Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geo Politics.
Speaker 2: I'm here with mcmulroy. I'm de tacos. Uh. Before we
Speaker 2: get into it, let's do a solo favor and go
Speaker 2: and check out mix new podcasts. The Pub and the
Speaker 2: Porch is available on Spotify and Apple and anywhere else
Speaker 2: you get your podcast. I'm gonna put a link in
Speaker 2: to description. It's The Pub in the Porch Applied Stoicism,
Speaker 2: So if you're interested in stoicism and learning more, check
Speaker 2: it out. It's a good show. I listened to it
Speaker 2: every week, so it's it's super good. Uh. He's got
Speaker 2: a great co host, Adam. Uh, it's an awesome pot
Speaker 2: so check it out. Mick, you got it.
Speaker 3: How are you doing good? A lot going on in
Speaker 3: the world and I'm getting ready to travel.
Speaker 2: Yeah again.
Speaker 3: So yeah, this is uh, this is gonna be an
Speaker 3: interesting conversation today for sure.
Speaker 2: Like you said, a lot happened. Uh, it's literally like
Speaker 2: it all happens within like twenty four hours of itself.
Speaker 2: It seems like it just piles on. We know, obviously
Speaker 2: right now what's going on. We see that the ceasefire
Speaker 2: in Gaza seems to be collapsing. Let's start with Gaza
Speaker 2: fuck it because it's like the most most like the
Speaker 2: most prescient. I guess yesterday the State Department released unnoticed
Speaker 2: or a statement or whatever saying that Hamas had violated
Speaker 2: the ceasefire because they were planning an attack on Palestinians
Speaker 2: today in the morning. As we're recording, it's ten forty
Speaker 2: eight am Sunday, nineteenth Eastern where Israel started bombing. I
Speaker 2: believe they hit Rafa and I believe they hit Gaza
Speaker 2: City just recently too. They also closed the Rafa crossing
Speaker 2: as well. I think that was yesterday. What's the deal?
Speaker 2: Question that I asked to make offline was why would
Speaker 2: the US State Department announce it and not Israel announce it?
Speaker 2: Is it to like for cover for like a little
Speaker 2: bit more like you know, see, we're not just doing
Speaker 2: this ourselves, you know, laterally like the you know, US
Speaker 2: is backing us, like just for like a little bit
Speaker 2: of cover. You what's your take? Where are you at
Speaker 2: with this? So?
Speaker 3: First of all, I think that we might see an
Speaker 3: announcement today unfortunately from Israel about the restarting of combat operations.
Speaker 3: So it's it's it's somewhat breaking down. I think the
Speaker 3: US made the statement, don't know, but we are the
Speaker 3: ones that coordinated it. It's statements specifically to the guaranteurs
Speaker 3: of the ceasefire agreement that was signed in Charlmel Shake.
Speaker 3: So that's one reason. And the other one is President
Speaker 3: Trump has said we many times. I don't think that
Speaker 3: means he's gonna insert US forces into Gaza, but it
Speaker 3: might be that he's trying to be, you know, strategically ambiguous,
Speaker 3: whereas a moss doesn't know that he's not talking about
Speaker 3: land in the you know, a mew on the coast
Speaker 3: of gazam right. So I don't know. But this is
Speaker 3: first of all, it's it would be horrible. This conflict
Speaker 3: needs to come to an end. Thank goodness, we got
Speaker 3: the hostages out, but there's also a dire humanitarian situation
Speaker 3: in Gaza, which could be alleviated. I just got a
Speaker 3: note that there's one hundred and ninety thousand metric tons
Speaker 3: of food ready to go into Gaza. So it's not
Speaker 3: for a lack of food, it's for a lack of
Speaker 3: getting it to the people who need it. And we're
Speaker 3: going to hit the winner here in a month, and
Speaker 3: it's only going to get worse. So we everybody should
Speaker 3: want this pathlic to come to an end, but it
Speaker 3: doesn't look like it's going to do that. And one
Speaker 3: of the reasons is the same reason why it started.
Speaker 3: Right it's hamas.
Speaker 2: Yeah uh, as far as like the aid goes one
Speaker 2: hundred ninety thousand tons or pounds, you know it was
Speaker 2: it tons you.
Speaker 3: Said ton tons?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a fuck ton of aid as far as
Speaker 2: that goes. Has that stopped as well? Like since the
Speaker 2: Rafa crossing got closed, and now that the cease fire
Speaker 2: seems to be going as ship is that now kai bosh,
Speaker 2: Like they're not delivering aid anymore.
Speaker 3: So from what I've seen, they started strong, right, like
Speaker 3: nine hundred trucks went in, Like seven hundred trucks went in.
Speaker 3: And now because of this issue with the non uh
Speaker 3: you know, produce of the deceased tossages bodies, which seems
Speaker 3: like it would have been part of the negotiation process
Speaker 3: they like.
Speaker 2: And I think said they had they had delivered some right,
Speaker 2: like I think just yesterday delivered too as well.
Speaker 3: Yes, but it seems like part of the negotiation process
Speaker 3: would be and you actually deliver on what you're promising.
Speaker 3: So if it's deliberate, then that's obviously a breach of
Speaker 3: the of the agreement. If it's they don't even know
Speaker 3: where they are, well they knew they didn't know where
Speaker 3: they were when they made the agreement. Yeah, no either way.
Speaker 3: Because of that, and now it looks like there's attacks
Speaker 3: AGAINSTI the f forces in Gaza. It looks like they're
Speaker 3: going to cut the aid, yeah, to three hundred trucks
Speaker 3: a day. So it's supposed to be six hundred on
Speaker 3: the agreement, and they're going to cut it to three hundred,
Speaker 3: which is not adequate.
Speaker 2: No, yeah, not good. What's interesting is like, well, I
Speaker 2: don't understand why AID needs to be tied to any
Speaker 2: of this. It's so insane to me. I mean, we've
Speaker 2: been through it a bunch. Also, like it kind of
Speaker 2: feels like the whole ceasefire show in Egypt when they
Speaker 2: signed was kind of like for a show, to be honest,
Speaker 2: because like Nan Yahoo wasn't there, No Hamas representatives were there,
Speaker 2: So was it even a ceasefire that like people were
Speaker 2: really behind by the two combatants, because I mean obviously
Speaker 2: Hamas gave up, gave back the twenty hostages, plus did
Speaker 2: some deceased hostages as well. Israel's got to know that
Speaker 2: the majority of those other dead hostage are likely under
Speaker 2: the rubble, along with like probably one hundred thousand Palestinians.
Speaker 2: I feel like we were just this was kind of
Speaker 2: set up to fail from the get go, and like
Speaker 2: Israel did whatever they could to get the hostages back,
Speaker 2: and that's great, but if you're Hamas and like, part
Speaker 2: of the deal was also disarming, I guess, even though
Speaker 2: like there was also some mixed back and forth in
Speaker 2: reports on in news reports saying that they didn't agree
Speaker 2: to it, they did agree to it, Like it doesn't
Speaker 2: seem like this was a completely fleshed out thing, and
Speaker 2: like Israel said, yeah, we'll take the hostages back, and
Speaker 2: like Hamas literally, besides their aks and stuff, have no
Speaker 2: leverage whatsoever at this point, and Israel's really it's not
Speaker 2: really holding Israel back in terms of like they could
Speaker 2: just come back and level Gaza if they want. Now
Speaker 2: there's no hostages.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they weren't really holding back before that. I think
Speaker 3: the long pole in the tent of this agreement has
Speaker 3: always been the disarming of the Moss it's obvious that's
Speaker 3: what Israel would require any country and their position would
Speaker 3: require the issue. Of course is Hamas ceases to be Hamas.
