August 9, 2025 • 41 mins
People-powered, AI-Generated
Season 4, Episode 10
In our 10th episode for Season 4 we deep dive into our contribution to the nobel prize committee explaining why Trump is the exact person you never want to nominate for a nobel peace prize because performative "peace deals" that are not peace deals should not qualify and the rest of his actions erode democracy and create the opposite of peace. We also introduce and outro the discussion with the song "Chairman Trump".
To read the article discussed in this episode:
https://guywolf070425.substack.com/p/trump-the-peace-faker-why-the-nobel?r=5d8qd2
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:28):
Control of perception. You're either with me or you're
fake. That's the party line, give or
take. From New York towers to DC
flame. Now it's Sugar Trump in the
loyalty game. Got the hat stitched like Red
Guard threads. Klaus chant forever like Maoist
feds. He was right about everything.
You just. That's a cultural revolution in
(00:50):
the fitted fest. Long with the Shannon, long with
the might. Truth is a threat, so we stay in
the 5th. The guardrails put up the hate.
It's cheap, noble. Make it real estate.
Out of the flying pan and into the fire, says a journalist.
X out watching barbed wire escape from she.
Now it's deja vu. Same tricks, new flag.
(01:12):
Red, white and blue suppression.My press class blacklist blast.
Only thing Trump ain't copied isthe little red clasp.
Now praise flows like state TV streams.
Echo chambers louder than she streams.
Embassy walked the stars in their eyes publishing matter
like his party lines. See who they laugh.
Trump's got him beat. Only thing missing the loyalty
(01:35):
tweet. Long with the chairman, long
with the brand of the revolution, with executive head.
Listen to us, the traitors, FreePress, the bluff when you're the
Messiah. Want parties enough?
They say it's not the same. We vote, they needle.
But what if the votes didn't counted for real?
What if the courts are stacked and sealed?
(02:23):
Hail to the dawn in red light, and we'll tear down democracy.
Cardinal Fix the Revolution streaming on Fox News Sick We.
Left the East to find the free. Now we watch the W Bell, the
knee dictators rise and no one sees until the cult outlives the
country. We left the East to find the
(03:00):
free. Now we watch the West bow the
knee. Dictators rise and no one sees
until the cult outlives the country.
Welcome, welcome, welcome to thedeep dive.
So glad you've joined us today. It's great to be here.
Our ongoing mission here is, well, to navigate this huge
ocean of information, Really cutthrough the noise, you know?
(03:22):
Absolutely. And bring you those crucial
insights, the stuff that matters.
Exactly from the material that shapes our understanding, we
take stacks of articles, research notes.
And distill it right down to those aha moments.
Yeah, the moments that make you genuinely well informed.
And in an era where, let's face it, information overload is
(03:43):
real, Well, definitely our purpose is clarity, depth, but
without overwhelming you. We want to equip you with
context connections, the critical thinking tools.
So you can grasp these big topics thoroughly, but you know
efficiently. Think of us as your guides
through the complexity. Helping you get straight to the
heart of what really matters. And today we are embarking on a
(04:05):
deep dive into something. Well, it's not just timely, it
feels vital right now. What's the topic?
The very essence of peace itself.
How do we define it? How is it pursued, or maybe just
performed? That's a crucial distinction.
And our main guide for this diveis a really incisive article.
It's titled Trump the Peace Faker.
(04:27):
Why the Nobel Peace Prize is notfor propaganda?
OK, provocative title. So our mission today.
It's to rigorously examine the arguments in that source.
We're focusing intently on the distinction it makes.
Between performative peace. Exactly the kind of gets
headlines photo OPS. Right.
Versus the real work. Yeah, the genuine, often
(04:48):
painstaking work of substantive peace building.
Understanding that difference isabsolutely crucial, isn't it?
Especially when things like the Nobel Peace Prize are involved.
The source argues that getting this wrong feeling to discern
between the two. It has real consequences for
accountability, for recognizing genuine efforts globally.
Big implications. Precisely.
And as we navigate this complex terrain, we're also leaning into
(05:12):
a theme, A powerful one. The idea of collective action.
People rising up for freedom, liberty, equality.
Against concentrated power, thatfeels very relevant.
It does, and it resonates with the source's origin.
Educate, resistance. The peace really grounds us in
that spirit. Informed active engagement.
Indeed. And understanding these
(05:34):
distinctions, performance versussubstance, that is a form of
civic education, isn't it empowerment?
It equips you, the listener, to shape the future you want.
Right. Instead of just accepting
narratives spun by, well, by those trying to consolidate
power or simplify things. It's about recognizing where
real peace comes from, who's doing the work.
And seeing the difference between genuine progress and
(05:56):
just spectacle. The illusion of peacemaking.
The Abraham Accords. OK, let's dive right in.
We need to address a claim many supporters lauded as a quote
crowning foreign policy achievement.
You mean the Abraham Accords? Exactly signed in 2020.
Israel, UAE, Bahrain, initially Morocco, Sudan later joined.
Right on the surface, it looked big.
(06:17):
Normalization deals in the Middle East.
Unprecedented Somerset. A monumental step towards
regional peace for many observers.
But what's striking right away is how this source, trump the
Peacefaker, challenges that narrative head on.
How so? It doesn't pull any punches.
It bluntly asserts these accordswere quote arms deals in
disguise. Wow, OK, that's a stark reframe.
(06:39):
It really is, and the article doesn't present this as a side
issue, it frames it as the fundamental nature of the
agreements. So if the source calls them arms
deals in disguise, what does that mean practically?
How does it elaborate? Well, it clarifies that these
deals mainly formalized a pre-existing quiet alliances
against Iran. That's the key.
(07:00):
So alliances that were already there, just not public.
Pretty much for decades, many Gulf states, UAE, Bahrain and
Israel shared security concerns about Iran nuclear program
regional influence proxies. Right, common interest creating
quiet. Cooperation.
Exactly. Back channel stuff.
The Accords, the source argues, just brought these alignments
out in the open. And sales were part of that.
(07:21):
A big part, according to the source, often accompanied by
significant US arms sales like the UAE wanting F30 fives which
cause some debate. You know about Israel's military
edge? So the argument is it wasn't
about resolving deep historical conflicts.
Less about that, more about strategic alignment solidifying
a front against Iran. Geopolitics, basically.
(07:43):
Yeah, strategic interests, security deals, not necessarily
broad reconciliation or peace building in the region.
That's the sources core point here.
And then there's a detail the source highlights as absolutely
critical, which is the deliberate exclusion of the
Palestinians. Ah, yes.
The article calls them the key party in any genuine Middle East
(08:04):
peace process. That's not a minor oversight, is
it? Not at all.
You've hit a central pillar of the sources critique.
It's far from minor. So this exclusion according to
the source. It fundamentally renders the
Accords incomplete, insufficientas a real peace initiative.
Because you can't have peace without addressing the core
conflict. That's the argument by
(08:25):
sidelining Palestinians, not addressing their core issues,
self determination, statehood, Jerusalem, right?
The deals become more about transactional politics,
geopolitical convenience for thesignatory and the US.
Not about root causes. Exactly.
Not about comprehensive, lastingpeace.
The source suggests. You know if the most affected
population isn't meaningfully atthe table.
(08:47):
Then the table itself is unstable.
Precisely. Any peace built on that is
inherently unstable. It lacks legitimacy, and you
need broad legitimacy for real peace.
The article goes even further. It points to specific actions by
the administration. Actions that undermine peace
infrastructure. Yes, things like cutting
hundreds of millions in humanitarian aid to Palestinian.
(09:10):
Vital aid. And shuttering the US consulate
to East Jerusalem. That seems like a direct
counteraction to peace building.It does, and the source connects
these directly to its argument about performative peace.
How so? It doesn't see them as mistakes,
but as pressure tactics consistent with authoritarian
deal making. Authoritarian deal making?
What does that mean in this context?
(09:30):
Well, the source defines it as akind of unilateral approach,
using power imbalances, coercion, bypassing normal
diplomacy. Instead of building trust,
right, instead of fostering dialogue, supporting vulnerable
people, which are, you know, hallmarks of real peace
building. So cutting aid, closing the
conflict. The source argues these were
meant to exert maximum pressure.Cutting ahead causes suffering.
(09:51):
Instability makes talks harder. Closing the consulate was seen
as down grading Palestinian diplomatic standing.
All part of the spectacle, not substance.
Legacy. That's how the source frames it,
Prioritizing the appearance of adeal over the sustained,
inclusive work needed for real reconciliation.
Long term stability through hurt.
(10:13):
No NATO war, but no peace either.
OK. Moving beyond the Middle East,
there's another argument we hearoften from supporters.
Which one is that? That the previous administration
kept the US out of new wars, especially concerning NATO and
Russia. The peace through strength
narrative avoided new conflicts.Exactly.
It suggests a period of stability, maybe deterrence.
(10:34):
It's a compelling point for manypeople.
