11-22-25 The Weekend Hour 1: Bush Posts: “Russia Get Out of Ukraine.” How?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night, Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA
director of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie,
You're doing a heck of a job the weekend with
Michael Brown. Hey broadcasting life from Denver, Colorado. You've tuned
into the Weekly with Michael Brown. Really glad to have
you joining the program today. You know, we have rules
of engagement, some roe's that you have to follow if
you want to engage in the program. They're pretty easy.

(00:21):
If you want to send me a text mention, tell
me anything, to ask me anything on your message app
the numbers three three one zero three three three one
zero three, use the keyword Mike ro Michael and you
can tell me anything or ask me anything. And then
do me a favor and go follow me over on X.
On X it's at Michael Brown USA. On the others,
it's either Michael Brown or michaeld Brown or whatever. But

(00:42):
you can find me on Facebook and Instagram also, and
I would appreciate the follows. And here's why. So two
things happen in the past twenty four hours that take
me back to my old days with President Bush. And
you know he and I, I mean, we got along famously.
Don't get me wrong, we absolutely got along famously. But

(01:03):
when everything kind of started going down the toilet during Katrina,
I really started to see a side of him that
I had. I mean, I'd seen it before, but it
was it didn't involve me, and it didn't bother me,
and I was busy doing what I was doing. We were,
you know, we were establishing in the Department of Homeland Security,

(01:24):
which to this day I still maintain was a mistake,
and we were reorganizing all these different departments and agencies all,
you know, kind of rearranging on the chairs on the
decks of the Titanic, because Congress had decided that it
was imperative that post nine to eleven we'd be seen
doing something. So I'm doing that. I'm also going through

(01:44):
through a second Senate confirmation to become the first Undersecretary
of Homeland Security in the Department of Homeland Security, And
so it was just it was just a wild time.
And if it had been wild from the very beginning,
because when we when the President took off us on
January twentieth of two thousand and one, little did we

(02:05):
know that just you know, a mere nine months later,
we would start this global war on terror. Prior to that, though,
and of course we had the death and the funeral
of Dick Cheney this week. Vice President Cheney's staff, Scooter
Libby and David Anderson some others had come to me
and said, look, during the Clinton administration, we have they

(02:29):
had completely ignored all the COOP and COGG programs. Now
COOP and COG prams. COOP and COG programs are all
of the Black Ops programs. COOP stands for Continuity of Operations, COGG,
COG stands for continuity of government. And those are the
programs by which, if you know, we're involved in some

(02:50):
you know, thermonuclear war, or the leadership of the executive
branch or the legislative branch gets decapitated and suddenly were
you know, without leadership for a while. We go through
all of these processes to make sure that the federal
government keeps functioning. And I call them Black's Ops programs
because they're they're very top secret. The minutia of them

(03:14):
I can't I can't describe to you at all. I
can only tell you that in generalities, that it is
designed to make certain that if foreign adversaries attack US
and it's necessary to say relocate the government outside Washington,
d C. That we have the ability to do that.

(03:36):
And those programs have been in place since even before
the Cold War, post World War Two, they were kind
of in place, and then they really started with I
would say President Eisenhower. They started getting serious about it,
and each president built on it and made them more

(03:56):
and more resilient. The Clinton administration or whatever reason, was
more focused than other things and just kind of let
all the undisclosed locations kind of go to crap. So
we kind of had to rebuild and remodel them, if
you will. We had to remodel them. And so that
was one of the very first things that Vice President
Cheney's was given in his portfolio, and that you know,

(04:18):
rolls downhill, and a lot of that rolls into the
lap of me At FEMA. It was just an incredibly
busy time and the president had been elected on the
basis of about five hundred and thirty five votes out
of Florida. It was one of the tightest elections in

(04:40):
US history. Ended up being decided by the US Supreme
Court only in the sense that I mean, they didn't
side the election, but they decided that Florida was violating
the Constitution and violating their own laws by continuing these recounts,
and they needed to stop the recounts. And stopping the
recounts meant that Bush one, because he was still ahead

(05:01):
by some five hundred votes. It vary between three hundred
and five hundred votes. And I might at some point
go back and talk about some of the things that
occurred down in Florida during that time, but I just
want to establish that President Bush was not the conservative

(05:21):
or the America First kind of president that we see
in Donald Trump. I know, menieval one will duh, we
know that. Well? At when was this yesterday at four
h five pm. I didn't see it until this morning
yesterday at four h five pm, the George W. Bush

