the decision- making, the strategic

calculus of the American establishment.

And obviously, what Trump has done is

largely sort of thrown a lot of that out

of the way. He's defunded so many NOS's

and thought, I don't know, think tanks

and such. Do you think the United States

faces a an internal crisis which is

really having a broader systemic impact

on its foreign policy?

>> Yes, I do. I absolutely do. In that

sense, I do think that the old order in

the United States. All sorts of

chivalents are being destroyed almost

before our eyes. Trump is a big problem

for Europe. He's a big problem for for

Iran and for other countries in the

world, the way he behaves. But he's a

biggest problem is for the Americans

themselves. Trump can only be stopped in

the end by Americans themselves, by

American voters and American people out

on the streets, increasingly large

numbers as they have as they have. But

Trump is tearing up the American

Constitution. He's destroying the

separation of panels. He's borizing the

judiciary.

>> This is the global gambit. Today my

guest is Simon Tistol who is a foreign

affairs commentator with the Guardian

newspaper. He's also been the former

Guardian foreign editor and US editor

and White House correspondent. Now those

accolades being important because what

we're obviously going to be talking

about predominantly in this episode is

unfortunately Donald Trump. But you see,

I was reading The Guardian, as I do

sometimes, and I saw a very provocative,

counterintuitive piece by Simon titled,

"The global rule of law is not

collapsing. Trump is the lone problem,

and he can be defeated." Something that

I think is well, perhaps hopeful, but

Simon, it's lovely to have you on. Can

you take us through what the crux of

your argument was in that and why you

made it?

Well, that piece was written in the wake

of the Davos meeting when Trump made an

extraordinarily um provocative and

uninformed speech about the various

issues that concern him. Um and it's it

and it also followed the speech by Mark

Carney the Canadian prime minister who

talked about a permanent rupture in the

international order and that was not a

new idea and it was picked up by Ursula

Vanderlay and the commission president

the EU commission president and others

in Britain and and the states and

elsewhere

saying that the the global rules-based

order that we've lived with largely

since 1945 5 is collapsing around our

ears. And I just wanted to put a

contrary point of view which is that

historically speaking every generation

tends to exaggerate the importance of

the events that it confronts without too

much reference to what's gone before.

And there are in many respects the

international order that we know and

don't love so much which is extremely

imperfect is not collapsing. It's just

been disrupted.

significantly not only by Donald Trump

but mostly by Donald Trump and it's

quite possible but hopefully probable

that when the Trump era comes to an end

as it much must do in 3 years time we we

think that many of the things that we

think are collapsing around actually

will not not actually have disappeared

at all for instance one obvious example

is the NATO alliance which Trump has

talked about in negative terms ever

since he was a candidate in 2016, but is

is still there and he now claims is

stronger due to his efforts. So that was

that was the purpose of that column was

was not to say that there aren't massive

changes in the international order. Of

course there are. We can discuss those.

But that some of the permanent features

of it are are are permanent or at least

have not yet collapsed.

>> Okay. Interesting. But I guess that

makes me consider then from a again

counter perspective perhaps that at what

point do we draw a line between when

this is a significant transition or a

bigger rupture right the comments out of

the United Nations by Antonio Gutierrez

about the uh potential implosion of the

UN is is quite concerning for someone

who believes in the UN like very

critical of obviously many aspects of it

do you not think that that is a

significant concern and therefore how

far do we get before we say we are

entering a new world order or it's not

that clearcut for you

>> I do think it's a very significant

concern what's happening at the UN and

I' I've written about it I've written

about it recently in terms of the the

withdrawal of the Trump administration

from many of the UN organizations and

also the underfunding or the non-payment

of Jews to the UN which is not exclusive

to the United States of

Many countries are behind in their dues

to the UN. But I've been hearing this

refrain not only from Mr. Guterist, who

I think is a terrific secretary general,

but by by some of his predecessors that

the UN is close to collapse and and and

it's still with us. And one of the

reasons is is that we tend in the west

to look at the UN through the lens of

the security council where we have

permanent members and where we have most

influence and the security council is

dysfunctional. I don't think there's any

disagreement about that. It's usually

stalemated on the on the major issues of

the day. Uh the most recent or one of

the recent examples has been Ukraine and

Gaza. Um but the UN is much more than

that and many of its agencies still do

terrific and important work in most of

the countries of the world. Most of

which countries support the UN still and

their attachment to the UN has not

changed. And Trump's recent attempt to

create what he calls laughingly a board

of peace, which many people see as an

attempt to substitute the UN, at least

substitute the Security Council, has

almost disappeared as quite quickly as

it as it as it appeared because it's

it's a ridiculous idea. It's about three

or four powerful countries trying to a

few Arab states trying to trying to

control things the way they want them.