It is, but again, the source Trump the Peace faker directly
challenges this right off the bat.
How does it challenge it? It's technically true, isn't it?
No new large scale wars during that specific time.
It acknowledges the technical truth, yes, but it argues
forcefully that this misses the full story.
(10:55):
The article posits that avoidingdirect conflict wasn't really
about a coherent strategy for long term peace.
What was it about then, according to the source?
More of a performance, not policy.
It suggests the absence of new wars didn't automatically mean a
period of peace. How so?
Because, it argues, the actions taken actually bred instability
(11:16):
undermine the very structures designed to keep the peace.
So if it was performance, not policy, how does the source back
that up? It mentions specific things.
Yes, worrying details like how the administration reportedly
weakened NATO. By questioning its relevance,
criticizing members. All of that and the source says
it even quote, nearly pulled theUS out of the alliance.
(11:38):
Pulling out of NATO? That was reportedly explored,
and the source also mentioned actions that emboldened Putin.
These seem like things that would actively destabilize
security, right? Absolutely not Maintain peace.
The source argues these actions eroded foundational elements of
stability, the constant questioning of NATO, criticizing
allies. It weakened the collective
(11:58):
defense posture. That's the contention weakened
the alliance that's been a cornerstone of European security
for what, 70 plus years? And played into adversaries
hands. The source suggests so.
It quotes multiple national security officials, people with
deep expertise. What do they warn?
They warned unequivocally, according to the source, that
pulling out of NATO would have destabilized Europe and invited
(12:22):
aggression frayed the fabric of deterrence.
Invited aggression. And critically, the source
points to what it calls the tragic confirmation of those
warnings, which is Russia's later invasion of Ukraine in
2022. Wow, the source draws a direct
link it. Does it argues the instability,
the emboldened aggression we sawit was a direct consequence of
(12:42):
weakening alliances like NATO? By undermining collective
security, signaling a retreat. It inadvertently created a power
vacuum, the source argues, a climate of uncertainty that
aggressive actors could exploit.So the point isn't just avoiding
war yourself in the short term. No, The source argues that doing
that while dismantling the mechanisms preventing broader
conflicts, that's not peace building.
(13:04):
It's a dangerous gamble with huge long term costs.
That's quite an irony, isn't it?The claim is avoiding war, but
the actions described seem to have sown the seeds for future
conflict. It's like, yeah, patching a
small leak while drilling holes in the dam.
That's the picture of the source, paints the humor.
Three no deals, no peace. What Trump didn't do.
(13:26):
OK, so beyond the major exampleslike the Abraham Accords and
NATO, supporters often point to other things.
Like potential deals negotiations elsewhere.
Exactly. A range of potential deals.
High profile talks presented as evidence of peace chops.
You know, a supposed knack for diplomacy, for grand bargains.
The idea being that even if theydidn't fully land, they showed
intent, willingness to engage. Right.
(13:48):
But this section of the source Trump the Peace Faker, really
aims to reveal the truth behind those claims.
And the expectation it sets up is.
That these much hyped potential deals ultimately secured no
actual peace. So looking beyond on the photo
OPS. Yes, scrutinizing the tangible
outcomes war, as the source argues the lack thereof, the
(14:11):
argument is that the appearance of negotiation was prioritized
over real resolution. OK.
Let's look at the specific casesthe source examines.
First. India and Pakistan.
Always a tense situation. Any breakthroughs there?
The source is blunt, No diplomatic breakthrough.
Really no progress at all? Worse, actually.
The article says tensions escalated significantly during
(14:32):
that time. How so?
Any specific examples? It points specifically to
India's 2019 revocation of Kashmir's autonomy.
Hugely contentious move. Kashmir is such a flashpoint.
Exactly, The source says this unilateral action by India just
inflamed an already volatile situation.
Move things further from peace. So despite any talk of
mediation, the underlying issuesjust festered or got worse.
(14:55):
That's the picture, a disconnectbetween the deal making image
and the reality on the ground. OK.
What about Kosovo and Serbia? And there was an agreement
there, right? Got some attention?
There was, but the source specifies it was an economic
normalization deal. Economic normalization, so
things like flights, railways, boosting trade.
Yes, but crucially, the source emphasizes no final peace treaty
(15:19):
was signed. And the underlying tensions.
Ethnic tensions persist, the source says.
The suggestion is Economic Cooperation is fine, but it
doesn't solve the deep politicaland ethnic divides.
So some transactional benefits, maybe some nice pictures.
But the core issues remained unresolved, a partial solution,
(15:39):
not comprehensive peace in the sources view.
Then there's an unlikely pairingmentioned, Vietnam and Cambodia.
What happened there? This one's simple, according to
the source and Stark. How so?
It just says no progress, no negotiations, just silence.
Violence. So just nothing.
Apparently suggests a complete lack of engagement or impact
there, despite the broader claims of diplomatic outreach.
(16:01):
Reinforces the idea the focus was selective, maybe on high
profile spots. Yeah, and North Korea that
definitely had high profile moments, summits, face to face
meetings. Huge spectacle, the source
acknowledges the multiple photo OPS with Kim Jong Un.
Unprecedented. Visually.
Position The administration is bold.
Right, exactly. But critically, the source
(16:21):
points out no nuclear deal. Which was the main strategic?
Goal, right? And maybe even more importantly,
the source says talks collapsed after the 2019 Hanoi summit.
Collapsed entirely. That's the assessment which for
the source just underscores the performance theme, visibility,
appearance of progress. But no actual resolution.
A handshake isn't a fix for complex security issues, the
(16:44):
source implies. The core problems remained North
Korea's program and continued. Finally, Syria, a devastating
civil war. Any peace initiatives there?
Well, here the source highlightssomething it presents is
particularly damaging, antithetical to peace building.
What's that? The administration ordering the
abandonment of Kurdish allies. The SDF, who fought ISIS
(17:04):
alongside the. US those exact forces, the
source says. Their abandonment allowed
Turkish forces to attack them. Leading to more conflict.
A Turkish military incursion into northern Syria.
More fighting, huge displacement, destabilizing an
already devastated region. The source argues this wasn't a
step towards peace. It intensified the conflict,
(17:26):
betrayed allies, created a humanitarian crisis.
That's the sources assessment, astark contrast to any notion of
peace building. So looking across all these
cases, India, Pakistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Vietnam, Cambodia, North
Korea, Syria, what's the patternthe source identifies?
It's consistent, and the source drives it home.
(17:47):
In each case, Trump positioned himself as a peace figure
without securing any actual peace.
Spectacle over substance again. That's the unifying threat, the
appearance of action, not tangible, lasting peace, a
consistent disconnect between the rhetoric of breakthroughs
and the reality of unresolved oreven worsened conflicts.
Prioritizing optics, maybe shortterm wins.
(18:07):
Over the deeper, harder work needed for genuine, durable
peace. That's the core argument running
through this whole section. The forgotten Front.
Dismantling the US Institute of Peace.
Eusipee. Now this next part.
The source introduces what it calls perhaps the most damning
evidence of Trump's anti peace posture.
OK, what is it? It focuses on the US Institute
(18:29):
of Peace Yusupi. Yusupi.
Yusupi maybe not a household name for everyone.
Right. So let's start there.
What exactly is UCP? What's its role?
It's a really crucial institution, according to the
source unique established by Congress back in 84.
And its mission? It's a non partisan,
congressionally funded organization specifically
(18:51):
mandated to promote peace and prevent violent conflict
worldwide. So not diplomacy like the State
Department, or military like thePentagon.
Exactly. It's focus is nonviolent
conflict resolution fostering it.
It's work spending decades regions, Sudan, Colombia, post
Soviet states. What?
Kind of work, did they? Do engaging communities,
training peace builders, advising diplomats, researching
(19:14):
causes of war, conditions for peace.
It's like an American engine foractively building peace using
soccer power expertise. An organization literally
designed and funded by Congress to build peace, yet the source
claims it was targeted systematically targeted,
according to the source, undermined in multiple ways.
How exactly? What did the administration do
according to the article, especially thinking about its
(19:35):
status now, maybe in a second term scenario as of 2025?
Well, first, the source reports,staff were purged or pressured
to leave. Which staff?
Particularly career professionals focusing on
democracy and human rights. The source suggests this was
ideological targeting, removing expertise that might clash with
policy. OK.
What else? Second.
(19:56):
Funding was quietly cut or frozen through budget maneuvers.
Starving of resources. An effective way to cripple
operations without a big public fight, right?
Third, the article mentions new leadership aligned with Trump.
Loyalists politicize internal operations.
Shifting away from its non partisan mission.
Towards agendas more politicallypalatable, the source argues.
(20:17):
And maybe most critically, yes, programs focused on anti
authoritarian initiatives were dismantled or rebranded to avoid
Trump's scrutiny. Wow, deliberately suppressing
efforts that counter authoritarianism.
That's the implication neuteringa core part of its conflict
prevention work. That's a profound shift, yeah,
especially given its bipartisan origins.
