May 19, 2025 • 44 mins
This week, we delve into the high-stakes diplomatic talks between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul, analyze Israel's significant new military offensive in Gaza, and unpack the controversial details of U.S. President Trump's whirlwind tour of the Middle East. Are these events interconnected, and what do they signal for global stability?
------
This Week Explained is presented by our new friends over at Fresh Roasted Coffee & Positively Tea. Have a cup of the best tasting coffee that gets Tiana & Kervin through breaking down the latest geopolitics news! Visit our link - https://lddy.no/1lc0u & use our promo code THISWEEK for 20% off your first purchase!
Enjoyed this episode? Don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your network! Follow us @thisweekexplained for more.
-------------
Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed on the podcast 'This Week Explained' are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization or entity. The information provided on the podcast is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice or a substitute for independent research and analysis. Each individual listener should research and identify their own opinions based on facts and logic before making any decisions based on the information provided on the podcast. The podcast hosts and guests are not responsible for any actions taken by individuals based on the information provided on the podcast.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/this-week-explained--6199515/support.
------
This Week Explained is presented by our new friends over at Fresh Roasted Coffee & Positively Tea. Have a cup of the best tasting coffee that gets Tiana & Kervin through breaking down the latest geopolitics news! Visit our link - https://lddy.no/1lc0u & use our promo code THISWEEK for 20% off your first purchase!
Enjoyed this episode? Don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your network! Follow us @thisweekexplained for more.
-------------
Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed on the podcast 'This Week Explained' are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization or entity. The information provided on the podcast is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice or a substitute for independent research and analysis. Each individual listener should research and identify their own opinions based on facts and logic before making any decisions based on the information provided on the podcast. The podcast hosts and guests are not responsible for any actions taken by individuals based on the information provided on the podcast.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/this-week-explained--6199515/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Hello, and welcome to This Week Explained, your essential download
on the global stories they're making headlines. We're ready to
unpack yet another complex week from around the globe. But first,
before we dive in, just a quick reminder. If you
want to get each new episode automatically, please make sure
that you're following or subscribe to wherever you're listening right now.
It's the easiest and fastest way to stay updated. And
(00:31):
if you're enjoying the show and want to help others
discover it, leaving a quick rating or review on Apple
Podcasts or Spotify really makes a difference, and of course
we appreciate it. We also want to give a massive
shout out to our sponsor for this episode, Fresh Worsted Coffee. Seriously,
they are the reason that we can keep bringing you
this show every week. If you're a coffee lover like
(00:52):
us and appreciate seriously fresh, high quality beams, you've got
to check them out. They have a fantastic selection, Plus
they've got us I shall deal. Just for our listeners.
You can get twenty percent off your first order by
using the code this week that's t chisweek. When you
check out, just make sure to use the link in
our show notes to grab that offer. Trust us, it's
(01:14):
some of the best coffee around. And finally, please remember
that this Week Explained is part of the awesome Leon
Media network. You can discover more great podcasts over at
leonmedianetwork dot com. All right, let's get into why you're here,
which is all the news this week. We are breaking
down the latest on the wars in Ukraine in the
(01:34):
Middle East, and we are going to do a full
report on the Middle East tour of US President Donald Trump.
So for now, let's get into the latest developments in
the war Ukraine. It's been another week and another set
of complex developments in the already ongoing tragedy that is
the war in Ukraine. Happened, and this week all eyes
(01:54):
were on Istanbul.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Bet you surprise, surprise.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
All right, So the city on the bosporis historically across roads,
and this week the stage for what many hoped would
be a significant step, the first direct talks between Ukrainian
and Russian delegations in over a year. Remember those early
days after the full scale invasion, the frantic, desperate attempts
at dialogue. It feels like a lifetime ago. The initial
(02:26):
reports painted a cautiously optimistic picture, didn't They face to
face meetings facilitated by Turkey and even with encouragment from
the US. But as the details emerged, that optimism seemed
to well deflate. What really happened behind those closed doors?
And why? Why where did our hope go?
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Yell it? I mean, the optics were certainly all there.
They had the flags, all the countries flags were there.
It was almost a theatrical attempt at normalcy amidst what
it is. It's just utter devastation in the region. But
here's the problem here. The substance, as always is what
(03:08):
really matters, and what we didn't get a lot of.
From what I've read, the Kremlin's demands were what's a
good word for this, ambitious? Maybe? A senior Ukrainian official
actually described the Kremlin's demands as quote new and unacceptable
end quote.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Okay, unacceptable? How what were they asking for that was
different from what Ukraine has heard before?
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Well, the key sticking point here was territory. Moscow reportedly
demanded the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Nonets, Zapricha,
Croissan and Luhansk regions. That's all regions that both countries
actually claim as their own, and they wanted all this
to happen before even agreeing to a ceasefire. Now, this
(03:58):
goes significantly beyond ev in the US proposed draft piece
deal that we talked about last month.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
So essentially, Russia was demanding that Ukraine surrenders significant portions
of its sovereign territory as a precondition for the guns
to fall silent. That doesn't sound like a negotiation curve,
and that sounds like an ultimatum.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yeah, you're right, And I've always talked about negotiating in
good faith. This is not a good faith negotiation and
it's a far cry from ukraine stance that we saw
come out in a counter proposal. So Ukraine actually presented
the US this proposal, and it prioritized an immediate and
(04:39):
unconditional ceasefire first. Then we can start discussing territorial issues,
starting from the current line of control, which is what's
on the ground, who, what troops control what areas. Now,
they also want the return. This is the Ukrainians want
the return of these upreach and nuclear power plant and
the Kokofka dam because those bring power and resources to Ukraine.
(05:04):
So they're not going to easily give that up. They
also want unimpeded access to the to the Nepota River.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
So two completely different starting points. And what was the result,
like a prisoner exchange, a welcome, albeit limited, positive outcome.
One thousand prisoners of war on each side returning home.
That's pretty significant for those families.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Right, yeah, it is. It shouldn't We shouldn't downplay that.
The families are extremely happy to have their loved ones back.
The Ukrainian deputy Foreign Minister actually said, this is potentially
exciting and excellent news for one thousand families, but in
the grand scheme of the conflict, it's just a humanitarian gesture.
It's not a political breakthrough towards ending the war itself.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
And the talk of a potential meeting between Zelenski and
Putin that seems to have gone nowhere fast.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Yeah, that went downhill very quickly. While the Russian delication
noted the request to have Putin there, there was just
no commitment on their side of it. Then you have
the rather let's say, colorful language coming from the Russian
Foreign ministry just before the talks. They called Zelensky and
I want to quote them here that they are calling
(06:16):
Zelensky this it's a quote clown and a loser end quote.
It's hardly sets what President Trump would want, which is
a collaborative tone. So I think it paints a picture
of a power dynamic where one side doesn't see the
other as an equal negotiating partner. And that's why you're
(06:38):
not seeing good faith negotiation.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
You're not seeing Putin show up to talk to Zelensky,
and you see them making all these outlandish demands before
they even have a ceasefire exactly. They definitely think they
have more leverage.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
And then we'll talk Let's talk about the Ukrainian side too.
They have this undercurrent of suspicion in Ukraine, and this
coming from European allies as well. They think Russia's simply
engaging in these talks to buy time. They want to
deflect international pressure for a ceasefire and then stave off
(07:13):
any further sanctions that may come out of it.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Well, I mean that's a very real concern. Right, We've
seen this playbook before, small gestures the appearance of diplomatic engagement,
while on the ground the military objectives continue. The drone
footage reportedly showing Russia amassing forces in the East ahead
of a potential summer offensive certainly lends credence to this suspicion.
And then there's the elephant in the room, which is
(07:39):
US President Donald Trump. He seems to believe that the
only talks that will truly matter are between him in Putin,
even suggesting that nothing significant will happen until that particular
meeting takes place.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Yeah, and you're talking about someone who's let's say, known
for his deal making. Oh Lord, definitely presents himself as
the deal maker.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Seems like a bully more.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Yeah, I think he would call that. That's part of
the art of making the deal, is.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Just coming in confident.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Yea bullying. We see that in the business world all
the time in the United States.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
The company that bullies the other company typically wins out,
you know, in their own favor. And I think that
is I'm not saying whether it's good or bad. It's
just what President Trump has learned throughout his decades of
being a businessman. He's taking that into the diplomatic realm now.
(08:39):
When Trump throws his hat into the ring, especially with
those very public statements, whether on social media or in
the regular media. I think it muddies the waters a
bit too much. At this point, we're already dealing with
a pretty complex situation. When you add in his perspective,
(09:00):
we see a whole new level of interesting dynamics happen.
