Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of iiz on. We
Speaker 1: got the full crew here today. We've got Andy Milburn,
Speaker 1: Mick Molroy, Jason Lyons, and myself. A lot happening happened
Speaker 1: over the weekend. The big news, obviously is Trump and
Speaker 1: Putin's summit in Alaska. Lasted about three hours, big show
Speaker 1: of uh, you know, a big pomp and circumstance with
Speaker 1: the B two and what they have thirty five flying
Speaker 1: over like that means anything, Red carpet two for Putin,
Speaker 1: like he's some kind of fucking great guy. I mean,
Speaker 1: we could we could pick apart the specifics all day
Speaker 1: long and this could be a four hour podcast. But
Speaker 1: they talked for three hours. It was three on three.
Speaker 1: Initially it was supposed to be one on one, Thank
Speaker 1: god it wasn't. But it was three on three. Uh,
Speaker 1: wake Coff Rubio and President Trump with Putin, Lavorov and
Speaker 1: what's poot guy's name? His aid?
Speaker 2: Uh you already said lav the other guy's name.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's got an aid like an economic adviser. I
Speaker 1: can't remember his name. Anyway, it was the three. It
Speaker 1: was three Russians versus Yeah, it lasted about three hours.
Speaker 1: There's supposed to be a press conference afterwards. There they
Speaker 1: were just statements. It seemed like poop took up most
Speaker 1: of the air in the room. They took no questions,
Speaker 1: and then there was supposed to be a working lunch.
Speaker 1: I think prior to the press conference they moved the
Speaker 1: press conference up. The working lunch never happened. Everybody jumped
Speaker 1: on their jets and went home. What came out of
Speaker 1: it was basically, instead of talking about a ceasefire, they
Speaker 1: want an actual peace deal. Uh not. Many details have
Speaker 1: been coming out slightly some over the weekend. Have I
Speaker 1: saw Wick, Cough and Rubio, they were on the Sunday shows.
Speaker 1: We're expecting the Lenskin, a lot of European leaders to
Speaker 1: meet in d C in the White House tomorrow. What
Speaker 1: do you guys tracking with this? What are your thoughts
Speaker 1: on this? You guys can want to wrestle for hogles first.
Speaker 3: Thank you Gore.
Speaker 2: So to put to look at it balanced right, the
Speaker 2: positive and the negative. I don't know what you want
Speaker 2: to start with, but I'll start with this. Going into
Speaker 2: this negotiation, these fire was the objective. It was clear
Speaker 2: President said it, and he also said they would be
Speaker 2: significant consequences if there wasn't, and there wasn't, right, So
Speaker 2: that was disappointing. Obviously, I was covering it all day
Speaker 2: for ABC, or at least analyzing it. We really wanted
Speaker 2: to see him come out of there and say that
Speaker 2: there was a ceasefire because it's you know, the concern
Speaker 2: is that Russia is just going to use these talks
Speaker 2: to look like they're actually heading towards some kind of
Speaker 2: into the conflict and the negotiated element, but essentially just
Speaker 2: keep doing what they're doing, which is incrementally taking territory
Speaker 2: from Ukraine and deliberately targeting civilians and killing civilians. Five
Speaker 2: died since the summit to where we're talking right now, right,
Speaker 2: and let's lead clear on who Putin is. He's a
Speaker 2: guy who deliberately targets maternity hospitals and nursing homes, right
Speaker 2: to two sub parts of any society that you would
Speaker 2: think would be completely off limits. That's who he is.
Speaker 2: So the concern is that that's what he's doing. He's
Speaker 2: just going to play this out and keep going to
Speaker 2: meetings and you know, try to get the president to
Speaker 2: come to Moscow, and it's it's just a delaying tactic
Speaker 2: for him to try to, you know, do he what
Speaker 2: he wants to do, which is he doesn't want to
Speaker 2: cease far he wants Ukraine, right, So that's one thing.
Speaker 2: I think what the US has to do now is
Speaker 2: walk the walk. So we said, and there's a bill
Speaker 2: pending right now, the Blumenthal Graham Bill or Yeah bill
Speaker 2: that's in the Senate. If that passed, and it has
Speaker 2: eighty five co sponsors, so it will pass, and it
Speaker 2: goes through Congress, there's ten days for the president to
Speaker 2: sign it. It's veto proof but it or he doesn't
Speaker 2: sign it and it just becomes law on ten days.
Speaker 2: That's where we need to go. And I think I
Speaker 2: heard the Vice president, former Vice President Pence say that
Speaker 2: this morning on television, So I think that's an indicator.
Speaker 2: That's a lot of Republicans think that's the case, and
Speaker 2: obviously Democrats do too. So that's where we need to go.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: We need to cut off his supply to fund his
Speaker 2: war effort, and that is the secondary sanctions that prevents
Speaker 2: him from selling his energy. It's not guarantee that I'm
Speaker 2: prevent him selling his energy, but it sures to help
Speaker 2: a lot more consequences than what is happening right now,
Speaker 2: which is none. The second thing I think we could
Speaker 2: do is start releasing these frozen assets of Russia. I'm
Speaker 2: like a broken record with this, but I'm a broken
Speaker 2: record for a reason. And let Ukraine start buying very
Speaker 2: advanced weapons systems with zero caveats on them, right shoot
Speaker 2: them wherever you need to. Don't hit some civilians obviously
Speaker 2: like your adversaries, but anywhere on Russia's open game. And
Speaker 2: there's three hundred and fifty billion dollars that I know
Speaker 2: of or I think I know that could be used
Speaker 2: for that. And then I would start talking about and
Speaker 2: this is where I'd go into a little bit of
Speaker 2: the positive that came out of this. What is going
Speaker 2: to be the security assurances, because it can't just be
Speaker 2: Russia saying I promise not to attack you. That's not
Speaker 2: worth anything. So I just saw a special Envoy Witkoff
Speaker 2: saying that what was agreed with Russia was that there'd
Speaker 2: be Article five type security assurances from the United States
Speaker 2: and Europe. Of course, that's a big deal. That's a
Speaker 2: big deal, even if it's not NATO, which I think
Speaker 2: Ukraine will eventually end up in NATO. But if they
Speaker 2: have an Article five, which means they're attacked again, it's
Speaker 2: like they attacked all of us. We're all going to war.
Speaker 2: That's the big benefit of NATO membership Article five. So
Speaker 2: if there can be some treaty, some iron clad, you know,
Speaker 2: is a term everybody's using to do that, that's a
Speaker 2: big deal for Ukraine and it'll make it much more
Speaker 2: palatable for them to seed some territory. I believe ultimately
Speaker 2: they have to make that decision, not the United States.
