September 8, 2025 • 45 mins
This week, we unpack the formation of a new pragmatic alliance in Beijing designed to challenge the West. From Vladimir Putin's direct "red line" threat in Ukraine to a controversial U.S. military strike in the Caribbean, we ask: is the unipolar moment officially over?
Episode Highlights
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/this-week-explained--6199515/support.
Episode Highlights
- Putin's Ultimatum: Russia’s president issues a direct threat, stating any Western troops in Ukraine, including peacekeepers, will be considered "legitimate targets," as allies debate the systemic financial risks of seizing frozen Russian assets.
- Gaza's Stalemate: A deep dive into the stalled hostage negotiations, where Hamas seeks survival and Israel seeks its opponent's elimination, leading to a growing divide between Israel's political leadership and its military command.
- The Axis of Convenience: Inside China's massive Victory Day parade, where the presence of Russia, North Korea, India, and Iran signals the rise of a pragmatic bloc built to counter Western influence.
- A World Rebalancing: We explore how punitive U.S. tariffs are pushing India toward a tactical alliance with China and analyze the legality of the White House's decision to use lethal military force against a cartel vessel in international waters.
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 (00:00):
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.
What are you waiting for? 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 e l
P dot com slash this week. Tired of feeling overwhelmed
(02:17):
by the headlines, want to truly understand the why behind
the global chaos.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
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 you never miss an episode, make sure
you're following or subscribed on your podcast platform. It literally
(02:43):
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 with the show and other listeners, extending
(03:03):
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 China's Victory Day
parade India, shifting closer to China and the US strike
targeting cartail drug trafficking. We were going to start, as
(03:26):
always with the latest developments from the war in Ukraine.
So let's begin with the most direct statement that we
have heard in some time. Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking
in Vlodyovstock, issued a very clear warning to the West
regarding Ukraine. So, Kravin, what was the core message there?
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Yeah, the message was unambiguous. So he stated that any
Western troops in Ukraine, and he made a point to
include peacekeepers, so peacekeeping troops in this statement, but he
said they would be considered legitimate targets for defeat. Now,
this is not simply posturing from the Russian side. This
is a direct statement of intent. I think it serves
(04:09):
as a red line. Red line that's drawn in response
to the recent developments in Europe.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
And that development was the announcement that a coalition of
twenty six countries has pledged to provide post war security
guarantees for Ukraine, which could involve an international force on
the ground. So this threat was a direct countermove to
that pledge. Even though they haven't faced any sort of
repercussions for bringing in Rrian.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Troops, right, well, sanctions, but we'll get to that.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Later, I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Sanctions.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Now, as the West discusses the architecture of a post
conflict security environment, seems like Russia's making it clear that
it's going to view any such presence as a continuation
of the conflict by other means, and not that they
start this conflict. Now, the context of his speech was
also telling. Reports from that event noted that the audience
(05:07):
of Russian officials and Russian business leaders they met his
threat with a round of applause, a standing ovation. So
Russia is going as far as to project an image
of internal alignment with this very hard line stance.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
And this brings us to the diplomatic track, which seems
just as uncompromising. Putin also extended an offer to meet
with Ukrainian President Zelenski, but with a very specific condition.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Yeah, the condition being that the meeting must take place
in Moscow. Now, from a negotiation standpoint, this should be
a non starter for anyone, and look, Kiev dismissed it
as such by proposing your own capital as the venue
to a leader whose country you have invaded. That is
not a serious step toward peace, and it should not
(05:58):
be taken that way. This is an assertion of dominance,
encapsulates the Kremlin's current position, the position of we are
open to peace, but only a piece dictated on our terms.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Would you say that this confidence, this uncompromising stance, is
being fueled by a few key factors.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Yeah, I think that's accurate. I think there's a few
pillars that are supporting this position by Putin. First is
the belief that their forces currently hold the initiative on
the battlefield. The second, I think is the diplomatic optics.
So Putin was recently in China. More on that later
in the show, but he was projecting an image to
(06:38):
the world that Russia's not isolated, Russia has very powerful friends.
And I think the third here is there is a
perception in Moscow that the West, particularly the United States,
has set ultimatums and deadlines in the past, but it's
not always followed through on those ultimatums and deadlines. Think
of the two weeks for Putin to make a decision
(07:00):
and agree to peace. If you remember that, with President
Trump giving that deadline, those kind of deadlines passing in
the goalpost being moved, that erodes the credibility of those
future threats that may happen.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Well, it is a complex picture, and of course it
is not just about military threats and diplomatic theater. There
is a significant economic front to this conflict as well.
We're seeing allies like Canada preparing a new round of sanctions,
but at the same time a warning from.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Hey, look the warning from Belgium's foreign minister. That's a
crucial piece to this whole puzzle. So recently he cautioned
that seizing the roughly two hundred billion euros in frozen
Russian Central Bank assets, most of which are held in Belgium,
could trigger a systemic shock to European financial markets and
then severely damage the credibility of the euro. Once again,
(07:58):
this is validating our part problems though we've talked about
on this podcast with those said sanctions, they do not work.
They are so terrible that they could harm the very
countries that are instituting those sanctions.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
So this highlights a very real dilemma for the West.
There is a desire to increase pressure, but the most
powerful economic tools carry significant risks of self inflicted damage.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Yeah, exactly. It creates a point of friction within the
Western Alliance, and this friction is not limited to dealing
with Russia. Ukraine itself is facing pressure. Kiev is fouled
to continue its retaliatory strikes on Russian energy facilities. With
these actions have disrupted oil shipments to its own neighbors,
Slovakia and Hungary being those neighbors. They are now voicing
(08:45):
their criticism of Ukraine. So it demonstrates that every action
in this conflict has cascading consequences that complicate alliance cohesion.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Well, another week without resolution to a special military operation
that now, and it's close to one three hundred days,
then we have another conflict approaching a somber milestone in
the Middle East. Nearly seven hundred days since the attacks
of October seventh, twenty twenty three, and yet it feels
as though the conflict is that another critical inflection point.
(09:19):
A major Israeli offensive into Gaza City looms, Negotiations for
the remaining hostages are publicly stalled, and the pressure both
internally and externally seems to be reaching a breaking point.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
It's very accurate assessment. We are seeing a convergence of military, political,
and humanitarian pressures that make this moment this week particularly volatile.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
So let's start there with the negotiations. We have seen
public statements from both sides. Hamas says it is ready
for a quote comprehensive deal end quote to end the war,
and Israel has dismissed this as a quote spin end
quote from a high level. What is the fundamental disconnect?
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Like, why can I think it's because they are fundamentally
trying to achieve two different outcomes from the same negotiation.
So Hamas is offering the release of all hostages, but
its price is the permanent end of the war, a
full withdrawal of Israeli forces, and its own survival as
a governing entity. For them, a deal that ends the
(10:24):
conflict is a strategic victory. So yeah, that's exactly right,
And for the Israeli government, the strategic goal is the
exact opposite. Their stated conditions are not just the return
of the hostages, but the complete disarmament of Hamas, the
demilitarization of the Gaza Strip, and ongoing Israeli security control.
