New Cold Wars? A look at Global Power Plays from Alaska to the Middle East

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 pressures 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. It could be a friend, a

(00:46):
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 so important

(01:07):
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 five
million people globally, and it clearly resonates with users, boasting

(01:31):
an app store rating of four point nine out of
five stars based on over one point seven million client
review 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 the
right fit. And here's something special for our listeners. As

(01:51):
the largest online therapy provider in the world, better Help
is offering our listeners ten percent off their first month.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
What are you waiting for?

Speaker 1 (01:59):
Talk it out with better help once again. Our listeners
get tempercent off their first month by going to betterhelp
dot com slash this week. That's b E T T
E r H t l P dot com slash this week.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
Tired of feeling overwhelmed by the headlines, want to truly
understand the why behind the global chaos and you are
in the right place. Welcome to this week Explained, your
weekly deep diving in the most complex and impactful stories
shaping our world. I'm Tianna and joining me as always
is Curvin. Before we jump into the crucial developments of
the week, a quick favor. If you want to ensure

(02:37):
you never miss an episode, make sure you're following or
subscribed on your podcast platform. It literally takes two seconds
and keeps you instantly updated. And if you are getting
value from what we are doing here, a simple rating
or review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify helps us reach
more curious minds like yours. And don't forget the new
interactive comments on Spotify. It's a fantastic equato engaged directly

(03:01):
with the show and other listeners, extending the conversation beyond
the broadcast. You can also find more fantastic podcasts like
ours by visiting leonmedianetwork dot com, part of the awesome
Leon Media Network. This week, we're diving into the latest
from Ukraine and Gaza the official directive of military action
against the cartels in Mexico, and joint exercises between China

(03:24):
and Russia. We have a lot to get to this week,
so buckle up. We are going to start with the
recent development surrounding the war in Ukraine, which appear to
be heading toward a critical moment. We have seen a
flurry of diplomatic activity involving the United States, Russia, and Ukraine,
with a potential summate on the horizon. So Curbing, can

(03:45):
you please break it down? What is going on? What's
the most recent news for this.

Speaker 3 (03:51):
Yeah, so the talk all across the globe this week
is that planned meeting that you talked about, that as
a planned meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian
President Vladimir Putin. That is scheduled for August fifteenth, and
it is going to be in Alaska, which is an
interesting development in and of itself, with Russia talking about

(04:12):
wanting to get wanting to take back Alaska. So that
was interesting to me. Now, this summit announced by President
Trump on truth social is intended to discuss the future
of the war in Ukraine. Now, obviously this has sparked
a lot of conversation and concerned, especially regarding Ukraine's role,
or should say lack thereof, in the talks here for

(04:35):
a united peace front.

Speaker 2 (04:38):
It seems like President Zelensky and his team are very
aware of this possibility. Like I understand, he has been
in touch with several European leaders, including the uk Prime Minister,
to discuss the need for a lasting peace. So what
is the Ukrainian position on these talks in a potential ceasefire?

Speaker 3 (04:57):
But Ukraine's in a very very difficult position right now.
President Zelensky has been clear that any solution has got
to include Ukraine, it cannot be made without the consent
of the other side of this of Ukraine, and he
has repeatedly stated that Ukraine's constitution actually prohibits giving up territory,

(05:18):
so he has no say in that the constitution is there.
So he is concerned that Russia will try to reduce
the discussions to these impossible demands of territorial discussions and
capitulation of Ukrainian territory. Now, the former Ukrainian Prime Minister
has even warned against making any territorial concessions that includes Crimea,

(05:41):
saying that giving up land is only going to encourage
Putin to press for more land.

Speaker 2 (05:48):
I mean, that makes a lot of sense to me.
That seems to be what Putin's doing is he just
keeps pushing, you know, rewriting, extending the boundaries out farther
and farther. I mean, I guess the big question is
whether it makes a lot of sense to President Trump.
I mean, we know this conflict has been ongoing for
over three and a half years, with significant casualties on

(06:10):
both sides, and President Trump has recently hinted at a
solution that involves some form of territorial exchange. So what
do we know about this potential deal?

Speaker 3 (06:20):
Hell? I mean, according to reports, the White House is
exploring a proposal that would see Russia keep the Dambas
region as well as Crimea. That's an area that Russia's
controlled since twenty fourteen, I believe, and then it partially
controls some of the Dombas region since the most recent invasion.
Now in return, Russia would then give up the Harsan

(06:44):
and the Zapparicha regions, which also partially occupies at this moment.
And look this proposal, even giving that land, Russia would say,
giving you back to Ukraine, but allowing Ukraine to retain
those two regions. It's still politically difficult for Ukraine to
accept this has been given that public stance and that

(07:06):
constitutional stance on territorial integrities is very similar to a
proposal that Putin himself reportally made to the US envoy.
I guess it was a couple of weeks ago that
he made that.

