8-15-25 - 7am - Trump & Putin in Alaska

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So it's and that's all you need to do. For you,
that's all you need to do is just leave just
you know, leave a message.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
To some out there. It's challenge accepted. Yeah, yeah, it is.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Air Force one is taken off. It's on its way
to lacking the name of the Air Force base. ELM.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
I'm sorry, but what Why are we really making a
big deal about this? Why is one of the news
channels video videotaping the entire the jet taking off? Is
this is not the first time Trump has met with Putin.
This is not the first time Trump is met with
Putin about the Ukraine war? What what makes this.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
Time a big deal?

Speaker 1 (00:51):
Am?

Speaker 2 (00:52):
I am?

Speaker 3 (00:52):
I far out and left field here. I don't understand
what's going on. Please explain.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
Well, you know what. That's what I'm going to do.
Thank you, That's exactly what I'm gonna do. Crap, Now,
I'm gonna have to listen. No, you don't have to.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Listen, because I'm going to do an analysis. But let
me just give you the top line. Don't read, oh
thank you, the caval wants Trump to fail. Oh okay, yeah,
but it is interesting. How we have to watch now?
Fox is replaying I mean the plane's already in the air.
I think, yes, I think I saw it take off earlier.

Speaker 3 (01:26):
They had a live feed of it.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
That's what I thought.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
I thought I saw a live feed of Air Force
one taking off from Andrews. And then Fox cuts back
to b row of Trump walking up the stairs, the
big stairs, the big stairs too, by the way, and
they've they've got a which fits perfectly. Is what I
want to talk about there now, showing a screenshot of

(01:50):
the Washington Post. How Trump can win in Russia? See
it in over here. Is Trump's security guarantees possible? But
you're to be involved. Everybody's got an opinion about this.
The Financial Times, for example, has in its headline that
when Trump meets with Putin in Alaska, there will be

(02:12):
no experts in the room. Now, inside the Beltway, when
somebody tells you there are no experts in the room,
that's intended to raise alarm bells. And in fact, let's
go to the audio, because the audio is just freaking hilarious. First,

(02:34):
we've got Chris Murphy, Democrat, senator from Connecticut.

Speaker 4 (02:40):
Well, the first thing that's happening here is the welcoming
of Putin back into the order of major mainstream nations.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
He is visiting the United States.

Speaker 4 (02:50):
For the first time since he became a war criminal.
He's standing with the most powerful person in the world,
and it is a sign.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
You know, it's at least kind of nice to have
a democratic senator admit that the president of the United
States is the most powerful man in the world.

Speaker 4 (03:06):
And from Donald Trump essentially that all is forgiven. And
so this is a big moment for Putin because he
essentially is being legitimized in the eyes of the United
States and in the eyes of the world as.

Speaker 2 (03:21):
Opposed to doing what.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
As opposed to what just let the carnage continue. And
actually I think it's I think it's a great power
play that Trump has gotten Putin to agree to meet
in Alaska. Now, I think there's actually a much simpler
reason than the irony that people keep pointing out to

(03:48):
me that, you know, Russia one time owned Alaska.

Speaker 2 (03:51):
Oh did they really?

Speaker 1 (03:52):
I never knew that. Holy cow, you mean that the
dictator of Russia is going to land on an area
that used to be owned by them, because we're going
to have discussions about land that they're trying to take
back that they once owned, come on.

Speaker 4 (04:13):
We know there's not going to be any major peace
deal here, largely because one of the parties for the
war isn't at the table. You can't sign a peace
agreement if Zelensky isn't there.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
I think it's absolutely legitimate that Zelensky is not there
for these initial conversations.

Speaker 2 (04:34):
How far have.

Speaker 1 (04:35):
Negotiations gotten between Trump and I'm sorry, between Zelensky and
Putin up to this point nowhere? How about any meetings
between Biden and Putin?

Speaker 2 (04:46):
None?

Speaker 1 (04:47):
So that well, I think that back there may have
been one. I'm not sure of that. Are there been
a lot of meetings between Biden and Zelensky? And what
did that get us?

Speaker 2 (04:58):
Nothing?