(10:46):
They do not see the end of the war that
leaves Hamas intact. So on one side. While one side
is negotiating for its survival, we've got the other that
is negotiating for its its elimination. I don't know how
you can come to an agreement in that situation. This
very little room for overlap in these two positions.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Which explains the stalemate. But while the government in Jerusalem
is protecting this very firm, uncompromising stance externally, the picture
inside Israel seems far more complicated. There appears to be
significant internal pressure building for multiple directions.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Yeah, and this is perhaps the most critical element that
we should be watching for. The pressures coming from three
distinct points. First, and I'd say most visibly, are the
families of the hostages. They have become a very powerful,
very organized political force in Israel, and every time Hamas
releases a propaganda video showing a hostage is designed less
(11:47):
for the international community and more to directly fuel the
domestic pressure from these families. So these families are demanding
the government prioritize a deal above all else. I fear
a large scale military offensive is going to be a
death sentence for their loved ones. I mean they're not
wrong about that, absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
And their argument is that a deal is on the table,
or at least the framework of.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
One, right, Yeah, they believe so.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
They point to a proposal from mediators like Cutter and
Egypt that Halmas had apparently agreed two weeks ago. The
families are essentially asking why their own government is not
going to engage with that agreement that Hamas agreed to. Now,
second point of pressure is from the political opposition. They
(12:34):
are accusing the Prime Minister of forsaking a deal for
his own political survival. That is the standard political maneuvering
there in Israel. But it does add to the noise.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
And the third point of pressure.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
Yeah, this is the most interesting, I think from an
analytical standpoint. There are reports of a growing divide between
the political leadership and the military establishment. The IDEA chief
of staff is reportedly warning the government about the long
term consequences of a full scale occupation of Gaza City.
The military understands that conquering territory is one thing, but
(13:11):
governing it is another. It's something that the US fell
into that trap during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
completing the mission early on in conquering what they wanted
to do, but then completely failing because militaries should not
be governing bodies, and they are raising the very practical
(13:33):
and costly problem of what happens the day after, so
full invasion could necessitate imposing long term military rule. This
is something the military command seems to view as an
unsustainable quagmire.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
So while the political leadership is focused on the goal
of eliminating Hamas, the military is concerned with the practical,
long term costs of that strategy.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
Yeah, exactly, And the friction between the political aims and
the military reality is a classic fault line in these
prolonged conflicts.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Well, with all of those happening behind the scenes, the
reality on the ground in Gaza is by all accounts catastrophic.
As the military prepares for its larger offensive, what tragedies
are we seeing on the.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Ground, Well, first, we're seeing an intensification of operations. Israeli
forces are already conducting significant strikes on the outskirts. They're
also doing that inside parts of Gaza City. They're targeting
what they identify as Hamas command infrastructure. These are often
high rise buildings in Gaza City. Now, the stated goal
(14:42):
is to degrade hamasa's ability to fight before a larger
ground operation begins.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
But.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
As usual for this conflict, the humanitarian cost of these
actions are immense.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
And it is the United Nations and other aid groups
are using the most severe language possible. They warn of
a quote horrific humanitarian catastrophe end quote. Look, we got
to remember there are still around a million people in
that area, civilians. The famine has officially been declared, and
(15:17):
displacement sites are described as unlivable. The warnings are stark.
Any future escalation is going to push an already devastated
population into an even deeper crisis. That's say grim reality
that exists alongside what we just discussed with the political
and military calculus.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
I just think it's funny that you know, the United
Nations and the other groups are using severe language.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
What is that going to do?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Well?
Speaker 3 (15:46):
I think it's I don't think it's targeted at Israel, right,
it's about Israel, but it's the audience is the wider
international community.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Israel I didn't say anything about it, and I didn't.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
I wasn't saying you were.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
What I'm saying is that how do they think severe
language is going to help the famine on the ground?
Everything see it everybody's got eyes, everybody knows what's going
on there, and then you know the severe language.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Is that, what is that supposed to do? Because they
don't care.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Who doesn't care? The IDF right exactly.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
So that's why I was saying that it's more to
an international audience to get the international community all in
favor of stopping Israel from doing this this ground operation,
and so the more pressure they can put on the
international community to speak out, it's possible removing funding from Israel,
(16:49):
not giving weapons to Israel anymore, could change the minds
of if not the IDF, maybe the political factions within Israel.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
But you don't see no, absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Not So countries like the UK, Canada, France, while not
heavily involved in funding Israel, did have some funding. They're
pulling back. But the only I mean, the only country
that you could try to influence is the United States,
(17:23):
and the United States is not budgeting And it's just
I was just listening to a video on why that
is from like uh former guests of the podcast Andrew
bus Demonte talking about why Israel is so important to
the United States, and it's because they are like a
buffer zone within the Middle East, which of you know,
(17:44):
all these terrorist organizations that want to attack the United
States and US place and places where US personnel are,
and so if you had, well we want the intel.
But they also, like I said, hold all those weapons, right,
they hold US weapons. If the US needed to quickly
go in and do something within the Middle East, there,
(18:06):
they don't have to move too many assets because they're
already there. They're already within Israel. So it's it's a
lot like but it's a it's a benefit to the
to the United States to continue to support Israel, while
it also is a detriment to the United States because
(18:27):
we have to get involved in these attacks like we
did what they were on.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Yeah, well, it is certainly a groom reality on the crown.
So let's zoom out for a second and you know,
discuss our final thoughts. These events are not happening in
a vacuum. We have the United States making statements and
other regional powers are deeply involved. So how does this
(18:52):
immediate crisis fit into the broader geopolitical landscape of the
Middle East? Right now?
Speaker 4 (18:59):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Wow, that is I think that is the crucial question
in all of this. Every actor in the region is
watching this conflict and we can't forget the events from
just a couple of months ago. Back in June, Iran
issued a very clear and direct warning after the US
strikes on its nuclear facilities. Iran said that it reserved
all options to defend itself. Now, Iran is of course
(19:22):
funding Hamas, and so a full scale is really offensive
into Gaza City leading to the complete collapse of Hamas
could be seen, at least in Tehran as a significant
strategic loss. That strategic loss would force them to then
attack Israel. It would be a direct challenge to the
(19:45):
government of Iran.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
So An ask and Gaza could, Yeah, it absolutely could.
It is possible. That raises mistakes for everyone.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
It puts pressure on Iran to respond, That in turn
put pressure on the United States, then puts pressure on
you as allies in the region. So the conflict as
it stands is largely contained to the Middle East, but
a major shift in the military situation could challenge that containment.
That would risk a much wider and more dangerous confrontation.
(20:19):
It's another clock that is taking very loudly in the
background of geopolitical conflict.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
A diplomatic stalemate, a men's internal pressure, a looming military operation,
and the shadow of a wider regional war. It is
an incredibly precarious situation. We have to take a quick break,
but when we come back, we're going to discuss the
victory parade in China, India's geopolitical shift, and what some
are calling a very disturbing escalation in the war on
(20:47):
the cartels. So stay with us, we'll be right back.
Welcome back, listeners.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Before the break, we were talking about.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
The war on the ground in Gaza and how the
IDF is looking to project power in the region. Now
we are going to talk about projecting power globally. I
want to start with the images that dominated our screens
this week. A massive, perfectly synchronized military parade through Tianneman
Square looked nothing like the President's birthday parade here in America.
(21:16):
Ostensibly it was to mark the eightieth anniversary of the
end of the Second World War, but the message felt
decidedly contemporary.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
Yeah, look, it was certainly a message.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
On one level. You have the historical narrative that China
is pushing. This is an attempt to claim a much
larger role than the defeat of fascism, and by extension,
a larger claim on shaping the world that followed. The
real performance was for the present day. So it's a
clear and unambiguous declaration to the world, specifically to Washington,
d C. And President Trump, that there is a powerful
(21:51):
and growing center of gravity that does not revolve around
the West.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
And that declaration was amplified by the guest list. It
was not just about the hardware on display, but about
who was standing shoulder to shoulder with.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Do I have that right, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
So we got these visuals of President g with Russia's
Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jung un. These are
very very powerful images that add to that the presence
of India's Prime Minister Moldi and Iran's President Pasashikian. They
(22:28):
were there all week, and you see the deliberate construction
of a narrative. These are major regional and global players,
some of whom have a very complex relationship with one another.
They are all there standing together, shoulder to shoulder. It's
a coalition of nations that, for different reasons, feel constrained
(22:49):
by the current international system and see an opportunity to
re engineer it.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
It is one thing standing together for our parade. But
what is the substance holding this group together? Are these
true alliances or something more pragmatic.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
I think it's almost entirely pragmatic. These are not friendships.