Speaker 2: But if they do get to a point whether they
Speaker 2: can't agree to some and I would say not seeded,
Speaker 2: I would just say acknowledge you can't get it back militarily,
Speaker 2: not legally, just give parts of your country away. But
Speaker 2: if that's acceptable to Ukraine, then this security assurance is ironclad,
Speaker 2: which would be I think would have to be a
Speaker 2: treaty of some sorts, you know, So it goes through
Speaker 2: the Senate with the United States, and then the Europeans
Speaker 2: should start planning right now how they would move forces
Speaker 2: into Ukraine to have an actual physical presence to shore
Speaker 2: up any of this security assurance. I think the Ukrainians
Speaker 2: would need to go in and stay there until you know,
Speaker 2: just have rotations through there until either Ukraine is firmly
Speaker 2: in NATO or it's just you know, clear that it's
Speaker 2: not going to happen. So I know that was a
Speaker 2: big dietry, but I think there was some positives, handsome
Speaker 2: negatives that came out of this.
Speaker 3: Indeed, Yeah, I think I first of all, yeah, I
Speaker 3: absolutely agree with Meck on his point that Putin doesn't
Speaker 3: want a cease faint. He wants the part of Ukraine
Speaker 3: that Russians, Russian's already annexed, he wants he wants to
Speaker 3: keep that, and he wants to he wants a cap
Speaker 3: on Ukrainian armed forces, I would guess, and if it's
Speaker 3: you know, at a considerably lower level than the Ukrainian
Speaker 3: army is now, and he definitely wants the doors slammed
Speaker 3: on any path for Ukraine Tornado or Article five type arrangement,
Speaker 3: perhaps even into the EU. So those do mark points
Speaker 3: that the US has leverage on, and you know, I
Speaker 3: would just like to just kind of like to make
Speaker 3: the point that we don't need you know that with
Speaker 3: Russia's got nothing on the US. Russia is a tin
Speaker 3: pot nation. It's not like, you know, it's not even
Speaker 3: like China, Russia is no I mean, I won't say
Speaker 3: Russia is no threat to US. Russia's that's certainly a
Speaker 3: threat to US interest. But my point is that that
Speaker 3: raid against Russia, and given the day di plomatic military
Speaker 3: might that the United States has, we're dealing with an
Speaker 3: adversary who is who is way beneath us, you know,
Speaker 3: just like again, I mean, there's no Russia's in no
Speaker 3: position really to make demands of us. Now, admittedly, Russia
Speaker 3: has a chunk of Ukraine and has the ability to
Speaker 3: continue the war indefinitely, although they're taking, as we've talked
Speaker 3: on this show, huge amount of casualties, by which I
Speaker 3: mean an estimated a thousand casualties a day, and some
Speaker 3: days that's close to one thousand dead, you know, and
Speaker 3: a number of casualties varies between the thousand and fourteen
Speaker 3: hundred a day by the most conservative estimates. That's just
Speaker 3: a huge amount, you know. But the fact that Putin
Speaker 3: can very cynically just continue this war indefinitely shows how
Speaker 3: little he cares for, you know, for his own people. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that being said, I think everyone on the show understands
Speaker 3: Putin is just a bad person. Getting back to what
Speaker 3: Mick was saying about secondary sanctions. So first of all, yes, absolutely,
Speaker 3: you know, the way that we leverage Boutin is that
Speaker 3: if he doesn't come to the table, and we need
Speaker 3: to hear more of this really other than the negative
Speaker 3: sanctions on him, if he doesn't come to the bargaining table,
Speaker 3: then we do back some path I would say path,
Speaker 3: a pathway to NATO and certainly security guarantees. And secondly,
Speaker 3: as far as secondary sanctions, yes, you know, the sanctions
Speaker 3: on those countries about backing Russia or trading of Russia, China, India,
Speaker 3: Turkey being primary among them, that that will hurt, that
Speaker 3: will hurt Russia. But we've got to be serious about this.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, we've been talking about putting tariffs
Speaker 3: on the entire world with the exception of Russia. I
Speaker 3: don't know, I don't know why it's so reluctant.
Speaker 4: To those Canadians, you know, to be honest, I mean,
Speaker 4: you know the are smart, I get it, but they
Speaker 4: I would like to see I would like to see
Speaker 4: us say hey, listen, you either accept this or we
Speaker 4: are absolutely.
Speaker 3: Bit of security guarantees. Ukraine meets substantia security guarantees some
Speaker 3: kind of Article five agreement, but it's definitely a pathway
Speaker 3: to NATO in the next five years. That'll certainly make
Speaker 3: Putin pay attention. We played, you know, we played his game. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean rolled out the red carpet. I know that's
Speaker 3: become a meme of this whole conference, but I think
Speaker 3: it's you know, a lot of us find that quite offensive.
Speaker 3: I do to see US military personnel on their knees
Speaker 3: rolling out a red carpet for a man who I
Speaker 3: consider an adversary to our national interests that discussed me
Speaker 3: and Putin lap set up those those optics are huge
Speaker 3: for him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, how are those playing in Russia? Right?
Speaker 1: Like all the entire summing Actually, like you know, even
Speaker 1: at the press conference, Putin spoke for like two thirds
Speaker 1: of the time talking about like Russian history and shit,
Speaker 1: the same thing you did, would like Tucker Carlson throwing
Speaker 1: that interview. It's just it seems like a bunch of bullshit,
Speaker 1: to be honest and like, and like you even look
Speaker 1: at the deal points that are kind of like like
Speaker 1: leaked out a little bit, where like they want the
Speaker 1: entirety of Dombas for kar Ki. Even summers and sum
Speaker 1: me where it's like they don't even have that. They're
Speaker 1: trying to get.
Speaker 2: Into Iron parts of Ukraine they don't even currently have.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like absolute nonsense. And like what is an
Speaker 1: Article five like clause or treaty even look like, I'm
Speaker 1: joined NATO if it's Article five, Like, what's the fucking difference?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, if they can get it, if they can
Speaker 2: get it, right, I mean, here's the other thing is
Speaker 2: the people that are opposed potentially opposed to NATO membership
Speaker 2: in our system, they are term limited, right, so if
Speaker 2: there's some kind of ironclad way, and again this is
Speaker 2: up to Ukraine, right, they shouldn't give up anything. They
Speaker 2: don't want to give up. But if they do for
Speaker 2: these assurances, we could there's a coalition of the willing
Speaker 2: as thirty countries. They could move troops in. You got
Speaker 2: to seize fire. There should be some iron well I
Speaker 2: mean iron clad. I mean it's not an executive order.
Speaker 2: What we all can see is not necessarily iron clad.
Speaker 2: It can just switch with the next administration. So it
Speaker 2: has to be some kind of treaty I think that
Speaker 2: everybody agrees to for that to be actually worth it
Speaker 2: for Ukraine. And then down the road. I mean, first
Speaker 2: of all, Putin doesn't get a veto on NATO right
Speaker 2: or Finland and Sweden wouldn't be a NATO right now.