And I think the UN is still remains very

vigorous organization

uh ripe for reform many problems needs

an infusion of new ideas and funding but

it's still a vital pillar in the

international order.

>> Yeah, I made this on a debate during a

segment which was simply that it's a bit

of a joke to be honest. Simon uh when

you have what 25 30 nations and you look

at the list of them and I don't mean

anything ill towards them but none of

them are exactly global uh change makers

like the US is um versus the UN which

does have 193 members it's got a little

bit of a ways to go I think the board of

peace but building on that is the uh

sort of essence of are we in this new

multipolar order or have we simply

reverted to a time of might is right the

use of hard power. You know, a lot of

analysts argue that Trump sees the world

in a sort of power politics, real

politique kind of way. Do you think that

is the case or it's more nuance because

it's Trump and he's just so unique?

>> No, I do think that some of that

analysis I share is that Trump is very

transactional. He does seem to believe

in the in two things. Power and money.

Power and money. He's got no principles.

He has no morality. He said that much in

a New York Times interview recently. um

or at least his morality is dictated by

his own punches and feelings on the day

and he changes almost by the hour. But I

do think there's a bigger a shift going

on. Yes, the world is now facing the

rise most especially of China which

probably by the middle of this century

will be the biggest economic possibly

the biggest military power in the world.

And Russia is hanging on China's

coattails. China is Russia is not a not

a great power by most measures except

possibly in terms of nuclear weapons

tried to form an alliance in which is

very much a junior partner along with

Iran and North Korea and one or two

other rogue states and this the fact

that China is happy to encourage this

kind of informal alliance or in Russia's

case a formal alliance is um is

indicative of of the importance of of

the rise of a second mega mega

superpower which will rival and possibly

overtake the United States. But but

beyond that, I don't know if there is

really much change in the way the the

affairs of the world have been conducted

since 1945.

You talked about Mike Mates, right?

Well, hasn't that always been the case?

Hasn't it always been the case in the

West that the United States, the most

powerful economic and military force,

has dictated the agenda for most of the

Western democracies?

Isn't it also the case that the United

States particularly, but others acting

under its egus like Britain and the

Faullands have done what they want

regardless of the UN charter, regardless

of international law in countries like

Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Syria

and elsewhere. And we can we can list

those um

country those those events as sort of

not the exceptions to the rule but the

rule rather. So when it suits when it

suits the great powers and I'm not just

picking on the west here. It's true true

of Russia when it invaded Afghanistan in

1980 or or other countries or indeed

when um other India and so on and

Pakistan have gone to it. It's when

countries want to they they do resort to

violence and they do disregard

international law. Israel being another

example and that I would argue has

always been the case. There's nothing

new about this.

>> So you're emphasizing that it's largely

well that's what I said in a piece to be

honest anyway. But that they've largely

exposed the uh the fallacies for what

they actually were specifically in the

idea of I don't know let's say

international human rights law rights

specifically and the lack of upholding

it over the crimes in Gaza or what's

happening in Ukraine or of course Yemen

or Sudan or Myanmar. Um, so what do you

think changes then if we are entering

this new phase or perhaps there's a

there's a shift without there being a

rupture? What are we just going to see a

lot more of these realities being

bluntly put forward instead of trying to

be covered in this idea of rule of law

and respect for human rights and such?