Speaker 2 (07:19):
And believe it or not, this is where the dynamic
gets very interesting. President Trump suggested he would be open
to meeting with Putin first and even stated that Putin
does not need to meet with Zelensky before they can meet,
which is that's a weird thing to say. Why not
If he's willing to do it, why not? This seems
to be a point of friction given Ukraine's desire to

(07:41):
be involved. Has there been any indication that Zelenski could
be included in the summit?

Speaker 3 (07:48):
Yeah, there is some confusion here because there's been some
conflicting information on that front. Now, the meeting is currently
planned as a bilateral one, so President Trump President Putin.
A senior White House official has mentioned that the planning
is fluid and that Selensky's involvement could happen in some capacity.

(08:10):
That is still possible that he could be there now.
Trump has also suggested that a trilateral meeting could be
a possibility down the line, just not this coming week.
But President Putin has stated he's not ready to meet
with Zelensky, and he claims the conditions for such a
meeting have not yet been met.

Speaker 2 (08:29):
What are those conditions do you know?

Speaker 3 (08:32):
Like what exactly to capitulate on all of the land
that Russia controls now, to stop attacking Russian land, which
Ukraine continues to do, and then to seed control of
Ukraine to Russia. So I mean, yeah, right, As with
anything with Putin, right, it's non negotiables on both sides.

Speaker 2 (08:55):
Okay, Well, what I would like to know is what
is your overall assessment of the significance of this meeting
in Alaska.

Speaker 3 (09:02):
I think it is a pivotal moment getting two world
leaders in a room together, but it is highly unlikely
to produce the lasting peace deal. The fundamental conflict between
Russia's demands and Ukraine's position as it currently states this
creates an irreconcilable chasm. Russia's primary goal is to legitimize

(09:24):
its territorial gains, while Ukraine's goals are to secure its
borders and get a guarantee against any future aggression by Russia.
So a deal that rewards Russian aggression, that's going to
set a dangerous precedent. This dangerous precedent is something that
Europe is actually trying to prevent because that means Russia

(09:44):
is going to continue to move Western into more European countries,
and European leaders rightfully, so I feel that Trump may
prioritize a quick deal over a durable and just peace.
The joint statement between Ukraine and Western Europe emphasizing that
that quote the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be
decided without Ukraine in quote that is a direct response

(10:08):
to this fear.

Speaker 2 (10:09):
Well, I mean they're not wrong. How can they make
a lasting piece between Ukraine and Russia without Ukraine being there?

Speaker 3 (10:18):
Right? The only way to do that is that Ukraine
has completely crumbled and there is you know where it's
still at a stalemate here. Neither side has the edge,
So you have to include Ukraine in these talks.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
I mean, that's better than hearing that Russia has the
edge and that you know, more than likely Ukraine will
have to capitulate to their demands. I mean that's yeah.

Speaker 3 (10:42):
And some analysts say that no matter what happens, Russia
has lost this conflict. Oh they're just that. Yeah, yeah,
tell any country that they've lost a war. But the
sheer size of loss is on the Russian side, and

(11:02):
the impact to its economy from a civilian standpoint is
so far greater than anything. Even if they get all
of the Eastern territory that they want, it would still
be deemed historically as a loss.

Speaker 2 (11:18):
Okay, So what do we think the actual purpose of
this summit is, if not to negotiate peace, is it
just for show? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (11:28):
I mean well, from an intelligence perspective, the sum its
primary function is likely to be Russia more specifically putin
testing Western unity. So it's not a genuine peace negotiation,
it's it. It really just can't be because we don't
have that Ukrainian presence.

Speaker 2 (11:46):
So who will you think Trump is aware that this
is putin testing our unity?

Speaker 3 (11:54):
I don't. I don't. So I think we've seen over
the last month or two with the way that now
Trump is speaking about Putin in a different capacity than
he has during the election and early on in his
administration is quite different, and so a man that he

(12:16):
once thought he knew. I don't think he really understands.
And so it's much like when Putin went all around
the world telling people he's not going to invade, and
people believe that. We're in this same cycle where Trump
doesn't understand that. He thinks if he can just get
a peace deal, if he can get Russia to stop

(12:38):
in Ukraine to agree to something, that he's he's won, right, and.