It's particularly true when you consider how it diverges from
the European approach, even diverges from the original US efforts
in those Istanbul talks. It's uniquely President Trump, and it's
a real study in contrasting strategies.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
It does raise questions about the coherence of Western strategy,
doesn't it. I mean, on one hand, you have European
allies pushing for stronger sanctions and a clear condemnation of
Russia's demands, and then on the other the US President
suggesting a bilateral approach that seemingly sidelines Ukraine almost entirely.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
It highlights a persistent tension, the desire for a swift
resolution versus the need for a just and sustainable peace
that respects Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial intech rec I just.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Feel like Ukraine should have a seat at the table,
like it shouldn't be exclusively the United States.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
And Russia absolutely, and so I would say differently, had
Russia came out and won a complete and total victory,
even in that the region that they're now claiming is
the only part of this and they and they want
to have access to it. If Ukraine did not stand
its ground and just let Russia run through it, then no,
Ukraine does not get a seat at the table. It lost.
(10:16):
I get war shouldn't be legal, but it happened. We
can talk the morality of it and the ethics of it,
but the fact remains, it happened. It happened. Now it's
it's a stalemate. A stalemate means both sides get a
seat at the table. And so I absolutely agree with you,
(10:36):
and I actually agree with the former US ambassador to
Ukraine who said that putting pressure on the victim rather
than the aggressor risks appeasement, not peace. So that's basically
something that that you were getting to as well. And look,
if we're going to talk about this, got to talk
about history. History, as you noted, Tiana has a grim
(10:59):
way of repeating itself in these scenarios.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
So where does this leave us? A small step forward
in terms of prisoner exchange, but a significant step back
in terms of substantive peace negotiations.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
It does feel that way Siana the Istanbul talks. While
that was a welcome return to direct contact, ultimately it
highlights the deep chasm that still exists between the two sides.
If Russia's maximalist demands and they don't suggest a genuine
desire for a negotiated settlement at this stage, Russia seems
(11:35):
intent on achieving their objectives on the battlefield, and then
they want to dictate the terms to Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Okay, what about the international community. What's the takeaway for them?
Speaker 2 (11:46):
I think it's continued vigilance, unwavering support for Ukraine. There's
also this unified front in the face of Russian aggression. Look,
this is in the European area of operations, and European
allies seem to this day right now, they seem to
understand this. Now, albeit they understand it with this misguided
(12:06):
push for more sanctions that's going to ultimately hurt their
own populations more than it's going to hurt the Putin regime.
I think the question remains whether the broader international community,
and indeed future US policy can maintain this resolve. I
know I just said this is ultimately a European conflict,
but it really isn't just a regional conflict. It has
(12:29):
profound implications for the entire global order.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
Sadly, it feels like this particular conversation is far from over,
even though we obviously had a lot of hope for
these talks in Turkey. We will continue to keep an
eye on the developments between Ukraine and Russia, but for
now we need to turn our attention to the Middle East,
and this past week has brought another series of complex
and frankly deeply concerning developments. The focus once again is
(12:57):
on Gaza, following Israel's announcement of a significant new offensive.
As we discussed last week, So Curvin, as you know,
like both of us, we've been tracking this situation for
decades now, because I mean, despite what a lot of
people think, this conflict in Gaza has been going on
(13:17):
for decades, guys, this is just the newest portion of it. Yeah,
given that history, the question on many minds is whether
the latest move truly represents a significant escalation or if
it's sadly a continuation of the dynamic. Asriel faces amidst
what it perceives as existential threats to its security, It's
(13:39):
a crucial distinction to make as we try to understand
the trajectory of this ongoing conflict.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Yeah, it certainly is Tiina. Look the name itself we
talked about last week, right, Operation Gideon's Chariots. There's a
certain weight that that even that phrase carries, right, referencing
the biblical war of Gideon now signals the intent beyond
just these targeted strikes. The idea of statement about mobilizing, sorry,
(14:09):
mobilizing these forces to seize what they would call strategic
areas and achieve quote, all the goals of the war
end quote that's what they would say is hostage releases
and the complete annihilation of Hamas. That suggests that we're
going to see a ground incursion on a scale we
have not seen likely in years.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
And this announcement came right as US President Donald Trump
wrapped up his visit to the region without any breakthrough
on a ceasefire. Is that just a coincidence or is
there a connection there?
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Look, it's hard to say definitively, just because we're not
in those rooms listening to what's going on. I know
we touched on this last week. We talked about the
fraying between the US President Donald Trump and Israel's Benjamin
et Yahoo. Now NT Yahoo's government has indicated that this
expanded operation wouldn't commence until President Trump left and his
(15:08):
visit to the Middle East had concluded. So whether that
was out of deference to the President, or it was
a strategic calculation to get better prepared, or just because
the timeline is actually aligned with them with themselves, we
can only speculate. We don't know what's going on in
the mind of net and Yahu, but the timing does
(15:29):
remove a potential diplomatic complication that being doing this while
Donald Trump is still in the Middle East, and that's
at least in terms of this particular engagement that's going on.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
The reports coming out of Gaza are as always devastating.
Hamas run health officials are saying hundreds have been killed
in a very short period. We know these numbers are
often contested, but the sheer scale is alarming. So what's
your assessment of this situation on the ground for the
civilian population.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Catastrophic, that's the first word that comes to mind. Like
we've been talking about the dire humanitarian conditions since the
start of this, We've been hitting it hard even more
recently because Israel did that aid blockade into Gaza. Now
we're seeing a possible intensified military operation, so we're going
(16:27):
to see increased displacement, more intense fighting, and densely populated areas.
And there are some reports of essential supplies becoming even
more scarce and quite frankly more expensive for the people
of Gaza. Now the UN's warnings about the critical risk
of famine, and obviously the gut wrenching accounts from medical
(16:49):
professionals about severely malnourished children, this paints a grim picture.
Go back to catastrophic, which I said at the beginning. Look,
I remember my own deployment, and it's getting exposed to
the suffering that war's cause, being in third world countries
and seeing the devastation of it, seeing that kind of suffering,
(17:11):
it really stays with you.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
And we are also seeing reports of a significant movement
of people from within Gauza, particularly from the north to
the south. And I know we discussed this last week
that was one of the things that the Israeli military
wanted to accomplish, was moving two million people south in
a tiny little area. So this since this move has
(17:39):
started it's because of the Israeli military.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Yeah, look, it is. And it seems to align with
reports suggesting a strategy to push the civilian population into
a smaller area in the south so that the idea
of can't operate in the north. But I know we
discussed this. This kind of sounds like a rehashing of it,
but it's it's starting. That's why I think it's important
(18:03):
to talk about it now. The logistics of this, especially
under the bombardment that continues to happen, the limited resources
that are there, this is a nightmare, to say the least. Now,
the question remains, where do these people go? I think
that's what everybody's asking. Where do you put them? Southern
(18:24):
Gaza is already overwhelmed.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Well, refugee camps are never really known for their posh atmosphere.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Us. Yeah, well, you can't make money out off of
refugee camps.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
So because you're supposed to be doing it all the
kindness of your heart.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
You're supposed to be you're supposed to be.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
But of course these people are being pushed into an
even smaller area with less resources les aid, and let's say,
and they're just being told deal with it. And they
had nothing to do with this conflict.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
And that is crap. To go word for it, that's crap.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Well, the international reaction of this seems to be a
mix of condemnation and concern. I mean, that's what I'm feeling.
Those those do things are what.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
In home reaction you have in home reaction.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
The U and Human Rights chief went as far as
to suggest that Israel's actions could be tantamount to ethnic cleansing.
That is, while they just came out and said it.
That is a very strong statement.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
So it is. It's a strong statement, but it reflects
the gravity of the situation and the potential long term
consequences of this offensive. Look, that kind of language shows
us that there's a deep concern about the potential for
widespread human rights violations.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
Potential well already occurred.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
Widespread future human rights violations. Okay, they haven't stopped.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
The continuance of widespread human rights violation. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
There's also this deliberate alteration of Gaza's demographic landscape, something
you talked about since the very beginning. It seems as
if Israel wants to completely change, deliberately alter the demographic
of Gaza. Now, I will say It is important to
remember that this is a legal and political assessment. So
(20:26):
the legal definition of ethnic cleansing under international law is
very complex that no one has agreed to the actual definition,
so it's contested.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
We also saw reports from an individual who recently toured
the region suggesting the US should quote take end quote
Gaza and make it a quote freedom zone end quote.