>> Well, possibly. Um though this goes back

to your earlier comment that is Trump

unique because when he intervened in

Venezuela recently

>> many commentators noted that he didn't

make any pretense. He didn't put forward

the normal arguments for intervention by

a western country in in a developing

country. He didn't say this was to save

democracy. He didn't say this was to

uphold human rights. It wasn't to

protect political prisoners or the rule

of law or the free speech or any of

those normal justifications. It was all

about oil and power. And he was

absolutely blunt about that. And that is

that is unusual. I think that is unique

to him. Even even Vladimir Putin, that

well-known war criminal gulking in the

Kremlin,

puts forward certain sort of legalistic

justifications

to do with history and to do with past

events for his intervention in Ukraine.

and China and which as we all know has

great designs on Taiwan puts forward a

whole series of conventional arguments

to justify

Zingping's intention to forcibly acquire

that territory. So Trump is unusual in

that respect and maybe he will maybe his

example will be followed in the future.

I hope not by others. Maybe for instance

um well I don't want to start making

hypothetical discussions about who might

invade who but there are people in the

world who would welcome that president.

But most countries probably don't. Um, I

suspect once Trump is out of office, we

will revert to the normal sort of

hypocrisy that we're used to since 1945.

>> Interesting. So, you you still believe

that we can somehow return to what it

was before. But I I think there's a lot

of people who argue that we can't

because the damage has been done for

example, we can turn it towards Europe

obviously a bit perhaps now. But the the

events over Greenland are so pleasant um

that it is I mean I think rightfully

waking up Europe in a way that we

haven't seen for a long time. Simon um

do you not think that there is some fair

argument there that Europe has been too

resting on its laurels too complacent

too too casual about its place in the

world or managing its own security

energy markets all these sorts of

things.

>> Yes. Again I agree with you largely. I

don't want to overe this argument. I

just wanted to put the contrary case. I

I I think that Europe in many ways is

the author of its own misfortunes. It

has been resting on its laurels possibly

sheltering under the American umbrella

quite snugly

>> and at low cost to itself for quite a

long time. But again, the

counterargument to that, which you never

hear, even from liberal voices in the

United States who should know better, is

that the idea that the Americans who've

always boss NATO and a general American

general always runs NATO

were we're doing this when we're holding

bases in Europe. We're basing missiles

here. We're keeping large numbers of

troops and aircraft in European theater.

We're doing it for altruistic reasons is

for the birds.

The United States since 1945, since they

basically overran the continent in

conjunction with the Russians,

have regarded Europe as the forward line

of defense. And any cold war scenario

that saw a visage a confrontation with

the Soviet Union saw from the American

point of view saw the confrontation

taking place on European soil. This is

American wars are always for export.

They don't ever contemplate fighting on

their own territory. And this is what

the whole NATO alliance was about. It

was about American forward defense. So

the idea that we should all be grateful

for the basting of nuclear missiles at

Green and Common and all of that back in

the 1980s and you know Operation Archer,

Noble Archer or what it was called which

nearly took us into war with the Soviet

Union in the early 80s because the

Americans and Russians couldn't

understand each other. I I think we that

also can be over exaggerated that

argument. Um, yes. Um, the NATO alliance

needs to spend more on defense, and it's

doing so not because Trump has told it

so, but because Russia just started the

largest war in Europe since 1945. And

it's the obvious thing to do. They're

not doing it quickly enough, and they're

not doing it sensibly. For instance, the

argument that's going on between Britain

and the EU about joint defense projects

now is ridiculous. Um, it's been held up

by disputes over fisheries and things

like that. they really need to to get

their act together. But the the the

noise from Washington about this is

unhelpful. And again, I think once Trump

finally falls silent and hopefully he's

not succeeded by the clone JD Vance, but

even if he is, I don't think it'll be

quite the same as it is now. I don't I

do think things are changing and Europe

has probably had to change permanently.

And the EU also which has talked about

common defense for as long as I can

remember never quite ever gets there.

Hopefully they will finally make some

decisions in that area. But the one of

the leading proponents of European

common defense Macaron Emanuel Macarron

in France is is leaving office next

year. So I don't don't see a huge amount

of leadership on this issue coming from

Germany although they're spending more.

So we'll have to see if it does actually

come to anything.