(20:39):
Does the source cite reports on Usapi's current state?
It does, and they paint a concerning picture.
As of 2025, it says multiple watchdog groups, including
reporting from The Washington Post in 2024.
What do they report? That UCP now operates at a
fraction of its previous capacity.
Not just a small cut, then a severe impairment.
(21:00):
That's the sense, and reports indicate many career experts
were forced out or muzzled. A loss of institutional
knowledge, expertise. A decimation, the source
suggests weakening the very infrastructure for non military
conflict resolution, making it harder for the US us to engage
effectively that way. The implication is this was a
deliberate choice. So this dismantling of a Peace
(21:22):
engine, as the source calls it, favoring propaganda, political
loyalty. It leads the source to a very
strong conclusion. It says this stands as proof
that Trump is not a man of peace.
The logic being. As the source puts it, no
president seeking to build peacewould weaken the very tools
designed to achieve it. The actions against UCP
contradict the peacemaker claims.
(21:44):
Directly contradict them in the sources view.
If you're committed to resolvingconflict, fostering stability,
you'd strengthen institutions like you said, right?
Invest in them. But the pattern described is the
opposite. Exactly systematic dismantling,
which suggests the source arguesa prioritization of loyalty
control may be a transactional view of the world over the
(22:07):
actual mechanisms of peace building.
It's a powerful indictment highlights a hypocrisy.
The Wave Insight Peace is not a brand.
OK, let's shift now to what feels like the philosophical
heart of this article. The underlying message.
Yeah, it makes this really powerful statement.
Peace is not a prop to be waved at rallies or dangled in
campaign ads. A direct challenge to reducing
(22:28):
peace to. A slogan, A commodity.
Exactly not something marketableor just a political talking.
Point. And the source insists on this
distinction, right? Yeah, it offers its own
definition of true peace. It does.
It says peace is a difficult, sustained process that includes
compromise, inclusion and long term engagement.
So not quick wins, not flashy announcements, no.
(22:50):
It's the arduous, persistent, often unglamorous work.
Building stability trust. Addressing deep grievances
overtime. Acquiring commitment.
Complex problem solving. Patience.
Rather than just political optics or short term deals, OK.
So when we look back at the record, we've discussed the
accords as arms deals, weakeningNATO, the no deals dismantling
(23:11):
Yousip. How does the source argue the
previous administration's approach measures up against
that definition of peace? The source is blunt.
Trump's record shows none of this.
None of the compromise, inclusion, long term engagement.
That's the assessment. It argues his actions
consistently prioritize short term gains, personal acclaim,
transactional relationships overthat deep sustained work.
(23:33):
No consistent commitment to inclusion to building lasting
structures. The argument is no, instead a
pattern of seeking leverage immediate gratification photo
OPS. Often, it argues at the expense
of real reconciliation and trustbuilding fundamentally
misaligned with peace building. And to make the contrast really
clear, the source highlights what it sees as the true pillars
(23:57):
of real peace. Principles that are the opposite
of that performative approach. Exactly what are these pillars
that identifies? It outlines 3 critical ones.
First, strengthening institutions, not gutting them.
Directly contradicting the US ifexample.
Precisely highlighting the need for robust, impartial structures
for long term peace. Second, facing uncomfortable
(24:19):
truths, not grandstanding with dictators.
Meaning principal diplomacy addressing human rights.
Yes, rather than prioritizing superficial relationships with
authoritarian leaders who might undermine democratic values.
And 3rd, hugely important, whichis inclusion of all voices,
especially the marginalized, notsilencing them for political
optics. Underscoring that you can't have
(24:40):
sustainable peace by excluding key parties, ignoring those most
affected. Exactly.
Can't prioritize political convenience over representation
and dignity. These three pillars, the source
argues, are the non negotiable bedrock of any real lasting
peace. The Nobel paradox Who gets
credit for peace and who gets silence?
(25:01):
This brings us right to the Nobel Peace Prize itself.
It's symbolic authority. Huge symbol for over a century,
right? A symbol of global moral
authority. Meant to recognize those who
genuinely reduce violence and advance harmony.
The ultimate stamp of approval for peacemakers.
Yet the source Trump the peacemaker, immediately points
to a troubling pattern. A pattern within the prize
(25:22):
itself. Yes, it asserts, the prize often
rewards the powerful performers of peace over the architects of
it. Wow.
Performers over architects. That's a profound claim.
It suggests a disconnect betweenthe ideal and the reality, that
maybe image power gestures, sometimes over shadow, the
quiet, difficult, often invisible work.
It makes you question if the system unintentionally favors
(25:44):
the visible over the vital. Which leads to the question, who
is doing that hard, unglamorous work?
The work the source thinks gets overlooked.
Who does it name? Grassroots activists, community
organizers, truth tellers, and victims of violence themselves.
And their work isn't grand declarations.
No, it's tangible daily efforts,building trust locally,
(26:06):
brokering ceasefires and active conflicts, risking their lives
for human dignity. People on the ground, in the
trenches, doing the day-to-day work.
Reconciliation, healing, conflict resolution from the
bottom up. And the source makes a poignant
point. What's that?
History remembers the photo op, not the foot soldier.
(26:26):
The visible act eclipses the unseen effort.
A critique of collective memory,really, as much as the prize
itself. And we saw this play out, didn't
we, when the previous administration was nominated for
the Abraham Accords? Huge media buzz.
A massive buzz, and the source contrasts that sharply with the
attention given to the unsung heroes.
How little attention they get. Exactly few headlines, it says,
(26:48):
for people like Yemeni peace activists negotiating local
truces, or Israeli and Palestinian families working
across borders, or Kurdish womenleaders advocating for
ceasefires. Why the disparity?
The source poses the question rhetorically.
Why? Because peace is often awarded
to those who claim it, not thosewho live it.
A powerful indictment? Prioritize visible top down
(27:09):
actions over the organic community LED efforts.
Efforts far from the centers of power and media.
And the source stresses this isn't just about one
administration. It's not partisan.
How does make that point? It uses the example of President
Obama winning early in his term,calls it a symbolic gesture that
rewarded hope, not outcomes. While noting that drone strikes
(27:31):
escalated under his watch. Right.
Showing the pattern rewarding power potential symbolism over
concrete, inclusive outcomes isn't unique, it's systemic.
A system that centers state actors, often from the global
North. While silencing peacebuilders
elsewhere, Sudan, Colombia, Myanmar, even Ferguson, it
mentions highlighting geographical and social biases.
(27:52):
So coming back to the main focusof the source, it reiterates
that the so-called peace winds cited by supporters.
They fall apart under scrutiny. It lists them again.
No resolution in Kashmir. No breakthrough in Kosovo,
Serbia. Beyond economics, silence on
Vietnam, Cambodia. And no reconciliation efforts
led by Trump in Syria, Yemen, Libya.
(28:13):
Just press releases, flashy signings and photo OPS and a
gesture without the lasting impact.
And this pattern ties directly back to.
The dismantling of YUSIP The source emphasizes how the very
agency tasked with promoting real peace was hollowed out
while these performative claims were being made.
A. Fundamental contradiction.
A damning one in the sources view, which leads it to pose
(28:36):
this haunting question to us, the readers, the listeners.
What is it? What does it mean when the
world's most prestigious peace award can be manipulated by
politics, celebrity or power? Implying a deep corruption of
its intent. Questioning is moral authority.
Exactly challenging us to re evaluate not just who we
celebrate, but why The peace we build honoring real heroes.
The source uses the striking analogy, almost funny, but
(29:00):
pointed. What is it?
If peace were a pageant, Donald Trump might win Miss
Congeniality, Ha. OK, I see the point.
But it quickly pivots back serious argument reiterating
that peace is not a brand APR campaign or a transactional deal
signed in Gold Plated Inc A. Deliberate rejection of making
it superficial. Absolutely, it insists.
(29:20):
True peace is different. How does it describe it here?
As a daily grind, often invisible, often unrewarded,
carried by those whose names arerarely spoken on world stages.
So the opposite of glamorous high profile moments.
Yes. It's about consistent,
persistent, often unheralded efforts.
Quiet work, Building bridges, Healing divides.
(29:42):
One conversation, one family at a time.
The antithesis of APR exercise. And this section is powerful.
It introduces nominees for the peace that actually matters.
Not just suggestions, no. It's clear these are nominations
for the Nobel Peace Prize. Long overdue.
A real counter narrative shifting focus.
OK, let's hear some of them. Doctor Dennis Mukwege from
Congo. Yes, an extraordinary figure
(30:03):
nominated for treating thousandsof rape survivors in war-torn
regions and advocating for global justice against sexual
violence as a weapon of war. His work at Panzi Hospital, it's
about more than just medical care, isn't.
It it's about restoring dignity,holistic care and relentlessly
campaigning internationally. He embodies peace in the most
(30:23):
brutal circumstances. Truly incredible.
