July 8, 2025 • 48 mins
This week, we unravel the critical developments shaping our world, from the concerning pause in US aid to Ukraine and escalating attacks, to the fragile hopes for a ceasefire in Gaza. Plus, we break down the seismic shifts revealed at the recent NATO summit. Are we witnessing a dangerous new phase in global conflicts, or a pivot towards a more self-reliant international order?
Episode Highlights:
------
This is an advertisement from our new friends over at BetterHelp. Helping you build the mental resilience to navigate a complex world! Talk it out, with BetterHelp! Visit our link - BetterHelp.com/THISWEEK. Using this link acts as your promo code THISWEEK for 10% off your first month!
-------
This Week Explained is presented by our new friends over at Fresh Roasted Coffee & Positively Tea. Have a cup of the best tasting coffee that gets Tiana & Kervin through breaking down the latest geopolitics news! Visit our link - https://lddy.no/1lc0u & use our promo code THISWEEK for 20% off your first purchase!
Enjoyed this episode? Don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your network! Follow us @thisweekexplained for more.
-------------
Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed on the podcast 'This Week Explained' are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization or entity. The information provided on the podcast is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice or a substitute for independent research and analysis. Each individual listener should research and identify their own opinions based on facts and logic before making any decisions based on the information provided on the podcast. The podcast hosts and guests are not responsible for any actions taken by individuals based on the information provided on the podcast.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/this-week-explained--6199515/support.
Episode Highlights:
- Ukraine's Critical Juncture: The immediate impact of the five-month pause in US military aid and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's announced cuts for 2026, and how this emboldens Russia.
- Gaza Ceasefire Hopes & Hurdles: An in-depth look at Hamas's "positive response" to the US-brokered 60-day ceasefire proposal, Israel's reservations, and the ongoing complexities of achieving lasting peace.
- NATO's New Era: The landmark commitment to a 5% GDP defense spending target for all allies, the reaffirmation of Article Five, and the "birth of a more European NATO."
- Diplomatic Theater & Geopolitical Realities: Unconventional moments from the NATO summit, including Trump's golf game with Finnish President Stubb and his "daddy issues" exchange with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, alongside the serious discussions on Russia and Spain's "free ride."
------
This is an advertisement from our new friends over at BetterHelp. Helping you build the mental resilience to navigate a complex world! Talk it out, with BetterHelp! Visit our link - BetterHelp.com/THISWEEK. Using this link acts as your promo code THISWEEK for 10% off your first month!
-------
This Week Explained is presented by our new friends over at Fresh Roasted Coffee & Positively Tea. Have a cup of the best tasting coffee that gets Tiana & Kervin through breaking down the latest geopolitics news! Visit our link - https://lddy.no/1lc0u & use our promo code THISWEEK for 20% off your first purchase!
Enjoyed this episode? Don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your network! Follow us @thisweekexplained for more.
-------------
Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed on the podcast 'This Week Explained' are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization or entity. The information provided on the podcast is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice or a substitute for independent research and analysis. Each individual listener should research and identify their own opinions based on facts and logic before making any decisions based on the information provided on the podcast. The podcast hosts and guests are not responsible for any actions taken by individuals based on the information provided on the podcast.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/this-week-explained--6199515/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
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 teen percent off their
first month by going to betterhelp dot com slash this week.
That's b E T T E r H e l
P dot com slash this week. Tired of feeling overwhelmed
(02:21):
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 driving 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,
(02:43):
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
(03:03):
a fantastic way to engage directly 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 and
a deep dive into the results of the NATO conference.
(03:24):
Let's kick things off with the war in Ukraine and Kravin.
It feels like we're talking about Ukraine a lot more
these days, and for good reason. The news coming out
of there, especially regarding usaid, is deeply concerning. This particular
situation in Ukraine feels like we're watching a slow motion
train wreck. So let's start with the big picture. The
US has it announced any military aid packages for Ukraine
(03:47):
in almost five months, and that's a massive gap for
a country that is continuously fighting. So what's the immediate
impact of that on the ground.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah, you're absolutely right, it's absolutely massive. Crane's military effectiveness
is still heavily reliant on US support, even though they're
trying to lessen that dependence. Now we're talking about nearly
thirty percent of all Western military supplies which comes from
the US. Now, without new aid, those stockpiles in Ukrainian
warehouses are rapidly dwindling, and the timing right now could
(04:21):
not be any worse. We've got Russian troops slowly advancing
and they're gearing up for what's expected to be a
major summer offensive.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
And just to throw fuel on that fire. Defense Secretary
Pete Hegseth recently announced a cut in military aid for
twenty twenty six, coming off that long pause. That must
have sent shockwaves through Kiev.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Yeah, it really did. And it's a move that frankly
seems to be driven by a desire for a quote
unquote peace from the Trump administration. And I put quotes
up there because we don't know. I mean, we do know.
They keep saying peace, and we know what piece for
here and peace for this It always seems to be
(05:02):
one sided when we're talking about Russia and Ukraine. They
don't really define what they mean by peace when they
talk about it. Certainly not looking like they want to
see justice for Ukraine right now, That's what I would say.
And so this stance, whether intentional or not, absolutely undermines
Ukraine's negotiating capital, and critically it emboldens Putin to continue
(05:27):
his aggression without real consequences. So from an analytical perspective,
this is a dangerous game they're playing.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
Well, what do you think will happen if it emboldens
Putin to continue his aggression? Do you think eventually Trump
is going to actually do something about punishing Russia if
they continue it like on once Ukraine completely runs out
of all the aid that they need and all the
(05:56):
weapons they need in order to continue their campaign, what
do you think will happen if Russia continues beyond that?
Speaker 2 (06:04):
That's it's interesting. It's something that Radio Free Europe asked
in an interview I did last week, and there's not
really a good answer because we just honestly don't know
what what Trump's going to do. A lot of people
thought ray when when Israel was attacking Iran and then
the ceasefire deal was broken, everyone just assumes that Trump
(06:28):
loves Israel, that's the greatest US ally, and he's just
going to pile on Iran, and he actually seemed more
angry at Israel. But that doesn't seem to be happening
here with Russian Ukraine. And so it's it's very it's
kind of telling as to how the administration feels towards
that war that it does feel kind of one sided
(06:49):
to me as I'm hearing them talk about things. So
what is it going to take to get Trump to
stand up to Putin? I have no answer for that
right now.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Okay, I guess we should bring it back to what
we were discussing, which obviously this isn't the first time
we've seen these kinds of pauses in aid, is it.
I mean, it feels like a pattern, Yeah, it is.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
It is a pattern. This recent five month drought in
aid announcements followed a very pointed decision by Defense Secretary
Hexseth to unilaterally halt a weapon shipment to Ukraine, if
you remember that from a few months ago. And this
was a move that apparently blindsided the State Department, Congress,
(07:32):
and even European allies of the United States. So the
US justified it as a concern over US stockpiles. That's
the recent word that we're getting out of this. But
that was actually an excuse that was first floated by
President Putin when the news broke that the US was
going to halt the stock was going to halt the
(07:52):
weapons to Ukraine. I've seen some senior military officers say
that they the aid that is given to Ukraine is
actually not going to jeopardize US supplies and stockpiles.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
But it's a pretty pretty convenient excuse. You know, you
can say that, it's not like the civilian can confirm
whether or not that's true. Right into what you know
the government is saying. So the rationale seems to me
to be slightly disingenuous.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Do you agree, Yes and no. Obviously, the US cannot
restore stockpiles at the rate that aid is being sent
to Ukraine. But we also expended our own weapons in
the Twelve Days War, and we continue to support Israel
with military aid. So I would agree with you and
(08:45):
other critics that this could be a thinly veiled attempt
to cut off aid to Ukraine. Specifically, this was the
third time Hegseth had personally stopped aid shipments. The previous
two times alluded to before the one of the February,
so a few months ago than the one in May,
but those were reversed days after. Now it's almost as
(09:06):
if some elements within the Pentagon, like Under Secretary Elbridge Colby,
are trying to force a shift in our strategic focus
away from Ukraine. And what they're probably going to say
publicly is they want to counter China in the Indo Pacific. Now,
that's a valid debate to have, but I don't think
(09:27):
it's a good debate at the expense of an active conflict.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
What do you mean they are going to say that
it sounds like you don't quite believe that's what's going on.
Can you say anything about that or should Should I
just skip that question?
Speaker 2 (09:46):
No, I'll say I'll say some stuff. It goes back
to being disingenuous, right, and it goes back to Israel.
And you know how, when I talk about Israel, it's
a key US ally. Ukraine is not a US OL.