(05:44):
Presidential Center on x posted the following post. They write,
US and Russian officials have reportedly drafted a twenty eight
point peace plan meant to end the war Russia started
in Ukraine. In a recent article, Bush Institute Executive director
David J. Kramer writes, quote, the United States should not

(06:07):
be discussing the future of US Russian relations while Russian
missiles and drones continued to wreak on Ukraine, killing innocent
civilians and trying to freeze and force the population into
submission with winter coming. The twenty eight point plan should
be dropped and replaced with a simple one point plan,

(06:32):
Russia get out of Ukraine. And of course then there's
a link to the story, and obviously the story expands
upon that, But even when you go to the story,
the bottom line is it boils down to that one
simple sentence, Russia get out of Ukraine. Now, when I

(06:53):
read that this morning, it really drove me crazy, because
whether people agree with what the representative for President Bush
is saying or not is immaterial to me. Instead, I
would like for them to answer a very simple question.
If your position is quote Russia get out of Ukraine,

(07:15):
close quote, please explain how you plan to accomplish that. Remember,
their statement is that all Donald Trump and the EU
and the European Union and all the allies in Western civilization,
I guess should just tell Russia to get out of Ukraine.

(07:38):
Now we know that Putin is just not going to
do that. So my real serious and it's a serious question.
If you're going to post this, then please explain to
me how you plan to accomplish that. Because you can
post it, and you can make all of these claims about,
you know, we need to support Ukraine, or we need

(07:59):
to strengthen NATO, or we need to do this or that,
And don't get me wrong, all those are valid issues.
But for a former president or his staff at his
library to simply post that, hey, this twenty eight point
plan over here is no good and what you should
do is just have one simple plan that says, Russia

(08:20):
get out of Ukraine. Russia get out of Ukraine. Okay,
if that is your plan, then please explain to me
how you plan to accomplish that. So let's walk through
what the twenty eight point plan is, and then let's
think about if the objective is solely to just push

(08:43):
push Russia out of Ukraine, then how would you accomplish that?
And then I want you once we walk through all
of that, I want you to think to yourselves, is
that what I really want to do? It's the weekend
with Michael Brown. Don't forget to tech me three three
one zero three keyword micro Mike, go follow me on
X at Michael Brown USA. Let's walk through this plan

(09:07):
and start to answer the question. Next. Welcome back to
the weekend with Michael Brown, glad to have you with me.
So I've gotten several text messages people telling me that
you're listening on the app and you're you're not getting
the programming, or you're listening on the Blaze Radio Network

(09:30):
app and you're not getting programming. We have three hundred
and fifty stations, and so we can't We have no
control over the app and particularly the Blaze app and
whether those are working or transmitting or not. So my
suggestion to you always is, if you're listening on the
iHeart app, for example, and the station that you were

(09:52):
listening to is dead air are not working for some reason,
we as at least in Los Angeles where the program.
The program originates in Denver and then it is syndicated
out of Los Angeles now to Sherman Oaks. And if
you can't get anything on a particular station that you're
listening to on the app, there are more than three

(10:13):
hundred and fifty other stations that you can go to
on the app and probably find it airing there. So,
for example, if you are listening to it on the
Denver station Freedom ninety three seven, may be there may
be a problem down in Denver. But you know, I
can't go down and do anything about that. It's Saturday,
and the guys in Los Angeles can't do anything about

(10:35):
what's going on in Denver. So these things happen. You know,
you have apps all the time that don't work. You know,
I forget what app I was dealing with this past week,
and oh it was my serious XM app, And all
of a sudden it was like, oh, we don't recognize
any of your credentials. Now to spend like twenty minutes,
you know, finally getting into work right again. It's just

(10:57):
maddening sometimes, But that's my coestion. If you're listening on
the Blaze, or you're listening somewhere else and you're not
getting it, then try somewhere else. That's the way to do.
Oh and we just checked and it is working on freedom,
So but we can't check three hundred and fifty thicks
just to see which one's working or not working. Go

(11:19):
back to this proposal. Now, we've not seen the actual
proposal yet to end the war in Ukraine, but the
details have been leaked, and the details indicate that the
draft was probably developed collaboratively between both American and Russian
officials and then presented to the Ukrainian leadership in Kiev