Speaker 3: They're a terrorist organization without the ability to cause terror, right, So,
Speaker 3: like that's a good thing for the rest of the world,
Speaker 3: but for them to look at it from their perspective,
Speaker 3: they're essentially agreeing to end which would be a complete
Speaker 3: and utter defeat. Right, they have been defeated. But and
Speaker 3: so is all of Iron's proxies for the most part,
Speaker 3: except for maybe some of those hoothies up the mountains
Speaker 3: and the oven. But they have they have really strategically miscalculated.
Speaker 2: Is a polite way of saying, yeah.
Speaker 3: I'm as did. But it's not just that. It's also
Speaker 3: the fact that they're despised in Gaza, this concept that
Speaker 3: they're like the freedom fighters at all, the Palestinians rally behind. Hell, no,
Speaker 3: they kill Palestinians all the time. The former head Sinoar
Speaker 3: was known as the Butcher of Conunists for butcher and
Speaker 3: Palestinians in Conmunists, right, So, and you can see the
Speaker 3: videos and then just summarily executing people that they don't like.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of other there's a lot of people
Speaker 3: in Gaza who really don't like AMAS. There's a lot
Speaker 3: of armed groups really don't. They come as if they disarmed,
Speaker 3: they're going to be an island.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, they're fine.
Speaker 3: Fine with me, but you know, from again from their perspective.
Speaker 2: Yeah, from aspective of human survival, Yeah, it's like, why
Speaker 2: would I fucking do this? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Right, So that's where that's where I'm afraid. It's made
Speaker 3: bright down is and there's no stability force that I've
Speaker 3: seen being set up to go in. So the alternative
Speaker 3: to the IDF right now appears to be nothing unless
Speaker 3: I'm missing something, and I hope I an't. There's also
Speaker 3: some reporting that, you know, the Egyptians have been training
Speaker 3: a Palestinian security force, so not a multinational force, but
Speaker 3: a Palestinian security force. I don't know if they're ready
Speaker 3: to go into the middle of this, which could be
Speaker 3: a giant civil war, right right, you know, I mean
Speaker 3: they just might be one of they might be the
Speaker 3: good guys, but they might just be one of many
Speaker 3: armed groups fighting in Gaza.
Speaker 2: Yah, there's a vacuum, right, A vacuum is going to
Speaker 2: be there, and someone's going to want to fill it.
Speaker 3: Yes, and it's going to be the strongest will survive
Speaker 3: in the case of Gaza, And unfortunately, the innocent civilians
Speaker 3: are going to pay the price, and it's going to
Speaker 3: make it even more difficult even if Israel opened up
Speaker 3: all the gates and all the food. If there's I
Speaker 3: counted four three major groups other than a moss Actually,
Speaker 3: I think there's more than that, but four major groups
Speaker 3: that are armed and ready to fight and gossip.
Speaker 2: Right now, what are those groups?
Speaker 3: Uh, let's see, I can't remember the names up top
Speaker 3: of my head. Send in a car they are, yeah,
Speaker 3: I can send you away.
Speaker 2: All like Islamic or like.
Speaker 3: A lot of them are. Some of them are just
Speaker 3: came together, so they're the name of the families.
Speaker 2: Mostly, I see.
Speaker 3: Okay, so there's one of them that just means like
Speaker 3: a student, but that all the rest of them are families.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think of Abu this and Abu that, you know,
Speaker 3: And I think some of them are set up just
Speaker 3: to protect their own Like if you know this, if
Speaker 3: this happened to New York City, you'd probably you know,
Speaker 3: get the militia of Brooklyn to defend.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So I'm not saying they're good or bad. They're just like,
Speaker 3: you know, this is the way Mad Max happens. And
Speaker 3: then some of them pray on you know, innocent civilians.
Speaker 3: So and then some of them are Islamic based, like Amas,
Speaker 3: and some.
Speaker 2: Are like gang based, I should say, like criminals essentially
Speaker 2: criminal gangs and stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah, some of them are cri middle gangs. Some reportedly
Speaker 3: or you know, supported by Edge.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I don't know if that's true, but you can see
Speaker 3: it in the you know, the media reporting. I don't
Speaker 3: know if actor or not, but you know, from irregular warspective,
Speaker 3: that's I'm something. I'm sure they at least considered it,
Speaker 3: not not did.
Speaker 2: I was just going to say, it's like that makes
Speaker 2: sense for them to I kind of you know, do
Speaker 2: that all right, so quick quick Google search and you
Speaker 2: correct me if I'm wrong. Obviously, TAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad,
Speaker 2: the Popular Front for a Liberation of Palestine, and the
Speaker 2: Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Speaker 3: Right, there's more than that, and there's ones that I'm
Speaker 3: the ones that I'm thinking of all have names that
Speaker 3: look like are named after probably the you know, militia leader.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think there was I remember we spoke about it,
Speaker 2: probably a couple of months ago, the guy down south,
Speaker 2: I mean, I can't remember his name. I feel like
Speaker 2: we definitely spoke about it. So yeah, it's a ship
Speaker 2: I mean, for lack of a better word, it's a
Speaker 2: ship show. It sounds like in terms of like who's
Speaker 2: going to take over next? Like I can't see free
Speaker 2: and fair elections happening anytime soon.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, it does. I mean again, the plan
Speaker 3: as laid out by the US is a solid, comprehensive
Speaker 3: plan that would greatly benefit the people of Israel and
Speaker 3: the people of Gaza.
Speaker 2: In my opinion.
Speaker 3: But it's it's going to be a hard slug because
Speaker 3: this really hang up is a just demlitarization of Hamas
Speaker 3: what just happened. And you know, there's there's also and
Speaker 3: that's that's also so Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE
Speaker 3: came out and said, if they don't de militarize, we're
Speaker 3: not paying for the reconstruction. So this is this is
Speaker 3: the lynchpin right here, demailitaration. They have offered them amnesty
Speaker 3: and save passage out of Gaza, which tells me that
Speaker 3: they addressed the situation of them disarming. We'll just have
Speaker 3: to see if they do it and who will take
Speaker 3: them and where they go.
Speaker 2: I don't know, Yeah, I mean I would think they
Speaker 2: would want that like negotiated and like set up logistically
Speaker 2: before they gave up any kind of weapons and stuff
Speaker 2: like that. I would think, I mean, that's what I
Speaker 2: would want. And like you're just kind of on your
Speaker 2: own whether you go to Iran or Qatar or wherever,
Speaker 2: because like the targets on your back and like lists
Speaker 2: and covert wise, you know, the targets on your back.
