I appreciated Matt's comment at 26 min, when Bolton makes fun of Trump for lack of political nuance. Matt very subtly calls out Bolton for overlooking costs (of lives and dollars) with his ideology. It wasn't pro Trump, but it does demonstrate a better understanding of our current politics than Bolton offered.
I’d have asked him if he was even offered the witness relocation program when they took his security away which would be a hilarious premise for a sitcom
I have not finished listening to the whole podcast but Bolton mentions that the US supports Europe for our own self interest. I am trying to understand what this is. It does not seem to be trade.
“ U.S. total goods trade with the European Union were an estimated $975.9 billion in 2024. U.S. goods exports to the European Union in 2024 were $370.2 billion, up 0.7 percent ($2.6 billion) from 2023. U.S goods imports from the European Union totaled $605.8 billion in 2024, up 5.1 percent ($29.4 billion) from 2023.”
What impact would it have on the US is we stepped away and let Europe fend for itself?
Check the loan to grant ratio here for the United States and Europe and then explain to me how heartless the US is. If the EU cares so much, why insist on charging a vig? Why are they not grants from Europe also?
In 2008 the US and EU economies were near parity in terms of GDP (14.8 vs 14.2 trillion). The current gap is US $29.2 trillion vs EU $19.4 trillion or 66% of the US per IMF numbers).
That is the result of decades of EU policy failure. They dug their grave.
A bunch of gravy trains would stop. Let's see how much welfare Europoor governments can afford if they actually have to pay for their own defense. Since they're so much wiser and their economies are so robust, they surely don't need us, do they?
That the war had nothing to do with NATO expansion, that the imbalance of manpower has always made this war unwinnable, that the US and Britain ended a peace deal because they wanted to punish Russia and Putin at the expense of millions of Ukrainian lives, that Crimea is and will always be more important to Russian Foreign Policy than it could ever be to US Foreign Policy. I could go on and on. How about you tell me what they were right about instead?
John Bolton isn’t qualified enough to speak on foreign policy, we need to get his favorite Red Eye guest Nick Mullen on the podcast for expert analysis.
I was laughing when he made the point about US participation in NATO “we’re not in there to help them out, we’re in the alliance to help ourselves out”. I’ve been making exactly that point to people who, like Walter Kirn, seem to think US defence spending and straightforward interference in European affairs since 1945 has been driven by some kind of hazy ‘European’ cabal and/or a philanthropic urge.
“We’ve been subsidising European social care for eighty years by paying for their defence” is one trope I’d love to know the origin of because it’s complete bollocks. If the Cold War had turned hot, recent events show that a lot of Americans would have pressured their leaders to withdraw from Europe because “it’s nothing to do with us” even if US policy had played a part in causing the fight in the first place.
Social media comment sections being what they are, people obviously conclude that I think NATO/the US should continue funding the war in Ukraine - I actually don’t and there’s going to have to be a very unpleasant compromise. My frustration is with the historical ignorance of those who claim that NATO is anything other than a US proxy force and ignore the fact that having a vast military capable of ruining anyone’s day is exactly the reason the US has been the world’s richest state since 1945.
I would throw up if I listened to Michael Moynihan slobbering obsequiously to a Ghoul like John Bolton who literally no one cares about or listens to anymore (or ever should have). It's a very quick 'I'll pass' for me. Now I truly understand why I canceled my subscription to The Fifth Column and have been unable to find the time to listen a 5th podcast in what seems like a long time. MM and MW are content to carry Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clintons' Foreign Policy talking points around like these lies don't have the weight of so many years of absolute failure (not to mention the death and destruction that is evident when you dig out of the rubble and death to see that U.S. State Department is printed in bold across the bombs that we or our allies and proxies drop without any accountability and that have made so much of the world hate America so vehemently) attached to them which is clearly evident to an increasingly disturbed amount of Americans like myself. How about you guys (and your cultist, sycophantists fan boys should maybe consider this for a second because you will sound like a fool making the pathetic strawman arguments MM and MW present to you) have a pod where you say you have never taken any money from USAID or any other Government orgs that are or may have been affiliated with one of its many tentacles (possibly on one of your "War Reporting" vacations you like to act like you don't long to take) and admitting how badly we need another Church Committee? Just a thought from a former paying subscriber (who has never minded riding coach) who you wouldn't like to know who I'm giving my $10 a month to now. I'll give you some hints as to 1 of them; lives in Brazil, has a Pulitzer Prize, his reporting has broken bigger stories than you could ever even dream of breaking and everything he said 3 years ago about Ukraine has turned out to be true and everything you two Clowns have said has turned out to be wrong.
