August 14, 2025 • 37 mins
President Trump and his team are gearing up for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin Friday in Alaska, to discuss putting an end to the war in Ukraine. While Trump is confident in a successful meeting with Putin that will set the stage for a second meeting roping in Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, he says there is a 25% chance the meeting will not go successfully.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
He's night Side with Dan Ray on WBS.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I enjoyed that hour with Nick Collins. I thought he
did a great job. He is one member of the
great in general court on Beacon Hill who actually thinks
for himself. He is not wanted. If he agrees with
the leadership, he'll he'll vote that way. If he disagrees
with the leadership, he will vote against the leadership. We
(00:26):
need more politicians like him who have a backbone on
Beacon Hill. In my opinion, that's just my opinion, and
you can you can judge it, give it whatever weight
you want. I am delighted to begin a conversation about
an historic event that's going to take place at a
military US military base in Alaska tomorrow, and that is
(00:47):
a summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
With me is someone spent a guest on this program before.
His name is Kevin Sirilli. He is a futurist, meaning
he thinks differently than most people. He's not thinking at
(01:10):
the moment, He's thinking about where will what happen is
happening at the moment lead us. And I think that
that is a very important ability to have with our
conversation tonight, but he also has an experience. Kevin. You
were in Helsinki the last time that Presidents Trump and
(01:31):
Putin met, so you have that perspective give us a
sense of of how this is setting up tomorrow. Putin
actually actually had to get clearance to enter the US
because he's on a sanctioned list, as are a lot
of other members of his government. First of all, welcome
(01:52):
back to NIGHTSID, Kevin, serially, how are you this evening?
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Well, thank you, thank you for having me. It's such
an honor, and I've really enjoyed my appearances on your program,
and you do such a good job, and it truly
is an honor. And I also value our conversations all
fair as well. So you're the real deal and it's
a it's a pleasure to get to learn from you
and watch you in all your glory. So thank you again.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well, I think you're oversteading and I feel quite the No, No,
I'm serious. I mean, you've had experiences that I've never had.
What was it like if if you would just share
with us briefly in hell Sinki that was an experience
where Donald Trump was new to the White House. He
was in effect a rookie on that that that international stage.
(02:43):
And some people believe that he made some mistakes asking
a stenographer to leave during a conversation with Putin. And
I don't think that was a highlight of his presidency.
I think he was in a tough spot. I'd love
to know what you take was on how that first
(03:03):
meeting between these two men that the leaders of I think,
the two most influential countries in the world, how it
played out, you know, and what lessons might be partner.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
The One of the things that I did right during
that period of my career was I kept a lot
of notes, and so I was looking I rarely look
back on that chapter of my life. It truly feels
like it happened in the blink of an eye. But
for you, my friend, I dusted off the old notebooks,
(03:34):
and I would say a couple of things about that.
I mean, that was three days of my life when
I covered that summit. And to answer your question directly,
it really depends on which faction you view the world.
So at the time, it was heavily criticized by the
Washington establishment at that time. If you remember back in
(03:58):
twenty eighteen, and it was in the you know, complete
middle dead snack of the beginning of all of the
investigations into the Trump apparatus and their relationship with Russia
and Moscow and Putin. And you know, some of your
(04:18):
listeners might think that that was a Russian hoax, as
the President has described it. Others might think that he
got off easy. But regardless, it was the all encompassing
backdrop of that moment and for Washington, DC, and at
the time, I was a twenty something and that I
(04:39):
was observing the old guard who had just so grossly
miscalculated the Trump movement and grossly miscalculated the effects of
technology on the broader media ecosystem as a whole, and
they were playing by the old rules. And here comes
Trump who throws out a sonographers alluded to and gets
(05:01):
a soccer ball from Vladimir Putin that he then tossed
to malaniops and in the front row, and that was
a soccer ball for Baron Trump. So it was.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
A really surreal moment.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
I remember that quite honestly. The security, as you can
imagine in Helsinki, which is a city that is a
history geopolitically of playing a part and important conversations. It
was the security was incredibly intense, but also the organization
around the media. America traditionally has been very accepting of
(05:41):
journalists and a freedom of speech, and so Russians don't
have that. I actually shouldn't even laugh. I apologize actually
for laughing. I don't mean to be so smug about
that or flipping about that, but it is they are
not They do not respect journalists in their country, and
it is horrible that they don't do that. And Putin
is a thug. But I think because of those dynamics,
(06:07):
I remember we were in like a hold. The press
was trying to get into that room, and actually getting
credentialed to go into that press conference was incredibly, incredibly hard,
and you were fighting for positioning and to get in
that room. But I remember that I was able to.
I have a funny way of being able to talk
myself into those rooms, but I don't know how, but
(06:29):
it just to happen that way. So we were able
to cover it. And it is very surreal. But I
think the bottom line is take the domestic politics out
of it for a second. Back in twenty eighteen, President
Trump was I would argue facing him. I mean, he
(06:51):
was facing a much different political, domestic landscape, and it
was very different to flash forward to twenty five. The
biggest difference is the loss of life in the Ukraine War.
Russia has lost more than one million lives since Vladimir
(07:12):
Putin's horrible decision to invade Ukraine. The Ukrainians have lost
more than one hundred thousand lives. And to put that
in context, as I reported in my newsletter Tonight for
the Future, which you can subscribe to at MTF dot TV,
that is more than five times for Russia, more than
five times the total Soviet Russian dead from every conflict
(07:36):
since World War Two combined, for.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Every conflict that Russia, yeah, involved it, Yes, since World
War Two. Obviously they suffered tremendous losses more than five times.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Yeah, more than five times.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
So and that would Kevin. That has to include Afghanistan,
were they they had to leave under very difficult circumstance.
Was not in charge at the time, but Russia was
embarrassed by their failures in Afghanistan, and we had our
own failures in the Middle East. But I didn't meet
(08:15):
or interrupt.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
No, but no, but specifically for Vladimir putin to lose
one million Russian casualties in this war. They don't have
a democracy in Russia. So when you look at the
approval rating, and I would argue the numbers are cooks.
But when you look at the approval rating that he
has in his own country, the psychological toll that that
(08:42):
takes on a culture, I mean, we can't even comprehend
that loss of life, which we truly can't and thankfully,
but I think that you know, when they meet tomorrow
in Alaska, I think that you know, the mainstream media
and the partisan media across the spectrum. We'll discuss the
(09:02):
political implications, but that is just missing the mark. To
put it bluntly, if you only look at their meeting
tomorrow through the prism of domestic politics. Because their meeting
tomorrow has severe implications on geopolitics, on the global economy
for decades to come. And I'm happy to get into
it in the.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Sund That's exactly you have. You have basically set the
stage there very effectively. We'll take a break because we
have commercial messages. But my guest is Kevin Sorelli. He's
a futurist, somebody who thinks outside the box. Which is
what I like about him. Whether you agree or disagree
with him, Please listen to what he has to say.
We will get to phone calls, I promise you, and
(09:42):
if you want to talk to him, now's the time
to call. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty. Please be
serious with your questions I have when we come back.