What about the UNRWA staff and medical volunteers in Gaza?
Nominated for continuing humanitarian efforts under siege
and bombardment, often at the cost of their own lives.
Operating under constant threat.Blockades, bombings, shortages.
Yet they persist. Providing food, shelter,
education, medical care. Unwavering commitment in an
(30:46):
active, devastating conflict. A testament to quiet courage.
A powerful example and the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo
from Argentina, a historical example.
Nominated for decades of peaceful resistance, demanding
answers about their children disappeared during Argentina's
dictatorship. Marching in silence since 1977,
risking their lives wearing the white headscarves.
(31:07):
Their unwavering nonviolent persistence challenge the regime
played a critical role in bringing back democracy.
Demanding truth shows the power of sustained moral courage.
Amazing and Layma Gabawi's peacenetworks in Liberia.
Recognized for organizing women to end Liberia's civil war
through strategic nonviolence. She mobilized thousands of
women, Christian and Muslim, praying, protesting
(31:30):
nonviolently. Even staging a sit in outside
peace talks until a resolution was reached.
Their efforts LED directly to a peace agreement and Africa's
first elected female head of state.
Wow, a tangible example of grassroots women LED movements
changing everything. Then the Afghan Women's Advocacy
Network under incredibly tough circumstances now.
(31:52):
Nominated for continuing to educate, document and support
women under the Taliban regime. Facing severe restrictions right
on rights, education movement. Yet this network keeps operating
clandestine education, documenting abuses, advocating
it's about resilience against resistance, quietly upholding
rights and hoax. Incredible bravery and closer to
home here in the US, the Standing Rock Water Protectors.
(32:14):
Nominated for risking their lives to defend Indigenous land,
sacred water and treaty rights against the Dakota Access
Pipeline. A movement led by the Standing
Rock Sioux Tribe, bringing indigenous communities and
allies together. Powerful nonviolent resistance
about environmental justice, sacredness, treaty rights.
Highlighting the struggle for sovereignty.
The link between ecological health and peace.
(32:36):
Peace encompassing environmentaland cultural well-being.
And finally, a broad group youthclimate activists across the
Global South. Nominated because from Uganda to
the Philippines, they face harassment and state violence,
yet continue to lead with courage for a livable future.
Young people often hit hardest by climate change, right?
Despite contributing least, they're fighting for survival,
(32:59):
organizing strikes, actions, legal challenges.
Their fight for climate justice is a fight for peace.
Increasingly seen that way, climate change drives conflict,
displacement. Their activism is a global
movement for a just, peaceful future.
So what connects all these diverse groups?
Doctor Mukwege? The Mothers.
Standing Rock. The climate activists.
What's the common thread? The mark of moral clarity.
(33:22):
The source puts it plainly. They have no PR machine, no
campaign donations, no backing from oil states or authoritarian
regimes. But what do they possess?
Moral clarity backed by real action.
Their peace isn't a story they tell.
It's a reality they live, built on conviction, empathy, tangible
effort, often perilous effort. Not a manufactured image, no.
(33:45):
It's the kind of peace that costs, demands sacrifice,
transforms lives from the groundup.
It resonates because it's authentic, rooted in struggle
and aspiration. What the prize should be?
All this examination really brings us back to the Nobel
Peace Prize itself, its originalintent.
To honor genuine champions of peace.
(34:06):
And the source argues that original intent.
Cannot mean elevating those who merely sign deals to protect
power, profit or personal glory unequivocally.
So for the prize to keep its integrity, its moral authority.
It has to transcend politics, self-interest, appearances.
It's a call to re evaluate the criteria.
Focus on transformative, inclusive, sustained efforts,
(34:27):
not just convenient transactions.
If it becomes just a political reward.
It loses its soul. That's the sources strong
assertion. So if true Peace isn't built in
those high level meetings, thosephoto OPS, where is it built
according to the source? It fundamentally challenges that
top down view. It emphasizes true peace is not
built in private meetings between billionaires and strong
(34:49):
men. Where them?
It paints this vivid picture. Peace is built in classrooms
under occupation, where education is resistance.
It's built in field hospitals surrounded by drones, where
compassion indoors. It's built in village meetings,
reconciliation circles and truthcommissions where communities
painstakingly work through trauma, build new futures.
(35:11):
Shifting the focus entirely fromelite diplomacy to grassroots
reality. Exactly to the gritty human work
of community level, peace building, bottom up, organic
rooted and lived experience. And the source ends this section
with a direct plea, almost impassioned.
What is that? Let us end the charade, a call
to action for our collective understanding.
(35:32):
And it elaborates on that call. Let the Nobel committee look
beyond the marble floors of political palaces.
See beyond the grandeur, the maneuvering.
Yes, and crucially, let them hear the quiet voices, the one
still building peace in a world addicted to war.
A demand for the prize to reflect the truth of where peace
is really forged. In the toughest, often most
invisible circumstances, it concludes with this emphatic
(35:54):
call for the next Peace Prize totell the truth about who truly
embodies its spirit, demanding accountability not just of
leaders but of the institutions meant to honor peace.
And so as we wrap up this deep dive, the core message from
Trump the Peace Faker feels incredibly resonant.
It's like a mantra. What is it?
(36:15):
Peace without justice is surrender, peace without
inclusion is illusion, and peacewithout accountability is
propaganda. Powerful words.
They really are. And just to reiterate the
source's direct conclusion on the individual discussed today,
yeah, it states plainly that he,the person who, according to
this analysis, gutted the US Institute of Peace, escalated
arms sales, praised dictators, and prioritized spectacle over
(36:37):
substance, has not earned the title of peacemaker.
But, and this is the hopeful part the source highlights many
have. Absolutely, so many individuals,
groups worldwide doing the tireless, unseen, often
dangerous work. Let's finally say their names.
Remember their efforts understand peace is a living
process, not just an award, not just a headline.
And we really hope you take the insights from this deep dive
(37:00):
beyond just listening. Yeah.
Discuss this with others in person, online.
Share these distinctions performative gestures versus
real substantive peace building.Talk about what genuine peace
requires. Yes, and maybe take action.
Be part of shaping the future you want to see, not the one
others might want to impose. The source's origin educate
(37:22):
resistance certainly evokes thatspirit.
It does the idea of maybe even starting a local decentralized
resistance movement in your community.
Looking at resources, the sourceimplicitly points towards
understanding nonviolent strategies for change.
Right. The idea that the people must
redefine peace, take back freedom, not necessarily through
(37:42):
grand gestures from the top, butcommunity LED efforts,
nonviolent change from the ground up.
And look if you found this deep dive useful, if it sparked
something, offered clarity. Please consider supporting us.
Like this episode? Share it.
Subscribe to our channel. Your support genuinely helps us
reach more people, grow this community.
Keep bringing you these in depthanalysis.
(38:03):
And remember the true measure ofpeace.
It isn't found in a trophy or a headline or a speech.
Where is it found them? It's found in the relentless,
often invisible, courageous workof ordinary people refusing to
accept the status quo, actively building a better world.
So, the final thought for you, our listener.
What small, tangible act of peace will you build today?
(38:34):
Chairman Trump. Which are the red stars?
Here they rise again from the gentleman to mother man.
Power unshacked is power unbound.
And not hear that go sound. Yo, you thought it was fixing?
Now it's a mirror with red reflection.
Trump don't roll now. But it's still the perfection of
virgin descent. Control of perception.
(38:55):
You're reading with me where you're fake.
That's the party line, give or take from New York Towers C
flame. Now it's sugar Trump in the
loyalty game got the hat stitched like red guard threads.
Klaus chant forever like now is feds.
He was right about everything. You just that's a cultural
revolution in the fitted fest, long with the Shannon long with
(39:19):
the might. Truth is a threat.
So he's taking the 5th tear downthe guardrails put up the hate
and she's never make it real estate.
Out of the flying pan and into the fire, says a journalist.
X out watching barbed wire escape from she.
Now it's ajah food. Same tricks, new flag.
Red, white and blue suppression.My press pass blacklist blast.
(39:41):
Only thing Trump ain't copied isa little red clasp.
Now price flows like state TV streams.
Echo chambers louder than she streams.
Embassy walks the stars in theireyes.
Publishing like his party lines.See who they laugh.
Trump's got on beat. Only thing missing the loyalty
tweet. Long with the Chairman, long
(40:03):
with the grand kill, the revolution with executive head.
Listen to us, the traitors, FreePress, the bluff.
When you're the Messiah, one parties enough.
They say it's not the same. We vote, they needle.
But what if the votes don't counted for real?
What if the courts are stacked and sealed and the fake news
dies with each appeal? One party.
(40:23):
Rule. It ain't declared, but the
agency's Purge the watchdog scare A list of friends?
A blacklist too. Now tell me what will now do?
Who loves control? Jamming Trump.
Who crushes souls jamming Trump?Who's got the gold, the hats,
the flock Jamming Trump? It's now with the Ted Talk, long
(40:45):
with the chairman. Got in a suit.