They're not known as a US outlight. We're helping Ukraine
because Russia is an adversary to the United States. Yes,
Russia is an adversary to the United States. But when
(10:10):
you talk about we need to stop aid to Ukraine,
stop aiding Ukraine in an active conflict, and yet we
expend millions to billions of dollars immunitions to support Israel
that went on the offensive against Iran. I'm not saying
that was right or wrong. My personal opinion is that
(10:31):
Israel did the right thing because after looking at stuff,
Iran was very close to having a nuclear or the
capabilities of creating a nuclear weapon, and that was going
to be aimed directly at Israel. So I felt like
Israel did need to do that, But there were no
talks of well, let's not support Israel because the stockpiles
(10:53):
it was Israel's doing this. They've asked for our support,
and we're going to do it. So that's why I
agree with you somewhat that it's a little disingenuous. And
when they say that they're countering China in the Endo Pacific,
if that's the case, then why are you taking you know,
why are you taking naval assets from the Endo Pacific,
(11:14):
some of our top naval assets and shifting them from
the Endo Pacific into Central Command in the Middle East,
and you're using it to help Israel. That's something that
China probably wants to see happen so that they can
make a move for Taiwan. And now those assets would
have been there already have to make that trip back.
(11:35):
That doesn't We're not at the point where we can just,
you know, move pieces like this is a chessboard and
you can do it really quickly. It's going to take time,
and the more time it takes, the easier it is
for China to take over Taiwan. So that's what I
was saying. I was trying to think about how I
can say that without giving up too much.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
But some guessing you succeeded, and it's not like, yes,
I will know, Okay. So the Lninghouse's defense of these decisions,
saying it's part of an ongoing review, does that hold
water given this pattern that they've displayed over the last
few months.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Again, I think it's a weak defense. So, look, these
reviews are standard, but the timing, the unilateral nature of
the halts, and the consistent reversal of these decisions suggests
more is at play than just routine assessment of the stockpiles.
The fact that some of these weapons were already loaded
on trucks in Poland, they were ready for delivery, that
(12:39):
only adds to the sense of disarray. And if I
could just say one more thing on oh, these are stockpiles.
A lot of these weapons are going to go out
of commission, probably before we even get into a conflict
with China, so they need to be expended. Why not
give it to Ukraine so that they can do it
for p P right to push back an appressor.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
This just sounds like government stuff to me. Now, not
a clear decation. They're not all communicating with each other there,
they all have different different ideas on how this should go,
and it just no one. You know, they can't come
up with a uniform decision.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Yeah, and it sounds like government speak to you, because
it is. I mean, that is exactly what's going on,
and it's the reason nothing gets done.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Yeah, I mean it sounds typical that the weapons would
be there already and then they would still decide to
withhold them just based I guess we need some decommissioned
weapons in our fight with China, so.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Yeah, I mean, use them for exercises, I guess.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Well, speaking of disarray, let's talk about President Trump's two
week deadline for Russia to show it was serious about peace.
That deadline came and went, and what we saw was
the complete up set of peace because we've been emboldened.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Yeah. Absolutely, And it's almost as if Putin wants more
than a special military operation, doesn't it. Tiena. So it's
been over a month since that May twenty eighth statement
of two weeks to have peace in this conflict, and
since then, not only has Russia declined to stop attacking Ukraine,
(14:27):
it's actually escalated its attacks on civilians and it's escalated
to unprecedented levels. We've seen two record breaking drone attacks
since that deadline. The number of drones launched in June
is nearly doubled the highest monthly total, which was March.
(14:47):
And this isn't a sign of peace, and I want
to call it what it is. This is terrorism against
a civilian population.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
And the White House's response to this escalation or thereof,
because it seems like once again Trump did his whole
bluff and bluster thing and there nothing came of it.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Yeah, I don't. I mean, we do take both sides,
right when when somebody does something and we view that
in a good way, we will give them praise for that.
I think this is a podcast episode where people are
gonna hear me keep harping on Trump in a negative
way because of the Israel Iran conflict. And so you
(15:32):
know what was the response from the US to Russia's escalation.
It was crickets. There were no f bombs, there was
no condemnation, there were no new sanctions. In fact, Trump
actually excused Russia's escalating attacks by saying Ukraine's Operation Spider Web,
which was the military strike on Russian bombers that gave
Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell
(15:53):
out of them. I'm sorry, but that is a morally
bankrupt justification for what Russia is doing. Russia is indiscriminately
targeting Ukrainian civilians.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
And because no one is saying anything to Putin about
him being naughty, what is the message that that sends
to Putin or to any adversary for that matter.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Yeah, I mean, the message to me seems clear. There
are no real consequences for escalating violence. Putin has very
little incentive to stop right now. If anything, this kind
of inaction from the United States, combined with the aid
pauses that only reinforces Putin's theory of victory. He thinks,
(16:40):
and he understands that Russia can win a war of
attrition by simply outlasting Western support for Ukraine. We've seen
this before. Previous de layas in USAID have invariably led
to Russian advances on the battlefield, and it's a dangerous
feedback loop.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
I'm pretty sure you've mentioned this was possibly the long
game that Russia was playing from the beginning of this conflict.
They were, you know, waiting for the president to change,
in waiting for sentiments to change. Knowing that any sort
of prolonged conflict, I mean, obviously it's going to start
(17:18):
out where everybody was backing Ukraine. But now as it
goes on, everyone's moved on to the next issue. You know,
they're tired of hearing about it where everybody's so detached
and sensitized because of everything that's going on. So now
we've moved on to the next thing, which currently in
the United States of America is that heartbreaking occurrence that
happened in textas during that storm.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
So yep.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
So with US aid in question and Russian attacks intensifying,
what are Ukraine's options? They can't just sit.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
There, Yeah, they can't, and they're not. Ukraine is doing
everything it can to prepare for the worst. Now their
European partners are stepping up a bit. There's an initiative
called re arm Europe Plan. It's an eight hundred billion
dollar effort to boost Europe's defense capabilities and to support Ukraine.
But studies show that Europe isn't yet ready to fully
(18:12):
replace USA. It requires a massive and decisive increase in
their own defense spending, and we're going to get into
that increase in defense spending. I think at the end
of this episode when we talk about NATO, this.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Is something that needs to happen anyways, So I'm glad
they're finally saying, yeah, we probably need to step up
and quit relying so heavily on US stockpiles. So internally,
what are they doing well?
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Ukraine is pushing hard on domestic military production. I already
talked about. I went on radio for Europe a few
days ago and I kind of said that while this
is terrible news, there are some positives to take from
it because of Ukraine's domestic production. They've been able to
handle domestically doing some of their own missile production, and
(19:02):
Zoyinsky announced plans to increase their own weapons supplies. He
went supposed to increase the supplies to the army from
forty percent to fifty percent this year. The Ukraine's Prime
minister even stated they'd be one hundred percent self sufficient
in artillery by the end of the year. That's incredible
to think about a nation at war for so long
(19:24):
can get to one hundred percent self sufficient in artillery
by the end of the year, and then defilleries.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Artillery is pretty simple compared to like drones and range
missiles and stuff like that. I mean, we saw, I mean,
we went into a house where a guy was producing
his own.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Yeah, we won't.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Get it into or with who, but we were looking
for houses and we went into this guy's basement. It
was obviously didn't want us to go in the basement.
But if we're looking at your house to buy it,
I'm walking in.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
And he shouldn't have had it on the market.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Yeah, well, he should have at least stored his stuff elsewhere.
But it was wild. He just had canisters and canisters
just filled with it and he was packing it in
his basement for what, I don't know, zombie apocalypse, I'm guessing.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, it was a preppers stream for real.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
It even included cats, lots of.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Cats, lots of cats.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
There were lots of cats, lots of cats, and lots
of bullets.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Okay, anyway, so yeah, we're getting back to how Ukraine
is doing similar to what this guy was doing, which
is domestically producing their own weapons to stop aggressive governments.
I'm guessing just I don't know for a fact that's
what he was doing, but seemed that way. Think about
(20:52):
where we stand right now, after this special military operation started, right,
so Putink aimed he wanted to deter NATO. He wanted
to demilitarize Ukraine. And all he's done since twenty twenty
two is makee NATO stronger, so Sweden and Finland joined,
and they're stronger without US support. Mind you, He's also
(21:16):
made Ukraine's military self sustaining, not demilitarized, So just I mean,
it's incredible. Ukraine's drone program is fundamentally changing the battlefield.
Plus Ukrainian specialists are now capable of repairing American weapons
without that assistance from the United States, and that's a
big deal for keeping equipment in the fight.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
So they're becoming more self reliant. But is there still
a critical gap that only the US can fill? And
that's what everybody's kind of worried about.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Yeah, there is. It's there's a huge one. It's the
Patriot Air Defense System. Ukraine's armed forces might be able
to manage without some American weapons, but their cities absolutely
can not manage without the Patriot Air Defense System. Europe
is still in the early stages of mass producing similar systems.
