This is Deep State radio, coming to you direct from our super secret studio i...
subbasement of the Ministry of Snark in Washington, DC and from other undisclosed locations
across America and around the world. Hello and welcome to DSR, I am your host David Rothkuff and we are joined today by three very smart guys who can provide us with some insight into what's been going on in the other side of the world where the president of the United States has been meeting in anchor Turkey with NATO leaders. To join us to discuss this, we begin with of course one of our
“regulars dependable and loose of the financial times are we doing it?”
Blendantly thank you David. Excellent and general mark hurtling who was the commander of the U.S. Army in Europe and you may now know him because he's an MS now regular contributor, how are you doing in Mark? Good to be with you. It's good to see you and we have our friend coming to us from Chicago, Ivo Dalder who used to be the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, how are you doing either?
I am doing great, you know NATO survived another day, you never know, but it worked well so far.
Today is not a well, I guess maybe it's nearing over in Ankara, but let's just get a snapshot take from each one of you of how you think the summit has gone. Let me start with you Mark. Well it appears to me that most of the summit was geared toward management of our president and it's interesting. Ivo knows this much better than I do. There are some really dynamic elements of this NATO ministerial summit and there are a lot of topics to be discussed,
but it appears like this one was more focused on how can we manage the president of the United
States and some of the things he's been saying? I don't think we can judge it by the press conference
that the president held this morning because that was a little bit bizarre to be honest with you as he bounced back and forth between President Zelensky and commentary on Iran. I don't think that really gave a good description of what was happening at the rest of the summit, but it was interesting some of the dynamics that came out before the summit started in terms of what President Macron was saying about how he was attempting to bring the European leaders together to manage
President Trump and also how they were going to address some of the things he'd been talking about. So we don't get the normal read out from this one, David, but it'll be interesting to find out what NATO is going to say after everyone departs. Well, he probably heard the president say today that he was the most popular man on TikTok and also that we had been attacked by 111 missiles from the Islamic Republic of Japan. So there were a few curious twists in this all-thing,
“what's your take? You know, I think the most important take was that the 31 leaders who were there”
and probably even Donald Trump agreed that they won't do it again. They were supposed to meet there, you know, to have an annual meeting, that's their cadence, it's something that started under the former NATO Secretary General, Jan Stoltenberg, who, as a prime minister, only thought that you could make decisions when you're sitting around with your former peers. And so you have this annual cadence and it was pretty clear that in the run-up to the summit, nobody knew
what why they were actually meeting. And so as Mark rightly said, the only thing that they were trying to do was manage Trump and they've come up, they're very smart people. They've now decided maybe managing Trump just isn't good enough. So let's not have another one of these meetings. They were supposed to have one in Albania next year in 2027. Maybe at the same island that Jared Kushner is an Ivanka Trump or building that could be the resort together with the flamingos.
“But they announced they weren't going to do that. And so I think the most important thing”
coming out of this meeting is not to happen. And it sort of goes to the core of how these summit meetings that, you know, when Mark was at the US, you know, the Army Europe and I was there, these were really important meetings. This is, you know, a drove decision-making. It was a decision-forcing mechanism. You'd have 50 pages of communicated layout, what it was you were going to do in the future. Now we have a six paragraph boiler plate. You know, the commitment to NATO is iron-clad.
Everyone knows that it isn't.
comes to Donald Trump. There's nothing iron-clad iron or clad about Donald Trump. Certainly not
“this commitment to NATO. So I think that's the important thing. We're not doing this again.”
Hmm. Well, that's interesting. I think it relates in a way to what Mark was saying about managing Donald Trump and the world in which you've got this X-factor at the center of the alliance. Ed, what was your takeaway from this? Of course, another headline that's come out today, is the president has said that the ceasefire with Iran is over. He also said that the Iranians were scum, and that they might be out to kill. I mean, those are all things he actually said during this.
