Beyond the Headlines: Deep Dive into Ukraine, Middle East, & US-China Dynamics

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is the paid advertisement from Betterhelp. Let's pause and
take a moment to talk about something very important. Life
has its precures for everyone, and we often carry the
immense weight of expectation to never show weakness, to hide
our true feelings, and believe that asking for support somehow
makes us less of a person. But bottling things up
isn't the answer. It can often lead to feeling down, burnout,

(00:23):
or other unhealthy habits. We want to normalize the idea
that it's okay to struggle. Real strength actually comes from
opening up about what you are carrying and doing something
about it so that you can be at your best
for yourself and everyone in your life. If you're feeling
the way of the world, or even if things just
feel a bit off. I can't stress enough the value
of talking to someone.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
It could be a.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
Friend, a loved one, or a therapist. We here this
week explained believe that therapy can be incredibly valuable. Whether
you've been in therapy personally or not, the broader benefits
are clear. It's so helpful for learning positive coping skills,
understanding how to set healthy boundaries, and it really empowers
you to be the best version of yourself, and it's

(01:06):
so important to remember that therapy isn't just for those
who've experienced combat or major trauma. It's a tool for
anyone looking to improve their mental well being and navigate
life's challenges. That's why we're thrilled to talk about better Help.
With over five thousand therapists in the UK. Better Help
is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over

(01:26):
five million people globally, and it clearly resonates with users,
boasting an app store rating of four point nine out
of five stars based on over one point seven million
client Rebut it's also incredibly convenient. You can connect with
a therapist at the click of a button, helping you
fit therapy into your busy schedule, and you can even
switch therapists at any time if you feel it's not

(01:48):
the right fit. And here's something special for our listeners.
As the largest online therapy provider in the world, better
Help is offering our listeners ten percent off their first month.
What are you waiting for? Talk it out with that
help once again, our listeners get teen percent off their
first month by going to betterhelp dot com slash this week.
That's b E T T E R h E l

(02:10):
P dot com slash this week. Hello and welcome to
this Week Explained, your essential download on the global stories
making headlines. We're all ready to unpack you have another

(02:30):
complex week from around the globe. But before we dive in,
just a quick reminder. If you want to get alerted
to new episodes as they are released, make sure you're
following or subscribed wherever you're listening right now. It's the
easiest way to stay updated. And hey, if you're enjoying
the show, want to help others discover leaving a quick
rating or review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify really makes

(02:51):
a difference. Also, did you know that Spotify allows comments?
Now this is a great way to get involved with
the podcast. Others can view those comments, and now Spotify
is allowing others to interact with your comments. This will
keep the conversation going long after the episode airs. Finally,
remember that this Week Explained as part of the awesome

(03:11):
Leon Media Network. You can discover more great podcasts over
at leonmedianetwork dot com. All right, let's get to why
you're here, which are all those stories shape in your world?
This week on the podcast, we're diving deep into the
ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, plus changing
relations between the US and the Middle East. We'll also

(03:31):
unpack recent news that China's Xi Jimping and America's Donald
Trump spoke on the phone for ninety minutes and are
set to have a meeting that may or may not
go well if past meetings with other world leaders or
any indication. As always, we're starting our discussion in Ukraine.
So Curvin, as someone who's seen the battlefield and spent
decades analyzing these kinds of situations, let's start with what

(03:55):
feels like the biggest headline from the past week, quote
Operation Spiderweb end quote this year audacity of these Ukrainian
drone strikes. Oh my gosh, let's walk through it. What happened?

Speaker 2 (04:09):
Yeah, like this happened just before the recording spot we
recorded the podcast last week, and I would say it was,
in essence a strategic masterpiece of asymmetric warfare. So what
you alluded to, Operation Spider Web involved over one hundred
Ukrainian FPV Those are the first person view drones and

(04:31):
they're used to strike. They were used to strike multiple
Russian air bases, and we're talking deep inside Russia. Because
the really ingenious part of all of this, that's according
to Ukrainian sources, was the method that these drones were delivered.
They weren't just launched from the border from the Ukrainian

(04:52):
Russian border. They were smuggled into Russia in modified cargo trucks.
They were placed in these trucks under retractable roofs. They
were driven close to the targets, the roofs opened up,
and they launched these drones into Russia.

Speaker 1 (05:07):
So they were essentially, as reports have put it, already
behind enemy lines before they even took flight. I mean,
that's why this has been called astonishing ingenuity. So what
kind of targets were hit and what was the reported impact?

Speaker 2 (05:22):
Yeah, you're exactly right, Sianna. So this allowed them to
bypass traditional air defenses and that Russian electronic warfare that
they've been using so effectively. Now, as for the targets,
we're talking about high value Russian military targets, I think
strategic aircraft. There were a fifty long range radar detection aircraft,

(05:44):
the t U ninety five, also the TU twenty two
to three strategic bombers that were destroyed, and these are
the exact planes that Russia's been using to detect Ukrainian
air defenses and very crucially launched their cruise missiles that
have been devastad Ukrainian cities. Now, the SBU claims that
they hit forty one of these aircraft. They inflicted roughly

(06:08):
seven billion US dollars worth of damaged and while we
can't independently verify that exact dollar figure, the sheer number
of reported hits and the type of aircraft involved, some
of which are no longer in production within Russia, that
tells me this had a significant impact.

Speaker 1 (06:28):
I mean, I sent you a couple videos that I
found of them attacking bases.

Speaker 3 (06:34):
It was crazy, very scary, absolutely incredible that they were
able to do this if you think of the logistics involved, right, and.

Speaker 1 (06:45):
President Zelenski himself confirmed the massive scale, didn't he. One
hundred and seventeen drones and a significant portion of Russia's
strategic cruise missiles missile carriers were destroyed. This isn't just
about hitting targets, though, is it. It's a huge psychological
and strategic win for Ukraine. After months of stalling, you know.