Hail to the throne in red light and room.
Tear down democracy. The Revolution streaming on Fox
News Sick. We left the East to find the
free. Now we watch the West though the
knee dictators rise and no one sees until the cult outlives the
(41:06):
country. We left the East to find the
free.
Control of perception. You're either with me or you're
fake. That's the party line, give or
take. From New York towers to DC
flame. Now it's Sugar Trump in the
loyalty game. Got the hat stitched like Red
Guard threads. Klaus chant forever like Maoist
feds. He was right about everything.
You just. That's a cultural revolution in
(00:50):
the fitted fest. Long with the Shannon, long with
the might. Truth is a threat, so we stay in
the 5th. The guardrails put up the hate.
It's cheap, noble. Make it real estate.
Out of the flying pan and into the fire, says a journalist.
X out watching barbed wire escape from she.
Now it's deja vu. Same tricks, new flag.
(01:12):
Red, white and blue suppression.My press class blacklist blast.
Only thing Trump ain't copied isthe little red clasp.
Now praise flows like state TV streams.
Echo chambers louder than she streams.
Embassy walked the stars in their eyes publishing matter
like his party lines. See who they laugh.
Trump's got him beat. Only thing missing the loyalty
(01:35):
tweet. Long with the chairman, long
with the brand of the revolution, with executive head.
Listen to us, the traitors, FreePress, the bluff when you're the
Messiah. Want parties enough?
They say it's not the same. We vote, they needle.
But what if the votes didn't counted for real?
What if the courts are stacked and sealed?
(02:23):
Hail to the dawn in red light, and we'll tear down democracy.
Cardinal Fix the Revolution streaming on Fox News Sick We.
Left the East to find the free. Now we watch the W Bell, the
knee dictators rise and no one sees until the cult outlives the
country. We left the East to find the
(03:00):
free. Now we watch the West bow the
knee. Dictators rise and no one sees
until the cult outlives the country.
Welcome, welcome, welcome to thedeep dive.
So glad you've joined us today. It's great to be here.
Our ongoing mission here is, well, to navigate this huge
ocean of information, Really cutthrough the noise, you know?
(03:22):
Absolutely. And bring you those crucial
insights, the stuff that matters.
Exactly from the material that shapes our understanding, we
take stacks of articles, research notes.
And distill it right down to those aha moments.
Yeah, the moments that make you genuinely well informed.
And in an era where, let's face it, information overload is
(03:43):
real, Well, definitely our purpose is clarity, depth, but
without overwhelming you. We want to equip you with
context connections, the critical thinking tools.
So you can grasp these big topics thoroughly, but you know
efficiently. Think of us as your guides
through the complexity. Helping you get straight to the
heart of what really matters. And today we are embarking on a
(04:05):
deep dive into something. Well, it's not just timely, it
feels vital right now. What's the topic?
The very essence of peace itself.
How do we define it? How is it pursued, or maybe just
performed? That's a crucial distinction.
And our main guide for this diveis a really incisive article.
It's titled Trump the Peace Faker.
(04:27):
Why the Nobel Peace Prize is notfor propaganda?
OK, provocative title. So our mission today.
It's to rigorously examine the arguments in that source.
We're focusing intently on the distinction it makes.
Between performative peace. Exactly the kind of gets
headlines photo OPS. Right.
Versus the real work. Yeah, the genuine, often
(04:48):
painstaking work of substantive peace building.
Understanding that difference isabsolutely crucial, isn't it?
Especially when things like the Nobel Peace Prize are involved.
The source argues that getting this wrong feeling to discern
between the two. It has real consequences for
accountability, for recognizing genuine efforts globally.
Big implications. Precisely.
And as we navigate this complex terrain, we're also leaning into
(05:12):
a theme, A powerful one. The idea of collective action.
People rising up for freedom, liberty, equality.
Against concentrated power, thatfeels very relevant.
It does, and it resonates with the source's origin.
Educate, resistance. The peace really grounds us in
that spirit. Informed active engagement.
Indeed. And understanding these
(05:34):
distinctions, performance versussubstance, that is a form of
civic education, isn't it empowerment?
It equips you, the listener, to shape the future you want.
Right. Instead of just accepting
narratives spun by, well, by those trying to consolidate
power or simplify things. It's about recognizing where
real peace comes from, who's doing the work.
And seeing the difference between genuine progress and
(05:56):
just spectacle. The illusion of peacemaking.
The Abraham Accords. OK, let's dive right in.
We need to address a claim many supporters lauded as a quote
crowning foreign policy achievement.
You mean the Abraham Accords? Exactly signed in 2020.
Israel, UAE, Bahrain, initially Morocco, Sudan later joined.
Right on the surface, it looked big.
(06:17):
Normalization deals in the Middle East.
Unprecedented Somerset. A monumental step towards
regional peace for many observers.
But what's striking right away is how this source, trump the
Peacefaker, challenges that narrative head on.
How so? It doesn't pull any punches.
It bluntly asserts these accordswere quote arms deals in
disguise. Wow, OK, that's a stark reframe.
(06:39):
It really is, and the article doesn't present this as a side
issue, it frames it as the fundamental nature of the
agreements. So if the source calls them arms
deals in disguise, what does that mean practically?
How does it elaborate? Well, it clarifies that these
deals mainly formalized a pre-existing quiet alliances
against Iran. That's the key.
(07:00):
So alliances that were already there, just not public.
Pretty much for decades, many Gulf states, UAE, Bahrain and
Israel shared security concerns about Iran nuclear program
regional influence proxies. Right, common interest creating
quiet. Cooperation.
Exactly. Back channel stuff.
The Accords, the source argues, just brought these alignments
out in the open. And sales were part of that.
(07:21):
A big part, according to the source, often accompanied by
significant US arms sales like the UAE wanting F30 fives which
cause some debate. You know about Israel's military
edge? So the argument is it wasn't
about resolving deep historical conflicts.
Less about that, more about strategic alignment solidifying
a front against Iran. Geopolitics, basically.
(07:43):
Yeah, strategic interests, security deals, not necessarily
broad reconciliation or peace building in the region.
That's the sources core point here.
And then there's a detail the source highlights as absolutely
critical, which is the deliberate exclusion of the
Palestinians. Ah, yes.
The article calls them the key party in any genuine Middle East
(08:04):
peace process. That's not a minor oversight, is
it? Not at all.
You've hit a central pillar of the sources critique.
It's far from minor. So this exclusion according to
the source. It fundamentally renders the
Accords incomplete, insufficientas a real peace initiative.
Because you can't have peace without addressing the core
conflict. That's the argument by
(08:25):
sidelining Palestinians, not addressing their core issues,
self determination, statehood, Jerusalem, right?
The deals become more about transactional politics,
geopolitical convenience for thesignatory and the US.
Not about root causes. Exactly.
Not about comprehensive, lastingpeace.
The source suggests. You know if the most affected
population isn't meaningfully atthe table.
(08:47):
Then the table itself is unstable.
Precisely. Any peace built on that is
inherently unstable. It lacks legitimacy, and you
need broad legitimacy for real peace.
The article goes even further. It points to specific actions by
the administration. Actions that undermine peace
infrastructure. Yes, things like cutting
hundreds of millions in humanitarian aid to Palestinian.
(09:10):
Vital aid. And shuttering the US consulate
to East Jerusalem. That seems like a direct
counteraction to peace building.It does, and the source connects
these directly to its argument about performative peace.
How so? It doesn't see them as mistakes,
but as pressure tactics consistent with authoritarian
deal making. Authoritarian deal making?
What does that mean in this context?
(09:30):
Well, the source defines it as akind of unilateral approach,
using power imbalances, coercion, bypassing normal
diplomacy. Instead of building trust,
right, instead of fostering dialogue, supporting vulnerable
people, which are, you know, hallmarks of real peace
building. So cutting aid, closing the
conflict. The source argues these were
meant to exert maximum pressure.Cutting ahead causes suffering.
(09:51):
Instability makes talks harder. Closing the consulate was seen
as down grading Palestinian diplomatic standing.
All part of the spectacle, not substance.
Legacy. That's how the source frames it,
Prioritizing the appearance of adeal over the sustained,
inclusive work needed for real reconciliation.
Long term stability through hurt.
(10:13):
No NATO war, but no peace either.
OK. Moving beyond the Middle East,
there's another argument we hearoften from supporters.
Which one is that? That the previous administration
kept the US out of new wars, especially concerning NATO and
Russia. The peace through strength
narrative avoided new conflicts.Exactly.
It suggests a period of stability, maybe deterrence.
(10:34):
It's a compelling point for manypeople.
It is, but again, the source Trump the Peace faker directly
challenges this right off the bat.
How does it challenge it? It's technically true, isn't it?
No new large scale wars during that specific time.
It acknowledges the technical truth, yes, but it argues
forcefully that this misses the full story.
(10:55):
The article posits that avoidingdirect conflict wasn't really
about a coherent strategy for long term peace.
