Transcription
Now, Rosas Yarlov is a conservative member of Denmark's parliament and chair of its defense committee. Thanks so much for joining.
>> Hello, Jim. Thank you.
>> So, first I I'd like your reaction to seeing Denmark, a NATO treaty ally, looking across the Atlantic at the US and seeing a potential threat. We participated in all the major uh US-led wars in Korea, in the in the Gulf, and many other places in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. So, it's it's um it's not great that now we're um receiving threats uh regarding Greenland, which is the main concern from a Danish point of of view.
>> Well, you've only gone and done it, Donald. The United States of America, long seen as the world's defender of freedom, is now being called a military threat by its own allies under Donald Trump's leadership to the point that one of the United States's closest allies has now stopped sharing intelligence because of the way that the US is handling foreign policy.
>> And it's it's questionable at at best. Our one of our biggest allies, the United Kingdom, recently stopped sharing intelligence with us in the Caribbean because uh they question whether this is legal or not. Um we've been asking for more briefings from the right people. We have not received them, but the information that you just shared with me is the is the public information. I don't have much more beyond that.
>> Well, and the French government has said it's a violation of international law and the law of the sea. That's what our our allies are saying about those um >> strikes that are happening now.
>> Now, let's talk about this. The US's closest allies, countries that have fought wars side by side, traded secrets, shared intelligence with since World War II, are now openly questioning whether the United States is the threat, not the protector. Earlier this week, the Danish Defense Intelligence Service, Denmark's top spy agency, dropped a bombshell. In its annual security report, they didn't just list Russia and China as threats. They said the United States itself is now seen as using its military and economic power in ways that create security concerns for other nations, most notably including US allies. We have some news right now. Denmark officially says the United States is national security risk, the first ally of the United States to classify us as a national security risk to them. This report was released by the Danish intelligence service and said that the world's great powers are quote increasingly prioritizing their own interests and use force to achieve their goals. And the report for the first time named the United States as because of quote uncertainty about the role of the United States as a guarantor of European security. The United States uses economic power, including in the form of threats of high tariffs, to enforce its will and no longer excludes the use of military force even against allies. And now the United States is officially classified as a security threat to Denmark. Remember, there's been the whole back and forth over Greenland and Greenland's future. No one's really talking about that anymore. But this is a pretty significant development.
>> Think about that for a second, right? Denmark, whose national security has long relied on NATO and the United States, said that the US might actually be part of the problem. Now, don't get it twisted. This is a direct result of the Trump administration's aggressive foreign policy narrative, from trade sanctions to military buildup to threatening to annex Greenland. And now, allies increasingly view the United States not just as disruptive, but unstable. At least on paper, the US and Denmark remain treaty allies. They're both members of NATO, but now you have Denmark looking to the US as a potential threat. Can those two things be true at the same time? Or is the reality that that alliance doesn't truly exist anymore?
>> No, let let's not take it that far. I mean, we we have NATO and we have not heard the Americans not wanting to be part of NATO or not wanting to honor the NATO oath. So, let's not take it as far as saying that we don't have NATO anymore and not allies. We are allies. We are in NATO together and we have sworn an oath to fight for each other if that should be necessary. We already did it in Afghanistan when the United States invoked the NATO article 5 as the only country in in NATO's history. So we already went there and fought for for the Americans and the Americans definitely fought for us in the Second World War. So we I think we owe each other um some gratitude. I think we owe the Americans more gratitude than the other way around and and and we understand that. We also understand the Americans are tired of paying too much money to protect Europe. That's fair enough. Um, but it shouldn't develop into um, animosity and belittling each other and talking about how Europeans want to end freedom of speech and other things that are being said at the moment that simply are not true. We share the same values. We should be allies. It would, it's much better for both Europe and the United States. I mean, just last month, the United Kingdom, the US's closest intelligence partner since World War II, dating back to the UKUSA Intelligence Alliance, has temporarily stopped providing certain intelligence to the United States over concerns tied to the US military actions connected to Venezuela.
>> A breaking news exclusive now coming into the situation and watch this. The United Kingdom is suspending, listen to this, suspending some of its intelligence sharing with the US because of the Trump administration's strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean.