Speaker 2 (07:07):
Yeah, absolutely, yeah, we kept seeing Russia continue to attack Ukraine.
We've got ceasefire negotiations going on, and a lot of
the questions right that you and I have had were
what does this mean? Does this mean Ukraine's backing down?
They're going to have to capitulate. But then they carry
out this operation, and now we see what they've been
planning all these months. And from a strategic perspective, this

(07:30):
accomplishes several things. First, it imposes a tangible cost on
Russia's most valuable air assets. These assets are not easily replaced. Second,
it disrupts their operational tempo for long range missile strikes
because if a significant portion of your bomber fleet becomes damaged,

(07:50):
that impact is going to impact your ability to launch,
or that's going to have an impact on your ability
to launch all of all those things like that. And finally,
and perhaps most importantly, I would say, it shatters this
perception of Russian territorial invulnerability. So the people of Russia
thought we are closed off from this, and now they

(08:13):
no longer are. And for months Moscow has relied on
its sheer size to protect its deep rear military infrastructure.
This operation demonstrates that even Siberia isn't necessarily safe.

Speaker 1 (08:27):
They are not untouchable like they thought they were. I guess,
and we saw that immediate reaction, didn't we. Whenever this happened,
Russian officials and military bloggers, the ones who usually toe
the line, were openly criticizing their own leadership for failing
to protect these bases. It felt like a crack in

(08:48):
their united front. But I imagine, I mean, you can't
really brush seven billion dollars under the rug and ignore it.

Speaker 2 (08:54):
Yeah, no matter, I don't spin it. There's no idea
that spin it exact act. And we talked about how
isolated Russia is in the information space, right this is
a visible crack in that information armor. Those mill bloggers
specifically highlighted the foolishness of storing strategic aircraft in the

(09:15):
open with inadequate defenses. The videos that you showed where
they had tires on the wings of these strategic bombers,
as if that was going to protect it from some
sort of an attack. It's arrogance, very much arrogance. And listen,
I would say, I would say this, as we get
into this era of American isolationism, we should all take

(09:35):
a lesson from this arrogance that nowhere in this world
right now is safe. I'm not trying to say that
as prepare for an attack everywhere, but yeah, the Russian
people thought, well, our air defenses are so great. The
Israeli people thought, are you know, our government has protected
us for so long, nothing is going to happen. And

(09:56):
when it does happen, something like nine to eleven comes
along or something like this attack and it shatters your
your security, your.

Speaker 1 (10:03):
Perception of how safe your government can keep you.

Speaker 2 (10:08):
Yeah, you said it, that's exactly right, your perception of
how secure you really are. It changes everything. Look at
air travel since nine to eleven in the United States.
It's totally changed because of that. And so this is
all changing within Russia because of what Ukraine is able
or was able to do, because they snuck in these trucks,

(10:30):
these cargo trucks into Russian territory. That is first of
all bold, that's a bold move, cotton, and it worked
out pretty well for them. But also, you know, things
going on on the border are now cracked down, and
the ability for Russi, the Russian population to move around
freely is now cracked has been cracked down. So there's

(10:50):
a lot about this. This isn't just about the war. Now,
this is a This affects the civilian people within Russia,
and it reveals a deep seated All of this with
the Russian mill blockers and Russian officials and how they're
calling out the military and military leadership reveals a deep
seated frustration within the Russian military and the analytical community

(11:13):
about what they perceive as a lack of adaptation and
complacency from that senior leadership. It's not the first time
that we have seen this, and I'm going to say
it's probably not going to be the last time we're
going to see this.

Speaker 1 (11:25):
Okay, Now, let's pivot to the other major development, the
ceasefire negotiations in Istanbul, because Curvin, these talks, they don't
seem to be going anywhere, do they.

Speaker 2 (11:36):
Yeah, you're right, it's like Groundhog's day here. Russia finally
presented it's memorandum for a ceasefire and a comprehensive peace treaty,
and I'd say, to no one's surprise, it's a laundry
list of their maximalist demands, the exact same demands putting
laid out on February twenty fourth of twenty twenty two
and remind.

Speaker 1 (11:56):
Our listeners what exactly are those demands, because from what
I read, they sound like a surrendered document for Ukraine.
But also, do you really think Russia still has that
wiggle room, you know, to demand such things.

Speaker 2 (12:13):
That's an interesting question. I know we've talked a lot
about going to the negotiating table. You can either go
in good faith or you can go with the upper hand.
And we've always thought that Russia is going to want
to go to the negotiating table with the upper hand.
They've never wanted to sit down in good faith, and
right now they're not sitting down in good faith, even

(12:35):
after this drone attack by Ukraine. And essentially this is
what Russia has put up. So for a thirty day truce,
Russia's offered two options. Either Ukraine withdraws all forces from
Donnett's Luhnsk, Sabricha, and Carsan, the four regions that Russia
illegally annex but they don't fully control right now, or

(12:57):
Ukraine needs to halt its entire mobilist They'd also need
to freeze the Western arms deliveries that's from the US
and Western Europe. They also want Ukraine to demobilize its military,
halt force redeployments, and then ban foreign troops from fighting
for Ukraine against Russia. So that's just for the thirty

(13:17):
day truce. I'm sorry you're already laughing at this. You
would not be good at the negotiating table Tienna.

Speaker 1 (13:23):
Let me just tell well, I mean, the nerve that
they have to demand this whenever they have proven North
Korea soldiers on the ground and Chinese soldiers on the
ground fighting for them, and they're like, no, Ukraine can't
have the same thing as US.

Speaker 2 (13:42):
Well, and absolutely, and I get your I don't know
if it's frustration.

Speaker 1 (13:48):
Or it's amusement.

Speaker 2 (13:50):
And amusement that's a good one. But Russia at this
point still thinks that they're winning, and they've cultivated this
narrative that they still hold the upper hand, and that's
why they have presented this. They can continue, they know,
we talk about this all the time on the podcast
A War of attrition. Right. The longer this war goes
on and the less the US has support for Ukraine

(14:14):
in this war, Putin believes at some point Ukraine is
going to have to agree to this.

Speaker 1 (14:21):
But it just seems like, seems like you know, with
the lessening support that Ukraine gets, at least from what
it looks like from the international perspective, it seems like
they're getting more creative with their defense capabilities. And so
I don't know, maybe you know, whenever you push somebody

(14:42):
into a corner, they're gonna lash out, and that's what's
happening to Ukraine. And they did, and it went to
the tune of seven billion dollars.