Speaker 2 (12:43):
So hey, we didn't believe it, No.

Speaker 3 (12:49):
We didn't know. World leaders did. Sorry, yeah, yeah, we
said it from the very beginning. Like when he talked
to the French president, right, I was like, look, he's
lying to you, And the French president came out and
was like, hey, I talked to the guy. I looked
him in the eyes, and so I trust him. It's

(13:11):
like doing that, I think something similar is going to
happen here where or President Trump says, I looked him
in the eyes. I trust this man. It's the man
that everyone trusts, and yet he does the exact opposite
of what he tells people. I trust Putin two to
do the opposite of what he tells the public he
is going to do right, while also understanding when he

(13:35):
tells the Russian people what he is going to do.
He's being quite honest with them. So I read very
much into his public statements domestically, more so than I
do as international public statements. I also think that his
willingness to meet Trump reflects a strategic effort to regain
international legitimacy. He wants to bypass a unified Western alliance.

Speaker 2 (14:00):
Now.

Speaker 3 (14:00):
He correctly assesses that Ukraine's military and economic situation makes
it vulnerable, and that Ukraine is under a lot of pressure.
They are under intense pressure even domestically, to end the fighting.
By meeting with the US president directly, Putin is now
trying to elevate his status. He aims to create a

(14:20):
rift between the US, Ukraine, and Western Europe, and the
demands for territorial concessions on either side or non negotiable.
We know that taking all of what Russia holds is
Russian territory is central to Putin's stated war aims. He
set it from the very beginning, and this is probably

(14:43):
more importantly his domestic political narrative. I want that land
to tell my people we won.

Speaker 2 (14:51):
So the court issue is not just about territory, but
about the principles of international law in European security.

Speaker 3 (14:59):
Yes, from a Western European perspective, you're actually spot on there.
The most critical issue for Ukraine is a guarantee against
future Russian aggression, a piece deal that forces Ukraine to
see territory without a robust Western backed security assurance, you know,
like Article five from NATO, that would be seen as

(15:21):
a prelude to a future invasion. We know that's what
Putin wants to do. So Ukraine and its European allies
understand that Russia would use a ceasefire to rearm, regroup,
and then prepare for this secondary offensive that's going to
go to Kiev. So that's why any lasting piece has

(15:42):
to be built on the principle that Russia is not
going to in that they cannot move an inch further west.
But this requires a credible deterrent. That credible deterrent is
likely in the form of what I just talked about,
that NATO style security guarantee from Europe, but also from

(16:02):
the United States.

Speaker 2 (16:04):
Well, the world is holding its breath as we wait
the outcome of the Trump Putin summit in Alaska. But
while the eyes of many are on that conversation, a
different conflict is taking a sharp and dangerous turn, and
of course I am talking about them at least where
Israel's plan to take control of Gaza's city has completely

(16:25):
upended the dynamics of the war. I mean, I called
it from the beginning, to be betifically honest, Caravin. The
headlines have been coming in fast and furious, and it
seems everyone from world leaders to humanitarian organizations is reacting
to this one move.

Speaker 3 (16:42):
It really has, from the United Nations to key European allies.
There's been a significant global response to this. The international
community is not just watching, they are actively speaking out
against this plan by NETANYAHUO.

Speaker 2 (16:59):
Okay, well start with some of these reactions. The United
Nations Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez called Israel's plan a dangerous escalation,
warning of catastrophic consequences. This isn't a subtle warning, is it.

Speaker 3 (17:15):
Yeah. Like the whole situation with Israel and the UN,
this is a classic case of like the cornered cat effect.
The UN has been incredibly vocal, to the point of
being a bit on the nose about its desire for
Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories. Some of
that language, even suggesting the removal of the Israeli state. Now,

(17:37):
that kind of messaging can be a huge motivator for escalation.
It makes a leader, especially one like net Nyahu who's
already feeling the pressure domestically, it makes him want to
double down, makes him one become more aggressive in his tactics.
It's much like cornering a cat. You're going to get
a much more pronounced and probably unwise reaction from what

(18:00):
you're cornering. And while NANYAHUO is seemingly making a series
of strategic missteps, that's my opinion, I think these are
strategic missteps. The UN's concern is not without merit. From
their perspective, this move to take control of Gaza City
is a dangerous gamble. It's it could push an already

(18:22):
catastrophic humanitarian crisis beyond the point of no return.