The Patriot is a game changer for intercepting ballistic missiles,
(22:11):
and without it, Ukrainian cities are going to face even
more unimaginable suffering.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
And then there's the intelligence aspect, which often goes unsaid
but is obviously vital.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Yeah, exactly. US intelligence cooperation has been deeply ingrained in
Ukraine for years, have been helping Ukraine monitor missile launches
and identify targets for long range strikes, so all European
partners can eventually provide some of this. Replacing American intelligence
fully would require immense resources, time, and crucially political will.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
We've talked about the strategic implications, the political maneuvering, the numbers,
but what always strikes me is the human cost. We've
seen enough conflict in our lives to know what it
means for the people on the ground.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Yeah, that's the families living under constant bombardment, the fear
that never disappears until the air raid siren stops, the
despair of seeing residential buildings and cultural sites just absolutely flattened.
And as someone who's seen the immediate aftermath of a
conflict zone, this isn't just about geopolitics anymore. It's about
(23:20):
real people. It's about their lives and their homes, their
futures being shattered. So the idea that this is all
part of some negotiating strategy and civilians are just pawns
in that it really is heartbreaking.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
Seems to be a running theme in all the current
conflicts going on right now. The civilians are the pawns,
the expendable pieces. It makes these tough geopolitical conversations we
have so real. The lack of consistent, robust support from
a key ally like the US isn't just a policy decision.
(23:52):
It's a direct impact on the lives of millions of
innocent people.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
Yeah, exactly, And it gives Putin every reason to believe
that if he waits long enough, he's going to win
this war. And for Ukraine, this is not just a setback,
this is potentially a disaster.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
A sobering thought. But when we will continue talking about
until peace is truly achieved in Ukraine. But it is
not the only conflict finding it difficult to achieve peace.
While the world watches the unfolding tragedy there, our attention
is also drawn to another devastating conflict that has captured
global headlines. Dozens of hostages remain in captivity, millions of
(24:32):
civilians are displaced, and the violence from both a democratic
government and a terrorist organization has opinions flying all across
the board. Obviously, I am talking about the war in Gaza.
Another week, another set of developments on a potential Gaza ceasefire.
So what is the latest.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
Well, at least this week, we're witnessing some genuinely significant
movement in the efforts to secure peace in Gaza. There
was a major development over the week over the weekend
where Hamas officially gave a positive response to the latest
US broker proposal for a sixty day ceasefire. We're not
just talking about more of the same where the two
(25:13):
sides are trying to delay peace efforts for their own gain.
This positive response has already prompted action. Israel dispatched and
negotiating team to Cutter so that they can just discuss
further the proposal that's being pushed out. But it's also
not without its complexities. With all that said, Israel has
(25:34):
also indicated that some of Hamas's requested changes to the
proposal are quote unacceptable end quote.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
I mean, a positive response is good, but quote ready
for negotiations end quote. Isn't quite a full acceptance, is it.
So what exactly does this proposal entail?
Speaker 2 (25:53):
You are absolutely right to pick up on that distinction.
Ready for negotiations is far different from acceptance. It's a
positive start, but it's not a done deal. The proposal
itself was pretty clear. It has a staggered release of
twenty eight hostages. That's ten living and eighteen deceased hostages
(26:16):
over a sixty day period. For instance, eight living hostages
would be released on day one in exchange for an
unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners. Now in return, Israel would
partially withdraw from northern Gaza and critically, humanitarian aid would
surge into the Gaza strip.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Okay, so what about from the Hamas side.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
So hamasa's key amendments revolve around a few things here. First,
they want a US guarantee that hostilities are not going
to resume if talks on a permanent ceasepire fail. So
from their perspective, but.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
No one can like getting a guarantee from the United States.
Israel doesn't listen. They do what they want. Doesn't matter
what we guarantee, You're still gonna do what they want
to do.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
From the Hamas side, it would be that the United
States guarantees that they would not support Israel, so they
would halt aid. They would halt funding if Israel breaks
the ceasefire, or if the ceasefire fails from the hostility
start back up before a permanent ceasefire can be agreed to.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Oh okay, okay, but that won't happen either.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
So well, yes, okay, I'm just trying to give you
what should happen. Never happens this way in real life, right,
especially when we're talking Middle East and what the US
does with Israel right now. Hamas also wants humanitarian aid
(27:51):
distributed exclusively by the UN and its partners. They want
to end the role of the Israelian US backed Gaza
Humanity Harrian Foundation. For those who listen to the podcast
every week, first of thank you for that, but this
probably doesn't surprise you because we discussed this last week.
Why Hamas wants the UN to take back aid distribution
(28:13):
right they want they want the funding that they get
from stealing the aid and selling it to the Palestinian people.
And lastly, Hamas is pushing for Israeli troops to return
to positions they held before the last ceasefire collapse in March.
They're very wary right now of new corridors Israel has established.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
I remember you talking about that last week that Hamas
was actually gaining financially from taking UNAID and demanding Palestinian's
pay to receive that aid. So, as I said in
the transition to this topic, opinions are flying out on
both sides, with people pointing fingers based solely on their
bias towards one group or another. But here's something I
(28:57):
think both sides that those opinions would agree on. Let's
find a sustainable, tangible peace in the region. So can
you answer this question, will the fighting truly stop?
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Yeah? I mean the devil's in the details, right and
the trust or lack thereof between both parties there Israel
and Hamas. Now, for Israel's part, Prime Minister net Yaho
has been very clear. He said the war won't end
until all hostages are released and hamasa's military and governing
capabilities are destroyed. That's so very high bar, and it
(29:31):
directly clashes with Hamas's demand for a permanent succession cessation
of hostilities. There is still a fundamental disconnect that these
negotiations are trying to bridge between the two parties.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
So where does the US stand in all this? President
Trump has been quite vocal.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
He has He's also been very optimistic. He said a
deal could be reached as early as next week, and
he's urged Hamas to accept the final proposal. Has even
warned them it will quote, not get better, it will
only get worse end quote. So that's a strong push
from the US. This is a significant factor in getting
(30:14):
the ceasefire agreed to. In fact, some sources suggest that
Trump's tough stance on Israel regarding the Iran ceasefire actually
gave Hamas a bit more confidence that the US would
guarantee any future deal and prevent a return to fighting.
So it's a unique dynamic at play.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
I'm glad you brought that up, because after the recent
Israel Iran conflict, it seems there's a renewed sense of urgency.
But even with all of this diplomatic effort, the conflict
on the ground hasn't stopped, has it.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
No, not at all. That just while these negotiations unfold,
the Israeli military continues its operations across GASA. The Hamas
run health ministries reported over fifty seven thousand Palestinians killed
since the war began, and hundreds more in just the
past few days from continued strikes.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
Well, what about the pressure from their own people? On
both sides, Are we seeing a renewed demand to end
this conflict?
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Yeah, we absolutely are. In Israel, the families of the
remaining hostages, they're holding rallies, They're desperately urging for a
deal that brings everyone home. They are a very powerful
voice in Israel. I mean, we've talked about what it's
like to have a loved one in harms Way waiting
for the news. It's unimaginable for these families. And on
(31:33):
the other side, you have the immense civilian toll in
Gaza that is fueling calls for an end to the carnage.
Palestinians are turning on Hamas and they're demanding an end
to this war and a new government.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
But I also read that within Israel, Netanyahu faces internal
challenges from his far right coalition partners, who view any
cease fire as surrender and a betrayal of the war's objectives.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Yeah. This constant disconnect between governments and the people that
they are supposed to serve. Right, So, some within the
Israeli government or dead set against stopping the war without
what they consider a decisive victory. They want to have
the parade show victory. This internal political dynamic some major
(32:21):
obstacle for net Yahoo and the Israeli people. There are
reports that if the more right wing parties were to quit,
we'd see some centrist parties step in to support an
actual cease fire deal that could provide net Yahoo with
the political cover he needs to agree to this. Now.
He's also in the United States right now, he's meeting
(32:42):
with Trump in Washington, DC, and I think that's going
to be the top conversation on the docket. It's going
to be very critical to hear what happened during those conversations.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
So to summarize, we have a positive but conditional response
from UMMAS, a US backed proposal with specific terms for
hostage release and aid and ongoing intense military operations. The
diplomatic quish is strong, especially from President Trump, but significant
hurdles remain, particularly on the duration of the ceasefire and
(33:14):
the end of the war, and of course the domestic
politics on both sides.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Yeah. Good, you nailed the summary there. I really appreciate that.
Just breaking it down after we spent about twenty five
minutes going back and forth on that, I will say
we're seeing a genuine window of opportunity, perhaps the most
promising in months. But the complexities of these negotiations, coupled
with the grim realities on the ground and the intense
(33:41):
political pressures, means that nothing is certain until the ink
is dry.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
Yeah, it's a reminder that even the most well intentioned
diplomacy is a fragile thing in the face of such
deep seated conflict. We'll be keeping an eye on this
as always, so thank you Kurvin for breaking that down
for us. Now let's move to the Northern Atlantic or
I guess I should say the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization,
which just wrapped up two whirlwind days at the NATO
(34:09):
summit in the Hague. But first we need to take
a quick break for a message from our sponsors. So
stay with us. We right back, Welcome back, listeners. As
I said at the break, NATO just wrapped up two
whirlwind days at the Hague. The Dutch called it their
biggest security operation ever, and for good reason from our perspective,
having now done this podcast for almost four years. Oh
(34:32):
four years. Sorry, Yeah, we'll just leave it at that.