Speaker 2 (14:51):
Really, you make an absolute astute observation here, the less
that they're getting from Western nations, from the UN, from
Western Europe, the more creative there being. That's exactly what
you said, and they have. Really, so this war has
changed conflict on a global scale historically, Like FPV drones

(15:12):
just were not really a thing until this war. And
now Ukraine is building these themselves. They're doing it, they're
doing it on their own, they're not relying on other nations.
In the US is benefiting from getting all these lessons
learned in best practices from Ukraine on how they're using
these drones. Make no mistake this operation that Ukraine participated

(15:36):
or that Ukraine carried out, Sorry, this is going to
be something that we could see used within a battle
with China over Taiwan, where the United States, especially Special Operations,
goes in and does a similar tactic because of the
kind of technological prowess that China has to stop drones.

(15:57):
So that was just a long way to say, hey, Tiana,
you're absolutely right. What does Russia have right now that
they can say you need to capitulate on this when
Ukraine is carrying out all of these actions by themselves,
they said themselves. Well, I think even President Trump said
right that he wasn't told that Ukraine was going to
carry this out? Why and why would they tell you? Yeah,

(16:19):
I mean, and it's not just a Trump thing, right, No,
there was the counter operation and that was there in
the Biden administration, and President Biden said that the US
wasn't told, And we said the same thing, Why would
you tell them? Really, you don't know, you don't know
what someone within the US administration is going to do,
So just carry it out on your own and take
those repercussions on yourself.

Speaker 1 (16:41):
Yeah, what was it? Ask for forgiveness? Not permission?

Speaker 2 (16:45):
Absolutely?

Speaker 1 (16:46):
Yes, especially in this case because I mean it's not
like they have any US ground troops helping them, So
I mean it's on them to carry out these things.

Speaker 2 (16:55):
Yeah, you're absolutely right.

Speaker 1 (16:58):
I didn't mean to cut you off. I guess you
need to finish rattling off all the demands that Russia
is making.

Speaker 2 (17:05):
So I want to reiterate that that was just for
a thirty day truce, right.

Speaker 1 (17:09):
Right.

Speaker 2 (17:10):
They also put out a plan for a comprehensive peace treaty,
and that encompasses everything I just said, right, halting Ukrainian mobilization,
freezing Western arm deliveries, all that stuff. You can rewind
and listen to it again after our tangent. But Russia
also demanded international legal recognition of Crimea. Remember Russia doesn't

(17:31):
have that yet. Crimea was annexed over a decade ago.

Speaker 1 (17:36):
So they're demanding other countries to also.

Speaker 2 (17:40):
Not other countries, every country.

Speaker 1 (17:43):
Yeah, I know, that's what I'm just saying. That's what
That's what I mean.

Speaker 2 (17:45):
Oh, okay, that's what I mean.

Speaker 1 (17:47):
It's that's crazy if they think they can demand that too, Like,
we don't have to listen to you.

Speaker 2 (17:53):
That's not just that's not just hubrious in the war
in Ukraine. I think that's international hubris that we think
we're winning against the against the all all of Europe,
the all of Europe, I'm sorry, against all of Europe,
against the entire international community. That's what Russia is really
saying right here. So they want international recognition of CRIMEA.

(18:18):
They want international recognition of all of those annexed regions. No,
the four Sorry if the four annexed regions, Tianna is
already keep going, keep telling me what residents Tianna would
do of Ukraine. Yeah, no, okay, uh. They want Russia
Russian as the official language in those communities. Got anything

(18:41):
on that, Tianna, What do you say, yes or no? No?

Speaker 1 (18:44):
No? Sorry?

Speaker 2 (18:46):
A ban on Nazi propaganda, yes, that's right and that
but that's part of their pretext for the invasion.

Speaker 1 (18:55):
I yeah, I know that. You know which is so
that's absurd, but okay yeah uh.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
And they also want no claims from Ukraine for wartime compensation.

Speaker 1 (19:08):
No, you're gonna help us rebuild, buddy, you caused this destruction,
so no, okay, President Tianna has spoken, all these things
must come to pass. Hey I can have Hubris.

Speaker 2 (19:21):
Too, Yes you can, m hm, as Obama would say,
yes we can.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
That kind of sounded like you were trying to be perro.

Speaker 2 (19:31):
Or something ross Pero.

Speaker 1 (19:34):
Yeah, no, no, no, no.

Speaker 2 (19:35):
H w oh yeah, new taxes, read my lips, new tax.

Speaker 1 (19:41):
The cadence to the way you said that, it sounded
very h.

Speaker 2 (19:44):
W I am hey. I'm a fan of Bush.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
Which one both Bush? Both Bush.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
I do every every time I go back and just
watch videos of of w I'm like, I miss it,
I really do.

Speaker 1 (19:59):
That's okay, Well, let's get back on track, because we
can't dwell on the past. We are here with this
current stuff going on. Obviously, Russia's demands are insulting to
Ukraine and the international community with their demands of you
better recognize that we nex crimea in those four spots

(20:21):
in Ukraine, especially considering President Zelensky is Jewish and the
denazification claim is so obviously baseless. So what about Ukraine stance,
especially now, you know they have to have a surge
of confidence going through them right now with what they

(20:42):
carried out and how much damage they inflicted on Russia.

Speaker 2 (20:46):
Yeah, I will say there was some heightened morale and
enjoy around that now as we're talking right now, Russia
has carried out attacks within Ukraine and and they're causing
devastation within civilian communities. So there are some repercussions to
it that the Ukrainian people are feeling right now. But look,

(21:10):
Ukraine is still in a firm rejection of these terms
from Russia. They have proposed a thirty day ceasefire without preconditions,
just stop the fighting. No one needs, not even Russia
needs to capitulate to anything. They've reaffirmed their refusal to
abandon NATO membership. I think that's going to be something

(21:31):
that is really as they dig into the talks. That's
something that is going to either derail or finish out
the approval of this because if NATO membership stays on
the table with Ukraine, Russia is never going to accept that.
And you know, I don't say never, you know that, Siena,

(21:52):
but as long as Putin's alive, Russia is never agreeing
to having Ukraine a member of NATO. Now, Ukraine says
that NATO membership is a sovereign choice. They argue and
they reject any acknowledgment of Russian territorial gains. They've emphasized
this need for international security guarantees and the return of

(22:15):
all deported Ukrainian children. Now it's clear their red lines
are diametrically opposed to Moscow's red lines.

