Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics.
Speaker 1: I am dimitriconn Tacos. I'm here with Jason Lyons Mick mulroy.
Speaker 1: We're here. Do us a favorite liking, subscribe. If you're
Speaker 1: listening to us on audio, give it rated five stars,
Speaker 1: subscribe there as well. And if you want to support
Speaker 1: the show Patreon dot com, slash the Teamhouse. Mick has
Speaker 1: a new podcast, of course, The Pub and the Porch
Speaker 1: Applied Stoicism.
Speaker 2: It's great, comes out every Monday. Check it out.
Speaker 1: Links are in the description, Jason's links are in the description.
Speaker 1: Everything and anything you need to know is down in
Speaker 1: the description or the show notes.
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, A lot happening as usual. The big
Speaker 1: news I think it came out on Friday was the
Speaker 1: National Security Strategy and I dubbed it and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: trademark this so I'm gonna call it the Love Letter
Speaker 1: to Putin or Love Letter to Vladimir. Incredible stuff. I'm
Speaker 1: sure Mick you've mentioned that you've been talking about it
Speaker 1: since it's been since it came out, So what are
Speaker 1: your what were your initial your thoughts and then after
Speaker 1: you started going through. What did you come up with
Speaker 1: that anything change? Where are you at with this?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I've been totally geeking out. I'm gonna lie
Speaker 3: about this, not in a good way, but certainly really
Speaker 3: digging into what this means for the United States and
Speaker 3: the world, because we are the most consequential nation I
Speaker 3: think byas of course, but the national security strategy for
Speaker 3: the United States impacts essentially the globe. Where to start
Speaker 3: see change from the last really any national security strategy
Speaker 3: going back to the end of World War Two, including
Speaker 3: the national security strategy we drafted in twenty seventeen the
Speaker 3: first rep administration, which was very much in line with
Speaker 3: past national security strategies. This is a complete departure in
Speaker 3: my estimation. So and we could talk about this for
Speaker 3: three episodes, to be frank, even though it's a you
Speaker 3: know what, around thirty pages. The first thing is the
Speaker 3: reorientation from basically having a major impact globally to a
Speaker 3: focus that's on the western hemisphere. So what they're calling
Speaker 3: them Monroe Doctrine two point zero or the Trump corollary.
Speaker 3: And I'll stop at each section because if not, I'll
Speaker 3: just be rambling for enough. That is, you know, it's
Speaker 3: an illusion to the Monroe Doctrine of eighteen twenty. So
Speaker 3: it's a nineteenth century doctrine where the United States said,
Speaker 3: you know, we need to control our backyard. It was
Speaker 3: predominantly about European powers coming into the Western hemisphere, and
Speaker 3: we thought that was a challenge to us. Now it
Speaker 3: is focused mainly on mass migration, so the immigrant the
Speaker 3: issue of and it's called mass migration, so not just
Speaker 3: illegal immigration, but of course it's probably mostly illegal context
Speaker 3: they're using it stopping the flow of narcotics and essentially
Speaker 3: dominating the Western hemisphere. So it and it took some
Speaker 3: quotes from it. So the new National Security Strategy frames
Speaker 3: US security is beginning at home in our hemisphere where
Speaker 3: threats now move faster than alliances. So that that says,
Speaker 3: you know, exactly what I just mentioned that we're focusing
Speaker 3: on the Western hemisphere, and we're doing so regardless of
Speaker 3: any kind of cooperative effort. So it's not based on alliances.
Speaker 3: It's not trying to develop, you know, countries to be
Speaker 3: trading partners, et cetera. You know, we've get done away
Speaker 3: with most of our foreign aid. It is it is
Speaker 3: trying to force our agenda on the Western hemisphere. We
Speaker 3: can see that Benezuela right now, right, So I'll stop
Speaker 3: there because there's a lot more to say about this.
Speaker 3: But that means, of course, much less emphasis on Europe
Speaker 3: and we'll get to that. I got that in a
Speaker 3: whole separate category. Uh, less emphasis in less military power
Speaker 3: in the Middle East, even after these new security arrangements
Speaker 3: with Katar and Saudi Arabia and we're running the you know,
Speaker 3: ceasefire and Gaza, but less emphasis on that. Africa's barely mentioned.
Speaker 3: But it's mostly you know, economic opportunities that are valuable
Speaker 3: to the United States, not not a cohesive like plan
Speaker 3: to build partnerships and democracies and free market systems and
Speaker 3: stuff like that. And then into Pacific it's a little
Speaker 3: bit more emphasis probably Kobe's influence, but also because we
Speaker 3: still view China as a competitor. Russia, by the way,
Speaker 3: and the first time ever, is not listed as an
Speaker 3: adverse adversary in this but China. It's it's predominant based
Speaker 3: on economic competitions. But it talks about the need to
Speaker 3: have a substantial military presence. But of course, if we're
Speaker 3: going to also signal that we're not going to do
Speaker 3: things like defend Japan and South Korea and the Philippines
Speaker 3: and all these things. Then just having a military force
Speaker 3: there isn't as consequential as you would think, because if
Speaker 3: you're sending a clear signal to China like you're not
Speaker 3: going to invade or we're not going to defend Taiwan,
Speaker 3: then who cares if we have aircraft carrier striker out there.
Speaker 3: So I'll stop there, throw it back to you guys.
Speaker 3: But my first category from this NSS is the Monroe
Speaker 3: document in two point zero.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's I mean, for lack of a better term,
Speaker 4: it's going to be a lonely road if we stick
Speaker 4: with this. And my fear is, how is this going
Speaker 4: to weaken us as a nation? Because as you said,
Speaker 4: we are the most consequential nation on earth. I believe
Speaker 4: that as well. But I mean literally, we're handing this
Speaker 4: to our allies, our friends, and then turning our backs
Speaker 4: so here read this, and turning our backs on them.
Speaker 4: And I fear where down the road, even if twenty
Speaker 4: twenty eight and beyond this administration is out of office,
Speaker 4: that this is going to take years to repair, if
Speaker 4: at all.
Speaker 5: And so that's my big fear. I have founded.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have a couple questions. So how often does
Speaker 1: the National Security Strategy come out every year?
Speaker 3: So we did one for the term of the first
Speaker 3: and it's usually done once. And that's a good point
Speaker 3: to make here is so you got the National Security Strategy,
Speaker 3: which is everything right, so it's diplomacy, economics, obviously, security intelligence,
Speaker 3: it's it's the big picture. And then from that and
Speaker 3: that's what Secretary of HEGCEPT is doing at the Reagan
Speaker 3: Foundation this week or this weekend. He's talking about I
Speaker 3: don't know if it's completely come up, but the National
Speaker 3: Defense Strategy flows from the National Security Strategy. So that's
Speaker 3: how the military is going to do its part in
Speaker 3: the national strategy, and then from that the National Military strategy.
