offense. I had all this debate on Twitter recently. I don't think there's a criminal defamation? There is.

Where?

Go and check it. In certain states. Thank you.

Has anyone gone to jail for that? Thank you. I've never heard of that.

Sorry, the British guy is now telling Americans about their own law. I'm unpleased, obviously.

I think I'm going to... I'm going to dismiss that as a shirt. Aye, the fifth? No, I'll take the fifth. But the point is, you should never allow anybody in your country to go to jail for having unpopular opinions.

It depends if they're inciting violence. That's the criteria. What does that even mean? I do think, by the way, for what it's worth, that some people have been put in jail for saying stuff on Facebook. They shouldn't have been in jail. I agree with that.

The Criminal Prosecution Service, CPS, shared a video in X, warning people about using social media, and it stated this, and I'm quoting. I can't do the English accent, but this is what they say. Try. Think before you post, exclamation point. Content that incites violence or hatred isn't just harmful, it can be illegal. Paging George Orwell. The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test that, remind those close to you to share responsibility or face the consequences. That's just like North Korea at that point. You're inciting hatred?

If you're inciting violence against people.

No, no, or hatred.

But the violence you'd agree with.

Inciting violence? I don't know what that means.

It means you literally direct people to go and attack an asylum seat, go to hotel.

No, that's directing violence. Insighting violence. That's the same thing. No, it's not the same. It's not the same. If I say, Piers, I want you to go-Go and beat up Alex.

That's inciting and directing violence.

It's the same thing. You could say- Same thing. It's not the same. What's the difference? Hold on. I'll tell you what the difference is. Your government is saying that some opinions are so inflammatory that they inspire people to commit acts of violence. Yes. Okay. That is a definition that justifies censorship.

If you want my honest opinion, some of the ones who've gone to prison should not be in prison.

How about inciting hatred?

Well, it depends what you're in trying people to do.

How do you measure hatred? Do you have a hatred meter?

Me?

Does UK government... I mean, you're defending it.

No, I'm not defending. I'm literally telling you I'm not defending that. I'm saying there are people who've been put in prison.

Why don't you over through your government? It's a tyrannical government.

I will always support people's right to have hateful views. That's fine. I don't agree with the government. But it's a crime. I don't agree with that, right? But it depends what they say.

What are you doing to over the tyranny that inflates you?

If the excitement of hatred makes people commit acts of violence, and you intend it to, that should a crime. You shouldn't incite people to go and commit acts of violence.

But if I say something that the government doesn't like, and this is, of course, it's all self-preservation here. They're not. No one is ever penalized for attacking. If you get up and you say, I hate Vladimir Putin and all Russians. You're not going to go to jail in the UK for that because that's the official policy of your government.

You wouldn't go to prison in the UK? No.

No, but you wouldn't- They could lynch Russians, and they'd be like, Well, you have a right to say that.

But you asked me earlier, if you said you hate immigrants, you wouldn't go to prison for that. If you said that they're all over there in that hotel, go and throw firebombs at it, that should be a crime, shouldn't it?

Yeah, if you're telling people to go to jail.

That's what most of these cases involve.

No, it's not. That's not what it said.

That's not true. The cases you're talking about of people who've been in prison- Content that incites hatred isn't just harmful, it can be illegal. So my criteria- Okay, but I'm talking about your government, and I'm asking why. I'm told you I don't agree with it.

Well, that's dictatorship from what I can tell.

I don't- How is it not dictatorship.

The government is saying things that we hate or illegal, we'll put you in prison.

I'm half agreeing with you. Yeah, good.

What are you doing to change it? You've got a prime minister now.

On my show regularly saying I think it's wrong.

But at a certain point, don't people have a right to do what the American colonists did, and that's to throw off tyranny because their rights are inherent. They're given by God because they're human beings.

So you want them to be violent?

Of course not. I'm totally opposed to violence. You're the one who was justifying firebombing stuff.

Was the example you just gave, wasn't it conducted with violence? Of course not.

But you should be single minded in getting a government that permits people to live like human beings, not like slaves, right?

I don't think anyone should be able to use on social media, they shouldn't be using rhetoric, which is inciting violence, period. Hate, I think this idea of what is hate is a much more complex thing. I don't feel comfortable with somebody who believes in free speech in people saying hateful things and being put in prison. It's wrong.

