February 27, 2025 • 19 mins
President Trump met separately this week with President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom to discuss potential terms for a ceasefire in the Ukraine-Russia war. Trump highlighted significant progress in talks with Russia and other parties, aiming to end the conflict. The Trump administration is also negotiating the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Victoria Coates, former Deputy National Security Advisor and current vice president at The Heritage Foundation joins Newt emphasizing the importance of diplomatic progress and criticizing the Biden administration's approach. Coates highlights the need for a strategic and decisive resolution to the war, the significance of defense spending in Europe, and the potential benefits of the US-Ukraine mineral deal. Their conversation also covers the broader implications of US foreign policy and the evolving political landscape in Europe.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
On this episode of The New World. President Trump met
this week with French President Emmanuel macrumb and United Kingdom
Prime Minister Kars Charmer to discuss the possible terms in
which the war between Ukraine and Russia could arrive at
a seasefarre. President Trump expressed, quote, I think a lot
of progress has been made. We've had some very good
talks with Russia. We've had some very good talks with others,
(00:27):
and we're trying to get the war ended with Russia
and Ukraine post quote. The Trump administration is also actively
negotiating the release of the Israeli hostages still being held
by Hamas. Here to discuss all of these topics, I'm
really pleased to welcome my guest, Victoria Coates, former Deputy
National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump and current Vice
(00:48):
president of the Catherine and Shelby col Um Davis Institute
for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
Her new book, The Battle for the Jewish State, How
Israel and America Can Win, is available now. Victoria, welcome,
(01:18):
and thank you for joining me on News World.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Of course, it's a great pleasure.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
So President Macrone visited the White House on Monday. Prime
Minister Starmer is set to visit the White House on
Thursday to discuss the Ukraine War and their relationship with
the United States. What do you see as the primary
goals of these leaders in their respective meetings, both in
terms of their bilateral relations with the United States and
their broader stance within Europe.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Now, I think this has been a critical week for
President Trump's stated goal of ending the Ukraine War, and
for the first time in three years in it we
marked on Monday the three year anniversary of Putin's invasion
of Ukraine. For the first time, we're seeing some diplomatic progress.
The Biden took the approach of freezing communications with the Russians,
(02:04):
never a good idea. President Reagan certainly didn't do anything
like that. They had very maximalist rhetoric towards Russia, and
I had this strategy of as much as it takes,
as long as it takes, which is a bumper sticker essentially.
And so I think President Trump, having inherited a really
intractable situation here with a war of attrition between Ukraine
(02:26):
and Russia, has prioritized ending the killing, as he says,
and getting the war to an acceptable solution to just
tamp down that concern because he knows we've got bigger
fish to fry and bigger problems.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Now.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
The Europeans, of course, have responded with panic to the
return of the president, which I think is a good thing,
and I think that's why you've had President Macron and
Prime Minister Starmer visiting Washington this week, and we will
actually also have President Zelensky at the end of the
week to discuss the mineral Deallly sign it. But I
(03:01):
think what you're seeing here is President Trump getting results
out of Europe. We had the Prime Minister of the
UK pledged to get to two and a half percent.
That's not enough, but that's better than where they are
in terms of defense spending percentage of GDP. You have
mccron talking about a European army, which is a terrible idea.
He should invest in his own defenses and NATO defenses.
(03:24):
But at least they're talking about their defenses. And this
is three years though into a war in Europe. Finally
we're getting some progress. So I think this is a
huge week and very important for the Transatlantic relationship.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
I want to go back to the line you used
about the Biden administration, which was, you know, they should
fight as long as it takes. The problem with that
was it was Ukrainians doing the fighting, not the diplomats,
and so young Ukrainians were being killed in enormous numbers,
with no strategy, no sense of how you're going to win.