Speaker 2: I mean they wouldn't be a NATO right now. So
Speaker 2: down the road, I agree with Andy. I think we
Speaker 2: need to get to a point where Ukraine is firmly
Speaker 2: part of NATO, and I think that should be part
Speaker 2: of the plant. We got to stop just conceding everything
Speaker 2: before theotiation start. That's the other thing, Like we shouldn't
Speaker 2: go in there saying, oh, we already agree that no
Speaker 2: US troops are going to be on the ground, No
Speaker 2: NATO know this, know that these are all things that're
Speaker 2: supposed to happen during negotiations, not saying that we can
Speaker 2: see them. But you certainly don't concede points before you
Speaker 2: start the negotiations and they haven't even started yet. I
Speaker 2: would I would, you know again, to try to balance this. Hey,
Speaker 2: the US is putting a lot of effort into this.
Speaker 2: They I do agree with Andy. I don't know what
Speaker 2: the deal was with the red carpet stuff, but I
Speaker 2: think it. I think the US is putting a lot
Speaker 2: of effort in this. Obviously we're going to see them
Speaker 2: meeting with President Zelensky. I think President McCrone, President Stubbs,
Speaker 2: Starmer's going Starmar's going out. Okay, you know they're not
Speaker 2: asking me. But i'd also suggest that they don't lay
Speaker 2: everything on the table. They don't come out there and
Speaker 2: just say everything they talk. I mean, part of negotiations
Speaker 2: should be you know, we had a great meeting today.
Speaker 2: We're making pro progress. This is the kind of things
Speaker 2: we're looking at. The next step for a tripart a
Speaker 2: trilateral meeting is going to happen then, but not not
Speaker 2: put everything out on the table. It's certainly not are
Speaker 2: you dirty, launder out. And the newsletter that we're launching
Speaker 2: it just doesn't help.
Speaker 5: It's both the team House sidecast, the eyes On podcast and.
Speaker 1: The Highest which today earlier today.
Speaker 5: Newsletter is it's going to come into your in box.
Speaker 5: You're going to get the most way past on eyes.
Speaker 1: On and the guarantee is going to look like on
Speaker 1: the high side.
Speaker 5: So much as social algorithms, maloney, you never really know what.
Speaker 5: So this is the once a week email slide into
Speaker 5: your will have of that week.
Speaker 2: It's really good.
Speaker 5: Let's go back to the show website for just because
Speaker 5: I mean it's happened in.
Speaker 3: Remail the podcast that the combined continue combined support from
Speaker 3: the European nations or Ukraine now outways that in the
Speaker 3: United States. And yes they yes, support from the US
Speaker 3: still substantial, and it's still certainly something that the Ukrainians
Speaker 3: part of what they need. But my point is that
Speaker 3: it isn't a case of anymore of the United States
Speaker 3: support the war comes to an end. Ukraine can continue
Speaker 3: fighting with the support and the increasing support of European nations.
Speaker 3: And I think I don't know that I would imagine
Speaker 3: that European leaders and Zelenski have planned for the worse,
Speaker 3: and they certainly should when they come to the White
Speaker 3: House on Monday, such that, you know, My point is
Speaker 3: the US does not have as much leverage as we
Speaker 3: did maybe a year or two years ago, and that
Speaker 3: Europeans around the point probably of saying, well, okay, fair enough,
Speaker 3: but we don't agree. You and Putin can talk about
Speaker 3: what you want, but we're going to continue to support
Speaker 3: Ukraine in its fight and and then just walk away.
Speaker 3: And then we now we look really now we look
Speaker 3: really powerless, right, you know, So I mean it's hard
Speaker 3: and soft power, right, soft power diplomacy. I mean, you've
Speaker 3: got to back it with obviously, you have to back
Speaker 3: it with with action. And my point is simply this
Speaker 3: that we're not really necessarily in position, but we have
Speaker 3: that leverage anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and dude, you just look at the optics and
Speaker 1: that's where the That's what the whole summit was. I
Speaker 1: think they both try to like win in the perception game.
Speaker 1: Who's going back as like a fucking hero, dude, Like,
Speaker 1: there's so many ways you can cut up and dice
Speaker 1: up the footage from the summit to make him look like,
Speaker 1: you know, he we shouldn't be president, shouldn't even be
Speaker 1: meeting with them. He shouldn't even give him that opportunity
Speaker 1: to get the fucking uh photo photop. Frankly, what has
Speaker 1: he done to deserve that? And the other wild part
Speaker 1: was like Trump had an interview with John Hannity afterwards
Speaker 1: and he says, oh, yeah, now it's all up to Zelenski,
Speaker 1: Like what, like, piece isn't up to Zelenski, It's up
Speaker 1: to the Russians, who invaded a fucking country that was
Speaker 1: not aggressive with it three years ago to get out
Speaker 1: of their country like, uh, it's just incredible the hoops
Speaker 1: that Zelenski has to go through compared to like his
Speaker 1: bro woop. Frankly, he looked ridiculous. I mean, that's what
Speaker 1: it's playing like, Honestly, That's how it's been playing from
Speaker 1: the last two days. Is that Trump look ridiculous super
Speaker 1: like uh like Jovia like their best bud. It's like, dude,
Speaker 1: they see't your best bud. Sorry to break it to you.
Speaker 1: I know he's got a uh proclivity towards like dictators stuff,
Speaker 1: but it's like, at some point you got to act
Speaker 1: like an actual, like American president. And it's crazy because
Speaker 1: the most liberal guy here is acting like the most
Speaker 1: hawkish right because I could just swarm my mouth and
Speaker 1: say whatever I want, but it's I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: kind of mind boggling, to be honest.
Speaker 2: So hopefully this, I mean, it does look like a
Speaker 2: win to putin right now. Right he got hoisted from
Speaker 2: Paria to presidential meetings in the United States. But if
Speaker 2: and there's a lot of folks calling for this, if
Speaker 2: the secondary Sanctions Bill, that Sanctioning Russia Act has passed,
Speaker 2: he's going to go from you know, smiley face to
Speaker 2: frownie face pretty fast, right, So.
Speaker 1: What's holding it up? Though, Mack. If there's an eighty fighters,
Speaker 1: can't get eighty five centers agree on anything.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Apparently Trump has to give Senator Thune,
Speaker 2: the you know, majority leader, the thumbs up coach. He
Speaker 2: doesn't have to. They could just pass it. They are
Speaker 2: an independent branch of government. He didn't agree to a ceasefire.
Speaker 2: It's time to pass it. I mean, we can't keep
Speaker 2: making threats and then not following up or they're just
Speaker 2: gonna be like, Okay, well it doesn't really matter. We're
Speaker 2: gonna lose. It's gonna clout this like like Andy was saying,
Speaker 2: you know, eventually the Europeans will just say, just get
Speaker 2: out of the way. Then, because you guys aren't, you're
Speaker 2: just hosting lavish, you know, beatings and not sorry to say.
