The Japanese Prime Minister publicly stated that a Taiwan contingency could constitute a survival-threatening situation that might trigger the use of collective self-defense.

This is the first time in 80 years that a Japanese Prime Minister has made such remarks. It directly violates China’s territorial sovereignty and directly challenges the fact that Taiwan has been returned to China.

It completely violates Japan’s commitments to China.

Could China possibly accept such a provocation? No—no Chinese person could accept it.

After WW2, Germany conducted a thorough reckoning with Nazi crimes and passed laws banning speech and actions that promote Nazi ideology.

But Japan still pays homage to Class A war criminals, and they are enshrined as so-called "heroic spirits."

So this means that Japan has lingering ambitions for invasion and colonialism of Taiwan, and the ghosts of militarism are still haunting the country.

The lessons of history are not far behind us.

Every country that values peace should shout this loud and clear at Japan right now:

If you go back down that old road, it will be a dead end.

But if you try gambling again, the loss will be faster and more devastating.

Every day that goes by, more Iranians are dying in Iran.

A rapid intervention will only help save more lives.

Part of my strategy has always been to call for maximum defections to make sure that, unlike what happened in Iraq after Saddam, we don’t have a failed state and we don’t have chaos.

If yesterday's reformers today decide that it's no use, we'd better join with the people and have the same demands, they're welcome to join us. It's as simple as that.

As long as, again, they're not criminally implicated in the murder of their own citizens, because that's a different story, and they will have to account for it.

All the funding that we receive is private donation, private sector helping, and Iranian people contributing.

I have yet to receive a penny of government support from any government.

If the Ayatollah said tomorrow that he wanted to meet with Trump, Trump would meet him.

Not because he agrees with the Ayatollah, but because he thinks that is the way you solve problems in the world.

Trump does not view meeting someone as a concession.

We don’t provide arms to Russia; we provide arms to Ukraine.

We don’t sanction Ukraine; we sanction Russia.

The fundamental problem Cuba has is that it has no economy, and the people who are in charge of that country and in control of it don’t know how to improve the everyday lives of their people without giving up power over the sectors they control.

They want to control everything. They don’t want the people of Cuba to control anything. So they don’t know how to get themselves out of this.

And to the extent that they’ve been offered opportunities to do so, they don’t seem to be able to comprehend or accept them in any way.

They would much rather be in charge of a dying country than allow it to prosper.

This is a regime that has survived almost entirely on subsidies.

First from the USSR, then from Hugo Chávez, and for the first time it has no subsidies coming from anyone.

I think it's pretty clear that Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, as that poses a threat not just to the United States but also to Europe, to world security, and to the region. There's no doubt about it.

We obviously want to have forces in the region because Iran has shown the willingness and the capability to lash and strike out at the United States' presence in the region.

President Trump's preference is to reach a deal with Iran. That's very hard to do, but he's going to try. We'll see if we can make any progress.

Some may say that the word “independence” runs counter to our transatlantic bond.

The opposite is true, and we have just heard it from Secretary of State Rubio.

An independent Europe is a strong Europe and a strong Europe makes for a stronger transatlantic alliance.

The time has come to bring Europe’s mutual defense clause to life.

Mutual defense is not an optional task for the European Union; it is an obligation under our own treaty—Article 42.7—and for good reason.

It is our collective commitment to stand by each other in the event of aggression—simply put, one for all and all for one.

Ten years from Brexit, our futures are as bound as ever, dear Keir.

In essence, each and every one of our policies needs a clear security dimension in this "new world order."

As they say in Ukraine: you change or you die.

We must adopt this mantra as well.

We have all agreed to spend more. Now we need to get the money out the door and turn it into real defense capabilities.

Some ask whether we can afford this. I say we cannot afford not to.

It is true that Russia has made a huge strategic blunder in Ukraine, and that Russian casualties number well over a million.

But even as the war continues, Russia is rearming and reconstituting its armed forces and industrial base.

Even in the event of a peace deal in Ukraine—which we are all working hard to achieve—Russia’s rearmament would likely only accelerate. The wider danger to Europe would not end there; it would increase.

So we must respond to this threat in full.