And it seems that's part of what Trump entered, was
(03:58):
that you'd watch three years of total failure to cope
with and defeat the Russian throne.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Now and I think you could probably with hindsight, identify
a period in twenty twenty two when Ukraine had the
momentum that you could have done something decisive, maybe with
major NATO allies. They wasn't done. The incremental assistance provided
by the Biden administration was enough to keep Ukraine from losing,
but not enough to let them win. And now, as
(04:27):
you said, we're in this situation where we've had hundreds
of thousands of dead Ukrainians. And I have to say,
in Washington, it's a standard line that, oh, well, they're
not asking Americans to die in this war, and we're
modernizing our military, so this is great, but we're doing
that on the backs of a lot of dead Ukrainians
which to do something modernize our military that we should
(04:49):
do anyway, and I think that's what President Trump isn't
willing to buy into, and that he wants that carnage
to stop.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
It was interesting that French President Macrome said an interviewed
before met with Trump, quote what I'm going to do
is I'm going to tell him, basically, you cannot be
weak in the face of President Putin. It's not you,
it's not your trademark. But then during a joint of
this conference after their meeting, Macron said, quote, this piece
must not mean a surrender of Ukraine. He must not
(05:19):
mean a ceasefire without guarantees. This piece must allow for
Ukrainian sovereignty. It strikes me that there's a desperate interest
on part of the internationalists to assume that somehow Trump
is Putin's puppet, because they can't accept the idea that
maybe there's an alternative path to getting this thing done.
I mean, do you have that same feeling that the
(05:40):
level of vitriol, the level of language almost represents the
de reader which their worldview has been repudiated, rather than
an analysis of what's going on.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
No, I agree with that, and if you look at
what President Trump has done since he's been in office
versus some of his rhetoric. What he has done has
been pretty rough on Russia. And that would be things
like the energy renaissance that he's promising with Secretary Bergen
and Secretary Right hard at work to unleash American energy.
That's a terrible thing for Russia. They don't like that
(06:11):
at all. And then this mineral deal with Ukraine, which
gives the United States a vested interest in Ukraine's security
because that is a deal that theoretically will be very
profitable for both our countries. So those are material steps
he's taking. At the same time, Sure, maybe he's saying
some nicer things about Russia than the Biden administration said,
(06:31):
but that costs him nothing. And sure they adjusted the
language on the United Nations General Assembly resolution. But I
can't think of anything, off the top of my head
more useless than a United Nations General Assembly resolution. So
that's an easy give from President Trump's perspective. It doesn't
cost anything. Meanwhile, he is taking material actions which actually
(06:52):
do cost Russia something. So I would be very cautious
about saying that he is Putin's puppet. Especially because we
have the fact that of the previous three presidents, the
only president under whom Ukraine was not invaded was President Trump.
So that's hardly what happens when you're somebody's puppet.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
When I look at Trump's centeriur career. And if you
go back and read his two best books, The Art
of the Deal and The Order of the Comeback, he
understands if you can't get the other guy in the room,
you're not going to get a deal. So I think
some of this posturing is designed to say that Putin, look,
this is a different moment, I'm a different guy. We
(07:31):
can find a way to work together. And it strikes
me if you have any possibility of getting to a
truce or a ceasequare Putin has to have a buy
in or he can just sit there and continue this
war for twenty more years. No.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Absolutely, And I think that's also the problem with the
way the media has characterized Putin as the devil and
President Zelenski as the savior. You just have these two polls,
and it made it possible to deal with Vladimir Putin.
And regardless of what we might want to be the
case in Russia, he is the decision maker, and President
(08:09):
Trump has always been very clear with that that he
wants to deal with the decision maker for the reasons
you described that are laid out in both of those books.
That you can't deal with underlings. You can't deal with
people who have to run back to their boss every
fifteen minutes to get the okay on something. You need
the decision maker, and that is Vladimir Putin for Russia.