Speaker 2: It is what it is. I don't give a shit
Speaker 2: if every single one of them gets clipped, as long
Speaker 2: as like women and children stop getting fucking smoked and
Speaker 2: bombed and starved, Like I don't you know. That's where
Speaker 2: my my liberalism kind of ends, you know what I'm saying, Like, uh.
Speaker 3: Wow, yeah, these they're deplorable, but they we have to
Speaker 3: look at it from thetive only to the extent that
Speaker 3: it ends the conflict. So if they have to line
Speaker 3: them up and put a giant barge and they just
Speaker 3: hand in their aks, they get out of barge, and
Speaker 3: then they go to whichever country you would accept them,
Speaker 3: which I imagine is going to be very difficult. Sure is,
Speaker 3: what are you going to do with all these And
Speaker 3: you know when they're gonna get there, they're gonna if
Speaker 3: they go to a rob they're just going to militarize
Speaker 3: them back and send them back out doing bearable ship.
Speaker 3: So it's a lot of it's it is as about
Speaker 3: as complex as you can get when it comes to negotiating,
Speaker 3: you know, demilitarization of any kind of.
Speaker 2: Man. Insanely, it sounds insanely complicated. I mean, the last
Speaker 2: two years we've just been really talking about is IDF
Speaker 2: and hamas right as being like the chief combatants and
Speaker 2: frankly like they are, but it's like the internal politics
Speaker 2: of gods that sounds like an absolute just just like
Speaker 2: crazy mass of a you know, just lack of a
Speaker 2: better word, clusterfuck Frankly.
Speaker 3: And I remember it's only twenty five kilometers like eight kilometers, y.
Speaker 2: Yeah, jesus, It literally, like you said it before, it
Speaker 2: literally seems like mad max like total anarchy. Man. I
Speaker 2: just wish that like women and children and civilians weren't
Speaker 2: in the middle of this shit, because it seems like
Speaker 2: there's only about like maybe thirty thousand even less probably
Speaker 2: like not just Hamas but the rest of the players
Speaker 2: who are in fighting and stuff like that, and like
Speaker 2: totally destroying a place where there's two plus million people,
Speaker 2: Like it's it's insane. It's not to really think about
Speaker 2: like the the sheer numbers of it.
Speaker 3: It is. It is. It's fresh shot, and I used
Speaker 3: to come to an end. People need to get fed.
Speaker 3: Everything that that's in that twenty point plan needs to happen.
Speaker 3: We were and I think the vice presidents get on
Speaker 3: a plane to try to, uh try to make some
Speaker 3: some headway with this, because at least for my hearing,
Speaker 3: it's potential that the idea is really government announces that
Speaker 3: they're essentially going back.
Speaker 2: To come yeah, and I mean to be fair for
Speaker 2: like the you know on the other side, like that
Speaker 2: right wing in the in in that LIQUD party or whatever,
Speaker 2: that coalition not just the LACUD party of the Gaviller's
Speaker 2: and the finance minister guy small Tricks. You know, they've
Speaker 2: been coming out and saying publicly like you know, we're
Speaker 2: going to keep fifty two percent of Gaza and start
Speaker 2: like settling it and stuff like that, which not optimal obviously,
Speaker 2: with the people in power and stuff like that. It's
Speaker 2: just I feel like we were all happy a couple
Speaker 2: of weeks ago. I was kind of cynical obviously, and
Speaker 2: I'm not really surprised that this is happening this way.
Speaker 2: Like it's you know, they got the hostage back, which
Speaker 2: is like the it feels like the pressure on the
Speaker 2: Israeli government in power, like then Yahoo and his coalition
Speaker 2: has kind of ceased a little bit, only because like
Speaker 2: they got their living hostages back and some deceased ones.
Speaker 2: Now I think I'm assuming that the Israeli population will
Speaker 2: be less likely to be totally against you know, just
Speaker 2: obliterating whatever is left of Gaza.
Speaker 3: Now, yeah, that was the biggest pressure point on that
Speaker 3: Yahoo internally was the hostages, as you'd expect. But now
Speaker 3: he can say, look, we pulled back to the yellow line,
Speaker 3: we did our part, we started flowing aid. And I
Speaker 3: agree with the age to never be used as margaining
Speaker 3: to warfare, but it is. And then they attacked us,
Speaker 3: so from the Israeli perspective, and they won't release all
Speaker 3: the twenty eight deceased hostages, so it's gonna be a
Speaker 3: lot less pressure on the hand internally, and you know,
Speaker 3: the only pressure really that's going to be remaining is
Speaker 3: the US and President Trump. And he does have i
Speaker 3: think influence over net and Yahoo that other president's US
Speaker 3: residents really didn't have. So that's probably because he's really
Speaker 3: popular in Israel. So I mean, but is that going
Speaker 3: to be enough? And you know, if Hamas or any
Speaker 3: of these other groups keep attacking Israel, nobody's going to
Speaker 3: tell about to defend themselves, right, so we're not in
Speaker 3: a good spot. Hopefully, you know, we can get this
Speaker 3: back on track and the pressure put on it's really
Speaker 3: going to come down to Hamas has to leave, right,
Speaker 3: you know, they fall on our discussion. You know, the
Speaker 3: more you talk about it, they just have to believe.
Speaker 3: And if they stay, they're not going to stay because
Speaker 3: they're in disarmed, because they'll be you know, they'll be
Speaker 3: summarily executed like that likes two other people. So they
Speaker 3: got to go. We got to find a place for
Speaker 3: him to go, and we got to find you know,
Speaker 3: a country as falling to take them and contain them.
Speaker 3: They have to be contained.
Speaker 2: Tall Lass too, bro like who outside of Iran and
Speaker 2: maybe Qatar, but like I don't know if Qatar is
Speaker 2: down for like three thousand or so whatever hamask guys
Speaker 2: rolling up after what I know, there's a new security
Speaker 2: guarantee all that bullshit with the United States. But like
Speaker 2: Israel's bombed Qatar anyway, right, targeting the Mosque guys. So
Speaker 2: it's like, I don't know if Qatar's game for something
Speaker 2: like that. Understandably, shit, no doubt.
Speaker 3: It, because that they internationed the beauty to do it,
Speaker 3: they would then do it and then they get blamed.
Speaker 2: For how like yeah right, yeah, yeah in.
Speaker 3: Those shoes and be like noah, they hosted the negotiations
Speaker 3: that led to this, and then they get blamed for
Speaker 3: hosting a MOSS, which if they didn't host.
Speaker 2: A moss to negotiation, right, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: I imagine they would say no. And then the issue
Speaker 3: is with Iran might take them, right, So there's no
Speaker 3: easy answers nothing, the ultimate answers. They have to be
Speaker 3: allowed to get us some of the grounds and that's
Speaker 3: maybe that's what the high strengthen is.
Speaker 2: Also, you would think that like we would be hearing
Speaker 2: reports like there's negotiation happening now for you know, uh,
Speaker 2: the like the rest of Hamas fighters and whatever to
Speaker 2: go to Iran or somewhere else where, like cause, like
Speaker 2: even if like somebody approached Iran for like, hey you
Speaker 2: want to take these three thousand guys, They're gonna be like, okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: there are all proxies, but like what do we get? Right?