That's a rather conventional proposition. So what do you make
of that.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
I can tell by your inflection in the way that
you asked that you have your own opinions on what
you feel freedom zone is uniquely American, Right, Well, I'm.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Just saying the fact that this person who visited this
area suggested that we just sweep right in and just
take it and form it into our image, Like.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
What, Yeah, Well, look, it's really it's a departure from
established diplomatic norms. I'd say it's a simplification of an
incredibly complex geopolitical reality. I don't think you can just
do that without consequences. But the idea of the US
unilaterally taking control of Gaza raises tons of legal, ethical,
(21:42):
quite honestly practical questions. Who's going to go, who's going
to be there? Do I need to get my own
contract company, to get my own defense contract company together,
and yeah, secure Gaza. I mean, let me know, No
you don't know, let me know in the comments. No, no,
don't don't do that. No, this is I mean ridiculous.
(22:04):
I guess isn't the word, because you can make it happen,
but just the sheer magnitude of trying to do this
I think would collapse in on itself. I don't think
you can do it, and I don't think I frankly
don't think this should happen. These are opinions. Yeah, I
just think the cost you know, doing a cost benefit
analysis of it, I think the cost outweighs the benefit.
(22:28):
As we say in the D O D the juice
isn't worth the squeeze. So and why I know it's opinion,
But why do I say that? It's because none of
this accounts for the sovereignty of the Palestinian people. That's first, not.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Thinking about the Palestinian people at all.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
It seems like right, but we are, and we're gonna
keep talking about it, right, and whoever listens to this
can understand that that's devastating. Think of your own home.
I mean no, you and I have moved around, so
we always we continue to say we're from Louisiana.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
Even though we haven't lived there in Oh.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
My goodness, I don't think we've lived there ten fifteen years,
okay about I was gonna say, seventeen seventeen. We I'm
closing in on having lived outside of Louisiana longer than
I ever lived. Yeah you have, Oh yeah, gefinitely.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Yeah, that's true. I forget that I wasn't born in Siena,
like I remember. Ye.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Well, yeah, I forget too, I remember before that. Yeah,
I forget you were too. I just keep thinking you
were born in Louisiana. But think about it. Let's say,
and I go back to my family, right, we all
lived in the same area, like my dad's parents and
his brothers and everybody for generations lived on the same land.
(23:50):
Could you imagine another govern or. Could I imagine another
government coming in and saying this is mine. Now get
out of here and go get into the this go
to another country, right Jordan, Egypt, that's where they want
to send people to.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
So right now, but in the meantime, while we get
that stuff settled, you're going to live in this little
tiny plot of land with.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
A million, two million other pieces, two million other people.
I mean, you'd rightfully join an opposition group, right, And we.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Don't know when this situation is going to end. You
just gotta buckle in, sit tight, and just deal with it,
because this is what we think needs to happen.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
And I think we do like the conversation you and
I are having right now, which wasn't part of our
pre production, but I think people need to have these conversations,
or at least here these conversations happening from practical, pragmatic
people who are just like, wait a second, doesn't sound right,
(24:51):
does not sound right? So that's just about the Palestinian people.
It's the Middle East, the existing political structure. They're not
accounting for that. They're not accounting for the potential for
further destabilization in a region that's already destabilized. So I
think what that person was talking about is more of
(25:12):
a fleeting thought than actual concrete policy proposal, and.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Yet our media took it in rimm with it.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Well, it's because it's something that that Trump, that President
Trump would.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Say, right, because he wants Trump's gaza, right, Yeah, Okay, Well,
the US seems to be taking a very different approach,
backing this new Gaza humanitarian foundation to deliver aid while
traditional humanitarian organizations are expressing skepticism. What's the thinking behind
this new foundation? Do you think they're actually going to
(25:44):
give aid to gassins or.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
I always like to say what we what they state, right,
I will give their what they're saying, and then we'll
talk about their actions and whether that aligns with the
two Now. Their their stated aim is to create a
more efficient and perhaps more secure mechanism for aid delivery.
That's Israel's key point, right, they want a secure mechanism
(26:08):
for the aid to enter. As they would say, aid
is not entering. Weapons are entering and being handed to Hamas,
and that's how they're being refitted with weapons. And listen,
what they're trying to do here is they're trying to
bypass some of the challenges and criticisms leveled against existing
(26:29):
UN agencies. Remember, Israel since the beginning has accused the
UN of being infiltrated by Hamas and possibly by extreme
anti Semitic people. And we did that whole report where
there was some validity to this. You know, we had
two dozen teachers, counselors, and administrators at Unruh in their
schools in Gaza, and they were found to not just
(26:53):
be sympathetic to Hamas, but to be actual members of Hamas.
So that doesn't mean the skepticism from established organizations isn't warranted.
There are also concerns about whether this new foundation is
the capacity and infrastructure to meet the massive humanitarian needs
on the ground.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
Ultimately, Curvin, where do you see this huating? This quote
Operation Gideon's Chariots end quote fills like a point of
no return for many.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Yeah, I think it is a point of no return.
I also think it's a dangerous escalation. But that also
does not mean it isn't necessary. But the stated goals
of defeating Hamas and securing the hostages are understandable from
an Israeli perspective. That's especially true after the horrific events
of October seventh. But I would say the methods and
(27:46):
the potential cost in terms of civilian lives and regional
stability are deeply concerning to me. I'm not just talking
about Palestinian lives either, I think those are key to
talk about. But as we discussed last week, this week,
this is going to be a very dangerous operation for
the IDF and the Israeli people. So without a clear
endgame and a viable political solution, viable political solution for
(28:11):
Gaza in the long term, this particular offensive risks creating
a deeper cycle of violence and resentment. That's something the
Palestinians are already dealing with the trust issues with Israel.
There's tons of resentment. Look, as someone who's been on
the ground in conflicts like this, I can tell you
military solutions alone rarely bring a lasting piece that.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Is a sobering thought to end on. And as we
have come to realize very quickly doing this podcast every week,
it is never easy discussing these issues, especially knowing the
human cost. So thank you Kurvin for breaking that down
for our listeners. It is a lot to process. We
will definitely continue tracking this war, but for now let's
(28:55):
shift our focus to the news of the week. But
before we dive in, we need to take a quick
break for a message from our sponsors. Stay with us,
We'll be right back. Welcome back, listeners. As we hinted
before the break, this week, the world stage belonged to
one man and his four day whirlwind tour of the
Middle East has left us with a lot to unpack.
(29:15):
So President Trump back in the diplomatic saddle, it seems,
and greeted with what can only be described as a
royal spectacle, which I'm sure he gobbled up. He got
fighter jet escorts, he got to visit opulent palaces. He
even had a parade of Camel's curvin. Yes, So what
(29:37):
was the purpose of all this pomp and circumstance.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Well, Tianna, you know President Trump, right, Yeah, he wants
to be treated like a king everywhere. Yeh, optics matter.
He thrives on that kind of ad on that kind
of adulation of just I stopped myself from saying adulation,
but then I thought, yeah, the adulation too. But his
negative media appearances he loves that as well. Yeah, he
(30:02):
just loves is the old adage, any news is good news. Yeah,
no matter what. That's that's a uniquely uspr kind of statement, right,
I think I think what I'd say is beyond because
you want to talk about the pomp and circumstance, beyond that,
beyond the cold, gold plated everything in Saudi Arabia and
(30:26):
the Immirates, there was actually a clear agenda. He had
art of the deal guy. He had these artfully designed deals.
He explicitly stated his focus was on securing investments and
agreements for the United States. While he was saying all this,
the Gulf States certainly played along with all of it.
(30:46):
We all witnessed arms deals, the Boeing purchases. I'd also
say a rather extravagant gift of a brand new seven
forty seven from Gutter four hundred.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
Million dollars flying palace as summer calling it, I mean seriously,
even for a president known for his lavish lifestyle, that
raises some eyebrows. What are the implications of our president
openly accepting a gift like that?
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Yeah, that's legally it treads a very fine line with
the emolments cause of the constitution that prohibits accepting gifts
from foreign leaders.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
So he's not I mean, it treads the fine line.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
It's it treads did because was this a gift from
foreign leaders or was this a gift from you know,
civilians of the country.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
Just civilians about a four hundred million dollar plane for
the president.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
This is so, this is something that I when I
talk about this situation and seeing President Trump in the
especially the Emirates, but also in Saudi Arabia, he's the
poorest person in that room. The we're talking about hundreds
of billions of dollars in wealth per person in these
rooms that he's in. Because of the it's oil rich territory,
(32:07):
they don't give it to their people. They're only giving
it to themselves and their families. So while there are
tons of really rather poor it's uniquely poor people in
these countries, they're also uniquely rich, extravagantly rich people, and
so not all of them are tied to the actual government,
(32:31):
you know, being voted in or or having a government position.