And we've seen countless geopolitical shifts, this one does feel
a little bit different though, doesn't it. Like what is
your top takeaway from this summit?
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yes, my biggest takeaway is something that we've discussed on
this podcast over four years, and that is the commitment
to a five percent gd defense spending target for all
allies within NATO, and they want it to be reached
within a decade. So think about that five percent. That's
up from the two percent guideline that NATO has pushed
(35:14):
since two thousand and six. That's a remarkable jump and frankly,
we both agree, we've said this many times on the podcast.
It's long overdue, right.
Speaker 1 (35:26):
Because we were covering it for all the other countries
that didn't want to have that five percent. That's a
figure not seen since the Cold War, and it's a
huge ask, especially considering eight out of thirty two members
aren't even hitting the two percent mark right now. So
how realistic is this and what does that five percent
(35:47):
really mean?
Speaker 2 (35:49):
Yeah, it really is ambitious for NATO. Think of this
that the US, they've been pushing for this since the
return of the Trump administration, but we currently spend three
three point four percent of GDP and domestically, President Trump
wants less and more efficient defense spending. So how does
(36:09):
everyone get to five percent? I think the key here,
The key is the breakdown. You've got three point five
percent for core defense, that's troops and weapons. I think
most most of them can get to that three point
five percent. So that's the real goal here. Now, the
other one point five percent is defense related expenditure. Now
(36:32):
that's a broader term. You've got cyber infrastructure. They also
tap innovation within that figure. This is the flexible part
of all of this. So a country could count domestic
tech spending as part of this one point five percent
in defense related expenditure. It's not strictly military. But look,
(36:56):
make no mistake, hitting that three point five percent core
target is going to be a huge stretch for many
of those countries that you talked about don't even hit
the two percent mark right now. There is also accountability.
I like that part or that aspect of this. There
are annual plans and there was a major review in
twenty twenty nine, so we're not just talking about NATO's
(37:19):
talking about it. This is a strategic shift for the Alliance.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
So they're going to in twenty twenty nine review how
much GDP is being spent towards defense.
Speaker 2 (37:30):
Make sure that each country is on the trajectory within
the decade.
Speaker 1 (37:37):
So they have to have an active plan in place
by twenty twenty nine, and proof that they are trying
to reach the goal.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
Okay, Well, speaking of accountability, let's talk about Article five,
which is NATO's bedrock principle of collective defense. And after
President Trump's past comments questioning it, there was certainly some
apprehension heading into this. So what is the verdict there?
Speaker 2 (38:03):
Yeah, like that that was a crucial point. We were
all waiting to hear what their response was, and honestly,
the response was a relief. The summit agreement explicitly reaffirmed
and I'll quote them here, our iron clad commitment to
a collective defense. In quote Trump himself even publicly stated quote,
(38:25):
I stand with Article five. That's why I'm here in
to quote. These are all positives for the Alliance. Now,
for countries on the front line, particularly those bordering Russia,
that reassurance is vital. And it's a win for Trump too.
He's returning to Washington, d C. And he's got an
agreement that all allies are going to up their contributions.
(38:47):
So this is a classic burden sharing move and in
my view, this is a healthy rebalancing of NATO.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
And this commitment to Article five coupled with the increased
spending feels like NATO is really going quote back to
its roots end quote as a deterrent, as Finnish Alexander
Finnish President Alexander Stubb put it. He even called it
the quote birth of a more European NATO end quote.
Do you agree with that assessment?
Speaker 2 (39:17):
Yeah, absolutely do. And I also think it's a thinly
failed dig at the United States. So if you read
between the lines here, well, actually you can read it
in the quote itself. A more European NATO. NATO is
basically saying the US isn't the ally at once was,
and we need to plan our future around that. So
(39:38):
for years US administrations have called for Europe to do
more of its own defense, and then they haven't done it.
So this commitment to five percent defense spending coupled with
renewed focus on collective security in the face of Russian aggression,
that signifies a shift. Well, it's not about the US
pulling away entirely. This is a rebound balancing within the
(40:01):
Alliance where Europe takes on a greater share of the responsibility.
I think the years are head with NATO, with Europe,
It's going to be quite interesting.
Speaker 1 (40:12):
All right, Let's pivot to the Russia question. Given Russia's
ongoing war in Ukraine, I imagine it was a thorny issue,
especially with President Trump's generally softer approach to Moscow. But
how did the summit declaration address Russia and the conflict.
Speaker 2 (40:27):
It was definitely an area of careful navigation. Last year's declaration,
he is very strong language condemning Russia's quote brutal war
of aggression end quote. But this time the statement did
mention the quote long term threat post by Russia to
euro Atlantic security end quote, and it reaffirmed the need
(40:48):
for quote enduring support to Ukraine end quote. There is
not a specific direct condemnation of Russia in the Community itself.
It's a compromise that likely reflects the need to get
consensus from all members, and that main member is the
(41:09):
United States.
Speaker 1 (41:11):
So a more generalized concern about Russia rather than direct
blame for the war, and what about support for Ukraine finished.
President stub emphasized that Europeans need to pick up the
slack with the US halting some weaponshipments.
Speaker 2 (41:26):
Yeah. Yeah, As I said during the Ukraine discussion at
the beginning of the podcast, Europe is going to need
to pick up the slack here. That's because the US
is creating gaps in that AID who're already seeing this happen.
Got countries that have borders touching Russia. They are especially
(41:47):
getting involved with more support to Ukraine because they believe
they're next. Poland, for instance, sent a delegation to include
its president to Ukraine to discuss how Poland can help
to deter Russia from being even more aggressive. Now for
NATO as a whole, they have outlined two crucial ways
to help Ukraine continue to provide Ukraine with the weapons
(42:10):
it needs to win on the battlefield, and also increased
pressure on Russia through more sanctions. They also offered a
pragmatic two phase approach to peace talks. First they need
a ceasefire, then the actual peace negotiations covering territorial settlements,
compensation and reconstruction can happen. You can't lump it all
(42:35):
together and expect to get progress here.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
Well, it sounds like a lot of tough, serious conversations,
but were there any moments of levity amid the gravitas.
I heard something about the golf game and even daddy issues.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
Yeah, now, there were certainly a few, as is common
with President Trump and attendance Trump's golf game with Finished
and Stub. That was one thing. They talked about, everything
from Ukraine to the Finnish icebreakers, which are the ships
used in the Arctic and the Northern Sea so other
ships can pass through frozen waters. Apparently Trump loves these
(43:15):
ships and he's keen on the US acquiring more of them,
and that's given Russia's vast bleat and the strategic importance
of the Arctic. Now Finnish President's Stubb even offered to
provide some of these, perhaps selling a used one and
building new ones for Finland. Just one of those moments
that just goes to show how geopolitics this is a
(43:37):
lot like running a corporate business.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
Okay, so what about the daddy issues. I know I'm
curious and I'm sure as of our listeners want to
know about that one as well.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
Yeah, that was that was quite a moment. So this
is where it happened. NATO Secretary General Mark rut He
he's gonna be stepping down soon, but he had quite
unique exchange with President Donald Trump. He had previously flattered
Trump in a private message about his decisive action in Iran,
(44:10):
and Trump and his own Trump way publicly shared that interaction.
But then in a joint appearance, when Trump described the
Israel Iran situation as this is Trump's words, quote, like
two kids in a school yard end quote, Roots responded
quote and then daddy has to sometimes use strong language
(44:33):
to get them to stop end quote, and Trump was
quite amused by this comment. Marcobio was even seen kind
of like a Saturday Night Live episode where they break
during the entire sketch, he was laughing in the background,
so it was kind of an unconventional display of diplomacy.
(44:54):
There was even a question from the media about asking
Trump how he felt being called daddy by the NATO
Secretary General. It's I think it brings some levity and
it just shows that we are all just human, all
of our flaws and our good parts.
Speaker 1 (45:14):
Well, I just think it's funny that that's the contexts
they placed on Trump saying the F word. By the way, Okay,
I like, yes, that's pretty funny, but calling him daddy
that's kind of creepy too in a way. So obviously
the whole interaction was unconventional. And then there was Spain
(45:36):
Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez seemed to have a particularly rough
time with Trump publicly accusing Spain of seeking a quote
free ride on defense spending.
Speaker 2 (45:49):
Sancha's was definitely in the hot seat, and that's because
Spain props up the bottom of the NATO spending. They
are at one point twenty four percent. They spend least
on GDP for defense spending. Now, the president, the prime
minister of Spain insisted that two point one percent was
(46:11):
sufficient and that Spain could get there, but Trump was
not having any of it. Even threatened to impose higher
tariffs on Spain. That's his favorite thing to do now,
is just say he's going to impose higher tariffs to
get people to do what he wants them to do. Now,
that's going to be quite difficult because of Spain's EU membership.