They are functional, transactional relationships built on shared interest Chief
among that shared interests is the desire to counter Western
influence and to weather economic pressure. So your partner provides
something the other needs to sustain this effort.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
All right, Well, let's unpack that. What does that support
look like in practical terms, particularly for Russia's war effort
in Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
I think it's a multifaceted support system, one that has
allowed Moscow to continue its campaign far longer than many
expected them to. China and India have become the largest
buyers of Russian oil and Russian coal, is providing a
vital financial lifeline that circumvents those Western sanctions we talked about.
(23:55):
They also supply so called dual use technologies. We've spoken
about this before. Those are components like microchips that have
both civilian and military applications. Then you have Iran. Iran
has provided crucial military hardware to Russia, most notably the
Shiha drones. If become a cornerstone of Russia's strategy in Ukraine,
(24:17):
and finally, not to be outdone, North Korea has provided manpower.
They're sending its own troops to fight. This is a
political cost that no other nation has the ability to
afford to pay at this moment.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
So it truly is an alliance of interests the access
of convenience. But you mentioned these relationships are transactional. That
applies they have limits.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
Yeah, oh, they absolutely do have limits. These are not
mutual defense packs. So limits of this pragmatism. That was
made very clear this past summer. So we saw we
had talked about this a few minutes ago. When Iran
came under attack from Israel and then later the United
States President Putin did not come to its assistance. It
(25:06):
was a signal that Russian support does have its boundaries.
What are those boundaries? Those are defined by Moscow's direct interests.
Every nation in this group is ultimately pursuing its own agenda.
No Iran stated position so that it reserves all options
to defend itself and has learned that it must do
(25:26):
so on its own. This it's a very functional relationship,
but it is not based on strong mutual affection.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
While this was happening in Beijing, how was it all
being interpreted in Washington? President Trump was certainly watching. He
can't stop himself.
Speaker 4 (25:42):
Yeah, right, he was.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
He definitely was, and his reaction was quite revealing. There
was a mix of admiration, it's some grievances, and also accusations.
So he called the parade quote very, very impressive end quote.
It's not surprising given his own appreciation for military spectacle.
He also took trash dodging and well, yeah, isn't it
(26:05):
the draft dodgers that want to send more people to
do their bidding?
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Right?
Speaker 1 (26:10):
Right, right?
Speaker 3 (26:11):
But he did take to truth social to accuse President
of conspiring against the United States with Putin and North
Korean leader Kim Jong un. So while we saw that
he respected the show of strength, he is also clearly
concerned by the alignment it represents.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
So he loves the show, but absolutely like he isn't
like the little clique that's forming. Yeah we never do yeah,
and conspiring against the United States. I feel like every
leader claims that the other leader the other countries.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
Are conspiring against them. It's interesting to contrast that with
President Trump's own military period in Washington. As I mentioned that,
which was a crap show. I was going to say
the other thing, but I don't know what words we're allowed.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
To say on here, so you could say whatever. I
just put the yeah, put the beep in there.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
Crap show is a good one, And yeah, you're right,
the contrast is stark. But I think what's very interesting
about it is that it speaks to two different worldviews.
So the Beijing parade, this was sleep. It was futuristic.
They were definitely forward looking, tons of new high tech weaponry.
This was a statement about future capabilities. President Trump's parade
(27:39):
was very nostalgic. There was a historical affair. They had
Revolutionary era soldiers, World War Two tanks. This was backward looking.
This was fitting his make America Great Again theme. So
one with China was a vision of a rising power,
while the other was a nostalgic look at a power
(28:00):
that sees its greatest days in the past.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
It's kind of like those people in high school who
just can't get over high school and it's their heyday
and they just keep looking back.
Speaker 4 (28:12):
Yeah you can't.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
You know, you can't move forward when you do that.
So it's to be very interesting how all this plays out.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
So as we close on this topic, what is the
single most important takeaway from this historic week.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
I think the key takeaway is that a unipolar moment
is definitely over. So what we saw in Beijing was
not the formation of a new warsaw pact or a
rigid ideological block. It was much more fluid and pragmatic declaration.
This it was a statement from multiple major global powers
(28:49):
that they are no longer waiting for permission to shape
the future of the world. They're actively building an alternative
to the Western led order, and they have the economic, military,
and diplomatic means to do so. This is the new
geopolitical reality that we now live in.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
A new reality, and shift our focus from China to
India and a major story that has been developing with
incredible speed over the past several months. We are talking
about a high stakes diplomatic rebalancing and in no Pacific
involving the United States, China, and the previously mentioned nation
of India. This has all the elements of a classic
(29:26):
geopolitical chess match. But before we get into the moves
on the board, Curvin, let us start with the first move.
What was the catalyst that set all of this in motion.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
Yeah, I think the catalysts are.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
The primary catalyst of this was a series of punitive
economic measures by the United States against India. Specifically, the
Trump administration imposed a fifty percent tariff on Indian goods,
and the stated reason was to penalize New Delhi for
its continued energy trade with Russia, particularly the purchase of
(29:57):
discounted oil.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
And we have seen the United States used tariffs and
economic pressure as a foreign policy tool many times before.
Why was the reaction from India so different this time? Like?
Why did this particular action trigger such as.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
I think there's two main reasons to this. First was
the tone involved in it. So the rhetoric from some
US officials was perceived in New Delhi as deeply inflammatory.
They framed the conflict in Ukraine as quote Modi's war
end quote, and they called India a quote laundromat for
the Kremlin. Now, for a strategic partner, that language is
(30:38):
quite pointed and that's not going to be received well
from the other nation. I think Second, and most importantly
is the strategic calculation for Prime Minister Modi. Capitulating to
this pressure is politically very difficult. It runs counter to
his cultivated image as this strong leader for India. And also,
(30:58):
Russia is not a casual trade partner for India. It's
a long standing all weather partner, especially in the realms
of defense and the energy sector. So to abandon that
relationship under duress by the United States is not a
strategically viable option for them.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
So Washington applied pressure, said some things that weren't very nice,
and it seems to have cornered a key partner rather
than persuading it. So over the last several months we
have seen President Trump threatened sanctions and many nations cowering
to that threat. That brings us to India's response, which
was starkly different. So what options did they have and
(31:39):
why did they choose this path?
Speaker 3 (31:41):
We chose the path of rebalancing to create leverage, and
they did it in a very dramatic fashion by having
Prime Minister Modive fly to China for a meeting with
Chinese President jujuin Ping. And so to understand the weight
of that, we have to remember this was the first
such high level meeting in seven years. Seven years ago
(32:03):
that was following the deadly military clash between Indian troops
and Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley in twenty twenty.
Since then, relations have been I guess to put it
mildly frozen.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
From that point, a meeting with your principal adversary to
send a message to your strategic partner that is a
bold move. Is this the beginning of a new Sino
Indian alliance? Are we seeing a fundamental shift where India
is leaving the US orbit and joining a block with
China and Russia. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I think that's the critical question, and the answer for
now is no. It is essential to view this as
a tactical softening, not a strategic realignment. The meeting itself
produced very modest outcomes. We saw the resumption of direct flights,
simplifying visa processes, and these are basic confidence building measures
(32:57):
at this moment, these are not the foundation of an alliance.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
So is this more about symbolism than such?
Speaker 3 (33:04):
I like the symbolism is the substance in this case.
For India, it signals to Washington that it has other options.
It's not going to be pushed around.
Speaker 4 (33:13):
Now.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
For China, this is a massive strategic opportunity. They can
present themselves as a multilateral alternative to US. Unilateralism, and
most importantly, they can attempt to drive a wedge in
the quadrilateral security dialogue, what we call the Quad, which
is the cornerstone of the US Indo Pacific strategy.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
That term you mentioned, the Quad, the alliance between the US, Japan,
Australia and India seems to be at the center of this.
India is playing a complicated game here. We often hear
the term strategic autonomy used to describe India's foreign policy.
So can you explain what that means?
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Yes, So, strategic autonomy. That's the modern evolution of India's
historical policy of non alignment. Now, on simple terms, it
is the ability of a state to pursue its own
national interests and foreign policy about being overly dependent on,
or even constrained by any single great power or block.
(34:13):
Now India is attempting to position itself as a pivotal
power that can engage with everyone. A perfect example is
that just before his trip to China, Prime Minister Modi
was in Japan where he secured sixty eight billion dollars
in investment pledges for strategic sectors like semiconductors. He's engaging
with the US lead Quad and the China Russia led
(34:36):
Shanghai Cooperation Organization simultaneously. This is an attempt to maximize
India's own interests by drawing benefits from all sides.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
And just as analysts and observers were piecing all this together,
something happened that really solidified the analysis.
Speaker 1 (34:54):
It came from a rather predictable source.
Speaker 3 (34:57):
Yeah right, truth Social That's the one of the authoritarian,
authoritative sources that we have now, say, truth Social Post.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
You had it Rightian h Yeah, it was a Freudian
slip there, right whoops?
Speaker 3 (35:16):
So yeah, from truth Social Posts from President Donald Trump
in a very direct manner stating, quote, we are losing
India to China end quote, we being the United States.
And while one can analyze the politics of that statement
from analytical standpoint, it serves as a powerful confirmation of
the dynamic that on this very podcast we have been
(35:39):
discussing how so well. It demonstrates that the consequences of
the tariff policy, they're not abstract. It is a direct
acknowledgement from the architect of the policy that it is
having this specific and possibly unintended effect.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
So let's look forward. What does this all mean for
the bigger picture, like, what are what are the long
term implications of this? Well?
Speaker 3 (36:07):
I think I see two major implications. First, this is
likely going to accelerate the global trend toward multipolarity. Do
you have other middle powers that's like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil,
They're watching this very closely. India is providing a powerful
(36:28):
precedent for how a major economy can withstand pressure from
a superpower by diversifying its partnerships. This is likely going
to lead to a more fragmented and transactional global landscape,
one where ad hot coalitions based on specific interest become
more common than rigid, long term alliances.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
And the second implication.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
Right, the second implication is the potential erosion of US
economic leverage as a primary policy tool. We've got the
apparent parent failure of these punitive tariffs to kind of
direct change to Indian policy and in fact to push it.
It actually pushed it in the opposite direction. It's going
to be noted by adversaries and partners alike. It's got
(37:16):
absolutely embolden others to chart a similar course, believing they
too can weather the storm of these US tariffs. That
puts the cohesion of alliances like the Quad under severe strain.
It may force the US to reevaluate its strategy for
how it engages with these crucial, independent minded partners. The
(37:37):
upcoming Quad Summit, which India actually is hosting, will be
the first major test of this new reality.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
A fascinating and frankly fragile situation. So let's turn our
attention now to the Caribbean, a region that has suddenly
seen a significant escalation in United States activity. It all
started with a single dramatic event, a military strike on
a small boat curbon. Can you set the scene for US?
Speaker 4 (38:05):
Hello?
Speaker 3 (38:05):
So this week the White House announced that US forces,
acting on the President's orders, had destroyed a vessel that
departed from Venezuela. The official narrative is that this boat
was operated by the Trin de Aragua cartel and was
carrying narcotics bound for the United States. This resulted in
the death of eleven individuals on that vessel.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
And this was presented not just as an interdiction, but
as a definitive military strike. Prisident Trump even shared footage
of the event.
Speaker 3 (38:41):
Yeah, that's correct, and that is the critical distinction. So
it's not a coastguard seizure. It was a lethal operation.
The administration has made it clear this was not an
isolated incident. This is the opening move in a much
broader and more aggressive campaign, and that is.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Where the story gets incredibly complex. Immediately after the news broke,
a host of legal experts, from maritime law specialists do
human rights scholars began raising serious questions. So what are
the core legal objections here?
Speaker 3 (39:13):
I think there's two main pillars to the critique. The
first is under international maritime law, generally nations agree to
not interfere with vessels in international waters. There are exceptions,
of course, such as chasing a ship in hot pursuit
from your own waters into international waters, but the bar
for using lethal forces extraordinarily high. Several experts have stated
(39:36):
this strike appears to be unlawful under the law of
the sea, so and from boarding it hey absolutely. The
other pillar I think here is international human rights law.
The experts we've seen way in have categorized this or
characterized this as a potential extrajudicial arbitrary killing. The argum
(40:00):
is that these individuals, regardless of their alleged crimes, were
not on a battlefield. There were criminal suspects who were
killed without due process.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
The administration's term for them has been narco terrorists. That
language seems very deliberate does labeling them as.
Speaker 3 (40:19):
I don't know if it changes it, but it is
an attempt to do so. By designating some of these
cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, the administration is trying to
shift the paradigm from law enforcement to armed conflict. So
this seeks to reclassify these individuals from criminals into enemy combatants,
much like we see during the War on Terrorism. Now,
(40:42):
legal scholars would argue that a label alone does not
create a state of war. The United States is not
in a formal armed conflict with the cartel or with
Venezuela itself. Therefore, the rules of engagement for a battlefield
would not necessarily apply in this case.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
Which brings us to the much bigger picture. This does
not seem to be just about one boat or one cartel.
The reporting suggests this is part of a much larger
strategy aimed at Venezuela and its leader, Nicholas Madoro.
Speaker 4 (41:16):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (41:17):
The strike here's the tactical action, but the strategic objective
appears to be pressure on the Maduro regime. The United
States has moved a substantial amount of military hardware into
the region. They've got art warships armed with Toma missiles.
They've placed advanced F thirty five fighter jets, They've got
attack submarines and thousands of marines.
Speaker 4 (41:40):
In the region.
Speaker 3 (41:41):
This is not a force designed simply for counter narcotics.
It's a posture of significant military power, projection, projection, and
what could be a precursor to armed conflict.
Speaker 2 (41:53):
So a single strike on the boat, it is not
just about that boat. It is a signal to venezuela
test of presidential authority at home, and another data point
in the evolving doctrine of how America uses its military power.
It's a very complex picture, and I want to circle
back to something that has been on my mind since
we started digging into this story. I find myself struck
(42:17):
by the relative silence surrounding the strike, considering what happened
a lethal military operation in international waters. I'm not sure
why this hasn't become a dominant, sustained headline.
Speaker 3 (42:32):
Yeah, it is kind of wild, but I believe that's
due to a combination of factors.
Speaker 4 (42:38):
Here.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
First, there's the simple practical matter of finite media bandwidth.
There's only so many hours in a day, so many
days in the week. The public's attention is a scarce
resource as well, and it is currently consumed by major
ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine and the deeply
resident Israeli palisin An issue. Those are large scale stories
(43:02):
with immense historical and geopolitical weight.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
That is true, But this feels unprecedented in its own way, Like,
is it possible that as a society we have just
become desensitized to this type of action.
Speaker 4 (43:17):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (43:17):
Yeah, I think that is a significant part of it.
For more than two decades, through the framework of the
War on Terror, the public has become accustomed to the
idea of targeted extrajudicial strikes against designated hostile actors. Now
the language is key here. By labeling the targets narco terrorists,
the action is framed in a way that the public
(43:38):
has been conditioned to accept with a lot less scrutiny.
So it sounds like counter terrorism, not a novel act
of maritime warfare.
Speaker 2 (43:48):
And that is precisely the distinction that feels so important.
Had this been a law enforcement action that escalated into violence,
the contacts would be entirely different. But this was a
premeditated decision to use lethal force from the outset, completely
sidestepping any form of due process for individuals who, while
accused of serious crimes, were not enemy soldiers on a battlefield.
Speaker 3 (44:12):
Yeah, you are absolutely right. It blurs a very important
line between policing and military action. These moments, the ones
that happen in the shadows of the larger, louder headlines,
are often the most consequential moments in history. They are
the ones that set the precedence for future action. And look,
you know, your feeling is absolutely correct. It is absolutely
(44:33):
something we should be talking about because how a state
chooses to use lethal force in these gray areas says
everything about the principles it is willing to uphold or
in this case ignore.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
Thank you, as always Curvin for breaking that down for us.
Is there anything else you want to discuss? No, thank
you so much for listening to this week explained. We
hope that you found it both informative and engaging. If
you have any feedback or suggestions for future episodes, we'd
love to hear hear from you. For more in depth
coverage of these stories and more, be sure to follow
us on social media at.
Speaker 3 (45:04):
This week, explained Sienna, thank you so much. Until next week,
Stay safe out there.
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.
What are you waiting for? 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 e l
P dot com slash this week. Tired of feeling overwhelmed
(02:17):
by the headlines, want to truly understand the why behind
the global chaos.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
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 you never miss an episode, make sure
you're following or subscribed on your podcast platform. It literally
(02:43):
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 with the show and other listeners, extending
(03:03):
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 China's Victory Day
parade India, shifting closer to China and the US strike
targeting cartail drug trafficking. We were going to start, as
(03:26):
always with the latest developments from the war in Ukraine.
So let's begin with the most direct statement that we
have heard in some time. Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking
in Vlodyovstock, issued a very clear warning to the West
regarding Ukraine. So, Kravin, what was the core message there?
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Yeah, the message was unambiguous. So he stated that any
Western troops in Ukraine, and he made a point to
include peacekeepers, so peacekeeping troops in this statement, but he
said they would be considered legitimate targets for defeat. Now,
this is not simply posturing from the Russian side. This
is a direct statement of intent. I think it serves
(04:09):
as a red line. Red line that's drawn in response
to the recent developments in Europe.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
And that development was the announcement that a coalition of
twenty six countries has pledged to provide post war security
guarantees for Ukraine, which could involve an international force on
the ground. So this threat was a direct countermove to
that pledge. Even though they haven't faced any sort of
repercussions for bringing in Rrian.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Troops, right, well, sanctions, but we'll get to that.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Later, I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Sanctions.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Now, as the West discusses the architecture of a post
conflict security environment, seems like Russia's making it clear that
it's going to view any such presence as a continuation
of the conflict by other means, and not that they
start this conflict. Now, the context of his speech was
also telling. Reports from that event noted that the audience
(05:07):
of Russian officials and Russian business leaders they met his
threat with a round of applause, a standing ovation. So
Russia is going as far as to project an image
of internal alignment with this very hard line stance.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
And this brings us to the diplomatic track, which seems
just as uncompromising. Putin also extended an offer to meet
with Ukrainian President Zelenski, but with a very specific condition.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Yeah, the condition being that the meeting must take place
in Moscow. Now, from a negotiation standpoint, this should be
a non starter for anyone, and look, Kiev dismissed it
as such by proposing your own capital as the venue
to a leader whose country you have invaded. That is
not a serious step toward peace, and it should not
(05:58):
be taken that way. This is an assertion of dominance,
encapsulates the Kremlin's current position, the position of we are
open to peace, but only a piece dictated on our terms.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Would you say that this confidence, this uncompromising stance, is
being fueled by a few key factors.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Yeah, I think that's accurate. I think there's a few
pillars that are supporting this position by Putin. First is
the belief that their forces currently hold the initiative on
the battlefield. The second, I think is the diplomatic optics.
So Putin was recently in China. More on that later
in the show, but he was projecting an image to
(06:38):
the world that Russia's not isolated, Russia has very powerful friends.
And I think the third here is there is a
perception in Moscow that the West, particularly the United States,
has set ultimatums and deadlines in the past, but it's
not always followed through on those ultimatums and deadlines. Think
of the two weeks for Putin to make a decision
(07:00):
and agree to peace. If you remember that, with President
Trump giving that deadline, those kind of deadlines passing in
the goalpost being moved, that erodes the credibility of those
future threats that may happen.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Well, it is a complex picture, and of course it
is not just about military threats and diplomatic theater. There
is a significant economic front to this conflict as well.
We're seeing allies like Canada preparing a new round of sanctions,
but at the same time a warning from.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Hey, look the warning from Belgium's foreign minister. That's a
crucial piece to this whole puzzle. So recently he cautioned
that seizing the roughly two hundred billion euros in frozen
Russian Central Bank assets, most of which are held in Belgium,
could trigger a systemic shock to European financial markets and
then severely damage the credibility of the euro. Once again,
(07:58):
this is validating our part problems though we've talked about
on this podcast with those said sanctions, they do not work.
They are so terrible that they could harm the very
countries that are instituting those sanctions.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
So this highlights a very real dilemma for the West.
There is a desire to increase pressure, but the most
powerful economic tools carry significant risks of self inflicted damage.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Yeah, exactly. It creates a point of friction within the
Western Alliance, and this friction is not limited to dealing
with Russia. Ukraine itself is facing pressure. Kiev is fouled
to continue its retaliatory strikes on Russian energy facilities. With
these actions have disrupted oil shipments to its own neighbors,
Slovakia and Hungary being those neighbors. They are now voicing
(08:45):
their criticism of Ukraine. So it demonstrates that every action
in this conflict has cascading consequences that complicate alliance cohesion.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Well, another week without resolution to a special military operation
that now, and it's close to one three hundred days,
then we have another conflict approaching a somber milestone in
the Middle East. Nearly seven hundred days since the attacks
of October seventh, twenty twenty three, and yet it feels
as though the conflict is that another critical inflection point.
(09:19):
A major Israeli offensive into Gaza City looms, Negotiations for
the remaining hostages are publicly stalled, and the pressure both
internally and externally seems to be reaching a breaking point.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
It's very accurate assessment. We are seeing a convergence of military, political,
and humanitarian pressures that make this moment this week particularly volatile.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
So let's start there with the negotiations. We have seen
public statements from both sides. Hamas says it is ready
for a quote comprehensive deal end quote to end the war,
and Israel has dismissed this as a quote spin end
quote from a high level. What is the fundamental disconnect?
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Like, why can I think it's because they are fundamentally
trying to achieve two different outcomes from the same negotiation.
So Hamas is offering the release of all hostages, but
its price is the permanent end of the war, a
full withdrawal of Israeli forces, and its own survival as
a governing entity. For them, a deal that ends the
(10:24):
conflict is a strategic victory. So yeah, that's exactly right,
And for the Israeli government, the strategic goal is the
exact opposite. Their stated conditions are not just the return
of the hostages, but the complete disarmament of Hamas, the
demilitarization of the Gaza Strip, and ongoing Israeli security control.
(10:46):
They do not see the end of the war that
leaves Hamas intact. So on one side. While one side
is negotiating for its survival, we've got the other that
is negotiating for its its elimination. I don't know how
you can come to an agreement in that situation. This
very little room for overlap in these two positions.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Which explains the stalemate. But while the government in Jerusalem
is protecting this very firm, uncompromising stance externally, the picture
inside Israel seems far more complicated. There appears to be
significant internal pressure building for multiple directions.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Yeah, and this is perhaps the most critical element that
we should be watching for. The pressures coming from three
distinct points. First, and I'd say most visibly, are the
families of the hostages. They have become a very powerful,
very organized political force in Israel, and every time Hamas
releases a propaganda video showing a hostage is designed less
(11:47):
for the international community and more to directly fuel the
domestic pressure from these families. So these families are demanding
the government prioritize a deal above all else. I fear
a large scale military offensive is going to be a
death sentence for their loved ones. I mean they're not
wrong about that, absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
And their argument is that a deal is on the table,
or at least the framework of.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
One, right, Yeah, they believe so.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
They point to a proposal from mediators like Cutter and
Egypt that Halmas had apparently agreed two weeks ago. The
families are essentially asking why their own government is not
going to engage with that agreement that Hamas agreed to. Now,
second point of pressure is from the political opposition. They
(12:34):
are accusing the Prime Minister of forsaking a deal for
his own political survival. That is the standard political maneuvering
there in Israel. But it does add to the noise.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
And the third point of pressure.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
Yeah, this is the most interesting, I think from an
analytical standpoint. There are reports of a growing divide between
the political leadership and the military establishment. The IDEA chief
of staff is reportedly warning the government about the long
term consequences of a full scale occupation of Gaza City.
The military understands that conquering territory is one thing, but
(13:11):
governing it is another. It's something that the US fell
into that trap during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
completing the mission early on in conquering what they wanted
to do, but then completely failing because militaries should not
be governing bodies, and they are raising the very practical
(13:33):
and costly problem of what happens the day after, so
full invasion could necessitate imposing long term military rule. This
is something the military command seems to view as an
unsustainable quagmire.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
So while the political leadership is focused on the goal
of eliminating Hamas, the military is concerned with the practical,
long term costs of that strategy.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
Yeah, exactly, And the friction between the political aims and
the military reality is a classic fault line in these
prolonged conflicts.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Well, with all of those happening behind the scenes, the
reality on the ground in Gaza is by all accounts catastrophic.
As the military prepares for its larger offensive, what tragedies
are we seeing on the.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Ground, Well, first, we're seeing an intensification of operations. Israeli
forces are already conducting significant strikes on the outskirts. They're
also doing that inside parts of Gaza City. They're targeting
what they identify as Hamas command infrastructure. These are often
high rise buildings in Gaza City. Now, the stated goal
(14:42):
is to degrade hamasa's ability to fight before a larger
ground operation begins.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
But.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
As usual for this conflict, the humanitarian cost of these
actions are immense.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
And it is the United Nations and other aid groups
are using the most severe language possible. They warn of
a quote horrific humanitarian catastrophe end quote. Look, we got
to remember there are still around a million people in
that area, civilians. The famine has officially been declared, and
(15:17):
displacement sites are described as unlivable. The warnings are stark.
Any future escalation is going to push an already devastated
population into an even deeper crisis. That's say grim reality
that exists alongside what we just discussed with the political
and military calculus.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
I just think it's funny that you know, the United
Nations and the other groups are using severe language.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
What is that going to do?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Well?
Speaker 3 (15:46):
I think it's I don't think it's targeted at Israel, right,
it's about Israel, but it's the audience is the wider
international community.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Israel I didn't say anything about it, and I didn't.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
I wasn't saying you were.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
What I'm saying is that how do they think severe
language is going to help the famine on the ground?
Everything see it everybody's got eyes, everybody knows what's going
on there, and then you know the severe language.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Is that, what is that supposed to do? Because they
don't care.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Who doesn't care? The IDF right exactly.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
So that's why I was saying that it's more to
an international audience to get the international community all in
favor of stopping Israel from doing this this ground operation,
and so the more pressure they can put on the
international community to speak out, it's possible removing funding from Israel,
(16:49):
not giving weapons to Israel anymore, could change the minds
of if not the IDF, maybe the political factions within Israel.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
But you don't see no, absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Not So countries like the UK, Canada, France, while not
heavily involved in funding Israel, did have some funding. They're
pulling back. But the only I mean, the only country
that you could try to influence is the United States,
(17:23):
and the United States is not budgeting And it's just
I was just listening to a video on why that
is from like uh former guests of the podcast Andrew
bus Demonte talking about why Israel is so important to
the United States, and it's because they are like a
buffer zone within the Middle East, which of you know,
(17:44):
all these terrorist organizations that want to attack the United
States and US place and places where US personnel are,
and so if you had, well we want the intel.
But they also, like I said, hold all those weapons, right,
they hold US weapons. If the US needed to quickly
go in and do something within the Middle East, there,
(18:06):
they don't have to move too many assets because they're
already there. They're already within Israel. So it's it's a
lot like but it's a it's a benefit to the
to the United States to continue to support Israel, while
it also is a detriment to the United States because
(18:27):
we have to get involved in these attacks like we
did what they were on.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Yeah, well, it is certainly a groom reality on the crown.
So let's zoom out for a second and you know,
discuss our final thoughts. These events are not happening in
a vacuum. We have the United States making statements and
other regional powers are deeply involved. So how does this
(18:52):
immediate crisis fit into the broader geopolitical landscape of the
Middle East? Right now?
Speaker 4 (18:59):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Wow, that is I think that is the crucial question
in all of this. Every actor in the region is
watching this conflict and we can't forget the events from
just a couple of months ago. Back in June, Iran
issued a very clear and direct warning after the US
strikes on its nuclear facilities. Iran said that it reserved
all options to defend itself. Now, Iran is of course
(19:22):
funding Hamas, and so a full scale is really offensive
into Gaza City leading to the complete collapse of Hamas
could be seen, at least in Tehran as a significant
strategic loss. That strategic loss would force them to then
attack Israel. It would be a direct challenge to the
(19:45):
government of Iran.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
So An ask and Gaza could, Yeah, it absolutely could.
It is possible. That raises mistakes for everyone.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
It puts pressure on Iran to respond, That in turn
put pressure on the United States, then puts pressure on
you as allies in the region. So the conflict as
it stands is largely contained to the Middle East, but
a major shift in the military situation could challenge that containment.
That would risk a much wider and more dangerous confrontation.
(20:19):
It's another clock that is taking very loudly in the
background of geopolitical conflict.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
A diplomatic stalemate, a men's internal pressure, a looming military operation,
and the shadow of a wider regional war. It is
an incredibly precarious situation. We have to take a quick break,
but when we come back, we're going to discuss the
victory parade in China, India's geopolitical shift, and what some
are calling a very disturbing escalation in the war on
(20:47):
the cartels. So stay with us, we'll be right back.
Welcome back, listeners.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Before the break, we were talking about.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
The war on the ground in Gaza and how the
IDF is looking to project power in the region. Now
we are going to talk about projecting power globally. I
want to start with the images that dominated our screens
this week. A massive, perfectly synchronized military parade through Tianneman
Square looked nothing like the President's birthday parade here in America.
(21:16):
Ostensibly it was to mark the eightieth anniversary of the
end of the Second World War, but the message felt
decidedly contemporary.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
Yeah, look, it was certainly a message.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
On one level. You have the historical narrative that China
is pushing. This is an attempt to claim a much
larger role than the defeat of fascism, and by extension,
a larger claim on shaping the world that followed. The
real performance was for the present day. So it's a
clear and unambiguous declaration to the world, specifically to Washington,
d C. And President Trump, that there is a powerful
(21:51):
and growing center of gravity that does not revolve around
the West.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
And that declaration was amplified by the guest list. It
was not just about the hardware on display, but about
who was standing shoulder to shoulder with.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Do I have that right, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
So we got these visuals of President g with Russia's
Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jung un. These are
very very powerful images that add to that the presence
of India's Prime Minister Moldi and Iran's President Pasashikian. They
(22:28):
were there all week, and you see the deliberate construction
of a narrative. These are major regional and global players,
some of whom have a very complex relationship with one another.
They are all there standing together, shoulder to shoulder. It's
a coalition of nations that, for different reasons, feel constrained
(22:49):
by the current international system and see an opportunity to
re engineer it.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
It is one thing standing together for our parade. But
what is the substance holding this group together? Are these
true alliances or something more pragmatic.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
I think it's almost entirely pragmatic. These are not friendships.
They are functional, transactional relationships built on shared interest Chief
among that shared interests is the desire to counter Western
influence and to weather economic pressure. So your partner provides
something the other needs to sustain this effort.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
All right, Well, let's unpack that. What does that support
look like in practical terms, particularly for Russia's war effort
in Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
I think it's a multifaceted support system, one that has
allowed Moscow to continue its campaign far longer than many
expected them to. China and India have become the largest
buyers of Russian oil and Russian coal, is providing a
vital financial lifeline that circumvents those Western sanctions we talked about.
(23:55):
They also supply so called dual use technologies. We've spoken
about this before. Those are components like microchips that have
both civilian and military applications. Then you have Iran. Iran
has provided crucial military hardware to Russia, most notably the
Shiha drones. If become a cornerstone of Russia's strategy in Ukraine,
(24:17):
and finally, not to be outdone, North Korea has provided manpower.
They're sending its own troops to fight. This is a
political cost that no other nation has the ability to
afford to pay at this moment.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
So it truly is an alliance of interests the access
of convenience. But you mentioned these relationships are transactional. That
applies they have limits.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
Yeah, oh, they absolutely do have limits. These are not
mutual defense packs. So limits of this pragmatism. That was
made very clear this past summer. So we saw we
had talked about this a few minutes ago. When Iran
came under attack from Israel and then later the United
States President Putin did not come to its assistance. It
(25:06):
was a signal that Russian support does have its boundaries.
What are those boundaries? Those are defined by Moscow's direct interests.
Every nation in this group is ultimately pursuing its own agenda.
No Iran stated position so that it reserves all options
to defend itself and has learned that it must do
(25:26):
so on its own. This it's a very functional relationship,
but it is not based on strong mutual affection.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
While this was happening in Beijing, how was it all
being interpreted in Washington? President Trump was certainly watching. He
can't stop himself.
Speaker 4 (25:42):
Yeah, right, he was.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
He definitely was, and his reaction was quite revealing. There
was a mix of admiration, it's some grievances, and also accusations.
So he called the parade quote very, very impressive end quote.
It's not surprising given his own appreciation for military spectacle.
He also took trash dodging and well, yeah, isn't it
(26:05):
the draft dodgers that want to send more people to
do their bidding?
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Right?
Speaker 1 (26:10):
Right, right?
Speaker 3 (26:11):
But he did take to truth social to accuse President
of conspiring against the United States with Putin and North
Korean leader Kim Jong un. So while we saw that
he respected the show of strength, he is also clearly
concerned by the alignment it represents.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
So he loves the show, but absolutely like he isn't
like the little clique that's forming. Yeah we never do yeah,
and conspiring against the United States. I feel like every
leader claims that the other leader the other countries.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
Are conspiring against them. It's interesting to contrast that with
President Trump's own military period in Washington. As I mentioned that,
which was a crap show. I was going to say
the other thing, but I don't know what words we're allowed.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
To say on here, so you could say whatever. I
just put the yeah, put the beep in there.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
Crap show is a good one, And yeah, you're right,
the contrast is stark. But I think what's very interesting
about it is that it speaks to two different worldviews.
So the Beijing parade, this was sleep. It was futuristic.
They were definitely forward looking, tons of new high tech weaponry.
This was a statement about future capabilities. President Trump's parade
(27:39):
was very nostalgic. There was a historical affair. They had
Revolutionary era soldiers, World War Two tanks. This was backward looking.
This was fitting his make America Great Again theme. So
one with China was a vision of a rising power,
while the other was a nostalgic look at a power
(28:00):
that sees its greatest days in the past.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
It's kind of like those people in high school who
just can't get over high school and it's their heyday
and they just keep looking back.
Speaker 4 (28:12):
Yeah you can't.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
You know, you can't move forward when you do that.
So it's to be very interesting how all this plays out.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
So as we close on this topic, what is the
single most important takeaway from this historic week.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
I think the key takeaway is that a unipolar moment
is definitely over. So what we saw in Beijing was
not the formation of a new warsaw pact or a
rigid ideological block. It was much more fluid and pragmatic declaration.
This it was a statement from multiple major global powers
(28:49):
that they are no longer waiting for permission to shape
the future of the world. They're actively building an alternative
to the Western led order, and they have the economic, military,
and diplomatic means to do so. This is the new
geopolitical reality that we now live in.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
A new reality, and shift our focus from China to
India and a major story that has been developing with
incredible speed over the past several months. We are talking
about a high stakes diplomatic rebalancing and in no Pacific
involving the United States, China, and the previously mentioned nation
of India. This has all the elements of a classic
(29:26):
geopolitical chess match. But before we get into the moves
on the board, Curvin, let us start with the first move.
What was the catalyst that set all of this in motion.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
Yeah, I think the catalysts are.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
The primary catalyst of this was a series of punitive
economic measures by the United States against India. Specifically, the
Trump administration imposed a fifty percent tariff on Indian goods,
and the stated reason was to penalize New Delhi for
its continued energy trade with Russia, particularly the purchase of
(29:57):
discounted oil.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
And we have seen the United States used tariffs and
economic pressure as a foreign policy tool many times before.
Why was the reaction from India so different this time? Like?
Why did this particular action trigger such as.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
I think there's two main reasons to this. First was
the tone involved in it. So the rhetoric from some
US officials was perceived in New Delhi as deeply inflammatory.
They framed the conflict in Ukraine as quote Modi's war
end quote, and they called India a quote laundromat for
the Kremlin. Now, for a strategic partner, that language is
(30:38):
quite pointed and that's not going to be received well
from the other nation. I think Second, and most importantly
is the strategic calculation for Prime Minister Modi. Capitulating to
this pressure is politically very difficult. It runs counter to
his cultivated image as this strong leader for India. And also,
(30:58):
Russia is not a casual trade partner for India. It's
a long standing all weather partner, especially in the realms
of defense and the energy sector. So to abandon that
relationship under duress by the United States is not a
strategically viable option for them.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
So Washington applied pressure, said some things that weren't very nice,
and it seems to have cornered a key partner rather
than persuading it. So over the last several months we
have seen President Trump threatened sanctions and many nations cowering
to that threat. That brings us to India's response, which
was starkly different. So what options did they have and
(31:39):
why did they choose this path?
Speaker 3 (31:41):
We chose the path of rebalancing to create leverage, and
they did it in a very dramatic fashion by having
Prime Minister Modive fly to China for a meeting with
Chinese President jujuin Ping. And so to understand the weight
of that, we have to remember this was the first
such high level meeting in seven years. Seven years ago
(32:03):
that was following the deadly military clash between Indian troops
and Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley in twenty twenty.
Since then, relations have been I guess to put it
mildly frozen.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
From that point, a meeting with your principal adversary to
send a message to your strategic partner that is a
bold move. Is this the beginning of a new Sino
Indian alliance? Are we seeing a fundamental shift where India
is leaving the US orbit and joining a block with
China and Russia. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I think that's the critical question, and the answer for
now is no. It is essential to view this as
a tactical softening, not a strategic realignment. The meeting itself
produced very modest outcomes. We saw the resumption of direct flights,
simplifying visa processes, and these are basic confidence building measures
(32:57):
at this moment, these are not the foundation of an alliance.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
So is this more about symbolism than such?
Speaker 3 (33:04):
I like the symbolism is the substance in this case.
For India, it signals to Washington that it has other options.
It's not going to be pushed around.
Speaker 4 (33:13):
Now.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
For China, this is a massive strategic opportunity. They can
present themselves as a multilateral alternative to US. Unilateralism, and
most importantly, they can attempt to drive a wedge in
the quadrilateral security dialogue, what we call the Quad, which
is the cornerstone of the US Indo Pacific strategy.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
That term you mentioned, the Quad, the alliance between the US, Japan,
Australia and India seems to be at the center of this.
India is playing a complicated game here. We often hear
the term strategic autonomy used to describe India's foreign policy.
So can you explain what that means?
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Yes, So, strategic autonomy. That's the modern evolution of India's
historical policy of non alignment. Now, on simple terms, it
is the ability of a state to pursue its own
national interests and foreign policy about being overly dependent on,
or even constrained by any single great power or block.
(34:13):
Now India is attempting to position itself as a pivotal
power that can engage with everyone. A perfect example is
that just before his trip to China, Prime Minister Modi
was in Japan where he secured sixty eight billion dollars
in investment pledges for strategic sectors like semiconductors. He's engaging
with the US lead Quad and the China Russia led
(34:36):
Shanghai Cooperation Organization simultaneously. This is an attempt to maximize
India's own interests by drawing benefits from all sides.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
And just as analysts and observers were piecing all this together,
something happened that really solidified the analysis.
Speaker 1 (34:54):
It came from a rather predictable source.
Speaker 3 (34:57):
Yeah right, truth Social That's the one of the authoritarian,
authoritative sources that we have now, say, truth Social Post.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
You had it Rightian h Yeah, it was a Freudian
slip there, right whoops?
Speaker 3 (35:16):
So yeah, from truth Social Posts from President Donald Trump
in a very direct manner stating, quote, we are losing
India to China end quote, we being the United States.
And while one can analyze the politics of that statement
from analytical standpoint, it serves as a powerful confirmation of
the dynamic that on this very podcast we have been
(35:39):
discussing how so well. It demonstrates that the consequences of
the tariff policy, they're not abstract. It is a direct
acknowledgement from the architect of the policy that it is
having this specific and possibly unintended effect.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
So let's look forward. What does this all mean for
the bigger picture, like, what are what are the long
term implications of this? Well?
Speaker 3 (36:07):
I think I see two major implications. First, this is
likely going to accelerate the global trend toward multipolarity. Do
you have other middle powers that's like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil,
They're watching this very closely. India is providing a powerful
(36:28):
precedent for how a major economy can withstand pressure from
a superpower by diversifying its partnerships. This is likely going
to lead to a more fragmented and transactional global landscape,
one where ad hot coalitions based on specific interest become
more common than rigid, long term alliances.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
And the second implication.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
Right, the second implication is the potential erosion of US
economic leverage as a primary policy tool. We've got the
apparent parent failure of these punitive tariffs to kind of
direct change to Indian policy and in fact to push it.
It actually pushed it in the opposite direction. It's going
to be noted by adversaries and partners alike. It's got
(37:16):
absolutely embolden others to chart a similar course, believing they
too can weather the storm of these US tariffs. That
puts the cohesion of alliances like the Quad under severe strain.
It may force the US to reevaluate its strategy for
how it engages with these crucial, independent minded partners. The
(37:37):
upcoming Quad Summit, which India actually is hosting, will be
the first major test of this new reality.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
A fascinating and frankly fragile situation. So let's turn our
attention now to the Caribbean, a region that has suddenly
seen a significant escalation in United States activity. It all
started with a single dramatic event, a military strike on
a small boat curbon. Can you set the scene for US?
Speaker 4 (38:05):
Hello?
Speaker 3 (38:05):
So this week the White House announced that US forces,
acting on the President's orders, had destroyed a vessel that
departed from Venezuela. The official narrative is that this boat
was operated by the Trin de Aragua cartel and was
carrying narcotics bound for the United States. This resulted in
the death of eleven individuals on that vessel.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
And this was presented not just as an interdiction, but
as a definitive military strike. Prisident Trump even shared footage
of the event.
Speaker 3 (38:41):
Yeah, that's correct, and that is the critical distinction. So
it's not a coastguard seizure. It was a lethal operation.
The administration has made it clear this was not an
isolated incident. This is the opening move in a much
broader and more aggressive campaign, and that is.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Where the story gets incredibly complex. Immediately after the news broke,
a host of legal experts, from maritime law specialists do
human rights scholars began raising serious questions. So what are
the core legal objections here?
Speaker 3 (39:13):
I think there's two main pillars to the critique. The
first is under international maritime law, generally nations agree to
not interfere with vessels in international waters. There are exceptions,
of course, such as chasing a ship in hot pursuit
from your own waters into international waters, but the bar
for using lethal forces extraordinarily high. Several experts have stated
(39:36):
this strike appears to be unlawful under the law of
the sea, so and from boarding it hey absolutely. The
other pillar I think here is international human rights law.
The experts we've seen way in have categorized this or
characterized this as a potential extrajudicial arbitrary killing. The argum
(40:00):
is that these individuals, regardless of their alleged crimes, were
not on a battlefield. There were criminal suspects who were
killed without due process.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
The administration's term for them has been narco terrorists. That
language seems very deliberate does labeling them as.
Speaker 3 (40:19):
I don't know if it changes it, but it is
an attempt to do so. By designating some of these
cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, the administration is trying to
shift the paradigm from law enforcement to armed conflict. So
this seeks to reclassify these individuals from criminals into enemy combatants,
much like we see during the War on Terrorism. Now,
(40:42):
legal scholars would argue that a label alone does not
create a state of war. The United States is not
in a formal armed conflict with the cartel or with
Venezuela itself. Therefore, the rules of engagement for a battlefield
would not necessarily apply in this case.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
Which brings us to the much bigger picture. This does
not seem to be just about one boat or one cartel.
The reporting suggests this is part of a much larger
strategy aimed at Venezuela and its leader, Nicholas Madoro.
Speaker 4 (41:16):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (41:17):
The strike here's the tactical action, but the strategic objective
appears to be pressure on the Maduro regime. The United
States has moved a substantial amount of military hardware into
the region. They've got art warships armed with Toma missiles.
They've placed advanced F thirty five fighter jets, They've got
attack submarines and thousands of marines.
Speaker 4 (41:40):
In the region.
Speaker 3 (41:41):
This is not a force designed simply for counter narcotics.
It's a posture of significant military power, projection, projection, and
what could be a precursor to armed conflict.
Speaker 2 (41:53):
So a single strike on the boat, it is not
just about that boat. It is a signal to venezuela
test of presidential authority at home, and another data point
in the evolving doctrine of how America uses its military power.
It's a very complex picture, and I want to circle
back to something that has been on my mind since
we started digging into this story. I find myself struck
(42:17):
by the relative silence surrounding the strike, considering what happened
a lethal military operation in international waters. I'm not sure
why this hasn't become a dominant, sustained headline.
Speaker 3 (42:32):
Yeah, it is kind of wild, but I believe that's
due to a combination of factors.
Speaker 4 (42:38):
Here.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
First, there's the simple practical matter of finite media bandwidth.
There's only so many hours in a day, so many
days in the week. The public's attention is a scarce
resource as well, and it is currently consumed by major
ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine and the deeply
resident Israeli palisin An issue. Those are large scale stories
(43:02):
with immense historical and geopolitical weight.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
That is true, But this feels unprecedented in its own way, Like,
is it possible that as a society we have just
become desensitized to this type of action.
Speaker 4 (43:17):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (43:17):
Yeah, I think that is a significant part of it.
For more than two decades, through the framework of the
War on Terror, the public has become accustomed to the
idea of targeted extrajudicial strikes against designated hostile actors. Now
the language is key here. By labeling the targets narco terrorists,
the action is framed in a way that the public
(43:38):
has been conditioned to accept with a lot less scrutiny.
So it sounds like counter terrorism, not a novel act
of maritime warfare.
Speaker 2 (43:48):
And that is precisely the distinction that feels so important.
Had this been a law enforcement action that escalated into violence,
the contacts would be entirely different. But this was a
premeditated decision to use lethal force from the outset, completely
sidestepping any form of due process for individuals who, while
accused of serious crimes, were not enemy soldiers on a battlefield.
Speaker 3 (44:12):
Yeah, you are absolutely right. It blurs a very important
line between policing and military action. These moments, the ones
that happen in the shadows of the larger, louder headlines,
are often the most consequential moments in history. They are
the ones that set the precedence for future action. And look,
you know, your feeling is absolutely correct. It is absolutely
(44:33):
something we should be talking about because how a state
chooses to use lethal force in these gray areas says
everything about the principles it is willing to uphold or
in this case ignore.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
Thank you, as always Curvin for breaking that down for us.
Is there anything else you want to discuss? No, thank
you so much for listening to this week explained. We
hope that you found it both informative and engaging. If
you have any feedback or suggestions for future episodes, we'd
love to hear hear from you. For more in depth
coverage of these stories and more, be sure to follow
us on social media at.
Speaker 3 (45:04):
This week, explained Sienna, thank you so much. 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.