Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Mark Toss joins us and he's been on the show before,
and his writing partner, John Sweet has been on the
show before.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
John was on actually last week.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
And these guys both write a lot about national security
and you know, America's strategic interests around the world and
so on, and we're going to talk.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
About that in a second.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
But a moment ago, Mark told me he has a dog,
and I asked him the dog's name.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
And Mark, you said, your dog's name is Zeppelin.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Zeppelin, And I asked, Mark, is that named for the
band or for the Hindenburg, thinking that the answer was
going to be the band, And the answer, Mark, is.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Hindenburg by way of the Zeppelin, which toured the US
in the nineteen twenties.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Okay, elaborate like you did for me, because the story
is so good.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
There you go.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
My dad, I think it was maybe nineteen thirty something
like that when the graf Zeppelin was flying the US
coast coast. It flew over Kansas City, Missouri, when my
dad was a small boy. And my dad was the
son of a World War One fighter pilot and he
himself became a World War Two aviator.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
So just a nod to our aviation heritage.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Love it. That's such a great story. I'm so glad
I asked you that question.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
We're gonna spend most of our time this morning talking
about the note that you wrote with John Sweet about Ukraine, Russia,
World War III and all that. I just want to
take one minute and do this other one first, and
then well and then we'll move on.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
There's a headline over at NPR.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Trump rebuffed by Iran's leader after sending letter calling for
nuclear negotiation. So President Trump said on TV that he
had sent a letter, right, and then.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Kolemani said what you.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Would expect him to say back, although they also said
some stuff on x Slash Twitter that made it sound
like they're open to a conversation.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
What do we need to know?
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Yeah, there's two things. One, this is Iran doing Iranian
kind of things. This mombastic rhetoric is normal, but I
think you have to take it in context of the
moment they're seeing putin basically when it comes to Ukraine
getting Trump to capitulate on basically air negotiating point before
they get to the table. And I think that's what
you're seeing out of Krmenian around, which is basically saying
(02:22):
we don't need to negotiate.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Why, it's simply hoping that they're.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Going to get more concessions coming from Trump to get
to a negotiating table.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
So a bit of it's kabuki there.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
But I think Kameni is misunderstanding because whereas Trump may
win and be cutting the deal, Israel doesn't. Israel wants
that nuclear program gone, and he's playing in a little bit.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
Different neck of the woods.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Okay, I'm with you on all that.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
I would also note that Iran doesn't have air defenses anymore.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
I mean, they're probably trying to rebuild them, but Israel.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Did massive damage to their air defenses, and unlike what's
going on with Ukraine, Donald Trump has more than once
heard to give Israel the green light to do anything
at once with hamas with Iran, with anything. So if
I were Iran, I would think that there's a very
significant chance of an Israeli strike with American backing. And
(03:16):
I don't know how much they fear that. Any thoughts
on that part, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Ross, she'd think they would fear it.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
I mean, certainly, Israel's been sending that signal in many
ways over the last year.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
They sent it to hamas they sent it hezebe Llah.
They've sent it by attacking.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Syria and taking out OURGC targets there, and yet the
message still I don't think is fully resonating in Iran.
I think they do believe that they're going to be
able to keep their nuclear program. They view that in
their minds as something existential that they also view it.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
As something that they want to be able to threaten
Israel with.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
So I do think, as you point out, you have
two countries that just started seeing eye to eye.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
I can't assure you this Israel is not.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
Going to allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon or
at least be able to deliver it. They're on the
verge of nuclear breakout. So I mean, they're almost there.
But this is going to come to a head sooner
as opposed to later.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
I've said on this show, and this is not something
I'm necessarily cheering for, although I think it also wouldn't
break my heart. I've said I expect Israel to attack
Iran this year to try to take out that nuclear capability.
We'll see well, and so you know, as they say
it's a wild ass, guess.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Now it's possible because look they are already at nuclear breakout,
meaning they have sufficient masks, they've got enough highlyen riched uranium.
They've got certainly the capacity to create ten to twelve
nuclear bounds where you get to that highly ensuranium that
said ninety percent HGU. So there, it's just a question
of being able to deliver it. That's that's just something Bob.
(04:49):
And obviously they've not tested it yet, but he used
to say they choose not to test it. I mean
they'd be smart to because the last thing you'd want
to do is new Israel, right and then have it
not go off. But they're getting close in Israel strategically
cannot allow that to happen.