Speaker 1 (22:25):
So we have this incredible display of Ukrainie military ingenuity
with Operation Spiderweb happening at the same time as these
completely deadlocked negotiations. So is there a connection here, Kurban
Is Ukraine using these strikes as leverage at the negotiating table?

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Yeah, no doubt about that. Yeah, oh yeah, any leader would, right.
You know, if you were invaded and you're in a
war and you're having to sit down at the table,
you're going to try everything to at least have some
thing to come to the table with. And we spoke
about this last week because Russia began these increased offensives

(23:07):
as a negotiating tactic, there was another classic example of
fighting to gain leverage at the neotiating table. Now, when
Russia presented its demands, it was likely operating under or
operating under the assumption that Ukraine here to use a
boxing term, is on the ropes. They're slowly losing ground
in the dumb Boss and they just don't have the

(23:30):
will to fight anymore. Operation Spider Web fundamentally challenges that narrative.
It's as if Ukraine is saying we can still hurt you.
We can even hurt you deep inside your own territory,
and we will impose significant costs.

Speaker 1 (23:46):
Well, with both sides maintaining these mutually exclusive red lines
and Ukraine now demonstrating this expanded deep strike capability, what
does it tell us about the immediate future of this conflict?

Speaker 2 (23:58):
I mean it tells us the fight is set to continue. Look,
Putin's not going to abandon his original objectives, and Ukraine
and now embolden by its own successes and with its
sovereignty on the line, they're not about to capitulate. Look
Operation Spider rep That's not the end of all this.
There are more innovative strikes that are going to come

(24:19):
from both Russia and Ukraine. They're designed to continue imposing costs,
and like I said, on both sides, they want to
erode each military's wheel will or capacity to fight.

Speaker 1 (24:32):
A tough truth to hear, but that's why we have
these conversations. So for now, let's shift to the war
in Gaza. This week, we are going to really lean
into the complexities of the Gaza conflict, specifically some incredibly
concerning reports that have emerged about Israel's strategy on the ground.
Which I've had issues with that. For a while, we've

(24:54):
been seeing headlines about Israel arming local militias and Gaza
to counter Hamas. So what is your initial read on this?

Speaker 2 (25:04):
Eliot's a significant development in the war and Gos and frankly,
it's one that's raising more red flags for israel As
if they needed more red flags raised in this conflict.
So on the surface, you can understand the tactical logic
from Israel's perspective. If you can't fully dislodge Hamas after
twenty months of conflict, perhaps you can empower local groups

(25:27):
that opposed them and create a power vacuum or at
least a significant internal challenge to Hamas. Now I can
tell you this, the US tried this in both Iraq
and Afghanistan. It was a failure. The US military eventually
began to fight the very people that we had trained

(25:48):
those just a couple of years as we were training them.
But now those fighters were better equipped than they were
when they were fighting al Qaeda. They were fully trained
and they could fight back again in c US military.
So I will say this as he's prone to do.
Prime Minister Netanyahu defended this. He said that they have quote.

(26:12):
I want to quote him here activated clans in Gaza
which oppose Hamas. He also said that in doing this
opposed to my thinking about this. He said it was
quote a good thing end quote.

Speaker 1 (26:25):
But it's not as simple as just activating clans, is it.
I mean, the reporting suggests a much more volatile situation.
Some are calling this complete madness. Even equating some of
these groups to isis that is an incredibly stark warning.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
Yeah, look you're not You're not wrong to be concerned here.
I think everyone should be concerned. I think within Israel
they should take these they shouldn't take these words lightly.
This isn't about building a new stable governing body. It's
about army what amounts to crime families in Gaza. The

(27:04):
risk here is immis Now. As I laid out a
few minutes ago, we can't No one can guarantee that
the weapons that are going to be given to this
militia is not going to be directed towards Israel eventually. Right.

Speaker 1 (27:20):
That seems pretty plausible with the amount of devastation that
Israel has caused there, you know, and Hamas predictably is
also reacting strongly to this, to these clans coming for them.
They've called this a grave and undeniable truth and accuse

(27:42):
Israel of arming criminal gangs to create insecurity and social chaos.
So what does that tell us about the current state
of play within Gaza itself.

Speaker 2 (27:54):
Look, it just reinforces the idea that Hamas, despite the
intense military pressure, still retains a significan level of control
and influence. Their ability to immediately label and condemn these
groups as traders and criminal gangs. That shows their stea
still deeply embedded into the life of Gasa. Now, this
move by Israel, while perhaps intended to weaken Hamas, could

(28:17):
inadvertently solidify internal divisions and then fuel even more localized
violence without necessarily dislodging Hamas's core power structure. That we're
talking about a fragmented security environment. I don't think throwing
more weapons into that mix is a good idea. My
analysis is this is a recipe for further chaos.

Speaker 1 (28:39):
What about the domestic political fallout in Israel. We're hearing
that net and Yah who authorize this without security cabinet approval,
which is highly unusual for such a significant policy decision.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
Yeah, you make a critical point here. I'm actually seeing
this kind of unilateral decision making happening across the globe. Now,
this in particular speaks to the desperation and perhaps the
lack of a clear, coherent, long term strategy for Kausa.
But it shows, or it proves to me that Netnya

(29:11):
who's far right coalition partners, probably would have vetoed this move.
And it also further highlights the internal dissent and this kind
of geopolitical tightrope Danya who is walking.

Speaker 1 (29:26):
And also kind of reeks of desperation.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
Yeah no.