I think your point about NATO can be

summed up in that quote um by Lord Isme

right the the first NATO general keep

the Russians out the Americans in the

Germans down of course it's slightly

different now with Europe's unique

perspective but just on this aspect a

little bit more because I I think what

is interesting for me is that when it

comes to also the the war in Ukraine

there are some people who sort of see

Europe as simply just trying to hold out

perhaps for a more favorable US to

return um a more you know maybe like a

Gavin Newsen type or or Camala Harris

wins it. I mean to be honest that's

something I do want to speak with you a

little bit later. It's just the state of

the US political landscape but simply

that Europe is trying to hold out for a

more favorable strategic uh climate uh

versus others who are saying regardless

of whether it's a more favorable person

the systems the overall structure is

changing and we should take this

opportunity to be more autonomous. Do

you think that there is a a degree of

truth to that? That sort of Europe is

still trying to be like, well, we can go

back to what it was before and if not,

>> Europe's always talks a good game, don't

they? But, um, I'm talking about in

particular, but um, there's a there's a

big gap between what they talk about and

and delivery, and that's always the

problem. And and then there's always the

the holdouts, the Hungares and the

Slovakia and others, sometimes Italy,

who don't really want to do some of

these joint things or want to hedge

their bets a bit. Um, I've been very

critical in my columns ever since the

start of the war in 22 that that Europe

and and America Europe should be doing

much more faster to defend Ukraine. The

fact that Ukraine was is not a member of

NATO seem to me largely irrelevant in

these circumstances um which now

recognize what Russia's done is a clear

threat to the Europe security as a whole

and it should have been treated that way

right from the start. Um, and so now we

should talk a little bit about Joe

Biden, not Donald Trump, because it was

Biden's failure

to act decisively to support Ukraine

before the invasion, which he could have

done by telling Putin that there was a

red line he should not cross. Um, and

immediately after the invasion to supply

the weapons that Ukraine needed in a

timely fashion rather than drip feeding

them. That that has been a large part of

the problem. and Europe failed to

pressure the Americans to do more and

Europe itself failed to do more. I think

probably in in in the in the privacy of

their inner council, most European major

European countries now accept that

Ukraine is going to have to make some

really unpalatable territorial

compromise in order to stop this war.

And that's indeed what what the

Americans have been pushing Zilinski to

do for quite a while now. So you believe

that there's going to be a genuine

transfer of territory here that the

sticking point from these trilateral

talks which I think anyone of a

reasonable mind knew wouldn't go

anywhere because of the Kremlin's lack

of good faith in them. You think that

there's going to be concessions there?

What about this idea of an EEZ? Is this

all on giving all experience with the

White House decision-m or thinking? Is

this is this sort of what Trump wants?

He doesn't really care how it is

achieved. He just wants that for this

deal.

Yeah, I don't I I don't know. He I don't

know. It's probably a bit complicated

for him, actually. I think he just wants

He wants a deal. He wants some

concessions on Ukraine's minerals. He

wants access for American business. He

wants to monetarize peace as usual. I

don't know if if the Ukrainians will

will actually agree to that compromise

that I think is talked about in European

capitals because it's a terrible thing

to ask any country to do to give away

territory that isn't even occupied by

your attacker. And I do think, and I've

written about this again recently, that

the the Russian economy, particularly

the Russian economy, but also

other aspects of the Russian state are

in much more trouble than than than

people sort of who tend to be giving up

on the war. Um would like to think. I I

think, you know, Putin is you know, the

oil revenues are are hugely down in the

last 12 months, as I understand it. Um

and the Americans have just done this

deal with India to permanently block

Russian oil exports to India. I don't

know what Kama talked to Ping about this

week last week whether he met raised

this issue of Chinese purchases of

Russian oil but the Russian economy is

under terrific strain. They're having to

put up taxes right across the board.

They're short of manpower now because

the vast casualty rates is clear. Surely

to most Russians, despite all the state

propaganda that Putin doesn't give a

fig, all the suffering he's causing both

to families who lose their sons, but

also economically and so on. So, I think

maybe the Ukrainians think we should

persevere if we possibly can. But I do

go back to this point I was trying to

make which about

we should have we could have declared no

fly zones over Ukraine in the in the

very first few weeks of that conflict in

February 2022. We could have given a

NATO backup to efforts to defend not

attack Russian forces but to defend

Ukrainian civilians against Russian

attacks. We should have we could have

easily have done that and we and Biden

should have said to Putin before he

invaded that that's what they would do

if he stepped over the border and I

think it could have been prevented and

actually when Trump says I could have

stopped this war it would never have

happened if I been president actually he

has got a point in the sense that

probably he would have said something

like that to Putin and Putin would not

necessarily have ignored it because

unlike Biden who he viewed as a weak

figure and I think he was a much of a

cautious too much too cautious figure.