Speaker 4 (05:02):
So I do think it's just a matter of time.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
You're starting to see Trump approved different kinds of weapon
bombs that could be effective in terms of penetrating deep
under in the TODs any other nuclear facilities. So I
suspect it's coming to again. We won't know until we know,
but I think it's a good bet for you to make.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
You and your writing partner John Sweet have a piece
in the UK Daily Mail published yesterday.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
I believe why.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
World War three is already here and how the UK
will need to lead in America's absence as Team Trump
risks losing global conflict to the West's enemies following bust
up with Zelenski and concessions to putin. All right, that's
a long headline, but it's a very in depth article.
Why don't you just start with what you think are
the key top lines and then we'll dig in.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Sure.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Yeah, John and I've been arguing for quite a while
that the West has been in an ideological war of
putting in disease making against US, and it's increasingly turning kinetic,
Ukraine being the first spot that it was turning kinetic.
It's also taken on hybrid forms. We've seen sabotage happening
in Europe. They've put bombs aboard or intended these bombs
to get aboard DHL planes that were based in Germany
(06:16):
and the UK that were headed for Canada and the US.
They've been trying to go after the US in a
hybrid kind of way. You've seen it with the cutting
of cables in the Baltic Sea, Chinese even getting in
the act of late doing that, and around Taiwan to
the pingu Islands there where they're cutting Internet.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Access, so in a variety of ways, and there's so.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Many flashpoints we don't have time to cover them all,
you know, in a radio interview. But when you're looking
at what's happening to Seghil in Africa, when you're looking
at the mechanicians that they're doing to China itself to
create a military footprint by creating economic footpt in places
like Panama, the Magellan Straits, you know, by Antarctica, trying
to do a polar sea route in the north in
(06:56):
the Arctic, which is why Greenland comes up in Trump's mind.
All of those elements are there. And so what John
and I are saying is that this War War three
is here. It doesn't look like what Hollywood said it would.
No mushroom clouds, no, you know, day after nightmare, radioactives, scenarios.
But it's basically wre by a thousand cuts, and that
(07:16):
we've got to recognize that that's what we're in. And
I'm not quite sure yet. And again I say to
say politically, I don't do politics. I'm not quite sure
that Trump gets that. I think he thinks he's pivoting
it away from Ukraine and that to get to China,
John and I argue that it's all connected.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Yeah. I often say on my.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Show that the most tangled and complex domestic politics is
simpler than the simplest international affairs. International affairs are so complex,
the primary reason being that countries that are negotiating each
(07:57):
other with each other also have domestic audience is at
home that they have to please, and they want to
shore up their own power bases or not get dethroned.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Or killed or in a coup or whatever.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
And it just massively adds to the level of complexity.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Yeah, Russia absolutely, and you've seen this kind of disconnect
also happening at a bilateral basis between the US and
then I say bilateral just to be easy about it.
In the European Union, there is, especially with the Baltic States,
with Poland, there is a deep fear and with well
founded right. They lived through the Cold War, they lived
(08:35):
under Russian suppression. There's a deep fear of what Russia
can be in five years to them. You've got Donald Tusk,
the Prime Minister of Poland, basically.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Saying maybe we need our own nukes.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
I don't think Trump gets the disconnect that he's creating
with Europe by you know, it's his messaging that's off.
There's some very valid points to what he's trying to do. Absolutely,
Europe should be spending more, they should be more committed
to the defense.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
They need to be is upping their NATO defense, spending
their agreements and the like.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Very good on that, But the way that he's going
about it that you know, I may not follow through
an Article five, I may withdraw from NATO, I may
reposition truths from Germany into Hungary. All of those kind
of things are making Europe think he's an unreliable partner
and that's creating this kind of fear and this disconnect
that it's just playing to Putin's advantage and it's not
a good thing. And we're seeing this potentially where Putin
(09:27):
is thinking this is going to result in the US
and the West capitulating in Ukraine.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
And then you've got China sitting there. And again I
apologize for.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
People, because this is a web, it's all interconnected. You've
got China sitting there going, oh, this is great, right,
because a win for Russia is a win for US,
So you know, definitely you're right to say that.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
It's like there's just so many levels to this that
it's often tricky. That's why I took us two.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
Thousand words in the Daily Mail in London to try
to explain and map out just how interconnected all of
us is, and that it is World War three.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Talking with Mark Toth, who along with his writing partner
John Sweet, have a piece that is linked on my blog.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
So it's very easy for you to find.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
If you go to Rosskominsky dot com, the pieces at
the Daily Mail, the UK website Why World War III
is already here.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
I'll just mention to.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Listeners, since I am president at a bad analogy club,
if you want to think about the complexity of different
kinds of politics, right trying to figure out domestic politics,
what's going on in a presidential campaign, for example, it's
kind of like putting one ball on a pool table
and hitting it, or you know, rolling it and predicting
(10:37):
how it will bounce.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
You can predict it pretty well.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Sometimes it will hit a badass corner and bounce not
quite how you expected, but mostly you can predict it.
