All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Sept. 21, 2022 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
45:46
20220921_piers-morgan-uncensored-jordan-peterson-part-one
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
UK US Trade And Ukraine 00:08:17
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Truss and Biden shake on the special relationship to standing up to Russia be their first priority.
Putin threatens nuclear war and tells the West this is not a bluff.
So will the world blink or stare him down?
I'll take on a Putin puppet in Moscow.
And Dr. Jordan Peterson, one of the most fascinating polemists on the planet, gives his shocking verdict on Ukraine's war.
There's a bit of Hitler and Stalin in everyone.
A bit of Hitler and everyone?
Really?
There's more than a bit.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well, good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
For days we've been hearing that Vladimir Putin is on the ropes.
Brave Ukrainians, backed by our military muscle, have taken back control of thousands of square miles of their country.
We're told that Putin's patched up army is battered, bloody and losing the will to fight.
Even his propagandists, known for spewing hate and lies on state TV, have dared to question their dictator.
And tonight, five British prisoners of war detained in eastern Ukraine have been released.
So Putin is clearly in trouble.
There's nothing as dangerous as a wounded bear and today he warned in more chilling terms than ever that the price for his humiliation could be nuclear war.
300,000 reservists in Russia will now be mobilized in the biggest escalation since the invasion.
Make no mistake, this is a dangerous moment for the world.
We'd be foolish not to think very carefully about grave threats from either a bad man or a madman armed with more nukes than any country in the world.
Where somebody bends over backwards to keep telling you this is not a bluff usually sounds an awful lot like a bluff.
We can't live in a world where a guy like Putin sabre rattling his nuclear arsenal can just get away with mass murder by scaring us off.
This might be Putin's last roll of a dice.
We don't know yet.
My view is now is not the time to blink.
It's the time to double down in our support for the Ukrainians.
Well by chance I sat down to interview one of the most fascinating thinkers on the planet today, Dr. Jordan Peterson.
One of the most riveting and emotional interviews I think I've ever done.
We're going to air it all in full on Tuesday.
But later in the show, we're going to share his grave and extraordinary analysis of the situation in Ukraine.
Here's a taster.
We can't win against Vladimir Putin anyways because you cannot win against someone you cannot say no to.
Interesting stuff from Jordan Peterson.
Well let's start by going to New York and our talk TV political editor Kate McCann.
Kate, good to see you.
A bit of delay on the sound tonight so I'll just keep the question simple.
Liz Truss has just met with President Biden, our new Prime Minister.
He congratulated her on her position.
He also gave great, I thought, really lovely tribute to our Queen and how much she and the First Edit enjoyed coming back to London to be at the funeral and how stunned they were by the scale of the warmth and feeling from the British people towards Her Majesty.
Liz Truss returned the favour by saying to him how grateful she was that he'd come over and said that the Queen was the great rock of this country.
It had been a very difficult two weeks.
They are, of course, the two weeks that started her premiership.
So initial feelings, Kate, about body language between these two people, the special relationship.
Where's this all going, do you think, from these early encounters?
So I think the special relationship is so deeply embedded in the way the state works here in America and in the UK that the reality is the UK is one of the US's best allies.
It's ready to go at the touch of a button.
And what's happening in Russia and Ukraine, as you just set out there, Piers, makes that even more important than ever.
The reality of the security situation is that organisations like the UN, where we are today, the G7 and others, even though their financial power as nations is dwindling, that actually means that they need to now work more closely together.
And they recognise that.
They can see an enemy now in Russia.
They can see the allies of Russia, China, what might happen next in Taiwan.
That is laid out very clearly, always, but particularly here at the United Nations.
And those conversations on the margins and in the bilaterals that you're seeing here are dominated by talk of Ukraine.
What happens next?
Yes, the hard-won battles to regain territory, but also how to rebuild Ukraine.
Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage done, whether that comes from Russia.
And as you say there, there are some suggesting that now is the time for NATO to be far braver, to go further, to arm Ukraine in order to try and draw some kind of line under what's happening here.
So the body language between Liz Truss and President Biden, relatively warm.
Those discussions at the top of meetings on camera are always a bit awkward and stilted.
Everybody's reading out their comments from their bit of paper, trying to get across to a domestic and an international audience what they want to achieve.
But the reality is the bedrock of that relationship is very stable, very solid and very important, perhaps more important than ever.
And that's what Liz Truss, the new Prime Minister, wants to build on in her speech here tonight.
She wants to say that more than ever, the economic power of big nations like the UK and the US needs to be drawn together in the G7 and other organisations and effectively used as skillfully as defensive power against Russia.
Now, that is a big ask.
It's going to be difficult to do, but there is a real grit and determination here and some strong language behind the scenes from diplomats too about Russia.
They won't want to comment on camera about that nuclear message from Putin.
They don't want to give it credibility, but it is at the forefront of everybody's minds.