I don't understand I have been to Alaska. I think
the time difference is actually a little longer than the
(10:05):
West Coast, so I think it's a four hour time difference.
I might be wrong on that, depending about the time
of year. But I'm going to ask when we come back,
if you know what time this sit down, you know,
the photo op of them in the room, and then
when the media is asked to leave the room, when
that will happen, And if you know how much time
(10:27):
is budgeted for the session. I'd like to just talk
pure process anything that you know. If it is really
laissez fear and it could last five minutes or five
hours or no one knows, that's okay too. I want
to sort of set the stage for my audience, Kevin,
and then let's get into the implications and the long
(10:47):
term implications of what this could mean to both countries
into the world generationally. My guest is Kevin Surreally, My
name is Dan Ray. This is Nightside back after this.
You know the phone numbers, advice to the wise dial
early back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
My guest is a futurist, Kevin Sirrily, Kevin, Uh, I
have not seen a lot of the specifics in terms
of when they will land, when they will meet. Do
do you have any of the bones the structure of
this event clear in your mind at this point.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Yeah, for sure. So essentially tomorrow at about three point
thirty PM New York time, Vladimir Putin and President Trump
will come face to face and Anchorage, Alaska, and they
will do this. That's eleven thirty am, Alaska time. And
they will do this at Joint based Elmendorf Richardson, which
(11:53):
is an anchorage. And this is a military base that
hosts about thirty thousand service members, they're family members and
civilian employees. And it's only seven hundred miles from the
border with Russia. So they will have a private meeting
and then they are expected, but given the dynamics to
(12:15):
expect the unexpected, they are expected to then have a
lunch session with their respective parties and dignitaries, and then
they are anticipated to host a joint press conference. But
to put it in perspective, just how Alaska as the
(12:38):
setting on a military base of the United States, How
important this is, I mean to dust off our history books.
The US purchased from Russia for seven point two million
dollars in eighteen sixty seven, the land of Alaska. Not
(13:00):
a bad deal at all, Not a bad deal at.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
All, Seward's falling probably what they called it, Seward's.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
Falling, probably not a deal that Vladimir Putin would have
made in twenty twenty five. But to put it in context,
the totalitarian twins as I call them, Vladimir Putin and
Shijingping have been doing military drills up near Alaska for
at least the last two years.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
So joint military drills.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
Exactly exactly, not to mention what they're doing in space.
So I think everyone's talking correctly so about the decision
for both the US and Russia not to invite Ukraine
to talk. However, I would argue that perhaps even larger
(13:52):
omission is China not being at having a seat at
the table. And I'm sure Shijingping is uneasy about Putin
and Trump having conversations.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Interesting, interesting perspective. My sense on Zolensky was that Putin
said nyet.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Correct.
Speaker 5 (14:14):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
But if you think back to the sequencing for how
we set the stage, the US set the stage for
the meeting in Alaska, you'll remember the disastrous meeting that
was Zolensky and Trump in the White House. And I
think everyone across the ideological spectrum here in Washington, DC,
where I am broadcasting from would agree that it was
(14:39):
a disaster for Zolensky. It was not exactly the best moment. Now,
others would criticize President Trump and whatnot, but regardless, Zolensky
had a rough meeting that day. Then when you think
of the mineral agreements, and this is what I find notable,
the mineral agreements that Ukraine and the US have agreed to,
(15:01):
the framework document of the Ukraine Investment Fund and the
Reconstruction Fund that entangles the United States and Ukraine in
Ukraine's reconstruction. It allows for the US to play a
part for decades to come in Ukraine's rebuildings.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Sure, inextricably intertwined would be the phrase that I would think.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Yes, So why does that matter? Why do I bring
that up? Because they're not just fighting over nationalistic pride,
which is a huge part of this, and rightfully so,
and I want to be clear, Vladimir Putin egregiously invaded
Ukraine and it's horrible. They are also fighting over rare
earth minerals and access to rare earth minerals and the
backbone to the future's economy on how we build these
(15:54):
semiconductor chips, on how we build satellites, on how we
build future supply chains for the the new world economy
of technology which we are all so relying on runs
through Ukraine, and Europe's access to that if they do
not have access to that, or if they have to
go through Russia, or if Russia controls that has a
(16:15):
domino effect on pushing the Europeans into other markets such
as the Chinese Communist Party and elsewhere. And so for
the US to become so economically intertwined, and for the
Trump administration's decision to negotiate that deal prior to a
conversation with Putin, it suggests a longer term strategy.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
The other question I had on this, and we're coming
up on the news break, so I got to be
quick on it is I believe I read something a
few days ago that some Russian artillery or rockets had
actually impacted that area of the very important minerals. Did
you pick that up at all or no? It was
(16:59):
sort of like in.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Ukraine In Ukraine, correct, And so I think when you
look at the rare earth minerals, specifically in the technology
that the United States, the US has invested significant funds
to put it mildly back to Ukrainians, and it's been
a political hot button issue for both parties and even
(17:24):
in the last presidential election cycle. And so the President,
I think is fencing from Republicans that they would like
this war to have peace. He campaigned on that they
would like the war to come to an end, and
Republicans are really divided on whether to continue their support
for Ukraine. In contrast to that, Democrats do not want
(17:46):
to see the US make any concessions, and they're united
on this. They do not want to see the President
make any concessions to Russia. And so from the political prism,
which is something I try to avoid these days, my friend.
I think that the political theater around tomorrow's meeting will
be interesting, especially given their history of where I was
(18:07):
in twenty eighteen in Helsinki.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Great setup, great setup. We got to take a news
break at the bottom of the hour. We're going to
go right to phone calls. The only lines that are
still available six one, seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. Uh,
It's as simple as that. The six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty is full. Six one, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty. If you want to get in line. We
will be talking about this. Kevin SERRILLI will stay with
(18:34):
us until eleven. I hope you obviously can appreciate and
understand that he has taken a very longer term view
of what's going on tomorrow. A lot of the media
will be talking about who was smiling, who wasn't, did
they shake hands, did they embrace? All of that, which
is interesting. But I think that we have someone tonight
(18:57):
who's giving a perspective that we all need to hear.
Will be a bout on Nightside with Kevin Surly and
his perspective on tomorrow's very important summit between Donald Trump
and Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
You're on Nights Side with Dan Ray on w BEAZ,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Now we're going to get right to the phones. My guess,
Kevin sirily, he's a futurist, but he thinks outside the box.
He's someone who was in hell sinking back in twenty eighteen,
so his perspective is I'm sure in some way influenced
by that, but I think that's a positive influence. Let
me go to Will in Long Island. Will you got
(19:36):
to question or comment for my guest.
Speaker 5 (19:39):
Yeah, I mean we have had many conversations about Rush
over the past few years. Bus we have, I think
I wanted to ask if we have, if you think,
or if Kevin thinks we will see a different version
of Donald Trump tomorrow, I think it's time to flip
the script no more, mister Knights guy. Now, I think
(19:59):
the optic of him sitting in Seaward's folly right with
military mobilized right outside your door and resources of its own,
by the way, which we got and talk about minerals
and oil and things like that that we got from that,
and the fact that you tried to sell it to
us because you thought that Britain at that time was
your biggest enemy and it wound up being us. And
(20:21):
if you had a futurist looking at that at that
time to see how it would unfold into our favor,
I probably would use my stature to physical statue Again.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
So what is the question? Will go ahead?