It shouldn't be happening. Inciting violence is an absurd standard because And they tried to take me out many times with this. Some wacko will go shoot innocence. He's like, he watched this show. He had the same opinions as you. It's like, I couldn't be more against violence. I'm mad at my government because it funds violence around the world. So inciting violence is just a way to get your critics to shut up. You need to loot their country.

But if I say to people here, can you come and stab Tucker?

Okay, but that's not inciting. That's like directing. It's like being a criminal master.

I think you'll find I may be wrong, but I'm rarely wrong in linguistic matters. I think you'll find the definition of inciting and directing is not dissimilar.

You know as well as I, and I don't know why you would defend it, that your government is stifling criticism of itself, of its own illegitimate leadership using law enforcement.

I think in relation to hate crime, yes, they've overreached on that. In relation to using social media- But they flooded your country- We had riots last summer, and that's very unpopular with the native population.

Always has It always has been. And the government for 40 years has told them in increasing volume to shut up and stop complaining. And now it's putting them in jail for complaining about it. That's the truth.

It's not as simplistic as that.

Of course, it's not as simplistic as that. Of course not. I agree. I'm over generalize it.

By the way, you wouldn't have a country without a flood of immigrants. America wouldn't exist.

But you're not America. You have a native population.

It's been there since the beginning of time. Why would you object to the concept of a flood of immigrants? You literally got built on it.

Well, look what happened to your country. Everything it made. But my country is, by its nature, different.

Built on the premise of immigrants.

You're a monarchy run by the head of your church.

There's a monarchy here.

Right. They're living as they should, which is consistent with their values, and your country isn't.

That's all I'm saying. I think our monarchy, well, I think the king's a fine man.

Really?

My king, yes.

What has he done to preserve England?

Preserve England? Yeah. What do you mean?

I don't know.

Well, he's a Christian. He's the head of the- What is it? He's the head of the Church of England. Yeah, he does.

How's church attendance?

He goes quite regularly. Come on, it's all a joke, dude.

You had a Christian country, now you don't.

That's not a win. That's a failure. We have a far less Christian country. I agree. I'm sad about that as a Christian as well.

Can I ask you, Kirstarmer, it seems like now that Trudeau is gone, the most unpopular leader in the West.

He's certainly gone from winning with a big majority last summer to being incredibly unpopular very quickly.

Can he hang on? You got four more years of this-ish.

Is that right? Yeah. I would say that there's a reasonable Well, there's a terrible chance he will contest the next election in four years time. It depends, really, how the next year goes. I've never seen anyone lose such political capital so quickly. He did it because he came in and decided that the strategy he would do is to the Tories were so awful that the country is now in a terrible state, so bad that we're going to have to do all these punitive taxes, and we're going to have to whack the pensioners, and we're going to have to whack the farmers, and punish all these groups of people. Everyone was like, wow, you've waited 14 years in opposition, and this is what you're doing?

What did the farmers do wrong? I never understood that.

They make our food. I mean, it's ridiculous. Most of them live literally-Because British food is not good?

Is that what's at the problem?

Most of them lose money, farmers. The idea, You've created the impression that a lot of pensioners can afford it, a lot of farmers can afford it. Actually, most of them can't. Most of them can't.

Why would you target-Inexplicable. But it's happened throughout Europe and the United States, attacking farmers. It seems like part of it-Should reward farmers.

Farmers are the lifeblood of any civilized country.

But I guess what I'm saying is, right. But if you're looking big picture, if you're opposed to famine and you're for human flourishing and people, then you'd want to do whatever you could to have enough food.

I agree.

If country by country by country, Germany, Great Britain, Denmark, Holland, they're all attacking farmers, United States, maybe there's a bigger anti-human agenda at work.

Do you see that? I just think it's a pretty dumb political agenda that's been pursued so far.

It's not just dumb, it's weird. Yeah. Of all the groups you'd attack, white farmers. Makes no sense. It does make sense, though, doesn't it? Why? Well, clearly, there's an effort to reduce the human population. If all these countries-You think he wants to starve the Brits and kill us? Well, I don't know. You can't assess the motives of individuals. They're unknowable.

He's not trying to starve the British people.

