Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Delighted to welcome Victoria Coats to the program from the
Heritage Foundation. Victoria is a former deputy National Security advisor
to President Trump. And here we are the morning after
reports emerged that President Biden has authorized the use of
American made long range missiles by Ukraine to fire deep
(00:21):
inside Russia, and people are nervous, me among them. Victoria,
good morning, Good to have you on.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Good morning, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
What do you think will be the upshot of this?
Putin has said if that happens, that's tantamount to the
US entering the war.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Yeah. I think your nervousness is well placed, and I
join you in that sentiment. I mean, the problem here
is not a particular sensitivity for Russian borders. I mean
they haven't been very sensitive to Ukraine's borders. But rather,
why is this a good idea? Now? Why wasn't it
a good idea two years ago when Ukraine had some advantages,
(00:58):
It looked like they were actually making some very strong progress.
You could just have tipped the balance of the war
two years ago. And if not, why is now the
moment to take this action? And the Russians have been
very clear they consider this a significant provocation. As they said,
I don't necessarily disagree, but there's been no rationale for
this or any other action Biden's team has taken on Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
I have heard from suspicious conservative Donald Trump Junior among them,
and some of our listeners among them as well, that
this is President Biden saying, Okay, I'm going to get
this war to the point where Donald Trump can't come
in and ended quickly. What do you think of that point? Right?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
No? I agree, and that's you know, that is why
I'm really suspicious of the timing here. But I think
they're doing this not for strategic reasons, but to try
to force the President elect's hand, you know. And this
is very very serious though. You could see this provoking
Putin into using a tactical nuke, which he's been threatening
since the beginning of the war, which then leads a
(02:05):
real hornets nest for the President elect. And I really
think this is a decision that he should be making,
since he'll be directing the policy for the next four years,
not buying teams.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Victoria Coats with Us from Heritage Foundation, former Deputy National
Security advisor to President Trump in his first term. Victoria,
I've always thought. I've always operated from this assumption, and
maybe you can disabuse me of it or confirm it
that the difference between Putin and G and even Little
Rocketman in North Korea and the maniacs in Iran is
(02:42):
that Putin and G and others don't want a nuclear conflagration.
They don't think they're going to go and get, you know,
blessings from Allah, they if they immolate themselves and us
in the process. Do you think that is not necessarily
true in the case of Putin when it comes to
tactical nukes.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
I think it's a complicated picture, and because I think
I would have strongly agreed with you four and a
half years ago. But what we've seen over the course
of the Biden administration is increased collaborations the wrong word
collusion between the countries you mentioned. I call them crink China,
(03:29):
Russia ran North Korea, and we had a deal between
Iran and China in March of twenty twenty one for
four hundred billion dollars over twenty five years, which has
really been the lifeline to the Iranian economy, which is
now much in much better shape than it was when
Donald Trump left office and so you know what I'm
(03:49):
concerned about is, you know, they now see themselves as
kind of a modern day specter, and you have you know,
China bank rolling both in all three countries. Essentially, you've
got Iranian drones going into Ukraine. You've got North Korean
troops going into Russia. You've got Russian missiles going to
the Iranian proxies in Yemen. So the concern there is
(04:11):
the Iranians are the only group in that little club
that isn't right now a nuclear weapons state. And so
I'm really really worried about proliferation.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Crank. I gotta say, I like, Crank, like, I have
to remember that one. What do you I don't know
that you're a nuclear weapons expert, Victoria, but you're certainly
more of one than I am. What would what they
call tactical or battlefield nuclear weapon look like in the
(04:42):
big picture compared to in.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
ICBM, right, And it's a much smaller effort. And I share,
I share your ignorance of nuclear weapons. I'm trained as
an art historian, but I do employ a fantastic nuclear
expert named Bob Peters, So if your listeners are interested,
he publishes extensively at heritage on this issue. So this
(05:06):
would be, you know, a major escalation of the war.
It would be the most powerful weapon that had been
deployed to date. But it's not like Kroshima. So so
that's that is an issue. You know, how do then
we respond? Do we respond, you know, with armageddon nukes
to something that is comparatively small? What are our options?
(05:26):
We don't have a whole lot of good ones in
that event. It's why we've been arguing very strongly for
nuclear modernization because we do need something shy of armageddon.
If China or Russia were to take the step of
using using a tactical.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Nukes just before we run here, what does your expertise
tell you, Victoria that our timeline is here to see
some response from Russia on this today, next week, next month.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
What I think, you know, my hope is, and I'm
not usually a terribly optimistic person given my line of work,
but my hope is that that Putin, as he has signaled,
realizes that the new sheriff is returned, or the new
sheriff is coming to town. And you know, the only
time he didn't invade Ukraine over the last roughly twenty
(06:17):
years was under President Trump, and so that he would
he would choose not to, you know, get enormously escalatory
during this period. That is my hope, though I don't
know that's the case, and it's the Ukrainians, you know,
take this authority and execute a major strike, you know,
one hundred miles into Russia. You know that all bets
(06:38):
are off and we no longer control that.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
So much appreciate your expertise on short notice this morning, Victoria.