What do you think of it all at? I'll get back on to the scum cook who
remarks about Iran in a second by just on NATO. Look, I think that is developing outside of NATO
summits and big confibrillations. What Mark Carney of Canada calls a sort of dense web of networks? They're quite below the radar, most of them at the moment. But they are the alternative longer-term arrangements, other members of NATO are beginning to make to try and lessen their dependence on the United States. And it's not just military dependence, by the way. It's in particular tech and digital. And collectively, as the years roll by, these will become more and more irreversible and more
and more facts on the ground. Now, for this particular summit, and summits with Trump are simply Trump management events. But Mark Rutter, the Secretary General of NATO, and I'm tempted to say the Janney in Fantino of NATO. Mark Rutter said this is going to be a summit about all these new investments and complementarities and scale. And I don't think it's allowed to be that, because the precise point is to reduce dependence on the United States. And therefore,
if that's all you want from a summit is for Trump not to put out of NATO, then from a European point of view, and not to invade Greenland, then from European point of view, danger has been staved off another few days or weeks. Now, as regards Iran, you know, he, as you said, he called them scum. He said they were, they were sick, they were coco, they're very bad people. But it's what he, it's what he didn't say that matters most, which is that we're going to withdraw from talks
with them. He didn't say that. In fact, he said, if Wittkov and Kushner want to, if our guys
“negotiators want to carry on talking to them, well, they can if they want. And I think that was the”
tell, because if, if he does mean it when he says we're putting out the ceasefires over, and by implication, the memorandum of understanding is dead, then the straight will be closed. Oil will go back from $75 a barrel to $9,500, and the midterm elections will be affected. So I think Trump is doing his usual bluster. And there is no regime better accustomed to Trump's rhetorical bluster than Iran. But yeah, Europeans are just saying to it. I mean, Trump is essentially
trying to take the Atlantic out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, sort of turning it into the, I don't know what you'd call it, the Northern, untraditional treaty, or something organization, which, of course, spells nutso. But, you know, it's, it's kind of where we end up. Having said that, with regard to Ed's comment about Mark Carney's comment about networks of networks, one subtext I got out of the various statements was,
NATO's figuring out a way to work around Trump, work together without Trump, buy things without the United States, be less dependent, and so forth. And in some ways, that's not a terrible outcome,
“more self-aligned NATO. How do you feel about it, Mark?”
I think it's disadvantageous to the United States, and I've always felt that way. I think we
probably gain more from being part of the alliance than we provide. Trump has made a big push toward fiscal responsibility, and that's it. And I think don't think he's getting a whole lot of great advice from his cabinet or from his supporters in the GOP as to the value of NATO and
What it provides to the United States.
it is a platform, but I would also say it's much more than a platform. It's interesting, as long as I mentioned Root Ed, I just saw a question asked by a Danish reporter that was posted
on on X. It was pretty damning of Root Ed. Danish reporter basically said it on paraphrasing,
paraphrasing, "How do you live with yourself doing the things you do at these summits with President Trump?" And Root Ed kind of sidestepped it a little bit. I guess he's become the sacrificial lamb while all the other ministers will continue to maintain their nation's security. But going back to your question, David, I just think it's really unfortunate if we are shoved aside.
“And I don't think the NATO nations want that either, but they realize that it's the only thing”
they can do in the next several years while President Trump is still in office.
Hey, it's David and I hate to interrupt the podcast, but I want to tell you some exciting news.
We are now on Substack. Through Substack, we are going to be able to provide you with even more benefits, including live streamed episodes, access to new content, ways to save money, and getting content from us better quality content from us, it's a revolution, it's terrific, but it's even better than that. Because to celebrate, we're going to offer a special offer to new subscribers. So now through July 15th, new members to the DSR network, or to my need to know
Substack, which gives you a lot of written content as well as some exclusive video content,
we'll receive one year membership to the other for free. In other words, they cost the same.