Imagine how much more difficult it gets to predict where
a ball is going to go when you put a
second ball on the table, and then if you add
a third it actually gets to a level of complexity
that in terms of physics, if you're modeling pool balls,
(11:02):
is darn close to impossible. And that's kind of why
why international affairs are so difficult.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Now, Mark, let me play.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
I know you don't do politics, but I'm going to
play what I will loosely call Trump or a Trump
supporter here. So I believe, and you just said you believe, Mark,
that it is in America's interest and probably the world's
interest for Europe to spend a little bit more on
their own defense, or more than a little bit, maybe
a lot more. So I will say to you now,
(11:33):
playing Trump supporter, there was no way to get them
to do that. After years of coming to understand that
the United States would always be the sucker and always
spend all the money. There's no way to get them
to do that without demonstrating in a way that had
to be very aggressive, because otherwise they wouldn't believe it
(11:53):
that they needed to spend more. And that's why we
need to, you know, so aggressively pull back from being
the primary supporters of Ukraine.
Speaker 4 (12:01):
Yeah, and Trump could have done that. I think my
response to that kind of voter would be. You have
to look at the NATO agreement.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
The two percent cap that are the two percent goal,
if you will, for GDPC defense spending.
Speaker 4 (12:14):
That was a goal that was not a mandate.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
And so the question is did Trump go back and say, hey,
let's change this. If you want the US to continue
to be involved in NATO and the defensive Europe providing
the nuclear shield, et cetera, then let's make this mandatory.
Let's come up with the number three five percent that
we have to get at. And I think those are
the steps that's missing. That's what Europe, I think, is
trying to grapple with. We didn't see this. Instead, we
(12:39):
see the strong arming, We see the threats of terrorists,
We see the threats of withdrawing, you know, NATO bases.
Speaker 4 (12:46):
Which would be completely self defeating.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
I mean, unless we want to become a naval power
in the US, denuding ourselves with NATO air bases, we
couldn't do force projection around the world. Right now, the
US can project a porticated anywhere in the world twenty
four hours, get it any place in the world.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
Huge part of that is because of.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
The NATO basis and the logistics operations that are in Europe,
in Italy and in Germany.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
We couldn't protect Israel to the degree that we are
without those same basis.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
The Mediterranean Fleet is based in Italy, so you know,
kind of that disconnect there.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
I get what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
You know that Republican voter is going to be a
hard push for them to understand. But I think Trump's
messaging could have gotten what he wanted if he went
about it in a different way, in a more productive way.
What he's after Again, we're in agreement. Europe should be
doing more. This fight is closer to them than us.
It's in the strategic interest to do it.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
I want you to play the part now of trump
supporting policy advisor, not just a voter, right. I want
you to do the best you can to explain how
Donald Trump's actions regarding Ukraine so far, and this may
be impossible, but I want you to try, such as
(14:02):
stopping weapons deliveries and limiting intelligence sharing is a useful
step toward ending the war.