Speaker 6: I was just gonna ask because I'm completely ignorant when
Speaker 6: it comes to the sanctions, the how they the ins
Speaker 6: and outs of them. So I'm gonna ask this question,
Speaker 6: what is the downside for us for imposing sanctions? Because
Speaker 6: I know Rubio said this morning that he doesn't believe
Speaker 6: that imposing more sanctions is going to do any good.
Speaker 6: But what is the downside of it? Why wouldn't we
Speaker 6: why can't we do that amongst other things?
Speaker 1: Is there that? Yeah?
Speaker 2: I think so, But I mean i'd point out that
Speaker 2: Secretary of View when he was Senator Rubio is what
Speaker 2: has supported this one hundred percent, right, And I think
Speaker 2: he actually has came out to support this exactly. So
Speaker 2: how it works, my understanding is it imposes a five
Speaker 2: hundred percent tariff on countries that purchase energy from Russia.
Speaker 2: So if you are China and you purchase energy from Russia,
Speaker 2: then when you try to sell stuff to US, it's
Speaker 2: a five hundred percent tariff, which essentially is a block
Speaker 2: to trade. Yeah, I mean it's it might as well
Speaker 2: be ten thousand by then. Right now, I've seen economists
Speaker 2: which I'm not say this could be super disruptive to
Speaker 2: international trade. So I don't know the actual consequences to it.
Speaker 2: I'm looking at it from a national security Ukrainian and
Speaker 2: an or in Ukraine perspective. But I think even the
Speaker 2: prospect of it is why Putin asked for the meeting.
Speaker 2: He didn't agree to anything but that we know of,
Speaker 2: But I do think the prospect of it is concerning,
Speaker 2: which means I think we should move forward with it.
Speaker 2: I mean, like dr he said, we're basically putting tariffs
Speaker 2: on everybody in the planet, so except for Russia, So
Speaker 2: why not in this they would not be affected by it. China, India,
Speaker 2: and Turkey are the countries that by the most energy
Speaker 2: from Russia.
Speaker 1: They just don't Is there another country that can make
Speaker 1: up the difference. Let's say they did stop buying energy
Speaker 1: from Russia.
Speaker 2: That's a great question for our energy experts. But the
Speaker 2: US opek, I don't know. That would be a good question.
Speaker 2: I don't want to say. I don't want to say
Speaker 2: I don't know. That could also be disruptive. But the
Speaker 2: whole point of it is not to actually enforce the
Speaker 2: five hundred percent right, it's it's too it's to just
Speaker 2: have them stopped buying energy from Russia.
Speaker 1: There is no outside for us.
Speaker 6: Then there's no I.
Speaker 1: Don't know if we have I guess it's just the
Speaker 1: global economy like oil, mic tank. You know, oil is
Speaker 1: already low and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: So well, maybe it rises.
Speaker 1: I don't Oh, it might, it might skyrocket. You're right, sorry,
Speaker 1: because it's it's at like sixty something right now it's
Speaker 1: pretty low oil relatively. Yeah. I just it also to
Speaker 1: come out like the whole idea of someone was to
Speaker 1: kind of a framework for a ceasefire, right but now
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, we're talking peace steal, which is like
Speaker 1: you're trying to high jump before you can even crawl. Also,
Speaker 1: the other part that we didn't, like we have talked
Speaker 1: about before, like for Ukraine to okay because they are
Speaker 1: a democratic country like it or not Bouten and everybody else,
Speaker 1: like they have to change their constitution and get like
Speaker 1: parliamentary approval to swap to like actually hard make the
Speaker 1: make the borders like hard borders.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they have to mend the constitution to be able
Speaker 2: to have the referendum I think. And then and the
Speaker 2: other part of this, there's Pete, there's Ukrainians that live
Speaker 2: in this territory. They don't want to become Russian. Obvious
Speaker 2: they you know, they've been fighting tooth and nail the
Speaker 2: rest of our lives and losing lives to be able
Speaker 2: to not be Russian. So what's it's super complicated. So
Speaker 2: they say they do give up some terrain. There needs
Speaker 2: to be resettlement, there needs to be there's costs, including
Speaker 2: that rehousing. Who's paying for that, the international community? Russia? Russia,
Speaker 2: all of its assets that are frozen right now. You know,
Speaker 2: the way I see it should never go back to Russia.
Speaker 2: Either they need to use it to defend themselves or
Speaker 2: they need to use it to rebuild themselves, which was
Speaker 2: caused by Russia. This is going to That's why it's
Speaker 2: so important to have a ceasefire during negotiations because even
Speaker 2: if this is good faced negotiations, which is a big if,
Speaker 2: it's going to take a long time to get there,
Speaker 2: just because of all of the issues they have to
Speaker 2: deal with, the ref the men in the constitution, the referendums,
Speaker 2: the resettling population, all the other issues which are also
Speaker 2: extraordinarily important, Like the first Lady wrote this letter about
Speaker 2: these Ukrainian children that were stolen. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: just barbaric act. I mean, all that stuff has to
Speaker 2: be included in the agreement, and then we have to
Speaker 2: have an iron clad security assurance, which to my way
Speaker 2: of thinking, is some kind of treaty. Right, there's something
Speaker 2: that just can't be broken, Like like I mean, we
Speaker 2: gave assurances Ukraine, we defend them in the nineties when
Speaker 2: they give up the NRD good weapons.
Speaker 3: And obviously then is the Mensk agreement.
Speaker 2: It's gotta be more iron clad than that.
Speaker 1: Troops need to be prepared. Russia part of the treaty.
Speaker 1: That's the problem. Yeah, and pressing more like that. I
Speaker 1: hate generalizing the entire country of Russia, but you.
Speaker 2: Know, yeah, it's putin right, Yeah, it's yeah, let's not
Speaker 2: turn against the entire It gets back to be being
Speaker 2: prepared to enforce doing bad things against Russia and really
Speaker 2: being prepared to follow through.
Speaker 3: And at no stage have we shown that we are
Speaker 3: willing to do that. And you know, to next point
Speaker 3: on the ceasefire enforcing the seas fire, the only way
Speaker 3: to enforce the ceasefire is to establish terms that both
Speaker 3: sides agree to unequivocally. And the only way that the
Speaker 3: Russians are going to agree unequivocally to anything is if
Speaker 3: what is the threats that they face for breaking that
Speaker 3: ceasefire are really damaging to them? A and B they
Speaker 3: believe that the US in particular will follow through on
Speaker 3: those threats. I mean, you're going to have the most
Speaker 3: two most powerful armies in Europe combat experienced with the
Speaker 3: most and that on the Ukraine had side certainly the
Speaker 3: best equipped militaries in Europe facing each other over a
Speaker 3: you know, a very short distance. I mean you can't.
Speaker 3: You can't rely on a peacekeeping force to enforce that ceasefire.
Speaker 3: It has to be the terms of the agreement. And
Speaker 3: as Mike points out, that is what's going to be
Speaker 3: so complex about this.