Okay. I don't know him. I don't know what he's trying to do. No, I'm talking- No, you, come on. Look around the world, government after government after government, around the world is endorsing policies that they know will reduce birth rates, is attacking agriculture, and is allowing, I don't drugs and food that kill people and make them less healthy. If you add that all up, you don't have to know their motives. You just look at the effects and you're like, The effect is to kill people. What is going on here? You ever wonder that?

Crap governance.

But it's consistent around... Every country is like, We should help people kill themselves. How would you ever come up with that?

At a time when we need more people, not less.

Yeah. What do you think that is?

Bad governing. I mean, it's a Why is it the same in every country? Well, I just think the food thing in particular, look how fat everyone's getting. I mean, fat, lazy, sedentary. And you're like, That can't be good for anyone.

No, but why is it happening?

Bad politicians.

But why is every politician in every Western country coming to the same set of policies whose effect is fewer children, more unhealthy dead people? You don't have to be a conspiracy now to just say, I'm looking at just the numbers. That How many kids per family dropping?

That is the consequence of all the political actions that have been taken. I agree. I don't think it's a mad global conspiracy in the way you might be inferring. I don't know. I don't know. Listen, I know where Where are they coming from on this. I don't believe they're actually smart enough to do that.

Then why are they all doing it?

I think because they're not very competent and they're not very good and they're lazy. They're going a long way.

The law of averages would suggest that, I don't know, the governments of Spain Belgium, New Zealand, pick another, Mexico would adopt the opposite policies. We're going to pay you to have more kids, not one of them.

Here's what I agree with you about. It's wrong and it's got to change. We need more people, not less. We need better food, not crap food. We need to reduce the size of our human beings whilst increasing populations. Otherwise, the planet is going to kill itself, going to basically self implode and die out, as Elon Musk is warning. He's right.

I agree with that.

I'm going to end on this. Have we ended on agreement?

I just want to know, since you're, I think, good at predictions, how do you think the war in Ukraine will end?

I think it will end. I do think Donald Trump will get a deal. I do think in the end that Russia will probably keep most of the land they've taken. I personally wish that wasn't the case, but I think that's how this gets ended. I hope that Ukraine get enough guarantees that the rest of their country won't get taken down the line. We saw Crimea a year ago. We've seen the East go pretty much. And I suspect Vladimir Putin, I believe, will try and take the rest of it. I may be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. I hope a deal gets done soon because too many people are dying. I heard the other day that 100,000 people on that battlefield died in six weeks on both sides collectively. I mean, this is a horrendous... This has been the stuff you saw at the SOM. I totally agree.

But do you think it's... I strongly agree with you, and I have for two and a half years, but why is Normally now, they were getting more realistic casualty figures? How could a government fund a war without knowing how many people died in that war?

You think the Ukrainians have not been telling the truth about it?

I think the US and British governments have both lied about it and kept those numbers from the public. And I feel like that's a crime.

They should tell the truth. They should be transparent. If that's the case, it's wrong.

I hope you'll go back to Great Britain and grab them by the throat and make them tell the truth.

You know what? You made me think, go back to Britain and make us, jolt us into action. You know what I like about the Trump thing in the last week? Just the sense of hope, optimism, dynamism. Yes, I agree. Even before the election, when he went down to watch one of Elon Musk's rockets launch. And just the fact that America is back in the business of going into space, aiming to go to the moon, aiming to go to Mars. Yes. Where's that in my country? Where is that dynamism? Where is someone hit in the ground with 200 things they want to do? You may not agree with all them, but my God, the energy is expanding, the dynamism, the aspiration, the thing of making America great again. I got a feeling this time around, Trump's going to have a very good four years. I'm not so convinced about my country, and I want to get that oomph and energy and dynamism in Britain, because I don't disagree with a lot of the characterization you've had. If we are a country in the doldrums right now, we are.

And it solves a lot of problems. I think that's really smart. The energy, the attitude. All of it. Why are people doing heroin in the first place? Why would you want to do fentanyl? Because you're hopeless.

We have a terrible drugs problem. No, I agree. In our country. Terrible. You have a bad drug problem in America.

And you solve it with attitude. Yeah, you do. Piers Morgan, thank you for taking all this time. I enjoyed it. It's great to see you in Saudi Arabia.

We're still against on time.

Thank you.

Thanks very much. That was awesome. Enjoyed it.