Trump is unpredictable. So perhaps

that's perhaps there in some essence of

truth in that. No, I would agree. It's

not exactly like it's an endorsement of

Trump, but I think we have to recognize

when he's said things that are accurate.

I think it is always been important to

get European countries to pay their

share and he has increased the

contributions from other alliance

members in a way that Biden never did.

Whilst I Biden may be more I don't know

ideologically aligned or preferable for

many people palatable Trump does get

things shifted albeit in the way he goes

about it is perhaps not pleasant when it

comes to the shadow fleet as you're

talking yes the Russians are facing a

huge concern now and this sort of leads

me into my my next question for you

which is simply that after Venezuela

Trump has demonstrated the willingness

for the US to use hard power on anything

that he considers to be a threat to US

national security including

the acquisition or seizure of the

tankers which obviously the British

helped with a couple of weeks ago. Um

but also now the Europeans are stepping

up targeted sanctions and emphasis on

Russian assets. Do you think that this

approach could actually be a a big a big

change a big I hate to use the word game

changer but you know could be a

significant shift for the Russian

calculus. You mean that the slightly

tougher posture taken by European

countries about oil exports and things

like that?

Does that mean? Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> Well, I I Yes, I do. I think if we if we

if we can persist, if we do not um break

down our if we keep united in insisting

that there must there has to be a just

peace acceptable to Ukraine and not

trying to strongarm them into some sort

of concessions, which it seems to be the

American approach. Um I think the

Russians are much more vulnerable than

than Americans seem to think or that

Putin or Trump seems to think. And I

would like to see a more much more um

push back from Europe. I was very

interested in a piece I was reading the

other day by Edward Lucas who's very

good on Russia about the new head of MI6

in Britain

>> who was who was purposefully

pointing towards a more operational

offensive posture towards the Russian

grrey attacks towards cyber attacks

towards

uh Russian tactics that see us um you

know see warehouses being blown up in

North London and pipelines ruptured in

the Baltic and all that sort of thing.

She was talking or he says she's talking

about a sort of special SOE approach

that we had in the Second World War when

they when the MI6 or SI SIS as it was

was tasked with setting Europe ablaze to

to undermine the Nazi war machine and

and assist resistance to the Nazis in

occupied countries. And if that's true,

I welcome it because I think we should

be pushing much back back much harder

Putin by cyber attacks on his electrical

installations and inconveniencing

commuters in Moscow and so on the way

that they tend to try to here just to

bring home to the Russian public which

is vastly ignorant about what their

government is doing the true cost of

this war andre increase pressure on

Putin at home as well as abroad to come

to the table with some realistic

propositions.

>> Well, I've always believed that we

should play fire with fire. As someone

who's been and lived in Russia and comes

from that region partially, I I can tell

you that it's something that is worth

doing. The Kremlin only recognizes force

and the use of their own plausible

deniability against them, I think, would

be quite an effective means. I think it

was the Estonian foreign minister or

head of the intelligence service who

said that an attack from Russia on sort

of broader Europe is actually quite low.

But I think it's interesting how this

varies across across Europe. And I

actually had I actually spoke to Edward

Lucas just a few days ago on the show as

well. So people should check that out

including yourself, Simon, of course.

Right. There's me uh biging up my own

program there. I'm joking. But um I I do

want to get a little bit more of your

thoughts on the US perspective here

because we've sort of touched upon it.

the decision- making, the strategic

calculus of the American establishment.

Um, and obviously what Trump has done is

largely sort of thrown a lot of that out

of the way. He's defunded so many NOS's

and thought, I don't know, think tanks

and such. Do you think that the United

States faces a an internal crisis which

is really having a broader systemic

impact on its foreign policy?