Some of them are just family members of the crown
prince or you know, certain people within the Emirates, and
they have tons of money. I don't know if you've
like on YouTube, pull up a video of people in
the United Arab Emirates and they're going to show cars
(32:51):
like you've never seen before. Bugattis and and you know
ferraris Okay, well, so he is the poorest person in
this room.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
They felt bad for him at.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Why did you come here in your poor your poor plane?
Why you're very poor? It's a quote on Jel was
she Russian?
Speaker 1 (33:17):
No, she pretended to be Russian. I think she was Polish.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Oh why are you poor?
Speaker 1 (33:23):
Why do you pause?
Speaker 2 (33:23):
That's the whole conversation I could see them having with
with Donald Trump coming in with Air Force one, right,
this plane from a couple decades ago. Right, so they
give him this this new one. Now he's not allowed,
like I said, in the Constitution, he's not allowed to
accept this gift from a world leader because that would
be a bribe or considered a bribe. But beyond that,
(33:47):
the optics are complicated through and I know we just
spent about ten minutes talking about all of this, but
this isn't what even what piqued my interest in this
whole thing, as as everyone knows, former intelligence analysts for
the US military, and so all I could think about
were the security implications. Look, that plane's going to need
(34:09):
a complete overhaul to meet presidential security standards. It's a
process that would take years, it's going to cost a
fortune to do. I mean, every nook and cranny is
going to need to be investigated for signs of overt, covert, active, inactive,
and even currently unknown signaling capabilities.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
So this gift might end up being more trouble than
it's worth. Like you said earlier, the Jews is noteworth squeeze. Yes,
even some within President Trump's own political party are sounding
the alarm on this. Senator Thune called it something that
will quote attract serious questions end quote, and Senator Rounds
even invoked the Trojan horse analogy that's yet more strong language.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
It is, and it shows the unease even within his
own party about the potential ethical and practical issues. Now,
because all of this rose up in the media, there
was mention that the plane will now be donated to
the US Air Force. I think that was an attempt
to de escalate the concerns. But look that concerns me
even more than the president. It being the President's plane.
(35:16):
Now if it goes to the US Air Force, the plane,
as flashy as it is, really overshadows the substance of
this trip Trump made. I would say some significant policy moves.
We saw the lifting of sanctions on Syria. For one,
that was a head turner. A former terrorist leader takes
power and now decades old sanctions suddenly gone. Trump described
(35:38):
Syria's new leader as quote attractive end quote. He also
called him a quote fighter end quote. That's quite a
departure from traditional diplomatic language. I know.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
That's part of the reason why people keep electing Trump
is they like that he is him as a human.
He's a departure from a typical presidential candidate.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
And that's been the discussion of the American people for
decades now. They wanted him dug we and it wasn't
It's not a uniquely Donald Trump thing, right. Bernie Sanders
was trying to catch this way.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
Yeah, but he didn't get that as far.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
He didn't because his own party took him down, right.
But yeah, so in the US, we've been talking about this,
let's quit with the old way and try a new way,
and that's what President Trump's trying to do here.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
Well, I can't say any of this surprises me. You know,
Trump's use of unique diplomatic language or accepting a Boeing
was a boeing, right, seven seven forty seven? Okay, So
it doesn't surprise me that he's doing any of this
because he, you know, marches to the beat of his
own drum, which is what people really like about him.
(36:55):
But I would like to know what is the strategic
thinking behind in this apparent embrace.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
I think it signals a major shift in US foreign
policy in the Middle East. Trump explicitly criticized past administrations
for trying to what he said, quote look into the
souls of foreign leaders in quote and impose American values,
almost as if he's been listening to this very podcast.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
It does kind of sound like that, because you always
say that, you know, Western areas needs to quit trying
to impose their ideals and their beliefs and everything on
the Middle East. Well, anywhere we go, anywhere we go
gallivanting around.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
We try to exactly You're exactly right, as focus seems
to be on pragmatic engagement, prioritizing stability and potentially seeing
serious leader Al Sharraw someone who can hold Syria together,
regardless of his past. It's his quintessential transactional approach, prioritizing
(37:59):
what he sees as a media US interests over long
standing principles of democracy and human rights.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Which brings us to another uncomfortable aspect of the trip
Kurvin the near total silence on human rights records in
these Gulf States countries with documented issues regarding dissent migrant
worker treatment, even the murder of journalists. Trump seemed to
gloss over all of it, focusing instead on commerce and
(38:25):
his idea of a region moving beyond quote tired divisions
end quote.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
And it was a deliberate choice. I think Trump's rhetoric
about a Middle East defined by quote commerce not chaos
in quote in technology or quote technology not terrorism in
quote paints a sanitized picture of the region. He's appealing
to a vision of modernization and economic growth, seemingly willing
(38:50):
to overlook the authoritarian realities on the ground to secure
deals and foster a sense of regional stability. It's just
a sense of it. He wants to do that on
his terms. Of course, it's a clear pivot away from
any pretense of American moral leadership in the region.
Speaker 1 (39:06):
And what about the other major conflicts that are looming
in the background, I mean the Israel Hamas situation, ongoing
tensions with Iran, and the war in Ukraine. Did this
trip yield any breakthroughs anywhere?
Speaker 2 (39:19):
No, not in any significant or I mean public way.
I would say so. On Gaza, Trump reiterated his idea
of the US potentially taking over the strip, which is
what we talked about. Unrealistic to say the least. He
did acknowledge the humanitarian crisis there though, and he said
it's perhaps influenced by conversations that are happening behind closed doors.
(39:40):
Now in Iran, he expressed optimism about a nuclear deal,
but look, we haven't seen any concrete details emerge. He
also talked about Ukraine. His attempts to meet with Putin
fell flat. Putin's in a low level delegation to talk
in Turkey, and this was essentially seen as blowing off
Trump's desire for a personal.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
So a trip heavy unspectacle and deal making, but lied
on tangible progress and resolving any of these major global.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Crises that he will end on day one that.
Speaker 1 (40:13):
He will end on day one. Is President Trump just
operating in his own reality, kind of making grand pronouncements
without necessarily having the leverage to back them up.
Speaker 2 (40:23):
I mean I could, Yeah, you could make me believe that.
That's a fair assessment. He's certainly projecting an image of
strength and influence, but look, the reality, as always, is
more nuanced. He's encountering leaders like net Yahoo and Putin
who have their own agendas. They aren't easily swayed. And
while the Gulf States were happy to shower him with
praise and sign all these deals. Their long term strategic
(40:46):
interests might not perfectly align with his. The fact of
the matter is this is what diplomacy looks like. People
don't like him, or you know, they don't like the
way he negotiates far more dislike his approach to diplomacy
by social media. But look, there were some wins here,
and I think that that should be highlighted. The sheer
(41:09):
amount of monetary investment into the United States by these
extremely rich golf nations could actually flip the US economy around. Now,
there are concerns in aligning with some of these nations,
but regardless of one's opinions on the man himself, I
would say the trip was a success, especially because the
only major news that came out of this whole trip
(41:30):
was the flying Palace.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
I still think it leaves us with a lot of questions.
I mean, was this trip of genuine attempt at reshaping
US foreign policy in the Middle East or more of
a transactional exercise fueled by personal ego And not just ego,
but also like his businesses, because you know, he's getting
his businesses and Musk's businesses.
Speaker 3 (41:53):
All interweaved with all of these deals, probably, and what
are the longtime consequences of prioritizing deals over values?
Speaker 2 (42:05):
Yeah, I think the answer is always complex. We're not
going to know in the moment that's gonna unfold over time.
This trip certainly signals a distinct approach, one that prioritizes
immediate gains and personal relationships, even with autocratic leadership. Now
it also downplays human rights concerns in the regions. Whether
(42:28):
that approach yields lasting stability or creates new sets of
problems that remains to be seen. Like I said, time
is going to tell. And in that flying palace, it's
a symbol of the unique brand of diplomacy that we're
witnessing in the US.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
Indeed, that is a symbol that will likely keep us
talking for weeks to come. As always, Curvin, thank you
for cutting through all that noise and offering your expert insights.
Certainly a lot to keep talking about in the future.
A lot of moving pieces and a lot of uncertainty.
So is there anything else you have for us?