Speaker 3: You know, they would let's go talk about the you know,
Speaker 3: the the agreements going on or not the agreements negotiations
Speaker 3: going on on a new nuclear agreement, right, yeah, so
Speaker 3: that they could play into that, so it could give
Speaker 3: them advantage there. Okay, I mean this is this is
Speaker 3: where we live in right, nothing's come out perfect. That's
Speaker 3: not to let the perfect be the enemy of the
Speaker 3: good when it comes to in complex, there's there's a
Speaker 3: lot going on, and you know, good on all the
Speaker 3: people that are trying to make a hat.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, let's move on to Venezuela. That was
Speaker 2: going to be the kickoff where we're going to talk
Speaker 2: about because what's going on with that is pretty nuts.
Speaker 2: But obviously what's going on in the last few days
Speaker 2: a couple of days with Israel and Gaza is taking precedence.
Speaker 2: So Venezuela, it seems like we're gearing up for some
Speaker 2: regime change. I'm not gonna lie to you. We have
Speaker 2: about ten percent of the US Navy in the Caribbean.
Speaker 2: I don't know what on vacation. I don't know what
Speaker 2: they're doing. They're clearly getting ready for something. TF one sixty.
Speaker 2: This Special Operations Aviation Regiment seen you know, doing exercises
Speaker 2: about ninety miles out of away from Venezuela. That was
Speaker 2: reported last week and stuff. So clearly we have jaysach
Speaker 2: over there in some form another. It's just so much
Speaker 2: shit going on with Venezuela. It's insane to me. Another
Speaker 2: strike obviously on the traffickers and stuff like that, which
Speaker 2: seems to a couple of them have survived and stuff.
Speaker 2: So like international law clearly is being violated. We don't
Speaker 2: really care about international laws the US. We didn't sign
Speaker 2: into it, so whatever, we kind of kind of make
Speaker 2: the rules. But at the same time we expect other
Speaker 2: countries to do it. So what's going on to me
Speaker 2: seems insane because like, yeah, Venezuela is a total narco
Speaker 2: state socialist. Maduro is bad. He stole the election. He's
Speaker 2: a bad guy. There's we can name fifteen other authoritative
Speaker 2: dictators that have stolen elections that we haven't really gone
Speaker 2: after it all. And the whole premise of this was
Speaker 2: because of drug trafficking, and they're bringing fentanyl, and fentanyl
Speaker 2: is created in China and the vast majority, like vast
Speaker 2: majority of drugs that come into the United States from Mexico,
Speaker 2: the Pacific and other countries. Columbia does the cocaine. So
Speaker 2: in terms of like drug trafficking, like, I don't know
Speaker 2: if we should really be going after like the number
Speaker 2: twenty two drug traf you know, cartel in the world.
Speaker 2: Maybe go after like the suppliers and stuff like that
Speaker 2: and the fentanyl. Having said like all that's happening, obviously,
Speaker 2: it's a ton going on. Another bit of news as
Speaker 2: well that it was reported, but it like it kind
Speaker 2: of went under the radar, nobody really paid attention. The
Speaker 2: CIA's deputy director named himself General Counsel of the CIA,
Speaker 2: which is highly unusual. Obviously, the CIA is clearly spinning
Speaker 2: up to do what they do, uh, you know, taking
Speaker 2: direction from the president. So what the fuck is going
Speaker 2: on in Venezuela. Make what's your what's your like, what's
Speaker 2: your analysis on all this? Because it seems like we're
Speaker 2: really spinning up to go after it.
Speaker 3: Yes, So to start with Venezuela, it used to be
Speaker 3: one of the most wealthy countries in Latin America and
Speaker 3: has more proven oil and gas reserves than Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 3: I was told fourteen trillion dollars worth, and somehow it's
Speaker 3: one of the poorest countries in the world. Thirty percent
Speaker 3: of their population relies on food aid and millions have fled.
Speaker 3: For those who think, you know socialism and autocratic socialism,
Speaker 3: good thing, there's your example. It's it's not working well.
Speaker 3: So but to your point, yeah, you've got multiple destroyers,
Speaker 3: an amphibious ready group with a twenty second new You've
Speaker 3: got you know, squadrons and squadrons about thirty five. You've
Speaker 3: got you know, the Jaysak folks deploying. According to the media,
Speaker 3: that's not just to go after drug boats. You still
Speaker 3: need that level of firepower. So it's it's either sending
Speaker 3: a message or it's preparing to do something like a
Speaker 3: new Noriega slash Panama scenario. And that might be exactly
Speaker 3: what they intend. So they put in it was even
Speaker 3: like strategic bombers flying around the post as well. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so it's either a giant show of force and intimidates
Speaker 3: Madureau to the point of leaving, right, stepping down and leaving,
Speaker 3: which would be a good thing, but most dictators don't
Speaker 3: do that, although they should. But it's clearly one of
Speaker 3: the other and my opinion, So if it's a show
Speaker 3: of force, then we'll just see what happens. If it is, like, hey,
Speaker 3: we're getting ready to do something, I don't think they'd be.
Speaker 3: A long term occupation of Venezuela by the United States
Speaker 3: would be extraordinarily difficult. And from a president who's that
Speaker 3: he wants to get out of or is not consistent
Speaker 3: to address the agency part, you know, I obviously don't know,
Speaker 3: or I wouldn't be talking about it. But like everybody else,
Speaker 3: I saw the President say that unusual, right, you don't
Speaker 3: usually announce covert right, yeah, actions, But he didn't say
Speaker 3: the details. So what I would say, just in general
Speaker 3: is the agency has the ability and the authority to
Speaker 3: collect intel foreign countries all the time. Hey, the President
Speaker 3: doesn't have to tell them, they go collect intel on
Speaker 3: them Russia, that it's just what we do. COVID action
Speaker 3: is different. So COVID action comes from a very I
Speaker 3: think it's Section thirty ninety three. Not to geek out
Speaker 3: on it, but Kevin's title title fifty it talks about
Speaker 3: this specific authority that the CI can get from the
Speaker 3: President to conduct you know, paramilitary influence operations and the
Speaker 3: like ops, which obviously includes lethal depending on what the
Speaker 3: President writes in the finding. And most of the restrictions
Speaker 3: on the agency come from past president's executive works, which,
Speaker 3: if you think about it, means the current president can
Speaker 3: simply change the change the former guide. I'm not saying
Speaker 3: did I have no information they did, but there is
Speaker 3: much less restrictions on agency activities than the military. There's
Speaker 3: no War Powers Act issue like under the War Powers Act,
Speaker 3: although I don't think any executive any president has ever
Speaker 3: acknowledged it as constitution. But on the War Powers Act,
Speaker 3: you have sixty days to do a military operation and
Speaker 3: then you have to pull out unless Congress Declaire's war
Speaker 3: in Congress by a concurrent resolution. Under the War Payers
Speaker 3: Act can pull them out in three days they want to.
Speaker 3: That's not the case with the agency. Uh, that's not
Speaker 3: the case for covered action. They don't. They don't need
Speaker 3: congressional approval, only notification and oversight. So that might be
Speaker 3: and we don't know what he wrote in the finding, but.