That the war had nothing to do with NATO expansion (which is more about growing the Military Industrial Complex), that the imbalance of manpower has always made this war unwinnable, that the US and Britain blew up a peace deal 3 months into the war because they wanted to punish Russia and Putin at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives, that Crimea is and always will be more important to Russian Foreign Policy than it could ever be to US Foreign Policy. I could go on and on but instead how about you tell me what they were right about?
I also want to comment on your claim that NATO expansion is mostly about growing the MIC.
Let me start off that I think the MIC is a very mixed bag. The legacy contractors almost always come in over budget and over schedule. The service branches deserve blame too for always demanding gold-plated weapons systems and frequently changing requirements. Congress deserves blame, too, for treating defense procurement primarily as a jobs program. And of course lobbying by the MIC is a big reason for that. It's a complex and vicious cycle, and things need to change.
Having said that, to the extent that NATO expansion has created more customers for US arms exports, there is a military benefit for the US. The resulting economies of scale lower the unit costs of planes, missiles, etc for the US.
But I don't think that's the only reason that the US has supported NATO expansion. Membership in NATO gives the US economic and political influence over member states (not control, but influence), and that gives the US another way to advance our overall interests. Having more allies means that we can be more effective outside of just defense.
But also also, there are counterparties to the US and existing member states when NATO expands, i.e. the countries joining. Did the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet states join NATO because *they* wanted to grow the US MIC? Or did they feel the need to align with the US and Western Europe and secure their own defense against the (real, as it turns out) threat of Russian revanchism?
For the record, I *do* care what you think. I try to be open to changing my mind and at least learning from people I disagree with. So I appreciate the conversation.
I agree that NATO expansion had *something* to do with the war, but I don't think it was the primary cause. Putin wants at least de facto, if not de jure control of Ukraine and wide swaths of the former Russian empire. I think he went to war because the political situation in Ukraine turned against him. Talk about Ukraine joining NATO probably accelerated his timeline.
I don't recall the guys opining on the actual military aspects of the war that much, though maybe I'm forgetting something. But I disagree that the war was always unwinnable, though that depends on how you define victory. Ukraine's goal of restoring pre-2014 borders was always unlikely, but let's not forget that Putin faced, briefly, a coup attempt. If Prigozhin had pressed on, he probably would have failed, but the ensuing chaos may very well have caused a collapse of the Russian lines in Ukraine. I also blame the Biden administration for slow-rolling aide out of fear of Russian escalation. Had Ukraine gotten more aide more quickly I think they could have retaken large swaths of the south and the Donbass. It wouldn't have been easy, and in the end we'll never know, but to say that Ukraine never had a chance is bridge too far.
I've heard the claims about Johnson scuttling a peace deal. I don't know much about those claims so I guess I'll defer to you on that one.
I don't think I've ever heard the guys say that Crimea is more important to the US than it is to Russia, but maybe I'm forgetting something. If they did say that, I disagree with them.
The guys have mostly commented on the claims that the US provoked the war and that it wouldn't have happened absent NATO expansion. I agree with them. Beyond that, they have mostly opined on the moral aspects and pushed back against those that draw a moral equivalence between Russia and their adversaries. I agree with them on that, too.
One last question. You don’t actually have to respond if you don’t want to. Just food for thought.
Did Greenwald accurately predict that Ukraine would hold out for as long as they have when the war started? Did he foresee the collapse of Russia’s Kyiv offensive? Or the success of Ukraine’s counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson? Did he think they’d hold on to territory in Kursk for as long as they have?
I honestly don’t know. Maybe he did. Maybe he’s accurately predicted all the significant successes and failures of Russia and Ukraine since the start of the war. But if not, maybe don’t speak in absolutes so much.
Neocons ASSEMBLE
I'm worried about a Neocon Singularity!
Mcwaters and I should never meet in person
I hope you're not serious, otherwise the end may disappoint you.
Why didn’t yall embrace the chaos and have Yarvin walk out of the closet to hit Bolton with a folding chair and film what happens
I told my mother—in jest—that John Bolton would be on TFC…cut to late Saturday evening and as I live and breathe
Can you tell your mother --in jest -- that Nika Scothorne will receive a mysterious and sizable inheritance?
OH SHIT JOH BOLTON??? IM READY TO BLAST TF OUT OF NORTH KOREA LFGGGGGGG
I was going to make the old “rubble don’t cause trouble” joke, but I actually love John Bolton, and this conversation was outstanding.
You simply can't hate a guy with a moustache game like that.
Really enjoyed listening to this interview.
Okay, well, I called that wrong.
I appreciated Matt's comment at 26 min, when Bolton makes fun of Trump for lack of political nuance. Matt very subtly calls out Bolton for overlooking costs (of lives and dollars) with his ideology. It wasn't pro Trump, but it does demonstrate a better understanding of our current politics than Bolton offered.
Wait, am I a neocon? Bolton made too much sense.