(46:33):
But Sanchez appeared quite isolated in the end of the
summit NATO Family photo, so he definitely looked like he
was being pushed out a bit.
Speaker 1 (46:46):
So looking ahead, what's the biggest takeaway for you from
the summit, Like, what does it signal for the future
of global security?
Speaker 2 (46:54):
I think, first of all, it signals a more mature,
more self reliant Europe within that's spurred by the stark
realities of the war in Ukraine and the shifting geopolitical landscape.
I think the invasion has shaken Europe and they are
now more focused on the future. Now, for US, having
been affected by conflicts, this commitment to deterrence and defense,
(47:17):
I think it's crucial. I think this is why when
we talk about NATO not doing its part, and I'm
talking about you and me, Tiana, this comes from a
perspective that sees what happens when you go to war
with the army you have and not necessarily the one
that you need.
Speaker 1 (47:35):
That was Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, wasn't it the man who
famously said, quote, you go to war with the army
you have end quote. And he said it just a
few months after you guys were literally mad maxing Humvis
and kuwait for protection on the road to Baghdad. The
pure weight of that in that moment says it all.
(47:56):
So is there anything else you want to discuss?
Speaker 2 (48:00):
That's it on my end? Do you have anything you
want to talk about no, okay good.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
Thank you 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 would
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 Tienna.
Speaker 2 (48:23):
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 teen percent off their
first month by going to betterhelp dot com slash this week.
That's b E T T E r H e l
P dot com slash this week. Tired of feeling overwhelmed
(02:21):
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 driving 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,
(02:43):
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
(03:03):
a fantastic way to engage directly 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 and
a deep dive into the results of the NATO conference.
(03:24):
Let's kick things off with the war in Ukraine and Kravin.
It feels like we're talking about Ukraine a lot more
these days, and for good reason. The news coming out
of there, especially regarding usaid, is deeply concerning. This particular
situation in Ukraine feels like we're watching a slow motion
train wreck. So let's start with the big picture. The
US has it announced any military aid packages for Ukraine
(03:47):
in almost five months, and that's a massive gap for
a country that is continuously fighting. So what's the immediate
impact of that on the ground.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah, you're absolutely right, it's absolutely massive. Crane's military effectiveness
is still heavily reliant on US support, even though they're
trying to lessen that dependence. Now we're talking about nearly
thirty percent of all Western military supplies which comes from
the US. Now, without new aid, those stockpiles in Ukrainian
warehouses are rapidly dwindling, and the timing right now could
(04:21):
not be any worse. We've got Russian troops slowly advancing
and they're gearing up for what's expected to be a
major summer offensive.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
And just to throw fuel on that fire. Defense Secretary
Pete Hegseth recently announced a cut in military aid for
twenty twenty six, coming off that long pause. That must
have sent shockwaves through Kiev.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Yeah, it really did. And it's a move that frankly
seems to be driven by a desire for a quote
unquote peace from the Trump administration. And I put quotes
up there because we don't know. I mean, we do know.
They keep saying peace, and we know what piece for
here and peace for this It always seems to be
(05:02):
one sided when we're talking about Russia and Ukraine. They
don't really define what they mean by peace when they
talk about it. Certainly not looking like they want to
see justice for Ukraine right now, That's what I would say.
And so this stance, whether intentional or not, absolutely undermines
Ukraine's negotiating capital, and critically it emboldens Putin to continue
(05:27):
his aggression without real consequences. So from an analytical perspective,
this is a dangerous game they're playing.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
Well, what do you think will happen if it emboldens
Putin to continue his aggression? Do you think eventually Trump
is going to actually do something about punishing Russia if
they continue it like on once Ukraine completely runs out
of all the aid that they need and all the
(05:56):
weapons they need in order to continue their campaign, what
do you think will happen if Russia continues beyond that?
Speaker 2 (06:04):
That's it's interesting. It's something that Radio Free Europe asked
in an interview I did last week, and there's not
really a good answer because we just honestly don't know
what what Trump's going to do. A lot of people
thought ray when when Israel was attacking Iran and then
the ceasefire deal was broken, everyone just assumes that Trump
(06:28):
loves Israel, that's the greatest US ally, and he's just
going to pile on Iran, and he actually seemed more
angry at Israel. But that doesn't seem to be happening
here with Russian Ukraine. And so it's it's very it's
kind of telling as to how the administration feels towards
that war that it does feel kind of one sided
(06:49):
to me as I'm hearing them talk about things. So
what is it going to take to get Trump to
stand up to Putin? I have no answer for that
right now.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Okay, I guess we should bring it back to what
we were discussing, which obviously this isn't the first time
we've seen these kinds of pauses in aid, is it.
I mean, it feels like a pattern, Yeah, it is.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
It is a pattern. This recent five month drought in
aid announcements followed a very pointed decision by Defense Secretary
Hexseth to unilaterally halt a weapon shipment to Ukraine, if
you remember that from a few months ago. And this
was a move that apparently blindsided the State Department, Congress,
(07:32):
and even European allies of the United States. So the
US justified it as a concern over US stockpiles. That's
the recent word that we're getting out of this. But
that was actually an excuse that was first floated by
President Putin when the news broke that the US was
going to halt the stock was going to halt the
(07:52):
weapons to Ukraine. I've seen some senior military officers say
that they the aid that is given to Ukraine is
actually not going to jeopardize US supplies and stockpiles.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
But it's a pretty pretty convenient excuse. You know, you
can say that, it's not like the civilian can confirm
whether or not that's true. Right into what you know
the government is saying. So the rationale seems to me
to be slightly disingenuous.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Do you agree, Yes and no. Obviously, the US cannot
restore stockpiles at the rate that aid is being sent
to Ukraine. But we also expended our own weapons in
the Twelve Days War, and we continue to support Israel
with military aid. So I would agree with you and
(08:45):
other critics that this could be a thinly veiled attempt
to cut off aid to Ukraine. Specifically, this was the
third time Hegseth had personally stopped aid shipments. The previous
two times alluded to before the one of the February,
so a few months ago than the one in May,
but those were reversed days after. Now it's almost as
(09:06):
if some elements within the Pentagon, like Under Secretary Elbridge Colby,
are trying to force a shift in our strategic focus
away from Ukraine. And what they're probably going to say
publicly is they want to counter China in the Indo Pacific. Now,
that's a valid debate to have, but I don't think
(09:27):
it's a good debate at the expense of an active conflict.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
What do you mean they are going to say that
it sounds like you don't quite believe that's what's going on.
Can you say anything about that or should Should I
just skip that question?
Speaker 2 (09:46):
No, I'll say I'll say some stuff. It goes back
to being disingenuous, right, and it goes back to Israel.
And you know how, when I talk about Israel, it's
a key US ally. Ukraine is not a US OL.
They're not known as a US outlight. We're helping Ukraine
because Russia is an adversary to the United States. Yes,
Russia is an adversary to the United States. But when
(10:10):
you talk about we need to stop aid to Ukraine,
stop aiding Ukraine in an active conflict, and yet we
expend millions to billions of dollars immunitions to support Israel
that went on the offensive against Iran. I'm not saying
that was right or wrong. My personal opinion is that
(10:31):
Israel did the right thing because after looking at stuff,
Iran was very close to having a nuclear or the
capabilities of creating a nuclear weapon, and that was going
to be aimed directly at Israel. So I felt like
Israel did need to do that, But there were no
talks of well, let's not support Israel because the stockpiles
(10:53):
it was Israel's doing this. They've asked for our support,
and we're going to do it. So that's why I
agree with you somewhat that it's a little disingenuous. And
when they say that they're countering China in the Endo Pacific,
if that's the case, then why are you taking you know,
why are you taking naval assets from the Endo Pacific,
(11:14):
some of our top naval assets and shifting them from
the Endo Pacific into Central Command in the Middle East,
and you're using it to help Israel. That's something that
China probably wants to see happen so that they can
make a move for Taiwan. And now those assets would
have been there already have to make that trip back.
(11:35):
That doesn't We're not at the point where we can just,
you know, move pieces like this is a chessboard and
you can do it really quickly. It's going to take time,
and the more time it takes, the easier it is
for China to take over Taiwan. So that's what I
was saying. I was trying to think about how I
can say that without giving up too much.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
But some guessing you succeeded, and it's not like, yes,
I will know, Okay. So the Lninghouse's defense of these decisions,
saying it's part of an ongoing review, does that hold
water given this pattern that they've displayed over the last
few months.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Again, I think it's a weak defense. So, look, these
reviews are standard, but the timing, the unilateral nature of
the halts, and the consistent reversal of these decisions suggests
more is at play than just routine assessment of the stockpiles.
The fact that some of these weapons were already loaded
on trucks in Poland, they were ready for delivery, that
(12:39):
only adds to the sense of disarray. And if I
could just say one more thing on oh, these are stockpiles.
A lot of these weapons are going to go out
of commission, probably before we even get into a conflict
with China, so they need to be expended. Why not
give it to Ukraine so that they can do it
for p P right to push back an appressor.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
This just sounds like government stuff to me. Now, not
a clear decation. They're not all communicating with each other there,
they all have different different ideas on how this should go,
and it just no one. You know, they can't come
up with a uniform decision.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Yeah, and it sounds like government speak to you, because
it is. I mean, that is exactly what's going on,
and it's the reason nothing gets done.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Yeah, I mean it sounds typical that the weapons would
be there already and then they would still decide to
withhold them just based I guess we need some decommissioned
weapons in our fight with China, so.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Yeah, I mean, use them for exercises, I guess.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Well, speaking of disarray, let's talk about President Trump's two
week deadline for Russia to show it was serious about peace.
That deadline came and went, and what we saw was
the complete up set of peace because we've been emboldened.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Yeah. Absolutely, And it's almost as if Putin wants more
than a special military operation, doesn't it. Tiena. So it's
been over a month since that May twenty eighth statement
of two weeks to have peace in this conflict, and
since then, not only has Russia declined to stop attacking Ukraine,
(14:27):
it's actually escalated its attacks on civilians and it's escalated
to unprecedented levels. We've seen two record breaking drone attacks
since that deadline. The number of drones launched in June
is nearly doubled the highest monthly total, which was March.
(14:47):
And this isn't a sign of peace, and I want
to call it what it is. This is terrorism against
a civilian population.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
And the White House's response to this escalation or thereof,
because it seems like once again Trump did his whole
bluff and bluster thing and there nothing came of it.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Yeah, I don't. I mean, we do take both sides,
right when when somebody does something and we view that
in a good way, we will give them praise for that.
I think this is a podcast episode where people are
gonna hear me keep harping on Trump in a negative
way because of the Israel Iran conflict. And so you
(15:32):
know what was the response from the US to Russia's escalation.
It was crickets. There were no f bombs, there was
no condemnation, there were no new sanctions. In fact, Trump
actually excused Russia's escalating attacks by saying Ukraine's Operation Spider Web,
which was the military strike on Russian bombers that gave
Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell
(15:53):
out of them. I'm sorry, but that is a morally
bankrupt justification for what Russia is doing. Russia is indiscriminately
targeting Ukrainian civilians.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
And because no one is saying anything to Putin about
him being naughty, what is the message that that sends
to Putin or to any adversary for that matter.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Yeah, I mean, the message to me seems clear. There
are no real consequences for escalating violence. Putin has very
little incentive to stop right now. If anything, this kind
of inaction from the United States, combined with the aid
pauses that only reinforces Putin's theory of victory. He thinks,
(16:40):
and he understands that Russia can win a war of
attrition by simply outlasting Western support for Ukraine. We've seen
this before. Previous de layas in USAID have invariably led
to Russian advances on the battlefield, and it's a dangerous
feedback loop.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
I'm pretty sure you've mentioned this was possibly the long
game that Russia was playing from the beginning of this conflict.
They were, you know, waiting for the president to change,
in waiting for sentiments to change. Knowing that any sort
of prolonged conflict, I mean, obviously it's going to start
(17:18):
out where everybody was backing Ukraine. But now as it
goes on, everyone's moved on to the next issue. You know,
they're tired of hearing about it where everybody's so detached
and sensitized because of everything that's going on. So now
we've moved on to the next thing, which currently in
the United States of America is that heartbreaking occurrence that
happened in textas during that storm.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
So yep.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
So with US aid in question and Russian attacks intensifying,
what are Ukraine's options? They can't just sit.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
There, Yeah, they can't, and they're not. Ukraine is doing
everything it can to prepare for the worst. Now their
European partners are stepping up a bit. There's an initiative
called re arm Europe Plan. It's an eight hundred billion
dollar effort to boost Europe's defense capabilities and to support Ukraine.
But studies show that Europe isn't yet ready to fully
(18:12):
replace USA. It requires a massive and decisive increase in
their own defense spending, and we're going to get into
that increase in defense spending. I think at the end
of this episode when we talk about NATO, this.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Is something that needs to happen anyways, So I'm glad
they're finally saying, yeah, we probably need to step up
and quit relying so heavily on US stockpiles. So internally,
what are they doing well?
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Ukraine is pushing hard on domestic military production. I already
talked about. I went on radio for Europe a few
days ago and I kind of said that while this
is terrible news, there are some positives to take from
it because of Ukraine's domestic production. They've been able to
handle domestically doing some of their own missile production, and
(19:02):
Zoyinsky announced plans to increase their own weapons supplies. He
went supposed to increase the supplies to the army from
forty percent to fifty percent this year. The Ukraine's Prime
minister even stated they'd be one hundred percent self sufficient
in artillery by the end of the year. That's incredible
to think about a nation at war for so long
(19:24):
can get to one hundred percent self sufficient in artillery
by the end of the year, and then defilleries.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Artillery is pretty simple compared to like drones and range
missiles and stuff like that. I mean, we saw, I mean,
we went into a house where a guy was producing
his own.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Yeah, we won't.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Get it into or with who, but we were looking
for houses and we went into this guy's basement. It
was obviously didn't want us to go in the basement.
But if we're looking at your house to buy it,
I'm walking in.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
And he shouldn't have had it on the market.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Yeah, well, he should have at least stored his stuff elsewhere.
But it was wild. He just had canisters and canisters
just filled with it and he was packing it in
his basement for what, I don't know, zombie apocalypse, I'm guessing.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, it was a preppers stream for real.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
It even included cats, lots of.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Cats, lots of cats.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
There were lots of cats, lots of cats, and lots
of bullets.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Okay, anyway, so yeah, we're getting back to how Ukraine
is doing similar to what this guy was doing, which
is domestically producing their own weapons to stop aggressive governments.
I'm guessing just I don't know for a fact that's
what he was doing, but seemed that way. Think about
(20:52):
where we stand right now, after this special military operation started, right,
so Putink aimed he wanted to deter NATO. He wanted
to demilitarize Ukraine. And all he's done since twenty twenty
two is makee NATO stronger, so Sweden and Finland joined,
and they're stronger without US support. Mind you, He's also
(21:16):
made Ukraine's military self sustaining, not demilitarized, So just I mean,
it's incredible. Ukraine's drone program is fundamentally changing the battlefield.
Plus Ukrainian specialists are now capable of repairing American weapons
without that assistance from the United States, and that's a
big deal for keeping equipment in the fight.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
So they're becoming more self reliant. But is there still
a critical gap that only the US can fill? And
that's what everybody's kind of worried about.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Yeah, there is. It's there's a huge one. It's the
Patriot Air Defense System. Ukraine's armed forces might be able
to manage without some American weapons, but their cities absolutely
can not manage without the Patriot Air Defense System. Europe
is still in the early stages of mass producing similar systems.
The Patriot is a game changer for intercepting ballistic missiles,
(22:11):
and without it, Ukrainian cities are going to face even
more unimaginable suffering.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
And then there's the intelligence aspect, which often goes unsaid
but is obviously vital.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Yeah, exactly. US intelligence cooperation has been deeply ingrained in
Ukraine for years, have been helping Ukraine monitor missile launches
and identify targets for long range strikes, so all European
partners can eventually provide some of this. Replacing American intelligence
fully would require immense resources, time, and crucially political will.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
We've talked about the strategic implications, the political maneuvering, the numbers,
but what always strikes me is the human cost. We've
seen enough conflict in our lives to know what it
means for the people on the ground.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Yeah, that's the families living under constant bombardment, the fear
that never disappears until the air raid siren stops, the
despair of seeing residential buildings and cultural sites just absolutely flattened.
And as someone who's seen the immediate aftermath of a
conflict zone, this isn't just about geopolitics anymore. It's about
(23:20):
real people. It's about their lives and their homes, their
futures being shattered. So the idea that this is all
part of some negotiating strategy and civilians are just pawns
in that it really is heartbreaking.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
Seems to be a running theme in all the current
conflicts going on right now. The civilians are the pawns,
the expendable pieces. It makes these tough geopolitical conversations we
have so real. The lack of consistent, robust support from
a key ally like the US isn't just a policy decision.
(23:52):
It's a direct impact on the lives of millions of
innocent people.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
Yeah, exactly, And it gives Putin every reason to believe
that if he waits long enough, he's going to win
this war. And for Ukraine, this is not just a setback,
this is potentially a disaster.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
A sobering thought. But when we will continue talking about
until peace is truly achieved in Ukraine. But it is
not the only conflict finding it difficult to achieve peace.