Speaker 2: That's what I was gonna say. Yeah, I was gonna ask, like,
Speaker 2: the finding is clearly not public.
Speaker 3: So and it shouldn't be, but it might just be
Speaker 3: part of the bigger, you know, idea of just to
Speaker 3: intimidate Maduro. Now he you know, he sees the significant
Speaker 3: military forces right off the coast. Now he's worried behind
Speaker 3: every you know, corner is going to be you know,
Speaker 3: somebody there.
Speaker 2: To smoke him out. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I don't know, I don't know, but we'll
Speaker 3: find out if if this doesn't, if this is a bluff,
Speaker 3: we'll find out. And then after that he'll probably be
Speaker 3: even more bold. Ah if if it does work and
Speaker 3: either they remove him or he just leaves. You know.
Speaker 3: The twenty twenty five but Peace Prize recipient Maria Karina,
Speaker 3: I saw the Machado is somewhere in Venezuela, all in regime, yes,
Speaker 3: because she's still awful elected president right, yeah, so super
Speaker 3: impressive lady, Right, She's still there risking her life somewhere
Speaker 3: in Venezuela. She was actually doing interviews from this you
Speaker 3: know or fight out yesterday. But it would be a
Speaker 3: great thing for the people of Venezuela. If Maduro was
Speaker 3: forced to leave or just left, for sure.
Speaker 2: He's not going anywhere, bro. And he's also offered the
Speaker 2: America to cancel all contracts with China and Russia in
Speaker 2: terms of their oil and gas and doing everything he
Speaker 2: can to kind of like sweeten the deal. And it
Speaker 2: doesn't seem to be working. That's what makes me shake.
Speaker 2: It's more like, what, first off, for us to occupy Venezuela,
Speaker 2: we need at least what we had in or close
Speaker 2: to it in our Iraq, So you know, quarter one
Speaker 2: hundred thousand troops and stuff like that station somewhere getting
Speaker 2: ready to go. I'm not saying marines are the best
Speaker 2: and they can funck shuit up really well, but a
Speaker 2: couple thousand marines, yeah, right, right, But a couple thousand
Speaker 2: Marines aren't going to occupy Venezuela, right, like.
Speaker 3: The mew that's there is. Yeah, so they would have
Speaker 3: I think they're a raid for a surgical go in
Speaker 3: and just like Noriega, right, So it's just it's a
Speaker 3: very targeted one person, uh go in and take it out.
Speaker 3: Of course, that's going to require really good intelligence. And
Speaker 3: then it's done, but the occupation of Venezuela would be bohemoth,
Speaker 3: it would be make any sense, it would cost I
Speaker 3: don't even know how much money and lives, and I
Speaker 3: don't I don't see that being the endgame. So it
Speaker 3: might be just either intimidation to try to get them
Speaker 3: him to step down voluntarily. Maybe they get them, Maybe
Speaker 3: they get him a really plush deal that he lives
Speaker 3: in some higher eye somewhere in the world for the
Speaker 3: rest of his life and it's immune from prosecution. That's
Speaker 3: a bad thing, but maybe it's a thing overall for
Speaker 3: the people of Venezuela.
Speaker 2: It's just so wild to me, Like, what's the point
Speaker 2: of this. I think that's just getting rid of another dictator.
Speaker 2: The world's chock full of them.
Speaker 3: Yes, it is, unfortunately, and it's a growing issue. Right Ah,
Speaker 3: potocracy versus democracies, we're not We're not winning. Uh. There's
Speaker 3: plenty of indicators from Freedom House that were one of
Speaker 3: the other directions. I would say that Venezuela, in addition
Speaker 3: to the drug issue, which is a big issue, but
Speaker 3: most of the fatanah, for example, is produced in Mexico,
Speaker 3: not Venezuela. But the illegal immigration population a lot of
Speaker 3: it's coming out of it because of how died the
Speaker 3: situation is there. So I think for a administration really
Speaker 3: focuses that as one of their main efforts, that's another
Speaker 3: part of this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a that's a lot more than just protecting
Speaker 2: our borders.
Speaker 3: Mick.
Speaker 2: I'd say, you know, going in with like a Jaysuck
Speaker 2: task force with you know, a couple hundred rangers and
Speaker 2: a mew to go and smoke, uh Maduro. I'm gonna
Speaker 2: be honest, because like, yeah.
Speaker 3: Or they find them and they can they can do
Speaker 3: it without all that. Yeah, yeah, that's probably why. You know,
Speaker 3: if they did, and I'm sure they did, President Holson,
Speaker 3: they've given you know, one of the things that I
Speaker 3: think the agency can do. I guess again, I don't
Speaker 3: know what's going on right now, but if we could
Speaker 3: do something that would then prevent the need to send
Speaker 3: in a squadron from Jaysock, uh and potentially risk their lives,
Speaker 3: one I think big benefit of the agency to the
Speaker 3: overall national security cops. If we can do something simply
Speaker 3: that doesn't require you know, risking of how many helicopy
Speaker 3: pilots and assaulters and all that stuff.
Speaker 2: Then yeah, yeah, we should make. I got a hypothetical
Speaker 2: for you. You ready for it? If you were the
Speaker 2: director of the CIA, right and the President gave you
Speaker 2: a finding to get rid of Maduro, how would you
Speaker 2: do it without giving away TTPs and stuff.
Speaker 3: I don't think I can fuck give it. What I mean,
Speaker 3: I can't because.
Speaker 2: That would be.
Speaker 3: I think I would be sure in a bad space,
Speaker 3: I actually get a call from the director, Okay, tell
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: I've never been in the agency and stuff. I don't
Speaker 2: have a top secret or didn't have a top secret,
Speaker 2: So I think I can say what I would do
Speaker 2: and correct me. Tell me from hot or cold? So
Speaker 2: to avoid putting sending in Jay Sock or our guys
Speaker 2: with at one sixtieth and potentially having some of our
Speaker 2: guys die or all of them, because it's not like
Speaker 2: exactly it's not exactly a permissible environment, I would, obviously,
Speaker 2: with the CIA, you know, contact groups that are against
Speaker 2: Maduro and try and set up a way to get
Speaker 2: smoke them with those groups, like an assassination, but using
Speaker 2: them as a proxy. That's what I would do, am
Speaker 2: I Hot? Cold? What do you think you know?
Speaker 3: I think I think there's a lot of options right,
Speaker 3: we also have our own version of J sock. Sure,
Speaker 3: and then there's what do you call proxy you're talking about,
Speaker 3: is using another group? I would imagine, well, other than
Speaker 3: I don't want to get any specific, but I would say,
Speaker 3: you know, I think they're looking at everything. Yeah, there's
Speaker 3: no reason to like, I only want to do it
Speaker 3: one way, right, because you don't know if that's going
Speaker 3: to play out. You know, it might be they're putting
Speaker 3: together collectively courses of action from the president decide. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and uh, you know, and when you do courses of action,
Speaker 3: you're looking at you know, the pros and cons put
Speaker 3: in a you know, common bacular and you know the
Speaker 3: cons of doing it with a small team means that
Speaker 3: you know, they're obviously very vulnerable. The coms of doing
Speaker 3: it with a giant you know, J shock machine one
Speaker 3: helicopter gets shot down and how many guys dealers? Right,
Speaker 3: So it's it's a big it's a big decision, or
Speaker 3: or the drone scenario. Right.