Speaker 4 (14:11):
In e Ros. I can't because it's not you know,
in their minds.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
I'll play the role, but it's in their minds they're
thinking that if they can shock Ukraine into capitulating, essentially,
that they can turn this into a transaction and cut
their losses.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
They're viewing this as a business deal. They don't see
a good return in investment, which I disagree with.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
They don't see a good return in investment in Ukraine,
and they simply want to move on and fivot to China,
get out of it, make some money if you can
with an RAM deal and do that. But the problem
is they're taking the two by four and they're hitting
the ally. They're taking their two by four that General
Kellogg talked about about hitting a mule, and they're hitting
a country that is fighting for the virtues that we
(14:52):
as a country espouse, freedom, liberty.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
They're a very church going country. It's just a huge miss, you.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
Know, a view of them here in the US, about
what they are as a people. There are so much
more American than most people understand, and they certainly are
compared to Russia.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
So just frustrating.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
So, you know, as much as I'd love to play
that role, I just can't rationalize it because it's just
such a god op hole.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
It's a godoff hole approach by them.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
It's naive, It just doesn't take into a sufficient account
the global implications to doing that. We can't cut and
run from Ukraine because if we do, we're only going
to face a stronger China for it in the end
of Pacific.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
And then one last quick point here.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
If you're cutting and you're ruining these partnerships in Europe,
why the heck?
Speaker 4 (15:36):
And I have to remember why radio here? Why the heck?
Speaker 3 (15:40):
Is anyone in the end of Pacific going to trust
any kind of relationship, any kind of defense deals you
want to cut with them to deter China. They may
be thinking, well, you know, they turned on Ukraine, maybe
we need to turn and pivot.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Ourselves towards China. It just doesn't make sense overall.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
I thought that might be your answer.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
I always try to play devil advocate and make the
argument even if I don't agree with it, like I
did with you on the previous question, I for the
life of me cannot find a legitimate reason from a
from a national security perspective, even thinking about potential leverage
for the US to be doing what we're doing right now,
(16:18):
it seems extremely harmful to not just to our allies,
but to US.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Mark Tooth and John Sweet's new.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Piece in the UK Daily Mail is why World War
three is already here.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
You can easily find it.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
If you go to my website at Roscominski dot com
and it's it's linked there in the in the guests section.
You can also follow Mark on x formerly Twitter at
mc t O t h mc toth st L.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
Is that for Saint Louis? What is that for?
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Yep, you got it all right, mcp e O t h.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
M C t O t h s t L Mark,
thanks as always for your time thought provoking piece.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Will talk to you again.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
Sounds great, Thanks Ross, alright
Mark Toss joins us and he's been on the show before,
and his writing partner, John Sweet has been on the
show before.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
John was on actually last week.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
And these guys both write a lot about national security
and you know, America's strategic interests around the world and
so on, and we're going to talk.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
About that in a second.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
But a moment ago, Mark told me he has a dog,
and I asked him the dog's name.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
And Mark, you said, your dog's name is Zeppelin.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Zeppelin, And I asked, Mark, is that named for the
band or for the Hindenburg, thinking that the answer was
going to be the band, And the answer, Mark, is.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Hindenburg by way of the Zeppelin, which toured the US
in the nineteen twenties.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Okay, elaborate like you did for me, because the story
is so good.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
There you go.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
My dad, I think it was maybe nineteen thirty something
like that when the graf Zeppelin was flying the US
coast coast. It flew over Kansas City, Missouri, when my
dad was a small boy. And my dad was the
son of a World War One fighter pilot and he
himself became a World War Two aviator.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
So just a nod to our aviation heritage.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Love it. That's such a great story. I'm so glad
I asked you that question.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
We're gonna spend most of our time this morning talking
about the note that you wrote with John Sweet about Ukraine, Russia,
World War III and all that. I just want to
take one minute and do this other one first, and
then well and then we'll move on.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
There's a headline over at NPR.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Trump rebuffed by Iran's leader after sending letter calling for
nuclear negotiation. So President Trump said on TV that he
had sent a letter, right, and then.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Kolemani said what you.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Would expect him to say back, although they also said
some stuff on x Slash Twitter that made it sound
like they're open to a conversation.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
What do we need to know?