Speaker 2 (18:27):
And it's not just the UN. We have seen strong
reactions from some of Israel's closest partners, like Germany. In
a significant move, Germany's chancellors stated that they would halt
the export of any military equipment to Israel that could
be used in Gaza. Germany has always maintained a special
responsibility toward Israel. So what does this decision signal.

Speaker 3 (18:49):
Yeah, I think you hit on something on a really
interesting point.

Speaker 4 (18:54):
I mean, I get why they feel like, Yeah, I
was gonna say they don't always, they haven't always maintained
a special responsibility or at Israel and the Israeli people,
but I was going to leave that one alone as
to not derail the podcast.

Speaker 3 (19:11):
Yeah, history history, Yeah, sometimes we look back on history.
So yeah, it it's an interesting point about their motivations.
They since since the end of World War Two, since
the start of the state of Israel, Germany has taken

(19:33):
into a special relationship with Israel because of their actions previously,
now because of their actions in the present day, that
is motivating them to change their relationship with Israel. So
while Germany's decision to halt or arms exports is a
powerful signal of concern, it's not just an active diplomatic principle.

(19:56):
This is a political, politically savvy move there at home.
Germany is Israel's second largest arms supplier, and so look,
it's not a symbolic gesture. They're not saying we're going
to do this, but we don't even really give them
that much anyway. So praise us on the international stage

(20:17):
and domestically, while we know that we're not really doing
that much. It is a significant and a practical consequence
for Israel. But the public outrage over Israel's actions since
the October twenty third attacks by Hamas has put pressure
on the German government Domestically. Many of their citizens fill

(20:38):
their country is complicit in what they see as acts
of genocide. So by pausing these exports, the German government
is not only expressing its disapproval on the world stage,
it's also responding to a frustrated domestic audience. This is
in an act of self sacrifice. It's a calculated move
by the German government for Germany, getting on what they

(21:01):
see as the right side of history at this moment
also happens to be a political win for the current government.
The action says in no uncertain terms that Israel's new
military objective has crossed a line, one that goes against
their shared values and international law, and they're willing to
back that up with more than just a stern talking

(21:22):
to net Yahoo.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
The European Union as a whole has also weighed in.
The EU Council President Antonio Costa said the plan must
have consequences for EU Israel relations. This sounds like a
united front from Europe.

Speaker 3 (21:40):
Yeah, it really does. Look you are starting to see
a united front from Europe to include the acceptance or
possibility of acceptance of the Palestinian state. Right, So the
EU is suggesting this is not just a diplomatic disagreement,
but an action that could all hear the nature of

(22:01):
their relationship with Israel. They are moving from words of
concern to a position where they are considering tangible repercussions.
And you know, seeing or accepting a Palestinian state is
a tangible repercussion to Israel because if they were to
attack Palestine, Europe would then be led to come in

(22:21):
and do something towards Israel. So it's a very serious
step within international relations.

Speaker 2 (22:27):
You know. Another interesting angle here is the split in
views between the UK and the US on this topic.
The UK Prime Minister has publicly criticized Israel's plan and
even pledged to recognize a Palestinian state in the future
if certain conditions are not met. This led to a
very point in response from the US Ambassador to Israel,

(22:47):
Mike Kakabie, who told Starmar to set this one out
and made some very controversial comments about UK leadership during
World War Two, like who gives it?

Speaker 3 (22:57):
Yeah, like.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
That was during World War Two? Why is he talking
crap about the leadership back?

Speaker 3 (23:06):
I know, but it's unsurprising coming from Mike Huckabee.

Speaker 2 (23:10):
Yeah, all the low blows and it's just so immature.
I don't I don't know. It's embarrassing.

Speaker 3 (23:18):
Sometimes it can't be. It can be embarrassing. If we
want to bring some opinions into it, it's yeah, I'll
lay off of that one. But we're not seeing diplomacy
when in this one. But what we are seeing is
a significant divergence between two key Western allies. And it's

(23:38):
not just some polite disagreement on policy. It was direct
and personal attacks on a foreign leader. So it suggests
a very strong, almost unwavering belief within the current US
administration in Israel's approach, a conviction so strong that they
are willing to publicly rebuke a close ally. Now, in

(24:00):
the Trump administration, we've seen they don't shy away from
publicly making these proclamations. So it's not that surprising right now.
This kind of public friction historically is very rare so
it speaks volumes about the ideologically ideological alignment that's at

(24:22):
play right now. And honestly, like I said, it's not
entirely shocking, especially when you consider the theological and political
leanings of figures like Mike Huckabee, also within his influence
within the Trump administration. This all in support for Israel,
which is often tied to a belief in the necessity
of a Jewish state to usher in what Mike Huckabee

(24:44):
would say is a second coming of the Messiah. It's
become a very powerful force recently in US politics.