So you will essentially get two for one. That's one year of DSR, or need to know, absolutely free just to take advantage of this deal. And support us, which we appreciate, go to DSR Network.Substack.com, or David Rothkuff, that's me, dot substack.com, and sign on for membership, and you'll get two for one. Anyway, thank you for your support. We are 100
“percent sure you're going to think this is terrific development, and that's what I want to get as”
many people as possible to subscribe to it and while you're at it, go subscribe to us on YouTube. So you get the great videos on YouTube. The more subscribers we've got, the more support we've got, the more good independent journalism we can do. So we rely on you. We are grateful. Join us on Substack. Thanks. Yeah, and I wasn't actually saying we were shoved aside. I mean, even there were stories in the past couple weeks about Pete Hegseth coming in and saying,
let's pull troops at a NATO and big numbers. Trump has been talking about that as a goal for 10 years, and no matter how many flattering statements Mark Ruda makes to Trump, you know, it doesn't change the fact that Trump doesn't trust NATO. Trump is more inclined towards
“Russia. Trump doesn't support Ukraine. And so, you know, there's a little give and take,”
he made this weird speech at the very end about, well, there was a lot of unification in the room. Again, he has some trouble with the English language, but that was Trump, by the way. There's a lot of unification in the room, but we know that within moments, you know, he also said I'm going to try to start a trade embargo with Spain. And the problem the Europeans have is they don't, they don't understand that we need Greenland, you know, and we would another
point that he made there. So I don't know, you know, Mark Ruda, you know, the Dutch are known evil for their diplomatic finesse. They used to be known for that in soccer. No more, the soccer I'm so very sorry to say that was really bad performance this year. But you may want to comment out of that, but, but I'm just wondering, does anybody around Mark Ruda or anybody think that that's working? Because Trump seems to be an irrational actor. And I don't know if he's
falls for those kind of, you know, nice phrases. I don't know if I want to talk about the Dutch national team. I mean, once again, the Dutch were able to feel the winning squad only to be coached to lose, which is really remarkable. They're pretty good at it, but anyway. I know, I know, we want to talk about FIFA and rules and red cards and all that sort of stuff,
Because, you know, the president of the United States who yesterday claimed t...
real, real expert on soccer. Obviously, new nothing about how to game his play.
Well, he said in one sentence, I'm an expert on soccer. I don't know what a red card is. Yeah, I was saying, or foul for that matter or anything. But, you know, that maybe that's
“for another day. You know, I've known Richard quite for quite a long time. I think he is an”
very unenviable position. He is, after all, the Secretary General of the NATO Alliance and the NATO Alliance is threatened today, first of all by Russia. And I think that is recognized and he's spending a lot of time trying to figure out a way to both bolster European capabilities, but more importantly, Ukrainian capacity to fight against, against, to defend themselves against
Russia. And the United States is critical to this. I mean, as Mark probably knows better than anyone else,
without you as intelligence that continues to flow at a rate that is probably more intense today than it is at any time before the war. You don't target deep inside Russia, but admittedly Ukrainian drones or the kinds of capabilities that Ukrainian are demonstrating
“with regard to Crimea without really good intelligence. And a lot of that, in fact, most of it is coming”
from outside of Ukraine, including the United States. And so, I know from Richard and people about him, that actually Trump threatens to withdraw that if he feels uncomfortable. Because he says, "I'm only doing it for NATO for Europeans." You want me to stop helping Ukraine, he will say. And so, what Richard is trying to do is to keep him on side. And he's willing to do, you know, bent over backwards, to do that in a way that on a personal level seems to be working. Trump,
again, today, said he really likes Mark Ritton. Why does he like Mark Ritton because Mark Ritton flatters him up the Ying Ying? And so, Ritton knows that unlike his 31 other non-US allies, he doesn't have an election, he doesn't have to worry about his popularity. All he has an audience of one, and he plays that to the best extent possible in order to make sure that the worst outcome doesn't happen. And by the way, the worst outcome can happen. I know that everybody says,
"You know that under you can't withdraw troops because of the MDAA, etc." The United States could tomorrow withdraw from the NATO command structure. Literally. It's just due what the French did in 1966. There's no legal law, there's no Supreme Court that is going to tell the President of the United States that is Commander-in-Chief, he cannot end US participation in the NATO military command structure. So he has a credible power to really, really undermine NATO.