Speaker 5 (20:34):
Well, what I'm laying is, do you think we see
a different version of Donald Trump? Not the one that
play cads or flatters Vladimir Putin? Do you think we
see the version that pushes prime ministers out of the
way and shakes hands like he's going to yank your
arm out of its socket in time to stop playing
games with a country that really is a regional power
at best and shouldn't even be on the world stage
with him.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
The great question I'm fascinated is what you're going to
say say to that. I have a couple of thoughts,
but I'll keep them to myself. Right ahead, Kevin.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
Well, I think it's a great question. I think I
get what you're What you're saying is tomorrow is President
Trump going to be more appeasing to Putin? Or is
he going to take a more aggressive posturing? And so
I think if you look at the commentary that President
Trump has made before the summit and saying that you know,
(21:26):
unless essentially, you know, to paraphrase, unless Russia agrees to
some type of peace deal, that there will be severe,
severe repercussions. I think that indicates that he is going
to go in there with that in mind. I think
the optics of a commander in chief in any way,
(21:47):
shape or form appeasing a totalitarian aggressor. To use neutral.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
Terms, and I asked, I wasn't I might have, I
don't have a little bit before we have we have,
But but what I'm saying is I think the optics
of that would be incredibly, incredibly bad for for for the
White House. But I will say to your point about
(22:16):
and and it's and I get what you were asking,
but I do just want to you know, and I
trust me.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
I liked your question.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
I think what you were asking, are we going to
see a different Trump? I try not to get into that,
my friend, because every I remember working in cable news,
and it's like, are we going to see a new Trump?
Two point oh three point oh? And it's like there's
only one Donald Trump. And the unpredictability is a tactic
that he deploys, and so you're going to get Trump tomorrow.
You're either going to get Trump who is going to
(22:43):
take it to Putin or Trump he's going to a
peace Putin. But we'll know in a couple of hours.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Well, what about Trump? What about Trump? Okay, here's my
thought on it. What about Trump? He he is somehow
bound by diplomatic protocol. He Contoindrance and and and put
his finger, you know, up Putin's nose and say, hell, He's.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
Done it before. He pushed a prime minister out of
the way. He's yanked people's arms almost off their body
when he shakes their hands, and his body language attempts
to dominate them. We've seen it before.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
I don't think you're going to see that, but we'll say.
I mean, I think that's something lookful. I think that
his uh, that his Department of State people are going
to say, look, here's what, here's what what does Donald
Trump want? Donald Trump wants an end to the war.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Yeah, I agree. I think he wants an end of
the war. That's his legacy because then he can say,
under the Biden administration, the war started and he ended
it and prevented World War three. That's I mean, that's legacy.
And I think he's been very The White House has
been very much consistent in the sense that they've said
they want a ceasefire, they want a permanent They don't
(23:56):
even just want a seat fire. They want a permanent
end to this war. The loss of life in the
UK Russian War is truly incomprehensible.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
But he cannot be Neville Chamberlain. He cannot come back
and say we have piece pieces at hand.
Speaker 5 (24:09):
Bud is a shifty, sneaky, smiley little man with Fronald Trump,
and he'll say what he wants him to hear, and
then he is just he is a very good fake,
you know, placating type of person. But then he goes
and does what he wants on the world stage. I
think it's time to maybe remind him that your country
(24:30):
has a GDP of only two point one trillion. You
literally wouldn't even be a factor. If you think nuclear weapons, well,
I think we need to at this point. Why not
you need to at this point somebody needs to remind
Putin that not only is he a little man, if
it weren't for nuclear weapons, you really would not stand
a chance. And you can't even take that's kind of
(24:53):
a big factor.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
We're not talking about arguing with the president of Armenia
or Isaba, kat buys and by con anyway, whatever, we'll see,
we'll see. And guess what will if Trump Tump goes
in there and does a Hulk Hogan on him.
Speaker 5 (25:11):
Which sounds I'm just trying, dam I'm just I'm just
praying for it, that's all. Maybe addc or a headlock,
that's all. I'm just praying for it.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
I know we probably won't get it, but yeah, right,
thank you, guys, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Will the Will, the Will point to Will's the Will's
point to Will's point, it would be a disaster of
epic proportions if the commander in chief is speaking at
a military base with a fascist thug and appeasing him
with thirty thousand military personnel on site, and fromhow great.
Speaker 5 (25:48):
Would be to see all of the people that have
always called him Putin's puppet have to try to find
some other way to discredit Donald Trump right now? How
we now he's starting World War three. That'll be the
next on MSN LSD or whatever that station is a CNN.
All right, thanks guys, well, I love you.
Speaker 6 (26:10):
Thanks good, thanks.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Uh, let me get real quickly here, Joe and Belmont's
been waiting. Joe, you were next on nice. I have
a good question for Kevin sireally.
Speaker 6 (26:19):
Joe, Dan, I got two questions, go ahead and uh
for you and Kevin and Uh. I'd like to follow
up if possible before nineteen seventy Ukraine in two or
five republics or provinces of territory. We're all under Russia. Now.
(26:39):
I think Russia should be able from our country and
NATO to a next are Ukraine, even though they lose
their freedoms so they won't be a nuclear kay.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
I'll give you. I'll give you quick answer. Joe, No way,
go ahead.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
Kevin, no way, no way, no way, no way. And
I feel very strongly about this.
Speaker 4 (27:04):
But I hear your question.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
But here's why it matters to you, and here's why
I think that you should consider changing your position. And
no one wants nuclear war, by the way, no one
wants nuclear war, no one. But the bottom line is
Putin's got his finger on the trigger and is playing
Russian Roulette in every sense of the word with regards
(27:26):
to nuclear war. But why should you care about Ukraine
having freedom because Putin's not going to stop if he
conquers Ukraine. And all you got to do is look
at history. You got to look at World War two
and World War One. He has actually already said, sir,
that he would go further than Ukraine once he conquers it.
And so you can't let a sug march into Europe
(27:49):
on Europe's, on European soil to do that. That is
not what my grandfather's fought for. I'm sure it's not
what your family's fought for, and we have to hold firm.
Speaker 6 (28:00):
That's your second question.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
What's your second question?
Speaker 6 (28:02):
My second question is could you have two experts on
both sides debate on another program what I just said
because I disagree with the futurists.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Yeah. No, To be honest, we're talking about it tonight.
You had a chance to make your point. I don't
know anybody other than maybe Noam Chomsky, who I don't
have a great deal of respect for, who would join
your position of surrendering Ukraine to Gladimir put Maybe even
not Noam Chomsky, Joe. To be honest, maybe Howard Zillaby
(28:37):
was still alive and.
Speaker 6 (28:38):
There were sacrifices made that Hiroshima. Indeed, day No.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
I got it. No, I totally get it. Joe, I
get it. We answered you asked an honest question. We
gave you our honest answer, and you know what.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
The can I just say something, Jo, I just want
to say this. The difference is, and I respect the
right for you to ask your question. I totally disagree
with the premise of your question one thousand percent. But
we live in a country where you can call into
the radio and ask your position. Let me tell you something.
You could not have a counter a position living in
(29:15):
Vladimir Putin's Russia. You couldn't do it, Joe, because Moscow
would send them after you and they'd be knocking on
your door.
Speaker 6 (29:21):
And so that's that the context. It is better to
light a candle then, of course the docness.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Father right, And Joe, let me tell you something else.
Stuff a cold and starve a fever. Every every idiomatic
expression does not work in every set of circumstances. Joe,
thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
Okay, but but damn, but this is the problem with
the mainstream media in twenty twenty five is that they
you know, I've worked for all of that you know
what I'm saying, and so I want to be blunt.
They do this, what about is a BS and you
can't call out uh positions like from the gentleman who
(30:03):
just called it, and you can't. You cannot cover Russia
and the United States or China and the United States
through the prism like you cover Republicans versus Democrat You
can't do it. You cannot do it covering not the
Germany and the United States and saying that they had
a point, they didn't have a point. And we've got
to be able to say that you got it, you
(30:25):
got it.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Joe, appreciate your call. We're gonna take quick break here
on Nightside. Joe, coming right back on Nightside with my
guest Kevin Sirelli, a futurist. He will tell you what
he believes. And I I'm not gonna have Howard zim
Zinn or Noam Chomsky on this program. They walking through
the door is Rick Petito, one set of Larry Brod
(30:46):
and Kevin McHale. If you get the sports Manaphoor, You'll
know what I'm saying. We're coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Okay, I'm gonna add everybody to ask questions. Okay, and
I know you can do it. Let's go to David
and Maine. David, you're next on nice hat with Kevin. Serrily.
Speaker 7 (31:09):
Go ahead, David, Yes, good evening up up from the
county in Maine. I'm just calling up because I think
there's only two possible outcomes with this Trump summit with
Putin tomorrow, and I'm wondering which one is going to
come to light. One is the obvious thing. If you
want to stop the war in the Ukraine. The source
(31:30):
of income that Putin gets is the oil income. And
if they shut off the income of oil and gas
that Russia is able to, that's.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
What that's the secondary boycott threat. You've identified that, what's
the second.
Speaker 7 (31:45):
Point, and that way we don't have to even give
military aid because that would shut Rushia's economy down. The
other possibility is it's just a bunch of photo ops
for Trump and Putin and a bunch of you know
what with a thing with like a be thing.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Okay, let's get quickly that those proposals will turn it
into a question. Go ahead, Kevin.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Think I think that there's so much work that goes
into the prep work that goes into these summits, and
so I think that definitely the stakes are very high.
And I think that if it doesn't go well for Putin,
based on the communications that have been coming out of
the administration in the last twenty four hours, I think
you can expect for DOJ and the Treasury Department to
(32:34):
increase their aggressi economic aggression against Russia. So I would
look for that, which obviously will have a massive impact
on training and the global economy and people's investment portfolios worldwide.
Speaker 7 (32:51):
We don't even have to do it militarily. I think
it could be just done like that with sanctioning up well.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
And I want to make this is probably this is
probably one of the This is a point if I
put on my MTF economic hat and you can subscribe
to the newsletter at MCF dot CV, I would say this,
you're an idiot if you're invested in Russia economy, especially
right now. But more importantly, you're looking at the playbook
(33:20):
that the United States in the Biden administration as well
as in the Trump two point zero administration. You're looking
at the tactics that the US has consistently deployed against Russia,
and you're looking at your Chinese exposure in the Communist Party,
and if you're invested too much or too heavily in
the CCP businesses, I would be very very concerned if
(33:44):
China invades Taiwan because you shouldn't have that economic risk,
because you can argue, I would argue that the US
will take a similar posturing with their sanctions that they've
deployed against Russia to China, to China pull a Putin
and invade Taiwan, no choice.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
I agree that one is arguably more important to US
than Ukraine right now. So if the stakes are high
in Ukraine, I'm pretty high Utie as well. Thank you, David,
I appreciate it. Rob. What do you say on time?
What do we got two minutes? Okay, I'm going to
gamble here kenon Walthyam. I only got two minutes. You
got something.
Speaker 5 (34:19):
Quick, I'll go quick.
Speaker 8 (34:22):
One thing, is it sounded like Will would like to
see Trump treat Putin the way he treated Zelenski back
in February. I've been arguing with the I keep claiming
that Trump isn't looking for a piece deal, He's looking
for a Ukraine surrender deal. I guess since Will really
(34:42):
asked my question and you answered it beautifully. If Russia
could get a Ukraine surrender and then they would violate it,
I think, and then maybe move into Moldova and Estonia.
What is there.
Speaker 9 (34:58):
Any what is your thought on other countries similar to
North Korea, like maybe Belarus, Hungry China joining this Russian
access and really.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
Belarus is joined at the hip with Russia right now.
Speaker 3 (35:16):
I already have North Koreans have sent soldiers to fight
alongside Russia. The Chinese are you know, there's an incredible
reporting by my friends at the Wall Street Journal on this.
Have been have been, you know, the US has been
openly questioning, and I'll be very neutral whether or not
they've been investing in in in the Russian war against Ukraine,
(35:38):
and so they already have. I think it's a brilliant question,
but it's it's a power shift. The difference is Russia
lost a million lives. Russia has lost it. There's one
number I hope people remember tonight, is that Vladimir Putin
when you're watching him on your smartphone tomorrow, because nobody
watches cable news when you're watching him on your smartphones tomorrow.
Remember that's the guy who lost a million Russian lives
(35:59):
because of his decison to invade Ukraine. That's who you're
looking at, all.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
Right, Ken, if you want to hold on, Ken, I'm
going to continue this conversation without Kevin because he's uh,
he's got some things to do to get ready for tomorrow.
So stay there. If you like, Kennon, I'll pick you
up on the other side of the eleven o'clock news. Kevin,
you never disappoint Thank you so much for your perspective tonight.
And I think that joe In Belmont wants to work
(36:25):
a deal whereby we're going to trade Ukraine for for
Putin's promise that he will not invade the Bahamas.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
Anyway, so many slashbacks of the stuff I used to do.
You better have me on in the future to talk
about robots and asteroids in space, all right, That's what.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
I had Ivy. I had Avi Loba on the other
night to talk about uh three I Atlas. Yes, that's
on his way. We have no idea what it is,
but it's on his way.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
After that, I cover that all the time. That guy
I would love to have to go back and listen
on the iHeart app.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Yeah, thanks so much, appreciate it, Kevin, sir, really, Kevin,
how can folks follow you?
Speaker 5 (37:08):
What?
Speaker 2 (37:09):
Give us the op?
Speaker 5 (37:10):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (37:10):
Which, Yeah, We'll I'll call him back and I'll get
it on the other side. We'll we'll get all of that,
I promise. In the meantime, we'll take a break. If
Ken wants to stay there, I'll open it up with Ken.
The the his his website is. I'm going to double
check the website and I will have it for you
(37:32):
on the other side of the eleven eleven o'clock News
He's night Side with Dan Ray on WBS.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I enjoyed that hour with Nick Collins. I thought he
did a great job. He is one member of the
great in general court on Beacon Hill who actually thinks
for himself. He is not wanted. If he agrees with
the leadership, he'll he'll vote that way. If he disagrees
with the leadership, he will vote against the leadership. We
(00:26):
need more politicians like him who have a backbone on
Beacon Hill. In my opinion, that's just my opinion, and
you can you can judge it, give it whatever weight
you want. I am delighted to begin a conversation about
an historic event that's going to take place at a
military US military base in Alaska tomorrow, and that is
(00:47):
a summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
With me is someone spent a guest on this program before.
His name is Kevin Sirilli. He is a futurist, meaning
he thinks differently than most people. He's not thinking at
(01:10):
the moment, He's thinking about where will what happen is
happening at the moment lead us. And I think that
that is a very important ability to have with our
conversation tonight, but he also has an experience. Kevin. You
were in Helsinki the last time that Presidents Trump and
(01:31):
Putin met, so you have that perspective give us a
sense of of how this is setting up tomorrow. Putin
actually actually had to get clearance to enter the US
because he's on a sanctioned list, as are a lot
of other members of his government. First of all, welcome
(01:52):
back to NIGHTSID, Kevin, serially, how are you this evening?
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Well, thank you, thank you for having me. It's such
an honor, and I've really enjoyed my appearances on your program,
and you do such a good job, and it truly
is an honor. And I also value our conversations all
fair as well. So you're the real deal and it's
a it's a pleasure to get to learn from you
and watch you in all your glory. So thank you again.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well, I think you're oversteading and I feel quite the No, No,
I'm serious. I mean, you've had experiences that I've never had.
What was it like if if you would just share
with us briefly in hell Sinki that was an experience
where Donald Trump was new to the White House. He
was in effect a rookie on that that that international stage.
(02:43):
And some people believe that he made some mistakes asking
a stenographer to leave during a conversation with Putin. And
I don't think that was a highlight of his presidency.
I think he was in a tough spot. I'd love
to know what you take was on how that first
(03:03):
meeting between these two men that the leaders of I think,
the two most influential countries in the world, how it
played out, you know, and what lessons might be partner.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
The One of the things that I did right during
that period of my career was I kept a lot
of notes, and so I was looking I rarely look
back on that chapter of my life. It truly feels
like it happened in the blink of an eye. But
for you, my friend, I dusted off the old notebooks,
(03:34):
and I would say a couple of things about that.
I mean, that was three days of my life when
I covered that summit. And to answer your question directly,
it really depends on which faction you view the world.
So at the time, it was heavily criticized by the
Washington establishment at that time. If you remember back in
(03:58):
twenty eighteen, and it was in the you know, complete
middle dead snack of the beginning of all of the
investigations into the Trump apparatus and their relationship with Russia
and Moscow and Putin. And you know, some of your
(04:18):
listeners might think that that was a Russian hoax, as
the President has described it. Others might think that he
got off easy. But regardless, it was the all encompassing
backdrop of that moment and for Washington, DC, and at
the time, I was a twenty something and that I
(04:39):
was observing the old guard who had just so grossly
miscalculated the Trump movement and grossly miscalculated the effects of
technology on the broader media ecosystem as a whole, and
they were playing by the old rules. And here comes
Trump who throws out a sonographers alluded to and gets
(05:01):
a soccer ball from Vladimir Putin that he then tossed
to malaniops and in the front row, and that was
a soccer ball for Baron Trump. So it was.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
A really surreal moment.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
I remember that quite honestly. The security, as you can
imagine in Helsinki, which is a city that is a
history geopolitically of playing a part and important conversations. It
was the security was incredibly intense, but also the organization
around the media. America traditionally has been very accepting of
(05:41):
journalists and a freedom of speech, and so Russians don't
have that. I actually shouldn't even laugh. I apologize actually
for laughing. I don't mean to be so smug about
that or flipping about that, but it is they are
not They do not respect journalists in their country, and
it is horrible that they don't do that. And Putin
is a thug. But I think because of those dynamics,
(06:07):
I remember we were in like a hold. The press
was trying to get into that room, and actually getting
credentialed to go into that press conference was incredibly, incredibly hard,
and you were fighting for positioning and to get in
that room. But I remember that I was able to.
I have a funny way of being able to talk
myself into those rooms, but I don't know how, but
(06:29):
it just to happen that way. So we were able
to cover it. And it is very surreal. But I
think the bottom line is take the domestic politics out
of it for a second. Back in twenty eighteen, President
Trump was I would argue facing him. I mean, he
(06:51):
was facing a much different political, domestic landscape, and it
was very different to flash forward to twenty five. The
biggest difference is the loss of life in the Ukraine War.
Russia has lost more than one million lives since Vladimir
(07:12):
Putin's horrible decision to invade Ukraine. The Ukrainians have lost
more than one hundred thousand lives. And to put that
in context, as I reported in my newsletter Tonight for
the Future, which you can subscribe to at MTF dot TV,
that is more than five times for Russia, more than
five times the total Soviet Russian dead from every conflict
(07:36):
since World War Two combined, for.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Every conflict that Russia, yeah, involved it, Yes, since World
War Two. Obviously they suffered tremendous losses more than five times.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Yeah, more than five times.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
So and that would Kevin. That has to include Afghanistan,
were they they had to leave under very difficult circumstance.
Was not in charge at the time, but Russia was
embarrassed by their failures in Afghanistan, and we had our
own failures in the Middle East. But I didn't meet
(08:15):
or interrupt.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
No, but no, but specifically for Vladimir putin to lose
one million Russian casualties in this war. They don't have
a democracy in Russia. So when you look at the
approval rating, and I would argue the numbers are cooks.
But when you look at the approval rating that he
has in his own country, the psychological toll that that
(08:42):
takes on a culture, I mean, we can't even comprehend
that loss of life, which we truly can't and thankfully,
but I think that you know, when they meet tomorrow
in Alaska, I think that you know, the mainstream media
and the partisan media across the spectrum. We'll discuss the
(09:02):
political implications, but that is just missing the mark. To
put it bluntly, if you only look at their meeting
tomorrow through the prism of domestic politics. Because their meeting
tomorrow has severe implications on geopolitics, on the global economy
for decades to come. And I'm happy to get into
it in the.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Sund That's exactly you have. You have basically set the
stage there very effectively. We'll take a break because we
have commercial messages. But my guest is Kevin Sorelli. He's
a futurist, somebody who thinks outside the box. Which is
what I like about him. Whether you agree or disagree
with him, Please listen to what he has to say.
We will get to phone calls, I promise you, and
(09:42):
if you want to talk to him, now's the time
to call. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty. Please be
serious with your questions I have when we come back.
I don't understand I have been to Alaska. I think
the time difference is actually a little longer than the
(10:05):
West Coast, so I think it's a four hour time difference.