Speaker 2 (43:05):
No, I think it's time to pop off and we're
not hungry for once.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
But yeah, I know that's crazy. Also, please keep in
mind next week the sound quality might go down just
a little bit while we figure. Please be patient with
us while we figure out our new circumstances.
Speaker 2 (43:24):
Yes, so.
Speaker 1 (43:28):
Yeah, we are going to release this on Monday, and
the one, yeah, the one on next Monday will be
where things might sound a little bit different, but well it.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
Might be what the OG listeners are used to. So
if that was endearing to you, you're welcome.
Speaker 1 (43:44):
Yeah, you want something rustic, we got it for you. Anyway,
Thank you for listening today. Yeah I said thank you
for listening to us. I wasn't thanking you, but thank
you too. Thank you for doing this. Yeah, anyways, thank
you for listening to this week explained. We hope that
(44:04):
you found it both informative and engaging. If you have
any feedbackward 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 week explained Sianna.
Speaker 2 (44:16):
Thank you so much, and until next week, stay safe
out there.
Hello, and welcome to This Week Explained, your essential download
on the global stories they're making headlines. We're ready to
unpack yet another complex week from around the globe. But first,
before we dive in, just a quick reminder. If you
want to get each new episode automatically, please make sure
that you're following or subscribe to wherever you're listening right now.
It's the easiest and fastest way to stay updated. And
(00:31):
if you're enjoying the show and want to help others
discover it, leaving a quick rating or review on Apple
Podcasts or Spotify really makes a difference, and of course
we appreciate it. We also want to give a massive
shout out to our sponsor for this episode, Fresh Worsted Coffee. Seriously,
they are the reason that we can keep bringing you
this show every week. If you're a coffee lover like
(00:52):
us and appreciate seriously fresh, high quality beams, you've got
to check them out. They have a fantastic selection, Plus
they've got us I shall deal. Just for our listeners.
You can get twenty percent off your first order by
using the code this week that's t chisweek. When you
check out, just make sure to use the link in
our show notes to grab that offer. Trust us, it's
(01:14):
some of the best coffee around. And finally, please remember
that this Week Explained is part of the awesome Leon
Media network. You can discover more great podcasts over at
leonmedianetwork dot com. All right, let's get into why you're here,
which is all the news this week. We are breaking
down the latest on the wars in Ukraine in the
(01:34):
Middle East, and we are going to do a full
report on the Middle East tour of US President Donald Trump.
So for now, let's get into the latest developments in
the war Ukraine. It's been another week and another set
of complex developments in the already ongoing tragedy that is
the war in Ukraine. Happened, and this week all eyes
(01:54):
were on Istanbul.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Bet you surprise, surprise.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
All right, So the city on the bosporis historically across roads,
and this week the stage for what many hoped would
be a significant step, the first direct talks between Ukrainian
and Russian delegations in over a year. Remember those early
days after the full scale invasion, the frantic, desperate attempts
at dialogue. It feels like a lifetime ago. The initial
(02:26):
reports painted a cautiously optimistic picture, didn't They face to
face meetings facilitated by Turkey and even with encouragment from
the US. But as the details emerged, that optimism seemed
to well deflate. What really happened behind those closed doors?
And why? Why where did our hope go?
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Yell it? I mean, the optics were certainly all there.
They had the flags, all the countries flags were there.
It was almost a theatrical attempt at normalcy amidst what
it is. It's just utter devastation in the region. But
here's the problem here. The substance, as always is what
(03:08):
really matters, and what we didn't get a lot of.
From what I've read, the Kremlin's demands were what's a
good word for this, ambitious? Maybe? A senior Ukrainian official
actually described the Kremlin's demands as quote new and unacceptable
end quote.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Okay, unacceptable? How what were they asking for that was
different from what Ukraine has heard before?
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Well, the key sticking point here was territory. Moscow reportedly
demanded the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Nonets, Zapricha,
Croissan and Luhansk regions. That's all regions that both countries
actually claim as their own, and they wanted all this
to happen before even agreeing to a ceasefire. Now, this
(03:58):
goes significantly beyond ev in the US proposed draft piece
deal that we talked about last month.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
So essentially, Russia was demanding that Ukraine surrenders significant portions
of its sovereign territory as a precondition for the guns
to fall silent. That doesn't sound like a negotiation curve,
and that sounds like an ultimatum.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yeah, you're right, And I've always talked about negotiating in
good faith. This is not a good faith negotiation and
it's a far cry from ukraine stance that we saw
come out in a counter proposal. So Ukraine actually presented
the US this proposal, and it prioritized an immediate and
(04:39):
unconditional ceasefire first. Then we can start discussing territorial issues,
starting from the current line of control, which is what's
on the ground, who, what troops control what areas. Now,
they also want the return. This is the Ukrainians want
the return of these upreach and nuclear power plant and
the Kokofka dam because those bring power and resources to Ukraine.
(05:04):
So they're not going to easily give that up. They
also want unimpeded access to the to the Nepota River.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
So two completely different starting points. And what was the result,
like a prisoner exchange, a welcome, albeit limited, positive outcome.
One thousand prisoners of war on each side returning home.
That's pretty significant for those families.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Right, yeah, it is. It shouldn't We shouldn't downplay that.
The families are extremely happy to have their loved ones back.
The Ukrainian deputy Foreign Minister actually said, this is potentially
exciting and excellent news for one thousand families, but in
the grand scheme of the conflict, it's just a humanitarian gesture.
It's not a political breakthrough towards ending the war itself.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
And the talk of a potential meeting between Zelenski and
Putin that seems to have gone nowhere fast.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Yeah, that went downhill very quickly. While the Russian delication
noted the request to have Putin there, there was just
no commitment on their side of it. Then you have
the rather let's say, colorful language coming from the Russian
Foreign ministry just before the talks. They called Zelensky and
I want to quote them here that they are calling
(06:16):
Zelensky this it's a quote clown and a loser end quote.
It's hardly sets what President Trump would want, which is
a collaborative tone. So I think it paints a picture
of a power dynamic where one side doesn't see the
other as an equal negotiating partner. And that's why you're
(06:38):
not seeing good faith negotiation.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
You're not seeing Putin show up to talk to Zelensky,
and you see them making all these outlandish demands before
they even have a ceasefire exactly. They definitely think they
have more leverage.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
And then we'll talk Let's talk about the Ukrainian side too.
They have this undercurrent of suspicion in Ukraine, and this
coming from European allies as well. They think Russia's simply
engaging in these talks to buy time. They want to
deflect international pressure for a ceasefire and then stave off
(07:13):
any further sanctions that may come out of it.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Well, I mean that's a very real concern. Right, We've
seen this playbook before, small gestures the appearance of diplomatic engagement,
while on the ground the military objectives continue. The drone
footage reportedly showing Russia amassing forces in the East ahead
of a potential summer offensive certainly lends credence to this suspicion.
And then there's the elephant in the room, which is
(07:39):
US President Donald Trump. He seems to believe that the
only talks that will truly matter are between him in Putin,
even suggesting that nothing significant will happen until that particular
meeting takes place.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Yeah, and you're talking about someone who's let's say, known
for his deal making. Oh Lord, definitely presents himself as
the deal maker.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Seems like a bully more.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Yeah, I think he would call that. That's part of
the art of making the deal, is.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Just coming in confident.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Yea bullying. We see that in the business world all
the time in the United States.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
The company that bullies the other company typically wins out,
you know, in their own favor. And I think that
is I'm not saying whether it's good or bad. It's
just what President Trump has learned throughout his decades of
being a businessman. He's taking that into the diplomatic realm now.
(08:39):
When Trump throws his hat into the ring, especially with
those very public statements, whether on social media or in
the regular media. I think it muddies the waters a
bit too much. At this point, we're already dealing with
a pretty complex situation. When you add in his perspective,
(09:00):
we see a whole new level of interesting dynamics happen.
It's particularly true when you consider how it diverges from
the European approach, even diverges from the original US efforts
in those Istanbul talks. It's uniquely President Trump, and it's
a real study in contrasting strategies.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
It does raise questions about the coherence of Western strategy,
doesn't it. I mean, on one hand, you have European
allies pushing for stronger sanctions and a clear condemnation of
Russia's demands, and then on the other the US President
suggesting a bilateral approach that seemingly sidelines Ukraine almost entirely.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
It highlights a persistent tension, the desire for a swift
resolution versus the need for a just and sustainable peace
that respects Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial intech rec I just.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Feel like Ukraine should have a seat at the table,
like it shouldn't be exclusively the United States.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
And Russia absolutely, and so I would say differently, had
Russia came out and won a complete and total victory,
even in that the region that they're now claiming is
the only part of this and they and they want
to have access to it. If Ukraine did not stand
its ground and just let Russia run through it, then no,
Ukraine does not get a seat at the table. It lost.