>> We are joined now by senior White House reporter Kevin Liptac and CNN national security correspondent Natasha Bertrren. Natasha, to you first with this exclusive reporting. I mean, this is a big deal. The UK is arguably the closest ally to the United States when it comes to intelligence sharing. What else do we know?
Yeah, Pam, it's a really significant rupture here. Essentially, what we're learning is that the UK is no longer sharing intelligence with the US about these suspected drug drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in the US military's strikes on these drug vessels and believes fundamentally that the US military's use of force against these vessels violates international law, according to multiple sources that we spoke to. Previously, the UK had been happy uh to help the United States uh locate and interdict vessels that were transiting the Caribbean that appeared to be trafficking drugs. But the key difference, of course, is that it was helping the Coast Guard intercept those vessels, arrest those on board, seize the drugs, and allowing these individuals to have some semblance of due process. But now the US of course has started striking these boats uh unilaterally with military force killing everyone on board. The total now for number of people killed is around 76. And we're told that the UK is deeply uncomfortable with that and they believe that it is uh pretty blatantly illegal.
I mean let's break one down. What? For decades, the US and UK have shared intelligence on, you know, everything from nuclear programs to terrorism to cyber threats. Both countries are considered the backbone of what's called the Five Eyes Alliance, the most intimate intelligence sharing arrangement on on planet Earth. But recently, Britain reportedly paused sharing intelligence regarding the suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because, well, they didn't want to be complicit in the US military strikes on these boats, I mean, these are strikes executed without clear international law justification. And and while British officials believe could be illegal, and they're not alone. I mean, even Republicans are saying that these attacks could be illegal and actually could be war crimes. And this is regarding the military campaign in and around Venezuela's waters, claiming to combat drug trafficking and pressuring Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro, a strategy that includes strikes on vessels and increased US naval presence. We all seen this video recently, but the attacks have been deemed so dodgy, as we say in Scotland, that it's merited bipartisan scrutiny and calls for investigations into possible war crimes.
I want to ask you about what's going on in the Caribbean, Senator Ran Paul, and specifically when it comes to Venezuela, and you've been outspoken about this. You commented around fears of extrajudicial killings following the first vote we've now had four. Uh your concern about the president's actions here. Is he looking for regime change in Venezuela?
>> You know, I don't know. But we did discover today that the Coast Guard when they interdict boats, it's a common thing off the coast of Miami and California. About 25% of the time the boat that they board doesn't have drugs on it. So they have made an error but they don't kill them. But we've blown up four boats now. And if the percentages hold true, did one of those four boats not have drug dealers on it? If they all had drug dealers on it, you know, the first 11 they killed, what were their names? uh what was the evidence linking them to being part of a uh gang. So I think there's a lot of unknowns here and I don't think you can have a universal coast guard policy of just blowing up boats before they're interdicted. There's, you know, decadesl long history of how we board boats. We say halt, stop, we will board your boat. If they don't halt and stop, there's an escalation of use of force. But we don't just blow ships up.
So those operations have raised serious legal and diplomatic questions for allies like the UK, France, and the Netherlands. So much so that well, the UK is limiting what intelligence they share. Worried it might end up being used to support strikes that could violate international norms. But let's be clear, disagreements among allies over strategy, these things are not new. But intelligence sharing isn't just data. It's trust, right? It's saying, "Hey, here's our most sensitive stuff. we believe that you'll use it in the right way. I mean, cutting that off even partially is a significant decision and it shows the rupture here, right? Denmark's report didn't just mention the United States. It explicitly pointed to the way that the US employs its economic and military power as a source of uncertainty in global security. And now Britain as well effectively saying, "We need to think twice before helping you play judge, jury, and executioner in international waters." It's all indicative of an administration that's out of control. So what happens next when allies start to hesitate before sharing intelligence? Well, it doesn't just impact how the US fights cartels. It affects how the United States as a whole detect and respond to terrorist threats, counter cyber attacks, and espionage. Which is ironic, right? Because all of all of it means that the United States, for all the strength that Trump projects, is actually weaker under his leadership. Because diplomacy and defense aren't just about military might, they are also about relationships. And here's the uncomfortable truth. For the first time in generations, the United States isn't just disagreed with on the global stage. It's being classified as a potential security threat by allies. That's not leadership through strength. That is a major cause for concern.
>> Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Philipski, add free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.