He’s not a neocon!
I’d have asked him if he was even offered the witness relocation program when they took his security away which would be a hilarious premise for a sitcom
Odd couple scenario where John Bolton and Glenn Greenwald end up as roommates living in Topeka, KS in WitSec after they got hits put on them
I have not finished listening to the whole podcast but Bolton mentions that the US supports Europe for our own self interest. I am trying to understand what this is. It does not seem to be trade.
“ U.S. total goods trade with the European Union were an estimated $975.9 billion in 2024. U.S. goods exports to the European Union in 2024 were $370.2 billion, up 0.7 percent ($2.6 billion) from 2023. U.S goods imports from the European Union totaled $605.8 billion in 2024, up 5.1 percent ($29.4 billion) from 2023.”
What impact would it have on the US is we stepped away and let Europe fend for itself?
Are you saying that almost a trillion of trade does not benefit us in any way?
Check the loan to grant ratio here for the United States and Europe and then explain to me how heartless the US is. If the EU cares so much, why insist on charging a vig? Why are they not grants from Europe also?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
We are rich and Europe is (relatively) poor.
In 2008 the US and EU economies were near parity in terms of GDP (14.8 vs 14.2 trillion). The current gap is US $29.2 trillion vs EU $19.4 trillion or 66% of the US per IMF numbers).
That is the result of decades of EU policy failure. They dug their grave.
I understand it's their fault, but the fact remains that we are rich and they are poor. Hence they cannot afford to be as generous as we are.
Then perhaps they should recognize their role as at best a second tier power in the world and pipe tf down while the adults are speaking.
That has always been a cultural choice for Europe though.
A bunch of gravy trains would stop. Let's see how much welfare Europoor governments can afford if they actually have to pay for their own defense. Since they're so much wiser and their economies are so robust, they surely don't need us, do they?
That the war had nothing to do with NATO expansion, that the imbalance of manpower has always made this war unwinnable, that the US and Britain ended a peace deal because they wanted to punish Russia and Putin at the expense of millions of Ukrainian lives, that Crimea is and will always be more important to Russian Foreign Policy than it could ever be to US Foreign Policy. I could go on and on. How about you tell me what they were right about instead?
John Bolton isn’t qualified enough to speak on foreign policy, we need to get his favorite Red Eye guest Nick Mullen on the podcast for expert analysis.
I was laughing when he made the point about US participation in NATO “we’re not in there to help them out, we’re in the alliance to help ourselves out”. I’ve been making exactly that point to people who, like Walter Kirn, seem to think US defence spending and straightforward interference in European affairs since 1945 has been driven by some kind of hazy ‘European’ cabal and/or a philanthropic urge.
“We’ve been subsidising European social care for eighty years by paying for their defence” is one trope I’d love to know the origin of because it’s complete bollocks. If the Cold War had turned hot, recent events show that a lot of Americans would have pressured their leaders to withdraw from Europe because “it’s nothing to do with us” even if US policy had played a part in causing the fight in the first place.
Social media comment sections being what they are, people obviously conclude that I think NATO/the US should continue funding the war in Ukraine - I actually don’t and there’s going to have to be a very unpleasant compromise. My frustration is with the historical ignorance of those who claim that NATO is anything other than a US proxy force and ignore the fact that having a vast military capable of ruining anyone’s day is exactly the reason the US has been the world’s richest state since 1945.
I would throw up if I listened to Michael Moynihan slobbering obsequiously to a Ghoul like John Bolton who literally no one cares about or listens to anymore (or ever should have). It's a very quick 'I'll pass' for me. Now I truly understand why I canceled my subscription to The Fifth Column and have been unable to find the time to listen a 5th podcast in what seems like a long time. MM and MW are content to carry Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clintons' Foreign Policy talking points around like these lies don't have the weight of so many years of absolute failure (not to mention the death and destruction that is evident when you dig out of the rubble and death to see that U.S. State Department is printed in bold across the bombs that we or our allies and proxies drop without any accountability and that have made so much of the world hate America so vehemently) attached to them which is clearly evident to an increasingly disturbed amount of Americans like myself. How about you guys (and your cultist, sycophantists fan boys should maybe consider this for a second because you will sound like a fool making the pathetic strawman arguments MM and MW present to you) have a pod where you say you have never taken any money from USAID or any other Government orgs that are or may have been affiliated with one of its many tentacles (possibly on one of your "War Reporting" vacations you like to act like you don't long to take) and admitting how badly we need another Church Committee? Just a thought from a former paying subscriber (who has never minded riding coach) who you wouldn't like to know who I'm giving my $10 a month to now. I'll give you some hints as to 1 of them; lives in Brazil, has a Pulitzer Prize, his reporting has broken bigger stories than you could ever even dream of breaking and everything he said 3 years ago about Ukraine has turned out to be true and everything you two Clowns have said has turned out to be wrong.