It will not, though, make them waver in their task.
Right.
As you were talking there, we've got a clip just come in, actually, of Prime Minister Truss and President Biden.
Let's take a little look at this.
You're our closest ally in the world and there's a lot we can do and continue to do together.
And there's no issue that I can think of of global consequence where the United States and the United Kingdom are not working in cooperation.
And that's why we want to work more closely with the United States, especially on energy security, on our economic security, but also in reaching out to fellow democracies around the world to make sure that democracies prevail.
I mean, the one thing, of course, which is a massive issue between them and probably won't even be discussed, is this long-promised trade deal between the UK and the US, which Biden has basically said is a non-starter.
Yeah, and I think that's why you saw Liz Truss, the Prime Minister, on the plane on the way over here before the wheels had even touched down in New York trying to set expectations around a trade deal, because there's been some suggestion here in America that the idea of a trade deal is linked to the outcome of talks over the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Everyone essentially on all sides digging in on that particular issue.
But it does need to be solved and it needs to be solved quickly because there needs to be a government back up and running, power sharing, an agreement, something to move politics forward.
So it's on the forefront of everybody's minds here and it's something that President Biden is very keen to ensure that people understand his commitment to the Good Friday Agreement and Liz Truss too, of course, has her position on that.
So those talks are always very difficult in terms of the domestic agenda.
But I think there is a sense that both countries realise and recognise that they do need to work together here and trade is an issue, of course dominating the Northern Ireland Protocol talks, but that at some point will be dominating the relationship between the UK and the US.
Liz Truss very clearly on the plane saying that trade deal is not going to come anytime soon.
She did that so that the message here from these talks couldn't be that deal's off the table until you sort the Northern Ireland issue.
But the reality is, Piers, there are other issues with trade between the UK and the US that also complicate that deal.
Attitudes to tariffs, for example, complicated as those negotiations always are, which may well slow that down.
But every time we have asked on both the US side and the UK side about a trade deal, the message is very clear.
It doesn't exist right now.
Nothing to talk about.
Nothing to see here.
It will exist one day, but those talks aren't even on the table yet.
Royal Family Podcast Scandal 00:10:10
KBCA, New York, thank you very much indeed.
Well, Jordan and me and I discuss a number of things today.
Former newspaper editor Emily Sheffield, Conservative Commentator Esther Kraku, and Royal Commentator, former press secretary for our late, great queen, Dickie Arbiter.
Welcome to all of you.
Thank you.
Dickie, let me start with you.
Twelve years you were the press secretary for Her Majesty.
This must have been for you personally a very long and sad and reflective 10 days.
It was long.
It was sad.
It was reflected.
I didn't quite get my head around it until I saw the hearse leaving Balmoral Castle.
And then again, it hit me when the RF regiment, Paul Bearers, took it off the C-17 at Northolt Airport.
There were several moments when I nearly lost it.
I was working for an Australian channel and Ali sort of grabbed my hand at once.
Ali Langdon from the city.
Ali Langdon, yeah.
She grabbed my hand because she saw that something was afoot.
And I'm very grateful to her for having done that.
And that was when the coffin was being lowered into the royal crypt at St. George's chapel.
It was an incredibly poignant moment.
I mean, that was the moment, really, I felt, of finality, the final moment where we would ever see this queen in any form.
It was our final moment to say goodbye and thank you, Your Majesty.
Would she have been surprised by the sheer scale of outpouring of love and affection?
Probably, yes, because every time there was a jubilee, she stood on that balcony and the crowd stretched all the way from Buckingham Palace back to Trafalgar Square and it was huge, a million people.
And she never quite believed it.
I mean, it happened on her Golden Jubilee, her diamond and her platinum.
And it was something that she really didn't believe.
I mean, she almost echoed the words of her grandfather, George V. The people love me.
And what came to mind while you were talking is that George V was called Grandpa England.
And I'd like to think that late Queen was Grandma England.
Yes, absolutely.
Emily, a lot of issues coming out of all this.
One is this concept being put out that Charles may want a sort of downsized coronation.
If that is true, what is your view of that?
Well, I don't know what it's downsizing from, but...
I imagine, in other words, compare it to the Queen's.
It won't be as lavish or ostentatious.
As the Queen's when she was coronated, not her funeral.
Again, I'm not entirely sure how lavish it was, but I think we've just...
It was pretty lavish.
Well, I think somewhere in the middle...
You saw it.
I saw it.
I think somewhere in the middle.
Forget it, Dickie.
You don't look as old as I know you are.
Well, it's an interesting question, isn't it?
My gut feeling about this is if you're going to have a monarchy, do it properly.
The great thing about the last 10 days was being able to show the world that nobody has anything anywhere like this.
So if you start downsizing everything, you kind of end up where a lot of European monarchies went, which it becomes so downsized, it becomes pointless.