I might be wrong on that, depending about the time
of year. But I'm going to ask when we come back,
if you know what time this sit down, you know,
the photo op of them in the room, and then
when the media is asked to leave the room, when
that will happen, And if you know how much time
(10:27):
is budgeted for the session. I'd like to just talk
pure process anything that you know. If it is really
laissez fear and it could last five minutes or five
hours or no one knows, that's okay too. I want
to sort of set the stage for my audience, Kevin,
and then let's get into the implications and the long
(10:47):
term implications of what this could mean to both countries
into the world generationally. My guest is Kevin Surreally, My
name is Dan Ray. This is Nightside back after this.
You know the phone numbers, advice to the wise dial
early back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
My guest is a futurist, Kevin Sirrily, Kevin, Uh, I
have not seen a lot of the specifics in terms
of when they will land, when they will meet. Do
do you have any of the bones the structure of
this event clear in your mind at this point.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Yeah, for sure. So essentially tomorrow at about three point
thirty PM New York time, Vladimir Putin and President Trump
will come face to face and Anchorage, Alaska, and they
will do this. That's eleven thirty am, Alaska time. And
they will do this at Joint based Elmendorf Richardson, which
(11:53):
is an anchorage. And this is a military base that
hosts about thirty thousand service members, they're family members and
civilian employees. And it's only seven hundred miles from the
border with Russia. So they will have a private meeting
and then they are expected, but given the dynamics to
(12:15):
expect the unexpected, they are expected to then have a
lunch session with their respective parties and dignitaries, and then
they are anticipated to host a joint press conference. But
to put it in perspective, just how Alaska as the
(12:38):
setting on a military base of the United States, How
important this is, I mean to dust off our history books.
The US purchased from Russia for seven point two million
dollars in eighteen sixty seven, the land of Alaska. Not
(13:00):
a bad deal at all, Not a bad deal at.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
All, Seward's falling probably what they called it, Seward's.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
Falling, probably not a deal that Vladimir Putin would have
made in twenty twenty five. But to put it in context,
the totalitarian twins as I call them, Vladimir Putin and
Shijingping have been doing military drills up near Alaska for
at least the last two years.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
So joint military drills.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
Exactly exactly, not to mention what they're doing in space.
So I think everyone's talking correctly so about the decision
for both the US and Russia not to invite Ukraine
to talk. However, I would argue that perhaps even larger
(13:52):
omission is China not being at having a seat at
the table. And I'm sure Shijingping is uneasy about Putin
and Trump having conversations.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Interesting, interesting perspective. My sense on Zolensky was that Putin
said nyet.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Correct.
Speaker 5 (14:14):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
But if you think back to the sequencing for how
we set the stage, the US set the stage for
the meeting in Alaska, you'll remember the disastrous meeting that
was Zolensky and Trump in the White House. And I
think everyone across the ideological spectrum here in Washington, DC,
where I am broadcasting from would agree that it was
(14:39):
a disaster for Zolensky. It was not exactly the best moment. Now,
others would criticize President Trump and whatnot, but regardless, Zolensky
had a rough meeting that day. Then when you think
of the mineral agreements, and this is what I find notable,
the mineral agreements that Ukraine and the US have agreed to,
(15:01):
the framework document of the Ukraine Investment Fund and the
Reconstruction Fund that entangles the United States and Ukraine in
Ukraine's reconstruction. It allows for the US to play a
part for decades to come in Ukraine's rebuildings.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Sure, inextricably intertwined would be the phrase that I would think.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Yes, So why does that matter? Why do I bring
that up? Because they're not just fighting over nationalistic pride,
which is a huge part of this, and rightfully so,
and I want to be clear, Vladimir Putin egregiously invaded
Ukraine and it's horrible. They are also fighting over rare
earth minerals and access to rare earth minerals and the
backbone to the future's economy on how we build these
(15:54):
semiconductor chips, on how we build satellites, on how we
build future supply chains for the the new world economy
of technology which we are all so relying on runs
through Ukraine, and Europe's access to that if they do
not have access to that, or if they have to
go through Russia, or if Russia controls that has a
(16:15):
domino effect on pushing the Europeans into other markets such
as the Chinese Communist Party and elsewhere. And so for
the US to become so economically intertwined, and for the
Trump administration's decision to negotiate that deal prior to a
conversation with Putin, it suggests a longer term strategy.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
The other question I had on this, and we're coming
up on the news break, so I got to be
quick on it is I believe I read something a
few days ago that some Russian artillery or rockets had
actually impacted that area of the very important minerals. Did
you pick that up at all or no? It was
(16:59):
sort of like in.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Ukraine In Ukraine, correct, And so I think when you
look at the rare earth minerals, specifically in the technology
that the United States, the US has invested significant funds
to put it mildly back to Ukrainians, and it's been
a political hot button issue for both parties and even
(17:24):
in the last presidential election cycle. And so the President,
I think is fencing from Republicans that they would like
this war to have peace. He campaigned on that they
would like the war to come to an end, and
Republicans are really divided on whether to continue their support
for Ukraine. In contrast to that, Democrats do not want
(17:46):
to see the US make any concessions, and they're united
on this. They do not want to see the President
make any concessions to Russia. And so from the political prism,
which is something I try to avoid these days, my friend.
I think that the political theater around tomorrow's meeting will
be interesting, especially given their history of where I was
(18:07):
in twenty eighteen in Helsinki.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Great setup, great setup. We got to take a news
break at the bottom of the hour. We're going to
go right to phone calls. The only lines that are
still available six one, seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. Uh,
It's as simple as that. The six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty is full. Six one, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty. If you want to get in line. We
will be talking about this. Kevin SERRILLI will stay with
(18:34):
us until eleven. I hope you obviously can appreciate and
understand that he has taken a very longer term view
of what's going on tomorrow. A lot of the media
will be talking about who was smiling, who wasn't, did
they shake hands, did they embrace? All of that, which
is interesting. But I think that we have someone tonight
(18:57):
who's giving a perspective that we all need to hear.
Will be a bout on Nightside with Kevin Surly and
his perspective on tomorrow's very important summit between Donald Trump
and Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
You're on Nights Side with Dan Ray on w BEAZ,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Now we're going to get right to the phones. My guess,
Kevin sirily, he's a futurist, but he thinks outside the box.
He's someone who was in hell sinking back in twenty eighteen,
so his perspective is I'm sure in some way influenced
by that, but I think that's a positive influence. Let
me go to Will in Long Island. Will you got
(19:36):
to question or comment for my guest.
Speaker 5 (19:39):
Yeah, I mean we have had many conversations about Rush
over the past few years. Bus we have, I think
I wanted to ask if we have, if you think,
or if Kevin thinks we will see a different version
of Donald Trump tomorrow, I think it's time to flip
the script no more, mister Knights guy. Now, I think
(19:59):
the optic of him sitting in Seaward's folly right with
military mobilized right outside your door and resources of its own,
by the way, which we got and talk about minerals
and oil and things like that that we got from that,
and the fact that you tried to sell it to
us because you thought that Britain at that time was
your biggest enemy and it wound up being us. And
(20:21):
if you had a futurist looking at that at that
time to see how it would unfold into our favor,
I probably would use my stature to physical statue Again.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
So what is the question? Will go ahead?