Speaker 2: I was going to mention that as well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, it's pretty well published. It's our hear
Speaker 3: he was smoked and cobbled right reading his newspaper and
Speaker 3: having this morning tea. Ah, So it's doable. It all
Speaker 3: comes down to exquisite intel.
Speaker 2: Right. Let me ask you this, So pr wise or
Speaker 2: optics wise, would it be a major international incident if
Speaker 2: because like we obviously no one Dora is at all times,
Speaker 2: we probably haven't him completely penetrated in terms of his communications,
Speaker 2: or if we're not like we got to give more
Speaker 2: money the NSA or they're not doing their job. But
Speaker 2: anyway where we could drop a drone right like where
Speaker 2: because the presidential finding will probably okay it and stuff
Speaker 2: like that, would you think the fallout of doing something
Speaker 2: like that internationally is worth that squeeze specifically drone striking them?
Speaker 3: I mean you think about where we are now. I
Speaker 3: mean we're doing strikes on you know boats. Sure, if
Speaker 3: we've we've how many years have we now been doing
Speaker 3: targeted drone strikes on individuals?
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that's one thing for it to be a
Speaker 2: trafficker or jihadi up in the mountains of Pakistan and
Speaker 2: another Yeah.
Speaker 3: It's another to be a you know, a dictator who
Speaker 3: sure basically ignored you. I mean he doesn't have any
Speaker 3: validity as the president.
Speaker 2: Then I completely agree. I'm not friending it like I
Speaker 2: wouldn't shut it here if he got smoke. I'm just saying, like,
Speaker 2: optics wise.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't. I don't know that it does. I
Speaker 3: mean to the point of your question, D when you
Speaker 3: start taking out leaders, you don't like, that's gonna that's
Speaker 3: gonna cause issues, right, because that kind of makes it
Speaker 3: an open season on Yeah, going out the presence. But
Speaker 3: I just don't know that this crowd would. I think
Speaker 3: if I was in their shoes and that was what happened,
Speaker 3: I would point out that this person had all all
Speaker 3: the opportunity to leave, you know what I mean. Uh,
Speaker 3: he could just get on the plane and go to Cuba, right,
Speaker 3: who's in Cuba's falling apart for the same freaking reason,
Speaker 3: too has been a disaster, and he chose not to. Therefore,
Speaker 3: this is the consequences. I'm sure there would be a
Speaker 3: lot of pushback around the world. I'm pretty sure that
Speaker 3: they wouldn't care.
Speaker 2: I don't think they would care either. Yeah, I just
Speaker 2: say it like in terms of like setting a fucking
Speaker 2: dangerous precedent.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that would be the That would be the contrary position.
Speaker 3: As you've now opened up target targeted killings, which is another.
Speaker 2: Of whether it's he's the like elected president of Venezuela
Speaker 2: or not, he's still like the de facto leader there
Speaker 2: of ahead of state. Yeah, by force. I mean it
Speaker 2: is what it is. I mean yeah, uh man, it's
Speaker 2: tricky and I don't think it's worth to squeeze. I mean,
Speaker 2: I understand the Venezuelan immigration issue because I think there
Speaker 2: are number three in terms of countries like illegal immorants
Speaker 2: that come into the country, And I understand having our
Speaker 2: strong border and stuff. But I don't know about like
Speaker 2: regime change and just leaving it like a fucking just
Speaker 2: a crater in the ground and be like, okay, guys,
Speaker 2: you guys figure it out, have fun. Frankly, I don't
Speaker 2: think that would stop narco narcotics from coming from transitting
Speaker 2: from Venezuela at all.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think it just rules shit, the whole drug angle
Speaker 2: of it.
Speaker 3: I mean drug a serious, but I think most drugs
Speaker 3: come out of Mexico and from the Pacific right right.
Speaker 3: But you know, nobody's gonna reasonally sleep over the marcour
Speaker 3: draftkers that are bringing fentanyl in the United States.
Speaker 2: No, I wouldn't, you know.
Speaker 3: But regime changes is because I saw people talking about
Speaker 3: the agency and regime. The agency, by my account, has
Speaker 3: overthrown eight governments, mostly in the fifties sixties, right, And
Speaker 3: then they you know, we had the Church Commission and
Speaker 3: they said, you know, I got to knock that off.
Speaker 3: Pebble points. The agency doesn't decide to do this. The
Speaker 3: president's for some reason, the agency gets accused to do
Speaker 3: with things like the rogue elephant, that was the term.
Speaker 3: It's like, it's not the case. So if you have
Speaker 3: a problem with the policy, it's not really the agency
Speaker 3: anymore than you know, you blame the US army for.
Speaker 2: Vietnam, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3: And the other thing is we're not actually that bad
Speaker 3: at it. But the question is philosophical, like should should
Speaker 3: the you know, the strongest democracy in the world be
Speaker 3: overthrowing regimes because we don't like them.
Speaker 2: Right, and like propping up one, yeah, and then propping
Speaker 2: up ones that we they are on our side, who
Speaker 2: happen to be dictators and brutalizer citizens exactly right. So
Speaker 2: it's a dirty game.
Speaker 3: It's a dirty game. But you know, all I'd say
Speaker 3: is it's a game that the ultimately, the political leadership
Speaker 3: everyone's deciding, not.
Speaker 2: The agency, you know.
Speaker 3: And then they always bring up the bay of pigs.
Speaker 3: But you know, you try to do an amphibious landing
Speaker 3: with the forced ten times your side and have the
Speaker 3: air component pulled out from under your right before sure,
Speaker 3: right read the book they pict So again, I'm not
Speaker 3: just being parochial with the agency, but it's it's it's
Speaker 3: a broader question than this theory that the agency just
Speaker 3: runs around.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think in the case to be honest
Speaker 2: at all, because I met enough enough for you guys
Speaker 2: where it's like you guys go where you're pointed right
Speaker 2: and more or less right. I'm sure there's like moral
Speaker 2: qualms agent officer to officer and stuff like that in
Speaker 2: terms of what you're doing. But yeah, it's not like
Speaker 2: they you know, the CIA director wakes up one day
Speaker 2: he's like, you know what, let's let's fucking overthrow Venezuela today, right,
Speaker 2: like getting pointed by the president.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, it's totally at the direction, I'm sure with
Speaker 3: a lot of discussion between the senior captain members on
Speaker 3: the National Securities.
Speaker 2: Yeah, at they make.
Speaker 3: A decision right or all. But got the idea that
Speaker 3: it's it's some kind of vogue about the ages.
Speaker 2: Just waking up one day and like, let's just do
Speaker 2: this when we're bored. We got this budget, you know,
Speaker 2: burning a hole in our pocket. Let's fucking use it. No,
Speaker 2: like there's yeah, for somebody to think that's the case
Speaker 2: is like they're just naive.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but of course if it goes south and it's
Speaker 3: a completely about it. The other part of that is
Speaker 3: that a lot of times the agency's hand and stuff
Speaker 3: that nobody else can fix.