>> Yes, I do. I absolutely do. And in that

sense, I do think that the old order

that we talked about at the beginning of

the discussion is collapsing. Certainly

within the United States, all sorts of

shivalents are being destroyed um almost

before our eyes. And as I argued in my

recent column,

you know, Europe is Trump is a big

problem for Europe. is a big problem for

for Iran and for other countries in the

world the way he behaves but he's a

biggest problem is for the Americans

themselves and although we in Europe can

try and work out how to deal with him

either by appeasing him or standing up

to him and that argument goes on in

America there's no there's no question

that

Trump can only be stopped in the end by

Americans themselves by American voters

and American people out on the streets

increasingly large numbers as they as

they have been. And when you talked

about his use of national security to

justify various interventions such as

Venezuela, well, he was using that same

excuse for the disgraceful behavior of

these armed militias that he sent to

Minnesota, to Minneapolis, and to other

American cities. Trump is tearing up the

American Constitution.

You know, he's destroying the separation

of powers. He's borizing the judiciary.

He's completely eviscerated the

independence of Congress. Now, he's not

he's been able to do this because of the

startling failure, and I do mean

startling failure of a constitution, a

constitutional system of government,

which was lorded to the rest of the

world as an ideal means of running a

modern country. And

it the constitution in many respects is

unfit for purpose and has failed to

protect America. And the very thing that

the founding fathers talked about most

was the rise of a new George III, a new

tyrant, a new king. And you see this

almost every day in different aspects of

Trump's attempt to suppress free speech

by muzzling the media or intimidating

the media by persecuting his enemies

through the by politicizing the Justice

Department through his attempt to rig

elections by changing the constituency

boundaries of various congressional

districts and in many other respects. he

is he is undermining the whole basis of

American government and and a whole

philosophy that they've that they've

stood by well certainly since the Civil

War anyway. And I noticed the other day

a survey showing that Americans are now

more divided and more angry and more

discontented than any time since the

1850s just before the last American

Civil War. So Trump I think Trump I

think America was facing a profound

crisis.

On the other hand

he's only one man and he does have

terrific powers. But if the Supreme

Court if Congress if state legislatures

governors if ordinary people if the

civil institutions if the media fight

back he can be can be curbed. He can be

curtailed. he can be contained and

hopefully he will be thrown out of

office and impeached and jailed because

of course he should have been jailed

after the insurrection of 2021.

And the fact that he wasn't was the

beginning of of the rot. The fact that

the that the legal system failed to take

proper action against a man who was

encouraging an insurrection.

>> Yeah, it's it's one of those things.

He's done a remarkable job of trying to

etch away at many of the um checks and

balances but overall the US system is

still existing as such. It's difficult

for singular person to do that. But that

sort of makes me wonder about my next

point which is when I moved to DC it was

approaching the midterms and in 2018 you

know we saw a a remarkable shift in how

the sort of democrats were able to take

back whichever part of the US government

it was at the time. So what about these

midterms? Do you think that we're going

to see Trump's power severely cailed or

is it so much different to his first

term in terms of his agenda and

movement, etc. that it could be more

difficult? Not to mention the fact that

the Democrats are in complete mess.

>> Well, yeah, that's important. I mean,

you know, they should have they should

have won the last presidential election,

no contest. It should have been easy.

Should have been a cakewalk.

Well,

>> exactly a gray

to say I mean they picked the wrong

candidate. Giden hung on too long and

then they picked the wrong candidate and

let's not go over history. Are they

making the same mistakes again? Well,

they do seem to have a extraordinary

lack of leadership really. They don't

seem to have any really outstanding

national leaders. I mean Gavin Newsome

in California is trying very hard to

come across as a sort of leader with a

national perspective. There's no doubt

as as the polls suggest as things stand,

Democrats will make gains in the midterm

elections. They're on course to win back

control of the House of Representatives.

They may able to win win back control of

the Senate. If that's the case, or even

if one of those houses falls, um Trump

will be circumstride in what he can do

in terms of budget and so on for the

remaining two years of his term. But

unfortunately uh and I've seen this

before I saw this with

um with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama

the presidents at the end of their

second term tend to concentrate on

foreign affairs. So for the rest of the

world fact that Trump becomes a lame

duck president at home for the last two

years of his term could spell serious

trouble abroad where he has still has

great executive power. I think Congress

needs to stand up. It's not just the

Democrats. I think the Republicans

really have to regain reclaim their

party and end this cultlike appearance

that it's fallen into the last few

years. And if they are facing serious

losses in the midterms and then serious

losses in two years time, then I think

they'll begin to do that. I think some

are already turning against Trump over

the ICE degradations and and a lot of

the senators, Republican senators are

very uneasy about the trashing of the

transatlantic alliance. So I think

people like complete clowns like Peak

Headset being charge of what he now

calls the Department of War. This is

this is Amitau and it's it's for senior

experienced Republican senators

something it must be very difficult to

stop.