Speaker 5 (20:34):
Well, what I'm laying is, do you think we see
a different version of Donald Trump? Not the one that
play cads or flatters Vladimir Putin? Do you think we
see the version that pushes prime ministers out of the
way and shakes hands like he's going to yank your
arm out of its socket in time to stop playing
games with a country that really is a regional power
at best and shouldn't even be on the world stage
with him.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
The great question I'm fascinated is what you're going to
say say to that. I have a couple of thoughts,
but I'll keep them to myself. Right ahead, Kevin.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
Well, I think it's a great question. I think I
get what you're What you're saying is tomorrow is President
Trump going to be more appeasing to Putin? Or is
he going to take a more aggressive posturing? And so
I think if you look at the commentary that President
Trump has made before the summit and saying that you know,
(21:26):
unless essentially, you know, to paraphrase, unless Russia agrees to
some type of peace deal, that there will be severe,
severe repercussions. I think that indicates that he is going
to go in there with that in mind. I think
the optics of a commander in chief in any way,
(21:47):
shape or form appeasing a totalitarian aggressor. To use neutral.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
Terms, and I asked, I wasn't I might have, I
don't have a little bit before we have we have,
But but what I'm saying is I think the optics
of that would be incredibly, incredibly bad for for for the
White House. But I will say to your point about
(22:16):
and and it's and I get what you were asking,
but I do just want to you know, and I
trust me.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
I liked your question.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
I think what you were asking, are we going to
see a different Trump? I try not to get into that,
my friend, because every I remember working in cable news,
and it's like, are we going to see a new Trump?
Two point oh three point oh? And it's like there's
only one Donald Trump. And the unpredictability is a tactic
that he deploys, and so you're going to get Trump tomorrow.
You're either going to get Trump who is going to
(22:43):
take it to Putin or Trump he's going to a
peace Putin. But we'll know in a couple of hours.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Well, what about Trump? What about Trump? Okay, here's my
thought on it. What about Trump? He he is somehow
bound by diplomatic protocol. He Contoindrance and and and put
his finger, you know, up Putin's nose and say, hell, He's.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
Done it before. He pushed a prime minister out of
the way. He's yanked people's arms almost off their body
when he shakes their hands, and his body language attempts
to dominate them. We've seen it before.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
I don't think you're going to see that, but we'll say.
I mean, I think that's something lookful. I think that
his uh, that his Department of State people are going
to say, look, here's what, here's what what does Donald
Trump want? Donald Trump wants an end to the war.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Yeah, I agree. I think he wants an end of
the war. That's his legacy because then he can say,
under the Biden administration, the war started and he ended
it and prevented World War three. That's I mean, that's legacy.
And I think he's been very The White House has
been very much consistent in the sense that they've said
they want a ceasefire, they want a permanent They don't
(23:56):
even just want a seat fire. They want a permanent
end to this war. The loss of life in the
UK Russian War is truly incomprehensible.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
But he cannot be Neville Chamberlain. He cannot come back
and say we have piece pieces at hand.
Speaker 5 (24:09):
Bud is a shifty, sneaky, smiley little man with Fronald Trump,
and he'll say what he wants him to hear, and
then he is just he is a very good fake,
you know, placating type of person. But then he goes
and does what he wants on the world stage. I
think it's time to maybe remind him that your country
(24:30):
has a GDP of only two point one trillion. You
literally wouldn't even be a factor. If you think nuclear weapons, well,
I think we need to at this point. Why not
you need to at this point somebody needs to remind
Putin that not only is he a little man, if
it weren't for nuclear weapons, you really would not stand
a chance. And you can't even take that's kind of
(24:53):
a big factor.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
We're not talking about arguing with the president of Armenia
or Isaba, kat buys and by con anyway, whatever, we'll see,
we'll see. And guess what will if Trump Tump goes
in there and does a Hulk Hogan on him.
Speaker 5 (25:11):
Which sounds I'm just trying, dam I'm just I'm just
praying for it, that's all. Maybe addc or a headlock,
that's all. I'm just praying for it.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
I know we probably won't get it, but yeah, right,
thank you, guys, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Will the Will, the Will point to Will's the Will's
point to Will's point, it would be a disaster of
epic proportions if the commander in chief is speaking at
a military base with a fascist thug and appeasing him
with thirty thousand military personnel on site, and fromhow great.
Speaker 5 (25:48):
Would be to see all of the people that have
always called him Putin's puppet have to try to find
some other way to discredit Donald Trump right now? How
we now he's starting World War three. That'll be the
next on MSN LSD or whatever that station is a CNN.
All right, thanks guys, well, I love you.
Speaker 6 (26:10):
Thanks good, thanks.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Uh, let me get real quickly here, Joe and Belmont's
been waiting. Joe, you were next on nice. I have
a good question for Kevin sireally.
Speaker 6 (26:19):
Joe, Dan, I got two questions, go ahead and uh
for you and Kevin and Uh. I'd like to follow
up if possible before nineteen seventy Ukraine in two or
five republics or provinces of territory. We're all under Russia. Now.
(26:39):
I think Russia should be able from our country and
NATO to a next are Ukraine, even though they lose
their freedoms so they won't be a nuclear kay.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
I'll give you. I'll give you quick answer. Joe, No way,
go ahead.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
Kevin, no way, no way, no way, no way. And
I feel very strongly about this.
Speaker 4 (27:04):
But I hear your question.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
But here's why it matters to you, and here's why
I think that you should consider changing your position. And
no one wants nuclear war, by the way, no one
wants nuclear war, no one. But the bottom line is
Putin's got his finger on the trigger and is playing
Russian Roulette in every sense of the word with regards
(27:26):
to nuclear war. But why should you care about Ukraine
having freedom because Putin's not going to stop if he
conquers Ukraine. And all you got to do is look
at history. You got to look at World War two
and World War One. He has actually already said, sir,
that he would go further than Ukraine once he conquers it.
And so you can't let a sug march into Europe
(27:49):
on Europe's, on European soil to do that. That is
not what my grandfather's fought for. I'm sure it's not
what your family's fought for, and we have to hold firm.
Speaker 6 (28:00):
That's your second question.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
What's your second question?
Speaker 6 (28:02):
My second question is could you have two experts on
both sides debate on another program what I just said
because I disagree with the futurists.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Yeah. No, To be honest, we're talking about it tonight.
You had a chance to make your point. I don't
know anybody other than maybe Noam Chomsky, who I don't
have a great deal of respect for, who would join
your position of surrendering Ukraine to Gladimir put Maybe even
not Noam Chomsky, Joe. To be honest, maybe Howard Zillaby
(28:37):
was still alive and.
Speaker 6 (28:38):
There were sacrifices made that Hiroshima. Indeed, day No.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
I got it. No, I totally get it. Joe, I
get it. We answered you asked an honest question. We
gave you our honest answer, and you know what.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
The can I just say something, Jo, I just want
to say this. The difference is, and I respect the
right for you to ask your question. I totally disagree
with the premise of your question one thousand percent. But
we live in a country where you can call into
the radio and ask your position. Let me tell you something.