Speaker 1 (29:33):
And this all ties into the broader question of who
will govern Gaza after the war, a question that Netna
who has notably failed to answer. He's been vague a
ressed to say the least, say the least, but I mean,
with their actions, it's kind of obvious what he wants
to do, but we won't go down that road right now.

(29:57):
Is arming these militias the close he's come to empowering
an alternate rule? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (30:04):
Absolutely, And that's precisely why it's so concerning. This is
an improvised solution in the absence of a genuine post
war plan. Now, the stated goal is the complete disarmament
and elimination of Hamas's ability to government. We've talked about
that from the start, right, but we're nearly twenty months
in now and Hamas remains resilient. They still remain resilient

(30:27):
after much of their leadership has been killed or left
for better things. And look at Hesbola. We don't hear
too much from Hesbola right now. That's because Hesbola is
still trying to restructure and reinforce their leadership after a
complete annihilation during their recent brief conflict with Israel.

Speaker 1 (30:47):
Now that we leaned into the situation on the ground,
let's talk about the ceasefire negotiations. We spoke last week
about Hamas's response to the latest USC's fire proposal delivered
by mister Whitcoff.

Speaker 2 (31:01):
Have there been any changes this week, Not really, except
Thamas clarified that they did not outright reject the ceasefire
mus playing a very familiar game here. They're not outright
rejecting the proposal, so the can keep the door open
for these talks, but they are reiterating their core demands
for an end to the war in complete Israeli withdrawal.

Speaker 1 (31:23):
So nothing of real significance coming out of peace talks
between Russia, Ukraine, Israel or Hamas. Hopefully the next week
offers a better news cycle. Thank you Kurvin for helping
us impact this deeply complex and concerning situation. Now let's
shift our focus to the change in rhetoric towards former
US adversaries or are they still adversaries. We will impact

(31:45):
all of that, but first we need to take a
quick break for a message from our sponsors, So stay
with us. We'll be right back. Welcome back, listeners. As
we hinted at before the break, we are diving deep
into the intractable and frankly at times incredibly frustrating world
of US Iran nuclear negotiation. Caurvin everything or from everything
that we've been reading and discussing, it really feels like

(32:07):
we're stuck in this endless loop. So can you set
the stage for us. What are the core demands from
the US side and why has Iran been so strained?

Speaker 2 (32:16):
Yeah, and you hit it on, hit the nail on
the head. There. It does feel like an endless loop,
and that's because at its core, the US has been
a little inconsistent in its demands. But where we stand
today is at the US demands Iran needs to stop
all uranium enrichment. It has to dismantle its existing capabilities

(32:38):
and ship its highly enrinched uranium stockpiles out of the country.
That is the demand from the Trump administration, and at
its core, it is about preventing Iran from ever having
the ability to break out and develop a nuclear weapon.

Speaker 1 (32:55):
I mean, I totally understand why we would want this
to be in place. But at the same time, who
are we to demand another country just demand, outright demand
it that they stop enrichment.

Speaker 2 (33:11):
Production the world's police.

Speaker 1 (33:14):
Okay, So what was Iran's response? I mean, from what
I read, it's a pretty firm no, thank you to
those demands, right, which they have every right to react
that way.

Speaker 2 (33:26):
Yeah, if every country can react to however it needs
to other countries' demands.

Speaker 1 (33:31):
Yeah, No, I don't want to stop enriched and uranium.

Speaker 2 (33:35):
Yeah. And look, Iran views its enrichment capabilities as a
sovereign right and a cornerstone of its peaceful nuclear energy program.
That's the key their key term there is peaceful. Now,
as we have discussed, and we've done this probably a
few months, we did this a few weeks ago. Every
time we talk about this, this is what we talk about.

(33:57):
In this situation, Iran is stead asked in their refusal
to dismantle these capabilities or to send their stockpiles outside
of Iran. So, after five, now potentially six rounds of talks,
this fundamental disagreement has led to what feels like an
insurmountable impasse. You and I have spent countless evenings discussing

(34:20):
our countless episodes, I would say, discussing why they are
digging their heels in so hard on this one issue.

Speaker 1 (34:27):
As we spoke about before on this podcast, there is
talk of a regional consortium, right, I mean that sounds ambitious.
We didn't get too much into the weeds on that,
so I wanted to ask you, as someone who's seen
the consequences of unstable regions firsthand, Keravin, what is your
initial take on that idea?

Speaker 2 (34:48):
I mean extreme caution was the initial take, because while
the intent might be to provide nuclear power without proliferation risks,
expanding access to enrichment technologies and an already volatile region,
that's frankly a recipe for disaster. Now, our primary goal
should be to limit access, not too broad in it.

(35:09):
The prospect of any regional power be it Iran or
Saudi Arabia developing fissionable material capability that needs to give
everybody just a bit of pause. Here's say classic be
careful what you wish for scenario.

Speaker 1 (35:24):
I can completely see why you'd feel that way. I mean,
how did Iran react to this initial proposal, especially with
the cease all enrichment clause.

Speaker 2 (35:33):
Yeah, predictably, they weren't thrilled about it. Senior Iranian diplomats
quickly signaled a negative response. They called it completely one sided.
They also called it a non starter. Their key sticking points,
as anticipated, were the unchanging US stance on enrichment on
Iranian soil and the lack of clarity regarding sanctions relief. So,

(35:54):
in their words, this was a bad deal.

Speaker 1 (35:57):
So that was a few weeks ago, which brought us
back to square one, or so it seemed. Now we
are hearing through more recent reporting that Iran actually is
open to the Regional Consortium idea, but with a massive caveat.
So tell us about that.

Speaker 2 (36:12):
Oh yeah, so that's where it gets interesting. A senior
Iranian official actually told US news publication Axios that Iran
is open to the consortium concept, but only if it
is located within Iran, let's say significant development, because it
suggests Tehran might not outright reject the US offer, but

(36:34):
instead they might seek to negotiate on kind of the
fine print within the offer.

Speaker 1 (36:40):
So essentially they're saying, we like the idea of sharing
as long as it's in our house. That's quite the
negotiation tactic. But how would that even work to reconcile
President Trump's no enrichment in Iran stands with Iran's enrichment
on our soil must continue redline.