It's just a fact. And so I do think what
(08:30):
we've seen over the last couple of weeks is a
leveling of that playing field. Certainly, I think President Zelenski's
characterization of President Trump as being in a Russian disinformation
space was an unfortunate episode, and I think the President
struck back as he will. And the other thing he
hit on nut that really struck me is the fact
that we haven't had elections in Ukraine because the Biden
(08:53):
administration has sold this to the American people over the
last three years as an excidential threat democracy and that
we were defending the very principles of democracy and that
was why we were going to commit so much treasure
to Ukraine. Well, we've learned this in the Middle East
over the last twenty years that going to war for
(09:14):
democracy is not going to be a successful recipe. If
you're going to go to war or contribute to a war,
it has to be in your vital national security interests.
And I love democracy. I'm an eager practitioner in it.
I wrote a book about the history of it. I
am in no way opposed to it. But it's not
a cause for war. And so that I think was
(09:34):
a fallacy that President Trump really put his finger on
when he was like, and look, and the guy that's
supposed to be our savior is not practicing his democracy.
He's not having elections. So I think that's been a
very clarifying moment as well.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I was surprised when Trump first came up with this
mineral deal. I would have thought that Zawski would have
grabbed it, because if you get America deeply involved in
the Ukrainian economy, you make it much less likely the
rush we'll ever attack again.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Absolutely, this is also what I think should be the
model now that we're dismantling the broken paradigm of USAID,
which had its role in the Cold War. It drifted
from that mission clearly in the nineties and certainly over
the last twenty years. It can't be fixed at this point.
But if you look at these deals for mutual sort
(10:44):
of co development of resources, it kind of goes back
to the iramco model with Saudi Arabia, and you create
a corporation in essence that is an asset to both
countries and a source of prosperity. And so I would
love to see this successful deal be replicated in Africa,
in Latin America. You know, it could be a great
(11:04):
way to spread American influence and very positively shape the
development of these countries and not just be a gift
from the US taxpayer, and certainly not be in the
service of some very liberal, woke social agenda as USAID
has been in recent years.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Starmer has made a point I'm just going to quote
from a speech he gave at the Scottish Labor Party
conference in Glasgow. He said, nobody wants the bloodshed to continue,
nobody least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that
they have suffered, after everything that they have fought for,
there could be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine. And
the people of Ukraine must have a long term secure future.
(11:43):
Let's what I agree with the last part. They should
have a long term secure future. In the Korean War,
the United States Chinese negotiations Penman John had neither North
or South Korea in them. In the Vietnam War, the
negotiations in Paris were between the units in North Vietnam
and didn't have the South Vietnamese in them. So it's
(12:04):
not abnormal for great powers to set on and deal
with each other and not necessarily have their ally at
the table. I mean in that sense, isn't this trying
to set a different standard.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
It is, and I think particularly the meeting in Saudi
Arabia was just a very important re establishment of contact.
One of the things that actually came out of the
Helsinki summit between President Trump and President Putin was a
directive for the National Security Council staffs to talk to
each other. So we actually did during the Trump administration.
(12:36):
We met with the Russians in Geneva, we went and
met with him in Moscow and in Jerusalem, so there
was contact, there was discussion, but that was between Russia
and the United States. And I think the meeting with
Secretary of Rubio and National Security Advisor Waltz was very
important for establishing that contact between the Russians and the
United States and starting to have discussions. And I thought
(12:59):
that was particularly interesting meeting taking place in riadd because
you'd had for the first time, to my knowledge, the
three biggest energy producers in the world in the same room,
and apparently they did talk about energy.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
You know, I had not thought that that's a great
point symbolically, that you have the overwhelming weight of the
world's oil supply sitting in that one room. I also
thought it was interesting, and I suspect deliberate as opposed
to going to Geneva or somewhere in Europe, the kind
of place John Kerrey liked. We had a good four
(13:33):
star hotel, terrific restaurants. They both honored the Saudis and
established a different structure of thinking about things to have
the meeting in Saudi Arabia rather than Europe. I'm sure
it was deliberate, but it was just to me kind
of fascinating comment on how the world is changing.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
It is and I think the Biden administration found out
the hard way between Pariah what Joe Biden as a
candidate referred to the kingdom as and then the getting
to the fist bump when he realized that there was
this very significant role that Saudi has to play and
the reason that we had an eighty year alliance with them.
(14:13):
And so that is something President Trump obviously recognized from
the get go, and the location of his first trip
in the spring of twenty seventeen. He went to Riad
first and then he went to Jerusalem, and then he
went to Rome. And that is I think what he's
proposing to do again, and that demonstrates his appreciation for
(14:34):
the significance of that relationship and the role that Saudi
can play. Because obviously NBS is well known to both
President Trump and President Putin, they both have his ear
as well. I think it just makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
I'm curious so that all the time Oil with the
two speeches advanced, both the artificial intelligence speech in Paris
and then the very aggressive speech at them Munich meeting,
and with the excess varied aggressive speech in Brussels. To
what extent are the Europeans just kind of in a
state of shock that this new administration is so willing
(15:10):
to challenge them about patterns that have sort of defined
Europe for the last thirty years.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
I think it should come as no surprise to them,
but they are very, very surprised, even having lived through
the first Trump term. So our message to them has
been you hold this relationship in your hands, and if
you stop with the climate extremist nonsense and you start
investing in your defenses, you will have no better friend
(15:36):
and ally than the United States. And that was the
message from Secretary Hegseth and from the Vice President. We actually,
as Heritage had a group over in Munich as well,
having one of the very few conservative defense events with
Senator Sullivan and Senator Schmidt. So it was a good
opportunity to show support for the administration from the Congress,
(15:58):
from the think tank world that American conservatives are united
on this, and hopefully that message is received in Europe
and they start matching their words about concern about Russia
and their security situation with their deeds.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
I described it in an article that in a sense,
what JD. Evans was doing was the equivalent of having
a neighbor who was an alcoholic, and was an intervention
that he's actually trying to say the Europeans, look, we
would really like for you to be successful. However, you
have to confront these problems if you don't have any
hope of being successful. I look at the decay of
(16:33):
Europe over the last forty years. You know there are
nineteen trillion dollar companies in the world, fourteen or American,
four are Chinese, and the last one is a roundco,
not a single European country as a competitive global company.
It's just astonishing to me when you think about it.
(16:55):
You do have some Europeans hungry Italy, Finland, and I
think the Swiss presidents also said some things, who are
all actually closer to JD Van's than they are to
Brussels in the way they reacted. What a you sense
about the next five or eight year evolution of European politics.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
I think it's trending in the right way. And even
given what happened in the UK last year with Starmer's election,
I think there is a path for UK Conservatives to
reclaim the principles of Lady Thatcher and reassert British sovereignty
and national interests. And we've seen that in as you say,
(17:35):
Hungary and Italy. I think we could see it in Spain,
we could see more in France. What happened in Germany
was actually positive last week. I think it's a good step.
I think they can go farther, but it is a
repudiation of the eu centric globalist mindset, the Davos mindset,
to borrow phrase from my boss Kevin Roberts, that has
(17:56):
been poisonous for what should be one of the most
prospers for as successful partners of the United States in Europe.
So hopefully the tough love message has been received. And
one of our jobs here at Heritage is to reach
out to conservatives internationally and encourage them and share our
best practices, so we'll be very focused on that as well.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Leutore, I want to thank you for joining me. Your
new book, The Battle for the Jewish State, How Israel
and America Can Win is available now on Amazon and
in bookstores everywhere. We're going to feature a link to
buy it on our show page, and I want to
let our listeners know they can follow your recent work
by visiting the Heritage Foundation website at Heriage dot org.
Thank you very very much, Thank you Newton. Thank you
(18:42):
to my guest Victoria Coats. You can get a link
to buy her new book, The Battle for the Jewish State,
How Israel and America can win on our show page
at neutroorld dot com. NEUTRALD is produced by Game of
three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guernsey Sloan.
Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. They are work Show Which
creator with Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team of
(19:03):
Ginglish through sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope
you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with
five stars and give us a review so others can
learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of Newtsworld
consenter for my three free weekly columns at Gingwish three
sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm new Gingrich. This is
(19:24):
Newtsworld
On this episode of The New World. President Trump met
this week with French President Emmanuel macrumb and United Kingdom
Prime Minister Kars Charmer to discuss the possible terms in
which the war between Ukraine and Russia could arrive at
a seasefarre. President Trump expressed, quote, I think a lot
of progress has been made. We've had some very good
talks with Russia. We've had some very good talks with others,
(00:27):
and we're trying to get the war ended with Russia
and Ukraine post quote. The Trump administration is also actively
negotiating the release of the Israeli hostages still being held
by Hamas. Here to discuss all of these topics, I'm
really pleased to welcome my guest, Victoria Coates, former Deputy
National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump and current Vice
(00:48):
president of the Catherine and Shelby col Um Davis Institute
for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
Her new book, The Battle for the Jewish State, How
Israel and America Can Win, is available now. Victoria, welcome,
(01:18):
and thank you for joining me on News World.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Of course, it's a great pleasure.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
So President Macrone visited the White House on Monday. Prime
Minister Starmer is set to visit the White House on
Thursday to discuss the Ukraine War and their relationship with
the United States. What do you see as the primary
goals of these leaders in their respective meetings, both in
terms of their bilateral relations with the United States and
their broader stance within Europe.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Now, I think this has been a critical week for
President Trump's stated goal of ending the Ukraine War, and
for the first time in three years in it we
marked on Monday the three year anniversary of Putin's invasion
of Ukraine. For the first time, we're seeing some diplomatic progress.
The Biden took the approach of freezing communications with the Russians,
(02:04):
never a good idea. President Reagan certainly didn't do anything
like that. They had very maximalist rhetoric towards Russia, and
I had this strategy of as much as it takes,
as long as it takes, which is a bumper sticker essentially.
And so I think President Trump, having inherited a really
intractable situation here with a war of attrition between Ukraine
(02:26):
and Russia, has prioritized ending the killing, as he says,
and getting the war to an acceptable solution to just
tamp down that concern because he knows we've got bigger
fish to fry and bigger problems.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Now.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
The Europeans, of course, have responded with panic to the
return of the president, which I think is a good thing,
and I think that's why you've had President Macron and
Prime Minister Starmer visiting Washington this week, and we will
actually also have President Zelensky at the end of the
week to discuss the mineral Deallly sign it. But I
(03:01):
think what you're seeing here is President Trump getting results
out of Europe. We had the Prime Minister of the
UK pledged to get to two and a half percent.
That's not enough, but that's better than where they are
in terms of defense spending percentage of GDP. You have
mccron talking about a European army, which is a terrible idea.
He should invest in his own defenses and NATO defenses.
(03:24):
But at least they're talking about their defenses. And this
is three years though into a war in Europe. Finally
we're getting some progress. So I think this is a
huge week and very important for the Transatlantic relationship.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
I want to go back to the line you used
about the Biden administration, which was, you know, they should
fight as long as it takes. The problem with that
was it was Ukrainians doing the fighting, not the diplomats,
and so young Ukrainians were being killed in enormous numbers,
with no strategy, no sense of how you're going to win.
And it seems that's part of what Trump entered, was
(03:58):
that you'd watch three years of total failure to cope
with and defeat the Russian throne.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Now and I think you could probably with hindsight, identify
a period in twenty twenty two when Ukraine had the
momentum that you could have done something decisive, maybe with
major NATO allies. They wasn't done. The incremental assistance provided
by the Biden administration was enough to keep Ukraine from losing,
but not enough to let them win. And now, as
(04:27):
you said, we're in this situation where we've had hundreds
of thousands of dead Ukrainians. And I have to say,
in Washington, it's a standard line that, oh, well, they're
not asking Americans to die in this war, and we're
modernizing our military, so this is great, but we're doing
that on the backs of a lot of dead Ukrainians
which to do something modernize our military that we should
(04:49):
do anyway, and I think that's what President Trump isn't
willing to buy into, and that he wants that carnage
to stop.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
It was interesting that French President Macrome said an interviewed
before met with Trump, quote what I'm going to do
is I'm going to tell him, basically, you cannot be
weak in the face of President Putin. It's not you,
it's not your trademark. But then during a joint of
this conference after their meeting, Macron said, quote, this piece
must not mean a surrender of Ukraine. He must not
(05:19):
mean a ceasefire without guarantees. This piece must allow for
Ukrainian sovereignty. It strikes me that there's a desperate interest
on part of the internationalists to assume that somehow Trump
is Putin's puppet, because they can't accept the idea that
maybe there's an alternative path to getting this thing done.
I mean, do you have that same feeling that the
(05:40):
level of vitriol, the level of language almost represents the
de reader which their worldview has been repudiated, rather than
an analysis of what's going on.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
No, I agree with that, and if you look at
what President Trump has done since he's been in office
versus some of his rhetoric. What he has done has
been pretty rough on Russia. And that would be things
like the energy renaissance that he's promising with Secretary Bergen
and Secretary Right hard at work to unleash American energy.
That's a terrible thing for Russia. They don't like that
(06:11):
at all. And then this mineral deal with Ukraine, which
gives the United States a vested interest in Ukraine's security
because that is a deal that theoretically will be very
profitable for both our countries. So those are material steps
he's taking. At the same time, Sure, maybe he's saying
some nicer things about Russia than the Biden administration said,
(06:31):
but that costs him nothing. And sure they adjusted the
language on the United Nations General Assembly resolution. But I
can't think of anything, off the top of my head
more useless than a United Nations General Assembly resolution. So
that's an easy give from President Trump's perspective. It doesn't
cost anything. Meanwhile, he is taking material actions which actually
(06:52):
do cost Russia something. So I would be very cautious
about saying that he is Putin's puppet. Especially because we
have the fact that of the previous three presidents, the
only president under whom Ukraine was not invaded was President Trump.
So that's hardly what happens when you're somebody's puppet.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
When I look at Trump's centeriur career. And if you
go back and read his two best books, The Art
of the Deal and The Order of the Comeback, he
understands if you can't get the other guy in the room,
you're not going to get a deal. So I think
some of this posturing is designed to say that Putin, look,
this is a different moment, I'm a different guy. We
(07:31):
can find a way to work together. And it strikes
me if you have any possibility of getting to a
truce or a ceasequare Putin has to have a buy
in or he can just sit there and continue this
war for twenty more years. No.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Absolutely, And I think that's also the problem with the
way the media has characterized Putin as the devil and
President Zelenski as the savior. You just have these two polls,
and it made it possible to deal with Vladimir Putin.
And regardless of what we might want to be the
case in Russia, he is the decision maker, and President
(08:09):
Trump has always been very clear with that that he
wants to deal with the decision maker for the reasons
you described that are laid out in both of those books.
That you can't deal with underlings. You can't deal with
people who have to run back to their boss every
fifteen minutes to get the okay on something. You need
the decision maker, and that is Vladimir Putin for Russia.
It's just a fact. And so I do think what
(08:30):
we've seen over the last couple of weeks is a
leveling of that playing field. Certainly, I think President Zelenski's
characterization of President Trump as being in a Russian disinformation
space was an unfortunate episode, and I think the President
struck back as he will. And the other thing he
hit on nut that really struck me is the fact
that we haven't had elections in Ukraine because the Biden
(08:53):
administration has sold this to the American people over the
last three years as an excidential threat democracy and that
we were defending the very principles of democracy and that
was why we were going to commit so much treasure
to Ukraine. Well, we've learned this in the Middle East
over the last twenty years that going to war for
(09:14):
democracy is not going to be a successful recipe. If
you're going to go to war or contribute to a war,
it has to be in your vital national security interests.
And I love democracy. I'm an eager practitioner in it.
I wrote a book about the history of it. I
am in no way opposed to it. But it's not
a cause for war. And so that I think was
(09:34):
a fallacy that President Trump really put his finger on
when he was like, and look, and the guy that's
supposed to be our savior is not practicing his democracy.
He's not having elections. So I think that's been a
very clarifying moment as well.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I was surprised when Trump first came up with this
mineral deal. I would have thought that Zawski would have
grabbed it, because if you get America deeply involved in
the Ukrainian economy, you make it much less likely the
rush we'll ever attack again.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Absolutely, this is also what I think should be the
model now that we're dismantling the broken paradigm of USAID,
which had its role in the Cold War. It drifted
from that mission clearly in the nineties and certainly over
the last twenty years. It can't be fixed at this point.
But if you look at these deals for mutual sort
(10:44):
of co development of resources, it kind of goes back
to the iramco model with Saudi Arabia, and you create
a corporation in essence that is an asset to both
countries and a source of prosperity. And so I would
love to see this successful deal be replicated in Africa,
in Latin America. You know, it could be a great
(11:04):
way to spread American influence and very positively shape the
development of these countries and not just be a gift
from the US taxpayer, and certainly not be in the
service of some very liberal, woke social agenda as USAID
has been in recent years.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Starmer has made a point I'm just going to quote
from a speech he gave at the Scottish Labor Party
conference in Glasgow. He said, nobody wants the bloodshed to continue,
nobody least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that
they have suffered, after everything that they have fought for,
there could be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine. And
the people of Ukraine must have a long term secure future.
(11:43):
Let's what I agree with the last part. They should
have a long term secure future. In the Korean War,
the United States Chinese negotiations Penman John had neither North
or South Korea in them. In the Vietnam War, the
negotiations in Paris were between the units in North Vietnam
and didn't have the South Vietnamese in them. So it's
(12:04):
not abnormal for great powers to set on and deal
with each other and not necessarily have their ally at
the table. I mean in that sense, isn't this trying
to set a different standard.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
It is, and I think particularly the meeting in Saudi
Arabia was just a very important re establishment of contact.
One of the things that actually came out of the
Helsinki summit between President Trump and President Putin was a
directive for the National Security Council staffs to talk to
each other. So we actually did during the Trump administration.
(12:36):
We met with the Russians in Geneva, we went and
met with him in Moscow and in Jerusalem, so there
was contact, there was discussion, but that was between Russia
and the United States. And I think the meeting with
Secretary of Rubio and National Security Advisor Waltz was very
important for establishing that contact between the Russians and the
United States and starting to have discussions. And I thought
(12:59):
that was particularly interesting meeting taking place in riadd because
you'd had for the first time, to my knowledge, the
three biggest energy producers in the world in the same room,
and apparently they did talk about energy.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
You know, I had not thought that that's a great
point symbolically, that you have the overwhelming weight of the
world's oil supply sitting in that one room. I also
thought it was interesting, and I suspect deliberate as opposed
to going to Geneva or somewhere in Europe, the kind
of place John Kerrey liked. We had a good four
(13:33):
star hotel, terrific restaurants. They both honored the Saudis and
established a different structure of thinking about things to have
the meeting in Saudi Arabia rather than Europe. I'm sure
it was deliberate, but it was just to me kind
of fascinating comment on how the world is changing.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
It is and I think the Biden administration found out
the hard way between Pariah what Joe Biden as a
candidate referred to the kingdom as and then the getting
to the fist bump when he realized that there was
this very significant role that Saudi has to play and
the reason that we had an eighty year alliance with them.