You could not have a counter a position living in
(29:15):
Vladimir Putin's Russia. You couldn't do it, Joe, because Moscow
would send them after you and they'd be knocking on
your door.
Speaker 6 (29:21):
And so that's that the context. It is better to
light a candle then, of course the docness.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Father right, And Joe, let me tell you something else.
Stuff a cold and starve a fever. Every every idiomatic
expression does not work in every set of circumstances. Joe,
thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
Okay, but but damn, but this is the problem with
the mainstream media in twenty twenty five is that they
you know, I've worked for all of that you know
what I'm saying, and so I want to be blunt.
They do this, what about is a BS and you
can't call out uh positions like from the gentleman who
(30:03):
just called it, and you can't. You cannot cover Russia
and the United States or China and the United States
through the prism like you cover Republicans versus Democrat You
can't do it. You cannot do it covering not the
Germany and the United States and saying that they had
a point, they didn't have a point. And we've got
to be able to say that you got it, you
(30:25):
got it.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Joe, appreciate your call. We're gonna take quick break here
on Nightside. Joe, coming right back on Nightside with my
guest Kevin Sirelli, a futurist. He will tell you what
he believes. And I I'm not gonna have Howard zim
Zinn or Noam Chomsky on this program. They walking through
the door is Rick Petito, one set of Larry Brod
(30:46):
and Kevin McHale. If you get the sports Manaphoor, You'll
know what I'm saying. We're coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Okay, I'm gonna add everybody to ask questions. Okay, and
I know you can do it. Let's go to David
and Maine. David, you're next on nice hat with Kevin. Serrily.
Speaker 7 (31:09):
Go ahead, David, Yes, good evening up up from the
county in Maine. I'm just calling up because I think
there's only two possible outcomes with this Trump summit with
Putin tomorrow, and I'm wondering which one is going to
come to light. One is the obvious thing. If you
want to stop the war in the Ukraine. The source
(31:30):
of income that Putin gets is the oil income. And
if they shut off the income of oil and gas
that Russia is able to, that's.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
What that's the secondary boycott threat. You've identified that, what's
the second.
Speaker 7 (31:45):
Point, and that way we don't have to even give
military aid because that would shut Rushia's economy down. The
other possibility is it's just a bunch of photo ops
for Trump and Putin and a bunch of you know
what with a thing with like a be thing.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Okay, let's get quickly that those proposals will turn it
into a question. Go ahead, Kevin.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Think I think that there's so much work that goes
into the prep work that goes into these summits, and
so I think that definitely the stakes are very high.
And I think that if it doesn't go well for Putin,
based on the communications that have been coming out of
the administration in the last twenty four hours, I think
you can expect for DOJ and the Treasury Department to
(32:34):
increase their aggressi economic aggression against Russia. So I would
look for that, which obviously will have a massive impact
on training and the global economy and people's investment portfolios worldwide.
Speaker 7 (32:51):
We don't even have to do it militarily. I think
it could be just done like that with sanctioning up well.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
And I want to make this is probably this is
probably one of the This is a point if I
put on my MTF economic hat and you can subscribe
to the newsletter at MCF dot CV, I would say this,
you're an idiot if you're invested in Russia economy, especially
right now. But more importantly, you're looking at the playbook
(33:20):
that the United States in the Biden administration as well
as in the Trump two point zero administration. You're looking
at the tactics that the US has consistently deployed against Russia,
and you're looking at your Chinese exposure in the Communist Party,
and if you're invested too much or too heavily in
the CCP businesses, I would be very very concerned if
(33:44):
China invades Taiwan because you shouldn't have that economic risk,
because you can argue, I would argue that the US
will take a similar posturing with their sanctions that they've
deployed against Russia to China, to China pull a Putin
and invade Taiwan, no choice.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
I agree that one is arguably more important to US
than Ukraine right now. So if the stakes are high
in Ukraine, I'm pretty high Utie as well. Thank you, David,
I appreciate it. Rob. What do you say on time?
What do we got two minutes? Okay, I'm going to
gamble here kenon Walthyam. I only got two minutes. You
got something.
Speaker 5 (34:19):
Quick, I'll go quick.
Speaker 8 (34:22):
One thing, is it sounded like Will would like to
see Trump treat Putin the way he treated Zelenski back
in February. I've been arguing with the I keep claiming
that Trump isn't looking for a piece deal, He's looking
for a Ukraine surrender deal. I guess since Will really
(34:42):
asked my question and you answered it beautifully. If Russia
could get a Ukraine surrender and then they would violate it,
I think, and then maybe move into Moldova and Estonia.
What is there.
Speaker 9 (34:58):
Any what is your thought on other countries similar to
North Korea, like maybe Belarus, Hungry China joining this Russian
access and really.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
Belarus is joined at the hip with Russia right now.
Speaker 3 (35:16):
I already have North Koreans have sent soldiers to fight
alongside Russia. The Chinese are you know, there's an incredible
reporting by my friends at the Wall Street Journal on this.
Have been have been, you know, the US has been
openly questioning, and I'll be very neutral whether or not
they've been investing in in in the Russian war against Ukraine,
(35:38):
and so they already have. I think it's a brilliant question,
but it's it's a power shift. The difference is Russia
lost a million lives. Russia has lost it. There's one
number I hope people remember tonight, is that Vladimir Putin
when you're watching him on your smartphone tomorrow, because nobody
watches cable news when you're watching him on your smartphones tomorrow.
Remember that's the guy who lost a million Russian lives
(35:59):
because of his decison to invade Ukraine. That's who you're
looking at, all.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
Right, Ken, if you want to hold on, Ken, I'm
going to continue this conversation without Kevin because he's uh,
he's got some things to do to get ready for tomorrow.
So stay there. If you like, Kennon, I'll pick you
up on the other side of the eleven o'clock news. Kevin,
you never disappoint Thank you so much for your perspective tonight.
And I think that joe In Belmont wants to work
(36:25):
a deal whereby we're going to trade Ukraine for for
Putin's promise that he will not invade the Bahamas.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
Anyway, so many slashbacks of the stuff I used to do.
You better have me on in the future to talk
about robots and asteroids in space, all right, That's what.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
I had Ivy. I had Avi Loba on the other
night to talk about uh three I Atlas. Yes, that's
on his way. We have no idea what it is,
but it's on his way.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
After that, I cover that all the time. That guy
I would love to have to go back and listen
on the iHeart app.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Yeah, thanks so much, appreciate it, Kevin, sir, really, Kevin,
how can folks follow you?
Speaker 5 (37:08):
What?
Speaker 2 (37:09):
Give us the op?
Speaker 5 (37:10):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (37:10):
Which, Yeah, We'll I'll call him back and I'll get
it on the other side. We'll we'll get all of that,
I promise. In the meantime, we'll take a break. If
Ken wants to stay there, I'll open it up with Ken.
The the his his website is. I'm going to double
check the website and I will have it for you
(37:32):
on the other side of the eleven eleven o'clock News
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.