There are certain things in the service you've got to have.
You've got to have the anointing.
You've got to have the crowning.
The crowning might not be the same as late Queen's, where St. Edward's crown was placed on her head.
It might be raised over King Charles' head and then placed on a cushion, a symbolic crowning.
And there'll be two crownings because Camilla will be crowned the Queen Consort.
She will be crowned the Queen consort.
Don't start chipping away at tradition.
No, I don't think so.
The only thing I would warn maybe is when the Queen was coronated, this was a young woman, a very good-looking young woman, who had the shock of her father's death meant that she was suddenly escalated to her role as running the monarchy, head of the monarchy.
Charles is not going to have the same glamour.
But isn't that even more reason to make it look as glamorous as possible?
Well, yes, make it look glamorous, but be careful you don't over-primit.
Okay, let's move to another ongoing running saw, Esther.
We've talked about this many times.
Megan and Harry can't be ignored.
Again, their friend Gail King, best friends with Oprah Winfrey, who of course actually was the enabler for a lot of this stuff.
Actually, friends.
Are these people ever happy?
Well, Gail and Oprah are great friends, yeah.
And the Sussexes are neighbours of Oprah, so they've sort of, I think Megan's hijacked them as friends as well.
Here's the point, though.
Gail King said on American television this morning that she believes nothing's really been resolved.
Let's take a look.
Big families always go through drama, always go through turmoil.
It remains to be seen.
Are they going to be drawn closer together or are they going to be drawn apart?
I have no idea.
I have no inside information on that.
But I will tell you this.
It was good to see Harry standing with his family.
I mean, it was, but I'm not sure anything got resolved.
Yeah, I think it's too early to tell.
I think obviously everyone is waiting with bated breath over Harry's book, which I really hope is not as sort of bombastic as we fear it will be.
And obviously, you know, Megan's podcast, let's hope she doesn't say anything more greedy.
I read today, it's probably not true, but it was an interesting sort of take on it that she's busy going through all the podcasts, trying to remove anything that attacks the monarchy because she now knows how badly that would play.
The problem they've got, I think, Dickie, in this, is that that's really their only currency, which is worth all the money.
They don't have any other currency.
They've already rubbished the royal family.
And how you pull back from that, I really don't know.
You talk about reconciliation.
There's a very wide chasm.
There isn't a bridge big enough to bridge that chasm.
William, I didn't see William give Harry a single glance the entire time they were seen in public, let alone Kate and Megan.
It looked to me like they were putting this show on to do it for their grandmother and credit to them for being able to do that.
But the enmity between them all is incredibly real.
I mean, this is not invented by the media.
I do think that King Charles and the Prince of Wales have done the right thing, which is to put the olive branch out because they need to be the grown-ups in the room.
Absolutely.
Megan and Harry, like bitching about the royal family, they need to neutralise that and they need to do it fast.
Well, they need to shut up, don't they?
I mean, they just need to...
They left the country in duty for freedom.
I think they've done that.
So go and have your freedom and privacy and shut up, crashing the road.
I do hope they do reconcile because I think it will be a positive thing for everyone.
I would advise Meghan and Harry to find some sort of expertise, like, I don't know, get a degree in neurobiology or something.
Because when you're only relevant to the state of the state, Harry can go anywhere near neurobiology.
When your only relevance stems from being in that royal family, Megan's case, for two years, you kind of want a backup plan.
I think unfortunately, Megan is going to keep capitalising on what she's been capitalizing on so far.
She's got a title.
She's got a captive audience in the United States.
I mean, the Sussex squad were tweeting in America that she was the only one crashing.
I know, I know, it's ridiculous.
Let's turn to something happier because I find there's a limited amount of time we can give them before everyone's spleen start to vent.
And the pallbearers, Dickie, I found unbelievably moving.
I've been reading all about these pallbearers.
Young men, the finest of this 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, were chosen for this duty.
And flown in specially from Iraq.
Flown in from Iraq in many cases.
Many of them had done war tours and so on.
But they were chosen.
I can't think of a more pressurised thing to do, actually, other than actually engaging in real war than what these guys did.
You're either.
Sorry.
More urgent water, please, for Sheffield.
I can't think of a bigger honour for these guys, or a bigger responsibility, or more stress to have a billion people around the world watching, as you are carrying a very...
Four billion.
Well, I think that probably was an exaggeration, but the relative is a lot.
And this is a very heavy coffin, and it's carrying the greatest monarch in history.
The pressure, not to make any mistake, enormous.
They were completely faultless.
And the country, I think, recognised that.
My question is, should the country go further and recognise them with honours for what they're doing?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
You know, honours have been given to people for lesser things.
This was a great moment.
It was a great moment in their lives.
It was a great moment in our lives.
And it was a great moment for the royal family.
Are we all agreed on this?
Yeah, absolutely.