(10:16):
I get war shouldn't be legal, but it happened. We
can talk the morality of it and the ethics of it,
but the fact remains, it happened. It happened. Now it's
it's a stalemate. A stalemate means both sides get a
seat at the table. And so I absolutely agree with you,
(10:36):
and I actually agree with the former US ambassador to
Ukraine who said that putting pressure on the victim rather
than the aggressor risks appeasement, not peace. So that's basically
something that that you were getting to as well. And look,
if we're going to talk about this, got to talk
about history. History, as you noted, Tiana has a grim
(10:59):
way of repeating itself in these scenarios.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
So where does this leave us? A small step forward
in terms of prisoner exchange, but a significant step back
in terms of substantive peace negotiations.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
It does feel that way Siana the Istanbul talks. While
that was a welcome return to direct contact, ultimately it
highlights the deep chasm that still exists between the two sides.
If Russia's maximalist demands and they don't suggest a genuine
desire for a negotiated settlement at this stage, Russia seems
(11:35):
intent on achieving their objectives on the battlefield, and then
they want to dictate the terms to Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Okay, what about the international community. What's the takeaway for them?
Speaker 2 (11:46):
I think it's continued vigilance, unwavering support for Ukraine. There's
also this unified front in the face of Russian aggression. Look,
this is in the European area of operations, and European
allies seem to this day right now, they seem to
understand this. Now, albeit they understand it with this misguided
(12:06):
push for more sanctions that's going to ultimately hurt their
own populations more than it's going to hurt the Putin regime.
I think the question remains whether the broader international community,
and indeed future US policy can maintain this resolve. I
know I just said this is ultimately a European conflict,
but it really isn't just a regional conflict. It has
(12:29):
profound implications for the entire global order.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
Sadly, it feels like this particular conversation is far from over,
even though we obviously had a lot of hope for
these talks in Turkey. We will continue to keep an
eye on the developments between Ukraine and Russia, but for
now we need to turn our attention to the Middle East,
and this past week has brought another series of complex
and frankly deeply concerning developments. The focus once again is
(12:57):
on Gaza, following Israel's announcement of a significant new offensive.
As we discussed last week, So Curvin, as you know,
like both of us, we've been tracking this situation for
decades now, because I mean, despite what a lot of
people think, this conflict in Gaza has been going on
(13:17):
for decades, guys, this is just the newest portion of it. Yeah,
given that history, the question on many minds is whether
the latest move truly represents a significant escalation or if
it's sadly a continuation of the dynamic. Asriel faces amidst
what it perceives as existential threats to its security, It's
(13:39):
a crucial distinction to make as we try to understand
the trajectory of this ongoing conflict.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Yeah, it certainly is Tiina. Look the name itself we
talked about last week, right, Operation Gideon's Chariots. There's a
certain weight that that even that phrase carries, right, referencing
the biblical war of Gideon now signals the intent beyond
just these targeted strikes. The idea of statement about mobilizing, sorry,
(14:09):
mobilizing these forces to seize what they would call strategic
areas and achieve quote, all the goals of the war
end quote that's what they would say is hostage releases
and the complete annihilation of Hamas. That suggests that we're
going to see a ground incursion on a scale we
have not seen likely in years.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
And this announcement came right as US President Donald Trump
wrapped up his visit to the region without any breakthrough
on a ceasefire. Is that just a coincidence or is
there a connection there?
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Look, it's hard to say definitively, just because we're not
in those rooms listening to what's going on. I know
we touched on this last week. We talked about the
fraying between the US President Donald Trump and Israel's Benjamin
et Yahoo. Now NT Yahoo's government has indicated that this
expanded operation wouldn't commence until President Trump left and his
(15:08):
visit to the Middle East had concluded. So whether that
was out of deference to the President, or it was
a strategic calculation to get better prepared, or just because
the timeline is actually aligned with them with themselves, we
can only speculate. We don't know what's going on in
the mind of net and Yahu, but the timing does
(15:29):
remove a potential diplomatic complication that being doing this while
Donald Trump is still in the Middle East, and that's
at least in terms of this particular engagement that's going on.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
The reports coming out of Gaza are as always devastating.
Hamas run health officials are saying hundreds have been killed
in a very short period. We know these numbers are
often contested, but the sheer scale is alarming. So what's
your assessment of this situation on the ground for the
civilian population.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Catastrophic, that's the first word that comes to mind. Like
we've been talking about the dire humanitarian conditions since the
start of this, We've been hitting it hard even more
recently because Israel did that aid blockade into Gaza. Now
we're seeing a possible intensified military operation, so we're going
(16:27):
to see increased displacement, more intense fighting, and densely populated areas.
And there are some reports of essential supplies becoming even
more scarce and quite frankly more expensive for the people
of Gaza. Now the UN's warnings about the critical risk
of famine, and obviously the gut wrenching accounts from medical
(16:49):
professionals about severely malnourished children, this paints a grim picture.
Go back to catastrophic, which I said at the beginning. Look,
I remember my own deployment, and it's getting exposed to
the suffering that war's cause, being in third world countries
and seeing the devastation of it, seeing that kind of suffering,
(17:11):
it really stays with you.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
And we are also seeing reports of a significant movement
of people from within Gauza, particularly from the north to
the south. And I know we discussed this last week
that was one of the things that the Israeli military
wanted to accomplish, was moving two million people south in
a tiny little area. So this since this move has
(17:39):
started it's because of the Israeli military.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Yeah, look, it is. And it seems to align with
reports suggesting a strategy to push the civilian population into
a smaller area in the south so that the idea
of can't operate in the north. But I know we
discussed this. This kind of sounds like a rehashing of it,
but it's it's starting. That's why I think it's important
(18:03):
to talk about it now. The logistics of this, especially
under the bombardment that continues to happen, the limited resources
that are there, this is a nightmare, to say the least. Now,
the question remains, where do these people go? I think
that's what everybody's asking. Where do you put them? Southern
(18:24):
Gaza is already overwhelmed.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Well, refugee camps are never really known for their posh atmosphere.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Us. Yeah, well, you can't make money out off of
refugee camps.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
So because you're supposed to be doing it all the
kindness of your heart.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
You're supposed to be you're supposed to be.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
But of course these people are being pushed into an
even smaller area with less resources les aid, and let's say,
and they're just being told deal with it. And they
had nothing to do with this conflict.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
And that is crap. To go word for it, that's crap.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Well, the international reaction of this seems to be a
mix of condemnation and concern. I mean, that's what I'm feeling.
Those those do things are what.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
In home reaction you have in home reaction.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
The U and Human Rights chief went as far as
to suggest that Israel's actions could be tantamount to ethnic cleansing.
That is, while they just came out and said it.
That is a very strong statement.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
So it is. It's a strong statement, but it reflects
the gravity of the situation and the potential long term
consequences of this offensive. Look, that kind of language shows
us that there's a deep concern about the potential for
widespread human rights violations.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
Potential well already occurred.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
Widespread future human rights violations. Okay, they haven't stopped.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
The continuance of widespread human rights violation. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
There's also this deliberate alteration of Gaza's demographic landscape, something
you talked about since the very beginning. It seems as
if Israel wants to completely change, deliberately alter the demographic
of Gaza. Now, I will say It is important to
remember that this is a legal and political assessment. So
(20:26):
the legal definition of ethnic cleansing under international law is
very complex that no one has agreed to the actual definition,
so it's contested.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
We also saw reports from an individual who recently toured
the region suggesting the US should quote take end quote
Gaza and make it a quote freedom zone end quote.
That's a rather conventional proposition. So what do you make
of that.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
I can tell by your inflection in the way that
you asked that you have your own opinions on what
you feel freedom zone is uniquely American, Right, Well, I'm.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Just saying the fact that this person who visited this
area suggested that we just sweep right in and just
take it and form it into our image, Like.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
What, Yeah, Well, look, it's really it's a departure from
established diplomatic norms. I'd say it's a simplification of an
incredibly complex geopolitical reality. I don't think you can just
do that without consequences. But the idea of the US
unilaterally taking control of Gaza raises tons of legal, ethical,
(21:42):
quite honestly practical questions. Who's going to go, who's going
to be there? Do I need to get my own
contract company, to get my own defense contract company together,
and yeah, secure Gaza. I mean, let me know, No
you don't know, let me know in the comments. No, no,
don't don't do that. No, this is I mean ridiculous.