(11:43):
and then circulated among the European capitals. So they sat
down with Russia first, then they sent it to Zelensky
in Kiev, and then they sent it to NATO and
the EU and some other allies and said, look at this,
and you know, let's start talking. The Majors include several things.
First is the confirmation of Ukraine's sovereignty, though that does

(12:05):
come with limitations. It also includes a formal recognition of Crimea,
Luhansk and Dunesque as de facto Russian territories, including that
recognition by the United States and Europe. Now, let's be honest,
they've occupied Crimea since twenty fourteen. What we're going to

(12:27):
push them out after eleven years now? I don't think so.
So you see that it already causes me to think
this is a proposal dealing with reality. Now, we may
not like the reality. I don't like the idea that
when Obama was president that Russia thought they could just
take over Crimea and now occupy it, and now eleven

(12:49):
years later, we're supposed to say, oh, nope, bad boys,
get out again. I live in the real world, not
in the fantasy world that I think a lot of
people that you know, somehow think that we should live in.
The third point I would add is their additional Ukrainian
land concessions, including in the eastern don Bass region and
the affecting maintenance of boundaries for Cissan and Zaparizia Okay

(13:15):
land concessions I know, and Simolos land concessions are lands
that are currently occupied by Russian military. And it also
includes some additional land in those same regions in the
don Bass and others that are not currently occupied by
Russian but would become kind of de facto de militarized zones.

(13:38):
Now it's not clear who's going to maintain that de militarization,
whether that's going to be NATO or you know, European forces,
I don't know. It includes a non aggression pact between Ukraine,
Russia and Europe that's trying to settle the ambiguities of
the last thirty years and to try to bar future

(13:59):
Russian expansion into the neighboring countries. Now, in exchange for that,
NATO would pledge not to expand further itself, and Ukraine
would agree to never seek NATAL membership. That's been a
big sticking point. The Ukrainian military would have to be
reduced in size, tapping its armed forces at around six

(14:20):
hundred thousand, which is down from the roughly nine hundred
thousand to day, so about a third reduction in the
Ukrainian military, and then limits would also be placed on
some of the weaponry, notably excluding long range missiles. The
next point is there would be dialogue. Oh, you're always
have dialogue, So dialogue between NATO and Russia that would

(14:43):
be mediated by the United States on European security arrangements
and future cooperation between Europe, Ukraine and Europe and Russia.
There would be this establishment of a neutral buffer zone
in the Donetsk and the removal of Ukrainian forces from
Russian controlled sectors in that particular area. There would be

(15:09):
one hundred billion dollars in unfrozen European assets to support
Ukrainian reconstruction, and that reconstruction would be contingent upon Ukraine
Ukraine's compliance with this agreement. There would be lifting of
sanctions against Russia and Russia's allies and that would enable

(15:30):
their re entry into the global economy and re entry
back into the World Trade Organization and start you know,
buying and selling goods and services and allow imports and
exports and everything else. And then of course there would
be a new Peace Council, again led by Donald Trump,
and that would be tasked with monitoring compliance and imposing

(15:50):
sanctions for any violations. So I made a quick list
of pros and cons, because obviously to some good things
and some bad things. Before I get to the pros
and cons, I want you to think for just a
moment everything that I just outline for you. Does that
take Russia out of Ukraine? No, it doesn't. So we

(16:13):
still have answered the question that I've asked President Bush
on X and ask his representative, so explain how you
would do that. But I do have a I at
least have one plan on the table, and it may
be to many people one sided, and to other people
it might not be one sided enough. And to some

(16:36):
people it might be that you're selling out Ukraine or
that you're not doing enough to protect Ukrainian sovereignty. NATO
has to agree to this, the EU has to agree
to it. So it's what I would consider to be.
It's kind of like before you entre into a contract
with somebody, you know, maybe say for an acquisition to

(16:56):
some property, or you're going to do a merger of
some sort. You might instead enter into a letter of
intent or a memorandumum understanding, an l OI letter of
intent or an MoU a memoranda of memorandum of understanding.
And that's kind of what this strikes me as as
kind of let's put this on the table. We know

(17:18):
that you know, it may be, it may appear to
be one sided, but we think this is a doable
deal because we work this out with the Russians first,
because quite honestly, they're the ones that have the most
power right now. They're the ones that are in the
driver's seat, and you have to accept that if you're

(17:39):
going to be realistic about how do you end this conflict.
So let's go to the pros and cons next, and
then let's see if we ever get an answer about
what would it take to quote Russia get out of Ukraine.
I'll be right back tonight. Michael Brown joins me here.