What was it about then, according to the source?
More of a performance, not policy.
It suggests the absence of new wars didn't automatically mean a
period of peace. How so?
Because, it argues, the actions taken actually bred instability
(11:16):
undermine the very structures designed to keep the peace.
So if it was performance, not policy, how does the source back
that up? It mentions specific things.
Yes, worrying details like how the administration reportedly
weakened NATO. By questioning its relevance,
criticizing members. All of that and the source says
it even quote, nearly pulled theUS out of the alliance.
(11:38):
Pulling out of NATO? That was reportedly explored,
and the source also mentioned actions that emboldened Putin.
These seem like things that would actively destabilize
security, right? Absolutely not Maintain peace.
The source argues these actions eroded foundational elements of
stability, the constant questioning of NATO, criticizing
allies. It weakened the collective
(11:58):
defense posture. That's the contention weakened
the alliance that's been a cornerstone of European security
for what, 70 plus years? And played into adversaries
hands. The source suggests so.
It quotes multiple national security officials, people with
deep expertise. What do they warn?
They warned unequivocally, according to the source, that
pulling out of NATO would have destabilized Europe and invited
(12:22):
aggression frayed the fabric of deterrence.
Invited aggression. And critically, the source
points to what it calls the tragic confirmation of those
warnings, which is Russia's later invasion of Ukraine in
2022. Wow, the source draws a direct
link it. Does it argues the instability,
the emboldened aggression we sawit was a direct consequence of
(12:42):
weakening alliances like NATO? By undermining collective
security, signaling a retreat. It inadvertently created a power
vacuum, the source argues, a climate of uncertainty that
aggressive actors could exploit.So the point isn't just avoiding
war yourself in the short term. No, The source argues that doing
that while dismantling the mechanisms preventing broader
conflicts, that's not peace building.
(13:04):
It's a dangerous gamble with huge long term costs.
That's quite an irony, isn't it?The claim is avoiding war, but
the actions described seem to have sown the seeds for future
conflict. It's like, yeah, patching a
small leak while drilling holes in the dam.
That's the picture of the source, paints the humor.
Three no deals, no peace. What Trump didn't do.
(13:26):
OK, so beyond the major exampleslike the Abraham Accords and
NATO, supporters often point to other things.
Like potential deals negotiations elsewhere.
Exactly. A range of potential deals.
High profile talks presented as evidence of peace chops.
You know, a supposed knack for diplomacy, for grand bargains.
The idea being that even if theydidn't fully land, they showed
intent, willingness to engage. Right.
(13:48):
But this section of the source Trump the Peace Faker, really
aims to reveal the truth behind those claims.
And the expectation it sets up is.
That these much hyped potential deals ultimately secured no
actual peace. So looking beyond on the photo
OPS. Yes, scrutinizing the tangible
outcomes war, as the source argues the lack thereof, the
(14:11):
argument is that the appearance of negotiation was prioritized
over real resolution. OK.
Let's look at the specific casesthe source examines.
First. India and Pakistan.
Always a tense situation. Any breakthroughs there?
The source is blunt, No diplomatic breakthrough.
Really no progress at all? Worse, actually.
The article says tensions escalated significantly during
(14:32):
that time. How so?
Any specific examples? It points specifically to
India's 2019 revocation of Kashmir's autonomy.
Hugely contentious move. Kashmir is such a flashpoint.
Exactly, The source says this unilateral action by India just
inflamed an already volatile situation.
Move things further from peace. So despite any talk of
mediation, the underlying issuesjust festered or got worse.
(14:55):
That's the picture, a disconnectbetween the deal making image
and the reality on the ground. OK.
What about Kosovo and Serbia? And there was an agreement
there, right? Got some attention?
There was, but the source specifies it was an economic
normalization deal. Economic normalization, so
things like flights, railways, boosting trade.
Yes, but crucially, the source emphasizes no final peace treaty
(15:19):
was signed. And the underlying tensions.
Ethnic tensions persist, the source says.
The suggestion is Economic Cooperation is fine, but it
doesn't solve the deep politicaland ethnic divides.
So some transactional benefits, maybe some nice pictures.
But the core issues remained unresolved, a partial solution,
(15:39):
not comprehensive peace in the sources view.
Then there's an unlikely pairingmentioned, Vietnam and Cambodia.
What happened there? This one's simple, according to
the source and Stark. How so?
It just says no progress, no negotiations, just silence.
Violence. So just nothing.
Apparently suggests a complete lack of engagement or impact
there, despite the broader claims of diplomatic outreach.
(16:01):
Reinforces the idea the focus was selective, maybe on high
profile spots. Yeah, and North Korea that
definitely had high profile moments, summits, face to face
meetings. Huge spectacle, the source
acknowledges the multiple photo OPS with Kim Jong Un.
Unprecedented. Visually.
Position The administration is bold.
Right, exactly. But critically, the source
(16:21):
points out no nuclear deal. Which was the main strategic?
Goal, right? And maybe even more importantly,
the source says talks collapsed after the 2019 Hanoi summit.
Collapsed entirely. That's the assessment which for
the source just underscores the performance theme, visibility,
appearance of progress. But no actual resolution.
A handshake isn't a fix for complex security issues, the
(16:44):
source implies. The core problems remained North
Korea's program and continued. Finally, Syria, a devastating
civil war. Any peace initiatives there?
Well, here the source highlightssomething it presents is
particularly damaging, antithetical to peace building.
What's that? The administration ordering the
abandonment of Kurdish allies. The SDF, who fought ISIS
(17:04):
alongside the. US those exact forces, the
source says. Their abandonment allowed
Turkish forces to attack them. Leading to more conflict.
A Turkish military incursion into northern Syria.
More fighting, huge displacement, destabilizing an
already devastated region. The source argues this wasn't a
step towards peace. It intensified the conflict,
(17:26):
betrayed allies, created a humanitarian crisis.
That's the sources assessment, astark contrast to any notion of
peace building. So looking across all these
cases, India, Pakistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Vietnam, Cambodia, North
Korea, Syria, what's the patternthe source identifies?
It's consistent, and the source drives it home.
(17:47):
In each case, Trump positioned himself as a peace figure
without securing any actual peace.
Spectacle over substance again. That's the unifying threat, the
appearance of action, not tangible, lasting peace, a
consistent disconnect between the rhetoric of breakthroughs
and the reality of unresolved oreven worsened conflicts.
Prioritizing optics, maybe shortterm wins.
(18:07):
Over the deeper, harder work needed for genuine, durable
peace. That's the core argument running
through this whole section. The forgotten Front.
Dismantling the US Institute of Peace.
Eusipee. Now this next part.
The source introduces what it calls perhaps the most damning
evidence of Trump's anti peace posture.
OK, what is it? It focuses on the US Institute
(18:29):
of Peace Yusupi. Yusupi.
Yusupi maybe not a household name for everyone.
Right. So let's start there.
What exactly is UCP? What's its role?
It's a really crucial institution, according to the
source unique established by Congress back in 84.
And its mission? It's a non partisan,
congressionally funded organization specifically
(18:51):
mandated to promote peace and prevent violent conflict
worldwide. So not diplomacy like the State
Department, or military like thePentagon.
Exactly. It's focus is nonviolent
conflict resolution fostering it.
It's work spending decades regions, Sudan, Colombia, post
Soviet states. What?
Kind of work, did they? Do engaging communities,
training peace builders, advising diplomats, researching
(19:14):
causes of war, conditions for peace.
It's like an American engine foractively building peace using
soccer power expertise. An organization literally
designed and funded by Congress to build peace, yet the source
claims it was targeted systematically targeted,
according to the source, undermined in multiple ways.
How exactly? What did the administration do
according to the article, especially thinking about its
(19:35):
status now, maybe in a second term scenario as of 2025?
Well, first, the source reports,staff were purged or pressured
to leave. Which staff?
Particularly career professionals focusing on
democracy and human rights. The source suggests this was
ideological targeting, removing expertise that might clash with
policy. OK.
What else? Second.
(19:56):
Funding was quietly cut or frozen through budget maneuvers.
Starving of resources. An effective way to cripple
operations without a big public fight, right?
Third, the article mentions new leadership aligned with Trump.
Loyalists politicize internal operations.
Shifting away from its non partisan mission.
Towards agendas more politicallypalatable, the source argues.
(20:17):
And maybe most critically, yes, programs focused on anti
authoritarian initiatives were dismantled or rebranded to avoid
Trump's scrutiny. Wow, deliberately suppressing
efforts that counter authoritarianism.
That's the implication neuteringa core part of its conflict
prevention work. That's a profound shift, yeah,
especially given its bipartisan origins.
(20:39):
Does the source cite reports on Usapi's current state?
It does, and they paint a concerning picture.
As of 2025, it says multiple watchdog groups, including
reporting from The Washington Post in 2024.
What do they report? That UCP now operates at a
fraction of its previous capacity.