(22:04):
I guess isn't the word, because you can make it happen,
but just the sheer magnitude of trying to do this
I think would collapse in on itself. I don't think
you can do it, and I don't think I frankly
don't think this should happen. These are opinions. Yeah, I
just think the cost you know, doing a cost benefit
analysis of it, I think the cost outweighs the benefit.
(22:28):
As we say in the D O D the juice
isn't worth the squeeze. So and why I know it's opinion,
But why do I say that? It's because none of
this accounts for the sovereignty of the Palestinian people. That's first, not.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Thinking about the Palestinian people at all.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
It seems like right, but we are, and we're gonna
keep talking about it, right, and whoever listens to this
can understand that that's devastating. Think of your own home.
I mean no, you and I have moved around, so
we always we continue to say we're from Louisiana.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
Even though we haven't lived there in Oh.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
My goodness, I don't think we've lived there ten fifteen years,
okay about I was gonna say, seventeen seventeen. We I'm
closing in on having lived outside of Louisiana longer than
I ever lived. Yeah you have, Oh yeah, gefinitely.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Yeah, that's true. I forget that I wasn't born in Siena,
like I remember. Ye.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Well, yeah, I forget too, I remember before that. Yeah,
I forget you were too. I just keep thinking you
were born in Louisiana. But think about it. Let's say,
and I go back to my family, right, we all
lived in the same area, like my dad's parents and
his brothers and everybody for generations lived on the same land.
(23:50):
Could you imagine another govern or. Could I imagine another
government coming in and saying this is mine. Now get
out of here and go get into the this go
to another country, right Jordan, Egypt, that's where they want
to send people to.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
So right now, but in the meantime, while we get
that stuff settled, you're going to live in this little
tiny plot of land with.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
A million, two million other pieces, two million other people.
I mean, you'd rightfully join an opposition group, right, And we.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Don't know when this situation is going to end. You
just gotta buckle in, sit tight, and just deal with it,
because this is what we think needs to happen.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
And I think we do like the conversation you and
I are having right now, which wasn't part of our
pre production, but I think people need to have these conversations,
or at least here these conversations happening from practical, pragmatic
people who are just like, wait a second, doesn't sound right,
(24:51):
does not sound right? So that's just about the Palestinian people.
It's the Middle East, the existing political structure. They're not
accounting for that. They're not accounting for the potential for
further destabilization in a region that's already destabilized. So I
think what that person was talking about is more of
(25:12):
a fleeting thought than actual concrete policy proposal, and.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Yet our media took it in rimm with it.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Well, it's because it's something that that Trump, that President
Trump would.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Say, right, because he wants Trump's gaza, right, Yeah, Okay, Well,
the US seems to be taking a very different approach,
backing this new Gaza humanitarian foundation to deliver aid while
traditional humanitarian organizations are expressing skepticism. What's the thinking behind
this new foundation? Do you think they're actually going to
(25:44):
give aid to gassins or.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
I always like to say what we what they state, right,
I will give their what they're saying, and then we'll
talk about their actions and whether that aligns with the
two Now. Their their stated aim is to create a
more efficient and perhaps more secure mechanism for aid delivery.
That's Israel's key point, right, they want a secure mechanism
(26:08):
for the aid to enter. As they would say, aid
is not entering. Weapons are entering and being handed to Hamas,
and that's how they're being refitted with weapons. And listen,
what they're trying to do here is they're trying to
bypass some of the challenges and criticisms leveled against existing
(26:29):
UN agencies. Remember, Israel since the beginning has accused the
UN of being infiltrated by Hamas and possibly by extreme
anti Semitic people. And we did that whole report where
there was some validity to this. You know, we had
two dozen teachers, counselors, and administrators at Unruh in their
schools in Gaza, and they were found to not just
(26:53):
be sympathetic to Hamas, but to be actual members of Hamas.
So that doesn't mean the skepticism from established organizations isn't warranted.
There are also concerns about whether this new foundation is
the capacity and infrastructure to meet the massive humanitarian needs
on the ground.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
Ultimately, Curvin, where do you see this huating? This quote
Operation Gideon's Chariots end quote fills like a point of
no return for many.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Yeah, I think it is a point of no return.
I also think it's a dangerous escalation. But that also
does not mean it isn't necessary. But the stated goals
of defeating Hamas and securing the hostages are understandable from
an Israeli perspective. That's especially true after the horrific events
of October seventh. But I would say the methods and
(27:46):
the potential cost in terms of civilian lives and regional
stability are deeply concerning to me. I'm not just talking
about Palestinian lives either, I think those are key to
talk about. But as we discussed last week, this week,
this is going to be a very dangerous operation for
the IDF and the Israeli people. So without a clear
endgame and a viable political solution, viable political solution for
(28:11):
Gaza in the long term, this particular offensive risks creating
a deeper cycle of violence and resentment. That's something the
Palestinians are already dealing with the trust issues with Israel.
There's tons of resentment. Look, as someone who's been on
the ground in conflicts like this, I can tell you
military solutions alone rarely bring a lasting piece that.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Is a sobering thought to end on. And as we
have come to realize very quickly doing this podcast every week,
it is never easy discussing these issues, especially knowing the
human cost. So thank you Kurvin for breaking that down
for our listeners. It is a lot to process. We
will definitely continue tracking this war, but for now let's
(28:55):
shift our focus to the news of the week. But
before we dive in, we need to take a quick
break for a message from our sponsors. Stay with us,
We'll be right back. Welcome back, listeners. As we hinted
before the break, this week, the world stage belonged to
one man and his four day whirlwind tour of the
Middle East has left us with a lot to unpack.
(29:15):
So President Trump back in the diplomatic saddle, it seems,
and greeted with what can only be described as a
royal spectacle, which I'm sure he gobbled up. He got
fighter jet escorts, he got to visit opulent palaces. He
even had a parade of Camel's curvin. Yes, So what
(29:37):
was the purpose of all this pomp and circumstance.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Well, Tianna, you know President Trump, right, Yeah, he wants
to be treated like a king everywhere. Yeh, optics matter.
He thrives on that kind of ad on that kind
of adulation of just I stopped myself from saying adulation,
but then I thought, yeah, the adulation too. But his
negative media appearances he loves that as well. Yeah, he
(30:02):
just loves is the old adage, any news is good news. Yeah,
no matter what. That's that's a uniquely uspr kind of statement, right,
I think I think what I'd say is beyond because
you want to talk about the pomp and circumstance, beyond that,
beyond the cold, gold plated everything in Saudi Arabia and
(30:26):
the Immirates, there was actually a clear agenda. He had
art of the deal guy. He had these artfully designed deals.
He explicitly stated his focus was on securing investments and
agreements for the United States. While he was saying all this,
the Gulf States certainly played along with all of it.
(30:46):
We all witnessed arms deals, the Boeing purchases. I'd also
say a rather extravagant gift of a brand new seven
forty seven from Gutter four hundred.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
Million dollars flying palace as summer calling it, I mean seriously,
even for a president known for his lavish lifestyle, that
raises some eyebrows. What are the implications of our president
openly accepting a gift like that?
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Yeah, that's legally it treads a very fine line with
the emolments cause of the constitution that prohibits accepting gifts
from foreign leaders.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
So he's not I mean, it treads the fine line.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
It's it treads did because was this a gift from
foreign leaders or was this a gift from you know,
civilians of the country.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
Just civilians about a four hundred million dollar plane for
the president.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
This is so, this is something that I when I
talk about this situation and seeing President Trump in the
especially the Emirates, but also in Saudi Arabia, he's the
poorest person in that room. The we're talking about hundreds
of billions of dollars in wealth per person in these
rooms that he's in. Because of the it's oil rich territory,
(32:07):
they don't give it to their people. They're only giving
it to themselves and their families. So while there are
tons of really rather poor it's uniquely poor people in
these countries, they're also uniquely rich, extravagantly rich people, and
so not all of them are tied to the actual government,
(32:31):
you know, being voted in or or having a government position.
Some of them are just family members of the crown
prince or you know, certain people within the Emirates, and
they have tons of money. I don't know if you've
like on YouTube, pull up a video of people in
the United Arab Emirates and they're going to show cars
(32:51):
like you've never seen before. Bugattis and and you know
ferraris Okay, well, so he is the poorest person in
this room.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
They felt bad for him at.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Why did you come here in your poor your poor plane?
Why you're very poor? It's a quote on Jel was
she Russian?
Speaker 1 (33:17):
No, she pretended to be Russian. I think she was Polish.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Oh why are you poor?
Speaker 1 (33:23):
Why do you pause?