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Yeah, there's two things. One, this is Iran doing Iranian
kind of things. This mombastic rhetoric is normal, but I
think you have to take it in context of the
moment they're seeing putin basically when it comes to Ukraine
getting Trump to capitulate on basically air negotiating point before
they get to the table. And I think that's what
you're seeing out of Krmenian around, which is basically saying
(02:22):
we don't need to negotiate.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Why, it's simply hoping that they're.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Going to get more concessions coming from Trump to get
to a negotiating table.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
So a bit of it's kabuki there.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
But I think Kameni is misunderstanding because whereas Trump may
win and be cutting the deal, Israel doesn't. Israel wants
that nuclear program gone, and he's playing in a little bit.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
Different neck of the woods.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Okay, I'm with you on all that.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
I would also note that Iran doesn't have air defenses anymore.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
I mean, they're probably trying to rebuild them, but Israel.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Did massive damage to their air defenses, and unlike what's
going on with Ukraine, Donald Trump has more than once
heard to give Israel the green light to do anything
at once with hamas with Iran, with anything. So if
I were Iran, I would think that there's a very
significant chance of an Israeli strike with American backing. And
(03:16):
I don't know how much they fear that. Any thoughts
on that part, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Ross, she'd think they would fear it.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
I mean, certainly, Israel's been sending that signal in many
ways over the last year.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
They sent it to hamas they sent it hezebe Llah.
They've sent it by attacking.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Syria and taking out OURGC targets there, and yet the
message still I don't think is fully resonating in Iran.
I think they do believe that they're going to be
able to keep their nuclear program. They view that in
their minds as something existential that they also view it.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
As something that they want to be able to threaten
Israel with.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
So I do think, as you point out, you have
two countries that just started seeing eye to eye.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
I can't assure you this Israel is not.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
Going to allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon or
at least be able to deliver it. They're on the
verge of nuclear breakout. So I mean, they're almost there.
But this is going to come to a head sooner
as opposed to later.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
I've said on this show, and this is not something
I'm necessarily cheering for, although I think it also wouldn't
break my heart. I've said I expect Israel to attack
Iran this year to try to take out that nuclear capability.
We'll see well, and so you know, as they say
it's a wild ass, guess.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Now it's possible because look they are already at nuclear breakout,
meaning they have sufficient masks, they've got enough highlyen riched uranium.
They've got certainly the capacity to create ten to twelve
nuclear bounds where you get to that highly ensuranium that
said ninety percent HGU. So there, it's just a question
of being able to deliver it. That's that's just something Bob.
(04:49):
And obviously they've not tested it yet, but he used
to say they choose not to test it. I mean
they'd be smart to because the last thing you'd want
to do is new Israel, right and then have it
not go off. But they're getting close in Israel strategically
cannot allow that to happen.
Speaker 4 (05:02):
So I do think it's just a matter of time.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
You're starting to see Trump approved different kinds of weapon
bombs that could be effective in terms of penetrating deep
under in the TODs any other nuclear facilities. So I
suspect it's coming to again. We won't know until we know,
but I think it's a good bet for you to make.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
You and your writing partner John Sweet have a piece
in the UK Daily Mail published yesterday.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
I believe why.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
World War three is already here and how the UK
will need to lead in America's absence as Team Trump
risks losing global conflict to the West's enemies following bust
up with Zelenski and concessions to putin. All right, that's
a long headline, but it's a very in depth article.
Why don't you just start with what you think are
the key top lines and then we'll dig in.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Sure.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Yeah, John and I've been arguing for quite a while
that the West has been in an ideological war of
putting in disease making against US, and it's increasingly turning kinetic,
Ukraine being the first spot that it was turning kinetic.
It's also taken on hybrid forms. We've seen sabotage happening
in Europe. They've put bombs aboard or intended these bombs
to get aboard DHL planes that were based in Germany
(06:16):
and the UK that were headed for Canada and the US.
They've been trying to go after the US in a
hybrid kind of way. You've seen it with the cutting
of cables in the Baltic Sea, Chinese even getting in
the act of late doing that, and around Taiwan to
the pingu Islands there where they're cutting Internet.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Access, so in a variety of ways, and there's so.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Many flashpoints we don't have time to cover them all,
you know, in a radio interview. But when you're looking
at what's happening to Seghil in Africa, when you're looking
at the mechanicians that they're doing to China itself to
create a military footprint by creating economic footpt in places
like Panama, the Magellan Straits, you know, by Antarctica, trying
to do a polar sea route in the north in
(06:56):
the Arctic, which is why Greenland comes up in Trump's mind.
All of those elements are there. And so what John
and I are saying is that this War War three
is here. It doesn't look like what Hollywood said it would.
No mushroom clouds, no, you know, day after nightmare, radioactives, scenarios.