Not just a small cut, then a severe impairment.
(21:00):
That's the sense, and reports indicate many career experts
were forced out or muzzled. A loss of institutional
knowledge, expertise. A decimation, the source
suggests weakening the very infrastructure for non military
conflict resolution, making it harder for the US us to engage
effectively that way. The implication is this was a
deliberate choice. So this dismantling of a Peace
(21:22):
engine, as the source calls it, favoring propaganda, political
loyalty. It leads the source to a very
strong conclusion. It says this stands as proof
that Trump is not a man of peace.
The logic being. As the source puts it, no
president seeking to build peacewould weaken the very tools
designed to achieve it. The actions against UCP
contradict the peacemaker claims.
(21:44):
Directly contradict them in the sources view.
If you're committed to resolvingconflict, fostering stability,
you'd strengthen institutions like you said, right?
Invest in them. But the pattern described is the
opposite. Exactly systematic dismantling,
which suggests the source arguesa prioritization of loyalty
control may be a transactional view of the world over the
(22:07):
actual mechanisms of peace building.
It's a powerful indictment highlights a hypocrisy.
The Wave Insight Peace is not a brand.
OK, let's shift now to what feels like the philosophical
heart of this article. The underlying message.
Yeah, it makes this really powerful statement.
Peace is not a prop to be waved at rallies or dangled in
campaign ads. A direct challenge to reducing
(22:28):
peace to. A slogan, A commodity.
Exactly not something marketableor just a political talking.
Point. And the source insists on this
distinction, right? Yeah, it offers its own
definition of true peace. It does.
It says peace is a difficult, sustained process that includes
compromise, inclusion and long term engagement.
So not quick wins, not flashy announcements, no.
(22:50):
It's the arduous, persistent, often unglamorous work.
Building stability trust. Addressing deep grievances
overtime. Acquiring commitment.
Complex problem solving. Patience.
Rather than just political optics or short term deals, OK.
So when we look back at the record, we've discussed the
accords as arms deals, weakeningNATO, the no deals dismantling
(23:11):
Yousip. How does the source argue the
previous administration's approach measures up against
that definition of peace? The source is blunt.
Trump's record shows none of this.
None of the compromise, inclusion, long term engagement.
That's the assessment. It argues his actions
consistently prioritize short term gains, personal acclaim,
transactional relationships overthat deep sustained work.
(23:33):
No consistent commitment to inclusion to building lasting
structures. The argument is no, instead a
pattern of seeking leverage immediate gratification photo
OPS. Often, it argues at the expense
of real reconciliation and trustbuilding fundamentally
misaligned with peace building. And to make the contrast really
clear, the source highlights what it sees as the true pillars
(23:57):
of real peace. Principles that are the opposite
of that performative approach. Exactly what are these pillars
that identifies? It outlines 3 critical ones.
First, strengthening institutions, not gutting them.
Directly contradicting the US ifexample.
Precisely highlighting the need for robust, impartial structures
for long term peace. Second, facing uncomfortable
(24:19):
truths, not grandstanding with dictators.
Meaning principal diplomacy addressing human rights.
Yes, rather than prioritizing superficial relationships with
authoritarian leaders who might undermine democratic values.
And 3rd, hugely important, whichis inclusion of all voices,
especially the marginalized, notsilencing them for political
optics. Underscoring that you can't have
(24:40):
sustainable peace by excluding key parties, ignoring those most
affected. Exactly.
Can't prioritize political convenience over representation
and dignity. These three pillars, the source
argues, are the non negotiable bedrock of any real lasting
peace. The Nobel paradox Who gets
credit for peace and who gets silence?
(25:01):
This brings us right to the Nobel Peace Prize itself.
It's symbolic authority. Huge symbol for over a century,
right? A symbol of global moral
authority. Meant to recognize those who
genuinely reduce violence and advance harmony.
The ultimate stamp of approval for peacemakers.
Yet the source Trump the peacemaker, immediately points
to a troubling pattern. A pattern within the prize
(25:22):
itself. Yes, it asserts, the prize often
rewards the powerful performers of peace over the architects of
it. Wow.
Performers over architects. That's a profound claim.
It suggests a disconnect betweenthe ideal and the reality, that
maybe image power gestures, sometimes over shadow, the
quiet, difficult, often invisible work.
It makes you question if the system unintentionally favors
(25:44):
the visible over the vital. Which leads to the question, who
is doing that hard, unglamorous work?
The work the source thinks gets overlooked.
Who does it name? Grassroots activists, community
organizers, truth tellers, and victims of violence themselves.
And their work isn't grand declarations.
No, it's tangible daily efforts,building trust locally,
(26:06):
brokering ceasefires and active conflicts, risking their lives
for human dignity. People on the ground, in the
trenches, doing the day-to-day work.
Reconciliation, healing, conflict resolution from the
bottom up. And the source makes a poignant
point. What's that?
History remembers the photo op, not the foot soldier.
(26:26):
The visible act eclipses the unseen effort.
A critique of collective memory,really, as much as the prize
itself. And we saw this play out, didn't
we, when the previous administration was nominated for
the Abraham Accords? Huge media buzz.
A massive buzz, and the source contrasts that sharply with the
attention given to the unsung heroes.
How little attention they get. Exactly few headlines, it says,
(26:48):
for people like Yemeni peace activists negotiating local
truces, or Israeli and Palestinian families working
across borders, or Kurdish womenleaders advocating for
ceasefires. Why the disparity?
The source poses the question rhetorically.
Why? Because peace is often awarded
to those who claim it, not thosewho live it.
A powerful indictment? Prioritize visible top down
(27:09):
actions over the organic community LED efforts.
Efforts far from the centers of power and media.
And the source stresses this isn't just about one
administration. It's not partisan.
How does make that point? It uses the example of President
Obama winning early in his term,calls it a symbolic gesture that
rewarded hope, not outcomes. While noting that drone strikes
(27:31):
escalated under his watch. Right.
Showing the pattern rewarding power potential symbolism over
concrete, inclusive outcomes isn't unique, it's systemic.
A system that centers state actors, often from the global
North. While silencing peacebuilders
elsewhere, Sudan, Colombia, Myanmar, even Ferguson, it
mentions highlighting geographical and social biases.
(27:52):
So coming back to the main focusof the source, it reiterates
that the so-called peace winds cited by supporters.
They fall apart under scrutiny. It lists them again.
No resolution in Kashmir. No breakthrough in Kosovo,
Serbia. Beyond economics, silence on
Vietnam, Cambodia. And no reconciliation efforts
led by Trump in Syria, Yemen, Libya.
(28:13):
Just press releases, flashy signings and photo OPS and a
gesture without the lasting impact.
And this pattern ties directly back to.
The dismantling of YUSIP The source emphasizes how the very
agency tasked with promoting real peace was hollowed out
while these performative claims were being made.
A. Fundamental contradiction.
A damning one in the sources view, which leads it to pose
(28:36):
this haunting question to us, the readers, the listeners.
What is it? What does it mean when the
world's most prestigious peace award can be manipulated by
politics, celebrity or power? Implying a deep corruption of
its intent. Questioning is moral authority.
Exactly challenging us to re evaluate not just who we
celebrate, but why The peace we build honoring real heroes.
The source uses the striking analogy, almost funny, but
(29:00):
pointed. What is it?
If peace were a pageant, Donald Trump might win Miss
Congeniality, Ha. OK, I see the point.
But it quickly pivots back serious argument reiterating
that peace is not a brand APR campaign or a transactional deal
signed in Gold Plated Inc A. Deliberate rejection of making
it superficial. Absolutely, it insists.
(29:20):
True peace is different. How does it describe it here?
As a daily grind, often invisible, often unrewarded,
carried by those whose names arerarely spoken on world stages.
So the opposite of glamorous high profile moments.
Yes. It's about consistent,
persistent, often unheralded efforts.
Quiet work, Building bridges, Healing divides.
(29:42):
One conversation, one family at a time.
The antithesis of APR exercise. And this section is powerful.
It introduces nominees for the peace that actually matters.
Not just suggestions, no. It's clear these are nominations
for the Nobel Peace Prize. Long overdue.
A real counter narrative shifting focus.
OK, let's hear some of them. Doctor Dennis Mukwege from
Congo. Yes, an extraordinary figure
(30:03):
nominated for treating thousandsof rape survivors in war-torn
regions and advocating for global justice against sexual
violence as a weapon of war. His work at Panzi Hospital, it's
about more than just medical care, isn't.
It it's about restoring dignity,holistic care and relentlessly
campaigning internationally. He embodies peace in the most
(30:23):
brutal circumstances. Truly incredible.
What about the UNRWA staff and medical volunteers in Gaza?
Nominated for continuing humanitarian efforts under siege
and bombardment, often at the cost of their own lives.
Operating under constant threat.Blockades, bombings, shortages.
Yet they persist. Providing food, shelter,
education, medical care. Unwavering commitment in an
(30:46):
active, devastating conflict. A testament to quiet courage.