(18:04):
The former FEMA director talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie,
You're doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with
Michael Brown Welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown.
Glad to have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in.
I hope if you're having trouble getting through on your
app or the Blaze network that you've got it resolved.
Let's get back. We're talking. We're talking about a post

(18:26):
that was made to x formerly Twitter by the Bush
Library that just kind of irritated me. And it irritated
me because everybody thinks it's so simple. Hey, the peace plan,
the ceasefire plan, the treaty, the uh armistice, whatever you

(18:47):
want to call this proposal that the Trump administration has
put out in collaboration with the Russians about how to
end the war in Ukraine is well, it favors Russia
too much, and that may not be true. But their
response was the peace plan should just be one sentence,

(19:08):
Russia get out of Ukraine. And I just thought, how naive,
how naive, and how you represent a former president, in fact,
a former president that was involved in some you know,
wartime activities, and your response after Afghanistan and Iraq and

(19:29):
everything else, is to tell the Routies, hey, just get out.
It's just not realistic and it furthers the idea that
somehow we can just want If you're thinking ahead at
all about how would you force Russia out of Ukraine,
then you know there ought to be some doubts about

(19:52):
whether or not we're ready to engage in that kind
of activity. But in the last segment I went through
the different components of this agreement that's been leaked. So
let's go through the pros and cons real quickly. The
ceasefire would immediately stop the bloodshed and the combat. So

(20:12):
the six thousand people that are dying, however often they're dying,
whether it's a weaker a month, it's just too many
people on both sides, that would stop. But the Khan
is that it forces Ukraine to surrender significant territory, some
which Russia occupies and a little bit of which Russia
does not occupy. On the pro side, it promises security

(20:36):
guarantees for Ukraine, which they obviously need because of where
they're in the geopolitical world and geographically where they're located.
They obviously need some security agreements to keep the aggressive
Russians at bay. But it excludes on the Khan side,
it excludes natal membership, so it leaves Ukraine somewhat vulnerable. Again,

(20:58):
going back to the pro it facilitates the reconstruction with
Western funds that are currently available. So we're going to
unfreeze a bunch of assets and we're going to use
those assets to rebuild because Russia has really destroyed and
is continuing as we speak, to destroy a lot of

(21:19):
the infrastructure that Ukraine needs to recover their economy and
start growing and be engaged in world affairs again. But
also on the negative side, it reduces Ukrainian military capacity dramatically. Okay,
I agree it does, but there are security guarantees that
may offset that. Then it it could on the positive side,

(21:48):
it could stabilize wider European security environment. It may keep
Russia from any idea of expanding into Poland or Moldova
or any of the other Eastern europe countries. But on
the negative side, it does reward Russia for their aggression
and it does set a precedent. Again, going to the positive,

(22:12):
it lifts some of these sanctions and it encourages economic
recovery for everybody on both sides of this conflict. But
on the negative side, it does to some degree weaken
Western deterrence of the Western deterrence posture in Eastern Europe.
Russia will have learned they could have got They got

(22:34):
by with a little bit of what they were trying
to do. You've had the cap one time too many again.
On the positive side, it establishes international monitoring which is
going to be needed. They're going to need to be
NATO or some forces, some neutral forces to keep Russia
from further expansion. On the negative side, this faces really

(23:00):
strong opposition from Ukraine and Ukraine's allies. So those are
the pros and cons. But if you thought about what
they wrote on X, Russia get out of Ukraine, Accomplishing
a full Russian withdrawal would require far more aggressive and

(23:21):
coordinated military and diplomatic action than the current multilateral efforts permit.
And it may require much more military involvement than Americans
are willing to put up with. I don't know. I
think it leads to the potential for a much wider

(23:45):
war than what we're currently seeing. Direct NATO intervention seems
to me to be the number one way that you
would push Russia out of Ukraine. Now, who's the largest
contributor to NATO? The United States military and American taxpayers,

(24:08):
So only large scale participation by NATO with our air superiority,
all of our great logistics are obviously very good intelligence
that could enable Ukraine to launch an effective counteroffensive so
they can reclaim that occupied territory. But that's direct intervention.
That's a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. And because

(24:33):
it's NATO, that's a direct military conflict between the United
States and Russia. Are you ready for that? The other
thing we would have to do is we would have
to target Russian supply lines and we would have to
command infrastructure. Now, in order to do that, you're going
to have to have intensive air and missile campaigns. They

(24:56):
would have to focus on cutting off all the Russian
resupply routes. We would have to destroy their amo depots,
and we would have to isolate Russian frontline positions. In
other wards, cut those front lines off from all of
their supply and logistics that are behind them that keep
them fighting. So we're gonna have to squeeze them off.