Speaker 1 (04:59):
The wars continues, and in fact Russia's but you need
to make advances. So again, this is the cabal just
really trying to establish that this is going to be
a failure if Trump doesn't walk out with an agreement.
I actually think if Trump walks out without an agreement,
much like Reagan did with Gorbachev, that's a victory.

Speaker 4 (05:22):
And so there is not going to be any breakthrough.
And my worry is that, well, the photo op in
and of it's.

Speaker 2 (05:31):
So what you know, i'd like.

Speaker 1 (05:34):
Now, obviously the CNN reporter app is never going to
ask this question, but if she were really listening to
this answer, she would ask, well, then are you suggesting
me we just not try anything.

Speaker 2 (05:48):
That Trump should just.

Speaker 1 (05:50):
You know, say, hey, you know what, keep fighting, boys,
keep fighting, and we'll just keep sending material and you know,
equipment and everything over and so we'll NATO in our
European allies and we'll just you know, we'll just keep
on going. Millions of people dying, well, we'll just let
it keep going.

Speaker 4 (06:10):
Yeah, self, essentially legitimizes war crimes, telegraphs to other autocrats
or evil men around the world that they can get
away with murdering civilians and still get a photo op
with the president of the United States.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
I just find this so naive.

Speaker 1 (06:31):
We deal with dictators, and insofar as being an international
war criminal, I do believe that Vladimir Putin has engaged.

Speaker 2 (06:41):
In war crimes.

Speaker 3 (06:43):
Hmmm.

Speaker 1 (06:45):
So have other dictators, both alive and in previous lives.
Have they engaged in war crimes and we've ultimately had
to deal with them. In fact, if we don't with them,
they'll just continue to engage in the war crimes. In fact,
I would say to Chris Murphy, if Putin is an

(07:08):
international war criminal and he is engaged in war crimes,
and you want to stop that, well, then short of
what US intervening in Ukraine and US doing like to
the Ukraine or to the Russians like we did to
the Iranians, are we supposed to send some you know,

(07:28):
you know, stealth bombers over and just blow the feces
out of Russia or Crimea or Kaliningrad or something and
stop everything. Because that's not going to stop everything. That
will that will lead to World War three. So and
that's what you're saying, Chris Murphy is uh, yeah, let's
go to World War three? Uh he Of course, of

(07:51):
course he's not the only one. When when you think
about it, everybody, all the talking heads are all talking
about how this is this is an utter failure and
you know, we can't we cannot believe that this is
going on.

Speaker 2 (08:02):
We got to stop it.

Speaker 1 (08:03):
Blah blah blah blah blah, Mike Mike McFall over on MS.

Speaker 5 (08:09):
No question, Putin is seen as much weaker today than
he was at the beginning of this war three and
a half years ago. The military has been exposed, the
economies in tough shape. But to your point, he's already
achieved something of a victory readmission to the international community,
at least to a degree, by getting the summit one
on one with the President of the United States.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
It's bye by meeting with Putin on American soil. Somehow
that legitimizes Vladimir Putin. No, that's just dealing with the
real world. Wouldn't you rather have Putin come to us
as opposed to Trump going to Moscow or Saint Petersburg.

(08:53):
I perceive it entirely different. I think that this is
exactly how uh it should have played out. But again,
let's go back to the Financial times. Because they're really
afraid because there won't be any experts in the room.
That means that they want you to believe that here
you have a neanderthal Donald Trump who's going to be outmatched,

(09:17):
he's going to be deprived of sage counsel, and he's
going to be manipulated. But I would posit this, what
if the absence of these stupid so called experts is
not a deficiency or a mistake, but it's actually an advantage.