Speaker 6: You think that if I mean, I know it's not
Speaker 6: going to happen, but if tomorrow Ukraine has granted NATO membership,
Speaker 6: that that would be a game changer. Or do you
Speaker 6: think potent is all in no matter what?
Speaker 2: Well, I like the sound of the willingness to I
Speaker 2: mean if they won't be because I think, unfortunately the
Speaker 2: US would veto it in a way NATO membership works
Speaker 2: as any member can veto it if your members. I
Speaker 2: think it was Sweden that Turkey was holding out on
Speaker 2: because it's a issue. But the whole point is as
Speaker 2: soon as they are part of NATO, then the Article
Speaker 2: five applies, and any further aggression against Ukraine would mean
Speaker 2: they're fighting all of us.
Speaker 1: And also probably means hard like make the lines like
Speaker 1: this is the actual this is Ukraine, now, this is Russia? Now? Yeah,
Speaker 1: because it's in there also a stipulation I think that
Speaker 1: where if there are soldiers on the ground like Article
Speaker 1: five like you mentioned, like automatically triggers Yeah, technically in
Speaker 1: your that's in your country.
Speaker 2: And so for the what is it thirty members? Correct
Speaker 2: me if I'm wrong, but there's there might be more
Speaker 2: not everyone has to agree. So everyone i'd have to
Speaker 2: in this case would have to say not only do
Speaker 2: I want them then I think most countries do, but
Speaker 2: it's a decision to go to war against Russia right now,
Speaker 2: so they would be making both decisions. And you know,
Speaker 2: my way of thinking, they need to start putting consequences
Speaker 2: on Russia, which means they should start planning how if
Speaker 2: there's a ceasefire, like okay, so how are these units
Speaker 2: going to work together and enforcing that cease fire. How
Speaker 2: are they going to move into Ukraine? How they're going
Speaker 2: to integrate, at least in coordination wise with the Ukrainian military.
Speaker 2: I think they got to start doing that now for
Speaker 2: practical reasons, but also to show to show putin this
Speaker 2: has happened, we're planning on it, and and I know
Speaker 2: this might be controversial, I'd also say I'd also put
Speaker 2: a line in the sand, like, is there a place
Speaker 2: that Russia gets to when Europe decides no Moss, Like,
Speaker 2: are they gonna let him take keep? I'm not saying
Speaker 2: it's any happen anytime soon. I'm not saying it's ever
Speaker 2: gonna happen. But when is Europe going to say, Okay,
Speaker 2: we're willing to contribute troops to prevent Ukraine from being
Speaker 2: taken over? Entirely right, because now every all the West,
Speaker 2: including the US, is just reacting to what Putin wants. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we need to start hitting having him react to what
Speaker 2: we are saying we want and what we're gonna do.
Speaker 3: Melbourne, Yeah, I mean, you know, it gets back to
Speaker 3: I guess we're talking a lot about the summit, but
Speaker 3: the question remains it was the summit even about you know,
Speaker 3: where we were in We certainly are not and we're
Speaker 3: certainly in no better position as from the US standpoint
Speaker 3: than we were before this summer. We seem to have
Speaker 3: even less leverage because we have shown such extraordinary deference
Speaker 3: to Putin. I mean, you know, I know, we keep
Speaker 3: getting back to the the optics, but they were they
Speaker 3: were really they were really harmful to the United States.
Speaker 3: And the United States is position as appearing as a
Speaker 3: I mean in part not even I didn't even portray
Speaker 3: us as being impartial in this is my point. You know,
Speaker 3: of course we should be leaning towards Ukraine as the
Speaker 3: invaded country. And I think I mean for me again,
Speaker 3: I mean, you see endless churn about what was accomplished,
Speaker 3: what was discussed. You know this, this this memo was
Speaker 3: found in the Captain Cook Hotel, and reporters are pouring
Speaker 3: over it to clean some substantive insights into what occurred,
Speaker 3: and it appears to be just kind of a you know,
Speaker 3: a protocol direction.
Speaker 1: To the launch, though that didn't happen, Like, why didn't
Speaker 1: that lunch happen?
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I think, well here's what I think. I
Speaker 3: don't know, but here's what I think happened. You had
Speaker 3: this extraordinary reception, which which didn't have to happen, you know,
Speaker 3: I mean, diplomatically, the right thing to do would have
Speaker 3: been to give put in quite a cold reception. We
Speaker 3: didn't have to do literally the red carpet, the F
Speaker 3: twenty two's, you know, the arch of kind of that
Speaker 3: extraordinary arch, the flyover, I mean, all of that stuff
Speaker 3: was just weird. And I tell you, if I'd been
Speaker 3: one of the military commanders ordered to do that, I
Speaker 3: would have I would have I would have felt. Now
Speaker 3: I'm just glad I wasn't in that position. I would
Speaker 3: certainly have heard I wouldn't see I mean, uh, And
Speaker 3: I think probably someone realized during the summit, Hey, this
Speaker 3: is this is going south for US. This is not
Speaker 3: looking good. When I say, I'm talking collectively is the US.
Speaker 3: And so that's why you kind of saw this scripted
Speaker 3: I think press conference afterwards and the plans afterwards for
Speaker 3: dinner and all of this where it was a working.
Speaker 1: Lunch.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was kind of I hope someone realized that
Speaker 3: it was not looking good.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I was kind of hoping that at the last
Speaker 6: minute that uh, we get that ww music and then
Speaker 6: Zolensky would come shooting off a player, you know, and
Speaker 6: just just walk into the whole thing and disrupt it.
Speaker 1: It also kind of looks like, you know, Okay, Trump
Speaker 1: had his three hour meeting with Putin and then he
Speaker 1: goes and reports back to the the Zelenski and the
Speaker 1: European leaders. It's like, why are we giving putin any
Speaker 1: kind of like reporting anything? And I and frank like
Speaker 1: giving him any kind of lead on this, And Frankly,
Speaker 1: what I think is going to happen. Why they kind
Speaker 1: of pivoted from ceasefire to full peace deal is because
Speaker 1: they want to get it out there. They're like, oh,
Speaker 1: who actually wants peace? And when the Zelenski and the
Speaker 1: EU leaders are like, this is crazy. What he said
Speaker 1: has come for is being ridiculous like he has been
Speaker 1: for the last three years. They could kind of paint
Speaker 1: it on like Zelenski, they being like, oh, you know what,
Speaker 1: you really don't want peace. That's my speculation as to
Speaker 1: what Russia would like. And I can't even begin to
Speaker 1: try and like understand what Trump wants. Frankly, what are
Speaker 1: your thoughts? Make you go first?