And if Mark Ritton is willing to make, you know, somewhat of a fool of himself, in order to prevent that from happening, in order to make sure that there's continued support for Ukraine, you know, I'm glad he's doing it. I don't know if I could. I probably couldn't.
“In fact, I know I could. But I think he is doing it for the right reason and not because he”
really believes it. That's kind of how I feel about it. Interesting. The answer that you had different Europeans speaking about Trump in different ways. I think it's pretty clear George of Maloney and Trump are not on the best of terms at the moment. She made that clear, by the way. She was pretty strong today that she said, you know, I thought it was worth reaching out, but you know, at some point you just sick and tired of this kind of nonsense.
Yeah. No, she was very, very strong. Okay, let me talk about sort of the two sort of big embedded
stories here. One is the war with Iran. And we never thought that this ceasefire was going to
hold together as a ceasefire constructively that it would sort of add been flow, you know, and that, you know, we might make some progress that would be setbacks and so forth. But doesn't seem like we've made any progress. It just seems like Donald Trump still hasn't gotten his head around the idea that Iran has some strategic advantages, have some cards, and they're going to have to be dealt with. It's like he still wants to try to dictate the terms,
and that's not working out. The markets reacted badly to Trump saying the ceasefire is over. And it happened to coincide with the release of an IMF report that said that we're going into a very
Tight, uncomfortable, international economy.
you know, that this is really the aggravating factor in all of that. As people sit and look at this,
do you think this is a flare up or do you think this is just because this is a kind of a
“raggedy deal, and it's just it being raggedy? I think it's both a raggedy deal and a sort of”
a flare up. I don't think this is the beginning of the breaking of Trump's attempt to talk to Iran, because he's already exhausted all the other options. It's not like America can militarily threaten things that it hasn't already done, and there's not going to be a land invasion, and there's not going to be use of nuclear weapons. So those being ruled out, what is it that
Trump can do that he hasn't already done? So I don't think he's going to get back into the
taco situation where, you know, he's full full war, the markets react and, you know, then he's scrambling for a way out. I mean, he ought to have learned that. And I think one indication that he did is, you know, bringing Greenland up again, as I think just a measure of his frustration. He wants a canvas on which he can sort of paint in his leared colours, and the Persian Gulf just doesn't let him do that. The talks, you know, who'd have thought that, you know, when you've
got to real estate property developers leading talks on the most complicated diplomatic military issue on the planet, the Turk, you know, Obama 20 months, his team of experts 20 months, by the way, succeeding years of talks between Iran and the EU three, between France, Germany and Britain, which made the ground for the JCPOA, who'd have thought that, you know, Whick-off and Kushner, you know, couldn't, couldn't do something in 60 days. I mean, the idea that a
serious deal with all the complicated trade-offs that this would involve could be accomplished in a reasonably short-time frame, and be as good or better than the JCPOA is a laughable matter. I mean, there's just nothing credible in that ambition. At the same time, there's nothing credible in the idea that Trump will go back to war. So he's stuck in this calder sack that he created for himself. Willy learned to the degree that he will sort of appoint empowered serious negotiating teams
that will do it week after week, month after month, and sequester themselves and not listen or read truth-social posts and just focus on that job. No, that's not Trump, that's not in his nature. He's not going to, he does not have this strategic or patient, strategic mindset or strategic patience to pursue a deal like this. So this is just, I forget your word, your language, but there will be flare-ups, and this is a rackety deal, and that's going to remain in the case.
Okay, I've got to go to Mark here with another question, but Eva, you seem to have one.