(09:38):
What if the very people who now are just owned
wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth because the experts
are being excluded. Oh, those are the same ones that
have led the United States into debucles from which we
have yet to recover. Now to answer this, let's examine

(09:58):
the records of the experts that the Financial Times actually
cites in their article as being indispensable to these negotiations.
All familiar names, Eric Rubin, Eric Green, Fiona Hill, Daniel Freed,
John Bolton. Every single one of those has held esteam positions,
They've all written policy papers, they've all been in the room,
so to speak. And yet every one of those individuals,

(10:21):
in very critical moments, has been associated with strategies and
judgments and advice that proved disastrously, disastrously wrong. Eric Rubin
is warning that Trump doesn't have any policy maker with
Russia or Ukraine expertise advising him, and then he points to, well,
there's low morale in the diplomatic corps, there are still

(10:44):
vacancies in the State Department. There's low morale in the
diplomatic corps because there's a new sheriff in town that
is an America first president, and vacant posts always vacant
posts in a transition, but Eric Rubin's own tenure offers

(11:06):
very little evidence that somehow his expertise is going to
translate into some sort of effective deterrence. In twenty fourteen,
Eric Rubin was the deputy Assistant Secretary in the State
Department's European Bureau. He helped manage the Obama administration's respond
to the Russian annexation of Crimea. What was that response?

Speaker 2 (11:31):
Remember?

Speaker 1 (11:33):
Russia invaded and took possession of Crimea under the auspices
or under the now during the tenure of Barack Obama,
and Eric Rubin was the one in the State Department who,
as the head of European Affairs the deputy Assistant secretary
meaningless wanted Obama and convinced Obama to impose meaningless sanctions,

(11:58):
worthless diplomatic rebuke. And most importantly, he's the one that
said we should refuse to provide Ukraine with defensive arms.
And so what do you get when you put all
of that in the stepot and stir it up. You
don't get Crimea back. You get a frozen conflict that

(12:20):
actually emboldened the Ruskies and then gave them the platform
set the stage, if you will, for future aggression, which
went on hold for four years and then went right
back into action once Biden took office. So you see,

(12:40):
expertise in Eric Rubin's case was not the bulwark that
the Financial Times or the cabal believes is going to
stop expansionism, but instead it was a disguise for the
timidity and the hesitancy that both Obama and Biden kind
of exposed to Putin, which empowered Putin. So the first

(13:05):
expert that they cite that should be in the room,
I would say, hmm, I think you might actually be
a cause for the reason we're in the position when
you're in right now, Eric Green, he's out there cautioning
that Trump could be out maneuvered by Putin because he
doesn't have any seasoned advisors near him.

Speaker 2 (13:24):
Well.

Speaker 1 (13:26):
Eric Green was President Biden's top Russian aid on the
National Security Council before and during the twenty twenty two
invasion of Ukraine.

Speaker 2 (13:36):
That team's deterrence headed by Eric Green. That team's deterrence strategy.

Speaker 1 (13:43):
Relied on publicly releasing intelligence about Russia's invasion plans, and
they were doing.

Speaker 2 (13:49):
That trying to shame and deter Putin.

Speaker 1 (13:53):
That shows me an absolute naivety ignorance if you will,
about Putin's my mindset. Oh you exposed my invasion plans.
I don't really, I don't care. What are you gonna do?
What are you gonna do with those I'm just going
to throw a hunk of meat in the form of
military personnel, and of course you know rockets and you

(14:17):
know tanks and everything else. And I'm going to invade
and I know you're You're not going to do anything
because your only.

Speaker 2 (14:23):
Remember remember the one word don't. Don't The old.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
Man and the Cacklan Camelt stood up and said don't,
and he said, really, hold my beer. That same Eric
Green refused to negotiate on NATO expansion, even symbolically, even
even pretending to negotiate it.

Speaker 2 (14:47):
So what did that do?

Speaker 1 (14:50):
You may say, well, we don't want Ukraine and NATO,
and that is now a deal that Putin wants and
it's a deal break for Putin. Well, the problem is
when when you foreclose any diplomatic off ramp by even
symbolically refusing refusing to negotiate on NATO expansion, you don't

(15:10):
have any diplomatic off ramp. And whether you believe that
an offering such an off ramp would have worked. Doesn't
make any difference, because the fact remains that Eric Green's
expert led strategy failed on its own terms. They never
achieved a terrence. The war came anyway. The war came

(15:31):
air regardless. And I use that word specifically because it
shows just how stupid.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
Their whole deterrence plan was. Feel on a Hill.