Speaker 2: You, right, right, So yeah, here's a building situation.
Speaker 3: Right, we can't figure out how to put the fire out,
Speaker 3: the d D doesn't want to do it, diplomats can't
Speaker 3: resolve it. Here's the burning building, right, good luck? So yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: but anyway, so I don't know what the finding is
Speaker 3: or even if there was a finding maybe, but the
Speaker 3: President I think I don't think he made a mistake.
Speaker 3: I think he wanted Maduro to go look in every
Speaker 3: shadow and be scared that you know, it's curtains, even
Speaker 3: if if it.
Speaker 2: Isn't the case. Yeah, So we'll see what goes down
Speaker 2: in the next couple of weeks. Obviously, we'll keep it close eye,
Speaker 2: all right. Last bit of news, uh Zelenski was at
Speaker 2: the White House on Friday. I feel like it's I mean,
Speaker 2: which is crazy. It's only Sunday, right, and it feels
Speaker 2: like he was there like a month ago. I think
Speaker 2: the main topic was to talk about long range missiles tomahawks, presumably,
Speaker 2: and it didn't seem to go well. Interesting thing that
Speaker 2: came up in the twenty fifth hour before the day
Speaker 2: before the meeting was that President Trump was going to
Speaker 2: talk to President Putin before the meeting for some fucking reason,
Speaker 2: let me think so the bottom line. Also, what I
Speaker 2: also noticed when I watched a little bit of like
Speaker 2: the press gaggle in that room was like some of
Speaker 2: that right wing press is still pretty fucking pretty kind
Speaker 2: of hostile towards Zelenski, and it's like I just don't
Speaker 2: understand it, especially you know, America first, and you know
Speaker 2: don't give money away, but we just gave forty billion
Speaker 2: dollars Sargantina for a bailout, so it's like pretty selective
Speaker 2: in term. And I would argue that giving Ukraine what
Speaker 2: they need in terms of armaments is better off because
Speaker 2: they are an actual democratic companies company country. Even though
Speaker 2: they're corrupt and their corruption was high and all that stuff.
Speaker 2: They were invaded, right like by a more powerful, aggressive,
Speaker 2: imperialistic colonizer. So I think it should be real easy
Speaker 2: for this. I don't understand what the friction is there. Anyway,
Speaker 2: Putin and Trump are set to meet as well in Budapest,
Speaker 2: which is kind of fucking ironic, and Trump gave Putin
Speaker 2: another two weeks. It's been two weeks for like fucking
Speaker 2: four months. So what do you got?
Speaker 3: So the qurtance of tomahawks right, very very effective weapons system.
Speaker 3: I think the loftoons can go.
Speaker 2: Fifteen hundred miles, yeah, it's like twenty five hundred kilometers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and the Block four like a thousand miles. But
Speaker 3: they're you know, they are c based. There used to
Speaker 3: be a ground based version of it, and I think
Speaker 3: they're probably going back to trying to find, yeah, ground
Speaker 3: based way to launch them. I guess they could probably
Speaker 3: remove I.
Speaker 2: Think we do have because I spoke with I spoke
Speaker 2: when I talked to Andy about this. Andy had like
Speaker 2: a really good coverage. You could check out that video.
Speaker 2: We did a short video about what it would be like.
Speaker 2: Uh that the our majority of our tomahawks are a
Speaker 2: sea base right from from subs and and ships. But
Speaker 2: we do have a ground based variant, but they're more
Speaker 2: limited in supply. Essentially. The Europeans did say that they
Speaker 2: can make something that will allow it to shoot from
Speaker 2: the ground, like they have some kind of system that
Speaker 2: works that way. But you know, there are some limiting
Speaker 2: factors to all this.
Speaker 3: Well, I hope they're building it now that they can
Speaker 3: actually eat whoops, may get a quieter area. So on
Speaker 3: the on the reach though, if you if you give
Speaker 3: them and they can figure out how to launch them,
Speaker 3: either by some kind of C platform or AH or
Speaker 3: ground based platform. There's about two dozen air bases in range,
Speaker 3: all right, That's why foots freaking out. It really opens
Speaker 3: up the targets, and I think there's hundreds of other
Speaker 3: military installations and energy infrastructure, and they'll be able to
Speaker 3: hit that they can't now. So that's why it's so important.
Speaker 3: Uh you know, Boutin's like, oh, these are capable of
Speaker 3: carrying nuclear weapons. Well, yeah, so were all the missiles
Speaker 3: you've been shooting at nurseries, schools and hospitals. Right, so,
Speaker 3: so on the standard Russian response, major escalation and then
Speaker 3: they're going to throw on nuclear weapons. They said that
Speaker 3: about F sixteen's II Mars. They said about jab they
Speaker 3: said about j Yeah, right, So I don't know why
Speaker 3: we publicly deliberate this stuff. I would just I would
Speaker 3: just do it. I mean, I'm not charged. But as
Speaker 3: soon as when they lined up to go into Ukraine
Speaker 3: and we had really good intelligence they we're going to
Speaker 3: do it, we should have just announced we're going to
Speaker 3: give them everything they need to win. So it's your decision.
Speaker 3: It's your decision Russia to invade your neighbor and then
Speaker 3: and then we would stop with this whole like hand
Speaker 3: raking and clutching of pearl of pearls every time we
Speaker 3: decide to do this. I think potentially that this summit
Speaker 3: or whatever we're calling it in Budapest, that the US
Speaker 3: may say, look, you obviously asked us not to give
Speaker 3: them tomahawks. We won't. If you have a ceasfire, you
Speaker 3: stop fighting and you come to the negotiation table and goodwill,
Speaker 3: and I would hope they'd also put on there secondary sanctions. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so you know, we don't want to do it. We
Speaker 3: don't want the war to expand we want the war
Speaker 3: to cease, But it's your choice whether to have a
Speaker 3: sea far if we don't, and we go through this
Speaker 3: summit and b doesn't agree to anything and the war continues.
Speaker 3: Then this is totally playing into Prudin's and he gets
Speaker 3: the public stage with the President of the United States,
Speaker 3: which he wants because he's essentially an international pria and
Speaker 3: he has no consequences. So I hope they put the
Speaker 3: consequences on the table and say, either we get to
Speaker 3: this summit and there is a ceasefire or tomahawks are
Speaker 3: flowing and by the way, there's a German variant. Yeah,
Speaker 3: they can send them. They should be sending them to
Speaker 3: step up Europe and we should be fixing fixing it
Speaker 3: so they can launch them off the ground. Right now,
Speaker 3: we need to prepare for that, and I mean they
Speaker 3: have they have some time platforms and being watched form.
Speaker 3: But either way, and there's gonna be we got to
Speaker 3: start mass producing him because here's only a finite him
Speaker 3: out of him. Uh, and we don't want to deplete
Speaker 3: our stocks too much, but it needs to happen, especially
Speaker 3: if Putin comes out of this Budapest summit and it's
Speaker 3: it's the same situation.
Speaker 2: Are they saying that Budapest summit is going to be
Speaker 2: just Trump and Putin or is a Lenski there too?