Speaker 2 (36:56):
Yeah, and that's the billion dollar question, right. The theory
is that if the enrichment is overseen by a broader
international group, the US could technically declare that Iran is
not unilaterally enriching uranium, while Iran could claim that it's
redline around enrichment that remains intact. So this is a
clever semantic dance when you see a lot in geopolitical negotiations,

(37:18):
but settling on the actual operational terms and safeguards that's
going to be an enormous challenge for everyone involved. Now.
As more information from the US deal was revealed this week,
we actually saw that it included allowing limited low level
uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, but only for a specific

(37:38):
period of time that would require Iran to dismantle critical
infrastructure for conversion and processing of uranium, and potentially allowing
Iran to develop domestic enrichment capabilities that the US said
would be necessary for civilian purposes.

Speaker 1 (37:55):
So essentially a concession on the US side regarding some
level of on Irani and soil, which was a core
demand of the previous deal. So does this signal a
softening of the US position?

Speaker 2 (38:07):
Yeah, it certainly seems that way. It's a departure from
the seesaw enrichment, that's for sure. But it's also precisely
what many opponents had worried about, this distinction between civilian
and military enrichment. The technology is the same, there is
no differences, just a matter of time to boost enrichment
levels to weapons grade uranium. That is what everyone is

(38:30):
scared about. So if this more flexible proposal is still
met with strong objections from Tehran, it truly diminishes the
prospects of a deal that genuinely addresses Western proliferation concerns
and gives Tehran what they want.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
It really does feel like a high stakes chess match
where both sides are trying to find a move that
allows them to claim victory without actually conceding their core demands.
So what are we watching for next?

Speaker 2 (38:55):
Well, unfortunately, Tiana, we didn't even get in to what
I'm watching for net because I'm watching for Israel's next move. So,
if Iran in the US get closer to a deal,
does that mean Israel would launch a preemptive attack on
Iranian nuclear sites? These are sites that were actually revealed
through Israel's capture of Iranian intelligence. Does that happen or

(39:18):
does the Trump administration try to soften Israel's approach and
assure det Yahoo that Iran will be kept in line.
That is yet to be determined. There's also some reporting
that Iran is captured Israeli intelligence of their own nuclear capabilities,
that is, Israeli nuclear capabilities. So all I will say
before we finish out this topic and move on to

(39:38):
the next is brace for impact on this one.

Speaker 1 (39:41):
Well, none of that is good news. Uh, we definitely
can't end the podcast on that. So let's stay in
the Middle East and talk about Syria. We've been watching
developments there closely, especially with President Trump's recent announcement about
lifting sanctions. So it feels like a moment, doesn't it
tinal turning point, or at least a new chapter.

Speaker 2 (40:02):
It really does, Tianna. We're talking about a nation that
has been brutalized for decades under the Assad regime. There
the sheer scale of this human tragedy in Syria, I mean,
it's almost unfathomable.

Speaker 1 (40:16):
It really is. I remember reading about the initial lifting
of sanctions and then a fascinating report from the Syrian
American Alliance for Peace and Prosperity about their visit to
post Assaud Syria, and it painted a very complex picture,
one that started with a lot of apprehension but ultimately
left them cautiously optimistic. That's a strong phrase, Curvin, especially

(40:39):
concerning Syria.

Speaker 2 (40:40):
It is incautiously optimistic is a term that we used
you and I after the fall of the Assad regime,
and it's a cinnamon that resonates with what we have
been observing through open source channels now. For centuries, Syria
was a beacon of diversity, was a multicultural hub. Then
for fifty four years, Assad systematically dismantled all of that,

(41:05):
and he waged war on his own people and it.

Speaker 1 (41:08):
Wasn't just a political war, was it. Some have called
what happened over those fifty four years political genocide. Close
to a million of his own people were murdered, Christians, Muslims, Kurds, Drews,
and all of this for years, backed by Russia and Iran.
It's just chilling.

Speaker 2 (41:28):
And that support from Russia and Iran, which was so
vital to Asad's brutal reign, well, those circumstances changed. We
saw Russia's engagement in Ukraine that changed their focus. Then
there was also the increased pressure on Iran through sanctions
and the degradation of their proxies. We're looking at the
lifeline for Assad just completely fraying. That ultimately forced him

(41:52):
to flee to Russia. Now look, I know, maddeningly it's
tough because we see he still managed to pill for
billions of US dollars on his way out the door.
The level of corruption even in his retreat, it is
honestly staggering.

Speaker 1 (42:09):
There's more of that, Hubris, Oh my gosh, brain bart ye,
how many billions did he take? Did you get a figure?

Speaker 2 (42:19):
There is no known figure, but we just know that
it's within the billions, within the.

Speaker 1 (42:25):
Billions like nothing right singles double keens twenty.

Speaker 2 (42:33):
No, I mean according to reporting. Just because everyone keeps
saying in the billions, it would be the ones of billions,
I guess you would say the ones, okay, because typically
if if it was like ten twenty thirty billion, you
would the readout from this intelligence or this reporting would
be tens of billions. Oh, I got it, okay, But

(42:56):
that's not to say it wasn't.

Speaker 1 (42:58):
Yeah, exactly. We don't have any idea at all. Yes,
so Asad is out, but the damage is done. Now.
Syria has a new president, Ahmed al Sharrah, and let's
be frank, his previous history as a Syrian al Qaeda
member is concerning more than concerning. Actually, it's a giant

(43:21):
red flag. Where's that red flag guy that runs across
the flub.

Speaker 2 (43:25):
Yes, And you're absolutely right. And I do think if
you're listening to this podcast and every time we talk
about Sharra, we we mention his history with al Qaeda,
and you might be saying, stop bringing it up, right,
he probably he may have changed and give the guy
a shot. But I think it needs to be brought
up in every conversation because this is the new regime

(43:48):
in Syria, and we have to approach this with our
eyes wide open. But look, with all that said, some
of the reports that I'm seeing are saying that al
Sharra's actions since taking power they seem to tradict his
history as an al Qaeda operative.