“Yeah, I mean, so I think it's important to understand that this memorandum of understanding was not a deal.”
And it was sold that way. But you knew that there was a problem, the moment, J.D. Vance, and other said, while the real understanding was, was, was reached privately. And anybody who knows the Iranians knows that there is no real understanding that's reached privately. And if you read the memorandum of understanding, you knew that the Iranians view, I mean, for one, it was written by the Iranians very clearly. And you knew that the Iranian view
including importantly that they controlled the straight of her moves. It doesn't say that they don't control. They only said that they would try to open it up for 30, 30 days for full traffic, that they would open it. And this is what it's about. It's about the straight of her moves. And for some reason, people have been able to suggest that the memorandum of understanding opened up the straight. It did no such thing. And the Iranians weren't going to open up the straight.
And everybody knew that on March, March the first, when they closed it, the first time around.
And so, you know, we're no further than we were on April 7th. This whole nonsense about the memorandum of understanding is just an attempt by Trump to sell defeat as victory. And the Iranians are not willing to sell defeat as victory to Donald Trump. But that's, that's, that's well,
“but I do want to switch the topic here, Mark. Do you want to say something for me?”
Yeah, I do because I think one of the important things Evo pointed out, the MOU was not an agreement.
Everybody keeps calling it a peace deal, a ceasefire.
And that's what folks who don't understand how poorly would cough and cushion or handling this,
“don't understand and how advanced chiming in is not helping them that either. But I'll say one other”
thing, based on my limited experience in the Arab Persian culture, is they are playing this. And, and they have the upper hand. This is asymmetry at its finest. They know they can trade space for time. They all they know is the more time they take, the more President Trump is going to try and push a deal, which he doesn't have. And it's only going to create more failure one on top of another. They have trained their proxies over the last three decades to use the victim doctrine
to make the other nation the world pariah. Israel as it continued to attack inside of Gaza and
inside of Lebanon, they were seen increasingly as the conflict flowed as the pariahs. Iran is now making the United States the pariahs. We are keeping the straight closed. We are affecting the world economic market. We are getting to the point where oil reserves are going to run out in about three more weeks. So, all of those things will reflect back on us when they realize that, you know, they are not the scum. They are pretty good negotiators and they haven't even
started negotiating yet. So, those are kind of things you think about when you're dealing with other nation's cultures. And, truthfully, the administration has not figured that out yet. Okay, so I was going to go round and ask the series of questions about Ukraine and I'm going to do it, but because of the way that just flowed, I'll start with Ed. And, you know, Trump met with Zelensky. It didn't go terribly well. Zelensky glared at Trump half the time. Trump said
at one point, Zelensky was difficult. He said Putin was difficult too, but he specifically said the Zelensky was difficult. He said, you know, this thing again where he sort of created a moral equivalency between Russia and Ukraine where he said, well, you know, it's like kids fighting.
“Sometimes you have to let him fight it out. No acknowledgment that Russia's the aggressor,”
Russia's the work criminal. Ukraine is heroic. Ukraine is fighting on our side. Ukraine is defending our values in our interests. And he then said, well, he's given a lie. He's given a lot to Ukraine. But actually, if you dig down the acknowledging Eva's point about intelligence, in terms of material, in terms of money, this administration's given a lot less than the Biden administration. And some of the things that it's giving, like letting the Europeans give
weapon systems to Ukraine. But, of course, the Europeans won't do it unless we'll replace them. And we're not actually in a position to replace them. You know, it seems like more than it actually is. And then in the middle of the conversation with Zelensky said, well, how about this? What if we license the ability to manufacture patriot missiles to you? Now, there are two problems with this. One is, he may not actually be able to do that. But the second is that where he to do that,
say he's going to do that, it could result in us just not giving the patriot missiles for a few years while all this brines through the system. And I saw some pretty smart observers, Phillips of Brian and others on social media saying, don't misunderstand what's going on here. This is actually a postponement of providing Ukraine with what they need today. And, you know, to me often, you know, I mean, we've just passed a moment where there have been new assessments.
Two million people have died in this war, at least. It is, you know, it is, it is raging on,
I guess Ukraine is making gains. But it's somehow because of Iran and other things, it's sort of slipped out of our consciousness. And I just like to bring it back into our consciousness and say, what did you take away from Donald Trump's comments about Ukraine? And I'm going to go and mark any of them. I have to say, I don't think what he said today with Zelensky,
“that will go down as one of the milestones of Trump Ukraine relationship. I think it's just a sort of”
a waste station, any forgettable. Reality is that Trump's desire for a deal, you know, it runs
Up against the fact that Putin doesn't want a deal, that this would be potent...
or more than career-ending at this point for Russia to freeze this battlefield in place after all this
“sacrifice. And I don't, you know, know technically enough about how quickly Lockheed Martin could”
transfer, you know, and set up Patriot Ratian. I'm sorry, Ratian could set up production in Ukraine.
But, and so I'm sure Philips O'Brien, you know, is right on that point. But the bottom line is,
other countries do have some Patriots in their, in their armies. They could transfer more to Ukraine, the United States first and foremost. And until that happens, Putin has an opportunity he shouldn't have. There's window there. All the other tremendous sort of innovations and gains and courage that the Ukrainians have shown, you know, are jeopardised by the fact that Russian ballistic missiles can get through, and that's, and that's deeply troubling, Trump doesn't give a damn. And he's never
going to give a damn. And, you know, guess what, he's got the same negotiators, Whitcoff and Kushner, for that non-existent elusive deal as well. Yeah, Mark. One of the things that's people who are not immersed in this don't understand is starting a war with Iran, which we did need, has used up a lot of our weapons supplies, including a lot of air defense resources that could have gone to Ukraine, and has created more demand for them among our Gulf allies, in addition to the demand
“that existed Europe. So we've dug this hole for ourselves. What's your reaction? What happened today?”
Yeah, I don't have access to the numbers, but I would push back on the fact that there's plenty
of patriots left. The last three, four years, first with Ukraine, and then with the assistance
to Israel in multiple rounds of attacks by a whole lot of weapons. And the methods of use of our top-notch technologically advanced weapons, I think, have likely drained those systems a lot more than most people realize. And those that do have the patriots, Poland is an example, and we'll use one Turkey is another example. They don't have that many. Their supply is not unlimited. So they are going to hoard. The fact that I saw the same report by Philips O'Brien, and he is
spot on, that it sounded like President Trump was doing something good, but anybody that knows the
defense industry knows that if anything on, put the first brick on the ground today to build a factory
inside of Ukraine, it would take at least two years before they produced a weapon. So it is delaying. It is holding back. Ukraine has had in the last three to four months they have had magnificent tactical success. They have also brought those tactical successes together in operational successes as well with deep strikes. And as Ebo said, with a lot of assistance from intelligence agencies and what they can strike inside of Russia. It has hurt Russia badly. It has hurt
Putin badly in terms of his economic system. But it also has affected his military in a significant way. Russia is in much worse situation today than they've ever been before. I had the laugh when I saw the, I can't remember if it was the independent or the guardian that said Poland was concerned about Russia invading their territory. I only wish that would happen, because the Polish army could wipe them off the face of the earth in one fell swoop in my view
what I know about the Polish military. But having said all that, there is still a manpower issue in both Ukraine and Russia. And that's significant. There have been a lot of casualties in this
“war on both sides, more on the Russian than the Ukrainian side. But you could tell from, I think,”
one of the statements made by President Zelensky this morning when President Trump asked him if he would want to meet in Russia. And Zelensky answered by saying, "I don't think I'd want to do that. We've got a lot of drones outside of Moscow." And I think that was a pretty bold move on his
Part to say that.