Speaker 2 (33:23):
That's the whole conversation I could see them having with
with Donald Trump coming in with Air Force one, right,
this plane from a couple decades ago. Right, so they
give him this this new one. Now he's not allowed,
like I said, in the Constitution, he's not allowed to
accept this gift from a world leader because that would
be a bribe or considered a bribe. But beyond that,
(33:47):
the optics are complicated through and I know we just
spent about ten minutes talking about all of this, but
this isn't what even what piqued my interest in this
whole thing, as as everyone knows, former intelligence analysts for
the US military, and so all I could think about
were the security implications. Look, that plane's going to need
(34:09):
a complete overhaul to meet presidential security standards. It's a
process that would take years, it's going to cost a
fortune to do. I mean, every nook and cranny is
going to need to be investigated for signs of overt, covert, active, inactive,
and even currently unknown signaling capabilities.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
So this gift might end up being more trouble than
it's worth. Like you said earlier, the Jews is noteworth squeeze. Yes,
even some within President Trump's own political party are sounding
the alarm on this. Senator Thune called it something that
will quote attract serious questions end quote, and Senator Rounds
even invoked the Trojan horse analogy that's yet more strong language.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
It is, and it shows the unease even within his
own party about the potential ethical and practical issues. Now,
because all of this rose up in the media, there
was mention that the plane will now be donated to
the US Air Force. I think that was an attempt
to de escalate the concerns. But look that concerns me
even more than the president. It being the President's plane.
(35:16):
Now if it goes to the US Air Force, the plane,
as flashy as it is, really overshadows the substance of
this trip Trump made. I would say some significant policy moves.
We saw the lifting of sanctions on Syria. For one,
that was a head turner. A former terrorist leader takes
power and now decades old sanctions suddenly gone. Trump described
(35:38):
Syria's new leader as quote attractive end quote. He also
called him a quote fighter end quote. That's quite a
departure from traditional diplomatic language. I know.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
That's part of the reason why people keep electing Trump
is they like that he is him as a human.
He's a departure from a typical presidential candidate.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
And that's been the discussion of the American people for
decades now. They wanted him dug we and it wasn't
It's not a uniquely Donald Trump thing, right. Bernie Sanders
was trying to catch this way.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
Yeah, but he didn't get that as far.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
He didn't because his own party took him down, right.
But yeah, so in the US, we've been talking about this,
let's quit with the old way and try a new way,
and that's what President Trump's trying to do here.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
Well, I can't say any of this surprises me. You know,
Trump's use of unique diplomatic language or accepting a Boeing
was a boeing, right, seven seven forty seven? Okay, So
it doesn't surprise me that he's doing any of this
because he, you know, marches to the beat of his
own drum, which is what people really like about him.
(36:55):
But I would like to know what is the strategic
thinking behind in this apparent embrace.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
I think it signals a major shift in US foreign
policy in the Middle East. Trump explicitly criticized past administrations
for trying to what he said, quote look into the
souls of foreign leaders in quote and impose American values,
almost as if he's been listening to this very podcast.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
It does kind of sound like that, because you always
say that, you know, Western areas needs to quit trying
to impose their ideals and their beliefs and everything on
the Middle East. Well, anywhere we go, anywhere we go
gallivanting around.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
We try to exactly You're exactly right, as focus seems
to be on pragmatic engagement, prioritizing stability and potentially seeing
serious leader Al Sharraw someone who can hold Syria together,
regardless of his past. It's his quintessential transactional approach, prioritizing
(37:59):
what he sees as a media US interests over long
standing principles of democracy and human rights.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Which brings us to another uncomfortable aspect of the trip
Kurvin the near total silence on human rights records in
these Gulf States countries with documented issues regarding dissent migrant
worker treatment, even the murder of journalists. Trump seemed to
gloss over all of it, focusing instead on commerce and
(38:25):
his idea of a region moving beyond quote tired divisions
end quote.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
And it was a deliberate choice. I think Trump's rhetoric
about a Middle East defined by quote commerce not chaos
in quote in technology or quote technology not terrorism in
quote paints a sanitized picture of the region. He's appealing
to a vision of modernization and economic growth, seemingly willing
(38:50):
to overlook the authoritarian realities on the ground to secure
deals and foster a sense of regional stability. It's just
a sense of it. He wants to do that on
his terms. Of course, it's a clear pivot away from
any pretense of American moral leadership in the region.
Speaker 1 (39:06):
And what about the other major conflicts that are looming
in the background, I mean the Israel Hamas situation, ongoing
tensions with Iran, and the war in Ukraine. Did this
trip yield any breakthroughs anywhere?
Speaker 2 (39:19):
No, not in any significant or I mean public way.
I would say so. On Gaza, Trump reiterated his idea
of the US potentially taking over the strip, which is
what we talked about. Unrealistic to say the least. He
did acknowledge the humanitarian crisis there though, and he said
it's perhaps influenced by conversations that are happening behind closed doors.
(39:40):
Now in Iran, he expressed optimism about a nuclear deal,
but look, we haven't seen any concrete details emerge. He
also talked about Ukraine. His attempts to meet with Putin
fell flat. Putin's in a low level delegation to talk
in Turkey, and this was essentially seen as blowing off
Trump's desire for a personal.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
So a trip heavy unspectacle and deal making, but lied
on tangible progress and resolving any of these major global.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Crises that he will end on day one that.
Speaker 1 (40:13):
He will end on day one. Is President Trump just
operating in his own reality, kind of making grand pronouncements
without necessarily having the leverage to back them up.
Speaker 2 (40:23):
I mean I could, Yeah, you could make me believe that.
That's a fair assessment. He's certainly projecting an image of
strength and influence, but look, the reality, as always, is
more nuanced. He's encountering leaders like net Yahoo and Putin
who have their own agendas. They aren't easily swayed. And
while the Gulf States were happy to shower him with
praise and sign all these deals. Their long term strategic
(40:46):
interests might not perfectly align with his. The fact of
the matter is this is what diplomacy looks like. People
don't like him, or you know, they don't like the
way he negotiates far more dislike his approach to diplomacy
by social media. But look, there were some wins here,
and I think that that should be highlighted. The sheer
(41:09):
amount of monetary investment into the United States by these
extremely rich golf nations could actually flip the US economy around. Now,
there are concerns in aligning with some of these nations,
but regardless of one's opinions on the man himself, I
would say the trip was a success, especially because the
only major news that came out of this whole trip
(41:30):
was the flying Palace.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
I still think it leaves us with a lot of questions.
I mean, was this trip of genuine attempt at reshaping
US foreign policy in the Middle East or more of
a transactional exercise fueled by personal ego And not just ego,
but also like his businesses, because you know, he's getting
his businesses and Musk's businesses.
Speaker 3 (41:53):
All interweaved with all of these deals, probably, and what
are the longtime consequences of prioritizing deals over values?
Speaker 2 (42:05):
Yeah, I think the answer is always complex. We're not
going to know in the moment that's gonna unfold over time.
This trip certainly signals a distinct approach, one that prioritizes
immediate gains and personal relationships, even with autocratic leadership. Now
it also downplays human rights concerns in the regions. Whether
(42:28):
that approach yields lasting stability or creates new sets of
problems that remains to be seen. Like I said, time
is going to tell. And in that flying palace, it's
a symbol of the unique brand of diplomacy that we're
witnessing in the US.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
Indeed, that is a symbol that will likely keep us
talking for weeks to come. As always, Curvin, thank you
for cutting through all that noise and offering your expert insights.
Certainly a lot to keep talking about in the future.
A lot of moving pieces and a lot of uncertainty.
So is there anything else you have for us?
Speaker 2 (43:05):
No, I think it's time to pop off and we're
not hungry for once.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
But yeah, I know that's crazy. Also, please keep in
mind next week the sound quality might go down just
a little bit while we figure. Please be patient with
us while we figure out our new circumstances.
Speaker 2 (43:24):
Yes, so.
Speaker 1 (43:28):
Yeah, we are going to release this on Monday, and
the one, yeah, the one on next Monday will be
where things might sound a little bit different, but well it.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
Might be what the OG listeners are used to. So
if that was endearing to you, you're welcome.
Speaker 1 (43:44):
Yeah, you want something rustic, we got it for you. Anyway,
Thank you for listening today. Yeah I said thank you
for listening to us. I wasn't thanking you, but thank
you too. Thank you for doing this. Yeah, anyways, thank
you for listening to this week explained. We hope that
(44:04):
you found it both informative and engaging. If you have
any feedbackward 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 week explained Sianna.
Speaker 2 (44:16):
Thank you so much, and until next week, stay safe
out there.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.