(25:19):
We're gonna have to enhance Ukrainian's capabilities. We're gonna have
to lift all the Western arm restrictions. We're gonna have
to provide better precision guided weapons, drones, in real time intelligence.
That's gonna be absolutely essential to clawing back loss territory.
We're gonna have to engage in economic and cyber warfare
with Russia. We're gonna have to ramp up sanctions on

(25:40):
Russia and expand our digital warfare, which could undermine Russian
operational capacity and their will to continue this conflict. Do
we really want to do that? I mean, I don't know.
I'm just I'm throwing this out because the you know,
President Bush and all of his supposed expertise in foreign
affairs says that what we ought to do is just

(26:01):
tell Russia to get out, And I just want to know, Okay,
then how how are you going to do that? And
I think the final thing we need to consider is
we would have to isolate Russia politically, sustain international pressure.
You'd have to have UN resolutions that's probably not going
to happen through the Unsecurity Council. You'd need diplomatic isolation,

(26:23):
and you'd have to prosecute you know, Vladimir Putin or
some of his defense ministers or others for war crimes,
which could further erode Russian legitimacy and access to their
resources and may cause internal conflict which might lead to
a civil war inside Russia. And I know some people
might look at that and say that's a great thing,

(26:45):
but again, like any civil war, there's no guarantee that
the outcome of that civil war means a freeer Russia
or free and open elections. So the Trump proposal, as
leaked is getting this wide criticism as a default capitulation
to Moscow's demands, and I think that people are looking
at it and saying it would almost certainly fail to

(27:06):
end the war in terms that are acceptable to either
Kiev or to Europe and enforcing rush out militarily to
do that, this is going to demand far greater Western
reserve and a really strong willingness to accept some serious
escalation risks. So I ask you, is that what you want?

(27:32):
I don't know what the answer to it is. I
wish I could tell you I'd like to see the
war stop. But again I live in the real world,
and I recognize that if if we take President Bush's
advice on X and I wish you'd you know whether
he consulted with this executive director that posted this or not.

(27:52):
I don't know, But the executive director for the Bush Center,
speaks on behalf of President George W. Bush. So, if
your resolution to this conflict is to push Russia out, wow,
how are you going to do that? When is the

(28:14):
price of peace ever fair? Because war doesn't determine who
is right, As bertrand Russell wisely observed one time, war
doesn't determine who is right. It only tells us who
is left. And very often these conflicts come down to
a numbers game. And on the numbers, Ukraine is losing,

(28:37):
and despite losing more soldiers, Russia is winning on the battlefield,
and unlike Ukraine hasn't even begun to really do mass
mobilization yet. So Donald Trump's proposed peace deal is not
going to turn the clock back in Ukraine's borders. It's
not going to accompissate Ukraine for Russian aggression in war crimes.
It's not even going to punish Putin personally for starting

(28:57):
this horrible conflict to begin with. If anything, this deal
probably in many eyes, rewards Vladimir Putin. But Trump hopes
his proposal will draw a line in the sand and
at least stop their relentless bloodshed. But is that a
red line? That Zelenski is prepared to sign up to.

(29:21):
He addressed his nation Friday night and said this was
one of the most difficult moments in our history and
that the choice was quote a life without freedom, dignity,
and justice while being expected to trust someone who has
already attacked us. And I'm not sure that's entirely true,
but his position that might be exactly what I would

(29:43):
say too, because I think Zelensky is risking a coup
or perhaps civil war inside Ukraine. I'll be right back.
Welcome back to the weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to
have you with me. We're talking about this proposed peace

(30:05):
agreement between Russia, Ukraine, and technically the United States and NATO. Now,
I know it's a really heavy topic for a weekend,
and I know it's not the usual you know, political
stuff this and that, or the cultural stuff this and that,
but I really a this is real world stuff, and
it's real world stuff that the American people have to

(30:27):
realize that if we're one of two things is going
to happen. Either this war is going to continue the
way it is a war of attrition, which means that
over time, and I don't know whether that is you know,
next spring, because not much will happen during the winter
because they just it's it's really a ground war, although

(30:50):
Russia is using a lot of drones and missiles to
take out the utilities and the infrastructure around Kiev and
the other cities, so that you know, the Ukrainian peaceeople
will you know, freeze during the winter and they'll they'll
lack food and shelter and they'll just give up. So
that's what's that's what's going on right now. And of

(31:11):
course we are supplying some long range missiles but putting
limitations on those, and we're supplying drones. So and they
have they've drown they've blown up some AMMO depots and
some you know, refineries in other places. But it's still
a war of attrition. Sitting everything else aside is to
a war of attrition. And the Ukrainian people, while they

(31:35):
are absolutely noble and how they have fought so far,
a crystal ball says they're on the losing side, absent
some you know, either internal to Russia, disruption of their
leadership in other words, Putin gets replaced by somebody. You know,
there's an internal revolution, there's there's a coup of some

(31:56):
sort inside the Kremlin and put and is replaced by
someone who wants to end the war. Well, I don't
put a lot of hope in that. Or the war
of attrition continues and Russia gets even more aggressive and
they eventually take over the entire Ukraine. They eventually the
Ukrainian people there will be a coups Dzelensky will face

(32:18):
a coup internally, or he faces you know that the
army will turn on him. Any number of things can
happen inside Ukraine. Or and this is what really people
don't think beyond their noses about. Is people like George
Bush and others, all these neo Khans are saying, oh,

(32:40):
but we've got to stop at all costs. Well, if
you're going to truly push Russia out, as I indicate it,
I believe that takes a lot of direct involvement between
the United States and NATO in a direct conflict against
the Russians to push them out. And I don't know
that's what we want to do. I have to say

(33:02):
that my gut reaction is I don't really want that
because a direct conflict in Europe, because remember this is
taking place in Europe. Between NATO, the United States and
Russia easily spills over into because if you think like
Putin does, Putin will say, okay, game on, I want

(33:25):
more than Ukraine. I'll take Ukraine, I'll take Poland, I'll
take Moldova. I'll take all these other little countries these
it used to be satellite countries of the old Soviet Union.
I'll just go full bore, and the next thing you know,
you're in World War three and China sits back and
just watches. He says, well, we'll let these two just

(33:45):
wipe themselves out and then we'll take over the world.
You see how it just cascades into a even worsening situation.
And I just find it naive on the part of
the Bush Center to say, well, the solution is just
to push Russia out. Now, I will say this, at

(34:08):
least Zelensky is at least engaging with the process, and
he's going to talk to Trump later this coming week. Yet,
however tough his talks with Trump are, they're going to
be far easier than the conversations that Zelensky will have
to have with his own country and within his own parliament.
It's hard, if not impossible, to find a single voice

(34:31):
in Ukraine that backs the peace plan in this current
form or even in a diluted form. A source post
to Zelensky said that the existing plan fractures the country.
It's a stupid decision, this person said. If he doesn't
change it, he will lose the party. Local governments might

(34:51):
see this deal as a betrayal this this is not
a good deal and we do not recognize it. They
could declare themselves as separate entities. While other parts may
respect the deal, there will be a lot of violence
during that process. In other words, Ukraine itself may implode
and others. In the Ukrainian Parliament degree Ivana and I sorry,

(35:16):
I'm not trying to purposely basterdize the name, but Ivana
columps Dysantsky or something. Who's a deputy in the opposition
European Solidarity Party says the lives of the people who
live in the areas that we have to give away
will be ruined, their culture of the religion. They face
torture and deportation to Russia, where they will be forced
to join the military and fight against Ukraine. This deal

(35:37):
shows that might is right. It will be impossible to
ratify and I understand the chief among their concerns is
how the Ukrainian military might react to a bad deal,
because I think it should be feared that soldiers who
have lost friends in hard fought battles over land that
they're now being told to hand back, they might take

(35:58):
matters into their own hands. They could even be prepared
to stage a military coup. This is just a horrible
situation and there is no easy or clean path out
of this situation, which why I find it incredibly naive
for Bush and his minions to say, just tell Russia

(36:20):
to get out. And as somebody said on the text line,
is like Biden, you know, telling people when he was
opening the borders don't or telling Russia when they were
starting the invasion don't. Meaningless, totally meaningless. So I just
want you to be aware that this is what's going
on internationally, and we could be drawn into an international conflict.

(36:45):
I think Trump's trying to avoid that, but will people
who support Ukraine stand behind him? Who knows, I'll be
right back