Speaker 1 (15:42):
Feel on a Hill recalls considering faking a seizure to
stop Trump's twenty eighteen Helsinki press conference with Putin. She
was actually going to fake a seizure. Somehow she thinks
that's proper state craft. Did you go look at her
own record. It's a litany of serious misjudgment. In O four,

(16:05):
she urged Western leaders to stop blaming Putin and start
helping Putin, a recommendation that now reads today is kind
of naive. She co authored a UK defensery view that
was so alarming that most historians and former ambassadors condemned
it as simply warmongering based on a false premise. Now,

(16:26):
if Trump's press conference was awkward, Hill's advocacy for gearing
Britain for near total mobilization against Russia is probably far
more risky than even you know, fakiness seizure. Daniel Freed,
he's listed. He argues that Trump and his advisor Steve
Whitcoff just don't know enough. They need an expert in

(16:47):
the room to challenge with the president. Putin Freed's own career.
Maybe I'll just cause us to stop and pause for
Romm because he was an architect of NATO's would expansion,
and that eastward expansion is what fueled Russian paranoia and
ultimately Russian aggression. Now, he was part of the Bush

(17:11):
administration diplomatic team in the run.

Speaker 2 (17:12):
Up to the Iraq War.

Speaker 1 (17:15):
He was the one that wanted to split Europe into
Old Europe and New York New Europe in order to
secure support for the invasion. How'd that work out, mister Freed? Yeah,
we don't need no stinking next. I haven't even gotten
John Bolton yet.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
I heard that Trump is going to give Alaska back
to Russia.

Speaker 1 (17:38):
Well, okay, I mean it's just too far away anyway.

Speaker 3 (17:45):
Girl, Dad's going to be in a Russian citizen here there.

Speaker 2 (17:47):
Yeah, he's gonna be a Russian citizen.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
You know, he'll have to learn Russian and he'll, you know,
he'll give us an insider in Russian think about that. Yeah, yeah,
I gil. Well, let's see, now CNN's playing as a chiron.
I'm not here to negotiate for Ukraine. And now they've
got former Secretary of State William cohenon I'm sure bitching

(18:12):
about that. Let's go back to this list of financial times.
John Bolton, the Mustache, Well, he completely dismisses Trump's preparation habits.
He recalled it in twenty eighteen, the President watched soccer
reels instead of attending a nuclear briefing. Now Bolton is

(18:37):
the most famous of the group, and John Bolton's record
is equally famous for its failures. He was a top
State Department official. He was a key proponent of the
claim that saw them Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction,
a claim that ultimately turned out to be false. The
invasion of Iraq, which Bolton still defends, costs hundreds of

(18:58):
thousands of lies, stabilized the Middle East, its strengthen the
Iranian regional position, and Bolten has repeatedly advocated for preventive
war against the Iranians and the North Koreans, often with
nothing more than just his own assertion that we ought
to do it, without ever giving us a rationalization or

(19:19):
illogical reason why we should do that. Now, if Trump
prefers to trust his own instincts over the council of
someone like John Bolton, that may be less a sign
of recklessness than it is a sign of prudence. But
there's really a consistent pattern here. These people are all
part of the expert class. Reuben Greenhill freed Bolton, all

(19:43):
of them, and they have all over the past decades
they presided over policies that failed to deter our adversaries.
They've squandered our credibility. They've destabilized entire regions in the world,
in some cases have led directly to war. Yet here
they are enjoying the prestige of their titles, and they

(20:04):
never pay any sort of personal price for their mistakes.
And now they're here warning us that without them all
we got to be in the room, the entire country,
the entire world is at risk. I think the greater
risk lies in continuing to entrust our national strategy to
those whose track records are defined by failure. The idea

(20:26):
that president after president should defer to career diplomats who
have repeatedly failed is just idiocracy. Expertise is not inherently good.
It's only valuable when it's grounded in really sound judgment, adaptability,
a willingness to learn from your mistakes, and an absence
of anyone or all of those qualities. Expertise is simply

(20:50):
a reinforcing credential that someone can use to defend the
status quo long after it's been discredited. And the critics
of Trump say that he prizes loyalty over experience.

Speaker 2 (21:04):
Well, that completely neglects to.