We were just discussing backstage, weren't we?
Whether it went MBE, OBE, and youth or MBE.
I think as a start, it's an MBE.
Eight MBEs would be the least we can give them.
And congratulations to them and to their families.
It must have been bursting with pride.
But imagine being the parent of one of those kids watching and thinking, please don't let anything go wrong.
You're talking about the heaviness of the coffin.
An American tweeted me and said, what are they making so much fun?
They're only carrying a box.
I tweeted back and said, it's lead-lined.
Now go away.
Oh, exactly.
You get idiots on Twitter.
You should stay off Twitter, Dickie.
You're far too venerable for that kind of behaviour.
I get annoyed.
Dickie, it's great to see you.
I wanted to catch up with you because I'm sure you've been through a lot of emotions in the last couple of weeks.
And it was a historic moment.
I think the country did the Queen proud.
The country did the Queen proud.
The people were magnificent.
There was no angst in the queue.
We've got a few celebrities allegedly jumping the queue, but they were all very friendly.
They were all very relaxed.
When somebody had to go out of the queue, perhaps to go to the loo or be interviewed on television, they got their place back in the queue.
There was no squeezing on.
You weren't impressed by the queue jumpers?
No, not particularly.
I thought David Beckham was brilliant, queuing up for 14 hours.
Yeah.
We won't talk about the others.
Do you watch the chase on TV?
The chase?
The quiz show?
No, sure.
Well, you're about to be replaced by one of the chasers in that seat.
Forgive me, don't watch it.
You won't take it as a personal insult.
Great to see you, Dickie.
You too, thanks for watching.
Taxing Banker Bonuses 00:07:39
You two stay with me.
We're going to bring in Anne Heggerty, of course, from The Chase, one of the great chasers, to replace the irreplaceable Dickie Urta.
Good to see you.
Still ahead tonight, more of my exclusive interview with controversial clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, why he thinks there's a dangerous dictator in all of us.
There's a bit of Hitler and Stella in everyone.
A bit of Hitler and everyone?
Really?
There's more than a bit.
Welcome back to Piersburg and Uncensored.
Emily Sheffield, Esther Krack is still here.
That's very exciting.
This.
I've been joined by Anne Hegerty, the quizzer extraordinaire and intellectual power star of TV quiz show The Chase.
Nice to be here.
Are you as mean and sinister and intimidating in real life?
I'm horrible.
I'm delivering.
Well, it's lovely to see you.
Thank you.
A very unexpected little bonus.
And talking of bonuses, I want to start with bankers' bonuses.
I don't know why Liz Truss's first priority for this country appears to be letting bankers get richer.
Well, because let's say a bank makes a certain amount of profit.
If it hangs on to that profit, then it has to pay corporation tax on it at what?
19%.
If instead it gives some of that profit to its employees, then they have to pay income tax on it on, what is it, 45% at 45%?
So more money goes into the Treasury.
But ultimately, when you have food banks exploding, when you have food prices, energy prices crippling families, the optics are saying, actually, one of the first things we're going to do is let bankers get richer.
I think it's really, it might be something that works.
But more money goes into the Treasury.
But it's bad politics.
I quite agree.
Some people aren't going to like the optics of it, but I think that we can tolerate a lot of red-faced young men throwing bread rolls at each other in the ivy if it actually means that more money goes into the treasury.
They actually make less money because the logic is, because bankers' actual salaries have gone up because they've capped the bonuses.
So it's actually made them less risk averse, which they should be.
So if you actually remove the cap, their base salary goes down and it makes them actually behave more.
But the problem we had with the financial crash before was that the bonuses were getting so stratospherically big, they all began behaving recklessly.
But then the industry was heavily regulated.
So now there are more regulations to actually police that sort of behavior.
Bankers don't change their spots.
I mean, I've nothing against bankers personally, but give them a load of cash.
But this doesn't actually necessarily be a problem.
Trouble is going to start.
Emily, am I wrong?
Well, I think there hasn't been much around the regulation.
So as you say, back to the financial crash, mostly in America, subprime, they were getting huge bonuses for not delivering anything.
So we do need to keep the, I think it's right, they should be allowed to be paid whatever bonus the bank thinks right, but make sure there's some regulation, they're getting the bonus for delivering.
Exactly.
And I, to your point, yes, it's the politics of envy if you say everyone should be paid a certain amount and that money does go out.
It goes into restaurants in London, for instance, who are having an absolutely terrible time at the moment.
But to your point about the politics, I don't think she meant this to be leaked out.
I think there's a lot of frustration.
Actually, the Sunday Times reported on that, because of course that's not the first thing you want to come out.
Labour can leap on this now, especially when you're talking that they don't want to do a windfall.
She doesn't want to do a windfall tax.
Well, again, why would you also brief that you're not going to tax the energy companies?