Speaker 3: So that's the that's the actual uniform military saying okay,
Speaker 3: this is our defense strategy. This is how we're going
Speaker 3: to carry it out. So that's what gets down to
Speaker 3: the nuts and bolts. But that's how it flows, and
Speaker 3: it's usually done.
Speaker 5: With all those.
Speaker 3: Every four years.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, somebody, maybe I'm a dummy, but somebody explained
Speaker 1: to me when the Western hemisphere, outside of illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: has ever been a place where we have not dominated
Speaker 1: the area.
Speaker 3: So the original Monroe doctrine was concerned about European and
Speaker 3: that's just not a concern anymore. If anything, now, I
Speaker 3: think the proponents, and I have to be frank, I
Speaker 3: know a lot of people that wrote this were involved
Speaker 3: in it, and they never talk like this before ever,
Speaker 3: So I don't know what happened there, but I think
Speaker 3: the proponents of this plan would say that China, Russia,
Speaker 3: Iran or having especially in places like Venezuela, or having
Speaker 3: too much of an influence, and it's right in our backyard,
Speaker 3: and we got to change that. I don't know why
Speaker 3: we couldn't, you know, do that as well as still
Speaker 3: be the leader of the free world, the leader that
Speaker 3: we're Reagan envisioned, you know, be that champion of democracies.
Speaker 3: But that's another clear part of this is that we
Speaker 3: are not It's you know, I have some quotes from
Speaker 3: it on how we're basically not going to focus on
Speaker 3: being that chiny city on the hill anymore. That it's
Speaker 3: going to be, you know, American prosperity as a foundation
Speaker 3: of American power. Our policies will prioritize economic returns of
Speaker 3: our citizens.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're all off for business is what it's saying.
Speaker 3: Foreign engagements must demonstrate clear financial benefits to the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, so that says, yeah.
Speaker 3: That's that's I mean, I'm not saying that we shouldn't
Speaker 3: look out for own financial interests, but it has to
Speaker 3: have a clear benefit or we're not going to take part.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But I feel like the overall national security strategy of
Speaker 1: the last forty years has been like American interests, right.
Speaker 3: Which American interests were believed to also include promoting democracy
Speaker 3: and civil rights. Yeah, one work growth with from the
Speaker 3: thing the United States will bozue peace through strengths and advantage,
Speaker 3: not ideology or moral aspiration. It's hard to believe somebody
Speaker 3: would put that last three words in a strategy for
Speaker 3: the our own country, not ideology or moral aspiration. So
Speaker 3: it's I mean, the issues that people have, and I
Speaker 3: think next we should talk about the europe situation. But
Speaker 3: is it clearly indicates profit over.
Speaker 5: Principles?
Speaker 3: I guess this is the way I put it, and
Speaker 3: I don't think the US has ever viewed themselves that way.
Speaker 3: I think we should put our interest first, right, because
Speaker 3: I mean, especially our government employees, they work for the people,
Speaker 3: but our interests should include and my I guess dated
Speaker 3: view of the world is the promotion of democracies to
Speaker 3: promotions and visual sibilis free markets. I mean, free markets
Speaker 3: used to be a core part of conservative political beliefs.
Speaker 3: It clearly states in this document that that's not true,
Speaker 3: at least for this administration. It is tariffs as a
Speaker 3: means of coercion, which is not which is antithetical to
Speaker 3: the idea of free markets.
Speaker 4: Say yeah, I mean, and then I don't know, I
Speaker 4: don't think you read that point it says about Africa.
Speaker 4: The African section says, for far too long, American policy
Speaker 4: and Africa is focused on providing and later on spreading
Speaker 4: liberal ideology. So there's that. And then the Latin America
Speaker 4: one says, they talk about encouraging governments and political parties
Speaker 4: that broadly align with ours, but we must not overlook
Speaker 4: governments with different outlooks, with whom.
Speaker 5: We have nonetheless shared interests and who want to work
Speaker 5: with us.
Speaker 4: That is a really broad and open door to saying
Speaker 4: we'll work with the worst of the worst, you know,
Speaker 4: as long as it gets us what we want. And
Speaker 4: people can come back and say, well, you guys are Cia.
Speaker 4: Isn't that what you do? You know you did all
Speaker 4: the time. Yeah, on a tactical level, Yeah, that's what
Speaker 4: we did.
Speaker 5: But we in.
Speaker 4: The furtherance of our democratic policies, you know so, and
Speaker 4: it was against those bad guys, you know so. Yes,
Speaker 4: it's not an excuse.
Speaker 3: Very good point, Jay, And I think it's clearly stating
Speaker 3: that they're not so concerned.
Speaker 5: I mean, one of the.
Speaker 3: Things that aid USAID was supposed to do is help
Speaker 3: develop the economies of other countries to be trading partners
Speaker 3: with the United States. It wasn't to keep them in
Speaker 3: a perpetual state of need, right, But now it's and
Speaker 3: that's all gone. Now it seems to be our policy
Speaker 3: in Africa is where is the rare earth minerals? And
Speaker 3: whoever is in charge of that is now our friend,
Speaker 3: and we'll work with them for the economic benefit. Now
Speaker 3: I get it. I mean, it's easy to sound like
Speaker 3: a complete ideologue and say, you know, but it's a balance,
Speaker 3: at least the way I view it. We want to
Speaker 3: develop countries to be trading partners so that we don't
Speaker 3: have complete imbalance economically. That's what causes the mass migration,
Speaker 3: which is the undercurrent of the entire national security strategy.
Speaker 3: In fact, this is the first one I can remember
Speaker 3: where its specific talks about, you know, specific policies of
Speaker 3: another country like Europe. So Europe is one of the
Speaker 3: next to the United States, the largest bastionions of democracy, right,
Speaker 3: and it specifically criticizes Europe challenges the very notion that
Speaker 3: we're in an alliance with them. It says things like,
Speaker 3: quote internal governance failures. It says European partners must confront
Speaker 3: the consequences of uncontrolled migration that's strained cohesion and fuel
Speaker 3: extremens And they actually use this term and I didn't
Speaker 3: write this down, but it's like cultural erature. Oh yeah, right,
Speaker 3: So it's criticizing Europe, not the countries the despots around
Speaker 3: the world. Again, we already talked about Russia, who has
Speaker 3: no legitimacy in its elected leadership and specifically invaded in democracy,
Speaker 3: has deliberately targeted civilians and stole twenty thousand children. So
Speaker 3: we're not going to criticize them, but we are going
Speaker 3: to criticize Europe for its lacks when we're calling lax
Speaker 3: migration policies. It also says the United States will not
Speaker 3: underwrite europe European security and definitely, well, the one thing
Speaker 3: I've mentioned this before. I mean, Europe should have woken
Speaker 3: up a long time ago that it needed to defend
Speaker 3: itself and not just rely on the US umbrella. But
Speaker 3: now it is crystal clear. It's crystal clear that they're
Speaker 3: actually challenging the future of NATO, so.
Speaker 5: Europe needs to.
Speaker 3: If I was European, I would start taking my security
Speaker 3: entirely in my own hands. I wouldn't rely on anything outside.
Speaker 3: I would develop a comprehensive, integrated European military and that
Speaker 3: would be as as strong as anybody else on the planet.
Speaker 3: That'd be my plan, and we can get into how
Speaker 3: that would affect Ukraine. But right now I would hope
Speaker 3: that European leaders are waking up to this. There's no
Speaker 3: more neutrality. I'd also throw that out, you know, my
Speaker 3: beloved homeland and social homeland being part of it is
Speaker 3: if you're in Europe now, you need to contribute to
Speaker 3: the overall defense of your coalition. You've got the example
Speaker 3: of why right next to you waging a war in Europe,
Speaker 3: which they've already said this week. Although they don't want to,
Speaker 3: they're perfectly ready to go to war with Europe, which,
Speaker 3: if you don't take that as another warning in addition
Speaker 3: to this national security strategy, you have your head in
Speaker 3: the sand.
Speaker 6: This time of year, the pace doesn't slow down, but
Speaker 6: you still need to. The calendar's packed, the weather's changing,
Speaker 6: and your body's reminding you that it's time to rest
Speaker 6: and reset. That's where ghost bed can help. It's a
Speaker 6: family run company founded by a team with over twenty
Speaker 6: years of mattress making expertise. They've spent decades perfecting how
Speaker 6: to build a bed that's durable, comfortable, and engineered to
Speaker 6: help you recover. Every Ghostbed mattress is made with premium materials,
Speaker 6: proven cooling technology in their exclusive pro Core layer, a
Speaker 6: targeted support system that reinforces the center of the mattress
Speaker 6: where your body is the heaviest. It helps to keep
Speaker 6: your spine aligned and your back supported so you wake
Speaker 6: up ready to take on what's next. In ghost beds,
Speaker 6: cooling materials don't just keep you from overheating, they help
Speaker 6: regulate your temperature year round. Each mattress comes with one
Speaker 6: hundred and one night sleep trial and a twenty to
Speaker 6: twenty five year warranty plus fast free shipping. Most orders
Speaker 6: arrive in two to five days, so better rest is
Speaker 6: just around the corner.
Speaker 2: Right now.
Speaker 6: During ghost beds Holiday Sale, you can get twenty five
Speaker 6: percent off site wide for a limited time. Just go
Speaker 6: to ghostbed dot com slash house and use the promo
Speaker 6: code house at checkout. That's ghostbed dot com slash house
Speaker 6: promo code house. Upgrade your sleep with ghost bed, the
Speaker 6: makers of the coolest beds in the world. Some exclusions
Speaker 6: apply see site for details. And thank you ghost bed
Speaker 6: for sponsoring the show. Please check out the link down
Speaker 6: the description and support our sponsor.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a wild place to be where you
Speaker 1: have European leaders doing damage control in terms of we're
Speaker 1: going to stand for democratic institutions and stuff like that,
Speaker 1: and America isn't. And whether whatever you believe it or not,
Speaker 1: like America's imperialists, whatever your view might be, the fact
Speaker 1: that and Europe's got a lot of problems like any
Speaker 1: other country, but they're democratic for the most part, right
Speaker 1: Like they are not China, they're not Russia, they are
Speaker 1: not Iran, which are fucking straight up authoritarian. Plus plus
Speaker 1: plus countries that are up to no fucking good. The
Speaker 1: only thing they give a shit about is their own regime.
Speaker 1: Survival has thrown a million plus people into this meat
Speaker 1: meat grinder in Ukraine, doesn't give a fuck about any
Speaker 1: of them. And it's like unbelievable that an American administration
Speaker 1: can come out and do something like this. I mean,
Speaker 1: the writing has been on the wall since they got in.
Speaker 1: Let's call it a space of spade like that February
Speaker 1: meeting in the Oval Office was.
Speaker 2: The launching point.
Speaker 1: But to actually put it in like hard writing, which
Speaker 1: is like this is our actual strategy is a fucking joke.
Speaker 1: And when you come out and the you know, Russian,
Speaker 1: the Russian government has publicly welcome the shift, saying the
Speaker 1: new NSS is largely consistent with Moscow's worldview. We should
Speaker 1: never be consistent with the Kremlin or Moscow's worldview. They're
Speaker 1: fucking lunatics. Vladimir Putin's a lunatic. That's why I called
Speaker 1: it love letter to Vladimir, because it's an absolute joke.
Speaker 1: And the fact is this, like all this NSS is
Speaker 1: saying is hey, guys, whoever you are, whether you're an authoritarian, whatever,
Speaker 1: we're open for business. So we don't give a shit
Speaker 1: what you guys do, how many people you starve, how
Speaker 1: many people you kill? We're open for business if it's
Speaker 1: in our interest in terms money wise, like we're all in.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if that speaks to whether this
Speaker 1: is like some light late stage mutant you know, mutated
Speaker 1: capitalism or what it is, because yeah, free markets, it's
Speaker 1: not free. It's it's who fucking controls shit and has
Speaker 1: the biggest guns, they can make the rules. There's nothing
Speaker 1: free about this at all.
Speaker 2: Make back to you. Sorry I blacked out, Just now
Speaker 2: I blacked out.
Speaker 3: So just a direct comparison. I you know, this is
Speaker 3: a quote from the twenty seventeen Russia's described as a
Speaker 3: revisionist power seeking to undermine the US and its allies,
Speaker 3: and is explicitly labeled as an adversary. I asked our
Speaker 3: cyble overlords, I e. AI, how was Russia categorized in
Speaker 3: the twenty twenty five NSS, and its response is Russia
Speaker 3: is no longer identified as an adversary rival or a
Speaker 3: threat category at all. That's what AI when it read it,
Speaker 3: So that you know, do that at your own peril, right,
Speaker 3: Russia would love for the US not to be viewed
Speaker 3: as even an adversary anymore. Yet they're going to do
Speaker 3: whatever they can to undermine us all around the world.
Speaker 3: If you go in ben Tonnibal friend of mine, super smart,
Speaker 3: I used to be at RAND he did a thing.
Speaker 3: One of his posts talks about all of the terms
Speaker 3: used against Russia in the twenty seventeen one and it
Speaker 3: is what I think most people would think we view Russia.
Speaker 3: None of it's in there this time. It is a
Speaker 3: complete shift. So that has to have some consequence. I
Speaker 3: mean Ukraine should read that and view that they need
Speaker 3: to basically get Europe more, not only on their side,
Speaker 3: I think they're obviously on their side, but they need
Speaker 3: to be their main advocate. Like there. If we're gonna
Speaker 3: just send Special Envoy Witkoff with a pro Russia dictated
Speaker 3: peace plan to go talk to the people who dictated it,
Speaker 3: it's not gonna amount to anything. It's not going to
Speaker 3: amount to any ceasefire. It's just a delay and a
Speaker 3: reason to actually put consequences. So we're not gonna do
Speaker 3: the secondary sanction bill that has overwhelming support in the Senate.
Speaker 3: We're not going to push for releasing the over four
Speaker 3: hundred billion dollars worth of frozen Russian asset so Ukraine
Speaker 3: can defend itself. We're not doing these things because Russia
Speaker 3: agrees to have a meeting next month and then the
Speaker 3: next month and the next month, even though and they're
Speaker 3: in shockingly and not shockingly. Yes, the Russian advances are
Speaker 3: incremental right now in Ukraine, but the Institute for the
Speaker 3: Study of War just highlighted that they took more territory
Speaker 3: in the last four weeks than they did in the
Speaker 3: previous four.
Speaker 1: Weeks, almost two hundred and fifty square miles right exactly.
Speaker 2: Was Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the other thing that's attached to this, the consequences
Speaker 3: of this security strategy is when is Europe going to
Speaker 3: start talking about where's our red line, like a real
Speaker 3: red line, like are we going to allow them to
Speaker 3: take keep I'm not saying they're going to I think
Speaker 3: some of the it's overstated how much. But from Russian perspective,
Speaker 3: I mean from the European's perspective, when would they be willing,
Speaker 3: if they will be willing to deploy forces to stop
Speaker 3: and advance that consumes Ukraine. And again, I'm not saying
Speaker 3: it's going to happen, but you got to talk about
Speaker 3: this now, and you gotta start sending clear messages that
Speaker 3: if you can't come to an agreement. If not, in
Speaker 3: say hypothetically, Russia takes Ukraine for the rest of history,
Speaker 3: they will ask RiPP did all these European leaders do
Speaker 3: as they clutched their pearls and twiddled their fingers as
Speaker 3: Russia kept taking incrementally over parts of Ukraine until it
Speaker 3: was too late. And then what if Russia immediately turns
Speaker 3: and goes after.
Speaker 7: Moltova or another or or NATO country. Yeah, we're just
Speaker 7: gonna clutch our pearls and twiddle our fingers for that.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll bet money that the US wouldn't do
Speaker 1: shit to be on at this point. I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: completely honest. I mean, that's the signal that's coming out
Speaker 1: of the administration. If they went and took over Estonia,
Speaker 1: which is probably not that difficult to do. It's a
Speaker 1: tiny country, and God bless them like they're they fucking
Speaker 1: hate the Russians more than most If they what what
Speaker 1: we do? Would we actually fucking step Well, I don't
Speaker 1: even know Europe would sure, but like would we I
Speaker 1: doubt it?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, if you view the strategy as definitive
Speaker 3: on the topic, and I would point out we write
Speaker 3: strategies sometimes and don't do it like we're always talking
Speaker 3: about pivoting for the Middle.
Speaker 5: Age, for example.
Speaker 3: It's like it's like a perpetual thing that people in
Speaker 3: DC talk about. And then I mean, look, look, look
Speaker 3: how engaged we are in the Middle East right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but anyway, if.
Speaker 3: This is definitive, then the answer to your question would
Speaker 3: be Europe needs to do it. It is clearly yeah,
Speaker 3: it's here's some other quotes please, from when I already
Speaker 3: read that one.
Speaker 1: I also think that while you get that, like Europe
Speaker 1: really needs to decouple, and like I know they have
Speaker 1: a military industrial base, they should really decouple from the
Speaker 1: American one and be as self sufficient as humanly possible.
Speaker 1: I know they do have a really solid one, but
Speaker 1: you know, our stuff is kind of their back stop too,
Speaker 1: you know, like from engines to the F thirty five
Speaker 1: to everything.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't trust.
Speaker 1: America as an ally gonna be completely if I'm a
Speaker 1: European country. If I'm Poland, I'm fucking sketched to shit
Speaker 1: out with with what's going on with America, you know,
Speaker 1: like I really am.
Speaker 2: It's or any any European country. It's like, we can't
Speaker 2: trust these guys.
Speaker 1: And it's it's a funny thing when because everyone's tiptoeing
Speaker 1: around Trump and everyone's trying to get like a great
Speaker 1: meeting with Trump. So like the headlines are good the
Speaker 1: next couple of days, but what is the substantive change
Speaker 1: that happens after a quote unquote good meeting. Nothing fucking happens.
Speaker 1: Everything stays the same, And now it's in black and
Speaker 1: white for europe to see it that they're not us
Speaker 1: is not coming to their backs, and it's a fucking joke,
Speaker 1: to be honest. It's like, what the fuck we spending
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars a year for in defense? What give
Speaker 1: me some free healthcare if that's the case. If this
Speaker 1: is the deal, let's all get free healthcare and not
Speaker 1: spend a trillion on defense. If we're not gonna fight
Speaker 1: for or even support uh tyrants invading democratically a democrat democracy.
Speaker 1: And Ukraine might be corrupt, and I get it, like
Speaker 1: every other country. We can look in the mirror and
Speaker 1: look at America.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we got a lot of corruption going on the imagery.
Speaker 1: Right, But the fact is Lensky was there's a it's
Speaker 1: a democracy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was elected leader, and he's actually more popular
Speaker 3: than it ever was, right, So that'sn't even matter. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's it's not it's I mean, he was elected leader.
Speaker 3: Their constitution says they can't have an election in the
Speaker 3: middle of an invasion.
Speaker 1: Right, that makes plus twenty percent of their country's gone. Right,
Speaker 1: Who does anyone vote there? How does that work?
Speaker 2: Like? What are the justs?
Speaker 3: And and so we're obsessed about whether Zelenski gets another
Speaker 3: democratic election and gets re elected when Vladimir Putin hasn't
Speaker 3: been elected in how many years?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 2: I mean it's I mean, this is a clear right
Speaker 2: and wrong.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: Just pointing out there's some corruption apparently that continues in
Speaker 3: Ukraine is both accurate and irrelevant. I mean, we should
Speaker 3: do everything we can to make sure the money we
Speaker 3: provide gets used for the purposes. But there's corruption in
Speaker 3: the United States. There's Congress people that are both caught, convicted,
Speaker 3: and pardoned all and you know, a matter of a
Speaker 3: few years, and we just kind of look the other way.
Speaker 3: That has nothing to do with I think. I think
Speaker 3: in the past the United States has viewed itself as
Speaker 3: that beacon of democracy and leader of the free world.
Speaker 3: If you don't want to be the leader of the
Speaker 3: free world, then it's going to be less free in
Speaker 3: my estimation, sure, and it's going to leave a vacuum
Speaker 3: that might not be created by the next champion of
Speaker 3: freedom and democracy. It might just be overcome by China,
Speaker 3: who says great, They're they're detaching from the world. They're
Speaker 3: focused on the Western hemisphere. We're going to dominate not
Speaker 3: only the Indo Pacific, but Africa, uh and the Middle East,
Speaker 3: and in Russia says great, we'll take Europe and we're
Speaker 3: over here focused on on the Western hemisphere. Again, I
Speaker 3: think we should probably be paying more attention to the
Speaker 3: Western hemisphere. It is in our backyard. But I don't
Speaker 3: think we were coming at it as as benevolent with
Speaker 3: benevolent intentions. I think we're coming at it to dominate,
Speaker 3: right right, right, Yeah, you know it's you know, I
Speaker 3: call it hemispheric fortification, is what it sounds like.
Speaker 2: They want to.
Speaker 3: Basically force countries to deal with migration. I'm okay with that,
Speaker 3: but it's going to be done with military because a
Speaker 3: national defense strategy they just created. I think a Western
Speaker 3: hemisphere section of the US Army. Right, So there it
Speaker 3: all adjusts. Everything adjusts based on the national strategy, the
Speaker 3: defense strategy, the military strategy, and of course I've always
Speaker 3: added advocated for having a an appendix to the defense
Speaker 3: strategy that's for intelligence, right, especially covert stuff. But either way,
Speaker 3: it's all going to adjust based on the strategy. That's
Speaker 3: how it works. So if this is actually carried out,
Speaker 3: were gonna we're gonna be getting again, uh hemispheric fortification.
Speaker 3: We're gonna get be going from a more alliance based
Speaker 3: to a more transactional based world. And we're gonna get
Speaker 3: away from uh promoting uh democracies, civil rights, et cetera,
Speaker 3: and more just totally geared toward economic self interest of
Speaker 3: the country. And that's probably gonna be for corporations, right,
Speaker 3: the US corporations. I mean, it's I don't I don't
Speaker 3: know how necessarily the US taxpayer.
Speaker 1: You think it's trickling down to like the middle class, yeah,
Speaker 1: bull ship gota, Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 4: Sorry, No, I'm just saying they they're I mean, they're
Speaker 4: not stupid. They throw buzzwords into these into the NSS
Speaker 4: like prosperity. You know, this is about prosperity, but who
Speaker 4: is that prosper prosperous for who? You know, the cronies
Speaker 4: or exactly exactly, but they know along with they also
Speaker 4: threw in that beloved buzzword d I in there that
Speaker 4: this is for, you know, to root out DEI. Somebody
Speaker 4: tell me, and I'm guaranteeing I'm going to get a
Speaker 4: text or a message or something. Well, actually tell me
Speaker 4: where DEI has has been a burden on national security.
Speaker 4: It's give me one instance where it has. But they
Speaker 4: know if they throw these these buzzwords in there, you know,
Speaker 4: prosperity on the positive side and DEI on the negative side,
Speaker 4: it's gonna number one, it's gonna get people rowed back up.
Speaker 4: And number two, there are people who already support them.
Speaker 4: It's going to fortify them. See, this is why he
Speaker 4: needs to do this. And going back to what Mickey
Speaker 4: were saying about Russia and China, in the long run,
Speaker 4: they can afford to abandon the Western hemisphere. They're whatever
Speaker 4: they're doing in South America, they can afford to you know, hey,
Speaker 4: not a problem. You know, America, We're out of here
Speaker 4: as long as you leave us alone in Europe to
Speaker 4: do what we want and in the Pacific, you know,
Speaker 4: to do what we want, they can afford it in
Speaker 4: the long run.
Speaker 2: So that's a huge trade point. That's a massive point.
Speaker 2: Who wouldn't take that right, like exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a very good point. People should be looking
Speaker 3: at that very point, Jake, because I haven't heard it made,
Speaker 3: but this could be an offer to like basically just
Speaker 3: to bide up the world.
Speaker 5: Yep. Absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 4: And then as far as Europe is concerned, you know,
Speaker 4: we we just had an incident with them, you know
Speaker 4: where they certain countries said we're going to stop sharing
Speaker 4: intel with you as far as visa vise or visa
Speaker 4: v South America and Central America concern because we don't
Speaker 4: agree with what you're doing. Well, now let's shift that
Speaker 4: to Europe. If we cut them off, you know, we
Speaker 4: still have US citizens that live there, who go vacation there.
Speaker 4: You know, we still have embassies there, things like that.
Speaker 4: So what says that they get somebody gets wind of
Speaker 4: an impending terror attack or something like that and they
Speaker 4: decide screw them. You know, they're not you know, US
Speaker 4: isn't helping us. So we might hold off on this
Speaker 4: for a little bit until we know for sure it's
Speaker 4: going to be an attack, you know. So the ripple effect,
Speaker 4: the butterfly effect of this is going to be far reaching.
Speaker 2: It is, it is.
Speaker 3: I think we're gonna talking about this for a long time,
Speaker 3: especially if we see it play out in policy. Yep,
Speaker 3: Like I mean to go to have this big of
Speaker 3: a shift in over any president right over the last
Speaker 3: since nineteen forty seven. Well, like for example, European Europe
Speaker 3: was a core partner, like the core partner with US
Speaker 3: on security matters since nineteen forty seven. Right, So this
Speaker 3: is a complete departure. So if it's a complete departure,
Speaker 3: that tells me they intend to do it, right, what's
Speaker 3: the point of lighting like a very controversial, totally changed
Speaker 3: perspective even from your first administration, and then not do it.
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Right, So yeah, I think it's happening totally, Mick. What's
Speaker 1: what do you call it? Cultural erasure? That's happening, right,
Speaker 1: That's what they mentioned in the NSS in terms of
Speaker 1: like migration from into European countries and our country. Yeah,
Speaker 1: why don't we just call it what it is and
Speaker 1: call it white supremacy, bro, That's what the fuck it is.
Speaker 1: Let's be real, like, oh, they're not Western, They're not
Speaker 1: Western European white people that are coming into these countries. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the only fucking reason America is so prosperous because of immigration.
Speaker 1: Let's call a spade a fucking spade here. The reason
Speaker 1: why we're so we are so popular and have dominated
Speaker 1: the world the last eighty years is because of our immigration.
Speaker 1: I'm a child of an immigrant. My dad came from
Speaker 1: Greece when he was nine. It's what, because I'm fucking white,
Speaker 1: I look white coated, It's all good. A brown guy
Speaker 1: from fucking Mexico's no bueno, Like this is a joke.