Speaker 1 (44:03):
Like what, because that's a huge leap of faith to
ask the international community given his past.

Speaker 2 (44:10):
Yeah, exactly, But consider this. On the surface, it appears
he's enlicted an incredibly diverse group of Syrian advisors. These
advisors include some who actually fled Assad's regime many years ago.
Also as Minister of Social and Labor Affairs, that's hind Kabaat.
She's an accomplished Christian woman. It's not the kind of

(44:32):
appointment that you would expect from someone with pasties to
al Qaeda. Also, one of his first acts was freeing
thousands of Syrians in prison and tortured by the Assad regime.
That's also promising. Then we saw the return to religious
freedom that culminated in a huge public Easter celebration. It
was the first Easter celebration in decades. These are not

(44:55):
the actions of a typical former extremist.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
So he's actively promoting the very things his previous affiliations
would have a posed. And then there's the international relations piece.
He expressed a desire to work with the West, called
Israel by name, even suggested possibly joining the Abraham Accords.

(45:19):
All this talk about the Middle East devolving into absolute
chaos since October seven, twenty twenty three, and this feels
like a seismic shift.

Speaker 2 (45:28):
Yeah, look, it really is. And that's why I want
to talk about Siria this week. It's because he has
actually stated a commitment to avoid proxy relationships with Iran.
And that's despite the allure of their influence in the region.
This is another testament to his desire for more favorable
and dare I say legitimate partners. Now America is so

(45:52):
used to being asked for money or military support, but
his core request for sanctions really was for sanctions relief,
wasn't for increased money or military support from the United States.
He also wanted for Syria to not be divided anymore
so that all religious groups can come together. He also

(46:13):
wants Syrians defending Syria, not Russians or Americans or anyone else.
That's a refreshing change of pace. And look, I would
say a more stable, Western leaning Syria actually offers a
new layer of protection for Israel.

Speaker 1 (46:31):
And economically, he sees Syria's strategic location as key, highlighting
its potential for faster transit of products to the West,
and he wants economic partners. And while Russia, China and
Iran are knocking, he hasn't accepted their offers. His clear
preference is for the US to be the preferential trade partner.

(46:51):
And after over fifty years under ASAD, that's an unprecedented
opportunity for Syria.

Speaker 2 (46:57):
Yeah, it is, and it's why Trump's decision to lift
sanctions is so crucial. Hearing El Shaira and the Syrian
government express an interest in being a stabilizing force for
peace and prosperity in the region, that's a moment we
should absolutely consider carefully. Of course, I want to say
this accountability is paramount here. He needs to be willing

(47:19):
to accept international investigations into the treatment of Syria's religious minorities.
For me, that's non negotiable.

Speaker 1 (47:26):
So the cautious optimism makes sense. When a new leader
coming from such a damage past, opens his country, promotes
religious freedom and asks for trade with the West. We
have to explore that. But is there any part of
your analytical mind that says there must be an ulterior motive.

Speaker 2 (47:45):
Yeah, Look, it's the first thing I thought when I
heard about all of these seemingly great changes that are
being made. Is this legitimate or is this an attempt
to seem legitimate? While looking to the future and in
the future, al Shara could consolidate absolute power, and as
we've learned from Lord Acton, absolute power corrupts absolutely well.

Speaker 1 (48:10):
As we breathe a cautious cyb of relief in Syria,
let's move to East Asia and into one of the
most significant relationships on the world stage, and that is
the United States States State State, the United States and China. Dang. Anyways,
we've seen some recent developments that are worth unpacking, especially

(48:32):
this phone call between President Trump and President Jijimping. So
what does your initial take on this, considering those ongoing tensions.

Speaker 2 (48:42):
Well, look, it's certainly a call that had everyone in
the intelligence community paying very close attention. Now, on the surface,
a ninety minute phone call between the two leaders, initiated
at the White House request could be seen as a
positive step. It does suggest a willingness at least on
the US side to engage direct with their counterparts in China.

(49:02):
But beneath that veneer, knowing these two leaders and their history,
I'd say it's far more nuanced.

Speaker 1 (49:09):
Nuanced. Indeed, my antenna immediately went up when I saw
the contrasting reports from the US and Chinese state media
because Trump's truth social posts truth. Yeah. Trump's truth social
post was rather vague, saying that it was a very
good call with positive conclusion focused on trade. But when
you have Beijing emphasizing that Ji urged the US to

(49:32):
revoke its negative measures and stressed their earnest implementation of
the Geneva agreement, that sounds like two very different conversations,
don't it. So what does this tell you about the
upcoming meeting that Trump mentioned? I mean, he said it
would be shortly between representatives. Is this a genuine step
towards a more stable relationship or just another cycle of

(49:55):
talks that ultimately don't lead different deals. We've seen this before,
haven't only I mean promises of imminent deals that never
quite materialize.

Speaker 2 (50:03):
Yeah, and it's almost certainly the latter. Unfortunately, given the history,
particularly with Trump's approach to trade negotiations, these soon to
be held meetings often become extended talking shops rather than
these decisive breakthroughs. Look the UK agreement announced last month
that was described as a quote political pact end quote,

(50:25):
rather than a formalized trade agreement. So it's more about
creating the perception of progress than actual substantive deals. Now,
from a strategic perspective, it buys time, potentially calm some
of the market jitters we've seen, but it rarely translates
into tangible, mutually beneficial outcomes that address the core imbalances

(50:48):
of the situation.

Speaker 1 (50:49):
I mean, if it's mainly about creating the perception of progress,
then maybe they should have gotten on the same page
on what they were going to say occurred during the comation.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
Because but then you lose geopolitical leverage. Right, So one
side can say, look, there's a great call, we talked
about the economy. It was all great, and the other
side can say, hey, let's get a little advantage here,
and oh you.

Speaker 1 (51:16):
Mean okay, So you mean like just the perception of
progress on either side, right like they wanted Okay, okay,
So not like jointly Okay. I thought you were implying
that it was about jointly appearing like there's progress being made,
but they want each side wants to make it seem
like their side was pushed through.