But some no I like well clowns always

makes me laugh. But um my penultimate

question is you know for the near six

years I lived in Washington um you know

I I saw the the ruptures to use that

word again within the Democrats and the

Republicans. Right now it seems to me we

have two main factions in the Democrats.

more left-leaning, anti-Israel,

um, you know, more going against the

establishment, moderate Democrats like,

well, Gavin Newsome tries to struggle

both, not very well. But with the

Republicans, the GOP, I mean, you've got

you've got Marjorie Taylor Green sort of

MAGAS, the sort of ones that assume MAGA

was going to be an isolationist. Then

you've got Trump's MAGA, the ones that

are more interventionist. And then

you've got the more traditional

Republicans, what remains are sort of

Mitt Romney types. Is that how do they

heal these branches? the more moderates

of both members of both parties taking

sort of control of the parties or you

don't think it's going to happen in time

for the next election?

>> No, I don't. I think probably what's

happening in the states is very much

what's happening in Britain and other

European countries as you see this

fragment fragmentation of the political

scene. The fact they still think they

only have a two-party system is actually

a fiction maintained in name only

because as you've just very correctly

pointed out. There are at least two

major camps within the Democrats and

maybe three or even more within the

Republicans. And in Britain or anywhere

in Europe which had proportional

representation, you these would be

separate parties. And you see that now

pretty much in Britain with with reform

and the Tories and Greens and the

Liberal Democrats. I thought reform was

just a retirement home for former tries.

>> Yes, I think you're right. But um they

think they're they think they're a

revolutionary force, unfortunately. And

I and the the fundamental problem with

modern politics, which is not particular

to the Trump area era, is that people

are very generally speaking, I'm

obviously speaking very generally,

people are fed up with politics as

usual. This has been a recurring refrain

all the time that I've followed American

politics back since the 1980s

is that is that increasingly you know

people don't believe the system works

and increasingly the evidence is they're

right and so reform and mara and

national rally in France and the ADF in

Germany and so on. These are all

products of the same phenomenon which is

a distrust in a failed political system.

I mean, this is a crisis of democracy

which was brewing long before Trump came

along and will continue to be

problematic after he's gone. And so I I

don't I do think the Democrats will do

well in the midterm elections. I hope

they can curb Trump's successes. I I

hope they will then move to impeach

Trump as quickly as possible and that

enough senators will uphold that

impeachment, which has didn't happen the

first two times, because America needs

to get rid of this man. He is a monster.

is not what Americans voted for and he's

not what he's not he's a danger to the

future of us all.

>> No. And I guess my final question for

you just a quick fire one is simply just

you've got extensive experience across

the Atlantic the idea of transatlantic

relations trans transatlanticism. What

would you encourage people from both

sides be them particularly British or

Americans or continental Europeans to to

focus on before we hopefully have you

back in the near future? Well, that's

quite a hard question because

regulation, right?

>> A lot of people are alienated from the

political process. I I would like to see

more political engagement at the

grassroots level. I suppose I think you

need to have mass movements of people.

You've seen it a little bit over the ice

up after the murders in Minneapolis. But

um in the States, you need a a real

national movement, a sort of a reprise,

a type of chartist scale uprisings as as

Britain had in the 80s, you know,

demanding parliamentary reform because

the American system has to be reformed.

The constitution needs they need to find

ways of changing the constitution so

they can govern themselves in a more

upto-date way. and doubly so in Britain.

Um so there is a unity of need

for for political reform and mass a mass

movements to achieve it. Maybe that

would be my answer.

>> Well, Simon Tisdl uh foreign affairs

commentator at the Guardian and

extensive experience as the foreign

editor, US editor, White House

correspondent. We've uh had a deep dive

on the US, Trump, Europe and and much

more. And uh well, I hope to do this

again with you very soon. But thank you

very much for your time and everyone

else. Thank you very much for watching.

Find videos in the description below and

we'll see you all soon. Take care.