Speaker 3: I mean, I mean that's a total Sorry, I haven't
Speaker 3: getting about coming back on to talk about this on
Speaker 3: the news and stuff. Yeah, I don't know anybody out
Speaker 3: there has a different definition of cultural erasure.
Speaker 5: Yeah exactly.
Speaker 3: I mean you're talking about a culture. You're talking about
Speaker 3: European culture. People can have you know, if European culture
Speaker 3: is democracy based on individual civil liberties, human rights, freedom
Speaker 3: or religion all that stuff. Right, you can come from
Speaker 3: anywhere be part.
Speaker 2: Of that culture.
Speaker 3: Right, Look at that, Look at Amica. Right, there is
Speaker 3: no skin tone requirement.
Speaker 2: For that.
Speaker 3: So but then they're equating migration, so people coming in
Speaker 3: from other places to the erasure. So I mean over
Speaker 3: to somebody else to explain that they're not talking about
Speaker 3: a racial group, right.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, it's it's just incredible how this is just
Speaker 1: plain as day in our faces in an official US
Speaker 1: government document that is super important, right, the National Security Strategy?
Speaker 2: I mean, what what are we doing, bro? What do
Speaker 2: we do? Like honestly, it's an absolute joke.
Speaker 3: And what is it going to mean? What is it
Speaker 3: going to mean for actually where the US will push
Speaker 3: its force around the world?
Speaker 5: Does I mean?
Speaker 3: Right now? Obviously Europe should be just where economic interest
Speaker 3: in or that means you know, very limited places in
Speaker 3: Africa and largely working with people who are dictators. It's Europe,
Speaker 3: You're on your own. It's Middle East, even though we
Speaker 3: just made a lot of commitments, it's kind of like
Speaker 3: stabilize yourself. There's also a lot of talk, you know,
Speaker 3: I do in Middle Eastern media, there's a lot to
Speaker 3: talk about a shift from Israel being what was the
Speaker 3: term they used, exceptional? That wasn't a term to a
Speaker 3: partner who needs to deal with its own and stuff.
Speaker 3: I'm kind of I'm kind of mischaracterizing the way it
Speaker 3: was turned, but it downgrades Israel is not like the
Speaker 3: pre eminent relationship with the United Sate now just a
Speaker 3: partner with requirements, right, So that's going to send chalk
Speaker 3: waves in Israel if they read it that way. And
Speaker 3: the Arab countries that were really tight with we were like, oh,
Speaker 3: I thought we were doing all these mutual defense agreements
Speaker 3: and having you guys stage your forces in the Middle
Speaker 3: East for a reason, you know, like lu Daid for example,
Speaker 3: and there's Bahrain in the Fifth Leet. I don't know,
Speaker 3: does that mean we're moving them out? Will that stabilize
Speaker 3: the region or will it just they'll become an arms
Speaker 3: race well or on rebuild its strength.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 3: So there's consequences.
Speaker 4: I know this is the Middle East, But wasn't there
Speaker 4: maybe you sent it a story about US troops in Romania.
Speaker 5: Got pulled out.
Speaker 4: I think yeah, And there was no no announcement, It
Speaker 4: just happened.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, family members that were there who were being
Speaker 3: told their last last ones to deploy, right, So you're
Speaker 3: already seeing the consequences of the strategy. And again, you
Speaker 3: know I and I half seen. I talked to a
Speaker 3: lot of European national security types. They are standard. They
Speaker 3: are like like Germany's society, They're gonna have the baddest
Speaker 3: army in the best I mean in Germany, I mean
Speaker 3: in Europe. Right, Poland's kicking button. You're seeing a lot
Speaker 3: of money go into the military. It's going to take
Speaker 3: a little while. And again they shouldn't have been in
Speaker 3: this situation. They shouldn't have just said, you know, we
Speaker 3: got you know, a big brother here, so we're just
Speaker 3: gonna go ahead and spend money on ourselves and let
Speaker 3: them cover our defense for the last four decades. But
Speaker 3: they are doing it, and that's good, and I need
Speaker 3: to do it, and they need to just completely take
Speaker 3: responsibility for their own security and for the advocacy of
Speaker 3: our Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, if Europe's not ringing alarm bell specifically
Speaker 1: defense economics wise, where they're just like, let's get we
Speaker 1: cannot count on America as a defense partner really, from
Speaker 1: in terms of soldiers and alliances to all the way
Speaker 1: down to the nuts and bolts literal they're correct.
Speaker 3: It specifically says that they because of migration, that European
Speaker 3: countries are going to become so non European that it
Speaker 3: challenges our belief in their ability to be in NATO.
Speaker 2: It's set. Why don't they just why don't they just
Speaker 2: goofstep and see Kyle real quick? Why do they do that?
Speaker 3: Google that on specific I'll just read. It's thirty three
Speaker 3: pages and a lot of stuff people don't read because
Speaker 3: it's just like a thousand pages of stuff. This is
Speaker 3: not this is not you know, complicated. You could read
Speaker 3: it in a half an hour. So there's that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great, I was just feeling really really good about
Speaker 1: what's going on here in the leadership.
Speaker 3: Conversations about this. I mean, if there's people that want
Speaker 3: to defend it, you know, I obviously think we should
Speaker 3: control migration and it should be on our UH. I
Speaker 3: do think you know, it talks about having the strongest military.
Speaker 3: Of course, yes, I agree with that. Every I think
Speaker 3: every strategy said that. But I mean people that want
Speaker 3: to support dumping Europe in favor of Russia, go ahead,
Speaker 3: do it, jump on TV.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: I mean I talked to plenty of Republicans that are
Speaker 3: elected leaders. None of remember the stuff that's in this
Speaker 3: UH strategy.
Speaker 1: So I mean you even said it to a lot
Speaker 1: of the people that were authors of this strategy probably
Speaker 1: seven eight, nine months ago, were not not in favor
Speaker 1: or not backing what is being said and what they
Speaker 1: wrote in the strategy. I think it's the same thing
Speaker 1: applies for most politicians, where they move away and back
Speaker 1: away from their ideology and what they really believe in
Speaker 1: because it helps them professionally. Like bottom line, we're all human,
Speaker 1: I get it, We all like the next wrong on
Speaker 1: the ladder. But at some point the rubbers got to
Speaker 1: meet the road and you got to either be like,
Speaker 1: am I gonna be a fucking shill?
Speaker 2: Or am I going to stand up for what I
Speaker 2: believe in?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 3: And if you're not standing up for what you believe in,
Speaker 3: what's the point? Yeah, you might just be staying business.
Speaker 2: And right scumbag businessman, yeah, or be a good businessman.