Speaker 2 (51:36):
Yeah, thank you for clarifying that exactly what I.

Speaker 1 (51:40):
Needed to work through it and why you're here, right, Yeah, well,
all right, all right. That brings us to the core
of Trump's trade strategy, those unprecedented tariffs. So we've been
discussing this for over a month now, the idea that
they'll lead to these grand deals, but critics are increasingly

(52:03):
vocal saying there's little a show for it beyond scrambling
investment and hiring plans globally. So do you think that
assessment is fair? I mean, I have seen a video
of people shopping in Chinese grocery stores and they say,
we used to get all of our meat from the
United States, or not all of it, but a lot

(52:24):
of their beef from the United States. And they brought
us to the grocery store and they picked up a
lot of their beef and now it's all from Australia.

Speaker 2 (52:31):
So we are sorry. I didn't mean to cut you
off there, that's okay.

Speaker 1 (52:36):
They're just going with another country, kind of like how
we're having to do.

Speaker 2 (52:42):
Yeah, and that's just what's going to happen, right with
with tariffs, Like the UK sends out a ton of
beef to various countries, so they're going to gain from this.
And I do think what you brought up is a
fair assessment, and my analysis has consistently shown that while
tariffs can certainly create leverage in specific instances, Trump's blanket

(53:03):
approach has largely just been a blunt instrument. It's disrupted
supply chains, it's increased costs for consumers, for businesses, and
I think most importantly, it fostered uncertainty because we talk
about it Tianna all the time. We're not certain what
the future holds and what's actually going to happen.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
Now.

Speaker 2 (53:25):
I do want to preface all this with the fact
that I am not an economist. I won't speak for Tianna,
but I would assume she would also say she's not
an economist. She's better with money than I am. Look,
I know nothing about tariffs or the stock market except
what I see on YouTube videos. But every single month

(53:46):
we keep hearing how devastating things are going to be
for the market and for jobs in the US. And look,
we just had a new jobs report come out every
single month that they've come out since April. It's been
positive news. Now since the initial shock of the tariffs
that were taking effect, those collapse the stock market here
in the US. Since that it actually we've seen positive results.

(54:09):
The stock market has gained ten percent in profits since
that time. And the recent data also showed a sharp
drop in the April trade deficit with China. Look, that's positive.
We should be talking about that. But like I said,
I'm not an economist. More pessimistic and more knowledgeable economists
are saying this is likely a temporary anomaly. I'd have

(54:34):
to agree with them because they know a little bit more.
But let's look at the facts in the matter. Right now,
employment in the US is on the rise after so
many reports of this absolute crash in the job market.
Our price is going up. We'll have to wait for that. Look,
this is not an economy podcast, but I do think
all of this plays into the geopolitical cycle.

Speaker 1 (54:54):
Okay, so enve talking about the economy. Okay, all right,
I'm sorry yet, and beyond let's get beyond trade. Okay.
The US China relationship is so multifaceted. We have the
TikTok issue, the fentanyl crisis. So how do these other
complex issues factor into these high level discussions or do
they get relegated to separate slower moving tracks.

Speaker 2 (55:17):
Yeah, I think you bring up a critical question, and
thank you for moving me off of the economy, because
I think this is where the complexity really amplifies. Now.
While trade might be Trump's primary focus, these other issues,
TikTok's ownership and also the flow of illicit fentanyl, they
are equally, if not more, strategically significant for the US,

(55:41):
but they often operate on dead on different diplomatic tracks.
So for TikTok, the US is trying to force a
divestment due to national security concerns. We have a June
nineteenth deadline looming, and there's also this prospect of a
third extension of that deadline. It just shows the difficulty

(56:01):
in getting that specific national national security concern taken away
and getting TikTok out of the United States. And I
would say, I guess the only thing more important to
people than national security is the ability to doom scroll
all day. So going away from that, let's talk about fentanyl. Now, fentanyl,

(56:25):
which I would argue has similar mental effects that TikTok does.
There are signs of slowing seizures at the border, but
the source issue from China remains largely unaddressed. These are
not simple problems that can be solved with a single
phone call or honestly, even just a few trade negotiations.
These require sustained, nuanced diplomatic pressure, and frankly, both sides

(56:48):
have different priorities and objectives when it comes to these issues.

Speaker 1 (56:52):
So when you look at the entirety of this recent
interaction and the broader landscape of US Chinnel relations, what
is your prognosis. Are we seeing the seeds of a
new chapter or is this just more of the same,
a constant dance of tension and temporary de escalation. Ye.

Speaker 2 (57:10):
Look, unfortunately, Eileen, more towards the same, Sienna. I don't
see any immediate signs of a fundamental ship shift in
this relationship. Both leaders are operating from deeply entrenched positions.
These are driven by domestic political considerations and long term
strategic objectives. Trump's approach is still largely transactional. It's focused

(57:33):
on perceived economic winds, while Ji Jinping is prioritizing China's
internal stability and its global rise. We'll continue to see
how these temporary flaws are followed by renewed tensions as
each side pushes their own agenda. And we say all
of that, and I think we spend fifteen to twenty
minutes talking US China relations. We didn't even get into

(57:55):
the Taiwan issue. So you can see this is completely complex, nuanced.
The situation is not going to get solved anytime soon.

Speaker 1 (58:05):
Complex and frustrating, and one we will continue to monitor
closely here. So thank you for your invaluable insights. As always,
anything else you want to.

Speaker 2 (58:16):
Discuss, that's all I have anything from you, Nope, So
thank you so.

Speaker 1 (58:20):
Much for listening to This Week Explained. We hope you
found it both informative and engaging. If you have any
feedback or suggestions for future episodes, we'd love to hear
from you. For more in depth coverage of these stories
and more, be sure to follow us on social media
at This.

Speaker 2 (58:35):
Week Explained Sienna. Thank you so much, and until next week,
stay safe out there.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Beyond the Headlines: Deep Dive into Ukraine, Middle East, & US-China Dynamics

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

All Episodes

Beyond the Headlines: Deep Dive into Ukraine, Middle East, & US-China Dynamics

On Purpose with Jay Shetty