Because they're the first people I've been putting a windfall tax on.
So look, it's a bold strategy if it works.
If it goes wrong, you'd look back and say, well, why would you announce those two things?
Well, A, she didn't.
It was a leak.
Apparently, she was very cross about that banker's.
Well, that in itself may be a disingenuous leak.
No, and then in itself, if one of her own team leaked it, you've got to think, can you trust your own team?
Or are they Boris's people?
And is there actually an uncomfortable thing?
I wouldn't trust Boris's people as far as I can party.
But maybe she thinks she can.
Well, let's talk about, you mentioned envy there.
Holly and Phil and this extraordinary developing scandal that these two very popular morning television presenters jumped the queue as people see it by using a media pass to bypass having to queue up with the public.
What do you think of this?
Well, the point, as I have made exhaustively on Twitter, is that...
Everything on Twitter's exhausting.
Yeah, we have to accept that.
I've been muting a lot of people.
So there'll be people shouting at me right now that I can't hear.
But yes, as I understand it, they were heading down the side of Westminster Hall to go to the press area because they had media accreditation along with hundreds of other people, most of them people we happen not in fact to recognize.
So there will, I mean, I know there were journalists, there was a journalist from Yorkshire.
See, I know exactly.
Susanna Reid, who was my former TV wife, she queued with her mum for 10 hours, whatever it was.
Because she wanted to work.
No, I know, but I don't think any of the journalists actually should have skipped the main queue, personally.
I don't think anyone should have done it.
Apart from world leaders, we're literally, you know, they've only got an hour at least.
I don't think that MPs and members of the House of Lords should be at the same time.
Well, I agree.
No, but I agree.
We have this debate on this.
Having landed on the business, they were not skipping the queue at all.
They were simply walking down the hall to do a job.
But having said that, I also don't think that the pylon has been fair, and I don't think they should be fired, as some people seem to want to do.
This petition is up to 35,000 people at the front page of every paper, like it's the biggest scandal of all time.
It's like, look, they made, in my opinion, a misjudgment, as every journalist did that did this, because the public were doing their duty and it looked like the journalists worked.
So I think that was the error of judgment.
But the reaction has been absurd.
But also, we've just had the most thing, we've all been talking.
I was here only, what, two nights ago, talking about the unity of the funeral.
Yeah.
And what this is the outcome?
Seriously.
Well, Britain is great at Britain's greatest queue.
Have you ever tried to jump in the queue at Alton Towers?
It doesn't go well.
This is the takeaway.
And this is two days later.
Walking past the queue.
Well, there is a benefit.
There is a benefit from the whole thing.
London Dungeon has announced that if you go down to London Dungeon and use the password Holly and Phil, you get fast-tracked in past the queue.
A lot of companies trading on this.
You're a genius.
I want to talk to Esther, if I may, about Peter, the animal rights group, who've announced that apparently meat eaters should be banned from having sex.
And their explanation is that devouring sausages and schnitzel, this is the German Peter announced this, is a symptom of toxic masculinity, killing the planet.
They called on women to go on sex strike to save the world.
And they cited research saying that men cause 41% more greenhouse gas emissions than women because they consume more meat.
I would hazard a guess that the people having the best sex are probably people that do eat meat.
So they should probably have a sex therapist in there to.
I mean, my issue with this, as a meat eater, and I will continue being a meat eater, is that by this logic, Emily, I would have to end up having sex only with hungry vegans.
And I can't imagine anything worse in the world than that.
So this is like we're heading into the Dante's Inferno.
I don't really understand the sex connection.
Why?
Well, I do think we all should eat.
It's because vegans are joyless and humorless and they want to suck all the pleasure out of life.
That's why.
Putin Totalitarian Weaponization 00:06:12
I'm struck by the spokesman who was saying, you know, all these men, they're grilling sausages on the grill.
And if you bring a courgette, everyone's very cross.
He's obsessed with sausages.
Somebody is not getting enough sex, not like.
And also, I'm obsessed with sausages.
And here's my message to Peter, if you're watching, which is, I'm going to carry on having my bangers.
Thank you very much.
In every sense.
So.
Lovely.
Sausage, anybody?
I shouldn't be caught on TV eating a sausage.
Well, I've got to talk to my panel.
Thank you for coming in.
What a delight.
A delight to have you.
That's enough of my panel for tonight, unfortunately.
We're going to move on to much more serious matters, which is Ukraine, war, and Vladimir Putin.
As the Russian dictator ramps up threats of nuclear war, Dr. Jordan Peterson tells me exclusively why the Russian president isn't one to bluff.
If necessary, he'll use a tactical battlefield weapon.
Even if it starts World War III, it won't.
Probably.
Why?
Because we wouldn't respond.
Welcome back to Petersburg Censing.
Clinical psychologist, Dr. Jordan Peterson, is one of the world's most fascinating and controversial intellectuals.