Speaker 3: To be saying like it's I you're you're not going
Speaker 3: to Congress to promote your ideas?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Right, If you're not gonna do that, what's the point.
Speaker 3: I mean, you're universally disliked politicians are, uh, and you know,
Speaker 3: for the most part, they're not doing anything. They've become
Speaker 3: just a punditry and that's not the intent. It is
Speaker 3: the first branch of government, meaning that it's ourka one right.
Speaker 3: So yes, and by the way, if you haven't seen
Speaker 3: The American Revolution by Ken Burns, please do. I'll plug
Speaker 3: it every time until I think everybody that listens to
Speaker 3: us has watched it.
Speaker 5: It's excellent.
Speaker 3: But it really does go through how we developed our
Speaker 3: system of governance and the legislature, who during the Revolutionary
Speaker 3: War was essentially running the show, right because there was
Speaker 3: no president. The Continental Congress was running the show through
Speaker 3: its General Washington, right, So they're supposed to have a
Speaker 3: lot more say in everything, especially in matters of war
Speaker 3: and peace.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, they are applicating their responsibility completely.
Speaker 3: And I'm part of this group called the Vaninburgh Coalition,
Speaker 3: which is it's nonpartisan. But the whole point it comes
Speaker 3: from a quote from Senator Vandenburg that says politics is
Speaker 3: supposed to stop at the water's hedge, right, So we
Speaker 3: should have a uniform like national strategy that incorporates, you know,
Speaker 3: both sides of the political spectrum, because the other thing
Speaker 3: that could happen here is such such a deviation that
Speaker 3: it lasts for three years and then somebody else comes
Speaker 3: in whether it's a more traditional Reagan type Republican or Democrat,
Speaker 3: and that's all gone. So everything that we headed down
Speaker 3: one direction, whether you agreed with the direction or not,
Speaker 3: is just going to do the drastic back and forth.
Speaker 3: The way to try to stop that is to have
Speaker 3: that dialogue potentially in the Foreign Relations committees in the
Speaker 3: House and Senate, with the White House to talk about,
Speaker 3: you know, where we should go as a nation, so
Speaker 3: we have a long term projected strategy that we can
Speaker 3: actually compete with strategies of China, etc. Who have a
Speaker 3: very long view. We don't really have that luxury, but
Speaker 3: we are making it such that this could be you know,
Speaker 3: four years from now. Nobody's talking about Monroe two point zero.
Speaker 5: Nobody.
Speaker 1: Also, I feel like what would help, probably not hurt,
Speaker 1: is gutting the National Security Council. I feel like that's
Speaker 1: probably a move that would have help find this sync
Speaker 1: policy when it comes to specific areas of the world.
Speaker 3: That's where it's supposed to be developed. The National NSC,
Speaker 3: National Council, and then it comes down and then we
Speaker 3: we at the Pentagon and turn it into defense strategy
Speaker 3: and the military right, so we'll see within as this
Speaker 3: comes down, it might already be happening. We'll start seeing
Speaker 3: force redeployments, maybe maybe closing some diplomatic posts. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's it's it's a national strategy, so everybody should adjust
Speaker 3: to it. So if we say we don't care about
Speaker 3: X region, then we should have less diplomatic missions there,
Speaker 3: less personnel in those missions, less military deployments there, potentially
Speaker 3: collect less intelligence there. Right, it's all based on the
Speaker 3: national strategy.
Speaker 1: Wild Yeah, I can see totally, like embassies closing in
Speaker 1: and around Europe. Imagine you know, like all those big
Speaker 1: money donors who you know, who get the ambassadorships in
Speaker 1: the cush places.
Speaker 2: You're gonna have to look for some other work.
Speaker 1: But that probably just becomes, you know, secretary of defense
Speaker 1: or something, you know, get a bigger job. So I'm
Speaker 1: being spicy today, guys. I'm sorry, because this national security
Speaker 1: strives a fucking joke. It's real clear, especially when it
Speaker 1: comes to Russia, like any Ukraine, what's going on.
Speaker 2: It's like.
Speaker 1: Not only I mean, I don't understand why we count
Speaker 1: out everything Russia says and we copy and paste their
Speaker 1: fucking peace plan.
Speaker 2: The fact that we're not outwardly.
Speaker 1: And openly fucking with them in any possible way we can,
Speaker 1: and by whether it's intelligence sharing, weapons, tomahawks. We went
Speaker 1: from Zelenski's getting tomahawks in August to now like he
Speaker 1: had a deadline, another bullshit deadline that he wasn't gonna
Speaker 1: get any intelligence sharing or anything to make this bullshit
Speaker 1: peace deal by Thanksgiving.
Speaker 2: This is as clear as day.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if you're right, left center, it doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: like what's going on with Russia. Putin is a dictator,
Speaker 1: he is invading a democratic country. This should be easy, guys.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know, sending the wrong message, but
Speaker 3: it's definitely in line with the national security strategy that
Speaker 3: came out on Thursday night.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 1: So we'll obviously keep an eye on this. I mean,
Speaker 1: everything else is skill going on. We're still you know,
Speaker 1: blowing people up in the Caribbean, which is great and
Speaker 1: I in my I'm going all in in my opinion,
Speaker 1: completely illegal. Uh So we're still in a kind of
Speaker 1: holding powder. When it comes to like strikes on Venezuela
Speaker 1: inside of Venezuela, we'll see what happens there. Obviously, we're
Speaker 1: monitoring this as it comes so we'll keep you guys updated.
Speaker 1: Things are still fucked up around the world, so don't worry.
Speaker 1: We'll keep an eye on it. Is anything else you
Speaker 1: guys want to hit on.
Speaker 3: Well, I do think you know, we're gonna have to
Speaker 3: see what happens in Venezuela because you can't just keep
Speaker 3: this level of military capacity in the Caribbean.
Speaker 5: Yeah, costs a lot, so is it going.
Speaker 3: It's clearly aimed towards regime change, right, So you don't
Speaker 3: need the level of firepower to do the drug interdiction.
Speaker 3: So we're gonna have to see what comes from it.
Speaker 3: I mean that's you know, we've seen the reports on
Speaker 3: the negotiations. I assume my old organizations. Yeah, he's doing that.
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I'm trying to get him, believe right,
Speaker 3: that would be great. It'd be great for Venezuela. But
Speaker 3: who's an come next?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: Yeah, didn't he offer to leave if he would get
Speaker 1: like him in one hundred of his associates amnesty and
Speaker 1: stuff like that, and then put in power his vice
Speaker 1: president until elections were held and we said no to that. Frankly,
Speaker 1: I don't give a fuck who runs venezuel I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be completely honest, guys. I think we're just cherry picking
Speaker 1: a conflict to have and maybe just to highlight and
Speaker 1: push the national security strategy. Uh, I'm gonna be completely
Speaker 1: honest because we're not interdicting many fucking drugs.