(14:13):
And so that is something President Trump obviously recognized from
the get go, and the location of his first trip
in the spring of twenty seventeen. He went to Riad
first and then he went to Jerusalem, and then he
went to Rome. And that is I think what he's
proposing to do again, and that demonstrates his appreciation for
(14:34):
the significance of that relationship and the role that Saudi
can play. Because obviously NBS is well known to both
President Trump and President Putin, they both have his ear
as well. I think it just makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
I'm curious so that all the time Oil with the
two speeches advanced, both the artificial intelligence speech in Paris
and then the very aggressive speech at them Munich meeting,
and with the excess varied aggressive speech in Brussels. To
what extent are the Europeans just kind of in a
state of shock that this new administration is so willing
(15:10):
to challenge them about patterns that have sort of defined
Europe for the last thirty years.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
I think it should come as no surprise to them,
but they are very, very surprised, even having lived through
the first Trump term. So our message to them has
been you hold this relationship in your hands, and if
you stop with the climate extremist nonsense and you start
investing in your defenses, you will have no better friend
(15:36):
and ally than the United States. And that was the
message from Secretary Hegseth and from the Vice President. We actually,
as Heritage had a group over in Munich as well,
having one of the very few conservative defense events with
Senator Sullivan and Senator Schmidt. So it was a good
opportunity to show support for the administration from the Congress,
(15:58):
from the think tank world that American conservatives are united
on this, and hopefully that message is received in Europe
and they start matching their words about concern about Russia
and their security situation with their deeds.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
I described it in an article that in a sense,
what JD. Evans was doing was the equivalent of having
a neighbor who was an alcoholic, and was an intervention
that he's actually trying to say the Europeans, look, we
would really like for you to be successful. However, you
have to confront these problems if you don't have any
hope of being successful. I look at the decay of
(16:33):
Europe over the last forty years. You know there are
nineteen trillion dollar companies in the world, fourteen or American,
four are Chinese, and the last one is a roundco,
not a single European country as a competitive global company.
It's just astonishing to me when you think about it.
(16:55):
You do have some Europeans hungry Italy, Finland, and I
think the Swiss presidents also said some things, who are
all actually closer to JD Van's than they are to
Brussels in the way they reacted. What a you sense
about the next five or eight year evolution of European politics.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
I think it's trending in the right way. And even
given what happened in the UK last year with Starmer's election,
I think there is a path for UK Conservatives to
reclaim the principles of Lady Thatcher and reassert British sovereignty
and national interests. And we've seen that in as you say,
(17:35):
Hungary and Italy. I think we could see it in Spain,
we could see more in France. What happened in Germany
was actually positive last week. I think it's a good step.
I think they can go farther, but it is a
repudiation of the eu centric globalist mindset, the Davos mindset,
to borrow phrase from my boss Kevin Roberts, that has
(17:56):
been poisonous for what should be one of the most
prospers for as successful partners of the United States in Europe.
So hopefully the tough love message has been received. And
one of our jobs here at Heritage is to reach
out to conservatives internationally and encourage them and share our
best practices, so we'll be very focused on that as well.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Leutore, I want to thank you for joining me. Your
new book, The Battle for the Jewish State, How Israel
and America Can Win is available now on Amazon and
in bookstores everywhere. We're going to feature a link to
buy it on our show page, and I want to
let our listeners know they can follow your recent work
by visiting the Heritage Foundation website at Heriage dot org.
Thank you very very much, Thank you Newton. Thank you
(18:42):
to my guest Victoria Coats. You can get a link
to buy her new book, The Battle for the Jewish State,
How Israel and America can win on our show page
at neutroorld dot com. NEUTRALD is produced by Game of
three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guernsey Sloan.
Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. They are work Show Which
creator with Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team of
(19:03):
Ginglish through sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope
you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with
five stars and give us a review so others can
learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of Newtsworld
consenter for my three free weekly columns at Gingwish three
sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm new Gingrich. This is
(19:24):
Newtsworld
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
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
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.