His books sell by the boatload.
He's talked to pack theatres across the globe.
Millions watch him online.
When he speaks, people listen.
I interviewed him earlier today at length, and we'll air most of that conversation next week.
But on the day that Putin threatened nuclear war on the West, I had to ask Jordan Peterson for his analysis on the war in Ukraine.
His response was as grave as it was startling.
That's the world's most famous psychologist.
I began by asking for his view on Vladimir Putin as a man.
Well, he's a lot more like everybody else than anyone thinks.
You know, the notion that he's Hitler or Stalin, that's just foolish.
I don't see any evidence for that at all.
I mean, first of all, Hitler and Stalin were very singular types, and there's a bit of Hitler and Stellan in everyone.
So, you know, there's some truth in that.
Maybe there's more in the typical Russian language.
A bit of Hitler and everyone?
Really?
There's more than a bit.
Really?
Oh, absolutely.
Yeah, well, why would Nazism spread the way it did?
You know, people think, well, that's all top-down.
It's not top-down.
There's a part of people that are...
Oh, these people who informed on Kate Berbelsing.
Well, didn't Goebbels say that the way to get vast numbers of people to go along with what you want to do is to terrify them?
Yeah, well, you hold a grip of terror over them.
Oh, yeah, but...
And in a way, that's what Putin's now doing with the Russian people, where he's going back now into a position of they're all trying to get us.
They want to attack us.
They want to take us over.
He's terrifying his people to rally support for what at the moment is a conflict he has started, which is not going the way he assumed.
Well, the most, what would you say, the wisest commentators on totalitarian states like Solzhenitsyn and many psychological commentators, Jung was a good example of that, made a very straightforward case that you can't have a totalitarian state unless every single person is willing to lie about everything all the time.
And you can think about that as top-down because the leaders lie too, and they also enforce punishments if you don't lie.
But then you can also think about it, the totalitarian spirit is replicated at every level of the society.
And so in a truly totalitarian state, husbands lie to their wives and parents lie to their children.
And the totalitarian state is actually the grip of the lie.
And so, and people will certainly go along with that.
And we're seeing that emerge here with cancel culture.
It's like, lie or else.
Yes.
It's like, yeah, well.
And the Russian people will be bombarded all the time with state media propaganda and will be buying into a lot of what Putin is saying.
Yeah?
How does this war end, do you think?
You're going to find out this winter.
Well, I know what I would do in his shoes.
I'd wait till the first cold snap and shut off the taps.
Right.
Of Russia's going to do that.
He's got the control over the enemy.
Of course he's going to do that.
He's already warned the West with his insistence that maintenance problems were necessary and the pipelines have to be done.
Do you think he will use a nuclear weapon?
If necessary, he'll use a tactical battlefield weapon.
Even if it starts World War III.
It won't.
Probably.
Why?
Because we wouldn't respond.
What's in it for us?
If you let him do it and get away with it, where does that end?
Then you are into a hill.
You can get yourself in a situation, no problem, where there's no good outcome.
We're trying to do that right now on every front we could possibly imagine.
We can easily get ourselves in a situation where it's hell this way and hell that way.
That's highly probable.
But should the Ukrainians give the Russians anything?
When I was over there recently interviewing President Zelensky, what I was struck by was everybody I met in Kyiv, the capital city, were utterly resolute.
Don't give them an inch of our land.
Yeah, well, I can't speak to that because I don't know what the preconditions for peace might be.
But I do know that naive notions that the Russians are going to lose somehow, or that we're going to win, I just don't understand.
I don't understand that.
Well, what do you mean we're going to win?
What are we going to win here exactly?
Well, I guess a victory would be that the Russians retreated from Ukraine.
With Ukraine in runes.
Right.
Well, that's a hell of a victory.
Like, I think Putin could manage that because I think he could tell his people, and I think they might buy it.
It's like, we accomplished our objective.
We devastated Ukraine and we kept it out of the hands of the West.
And that's not great.
It's not what we'd hoped for, but it's better than the alternative.
And I think they would buy that.
And I think when Putin went into Ukraine, I thought, well, I thought a bunch of things, which I made a YouTube video about that.
Winter Alliance Fracture 00:13:26
People criticized like mad.
I thought, okay, well, what's happening here?
Oh, I see.
His endgame for failure is that Ukraine is left in a smoking rune.
Oh, that's a victory.
So then he can lose with impunity.
So how can we win?
We can't win against Vladimir Putin anyways, because you cannot win against someone you cannot say no to.
Period.
And we can't say no to Putin because we sold our soul for his oil and gas.
And we did that to elevate our moral stature in relationship to saving the planet.
And so here we are facing a very dire winter, hoisted on the petard of our own foolishness and moral presumption.
We're saving the planet.
We'll see.
I don't think so.
It doesn't look like it to me.