couple of years ago that you don't have the cards, he believes he has a lot more cards today than he's ever had before. Yeah, you know, you know, I have to tell you, I find the story of Ukrainian resilience and innovation and success despite the changes within the U.S., the Atlantic Alliance and despite the awesome amount of force that's been directed at them by Russia, to be incredibly moving. You know, there are countries the other day signing drone agreements with Ukraine because they want
Ukraine's technology because Ukraine is now the global leader in drone technology. And what's more in terms of the Russians, you know, this was the one point. I mean, Mark, you know, we all talked about this four years ago and this was happening. We were like, well, Russia's the second
biggest military in the world and by this second most powerful and so on and so forth. Well,
I was reading the other day that the life expectancy of a new recruit into the Russian army is measured in weeks in weeks from when they get to Ukraine to when they die somewhere in Ukraine in soil. Every major oil refinery in Russia has been hit every single one. There are gas lines in Russia. Something has changed here because the year and a half ago we were saying, well, Russia's got the upper end. I don't think anybody thinks that right now. What happens next, Eva?
So I think that's a really good question about what happens next. Before I get there, I think
to your point on the incredible resilience that the Ukrainians have shown, which is extraordinary
“and the innovativeness of them. But I think it's important to recognize that this is not unique.”
This is what happens when an outside power uses military force against a native, a native country. And we seem to be surprised every time it happens. But it happened with the Viet Kong and Viet Kong. It happened with the Taliban on Afghanistan. It happened with the Sunni resistance in Iraq and it's happening in Iraq. And so it's not a surprise that a country that is being attacked will find somehow the resilience to resist and ultimately to win. The only surprise is that we're
surprised when that happens and the U.S. more than anyone else. So that's point one. Point two is I actually think that there is something fundamental has changed in the balance of, you know,
“the relative balance of forces in this war. It's one reason why I think Trump is now more”
nicer to Zelensky because he doesn't back losers. He only backs winners. And he sees that Zelensky is more of a winner. But it also means that we are probably entering a period of the greatest danger in this war since the fall of 2022. Because in the fall of 2022, the Russians were in the same back foot that they seemed to be now. They were about to potentially lose the access to Crimea because the Ukraine army was into her son. It was trying to cross the
neaper in order to get to Crimea. And that's when these intelligence reports surfaced about the possibility of a use of a nuclear weapon. I think we're getting close to that situation again, in which the logic suggests that Putin should agree to a ceasefire and understand that he
ought to cut his losses. But the reality is that he is much more likely to escalate. Escalate either
through a maneuver somewhere that is trying to divide the Europeans and the United States
“with regard to NATO. Or, and I think that's, you know, it's not crazy, at least to worry about it,”
or to use of a tactical nuclear weapon somewhere in Ukraine. And I don't think we're prepared. I don't, you know, I don't think we're ever prepared for this. There's one thing I'm absolutely certain of the Trump administration from the top to the bottom is completely unimprepared to deal with this. They have no idea how to think about this. And, you know, the first thing I would do if I were Rubio and if I were Hexeth and all the end and Dan King is called their predecessors,
how did dealt with it in 2022? You know, when Jake Sullivan had to deal with it and those kinds of
Conversations, those were, you know, there were meetings in the situation room.
to try to figure out how to prevent and if necessary, respond to the use of a nuclear weapon.
“There is no meeting in the situation room, other than to talk about the Epstein files.”
There certainly isn't anyone that has talked about the seriousness of this thing. And,
I worry deeply about cornering someone like Vladimir Putin. Doesn't mean we shouldn't corner it, by the way.
“But the consequences of doing so is much more likely for him to escalate and to de-escalate at this point.”
worthwhile cautionary note in which to end. I am so fortunate that on a regular basis, we get to
turn to people with your collective expertise and I know that our listeners are very grateful for it.
“We'll obviously keep on top of all of these stories that intersected today in Ocarate Turkey”
and continue our conversation with each of these gentlemen and with our regular crew of experts going forward. For now, thank you, Eva. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Ed. Thank you, everybody from this day.