Speaker 2: So I do think tomorrow is going to be hopefully
Speaker 2: a very productive day on because the European leaders have
Speaker 2: to be there. They're the primary ones that are going
Speaker 2: to be enforcing any kind of security guarantees. Kik Koff
Speaker 2: just said on television that the US was going to
Speaker 2: be part of the security gig, which is why I'm
Speaker 2: saying that was a positive. I mean, he's unless that's
Speaker 2: not the case, but he's a spokesperson he's a special onvoy,
Speaker 2: so but tomorrow I think needs to be a lot
Speaker 2: behind the scenes, like what do we all collectively trying
Speaker 2: to get to with President Zelensky in the lead on
Speaker 2: what he could accept and probably equally important, what he
Speaker 2: could actually sell to the Ukrainian people, right, because he's
Speaker 2: not making these decisions. Ultimately he's the best position to represent.
Speaker 2: Obviously it's democratically elect the leader of Ukraine. But he
Speaker 2: can't even just go on there and slap the table
Speaker 2: and say.
Speaker 1: This is the deal.
Speaker 2: So he needs to and we need to not put
Speaker 2: that out there. That's why I'm saying he needs to
Speaker 2: be behind the scenes, like they need to collect it,
Speaker 2: like what is Europe actually willing to do, What is
Speaker 2: us actually willing to do? What does President Zolenski think
Speaker 2: is acceptable to him? And does he think he can
Speaker 2: actually sell to the Ukrainian people? And then don't tell anybody,
Speaker 2: which I know is going to be almost a possibility,
Speaker 2: because you don't want your your like hard and fast
Speaker 2: negotiation milestones to be known. Not only do you not
Speaker 2: want to give away things like NATO membership and US
Speaker 2: boots on the ground before he actually enter the negotiations,
Speaker 2: but you don't want to actually say what your your
Speaker 2: bottom line is. And I think that everybody should know that,
Speaker 2: and then everybody should keep it mum, and then the
Speaker 2: consequences should be discussed. Okay, So we want to have
Speaker 2: a trilateral meeting with Putin and Zelenski being basically the
Speaker 2: primaries in the US, you know, facilitating it if they
Speaker 2: need us to do it, or they could get the
Speaker 2: Europeans to do it, and then and then if Putin
Speaker 2: doesn't show any progress, consequences have to happen, or he'll
Speaker 2: meet you know, he'll have the red Coppert rolled out
Speaker 2: for him every month as long as he can keep
Speaker 2: his word going and make it look like that he's
Speaker 2: he's advancing it. So there has to be consequences, and
Speaker 2: we have to get all of our stuff in one sock.
Speaker 3: It's hard to imagine how both sites could go to
Speaker 3: a peace agreement without a ceasefire, which is what now
Speaker 3: the US stance is based on what Putin has said.
Speaker 3: I mean, how do you do that? It's it's extraordinary.
Speaker 3: The other thing, you know, there's so many extraordinary things
Speaker 3: about this. Was in this call to NATO to Zelenskin,
Speaker 3: and NATO leaders. Apparently, what has been reported is that
Speaker 3: either Wickf or Trump reported that Putin had said, hey, look,
Speaker 3: I can take the rest of the Netsk region and
Speaker 3: any other areas where whether fighting is taking place. He
Speaker 3: means the south, I can take any area I want
Speaker 3: in Ukraine. And I was thinking, hey, well, of course
Speaker 3: Putin's saying that. But if he could do that, why
Speaker 3: he wouldn't he do that?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 3: Is he just is he just like taking that all
Speaker 3: those casualties just because he can, and he doesn't. He's
Speaker 3: too nice to take territory. I mean what First of all,
Speaker 3: so that's an extraordinary thing for Putin to say. If
Speaker 3: he said it, and be why why would we repeat
Speaker 3: that to NATO leaders. It's not like they're going to say,
Speaker 3: oh wow, we didn't we had no idea. It's just crazy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So let's see what how it goes. I hope
Speaker 1: it'd be interesting to watch. Like there was no no
Speaker 1: uh no questions asked by reporters. There were reporters screaming
Speaker 1: questions at Pootin and stuff when they were taking the
Speaker 1: photos proprior to some it. There were no questions afterwards
Speaker 1: at the press conference, like but what's it going to
Speaker 1: look like tomorrow with all those European leaders, you know,
Speaker 1: are they to be open for questions? It's going to
Speaker 1: be like you know, the normal like Oval how it's
Speaker 1: been for the Trump administration, that Oval Office kind of
Speaker 1: like pow wow, gaggle whatever of just like where they're
Speaker 1: just they're basically like just rap rap sessioning. It's just
Speaker 1: like a jam session, like anything goes. It'll be kind
Speaker 1: of interesting. There will be a lot of it. So
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna get a little bit crowded in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office. I do.
Speaker 3: I do want to add one thing that you know,
Speaker 3: I'm half British and so the British half of me
Speaker 3: sees a something positive coming out of this. There's the
Speaker 3: there is a European assertiveness coming to the foe that
Speaker 3: has not been there for many years, you know, arguably
Speaker 3: not since the Second World War. By that, I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, Starmer and Macron in particular are becoming respected
Speaker 3: leaders where they I mean, you can say what you
Speaker 3: like about them, but they are. They are center stage
Speaker 3: now in substantive issues and going so and again it's
Speaker 3: I mean, the proof will be tomorrow and Tomorrow's discussion
Speaker 3: to see how it pans out. But I think I
Speaker 3: think they're coming with armed with the worst case scenario
Speaker 3: of hey, look us, if you're not on board with
Speaker 3: what we're saying and with a path to peace having
Speaker 3: to involve the cease fire, having to involve all these things.
Speaker 3: If you're not on board with this, the war will continue.
Speaker 3: And we're quite capable of supporting Ukraine without your help.
Speaker 3: I think that's what's going to happen. And you know,
Speaker 3: so again it gets back to, yeah, that's that's kind
Speaker 3: of positive. We've been certainly financially, we've been trying to
Speaker 3: get European nations to step up to the play when
Speaker 3: it comes to the defense of Europe, and now they're
Speaker 3: willing to do it. But unfortunate we the United States,
Speaker 3: don't seem to be leading that. We don't seem to
Speaker 3: be on the same train. I hope, I hope I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: Maybe you were saying to say something, what were you
Speaker 1: what was your book?
Speaker 2: Well, that's why I was when we were talking about
Speaker 2: how this would be a giant media scrum gaggle tomorrow.
Speaker 2: That's why I'm advocating to say, basically just clear statements
Speaker 2: of support to Ukraine. We're working out our side of it.