Speaker 2 (24:52):
Now.

Speaker 3 (24:52):
While such public rebukes might be diplomatically clumsy, I would
call them foolish, they are perfectly in care character for
this administration and an administration that holds these specific views.
So it's a clear signal that for this White House,
the support for Israel isn't just about geopolitics. It is
deeply ideological.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
And to add to that, the US Vice President JD.
Vance also spoke about a disagreement between the US and
the UK, and he was very clear that the US
has no plans to recognize the Palestinian state. That seems
to be a key point of contention.

Speaker 3 (25:29):
It is again not surprising, right coming from JD. Vans. So,
the US and the UK may share some ultimate objectives
for the region, one of which is to stop Iran
from you know, sending proxies and creating biolent extremist organizations,
but the two clearly differ on the means to achieve them.

(25:52):
The US sees Israel as the main force to stop
terrorism in the region. Now the UK seems to be
using the recognition of a palace state is a potential
diplomatic lever. The US does not see it that way,
and this difference in approach is a significant factor in
how each country handles the situation. It shows a break

(26:13):
in what has traditionally been a very unified position between
the two countries.

Speaker 2 (26:18):
And what about the internal situation in Israel? The Prime
Minister's office released a statement detailing five principles for ending
the war, which includes their typical the typical things like
the disarmament of Hamas and the return of all hostages.
And at the same time we have a former Israeli
prime ministers saying that this new plan will not save

(26:41):
the hostages and will only endanger lives.

Speaker 3 (26:45):
Yeah, and you make a very important point here. So
it kind of shows that there is not a monolithic
view even within Israel or how to go about this.
So those comments reflect a practical concern that this military
escalation will be counterpartductive to the goal of rescuing the
hostages that is the major priority for the Israeli public,

(27:07):
not suggest that Nanyahu's plan may be more a results
of internal political pressures, that being to maintain his government,
and he's doing that more so than the universally agreed
upon military or agreed upon intelligence strategy.

Speaker 2 (27:24):
And of course, the final piece of the puzzle is
Hamas's response, because they are the other player here. They
have said that they are ready for a comprehensive deal
to release all hostages in exchange for a ceasefire and
the withdrawal of his really troops.

Speaker 1 (27:40):
They also warned the takeover of Gaza City would.

Speaker 2 (27:43):
Come at a heavy price. So what do you have
to say about that.

Speaker 3 (27:48):
Let's be honest here. Look, the endless back and forth
of this is just giving everyone whiplash at this point.
It's just a geopolitical maneuver where one side takes an
extreme position that prompts the other side to say, all right, now,
we're ready to talk, right, So Israel says we're going
to take over Gaza City. So now Hamas says we're

(28:08):
ready to talk, so that they can publicly show, look,
we're we're ready to reach a deal. It's Israel who can't.
And then you know, Hamas will take an extreme position
and Israel will say no, look, we're ready to talk. Right.
We go back and forth, and it's utterly ridiculous to
think that a lasting piece is going to emerge without

(28:30):
one side having the upper hand. Here. Israel's declaration of
a full scale invasion of Gaza is a clear attempt
to force Hamas's hand, and in response, the international community
is squeezing Israel by withdrawing their support that we talked
about earlier. Now, in the middle of this all you
have Hamas essentially saying that we're going to come to
the table, but if you choose that option, that's going

(28:52):
to be very costly for you. Just speaking to Israel,
they're trying to sway international opinion and apply more pressure
on Israel and want Israel to reconsider this. Right now,
everyone is just trying to make the other side link.

Speaker 2 (29:08):
First, it seems that this decision by the Israeli government
has created a serious ripple effect not only in the
region but among its key allies. So speaking of geopolitical
tensions and the difficult dynamics with key allies, we are
seeing a similar, though very different situation brewing much closer

(29:29):
to home. When we come back, we are going to
pivot from the Middle East to North America and discuss
the escalating situation between the United States and Mexico over
drug cartels. So stay with us, we'll be right back.
Welcome back, listeners. Before the break, we spoke about the
ripple effects of international policy and how tensions can arise
even among the closest of allies. We are now turning

(29:51):
our attention to one of those very situations, this time
in our own hemisphere. This conversation has been shaped by
the Trump administration, which in February officially designated several Latin
American drug gangs, including Mexico's Sineloa cartel, as global terrorist organizations. So, Carvin,

(30:13):
from your perspective, what does that designation actually mean in
a practical sense?