While the world watches the unfolding tragedy there, our attention
is also drawn to another devastating conflict that has captured
global headlines. Dozens of hostages remain in captivity, millions of
(24:32):
civilians are displaced, and the violence from both a democratic
government and a terrorist organization has opinions flying all across
the board. Obviously, I am talking about the war in Gaza.
Another week, another set of developments on a potential Gaza ceasefire.
So what is the latest.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
Well, at least this week, we're witnessing some genuinely significant
movement in the efforts to secure peace in Gaza. There
was a major development over the week over the weekend
where Hamas officially gave a positive response to the latest
US broker proposal for a sixty day ceasefire. We're not
just talking about more of the same where the two
(25:13):
sides are trying to delay peace efforts for their own gain.
This positive response has already prompted action. Israel dispatched and
negotiating team to Cutter so that they can just discuss
further the proposal that's being pushed out. But it's also
not without its complexities. With all that said, Israel has
(25:34):
also indicated that some of Hamas's requested changes to the
proposal are quote unacceptable end quote.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
I mean, a positive response is good, but quote ready
for negotiations end quote. Isn't quite a full acceptance, is it.
So what exactly does this proposal entail?
Speaker 2 (25:53):
You are absolutely right to pick up on that distinction.
Ready for negotiations is far different from acceptance. It's a
positive start, but it's not a done deal. The proposal
itself was pretty clear. It has a staggered release of
twenty eight hostages. That's ten living and eighteen deceased hostages
(26:16):
over a sixty day period. For instance, eight living hostages
would be released on day one in exchange for an
unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners. Now in return, Israel would
partially withdraw from northern Gaza and critically, humanitarian aid would
surge into the Gaza strip.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Okay, so what about from the Hamas side.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
So hamasa's key amendments revolve around a few things here. First,
they want a US guarantee that hostilities are not going
to resume if talks on a permanent ceasepire fail. So
from their perspective, but.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
No one can like getting a guarantee from the United States.
Israel doesn't listen. They do what they want. Doesn't matter
what we guarantee, You're still gonna do what they want
to do.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
From the Hamas side, it would be that the United
States guarantees that they would not support Israel, so they
would halt aid. They would halt funding if Israel breaks
the ceasefire, or if the ceasefire fails from the hostility
start back up before a permanent ceasefire can be agreed to.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Oh okay, okay, but that won't happen either.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
So well, yes, okay, I'm just trying to give you
what should happen. Never happens this way in real life, right,
especially when we're talking Middle East and what the US
does with Israel right now. Hamas also wants humanitarian aid
(27:51):
distributed exclusively by the UN and its partners. They want
to end the role of the Israelian US backed Gaza
Humanity Harrian Foundation. For those who listen to the podcast
every week, first of thank you for that, but this
probably doesn't surprise you because we discussed this last week.
Why Hamas wants the UN to take back aid distribution
(28:13):
right they want they want the funding that they get
from stealing the aid and selling it to the Palestinian people.
And lastly, Hamas is pushing for Israeli troops to return
to positions they held before the last ceasefire collapse in March.
They're very wary right now of new corridors Israel has established.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
I remember you talking about that last week that Hamas
was actually gaining financially from taking UNAID and demanding Palestinian's
pay to receive that aid. So, as I said in
the transition to this topic, opinions are flying out on
both sides, with people pointing fingers based solely on their
bias towards one group or another. But here's something I
(28:57):
think both sides that those opinions would agree on. Let's
find a sustainable, tangible peace in the region. So can
you answer this question, will the fighting truly stop?
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Yeah? I mean the devil's in the details, right and
the trust or lack thereof between both parties there Israel
and Hamas. Now, for Israel's part, Prime Minister net Yaho
has been very clear. He said the war won't end
until all hostages are released and hamasa's military and governing
capabilities are destroyed. That's so very high bar, and it
(29:31):
directly clashes with Hamas's demand for a permanent succession cessation
of hostilities. There is still a fundamental disconnect that these
negotiations are trying to bridge between the two parties.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
So where does the US stand in all this? President
Trump has been quite vocal.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
He has He's also been very optimistic. He said a
deal could be reached as early as next week, and
he's urged Hamas to accept the final proposal. Has even
warned them it will quote, not get better, it will
only get worse end quote. So that's a strong push
from the US. This is a significant factor in getting
(30:14):
the ceasefire agreed to. In fact, some sources suggest that
Trump's tough stance on Israel regarding the Iran ceasefire actually
gave Hamas a bit more confidence that the US would
guarantee any future deal and prevent a return to fighting.
So it's a unique dynamic at play.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
I'm glad you brought that up, because after the recent
Israel Iran conflict, it seems there's a renewed sense of urgency.
But even with all of this diplomatic effort, the conflict
on the ground hasn't stopped, has it.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
No, not at all. That just while these negotiations unfold,
the Israeli military continues its operations across GASA. The Hamas
run health ministries reported over fifty seven thousand Palestinians killed
since the war began, and hundreds more in just the
past few days from continued strikes.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
Well, what about the pressure from their own people? On
both sides, Are we seeing a renewed demand to end
this conflict?
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Yeah, we absolutely are. In Israel, the families of the
remaining hostages, they're holding rallies, They're desperately urging for a
deal that brings everyone home. They are a very powerful
voice in Israel. I mean, we've talked about what it's
like to have a loved one in harms Way waiting
for the news. It's unimaginable for these families. And on
(31:33):
the other side, you have the immense civilian toll in
Gaza that is fueling calls for an end to the carnage.
Palestinians are turning on Hamas and they're demanding an end
to this war and a new government.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
But I also read that within Israel, Netanyahu faces internal
challenges from his far right coalition partners, who view any
cease fire as surrender and a betrayal of the war's objectives.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Yeah. This constant disconnect between governments and the people that
they are supposed to serve. Right, So, some within the
Israeli government or dead set against stopping the war without
what they consider a decisive victory. They want to have
the parade show victory. This internal political dynamic some major
(32:21):
obstacle for net Yahoo and the Israeli people. There are
reports that if the more right wing parties were to quit,
we'd see some centrist parties step in to support an
actual cease fire deal that could provide net Yahoo with
the political cover he needs to agree to this. Now.
He's also in the United States right now, he's meeting
(32:42):
with Trump in Washington, DC, and I think that's going
to be the top conversation on the docket. It's going
to be very critical to hear what happened during those conversations.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
So to summarize, we have a positive but conditional response
from UMMAS, a US backed proposal with specific terms for
hostage release and aid and ongoing intense military operations. The
diplomatic quish is strong, especially from President Trump, but significant
hurdles remain, particularly on the duration of the ceasefire and
(33:14):
the end of the war, and of course the domestic
politics on both sides.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Yeah. Good, you nailed the summary there. I really appreciate that.
Just breaking it down after we spent about twenty five
minutes going back and forth on that, I will say
we're seeing a genuine window of opportunity, perhaps the most
promising in months. But the complexities of these negotiations, coupled
with the grim realities on the ground and the intense
(33:41):
political pressures, means that nothing is certain until the ink
is dry.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
Yeah, it's a reminder that even the most well intentioned
diplomacy is a fragile thing in the face of such
deep seated conflict. We'll be keeping an eye on this
as always, so thank you Kurvin for breaking that down
for us. Now let's move to the Northern Atlantic or
I guess I should say the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization,
which just wrapped up two whirlwind days at the NATO
(34:09):
summit in the Hague. But first we need to take
a quick break for a message from our sponsors. So
stay with us. We right back, Welcome back, listeners. As
I said at the break, NATO just wrapped up two
whirlwind days at the Hague. The Dutch called it their
biggest security operation ever, and for good reason from our perspective,
having now done this podcast for almost four years. Oh
(34:32):
four years. Sorry, Yeah, we'll just leave it at that.
And we've seen countless geopolitical shifts, this one does feel
a little bit different though, doesn't it. Like what is
your top takeaway from this summit?
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yes, my biggest takeaway is something that we've discussed on
this podcast over four years, and that is the commitment
to a five percent gd defense spending target for all
allies within NATO, and they want it to be reached
within a decade. So think about that five percent. That's
up from the two percent guideline that NATO has pushed
(35:14):
since two thousand and six. That's a remarkable jump and frankly,
we both agree, we've said this many times on the podcast.
It's long overdue, right.
Speaker 1 (35:26):
Because we were covering it for all the other countries
that didn't want to have that five percent. That's a
figure not seen since the Cold War, and it's a
huge ask, especially considering eight out of thirty two members
aren't even hitting the two percent mark right now. So
how realistic is this and what does that five percent
(35:47):
really mean?