A powerful example and the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo
from Argentina, a historical example.
Nominated for decades of peaceful resistance, demanding
answers about their children disappeared during Argentina's
dictatorship. Marching in silence since 1977,
risking their lives wearing the white headscarves.
(31:07):
Their unwavering nonviolent persistence challenge the regime
played a critical role in bringing back democracy.
Demanding truth shows the power of sustained moral courage.
Amazing and Layma Gabawi's peacenetworks in Liberia.
Recognized for organizing women to end Liberia's civil war
through strategic nonviolence. She mobilized thousands of
women, Christian and Muslim, praying, protesting
(31:30):
nonviolently. Even staging a sit in outside
peace talks until a resolution was reached.
Their efforts LED directly to a peace agreement and Africa's
first elected female head of state.
Wow, a tangible example of grassroots women LED movements
changing everything. Then the Afghan Women's Advocacy
Network under incredibly tough circumstances now.
(31:52):
Nominated for continuing to educate, document and support
women under the Taliban regime. Facing severe restrictions right
on rights, education movement. Yet this network keeps operating
clandestine education, documenting abuses, advocating
it's about resilience against resistance, quietly upholding
rights and hoax. Incredible bravery and closer to
home here in the US, the Standing Rock Water Protectors.
(32:14):
Nominated for risking their lives to defend Indigenous land,
sacred water and treaty rights against the Dakota Access
Pipeline. A movement led by the Standing
Rock Sioux Tribe, bringing indigenous communities and
allies together. Powerful nonviolent resistance
about environmental justice, sacredness, treaty rights.
Highlighting the struggle for sovereignty.
The link between ecological health and peace.
(32:36):
Peace encompassing environmentaland cultural well-being.
And finally, a broad group youthclimate activists across the
Global South. Nominated because from Uganda to
the Philippines, they face harassment and state violence,
yet continue to lead with courage for a livable future.
Young people often hit hardest by climate change, right?
Despite contributing least, they're fighting for survival,
(32:59):
organizing strikes, actions, legal challenges.
Their fight for climate justice is a fight for peace.
Increasingly seen that way, climate change drives conflict,
displacement. Their activism is a global
movement for a just, peaceful future.
So what connects all these diverse groups?
Doctor Mukwege? The Mothers.
Standing Rock. The climate activists.
What's the common thread? The mark of moral clarity.
(33:22):
The source puts it plainly. They have no PR machine, no
campaign donations, no backing from oil states or authoritarian
regimes. But what do they possess?
Moral clarity backed by real action.
Their peace isn't a story they tell.
It's a reality they live, built on conviction, empathy, tangible
effort, often perilous effort. Not a manufactured image, no.
(33:45):
It's the kind of peace that costs, demands sacrifice,
transforms lives from the groundup.
It resonates because it's authentic, rooted in struggle
and aspiration. What the prize should be?
All this examination really brings us back to the Nobel
Peace Prize itself, its originalintent.
To honor genuine champions of peace.
(34:06):
And the source argues that original intent.
Cannot mean elevating those who merely sign deals to protect
power, profit or personal glory unequivocally.
So for the prize to keep its integrity, its moral authority.
It has to transcend politics, self-interest, appearances.
It's a call to re evaluate the criteria.
Focus on transformative, inclusive, sustained efforts,
(34:27):
not just convenient transactions.
If it becomes just a political reward.
It loses its soul. That's the sources strong
assertion. So if true Peace isn't built in
those high level meetings, thosephoto OPS, where is it built
according to the source? It fundamentally challenges that
top down view. It emphasizes true peace is not
built in private meetings between billionaires and strong
(34:49):
men. Where them?
It paints this vivid picture. Peace is built in classrooms
under occupation, where education is resistance.
It's built in field hospitals surrounded by drones, where
compassion indoors. It's built in village meetings,
reconciliation circles and truthcommissions where communities
painstakingly work through trauma, build new futures.
(35:11):
Shifting the focus entirely fromelite diplomacy to grassroots
reality. Exactly to the gritty human work
of community level, peace building, bottom up, organic
rooted and lived experience. And the source ends this section
with a direct plea, almost impassioned.
What is that? Let us end the charade, a call
to action for our collective understanding.
(35:32):
And it elaborates on that call. Let the Nobel committee look
beyond the marble floors of political palaces.
See beyond the grandeur, the maneuvering.
Yes, and crucially, let them hear the quiet voices, the one
still building peace in a world addicted to war.
A demand for the prize to reflect the truth of where peace
is really forged. In the toughest, often most
invisible circumstances, it concludes with this emphatic
(35:54):
call for the next Peace Prize totell the truth about who truly
embodies its spirit, demanding accountability not just of
leaders but of the institutions meant to honor peace.
And so as we wrap up this deep dive, the core message from
Trump the Peace Faker feels incredibly resonant.
It's like a mantra. What is it?
(36:15):
Peace without justice is surrender, peace without
inclusion is illusion, and peacewithout accountability is
propaganda. Powerful words.
They really are. And just to reiterate the
source's direct conclusion on the individual discussed today,
yeah, it states plainly that he,the person who, according to
this analysis, gutted the US Institute of Peace, escalated
arms sales, praised dictators, and prioritized spectacle over
(36:37):
substance, has not earned the title of peacemaker.
But, and this is the hopeful part the source highlights many
have. Absolutely, so many individuals,
groups worldwide doing the tireless, unseen, often
dangerous work. Let's finally say their names.
Remember their efforts understand peace is a living
process, not just an award, not just a headline.
And we really hope you take the insights from this deep dive
(37:00):
beyond just listening. Yeah.
Discuss this with others in person, online.
Share these distinctions performative gestures versus
real substantive peace building.Talk about what genuine peace
requires. Yes, and maybe take action.
Be part of shaping the future you want to see, not the one
others might want to impose. The source's origin educate
(37:22):
resistance certainly evokes thatspirit.
It does the idea of maybe even starting a local decentralized
resistance movement in your community.
Looking at resources, the sourceimplicitly points towards
understanding nonviolent strategies for change.
Right. The idea that the people must
redefine peace, take back freedom, not necessarily through
(37:42):
grand gestures from the top, butcommunity LED efforts,
nonviolent change from the ground up.
And look if you found this deep dive useful, if it sparked
something, offered clarity. Please consider supporting us.
Like this episode? Share it.
Subscribe to our channel. Your support genuinely helps us
reach more people, grow this community.
Keep bringing you these in depthanalysis.
(38:03):
And remember the true measure ofpeace.
It isn't found in a trophy or a headline or a speech.
Where is it found them? It's found in the relentless,
often invisible, courageous workof ordinary people refusing to
accept the status quo, actively building a better world.
So, the final thought for you, our listener.
What small, tangible act of peace will you build today?
(38:34):
Chairman Trump. Which are the red stars?
Here they rise again from the gentleman to mother man.
Power unshacked is power unbound.
And not hear that go sound. Yo, you thought it was fixing?
Now it's a mirror with red reflection.
Trump don't roll now. But it's still the perfection of
virgin descent. Control of perception.
(38:55):
You're reading with me where you're fake.
That's the party line, give or take from New York Towers C
flame. Now it's sugar Trump in the
loyalty game got the hat stitched like red guard threads.
Klaus chant forever like now is feds.
He was right about everything. You just that's a cultural
revolution in the fitted fest, long with the Shannon long with
(39:19):
the might. Truth is a threat.
So he's taking the 5th tear downthe guardrails put up the hate
and she's never make it real estate.
Out of the flying pan and into the fire, says a journalist.
X out watching barbed wire escape from she.
Now it's ajah food. Same tricks, new flag.
Red, white and blue suppression.My press pass blacklist blast.
(39:41):
Only thing Trump ain't copied isa little red clasp.
Now price flows like state TV streams.
Echo chambers louder than she streams.
Embassy walks the stars in theireyes.
Publishing like his party lines.See who they laugh.
Trump's got on beat. Only thing missing the loyalty
tweet. Long with the Chairman, long
(40:03):
with the grand kill, the revolution with executive head.
Listen to us, the traitors, FreePress, the bluff.
When you're the Messiah, one parties enough.
They say it's not the same. We vote, they needle.
But what if the votes don't counted for real?
What if the courts are stacked and sealed and the fake news
dies with each appeal? One party.
(40:23):
Rule. It ain't declared, but the
agency's Purge the watchdog scare A list of friends?
A blacklist too. Now tell me what will now do?
Who loves control? Jamming Trump.
Who crushes souls jamming Trump?Who's got the gold, the hats,
the flock Jamming Trump? It's now with the Ted Talk, long
(40:45):
with the chairman. Got in a suit.
Hail to the throne in red light and room.
Tear down democracy. The Revolution streaming on Fox
News Sick. We left the East to find the
free. Now we watch the West though the
knee dictators rise and no one sees until the cult outlives the
(41:06):
country. We left the East to find the
free.
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!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!