And this is the most catastrophic issue here.
Assuming that we're facing an environmental crisis of planetary proportions, which is not something I buy, by the way, assuming we are, well, then I would imagine that you would put in place measures that would ameliorate that problem instead of exacerbating it.
But all the measures you're putting in place are actually making the environmental problem worse.
So how is that even vaguely acceptable?
And I look at that and I think, oh, I see.
It's just like George Orwell said about middle-class socialists 50 years ago.
It's not that you love the planet, it's that you hate humanity.
So, well, have at her, boys and girls, and we'll see what happens this winter.
And it's very terrifying to me, especially here, you know, because your energy prices have gone way out of control, and that's going to hurt a lot of poor people.
And certainly around the world as well.
The World Bank already estimated that we've put 350 million people into what they call a food insecurity.
350 million.
That's three times as many as the communists managed to kill.
Maybe we can manage that in a winter.
But the planet has too many people on it anyway.
So, you know, that's just poor people.
A fascinating take from Jordan Peterson.
We'll be showing my full interview with this extremely fascinating and compelling intellectual next week.
He's certainly a guy who gets everyone talking.
And I really recommend you watch it.
There were several moments which took me by surprise.
One was when he got very emotional, one stage of the interview.
Another when I asked him if he could analyze me.
And to say.
You're a net force for good, if you want to be.
Having met me now for an hour, what would your initial clinical diagnosis be?
Well, you'll get that answer next week.
Keep you on tender hooks, but it's quite fascinating.
It's really hard to say.
Well, Jordan Peterson says the West can't beat Vladimir Putin.
Is he right?
And are we facing potential nuclear war?
I'll be getting reaction to that from former U.S. National Security Council official Robert Spalding and best-selling author Douglas Murray and former advisor to President Putin, Sergei Markov.
That's fixed.
Well, before the break, we heard controversial clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson tell me this about Putin's nuclear war.
He said that basically we can't win.
We can't beat the guy because we're too reliant on him for energy.
Well, former White House National Security Council official, Brigadier General Robert Spalding, best-selling author Douglas Murray, and former advisor to President Putin, Sergei Markov, all join me now.
Let me start with you, if I may, Brigadier General Spalding.
What did you make of Jordan Peterson saying that he believes we're too beholden to Vladimir Putin on energy for us to get any win here?
Well, I do think that he has a point in that Putin is not really going to be beaten in this.
And I think it has really less to do with energy and really more to do with what we're willing to risk in order to create a military victory here.
And I think there's a good predicate for what's happening in Ukraine, and that is the Korean War.
So we went back and forth in the Korean War with an adversary that didn't have nuclear weapons in China at the time.
And so I think we need to think very clearly with regard to what are our aspirations and understand that this is a Cold War that will last for probably decades.
And this is just the opening salvo.
Okay, let me go to Sergei Markov in Moscow, an advisor to Vladimir Putin, a former member of the Russian state Douma.
Thank you for joining me, Mr. Markov.
You were on the airwaves this morning in Britain saying that Putin's made it clear he'll be ready to use his nuclear arsenal against Western countries, including against Great Britain, and that it would all be our fault because we've been the aggressors.
Is that your position?
Of course.
And of course, Vladimir Putin don't want nuclear war.
Every normal psychologically person.
And believe me, Vladimir Putin, very, very normal psychologically.
And at the same time, we can see this war in Ukraine.
It's a lot of psychology and irrationality.
It's more personal war of Joe Biden against Vladimir Putin, whom Joe Biden hates.
I can explain why.
Hang on, was it Joe Biden that invaded Ukraine?
I must have missed that.
Because I could have been sure that in February, Vladimir Putin, let me ask you a question.
Let me ask you a question, Mr. Markov.
Let's try and keep it reasonable.
As far as I'm aware, it was Vladimir Putin that illegally invaded a sovereign democratic country, Ukraine, in February.
It wasn't Joe Biden.
No, no, no.
You lost the point.
Russia didn't invade Ukraine, but Russia sent troops to liberate Ukraine from occupation represent, which had been imposed by the United States to the Ukrainian people whose nuclear power.
No, no, no, no.
Russia did invade Ukraine.
And that's just an undeniable fact.
Russia invaded Ukraine.
It is rambling around Ukraine, bombing civilians, bombing women, bombing children, bombing maternity hospitals.
It's a rich discussion.
You find this funny.
You're not hooigating the park, no?
You find this funny, Mr. Markov, do you?
Bombing the children.
You find funny?
You don't allow me to speak.
If Josiah Galoch not allow people to express a view, I remember that when you discussed with these American generals, you had absolutely another sign of Turkey.
Please be not good.
Okay?
So I continue.
You lost the point.
United States, Argus Roman, last democratic elected president of Ukraine 2014.
Imposed replace the regime.
By the way, if you know, 70% of people in Ukraine, they're Russians.