I’ll bite. What did Greenwald get right and MM and MW get wrong?
That the war had nothing to do with NATO expansion (which is more about growing the Military Industrial Complex), that the imbalance of manpower has always made this war unwinnable, that the US and Britain blew up a peace deal 3 months into the war because they wanted to punish Russia and Putin at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives, that Crimea is and always will be more important to Russian Foreign Policy than it could ever be to US Foreign Policy. I could go on and on but instead how about you tell me what they were right about?
I also want to comment on your claim that NATO expansion is mostly about growing the MIC.
Let me start off that I think the MIC is a very mixed bag. The legacy contractors almost always come in over budget and over schedule. The service branches deserve blame too for always demanding gold-plated weapons systems and frequently changing requirements. Congress deserves blame, too, for treating defense procurement primarily as a jobs program. And of course lobbying by the MIC is a big reason for that. It's a complex and vicious cycle, and things need to change.
Having said that, to the extent that NATO expansion has created more customers for US arms exports, there is a military benefit for the US. The resulting economies of scale lower the unit costs of planes, missiles, etc for the US.
But I don't think that's the only reason that the US has supported NATO expansion. Membership in NATO gives the US economic and political influence over member states (not control, but influence), and that gives the US another way to advance our overall interests. Having more allies means that we can be more effective outside of just defense.
But also also, there are counterparties to the US and existing member states when NATO expands, i.e. the countries joining. Did the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet states join NATO because *they* wanted to grow the US MIC? Or did they feel the need to align with the US and Western Europe and secure their own defense against the (real, as it turns out) threat of Russian revanchism?
You are just paroting MMs words.
I honesty don’t think I have ever heard MM talk about the MIC in detail, or make all the points I made. Maybe I subconsciously internalized it?
And for the record, while I like Michael, if I’m going to parrot any of the hosts it would be Matt Welch.
Not really caring what you think to be honest. I think your wrong.
For the record, I *do* care what you think. I try to be open to changing my mind and at least learning from people I disagree with. So I appreciate the conversation.
I agree that NATO expansion had *something* to do with the war, but I don't think it was the primary cause. Putin wants at least de facto, if not de jure control of Ukraine and wide swaths of the former Russian empire. I think he went to war because the political situation in Ukraine turned against him. Talk about Ukraine joining NATO probably accelerated his timeline.
I don't recall the guys opining on the actual military aspects of the war that much, though maybe I'm forgetting something. But I disagree that the war was always unwinnable, though that depends on how you define victory. Ukraine's goal of restoring pre-2014 borders was always unlikely, but let's not forget that Putin faced, briefly, a coup attempt. If Prigozhin had pressed on, he probably would have failed, but the ensuing chaos may very well have caused a collapse of the Russian lines in Ukraine. I also blame the Biden administration for slow-rolling aide out of fear of Russian escalation. Had Ukraine gotten more aide more quickly I think they could have retaken large swaths of the south and the Donbass. It wouldn't have been easy, and in the end we'll never know, but to say that Ukraine never had a chance is bridge too far.
I've heard the claims about Johnson scuttling a peace deal. I don't know much about those claims so I guess I'll defer to you on that one.
I don't think I've ever heard the guys say that Crimea is more important to the US than it is to Russia, but maybe I'm forgetting something. If they did say that, I disagree with them.
The guys have mostly commented on the claims that the US provoked the war and that it wouldn't have happened absent NATO expansion. I agree with them. Beyond that, they have mostly opined on the moral aspects and pushed back against those that draw a moral equivalence between Russia and their adversaries. I agree with them on that, too.
I don't agree with any of that and defending John Bolton or his views show a serious lack or moral courage.
One last question. You don’t actually have to respond if you don’t want to. Just food for thought.
Did Greenwald accurately predict that Ukraine would hold out for as long as they have when the war started? Did he foresee the collapse of Russia’s Kyiv offensive? Or the success of Ukraine’s counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson? Did he think they’d hold on to territory in Kursk for as long as they have?
I honestly don’t know. Maybe he did. Maybe he’s accurately predicted all the significant successes and failures of Russia and Ukraine since the start of the war. But if not, maybe don’t speak in absolutes so much.
Yeah I won't take your advice and I'll speak how I want. You came searching me out, not the other way around. Have a good one.
Ok. We can agree to disagree.
But are you really saying that we’re morally obligated to oppose anything and everything John Bolton supports?
I don’t think that’s a good way to form opinions unless Bolton is literally (and yes, I literally mean literally) Satan.
Support who you want. That's on you.
Can I save this for copy pasta
Yikes
Bruh.
Say what you will about John Bolton, the man just doesn’t give a fuck, and I like that.