Thank you, Thank you,
Delighted to welcome Victoria Coats to the program from the
Heritage Foundation. Victoria is a former deputy National Security advisor
to President Trump. And here we are the morning after
reports emerged that President Biden has authorized the use of
American made long range missiles by Ukraine to fire deep
(00:21):
inside Russia, and people are nervous, me among them. Victoria,
good morning, Good to have you on.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Good morning, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
What do you think will be the upshot of this?
Putin has said if that happens, that's tantamount to the
US entering the war.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Yeah. I think your nervousness is well placed, and I
join you in that sentiment. I mean, the problem here
is not a particular sensitivity for Russian borders. I mean
they haven't been very sensitive to Ukraine's borders. But rather,
why is this a good idea? Now? Why wasn't it
a good idea two years ago when Ukraine had some advantages,
(00:58):
It looked like they were actually making some very strong progress.
You could just have tipped the balance of the war
two years ago. And if not, why is now the
moment to take this action? And the Russians have been
very clear they consider this a significant provocation. As they said,
I don't necessarily disagree, but there's been no rationale for
this or any other action Biden's team has taken on Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
I have heard from suspicious conservative Donald Trump Junior among them,
and some of our listeners among them as well, that
this is President Biden saying, Okay, I'm going to get
this war to the point where Donald Trump can't come
in and ended quickly. What do you think of that point? Right?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
No? I agree, and that's you know, that is why
I'm really suspicious of the timing here. But I think
they're doing this not for strategic reasons, but to try
to force the President elect's hand, you know. And this
is very very serious though. You could see this provoking
Putin into using a tactical nuke, which he's been threatening
since the beginning of the war, which then leads a
(02:05):
real hornets nest for the President elect. And I really
think this is a decision that he should be making,
since he'll be directing the policy for the next four years,
not buying teams.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Victoria Coats with Us from Heritage Foundation, former Deputy National
Security advisor to President Trump in his first term. Victoria,
I've always thought. I've always operated from this assumption, and
maybe you can disabuse me of it or confirm it
that the difference between Putin and G and even Little
Rocketman in North Korea and the maniacs in Iran is
(02:42):
that Putin and G and others don't want a nuclear conflagration.
They don't think they're going to go and get, you know,
blessings from Allah, they if they immolate themselves and us
in the process. Do you think that is not necessarily
true in the case of Putin when it comes to
tactical nukes.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
I think it's a complicated picture, and because I think
I would have strongly agreed with you four and a
half years ago. But what we've seen over the course
of the Biden administration is increased collaborations the wrong word
collusion between the countries you mentioned. I call them crink China,
(03:29):
Russia ran North Korea, and we had a deal between
Iran and China in March of twenty twenty one for
four hundred billion dollars over twenty five years, which has
really been the lifeline to the Iranian economy, which is
now much in much better shape than it was when
Donald Trump left office and so you know what I'm
(03:49):
concerned about is, you know, they now see themselves as
kind of a modern day specter, and you have you know,
China bank rolling both in all three countries. Essentially, you've
got Iranian drones going into Ukraine. You've got North Korean
troops going into Russia. You've got Russian missiles going to
the Iranian proxies in Yemen. So the concern there is
(04:11):
the Iranians are the only group in that little club
that isn't right now a nuclear weapons state. And so
I'm really really worried about proliferation.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Crank. I gotta say, I like, Crank, like, I have
to remember that one. What do you I don't know
that you're a nuclear weapons expert, Victoria, but you're certainly
more of one than I am. What would what they
call tactical or battlefield nuclear weapon look like in the
(04:42):
big picture compared to in.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
ICBM, right, And it's a much smaller effort. And I share,
I share your ignorance of nuclear weapons. I'm trained as
an art historian, but I do employ a fantastic nuclear
expert named Bob Peters, So if your listeners are interested,
he publishes extensively at heritage on this issue. So this
(05:06):
would be, you know, a major escalation of the war.
It would be the most powerful weapon that had been
deployed to date. But it's not like Kroshima. So so
that's that is an issue. You know, how do then
we respond? Do we respond, you know, with armageddon nukes
to something that is comparatively small? What are our options?
(05:26):
We don't have a whole lot of good ones in
that event. It's why we've been arguing very strongly for
nuclear modernization because we do need something shy of armageddon.
If China or Russia were to take the step of
using using a tactical.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Nukes just before we run here, what does your expertise
tell you, Victoria that our timeline is here to see
some response from Russia on this today, next week, next month.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
What I think, you know, my hope is, and I'm
not usually a terribly optimistic person given my line of work,
but my hope is that that Putin, as he has signaled,
realizes that the new sheriff is returned, or the new
sheriff is coming to town. And you know, the only
time he didn't invade Ukraine over the last roughly twenty
(06:17):
years was under President Trump, and so that he would
he would choose not to, you know, get enormously escalatory
during this period. That is my hope, though I don't
know that's the case, and it's the Ukrainians, you know,
take this authority and execute a major strike, you know,
one hundred miles into Russia. You know that all bets
(06:38):
are off and we no longer control that.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
So much appreciate your expertise on short notice this morning, Victoria.
Thank you, Thank you,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!