They speak Russian.
Yeah, Ukraine voted.
Okay.
If I may jump in.
Ukrainian people.
Mr. Markov, stop shouting.
Stop shouting.
Ukrainian people voted overwhelmingly for democracy.
They continue to support democracy.
They don't want to be part of the old Soviet Union.
Well, they did.
No.
It's just a demonstrable fact.
No.
No.
In Ukraine, all elections after the military coup of 2013 can be pacified.
And it was Tyrone.
Now, dozens of thousands of people is a political prisoner.
And I'm passing.
Mr. Markov, the truth is...
All right, but Vladimir Putin, your friend Vladimir Putin, if I may say that we can't keep talking over each other, Mr. Markov, but let me say this to you.
Vladimir Putin is clearly losing this war, or he wouldn't now be mobilizing 300,000 reservists.
He wouldn't have been losing territory that he gained.
The Russians are losing the war, and that is why Vladimir Putin is now taking these extreme measures.
No.
Vladimir Putin, what you know.
If Joe Biden and your prime ministers, almost crazy, I think Barry Johnson and this tries, will continue their hybrid war against Russia, it could lead to the irrational scenario where nobody will control and attack we will have nuclear war and attract Russian royal missiles.
I will say, I find the constant threats from Russia about nuclear weapons are frankly pathetic.
Absolutely pathetic.
It's behaving like a bully in the school playground.
Mr. Markov, I've got to leave it there.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Let's go to Douglas Murray in New York.
Douglas, obviously a ridiculous conversation in many ways, but what is your take on the reality, do you think?
No, Mr. Markov, we're done.
I'm so sorry.
Douglas, tell me about the situation from your perspective here.
We've only got a few minutes left, but where are we with this supposed conflict, but it was obviously a war?
Well, obviously, Russia invaded Ukraine earlier this year, and what we've just heard is very typical Kremlin propaganda, which some people believe and they've managed to persuade much of the Russian public to believe and others just are doing this cynically for cynical political reasons.
But the interesting thing, of course, is that the course of this war so far is that it has been undeniably a huge failure for Vladimir Putin.
His forces did not manage to get to Kiev as they wanted to in the initial days.
Zelensky and the Ukrainian government did not flee.
It turned out that Russia's supply chains were totally inadequate.
It turned out that the billions of dollars they'd paid for in a military tech system that was meant to allow generals and others to speak on secure lines was surprise, surprise, mainly money that had gone in corruption and kickbacks like everything else in Putin's Russia and didn't work.
And so Russia's been losing senior generals.
It's now, of course, not winning.
Of course it's not winning.
If you have to call up 300,000 reservists, most of whom are going to be completely untrained, then of course you're not winning.
The interesting question though is this from the point of view of the West.
How long can this conflict be drawn out?
It seems to me, of course, that the dangerous thing, and my friend Jordan Peterson mentioned this earlier, that the dangerous thing is this winter, Vladimir Putin will be hoping to hive off at least one member of the Western Alliance as the energy problem gets worse into the winter.
But this conflict's clearly going to go into next year.
Now, here's the problem, if I can say so, and one we should all be thinking about, is Vladimir Putin's going to, in some sense, lose this war, but not completely.
And that's not entirely a bad thing, because the most dangerous scenario, and I think we've just had one of his sort of puppet blowhards that we've just heard from.
The most dangerous scenario is undoubtedly Vladimir Putin losing humiliatingly, because a humiliated Putin is, I think, the most dangerous Putin.
And that's why I think for all of our hopes that Russia can be completely thrown out of Ukraine and this illegal war can be reversed to the status quo ante, all of our hopes of that, the reality is that at some point there's going to have to be some kind of discussion which allows Putin basically to retreat as magnanimously as possible.
You know, it's interesting.
I mean, this is what Jordan was saying, and I don't disagree with the sort of intellectual analysis of this, but just going back to General Spawning for a moment, that does mean in the end that Ukraine would have to surrender some more territory.
And when I was over there recently, that was the last thing they wanted to do.
But is that inevitable?
Well, I think it's the same thing, as I said, that happened during the Korean War.
I don't think the South Koreans are particularly happy about the demilitarized zone, but it's something that we're going to have to find a way to coexist and let this long-term competition between authoritarianism and democracies play out.
One of the problems that I think we have to come to grips with is that we are pouring enormous sums into China, who is in turn pouring enormous sums into Russia.
That's not going to help us long term.
It's also not going to help us that China owns a supply chain, which is not something that we had during the First Cold War.
So we've got a lot of competing to do and a lot of work to do.
And it's not just going to happen in Ukraine.
General, thank you very much indeed.
Douglas Murray, thank you very much indeed.
This will keep going.
It's a huge developing story again in Ukraine.
But that's it for me tonight.
Reborr up to Keep It Uncensored.
Export Selection