Speaker 3: So I've heard Trump Putin and Zelensky in one room putin.
Speaker 3: Another scenario is Putin in one room with Trump and
Speaker 3: then John skan another learn with Trump. So he goes
Speaker 3: back and he's going back and forth. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 3: care so much about the personal dynamics of you know.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: I think what's necessary is to give real consequences to
Speaker 3: rush and say when when the president goes in there
Speaker 3: says okay, this is your chance. You don't want tom
Speaker 3: Ox cease fire today, ceasefire, freeze line. So let's start negotiation.
Speaker 3: If I walk out of here again and you do
Speaker 3: what you did to me in Alaska, tomahawks are flowing,
Speaker 3: the German version of it's flowing. And the Sanctioning Russia Act,
Speaker 3: which Senator Thune wants to pass, it has eighty five sponsors.
Speaker 3: Like that's unheard of. Just you could he could just
Speaker 3: call a Thune and say, you know, vote now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's just too bad. This administration's Ukraine policy's
Speaker 2: completely bipolar. Let's be honest, because three weeks ago Trump
Speaker 2: was like, yeah, they need to win, you know, and
Speaker 2: now it's like they need to stop supposedly there, I
Speaker 2: think Wall Street Journal reported that the phone call that
Speaker 2: Trump and Putin had together yes on Friday before the
Speaker 2: Zelenski meeting, Putin said he wants all of the Nesks,
Speaker 2: even though he doesn't have all of the Nesk, like,
Speaker 2: he's not occupying all of the next. People are speculating
Speaker 2: that he's saying that because he wants the war to continue,
Speaker 2: because obviously Russia's economy is war based now and he
Speaker 2: can't lose face at all. Right, He's trying a legacy
Speaker 2: shop and he doesn't care how many fucking Russians he
Speaker 2: does he kills to do that, you know. Uh So
Speaker 2: it seems like their demands are completely fucking crazy, just
Speaker 2: out of control.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I think the US should just say what
Speaker 3: is reasonable. They not care because they won't negotiate good faith.
Speaker 3: They're gonna ask for like everything, and and for Ukraine
Speaker 3: to disarm, you know, some ridiculous ship like that, for
Speaker 3: every NATO member to swear to God that Ukraine will
Speaker 3: ever be allowed in. Yeah, right, so disarm and not
Speaker 3: join NATO. I mean, it's just gonna it's gonna get ridiculous.
Speaker 3: And they don't even have a problem being ridiculous. They
Speaker 3: just look right at you and be ridiculous. So the
Speaker 3: US seeds saying, no, you can drop all that, and
Speaker 3: here's here's the plan that we think Solonsky can actually
Speaker 3: get approved by the Ukrainian people. And if you don't,
Speaker 3: because that's he has to do that, right, he can't
Speaker 3: just sign away parts of his country. So here's the plan,
Speaker 3: it's somewhat accessible. Let's cut through the crap. And then
Speaker 3: if you say no, we're going to give them everything
Speaker 3: they need to win.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we're going to start giving them your money
Speaker 2: that's tied up in.
Speaker 3: Europe, that too, all the all the all the money
Speaker 3: in Europe, I think all totals are on foreign and.
Speaker 2: Well that interest is accruing, huh.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, maybe they can use that to buy our
Speaker 3: Tomauks and we can just start pumping them out.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Can you imagine if there were just thousands of tomahawks
Speaker 3: had ended. It's not just the military installations, it's all
Speaker 3: their ability to you know, produce energy to funnel war.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're already hitting those areas too, right, they're
Speaker 2: hearing a ton of refiners and stuff like that. Supposedly
Speaker 2: around forty percent of the production. It's down forty percent.
Speaker 3: So yeah, well they have attackings in they're a medium
Speaker 3: range and they've actually mastered so yeah, yes again, you know,
Speaker 3: if Russia doesn't like it, they can just stop fighting
Speaker 3: and they can stop trying to take over.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't understand. Also, I saw another report where
Speaker 2: we were like to there was some negotiations going on
Speaker 2: about easing sanctions on Belarus. It's like, what fuck Belarus.
Speaker 2: You know they're complicity, so we'll see what goes down.
Speaker 2: I mean, it just feels kind of hopeless and like
Speaker 2: Zelensky's gotta be tie. That guy needs a fucking vacation.
Speaker 2: I feel like, you know, like this is brutal, and
Speaker 2: I mean think about the people that are being killed
Speaker 2: in the Russian attacks day in, day out. Yeah, Russia
Speaker 2: needs a peepee whack, a bad one so they can
Speaker 2: unders learn it, like learn how to like act in
Speaker 2: this world. Anything else.
Speaker 3: Oh that's a lot, buddy.
Speaker 2: I know we did have a lot going on. I
Speaker 2: want to remind everybody makes got a new podcast, the
Speaker 2: pub and the Porsch Applied stous is in. The links
Speaker 2: are in the description. Check it out. It's a great pod,
Speaker 2: easy listening too unlike this show? Uh what else? Nick?
Speaker 2: Of course, Lobo fog Bow check it out. The links
Speaker 2: roll in the description. All the other guys links are
Speaker 2: in the description as well. The best place to support
Speaker 2: the show is patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse. You
Speaker 2: get both Teamhouse and iys on episodes AD free and early,
Speaker 2: and you help support the show. Mick as always happy traveling,
Speaker 2: travel safe. I hope you get there quick.
Speaker 3: Thanks State for sure, man, great discussion.
Speaker 2: Hey guys, it's Jack.
Speaker 1: I just want to talk to you for a moment
Speaker 1: about how you can support the show. If you've been
Speaker 1: watching it, enjoying it, but you'd like to get a
Speaker 1: little bit more involved and help us continue to do this,
Speaker 1: you can check out our Patreon. It is patreon dot
Speaker 1: com slash the Teamhouse, and for five dollars a month
Speaker 1: you can get access to all of these episodes of
Speaker 1: the Teamhouse ad free. The same goes with our affiliated
Speaker 1: podcast eyes On with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons mcmulroy that one.
Speaker 1: You will also get all of those episodes ad free,
Speaker 1: and you support the channel and the show, and we
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. The Patreon members are literally what has
Speaker 1: helped this company, this small business survive, especially during our
Speaker 1: early years, and you are what continues to help this
Speaker 1: thing going even as we navigate the turbulent world of
Speaker 1: YouTube advertising. So we really appreciate all of you guys.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a link down in the description
Speaker 1: to that Patreon page, and there is also going to
Speaker 1: be a link to our new merch shop, so if
Speaker 1: you guys want to go and get some Teamhouse merchandise,
Speaker 1: we got stickers and we also have patches, and I
Speaker 1: should mention if you sign up for Patreon at ten
Speaker 1: dollars a month, we will mail you this patch as well,
Speaker 1: so we really appreciate at that. But they're also for
Speaker 1: sale on the merch shop and additionally, they got t
Speaker 1: shirts up there, water bottles, a tote bag, coffee mugs,
Speaker 1: all that good stuff. So please go and check them
Speaker 1: out and support the show. We really appreciate it, guys.
Speaker 2: Thank you,