Speaker 1 (21:08):
Note that the experience in question is often experienced in
getting things wrong. A president that seeks counsel from successful
deal makers, skilled negotiators, those with real world achievements outside
the foreign policy bubble are probably actually expanding the range

(21:30):
of options that are available to Trump in business, just
as in diplomacy, as in almost anything in life, a
fresh perspective can expose the blind spots that if you're
an insider or you're wearing the blinders, you don't see
the blind spots. I'm not claiming that negotiating with Putin

(21:53):
is going to be easy. I've negotiated with Putins with
some of Putin's minions, some of his ministers, and it
is it's intimidating, it's a little a little scary at times,
and it's difficult, it is draining, But somehow to insist

(22:14):
that the burden of proof is shifted. Really after i Raq,
afghan the debacle in Afghanistan, after Libya, after the failure
of the Biden administration to deter Russia.

Speaker 2 (22:27):
Don't.

Speaker 1 (22:27):
Oh no, that's that's their diplomacy right there, one word, don't.
So it's the Financial Times wants to frame this meeting
in Alaska as a contest in which Trump is going
in unarmed. The truth is he may be leaving behind
the very weapons that have been misfiring for decades, and

(22:49):
in fact, when you think about who's going, I find
it kind of encouraging.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
Now I don't know.

Speaker 1 (22:59):
I can't ascertain for certain whether or not. I don't
think the vice president is going. In fact, I think
it would be wise for the vice president to not go.
I understand that Alaska is one of the fifty seven
US states, and so he's going to be on American soil,
on an American base, But nonetheless he's a long ways away.

(23:21):
If something happens elsewhere in the world. You need the
Vice president in DC so that he can walk into
the pawk or the situation room and you know, handle
help Trump handle matters while he's you know, coming back
from Alaska. If the world goes to hell in a handbasket.
I don't know that the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is

(23:42):
included in the entourage or not. I just don't know.
Here's who I don't do know is going Marco Arubio, Well, duh, MARKL.
Rubio has proven his credentials. Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary.
I think that's a brilliant move because tariffs, rare minerals,

(24:04):
the Russian economy, trade, all of that's going to be
on the agenda. This is not a If you think
that this meeting is solely about Ukraine, then you're sorely
mistaken and quite honestly naive, because this is Ukraine is
the impetus for it, and Ukraine is the primary goal

(24:30):
by stopping the conflict. But to stop the conflict, you
cannot do that in a vacuum. If you're going to
stop the conflict, you have to first establish or in
this case, re establish your relationship Trump has to draw
his red lines. He has to be able to say

(24:51):
to putin face to face that if you're not willing
to budge on anything, then I'm going home. And Congress
has already has a package of sanctions ready. All I
have to do is give the green light, and the
House and the Senate are going to pass them. They
have enough Democrat votes to in fact, it will overwhelmingly

(25:14):
pass and Trump will sign it, and the wobbly Russian
economy will start into We'll go into a free fall
if it's not already in the free fall. So having
Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick the Commerce Secretary, having Steve Whitcoff
the Special Envoy to the Middle East and actually special
envoid to everything is incredibly wise. He's got the CIA

(25:40):
director with him, He's got Susie Wiles with him, which
in the grand scheme of things, may actually be the
most important person there because Susie Wiles. I haven't done
anything on air about her at all, but I've been

(26:00):
doing all this reading about her background, her style, her
personal life, everything, And I think right now probably the
most influential person in the West Wing is Susie Wiles.
The chief of Staff, and quite frankly, I think that's

(26:21):
the way it should be. Yeah, you need to listen
to your CIA director, you need to listen to your
DN I. You need to listen to your Treasury and
Commerce and all your other secretaries, including you know, Christy
Nome everybody else. Yes, all of those, but probably the
most important because of the she has unfettered, absolute, any
time of day or night, access to the President, and

(26:46):
the President has trust in her. This is a meeting
in which Trump's going to dominate the conversation. And in fact,
I bet we will have reports that Trump's going to
spend time in a room alone with Putin and a

(27:08):
soul translator. So all these other people, the ones that
are on the manifest, Yeah, they need to be there.

Speaker 2 (27:18):
And of course part of the cabal is going to
be there.

Speaker 1 (27:21):
And I understand that people like Brett Bear are actually
going to be doing some interviews on the trip there
and on the trip back. But this meeting is going
to be focused. And I'll tell you on what.

Speaker 2 (27:33):
They are not playing cards, mister Trump.

Speaker 1 (27:40):
Not playing gods. We hold all the cards. We're not
playing cards. You understand what I'm saying. Obviously, this means
going to be focused on Trump's desire, because he has
a really deep desire to end the Ukraine Russia slash
NATO war. I don't think think it's clear that Putin

(28:00):
shares that desire at the moment. So unless the settlement
on favorable terms is put on the table concession of
perhaps maybe the Dombass region, I think that may be
a key point. I don't think Putin has much of
an intinity to stop the death and the destruction. Now,
Trump told the press yesterday that it's called with European leaders,
and Zelensky went very well, and that the Europeans were

(28:24):
all on board with at least the concept of reaching
a settlement, but we don't know what the details of
those were. And then you got some of these leaders
like mcron and Starmer. They've said that they would not
accept any settlement which concedes territory to Russia. Now, if
they hold firm on that posturing, which I believe is
naive posturing, Trump's gonna have a ton of work to

(28:47):
do to apply our leverage to those. I guess suppose
it allies, because a realistic view of what's going on
is there will be territory given up. It's now a
question of where and how much This territory historically and

(29:13):
contemporaneously is now Russian territory. They occupy it. I understand
the invasion was unlawful, violation of international law every I mean,
you can put all the negatives on it you want to,
but the conqueror, the conqueror has conquered, and at some

(29:35):
point I think that some polls even indicate that even
the Ukrainians agree. So if you agree with the premise
that some territory is going to have to be given up,
now your negotiation. You're negotiating the fine points of how
much and where, and the Europeans are going to have

(29:57):
to come to that realization.

Speaker 2 (30:01):
But while Ukraine is.

Speaker 1 (30:03):
The main objective, don't expect a miracle announcement of peace
in our time at some joint press conference between Russia
and Ukraine, or even between US and Russia once the
meetings can conclude, because I don't think that's even on
the table right now. I think there are a lot

(30:26):
of topics on the table, including peace, but it's more
of Okay, the end go way over here, five miles
down the road, is ending this war. We've taken no
steps to that direction except this meeting. This is the
first baby step, and I think Trump is indicated quite

(30:49):
clearly as when he talks about I'll know in the
first two, three, four or five minutes whether Putin has
any interest or not that and I think he understands
his history, particularly Reagan and Gorbachev, that walking away is
not necessarily the end, but the beginning of the negotiations,

(31:10):
because Putin has to know that Trump's willing to walk away.
And if Trump has to walk away to prove that
the Vlad, then I think Trump will do that. But
if stopping the Ukraine War is the ultimate goal, there
are all these other preferal issues that still have to

(31:31):
be dealt with nuclear arms control, economic cooperation and trade,
global security, bilateral relations. This is an attempt, in my opinion,
it really is an attempt for a broader state of
US Russia relations. They've been severely strained. And I know

(31:53):
they're communists, but we should have a relationship with Russia,
just as we have a relationship with China, and I
think this is the start of that. Energy is going
to be a discussion. You've got, uh, you gotta remember
another key energy related item, Ukraine is rich in energy minerals,

(32:16):
including lithium, titanium, graphite, uranium, natural gas, all sorts of things,
and a good portion of those resources is underneath the
Donbass region, and putin covets that region, it would be
it would be surprised that all Trump uses that reality
is leverage as well, and I think he will. There's

(32:40):
a lot moving There are a lot of moving parts here,
most of which you and I are not privy to.
I only think I have a little insight into it,
having been involved in these style of negotiations. I've been
involved in negotiations to end the war, but I've been
involved in negotiations about US and Russian really relationships, and

(33:02):
I think and US Russian and natal relationships, and I
think the willingness to walk away is probably the strongest.
And trust me, if that happens, if Trump walks away,
the cabal will just explode like a volcano about how
Trump has failed.

Speaker 2 (33:22):
Do not believe that.

Speaker 1 (33:25):
I absolutely believe that even if Trump walks away and
he turns the plane around and comes back within two.

Speaker 2 (33:32):
Hours, that's not the end. That's the beginning.