Speaker 2 (35:49):
Yeah, it really is ambitious for NATO. Think of this
that the US, they've been pushing for this since the
return of the Trump administration, but we currently spend three
three point four percent of GDP and domestically, President Trump
wants less and more efficient defense spending. So how does
(36:09):
everyone get to five percent? I think the key here,
The key is the breakdown. You've got three point five
percent for core defense, that's troops and weapons. I think
most most of them can get to that three point
five percent. So that's the real goal here. Now, the
other one point five percent is defense related expenditure. Now
(36:32):
that's a broader term. You've got cyber infrastructure. They also
tap innovation within that figure. This is the flexible part
of all of this. So a country could count domestic
tech spending as part of this one point five percent
in defense related expenditure. It's not strictly military. But look,
(36:56):
make no mistake, hitting that three point five percent core
target is going to be a huge stretch for many
of those countries that you talked about don't even hit
the two percent mark right now. There is also accountability.
I like that part or that aspect of this. There
are annual plans and there was a major review in
twenty twenty nine, so we're not just talking about NATO's
(37:19):
talking about it. This is a strategic shift for the Alliance.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
So they're going to in twenty twenty nine review how
much GDP is being spent towards defense.
Speaker 2 (37:30):
Make sure that each country is on the trajectory within
the decade.
Speaker 1 (37:37):
So they have to have an active plan in place
by twenty twenty nine, and proof that they are trying
to reach the goal.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
Okay, Well, speaking of accountability, let's talk about Article five,
which is NATO's bedrock principle of collective defense. And after
President Trump's past comments questioning it, there was certainly some
apprehension heading into this. So what is the verdict there?
Speaker 2 (38:03):
Yeah, like that that was a crucial point. We were
all waiting to hear what their response was, and honestly,
the response was a relief. The summit agreement explicitly reaffirmed
and I'll quote them here, our iron clad commitment to
a collective defense. In quote Trump himself even publicly stated quote,
(38:25):
I stand with Article five. That's why I'm here in
to quote. These are all positives for the Alliance. Now,
for countries on the front line, particularly those bordering Russia,
that reassurance is vital. And it's a win for Trump too.
He's returning to Washington, d C. And he's got an
agreement that all allies are going to up their contributions.
(38:47):
So this is a classic burden sharing move and in
my view, this is a healthy rebalancing of NATO.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
And this commitment to Article five coupled with the increased
spending feels like NATO is really going quote back to
its roots end quote as a deterrent, as Finnish Alexander
Finnish President Alexander Stubb put it. He even called it
the quote birth of a more European NATO end quote.
Do you agree with that assessment?
Speaker 2 (39:17):
Yeah, absolutely do. And I also think it's a thinly
failed dig at the United States. So if you read
between the lines here, well, actually you can read it
in the quote itself. A more European NATO. NATO is
basically saying the US isn't the ally at once was,
and we need to plan our future around that. So
(39:38):
for years US administrations have called for Europe to do
more of its own defense, and then they haven't done it.
So this commitment to five percent defense spending coupled with
renewed focus on collective security in the face of Russian aggression,
that signifies a shift. Well, it's not about the US
pulling away entirely. This is a rebound balancing within the
(40:01):
Alliance where Europe takes on a greater share of the responsibility.
I think the years are head with NATO, with Europe,
It's going to be quite interesting.
Speaker 1 (40:12):
All right, Let's pivot to the Russia question. Given Russia's
ongoing war in Ukraine, I imagine it was a thorny issue,
especially with President Trump's generally softer approach to Moscow. But
how did the summit declaration address Russia and the conflict.
Speaker 2 (40:27):
It was definitely an area of careful navigation. Last year's declaration,
he is very strong language condemning Russia's quote brutal war
of aggression end quote. But this time the statement did
mention the quote long term threat post by Russia to
euro Atlantic security end quote, and it reaffirmed the need
(40:48):
for quote enduring support to Ukraine end quote. There is
not a specific direct condemnation of Russia in the Community itself.
It's a compromise that likely reflects the need to get
consensus from all members, and that main member is the
(41:09):
United States.
Speaker 1 (41:11):
So a more generalized concern about Russia rather than direct
blame for the war, and what about support for Ukraine finished.
President stub emphasized that Europeans need to pick up the
slack with the US halting some weaponshipments.
Speaker 2 (41:26):
Yeah. Yeah, As I said during the Ukraine discussion at
the beginning of the podcast, Europe is going to need
to pick up the slack here. That's because the US
is creating gaps in that AID who're already seeing this happen.
Got countries that have borders touching Russia. They are especially
(41:47):
getting involved with more support to Ukraine because they believe
they're next. Poland, for instance, sent a delegation to include
its president to Ukraine to discuss how Poland can help
to deter Russia from being even more aggressive. Now for
NATO as a whole, they have outlined two crucial ways
to help Ukraine continue to provide Ukraine with the weapons
(42:10):
it needs to win on the battlefield, and also increased
pressure on Russia through more sanctions. They also offered a
pragmatic two phase approach to peace talks. First they need
a ceasefire, then the actual peace negotiations covering territorial settlements,
compensation and reconstruction can happen. You can't lump it all
(42:35):
together and expect to get progress here.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
Well, it sounds like a lot of tough, serious conversations,
but were there any moments of levity amid the gravitas.
I heard something about the golf game and even daddy issues.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
Yeah, now, there were certainly a few, as is common
with President Trump and attendance Trump's golf game with Finished
and Stub. That was one thing. They talked about, everything
from Ukraine to the Finnish icebreakers, which are the ships
used in the Arctic and the Northern Sea so other
ships can pass through frozen waters. Apparently Trump loves these
(43:15):
ships and he's keen on the US acquiring more of them,
and that's given Russia's vast bleat and the strategic importance
of the Arctic. Now Finnish President's Stubb even offered to
provide some of these, perhaps selling a used one and
building new ones for Finland. Just one of those moments
that just goes to show how geopolitics this is a
(43:37):
lot like running a corporate business.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
Okay, so what about the daddy issues. I know I'm
curious and I'm sure as of our listeners want to
know about that one as well.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
Yeah, that was that was quite a moment. So this
is where it happened. NATO Secretary General Mark rut He
he's gonna be stepping down soon, but he had quite
unique exchange with President Donald Trump. He had previously flattered
Trump in a private message about his decisive action in Iran,
(44:10):
and Trump and his own Trump way publicly shared that interaction.
But then in a joint appearance, when Trump described the
Israel Iran situation as this is Trump's words, quote, like
two kids in a school yard end quote, Roots responded
quote and then daddy has to sometimes use strong language
(44:33):
to get them to stop end quote, and Trump was
quite amused by this comment. Marcobio was even seen kind
of like a Saturday Night Live episode where they break
during the entire sketch, he was laughing in the background,
so it was kind of an unconventional display of diplomacy.
(44:54):
There was even a question from the media about asking
Trump how he felt being called daddy by the NATO
Secretary General. It's I think it brings some levity and
it just shows that we are all just human, all
of our flaws and our good parts.
Speaker 1 (45:14):
Well, I just think it's funny that that's the contexts
they placed on Trump saying the F word. By the way, Okay,
I like, yes, that's pretty funny, but calling him daddy
that's kind of creepy too in a way. So obviously
the whole interaction was unconventional. And then there was Spain
(45:36):
Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez seemed to have a particularly rough
time with Trump publicly accusing Spain of seeking a quote
free ride on defense spending.
Speaker 2 (45:49):
Sancha's was definitely in the hot seat, and that's because
Spain props up the bottom of the NATO spending. They
are at one point twenty four percent. They spend least
on GDP for defense spending. Now, the president, the prime
minister of Spain insisted that two point one percent was
(46:11):
sufficient and that Spain could get there, but Trump was
not having any of it. Even threatened to impose higher
tariffs on Spain. That's his favorite thing to do now,
is just say he's going to impose higher tariffs to
get people to do what he wants them to do. Now,
that's going to be quite difficult because of Spain's EU membership.
(46:33):
But Sanchez appeared quite isolated in the end of the
summit NATO Family photo, so he definitely looked like he
was being pushed out a bit.
Speaker 1 (46:46):
So looking ahead, what's the biggest takeaway for you from
the summit, Like, what does it signal for the future
of global security?
Speaker 2 (46:54):
I think, first of all, it signals a more mature,
more self reliant Europe within that's spurred by the stark
realities of the war in Ukraine and the shifting geopolitical landscape.
I think the invasion has shaken Europe and they are
now more focused on the future. Now, for US, having
been affected by conflicts, this commitment to deterrence and defense,
(47:17):
I think it's crucial. I think this is why when
we talk about NATO not doing its part, and I'm
talking about you and me, Tiana, this comes from a
perspective that sees what happens when you go to war
with the army you have and not necessarily the one
that you need.
Speaker 1 (47:35):
That was Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, wasn't it the man who
famously said, quote, you go to war with the army
you have end quote. And he said it just a
few months after you guys were literally mad maxing Humvis
and kuwait for protection on the road to Baghdad. The
pure weight of that in that moment says it all.
(47:56):
So is there anything else you want to discuss?
Speaker 2 (48:00):
That's it on my end? Do you have anything you
want to talk about no, okay good.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
Thank you 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 would
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 Tienna.
Speaker 2 (48:23):
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.