Speaker 3 (30:18):
Yeah, I think this is a great question, because I
know we spoke about this when it happened in February.
It's always good to give a refresher. Anytime you're briefing
a commander on anything, you want to start with that refresher,
get it fresh in their brain again. And this designation
is not just a label. It is an official authority
for the US government. It allows the administration to use

(30:41):
all elements of American power to go against to go
after these groups. And we are talking about not just
the military, but intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, obviously
using the military, but also using other tools of state craft. Basically,
it elevates the fight against these cartels from a law

(31:02):
enforcement issue to a national security one.

Speaker 2 (31:06):
So it's not a rhetorical move, it's an operational one.
And this designation seems to be the foundation for some
of some other actions the administration has reportedly taken. I
understand the President has signed a directive to begin using
military force against these groups.

Speaker 3 (31:22):
That that is what's being reported right now. Sources indicate
a directive has been signed, though they are quick to
clarify that military action does not appear to be imminent
at this moment. What this directive seems to do is
lay out the options for the Pentagon. So it is
a planning document. It's giving the military a formal basis

(31:43):
to prepare for a direct for direct operations within the
d D. I'm sure other agencies and other departments do
this as well, but I can. All I can do
is speak for what the DoD does because I've been
in writing these directives and these instructions. So there are
what are known as directives, their instructions, their publications, field manuals.

(32:07):
These are tangible things that have meaning to them. A
DoD directive establishes a broad policy, which is most likely
what happened in February. A DoD instruction provides these specific
procedures and a uniform plan of action for carrying out
the policy set forth in a directive. So I think

(32:28):
what the media once again is missing here is that
this is more in line with an instruction from an
official sense, and that actually tracks with the timeline of
implementing these documents.

Speaker 2 (32:41):
All right, Well, moving away from the legal ease of
these types of documents, what might those operations look like?
Because I think when people hear military action, they immediately
think of ground troops. I know that's what pops into
my mind. Is that what we're talking a little here?

Speaker 3 (32:59):
Obviously military action, Yeah, that's probably going to be the
first thing that pops in anybody's mind, rightfully so, because
typically that's what it involves. But in this case, not necessarily.
This is where the nuance is really important. The reporting
suggests the options are varied, So one US official mentioned
the possibility of the US Navy conducting drug interdiction operations

(33:21):
at see Other reports speak of targeted military raids. This
is a significant difference from a full scale round invasion.
Targeted military rates are going to be specialized operations, specialized
tactical units that go in. Military has also been increasing
airborne surveillance from ISR intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets. They

(33:45):
are collecting intel and surveilling the cartels. So they are
already active in a support role right now.

Speaker 2 (33:54):
So we're not talking about US tanks rolling into a
Mexican city, but perhaps a special force team or naval ship.

Speaker 3 (34:02):
Yeah. Absolutely, And I think that distinction is critical not
just for the US but also for Mexico's response. Now,
Mexico's president has been very clear. She has stated the
US military will not be entering Mexican territory. She's been
very forceful, she says, I want to quote her here,
there is not going to be an invasion. That is
ruled out, absolutely ruled out. In a quote. Now, her

(34:25):
government was informed of the directive or the instruction, but
she claims it had nothing to do with US military
personnel operating on Mexican soil.

Speaker 2 (34:36):
And this is not the first time she has pushed
back on this right. She has previously said that any
such action would be a violation of Mexico's sovereignty. It
sounds like there is a real tension brewing between the
US desire to go after these cartels in Mexico's national sovereignty.

Speaker 3 (34:55):
There is, and look, this is a recurring theme now
in US Mexican relations. Mexico has long viewed certain US actions,
even those that may seem to be helpful, even to
Mexico the government and the people, they see this as
challenges to its own sovereignty. That's a very sensitive topic.
It also brings up legal questions. A number of legal

(35:18):
experts have raised concerns about how US military action on
foreign soil against these groups, which square with both domestic
and international law.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
So to bring it all together, the US administration has
created the legal and administrative framework to use military force
against cartels, but Mexican leadership has drawn a very clear
line in the sand regarding military operations on its territory.
I mean, honestly, the nerve we have to be laying

(35:49):
this framework to where we can go into Mexico after cartels.
That's kind of wild. I mean, is this an accurate read?