Speaker 2: We're not going to tell you what it is because
Speaker 2: it doesn't it's it's not to our own advantage. You
Speaker 2: don't see Russia, you know, well they just say maximalist stuff,
Speaker 2: but they're not they're not talking about their internal discussions
Speaker 2: and maybe they don't even have them because it's, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, an autocracy. But we need to be much
Speaker 2: more circumspect about what we're saying collectively to the media,
Speaker 2: even though I'm an analyst in the media. Uh, they
Speaker 2: don't need to We don't need to know everything. We
Speaker 2: want this to actually work. And sometimes giving away everything
Speaker 2: we're willing to do and not do is not beneficial
Speaker 2: to our part of the negotiations. And then again, and
Speaker 2: I think Andy just said it, Europe needs to be
Speaker 2: ready to you know, not just be the guys sitting
Speaker 2: around the speakerphone listening to everything that just happened. They
Speaker 2: need to be in the room. I mean, they're the
Speaker 2: ones that are going to move troops into Ukraine to
Speaker 2: support the ceasefire. And they're the ones that I didn't
Speaker 2: just come up with this, they're the ones actually talking about, well,
Speaker 2: what is our red line? A we're going to let
Speaker 2: you know, if the worst case scenario, we're going to
Speaker 2: let Russia take all of Ukraine, or we're gonna we're
Speaker 2: going to decide that you know that's not going to
Speaker 2: be the case. You know you're going to be a
Speaker 2: Chamberlain or a Churchill here. So I hope tomorrow they
Speaker 2: just come out full support. They basically explain without giving details,
Speaker 2: that we're on the same sheet of music, and then
Speaker 2: they're ready for the trilateral or marta multi national right
Speaker 2: include the UK and France, and they have more than
Speaker 2: a right to have a seat at the table. They're
Speaker 2: the ones that are going to put their troops into
Speaker 2: arms away.
Speaker 1: And it's their backyard too, right.
Speaker 2: Back their backyard. They don't need they don't need permission.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is their country and it's there. They
Speaker 2: just I would agree. They are certainly stepping up across
Speaker 2: Europe Germany. I mean, like a lot of my German
Speaker 2: friends are sending me memes about how Europe is now
Speaker 2: demanding that Germany build a large standing army and be
Speaker 2: prepared to march cars Europe. But they have, you know,
Speaker 2: they they've they've changed their perspective on and this is
Speaker 2: all this all goes through the massive strategic mistake by
Speaker 2: President Bootin. Right, So he vaded a country that's twenty
Speaker 2: eight times smaller and land mass four times smaller and population.
Speaker 2: It's been three and a half years. Over three and
Speaker 2: a half years, and he's taken about nineteen percent of
Speaker 2: the country. He's also caused NATO to expand by two
Speaker 2: more countries at the thirty two now, I guess, and
Speaker 2: he's got every country in NATO to want to spend
Speaker 2: more on their own defense because of him. So he
Speaker 2: can he writes the history books in Russia, but he
Speaker 2: doesn't write the history books. The history books are going
Speaker 2: to look at this as a huge strategic mistake, and
Speaker 2: we need to make it an even larger one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, the.
Speaker 3: War's become the war's become an instrument of political control
Speaker 3: for him at home, silencing opposition. He's all these laws
Speaker 3: that have come out about you know, if you criticize
Speaker 3: the war and the Russian Army, you can go to
Speaker 3: jail for five years. And he realizes is that his
Speaker 3: his reputation, his legacy is staked to this war, you know,
Speaker 3: and that is why the sequences for him of not
Speaker 3: telling the line. When it comes to what the West
Speaker 3: wants in regards to a ceasefire and peace agreement, the
Speaker 3: consequences have to be really bad because he already, he
Speaker 3: already sees, he already perceives the fact that if he turns,
Speaker 3: you know, if he comes back with less than owning
Speaker 3: all the train that he is, you know that they've
Speaker 3: already earned all these things that he has said. If
Speaker 3: he comes back less than that, there are going to
Speaker 3: be elements of the Russian population, sizable elements that start
Speaker 3: questioning why this war happened in the first.
Speaker 1: Place, Right.
Speaker 2: They should be questioning that now.
Speaker 7: With the certainly should yeah, well generation, I'm sure you know,
Speaker 7: I'm sure they are, but the but the opposition has
Speaker 7: been remarkably silent to this point.
Speaker 1: It's also kind of scary though, just to see, like,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a possibility of like Europe going yet
Speaker 1: alone without the US. How that's like a possibility where
Speaker 1: like it's I think Europe should take the lead on
Speaker 1: this because it is their backyard. But the fact that
Speaker 1: hopefully the US and Europe tomorrow with Ukraine and Zelenski
Speaker 1: can get there can start you know, singing off the
Speaker 1: same sheet of music right, like and be united in
Speaker 1: terms of what they want from pot and.
Speaker 2: Support for Ukraine seems to be going up in the US.
Speaker 2: Every poll I've seen indicates that distrust and actual hatred
Speaker 2: if you will, for Putin is very high.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's so incouraging.
Speaker 2: It is. I think Democrats it's like ninety three percent
Speaker 2: completely distrust and disapprove of Putin and eighty eight percent
Speaker 2: of Republicans and the independence or a recipe or somewhere
Speaker 2: in the middle right. So that's also pretty unheard of
Speaker 2: in modern.
Speaker 3: But what is amazing that it's still twelve percent of
Speaker 3: the American public but seven percent who support him, Like,
Speaker 3: what what can that be?
Speaker 1: Yeah? But you know what I mean, that's another rabbit
Speaker 1: hole that you they really dig into and be like,
Speaker 1: what is what is going on in the United States
Speaker 1: in terms of like what they supportant you know, twelve
Speaker 1: percent is thirty plus million, you know if you run
Speaker 1: the math or you know even more. Yeah, it's it's
Speaker 1: head scratching.
Speaker 2: It is head scratching.
Speaker 3: I mean, I still, you know, I still hear arguments
Speaker 3: from people who are otherwise intelligence about intelligent about you know,
Speaker 3: how the US has been duped into supporting Ukraine with
Speaker 3: all this, you know, all these arms and everything. Guys
Speaker 3: who were not at all outrage, Well, perhaps we're for
Speaker 3: temporarily outrage by the way that Afghanistan went down after
Speaker 3: twenty years of US pouring blood and treasure into that
Speaker 3: country for nothing. I cannot recognize the fact that we
Speaker 3: have spent only money in the US, have spent only
Speaker 3: money in really creating a in delivering a devastating blow
Speaker 3: to Russia via our proxy Ukraine. You know, I mean
Speaker 3: that from it from a pure US standpoint, it's samboled
Speaker 3: US interest. That was a remarkable feat and all we
Speaker 3: did was spend money. And yet there are still knuckleheads
Speaker 3: who think that that. You know, phils start talking as
Speaker 3: though we were cheated.
Speaker 1: Right, Our our strength.
Speaker 2: Is relative, right, I mean, that's the same people how
Speaker 2: much we spent on our national defense and they probably
Speaker 2: I guess wouldn't even know. No, but we if we're
Speaker 2: spending money to seriously degrade Russia's military capability, which we are,
Speaker 2: our strength goes up relative to theirs. So it's you
Speaker 2: could take I think we have a moral and ethical
Speaker 2: obligation to defend democracy around the world. But even if
Speaker 2: you don't even if you're just America first, This is America.
Speaker 2: This is advantages the United States of America. It means
Speaker 2: all those nine hundred and fifty thousand casualties, if we
Speaker 2: were to go to war with Russia, wouldn't be available
Speaker 2: to fight us. All the tanks, all the armored personnel carries,
Speaker 2: all the aircraft, all that stuff that Ukraine has managed
Speaker 2: to take off the battlefield literally is not going to
Speaker 2: go up against the United States if we were to
Speaker 2: have a conflict with them. So it's not charity, as
Speaker 2: President Selenski has said anything.
Speaker 1: I think folks are just kind of susceptible to you know,
Speaker 1: ten word kind of answer or like a TikTok one
Speaker 1: minute thing with like a graph that says two hundred
Speaker 1: billion or three hundred billion, like meaning and they equated
Speaker 1: to Oh, if that three hundred billion didn't go there,
Speaker 1: which is not the number, Uh, it would have been
Speaker 1: in my pocket, or I would have had some I
Speaker 1: would have gotten some kind of chair, you know.
Speaker 2: Carry Well, they're also buying our stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true too, a majority of the stuff. It
Speaker 1: wasn't like we're sending palettes of cash for them. It
Speaker 1: was like artillery. It's it's equipment and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Stuff we were going to decommission, especially early on, it's
Speaker 1: like what do we do? You know, I understand, I
Speaker 1: understand if the American elector and the American people were
Speaker 1: pissed because we sent one hundred thousand guys there. I
Speaker 1: understand that, especially after twenty plus years of the gy
Speaker 1: and you know, Aghanistan and Iraq. But that's not the
Speaker 1: case and sixty one hundred and fifty billion to like
Speaker 1: literally decimate the the Russian army and also do the
Speaker 1: right thing too. Let's put that on top of it, right,
Speaker 1: Like Ukraine didn't do anything. They got innovated. It's not exactly.
Speaker 1: That's a fucking rounding error in our deficit and national debt.
Speaker 3: Yeahstantcial benefits too when it comes to armaments. I mean
Speaker 3: it's it was a research and development laboratory. I mean,
Speaker 3: I know the sound cynical, but it was for many
Speaker 3: of our weapons systems, and it showed the world. You know,
Speaker 3: whether or not this is fair, but a lot of
Speaker 3: countries that that had been all out on buying Soviet
Speaker 3: era or Russian made equipment associate now that equipment with
Speaker 3: being it it being destroyed by Western weapons systems, and
Speaker 3: so you know, there's it's had kind of a shift
Speaker 3: in the way the world views not just military power,
Speaker 3: but you know, Ukraine siding with the Web, I mean,
Speaker 3: the West siding with Ukraine, providing Ukraine with all these
Speaker 3: systems from storm Shadow to attackers high mass that have
Speaker 3: just devastated had a devastating effect. He had short term,
Speaker 3: but devastating short term simply because we didn't give them enough.
Speaker 3: Has been a great laboratory and a kind of exposure
Speaker 3: to the world of some of the weaknesses in Russian
Speaker 3: military equipment, a doctrine, training, tactics, all of the above.
Speaker 1: I mean, you had you were saying something, Sorry, you
Speaker 1: got caught up, remember what it was? All right? I
Speaker 1: agree with it. Yeah, whenever doubt, just agree with Andy.
Speaker 1: That's what I do.
Speaker 2: That's the rule for my wife.
Speaker 1: That's probably a better move.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean, I mean I would say this.
Speaker 2: You know, we over we have a tendency to overestimate
Speaker 2: our adversaries by turn them into because I mean, the
Speaker 2: analyst is never gonna get yelled at for for that.
Speaker 2: They get yelled at, I assume for like underestimating. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but Russia has proven to be not very good at fighting,
Speaker 2: you know, That's why they're always talking about nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: I think they even see, like conventionally Holy Mackerel, like
Speaker 2: the Ukraine basically was a David and gliascenario and David's
Speaker 2: still fighting, you know, Yeah, David's still fighting and gliath
Speaker 2: Is is turned out out to be Goliath. So that's
Speaker 2: why they always talk. It's it's there there. As soon
Speaker 2: as they start seeing that this that everybody can see
Speaker 2: that they're not as strong as we thought, they start
Speaker 2: talking about nuclear weapons. So I don't say we even
Speaker 2: engage with that anymore. You can let Medvedev or whatever
Speaker 2: his name is just say stuff like that. We need
Speaker 2: to focus on ending the conflict and then understanding once
Speaker 2: and for all that NATO has a significant role to
Speaker 2: play in the future of protecting democracies, including our own.
Speaker 2: I think this has made it clear that it's not obsolete.
Speaker 2: It's not something that just won the Cold War. It's
Speaker 2: something that is beneficial to all the countries that are
Speaker 2: in it, and they need to play a part, you know,
Speaker 2: to promote Trump's whites. It's not just get behind the
Speaker 2: US and we'll protect everybody. We will, but you got
Speaker 2: to do your part. You got to bring you got
Speaker 2: to bring your game to the to the fight, and
Speaker 2: that means to build up your own defenses, which now
Speaker 2: they clearly are and standing unified when it comes to
Speaker 2: the autocracy of the world like Putin and and showing
Speaker 2: unifying unity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right on the anything else, guys, I mean, just
Speaker 1: me failed to hit. Oh guys, do us a favor
Speaker 1: to subscribe follow us everywhere. The links are into description
Speaker 1: if you want to know more. We have a new
Speaker 1: newsletter like is in description, the sign up to that
Speaker 1: Patreon dot com slash, the team House all that stuff, guys,
Speaker 1: as always a pleasure. Thank you so much, by everyone
Speaker 1: so much.
Speaker 5: Hey, guys, I want to tell all of you today
Speaker 5: about a new newsletter that we're launching that encompasses both
Speaker 5: the Teamhouse podcast, the eyes On podcast, and the high
Speaker 5: Side news outlet which I run with Sean Naylor. The
Speaker 5: newsletter is gonna be once a week. It's going to
Speaker 5: come into your inbox and you're gonna get the most
Speaker 5: current podcasts on eyes On and the Teamhouse and whatever's
Speaker 5: topical or current on the High Side. So it's another
Speaker 5: way for us to get the information out to you
Speaker 5: as social media algorithms are pretty iffy and you never
Speaker 5: really know what you're gonna get. So this is a
Speaker 5: once a week email. It'll slide into your inbox and
Speaker 5: it will have you know the greatest hits of that week.
Speaker 2: It's really good many checking it out.
Speaker 5: The website for it is Teamhouse Podcast, dot kit dot com,
Speaker 5: slash Join Teamhouse Podcast dot kit dot com slash join. Uh.
Speaker 5: You go there and you enter into your email list
Speaker 5: or you enter your email into the little thing on
Speaker 5: the website and you're good to go, and that'll be it.
Speaker 5: So we really appreciate your support and I hope you'll
Speaker 5: consider signing up.
Speaker 1: Where's the link.
Speaker 5: The link will also be down the description if you're
Speaker 5: looking for it there, and that's Teamhouse Podcast, dot Kit,
Speaker 5: k I t Kilo India, Tango dot com backslash Join