Speaker 2: Let's be honest.
Speaker 1: I can get cocaine really easy around here. So who
Speaker 1: will we fucking there's no ventanyl coming from Venezuela, so.
Speaker 3: Comes from Mexico.
Speaker 1: And like you said, like, is this just a regime change?
Speaker 1: There's no actual Like what are we doing here? This
Speaker 1: is the reason why we're doing X, Y, and z.
Speaker 3: We must be seeing the implementation of the Western Hemisphere
Speaker 3: part of the national security strategy before the strategy actually
Speaker 3: came out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, this is it.
Speaker 5: So who's next?
Speaker 3: Who's who? Who else are we talking?
Speaker 2: We're talking about Columbia, apparently Colombia and Mexico.
Speaker 1: Right, Mexico, who's a huge trading partner. You know, when
Speaker 1: we talk about free markets and stuff, there's a reason
Speaker 1: why things are relatively inexpensive. Relatively inexpensive is because a
Speaker 1: lot of the stuff and manufacturing happens in Mexico. Right,
Speaker 1: they are a legitimate partner and I don't know if
Speaker 1: tearing up their area in terms of a war is
Speaker 1: really good for their economy. And what will that do
Speaker 1: with my firm migration in terms of people from Mexico
Speaker 1: coming to the America. I don't I'm not an expert,
Speaker 1: but I feel like it would probably bump it up
Speaker 1: pretty pretty high. And let's not forget people from South
Speaker 1: and in Central America are the people who run this
Speaker 1: fucking economy. They're the backbone of it. Sorry, I'm done,
Speaker 1: I'm off, I'm off, I'm off. My lefty, my lefty pulpsh.
Speaker 1: All right, as usual a pleasure. I didn't expect to
Speaker 1: get so worked up, but mick Wick was a little
Speaker 1: worked up, so he got me going. I was feeling
Speaker 1: mixed vibes and I was like, all right, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: push it to fuck it. It's ridiculous. This is your life,
Speaker 1: life Sport, Jason too, right, Andy Millburn, everybody who's on
Speaker 1: this show, right, this is you guys serve for decades.
Speaker 1: Not because you guys want to see American power projected
Speaker 1: everywhere and everything like that. It's because we represent democracy,
Speaker 1: like it or not, we do. I don't give a
Speaker 1: shit about the tankies out there who think we're imperialists
Speaker 1: all this bullshit. When a dictator invades a democratic country,
Speaker 1: it's real easy, what what what side you need to
Speaker 1: stand on? And the fact that the United States administration
Speaker 1: is not doing that is a fucking joke and it's
Speaker 1: a disappointment. And it's on American Frankly.
Speaker 4: On social media it said American men and women died
Speaker 4: fighting communism since the end of World War Two and
Speaker 4: now we're just we're just basically spitting in the face
Speaker 4: of those people that lost their lives.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I remember Russia was a bad guy as of
Speaker 3: like Wednesday, right, Yeah, Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's amazing how they there was nothing even said about
Speaker 1: Russia in the NSS.
Speaker 3: Oh it's in there, but it's it's like, we've got
Speaker 3: to work to stabilize the region. And yeah, but it's
Speaker 3: it's not now there's an adversary. It's when they're clearly
Speaker 3: an adversary, I mean almost jumping up and down, hold
Speaker 3: up the hands, and I want to be an adversary
Speaker 3: the United States. They literally I think sometimes you say,
Speaker 3: what does the United States wants to do in this region? Okay,
Speaker 3: let's do the opposite.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's literally just to be the villain for us.
Speaker 3: And then we got no, you're not, you're not.
Speaker 1: And like they fucking went and zapped a bunch of
Speaker 1: our diplomats and officers, Mark p being one of them. Right,
Speaker 1: Like they're outwardly and offensively going after our people. It's
Speaker 1: time for us to start doing that to them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we got a peepeewack. They got to get peep whack
Speaker 1: for lack of a better term. I know that's not high,
Speaker 1: you know, hi, bro, I think it is. Yeah, all right.
Speaker 5: I think said sorry, I think said this a while back.
Speaker 4: It's not like if we decide we're gonna go all
Speaker 4: in with Russia and you know, we're gonna make peace
Speaker 4: of Russion, everything is great with Russia, that they're all
Speaker 4: of a sudden gonna say, okay, we're gonna match that,
Speaker 4: you know, one for one.
Speaker 5: No, they're gonna.
Speaker 4: Take that and be like you idiots and then established
Speaker 4: right in the back and go do what it was
Speaker 4: it they were doing anyway.
Speaker 5: Yep.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, that's what they've proven over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, guys, we'll keep an eye on as always.
Speaker 1: Check out Mixed Podcast, The Pub and the Porch applied
Speaker 1: stosis and not links and description.
Speaker 2: Jason's links are into description.
Speaker 1: Andy Millburn to and support the show Patreon, dot com,
Speaker 1: slash the Teamhouse. You get eyes On, Jill Pocks and
Speaker 1: the Teamhouse ad free early. You can ask us questions
Speaker 1: and you can support the show.
Speaker 2: So as always, guys, a pleasure, Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thanks Jentz, Take care everybody.
Speaker 6: Hey, guys, I want to tell all of you today
Speaker 6: about a new newsletter that we're launching that encompasses both
Speaker 6: the team House podcast, the eyes On podcast, and the
Speaker 6: high Side News outlet which I run with Sean Naylor.
Speaker 6: The newsletter is gonna be once a week. It's going
Speaker 6: to come into your inbox and you're gonna get the
Speaker 6: most current podcasts on eyes On and the Teamhouse and
Speaker 6: whatever's topical or current on the high Side. So it's
Speaker 6: another way for us to get the information out to
Speaker 6: you as social media algorithms are pretty iffy and you
Speaker 6: never really know what you're gonna get. So this is
Speaker 6: a once a week email. It'll slide into your inbox
Speaker 6: and it will have you know the greatest hits of
Speaker 6: that week.
Speaker 5: It's really good man.
Speaker 6: Checking it out. The website for it is Teamhouse Podcast
Speaker 6: dot kit dot com, slash Join, Teamhouse Podcast dot kit
Speaker 6: dot com slash Join. Uh, you go there and you
Speaker 6: enter into your email list or you enter your email
Speaker 6: into the little thing on the website and you're good
Speaker 6: to go.
Speaker 2: And that'll be it.
Speaker 6: So we really appreciate your support and I hope you'll
Speaker 6: consider signing up.
Speaker 2: Where's the link?
Speaker 6: The link will also be down the description if you're
Speaker 6: looking for it. There, and that's Teamhouse Podcast, dot Kit,
Speaker 6: k I, t Kilo India, Tango dot com backslash Join