Speaker 3 (35:58):
Yeah, you're spot on, It's a very accurate read. The
situation is complicated further by the fact that the two
countries are actually cooperating in some very significant ways already.
The US Ambassador of the Mexico that's Ronald Johnson, celebrated
the collaboration between the two leaders. He noted that fentanyl

(36:18):
seizures at the border are down by more than a
half now border crossings are also down. So on one
hand we see successful collaboration and on the other, because
of military the threat of military action, there is a
significant disagreement here.

Speaker 2 (36:36):
I wonder if, like fentanyl seizures at the border are
down because cartels are finding other ways to smuggle it
into the country that doesn't include the US Mexico border.

Speaker 3 (36:48):
Yeah, so I would think of it. Now, you'd have
to trust the reporting on this, and some of that
is coming from the Trump administration. So take that as
you will, but there is increased fentanyl movement across the
northern border, so Canada and the US. So what we're
seeing is this is not just a cartel a Mexican

(37:10):
cartel or Latin American cartel issue. This is a China issue, right,
and that's really where this started, when Trump was increasing
tariffs on China to stop this movement of fentanyl.

Speaker 2 (37:24):
But remember, they just sent they just sent the ingredients.
I mean, they didn't send the product. They just sent
the ingredients, which is not it's not their fault. What
is done with these ingredients?

Speaker 3 (37:39):
Absolutely, you're absolutely right.

Speaker 2 (37:41):
Yeah, Okay, well, thank you for that insightful breakdown. This
is a genuinely complex issue and it's valuable to get
analysis that goes beyond what we see in the headlines
and on social media.

Speaker 3 (37:56):
Always my pleasure.

Speaker 2 (37:58):
Let's now shift ours to the Indo Pacific region. We've
been discussing how a country projects its power and the
friction that can cause with its neighbors. On a much
larger scale, a similar dynamic is playing out between global powers.
Like last week, a major joint naval exercise between Russia
and China concluded in the Sea of Japan, sparking a

(38:20):
lot of debate in the media about its significance. So,
now that the drills are over, what have we learned
and what have been the development since.

Speaker 3 (38:31):
Well, you're talking about Maritime Interaction twenty twenty five and
Joint C twenty twenty five drills. That's what they're called,
and I say they're a significant show of force between
the two countries. The exercise lasted five days that focused
on some very specific and some very telling scenarios. We

(38:52):
saw the two navies simulate attacks on an adversarial submarine
and an amphibious ship. In this included a Russian Aisle
th threaty eight and a Chinese Y eight maritime patrol
aircraft working together to track and destroy a mock enemy submarine.
We can all understand what that where that enemy submarine

(39:14):
may be coming from knowing a shared enemy of those
two countries. They also used naval guns to fire at
a simulated enemy landing ship.

Speaker 2 (39:25):
So they're not just playing pirates sailing around together.

Speaker 3 (39:30):
They not one of the astute observations.

Speaker 2 (39:34):
Okay, so they weren't playing pirates. They were practicing very specific,
coordinated maneuvers against a common threat. So what was the
third component of the exercise. I remember reading about a
rescue mission or something.

Speaker 3 (39:49):
Yeah, that's correct. So they also conducted a submarine rescue
rehearsal in Peter the Great Bay. So what happened here
is a Russian submarine the Volkov simulated an emergency by
descending to the bottom of that bay, and a Chinese
rescue ship then responded. It launched a submersible to dock
with the submarine and evacuate the crew. Now, following that,

(40:11):
a Russian rescue ship performed a similar drill with a
Chinese submarine. This, this part of the exercise is a
bit interesting because it shows a desire for interoperability and
a willingness to share expertise on what I consider a
very technical level.

Speaker 2 (40:31):
That is quite an advanced level of cooperation. You mentioned
that they were practicing against a quote common threat end quote.
The timing of these drills seemed noteworthy, especially with the
US President making comments about deploying submarines in the region.
So was that a coincidence?

Speaker 3 (40:49):
That's always difficult to say for certain, but you know,
highlight to read between the lines here. Now, these specific
drills are part of an annual series of exercises. But
the timing of the simulated submarine takedown certainly coincided with
Trump's public announcement on truth social Now, whether that was

(41:09):
intentional or not is a matter of interpretation, but it
does highlight the height in tensions and the perceived military
build up in the region.

Speaker 2 (41:18):
And now with the drills concluded, they aren't heading home,
are they?

Speaker 3 (41:23):
No, They're actually not heading home. According to reports from Interfacts,
which is Russia's official news agency, the Russian and Chinese
ships are forming a new task group to conduct a
joint patrol in the Asia Pacific region. This move follows
other joint air patrols the two countries have conducted since
twenty nineteen, and it reinforces the idea that this is

(41:43):
a long term strategic partnership.