But it's basically wre by a thousand cuts, and that
(07:16):
we've got to recognize that that's what we're in. And
I'm not quite sure yet. And again I say to
say politically, I don't do politics. I'm not quite sure
that Trump gets that. I think he thinks he's pivoting
it away from Ukraine and that to get to China,
John and I argue that it's all connected.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Yeah. I often say on my.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Show that the most tangled and complex domestic politics is
simpler than the simplest international affairs. International affairs are so complex,
the primary reason being that countries that are negotiating each
(07:57):
other with each other also have domestic audience is at
home that they have to please, and they want to
shore up their own power bases or not get dethroned.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Or killed or in a coup or whatever.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
And it just massively adds to the level of complexity.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Yeah, Russia absolutely, and you've seen this kind of disconnect
also happening at a bilateral basis between the US and
then I say bilateral just to be easy about it.
In the European Union, there is, especially with the Baltic States,
with Poland, there is a deep fear and with well
founded right. They lived through the Cold War, they lived
(08:35):
under Russian suppression. There's a deep fear of what Russia
can be in five years to them. You've got Donald Tusk,
the Prime Minister of Poland, basically.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Saying maybe we need our own nukes.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
I don't think Trump gets the disconnect that he's creating
with Europe by you know, it's his messaging that's off.
There's some very valid points to what he's trying to do. Absolutely,
Europe should be spending more, they should be more committed
to the defense.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
They need to be is upping their NATO defense, spending
their agreements and the like.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Very good on that, But the way that he's going
about it that you know, I may not follow through
an Article five, I may withdraw from NATO, I may
reposition truths from Germany into Hungary. All of those kind
of things are making Europe think he's an unreliable partner
and that's creating this kind of fear and this disconnect
that it's just playing to Putin's advantage and it's not
a good thing. And we're seeing this potentially where Putin
(09:27):
is thinking this is going to result in the US
and the West capitulating in Ukraine.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
And then you've got China sitting there. And again I
apologize for.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
People, because this is a web, it's all interconnected. You've
got China sitting there going, oh, this is great, right,
because a win for Russia is a win for US,
So you know, definitely you're right to say that.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
It's like there's just so many levels to this that
it's often tricky. That's why I took us two.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
Thousand words in the Daily Mail in London to try
to explain and map out just how interconnected all of
us is, and that it is World War three.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Talking with Mark Toth, who along with his writing partner
John Sweet, have a piece that is linked on my blog.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
So it's very easy for you to find.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
If you go to Rosskominsky dot com, the pieces at
the Daily Mail, the UK website Why World War III
is already here.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
I'll just mention to.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Listeners, since I am president at a bad analogy club,
if you want to think about the complexity of different
kinds of politics, right trying to figure out domestic politics,
what's going on in a presidential campaign, for example, it's
kind of like putting one ball on a pool table
and hitting it, or you know, rolling it and predicting
(10:37):
how it will bounce.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
You can predict it pretty well.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Sometimes it will hit a badass corner and bounce not
quite how you expected, but mostly you can predict it.
Imagine how much more difficult it gets to predict where
a ball is going to go when you put a
second ball on the table, and then if you add
a third it actually gets to a level of complexity
that in terms of physics, if you're modeling pool balls,
(11:02):
is darn close to impossible. And that's kind of why
why international affairs are so difficult.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Now, Mark, let me play.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
I know you don't do politics, but I'm going to
play what I will loosely call Trump or a Trump
supporter here. So I believe, and you just said you believe, Mark,
that it is in America's interest and probably the world's
interest for Europe to spend a little bit more on
their own defense, or more than a little bit, maybe
a lot more. So I will say to you now,
(11:33):
playing Trump supporter, there was no way to get them
to do that. After years of coming to understand that
the United States would always be the sucker and always
spend all the money. There's no way to get them
to do that without demonstrating in a way that had
to be very aggressive, because otherwise they wouldn't believe it
(11:53):
that they needed to spend more. And that's why we
need to, you know, so aggressively pull back from being
the primary supporters of Ukraine.
Speaker 4 (12:01):
Yeah, and Trump could have done that. I think my
response to that kind of voter would be. You have
to look at the NATO agreement.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
The two percent cap that are the two percent goal,
if you will, for GDPC defense spending.
Speaker 4 (12:14):
That was a goal that was not a mandate.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
And so the question is did Trump go back and say, hey,
let's change this. If you want the US to continue
to be involved in NATO and the defensive Europe providing
the nuclear shield, et cetera, then let's make this mandatory.
Let's come up with the number three five percent that
we have to get at. And I think those are
the steps that's missing. That's what Europe, I think, is
trying to grapple with. We didn't see this. Instead, we
(12:39):
see the strong arming, We see the threats of terrorists,
We see the threats of withdrawing, you know, NATO bases.
Speaker 4 (12:46):
Which would be completely self defeating.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
I mean, unless we want to become a naval power
in the US, denuding ourselves with NATO air bases, we
couldn't do force projection around the world. Right now, the
US can project a porticated anywhere in the world twenty
four hours, get it any place in the world.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
Huge part of that is because of.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
The NATO basis and the logistics operations that are in Europe,
in Italy and in Germany.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
We couldn't protect Israel to the degree that we are
without those same basis.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
The Mediterranean Fleet is based in Italy, so you know,
kind of that disconnect there.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
I get what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
You know that Republican voter is going to be a
hard push for them to understand. But I think Trump's
messaging could have gotten what he wanted if he went
about it in a different way, in a more productive way.
What he's after Again, we're in agreement. Europe should be
doing more. This fight is closer to them than us.
It's in the strategic interest to do it.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
I want you to play the part now of trump
supporting policy advisor, not just a voter, right. I want
you to do the best you can to explain how
Donald Trump's actions regarding Ukraine so far, and this may
be impossible, but I want you to try, such as
(14:02):
stopping weapons deliveries and limiting intelligence sharing is a useful
step toward ending the war.
Speaker 4 (14:11):
In e Ros. I can't because it's not you know,
in their minds.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
I'll play the role, but it's in their minds they're
thinking that if they can shock Ukraine into capitulating, essentially,
that they can turn this into a transaction and cut
their losses.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
They're viewing this as a business deal. They don't see
a good return in investment, which I disagree with.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
They don't see a good return in investment in Ukraine,
and they simply want to move on and fivot to China,
get out of it, make some money if you can
with an RAM deal and do that. But the problem
is they're taking the two by four and they're hitting
the ally. They're taking their two by four that General
Kellogg talked about about hitting a mule, and they're hitting
a country that is fighting for the virtues that we
(14:52):
as a country espouse, freedom, liberty.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
They're a very church going country. It's just a huge miss, you.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
Know, a view of them here in the US, about
what they are as a people. There are so much
more American than most people understand, and they certainly are
compared to Russia.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
So just frustrating.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
So, you know, as much as I'd love to play
that role, I just can't rationalize it because it's just
such a god op hole.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
It's a godoff hole approach by them.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
It's naive, It just doesn't take into a sufficient account
the global implications to doing that. We can't cut and
run from Ukraine because if we do, we're only going
to face a stronger China for it in the end
of Pacific.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
And then one last quick point here.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
If you're cutting and you're ruining these partnerships in Europe,
why the heck?
Speaker 4 (15:36):
And I have to remember why radio here? Why the heck?
Speaker 3 (15:40):
Is anyone in the end of Pacific going to trust
any kind of relationship, any kind of defense deals you
want to cut with them to deter China. They may
be thinking, well, you know, they turned on Ukraine, maybe
we need to turn and pivot.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Ourselves towards China. It just doesn't make sense overall.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
I thought that might be your answer.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
I always try to play devil advocate and make the
argument even if I don't agree with it, like I
did with you on the previous question, I for the
life of me cannot find a legitimate reason from a
from a national security perspective, even thinking about potential leverage
for the US to be doing what we're doing right now,
(16:18):
it seems extremely harmful to not just to our allies,
but to US.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Mark Tooth and John Sweet's new.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Piece in the UK Daily Mail is why World War
three is already here.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
You can easily find it.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
If you go to my website at Roscominski dot com
and it's it's linked there in the in the guests section.
You can also follow Mark on x formerly Twitter at
mc t O t h mc toth st L.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
Is that for Saint Louis? What is that for?
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Yep, you got it all right, mcp e O t h.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
M C t O t h s t L Mark,
thanks as always for your time thought provoking piece.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Will talk to you again.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
Sounds great, Thanks Ross, alright
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
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
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.