Speaker 2 (41:47):
So in a sense, the naval drills were prelude to
this more sustained presence in the region. So what does
this mean in the broader context of global power dynamics,
especially with China's new expansion.

Speaker 3 (42:02):
The joint patrol is just another step in what appears
to be a coordinated effort. Now, from a strategic perspective,
it is a clear signal Russia's Chief of Staff stated
in twenty twenty two that these exercises were a response
to the buildup of US military potential in the Asia Pacific. Now,
for China, it's an opportunity to project power and demonstrate

(42:22):
its growing capabilities as a quote blue Water end quote Navy.
Bluewater Navy is a powerful maritime force that can easily
operate globally. That's what they want to be seen as. Now.
By working with Russia, it adds a layer of experience
and a clear message of shared strategic interest. It moves

(42:42):
beyond a simple partnership and into a more integrated military
presence on the cusp of a possible large scale conflict
coming up recently, coming up very soon in this region.

Speaker 2 (42:54):
It sounds like we are seeing the practical application of
the now limits strategic partnership they signed before the invasion
of Ukraine. It's not just a diplomatic agreement, but one
with real military implications.

Speaker 3 (43:08):
Yeah, exactly. It's not just a piece of paper. It's
being translated into tangible military cooperation, from drills that practice
specific combat scenarios to a sustained joint presence in a
key strategic region.

Speaker 2 (43:21):
Well, that gives us a lot to think about over
the next week, So thank you Kurvin for breaking that
down for us. We will continue to monitor this very closely.
Is there anything else you want to discuss?

Speaker 3 (43:33):
That's all I have unless you have anything.

Speaker 2 (43:36):
I just wanted to apologize for us not putting out
an episode last week. There was a lot of traveling
going on and we just couldn't find the time.

Speaker 3 (43:48):
We tried.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
We definitely, oh yeah, we had it. We had it
in the schedule that we were going to record on
on last Monday, but it just couldn't be squeak and
there was no way, no way. So thank you for being.

Speaker 3 (44:05):
Huh, I said, there's still the life that goes into
making these episodes, so yeah, usually derails it.

Speaker 2 (44:12):
They are kind of it's kind of a pain these days.

Speaker 3 (44:17):
Well being yeah, being separate, and then yeah.

Speaker 2 (44:21):
And then time difference, and you know, it's it takes
a lot of us to coordinate our schedules because we
are on very very very different in very very different
time zones. So anyway, thank you for being patient and
sticking around with us. Yeah, that's all I really had
to say.

Speaker 3 (44:41):
What about you, buddy, Yeah, No, I'm thanks for bringing
that up. I am good.

Speaker 2 (44:46):
I always like to apologize whenever we don't, because I mean,
we used to be it used to be a lot
easier to do this.

Speaker 3 (44:56):
Yeah, I mean there was a point where we were
in the same room together made it very easy.

Speaker 2 (45:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (45:02):
I think. Also, it was like we had three years
of was it three years of consistency of like, Okay,
this is when we're gonna do it. We got into
a rhythm, and this whole thing just up.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
Yeah. Yeah, our rhythm has been disrupted. We can't. We're trying, though,
We're trying really hard. So anyways, and that's all we
have for you this week. Thank you for listening, right yep,
thank you for listening. Smash the like button, share, comment, review,

(45:40):
all of those things. Don't smash the like button. H
don't do that in this is.

Speaker 3 (45:48):
How Yeah, come on.

Speaker 2 (45:51):
Thanksuge.

Speaker 3 (45:52):
In the video of the guy that pretends to be
an influencer around his wife, have you seen that video?

Speaker 2 (45:58):
Yeah? Yeah, you sent it to me.

Speaker 3 (46:00):
Okay, it makes me laugh so much because I just
pictured doing that to you and help.

Speaker 2 (46:06):
I would best. I would be doing the exact same
thing that his wife does. I would if you walking
out of you pretending like I don't know you, turning
around going the opposite direction, telling you to shut up.

Speaker 3 (46:18):
You know all those things, don't you? Dare that's what you've.

Speaker 2 (46:23):
I would just turn around and leave you, leave you,
but anyways, okay, thank you 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 Week Explained Tianna.

Speaker 3 (46:46):
Thank you so much and it'ns till next week. Stay
safe out there,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.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;}New Cold Wars? A look at Global Power Plays from Alaska to the Middle East

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;}New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

New Cold Wars? A look at Global Power Plays from Alaska to the Middle East

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce