Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, good morning, Happy Monday. I'm Ross. Thanks for
spending some time with me.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Obviously, Friday was pretty nuts, and the whole blow up
between Donald Trump and Volodimir Zelenski, presidents of the US
and and Ukraine respectively. Actually I have to include Jade
Vance in this because I actually think jad Vance was
the proximate cause of the meeting blowing up more than
more than Trump. It was very interesting to watch in
(00:27):
real time, and you know, I was analyzing it with
you in real time on Friday. And I do want
to say thank you to the multiple listeners who emailed
me who said, you know, Ross actually listened to it
on podcast on Sunday after there had been a couple
of days of people able to think about it and
analyze it and react to it, and they said, Ross,
(00:47):
your take on it on Friday has held.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Up really, really well. So I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
And as talk show hosts go, I'm not bad at
foreign policy and national security because I studied this stuff
for a long time, but not as much as my
next guest, John Sweet, who's had been on the show before,
is a former Army military intelligence officer. He frequently writes
with Mark Toth, who's also been on the show about
(01:16):
national security and foreign policy and war and so on.
And you've read him in The Hill and the New
York Post and Fox News and a bunch of other places. Ay,
and he joins us to talk more today now that
we've had some more time to think about what happened
on Friday, and also to think about how various what
various people have been saying, various people who matter have
been saying since then. So John, welcome back to Kay.
(01:38):
It's good to have you again. Appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Hey, thanks for bringing back on Ross.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
So I'm gonna start with one narrow point and then
we'll broaden out. I usually do it the other way,
but I want to start with a narrow point because
I read your piece with Mark entitled the White House
Version of Tombstone's OK Corral, and I have a feeling
I'm going to agree with.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
You on ninety percent.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
So I'm going to start with the ten percent or
I might not agree, and and and we'll sort of
test each other a little bit. I think that to
some degree Zelensky should apologize to Trump. You seem to
argue that he shouldn't. And and and maybe we'd be
(02:19):
talking past each other a little bit, because I don't
think he should go groveling about, you know, but I
do think his behavior was bad. I think he was
baited into it by JD. Vance spouting Soviet propaganda. I
use the word Soviet intentionally, but I think he took
the bait.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
He did take to me, no, you're absolutely right, look
and Senator Graham Warner before going into the meeting that
it was going to be that way. It was just
but you know, he was kind of putting a position
of shut up in color, and uh, I think it's
Zolenski's pride was too much for that. Look, he's been
fighting Russians for three years now. He doesn't be told
how this is going to end for him. Is going
to end when when Russia stops attacking, not when when
(03:01):
Trump makes a peace deal for him and there's no
security guarantees. He knew that going in. Trump knew that
going in. So it only led to the confrontation that
we saw play out.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Very specifically.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Specifically though again, you you guys wrote in this piece
that that you didn't think he should apologize. Is there
something that if you were advising Zelenski that you would
recommend that he say to Trump that's at least in
the direction of an apology, that that you think would
(03:34):
be would be appropriate.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Well, the only thing I think that he should say
is that, look, we knew going into the meeting that
we didn't have an agreement. We probably should not have
the agreement, and it should not have worked out the
way it did. I apologize for my reaction, but clearly
we weren't ready to sign the deal, and I felt
pressured into doing something like that. Okay, And I think
(03:58):
that's fair.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
I think I think I think that's fair too.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
So now I want to kind of get into the
nuts and bolts of what you what you just said,
and this is now I'm not disagreeing with you anymore,
even a little bit.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
I'm just asking some questions.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
So I would have I I would have thought that
Zelensky would have gone to that meeting on Friday only
if he was anticipating making a deal and signing that agreement,
and that and that should have I assumed that was
the mindset going in, and that they'd work out some
stuff around the edges. And everybody knows that Zelensky wanted
(04:34):
real security guarantees, and everybody knows that Trump isn't going
to give them, so they need to come up with
something that functions sort of like a security guarantee, like
having American miners and engineers on the ground mining stuff
in Ukraine. So I'll get to my question now because
I'm rambling. Did you expect they would sign a deal
(04:54):
on Friday?
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Yeah, I think, like many people that we thought you
was already prepared. There was discussion. If you're looking at
the actual deal, which is only two or three pages,
towards the end of the document, it said it made
reference to security guarantees. It didn't specify exactly what they were,
but that there would be and I think Zylinski going
in thought that that was probably still going to uphold
even though it wasn't specified. Okay, nothing in that deal
(05:19):
was specified. No locations for the minds of security, for
the minds know how we're going to harvest it, none
of that it was specified. Everything was very much at
the wavetop level. There's no depth to that. So I
think Zylinski thought going in that yes, he would probably
get some assurances that security guarantees would be addressed, but
not necessarily in the document itself.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
That makes sense. And I also think that.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
I think Zelensky should take almost anything he can get
from Trump that doesn't completely sell out his country. That
the first proposal, like five hundred billion dollars was was insane,
but if they can do something that's more like revenue share,
Zelenski needs the US. And I'm I'm a big supporter
of Ukraine. You know, I hope Vladimir Putin gets hit
(06:09):
by something that's going very fast, whether it's a truck
or a bullet or something else. That guy's bad news
and he needs to go. And I find it shocking
and disappointing that so many quote unquote conservatives seem to
have missed the fact that a KGB coeronel who tries
to harm the West and kill political opponents wherever they
(06:29):
are in the world. They seem to have forgotten that
he's a bad guy, which is I find very, very disappointing.
But Zelensky knows that, and Zelensky knows that he probably
can't well he's not gonna win, but he probably can't
even come sort of close to a tie without the US.
He needs to do something, and Trump only cares about
(06:50):
saying he did a deal. Trump doesn't care about what's
in a deal. He just cares about waving a piece
of paper around saying I have one. So if you
understand these points, what's the next proper step for both
sides and what do you expect will actually happen? Well?
Speaker 3 (07:08):
I think well we can expect is what happened in
Europe this weekend, with eleven European countries getting together to
talk with Zazelenski on the way head and formulating a plan. Okay,
Zelenski can take that minerals contract to the EU. The
EU would love to have something like that. They can
exchange weapons in cash for the exact same things and
give Ukraine some respect and also provide for their own security.
(07:30):
But look, I think right now, Zelenski's in the way
of the Trump administration. He is what is causing, from
the Trump administration's perspective, a peace deal not to occur.
He is resisting. They seem to ignore that Russia is attacking. Okay,
and that's the fundamental problem. When are they going to
address Russia? Right now? Everything is bully Ukraine to submission,
(07:54):
and Zelenski doesn't feel comfortable giving away pieces of the
pie when there's nothing in return that guarantees his security.
Right now, EU gives him that, So we'll see.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
I've been thinking about this European thing, so Zelenski for
you know, for listeners you probably if you're watching the news.
Lelensky went from here straight to Europe and he met
with the Prime Minister of England and there was you know,
hugs and not quite high fives, but pretty chummy and
a lot of conversation going on that I actually think
Donald Trump would take as a huge win of Europeans
(08:27):
talking about spending more on their own defense and spending
more to help Ukraine, which is what Donald Trump has
been pushing.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
For all along.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
I still think that Europe could give it its maximum
possible effort, and it's probably not enough, in part because
I think I think Putin won't respect it.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
I think Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
I think Europe could give Ukraine all the missiles, all
the tanks, all the whatever, and I think it wouldn't
lead to a piece deal if if the US isn't involved.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
So do you have any thoughts just on that part?
And then I want to talk about the mineral steel.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Well, for me, you're absolutely right, Putin doesn't respect the
European leaders, and without the United States backing in NATO,
he doesn't respect NATO. Okay. So yes, and the European leaders,
even the British Prime Minister, after they announced what they
were working on, turned to the United States and said,
we need your backing on this. We don't need you
involved in this. But the United States is the insurance.
(09:25):
The United States is the enforcer of the United States
is big brother, and they need that type of reassurances.
You're right, Putin doesn't Puton doesn't respect them. And oh,
by the way, yes, money and weapons and all that's fine.
It will prolong the fight, okay, and it will continue
to allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russia, to affect
its economy and to further ad to the economic sections
(09:48):
that's going on, and through their own production of drones. Look,
they're killing still upwards to eleven hundred to thirteen hundred
Russians a day in the Dambas. They may not be
gaining terrain, but they are winding and widowing them down
on a daily basis. So in this case, it's almost
like a counterinsurtaincy, only at a much broader level.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Yeah, and they're killing North Koreans as well. We're talking
with John Sweet. Yeah, we're talking with John Sweet, retired
US Army military intelligence officer. All right, So two things
I want to ask. I have seen some people writing talking,
including you, about the possibility of Europe doing that minerals
(10:29):
deal with Ukraine. I don't think that's very likely, in
part because Europe does not have the high tech manufacturing
base that can actually use all that stuff. So if
they did the deal, I guess they could just you know,
get money, which which would be fine, but they're not
really that much of an end user of these products
the way the way America is. Also, I also could
(10:51):
imagine with this president, if Europe did the minerals deal
and cut Trump out of it, then then Trump would
put massive tariffs on all that stuff and do everything
he could to make sure nobody bought Ukrainian rare earths,
and it would just it wouldn't work.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Yeah, it does cut his nose off, right, Yeah, despite
his face. Look, it's uh, and that's possible, And you're right,
the European Union probably doesn't have the capacity to to
make use of the raw materials, but it does have
the ability to sell those raw materials. On the open
work and raise money. But no, it would be an
issue with Trump, and Trump probably would go back and
(11:32):
place more sanctions. And now now we're in a sanction war,
and now we're exactly where Russia and China want us
to be because now bricks right, bricks, that other form
of currency know that other form of economic trade is
in direct competition, and more countries lean that way because
they don't have faith anymore in the US dollar. So
(11:53):
it does have second and third orer effects.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
What was what was your take of JDV Dants in
that meeting.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
I mean I was on the air while it was happening,
and then I played it over, you know, and we
and we talked about it, and I was I was
very critical of JD. Vance and I have not changed
my opinion on his on his behavior. I you know,
a lot of people are speculating, you know, Trump put
him up to it.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
I have no idea.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
But actually, of the three key players in that meeting,
believe it or not, I don't say this very often.
Trump did the best job of the three people in
that meeting, and it seemed like he actually, at least
in the first half of the meeting, wanted to get
a deal. And then and then, and then Zelensky said
a couple of things he shouldn't have said, and Vance
came at him with stuff that you would have expected
(12:43):
out of out of Vladimir Putin's spokesman.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
Yeah, the dance had that tucked away here. I knew
what he was gonna say. Look, the insults began when
Zelensky arrived, got out of the car, and Trump looked
at him and said, that's how you're going to address
right began right there. So the agitation began there, okay.
And then they go into the into the Oval office
and there's discussions. Lensky takes a question and Advance pounces
(13:09):
on him. It says something to the effect of how
dare you come to this office and disrespected President. He
didn't disrespect the President. He answered a question, okay, but Vance, okay,
Advance did two things. He provoked the uh Z Lensky
and then he gas lit uh Trump by saying disrespect.
Trump cannot stand to be felt ass though he's been
(13:30):
disrespect and that would alone put Trump on on on,
you know, on a different pedestal. And then he started
to attack Zelensky, and it was all downhill from there,
and I'm surprised they actually won as long as he did.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Is it is it recoverable?
Speaker 3 (13:47):
It is? It is. But but what's gonna have to
happen is that is that uh you know, Speaker Johnson,
Secretary of State, Rubios, you know Secretary h are not
Secretary but but Walt. So they're all go have to
come off this after this assertion that somehow or another,
uh Zelenski has to apologize to come crawling back to
the White House. I think they have to agree that
(14:09):
mutual mistakes were made. It could have been handled separately,
but they don't have to be any apologies. But they
can apologize in private. But to do it in public
is more I think in mine mind, is more humiliating
him in the what and delitering him in front of
the global media. Look again, I've said this before. They
want Zelensky out of the way. There's deals to be
(14:31):
made of Russian Zelensky is in their way. They want
new elections to where someone else could be there that
that they can guide or even putin can guide, depend
upon if the right guy gets in office. So no,
it's recoverable, but it's gonna take more than demanding apologies,
it's gonna have to be, you know, jointly saying yeah,
that was bad and it shouldn't have happened.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Yeah, if I if I were trying to thread that needle,
what I would probably propose if I were the Ukrainian
side is I would offer some kind of apology in private,
and then in public what I would say is the
same stuff as Zelensky has said for a long time,
every every time, how how thankful and grateful he is
(15:16):
to the American people, the American taxpayer, and the American
government for helping support him.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
So I think he does say that.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
At last Countain, I was gonna say, at last Countain,
Zelensky has thanked the United States ninety four times. Yeah, Okay,
Van's asking him to have thank that the Trump in
the Oval Office for the ninety fifth time for something
that hadn't even been transpired. I think it was a
little over the top, you know, and it was meant
(15:47):
to humiliate and to belittle him in front of a
global media, and he got the reaction. I believe he
got the reaction. He won it well.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
I think I think Trump feels like he probably won
a little bit politically I think JD. Vance feels like
he won huge politically trying to cement himself as the
MAGA candidate for president in twenty twenty eight. You know,
obviously Zelenski lost. The biggest winner is Putin. The second
(16:15):
biggest winner is Shijin Ping. And when you think about
it like that, I just hope that you know supporters
of Donald Trump who are happy, and I understand. I'm
I'm happy too to see a president stand up for
the United States just as a macro thing. But you've
got to remember what specifically happened on Friday. Yes, I
appreciate Trump standing up for the United States. I don't
(16:36):
appreciate Vance. That's not what he was doing. But the
big winners were our enemies and we should not forget it.
I'll give you the last nineteen seconds because I like
prime numbers.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
Yeah. No, I agree with everything you said, and I
think the administration needs to look at this from a
perspective of who is the aggressor. Russia is the aggressor
who is still bombing in civilian cities, Russia, who we're
still attacking in the Dambas Russia. All Ukraine's doing is
defending itself and they're forced to go out and look
(17:08):
for money and weapons in order to continue to fight.
And I think that's all Zelensky was trying to accomplish.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
John Sweet is a retired US Army military intelligence officer
frequent writer with his co author Mark Toth on national
security issues. You can find his writing all over the place.
Thanks for doing this again, John, I appreciate it, and
thanks for your service to our country.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
All Right, Ross, thanks for having me back on all.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Right, glad to do it. Okay, so we'll see. I mean,
I think the key question there is can it be?
Can Humpty dumpty be put back together again?
All right, good morning, Happy Monday. I'm Ross. Thanks for
spending some time with me.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Obviously, Friday was pretty nuts, and the whole blow up
between Donald Trump and Volodimir Zelenski, presidents of the US
and and Ukraine respectively. Actually I have to include Jade
Vance in this because I actually think jad Vance was
the proximate cause of the meeting blowing up more than
more than Trump. It was very interesting to watch in
(00:27):
real time, and you know, I was analyzing it with
you in real time on Friday. And I do want
to say thank you to the multiple listeners who emailed
me who said, you know, Ross actually listened to it
on podcast on Sunday after there had been a couple
of days of people able to think about it and
analyze it and react to it, and they said, Ross,
(00:47):
your take on it on Friday has held.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Up really, really well. So I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
And as talk show hosts go, I'm not bad at
foreign policy and national security because I studied this stuff
for a long time, but not as much as my
next guest, John Sweet, who's had been on the show before,
is a former Army military intelligence officer. He frequently writes
with Mark Toth, who's also been on the show about
(01:16):
national security and foreign policy and war and so on.
And you've read him in The Hill and the New
York Post and Fox News and a bunch of other places. Ay,
and he joins us to talk more today now that
we've had some more time to think about what happened
on Friday, and also to think about how various what
various people have been saying, various people who matter have
been saying since then. So John, welcome back to Kay.
(01:38):
It's good to have you again. Appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Hey, thanks for bringing back on Ross.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
So I'm gonna start with one narrow point and then
we'll broaden out. I usually do it the other way,
but I want to start with a narrow point because
I read your piece with Mark entitled the White House
Version of Tombstone's OK Corral, and I have a feeling
I'm going to agree with.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
You on ninety percent.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
So I'm going to start with the ten percent or
I might not agree, and and and we'll sort of
test each other a little bit. I think that to
some degree Zelensky should apologize to Trump. You seem to
argue that he shouldn't. And and and maybe we'd be
(02:19):
talking past each other a little bit, because I don't
think he should go groveling about, you know, but I
do think his behavior was bad. I think he was
baited into it by JD. Vance spouting Soviet propaganda. I
use the word Soviet intentionally, but I think he took
the bait.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
He did take to me, no, you're absolutely right, look
and Senator Graham Warner before going into the meeting that
it was going to be that way. It was just
but you know, he was kind of putting a position
of shut up in color, and uh, I think it's
Zolenski's pride was too much for that. Look, he's been
fighting Russians for three years now. He doesn't be told
how this is going to end for him. Is going
to end when when Russia stops attacking, not when when
(03:01):
Trump makes a peace deal for him and there's no
security guarantees. He knew that going in. Trump knew that
going in. So it only led to the confrontation that
we saw play out.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Very specifically.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Specifically though again, you you guys wrote in this piece
that that you didn't think he should apologize. Is there
something that if you were advising Zelenski that you would
recommend that he say to Trump that's at least in
the direction of an apology, that that you think would
(03:34):
be would be appropriate.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Well, the only thing I think that he should say
is that, look, we knew going into the meeting that
we didn't have an agreement. We probably should not have
the agreement, and it should not have worked out the
way it did. I apologize for my reaction, but clearly
we weren't ready to sign the deal, and I felt
pressured into doing something like that. Okay, And I think
(03:58):
that's fair.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
I think I think I think that's fair too.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
So now I want to kind of get into the
nuts and bolts of what you what you just said,
and this is now I'm not disagreeing with you anymore,
even a little bit.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
I'm just asking some questions.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
So I would have I I would have thought that
Zelensky would have gone to that meeting on Friday only
if he was anticipating making a deal and signing that agreement,
and that and that should have I assumed that was
the mindset going in, and that they'd work out some
stuff around the edges. And everybody knows that Zelensky wanted
(04:34):
real security guarantees, and everybody knows that Trump isn't going
to give them, so they need to come up with
something that functions sort of like a security guarantee, like
having American miners and engineers on the ground mining stuff
in Ukraine. So I'll get to my question now because
I'm rambling. Did you expect they would sign a deal
(04:54):
on Friday?
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Yeah, I think, like many people that we thought you
was already prepared. There was discussion. If you're looking at
the actual deal, which is only two or three pages,
towards the end of the document, it said it made
reference to security guarantees. It didn't specify exactly what they were,
but that there would be and I think Zylinski going
in thought that that was probably still going to uphold
even though it wasn't specified. Okay, nothing in that deal
(05:19):
was specified. No locations for the minds of security, for
the minds know how we're going to harvest it, none
of that it was specified. Everything was very much at
the wavetop level. There's no depth to that. So I
think Zylinski thought going in that yes, he would probably
get some assurances that security guarantees would be addressed, but
not necessarily in the document itself.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
That makes sense. And I also think that.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
I think Zelensky should take almost anything he can get
from Trump that doesn't completely sell out his country. That
the first proposal, like five hundred billion dollars was was insane,
but if they can do something that's more like revenue share,
Zelenski needs the US. And I'm I'm a big supporter
of Ukraine. You know, I hope Vladimir Putin gets hit
(06:09):
by something that's going very fast, whether it's a truck
or a bullet or something else. That guy's bad news
and he needs to go. And I find it shocking
and disappointing that so many quote unquote conservatives seem to
have missed the fact that a KGB coeronel who tries
to harm the West and kill political opponents wherever they
(06:29):
are in the world. They seem to have forgotten that
he's a bad guy, which is I find very, very disappointing.
But Zelensky knows that, and Zelensky knows that he probably
can't well he's not gonna win, but he probably can't
even come sort of close to a tie without the US.
He needs to do something, and Trump only cares about
(06:50):
saying he did a deal. Trump doesn't care about what's
in a deal. He just cares about waving a piece
of paper around saying I have one. So if you
understand these points, what's the next proper step for both
sides and what do you expect will actually happen? Well?
Speaker 3 (07:08):
I think well we can expect is what happened in
Europe this weekend, with eleven European countries getting together to
talk with Zazelenski on the way head and formulating a plan. Okay,
Zelenski can take that minerals contract to the EU. The
EU would love to have something like that. They can
exchange weapons in cash for the exact same things and
give Ukraine some respect and also provide for their own security.
(07:30):
But look, I think right now, Zelenski's in the way
of the Trump administration. He is what is causing, from
the Trump administration's perspective, a peace deal not to occur.
He is resisting. They seem to ignore that Russia is attacking. Okay,
and that's the fundamental problem. When are they going to
address Russia? Right now? Everything is bully Ukraine to submission,
(07:54):
and Zelenski doesn't feel comfortable giving away pieces of the
pie when there's nothing in return that guarantees his security.
Right now, EU gives him that, So we'll see.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
I've been thinking about this European thing, so Zelenski for
you know, for listeners you probably if you're watching the news.
Lelensky went from here straight to Europe and he met
with the Prime Minister of England and there was you know,
hugs and not quite high fives, but pretty chummy and
a lot of conversation going on that I actually think
Donald Trump would take as a huge win of Europeans
(08:27):
talking about spending more on their own defense and spending
more to help Ukraine, which is what Donald Trump has
been pushing.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
For all along.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
I still think that Europe could give it its maximum
possible effort, and it's probably not enough, in part because
I think I think Putin won't respect it.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
I think Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
I think Europe could give Ukraine all the missiles, all
the tanks, all the whatever, and I think it wouldn't
lead to a piece deal if if the US isn't involved.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
So do you have any thoughts just on that part?
And then I want to talk about the mineral steel.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Well, for me, you're absolutely right, Putin doesn't respect the
European leaders, and without the United States backing in NATO,
he doesn't respect NATO. Okay. So yes, and the European leaders,
even the British Prime Minister, after they announced what they
were working on, turned to the United States and said,
we need your backing on this. We don't need you
involved in this. But the United States is the insurance.
(09:25):
The United States is the enforcer of the United States
is big brother, and they need that type of reassurances.
You're right, Putin doesn't Puton doesn't respect them. And oh,
by the way, yes, money and weapons and all that's fine.
It will prolong the fight, okay, and it will continue
to allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russia, to affect
its economy and to further ad to the economic sections
(09:48):
that's going on, and through their own production of drones. Look,
they're killing still upwards to eleven hundred to thirteen hundred
Russians a day in the Dambas. They may not be
gaining terrain, but they are winding and widowing them down
on a daily basis. So in this case, it's almost
like a counterinsurtaincy, only at a much broader level.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Yeah, and they're killing North Koreans as well. We're talking
with John Sweet. Yeah, we're talking with John Sweet, retired
US Army military intelligence officer. All right, So two things
I want to ask. I have seen some people writing talking,
including you, about the possibility of Europe doing that minerals
(10:29):
deal with Ukraine. I don't think that's very likely, in
part because Europe does not have the high tech manufacturing
base that can actually use all that stuff. So if
they did the deal, I guess they could just you know,
get money, which which would be fine, but they're not
really that much of an end user of these products
the way the way America is. Also, I also could
(10:51):
imagine with this president, if Europe did the minerals deal
and cut Trump out of it, then then Trump would
put massive tariffs on all that stuff and do everything
he could to make sure nobody bought Ukrainian rare earths,
and it would just it wouldn't work.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Yeah, it does cut his nose off, right, Yeah, despite
his face. Look, it's uh, and that's possible, And you're right,
the European Union probably doesn't have the capacity to to
make use of the raw materials, but it does have
the ability to sell those raw materials. On the open
work and raise money. But no, it would be an
issue with Trump, and Trump probably would go back and
(11:32):
place more sanctions. And now now we're in a sanction war,
and now we're exactly where Russia and China want us
to be because now bricks right, bricks, that other form
of currency know that other form of economic trade is
in direct competition, and more countries lean that way because
they don't have faith anymore in the US dollar. So
(11:53):
it does have second and third orer effects.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
What was what was your take of JDV Dants in
that meeting.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
I mean I was on the air while it was happening,
and then I played it over, you know, and we
and we talked about it, and I was I was
very critical of JD. Vance and I have not changed
my opinion on his on his behavior. I you know,
a lot of people are speculating, you know, Trump put
him up to it.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
I have no idea.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
But actually, of the three key players in that meeting,
believe it or not, I don't say this very often.
Trump did the best job of the three people in
that meeting, and it seemed like he actually, at least
in the first half of the meeting, wanted to get
a deal. And then and then, and then Zelensky said
a couple of things he shouldn't have said, and Vance
came at him with stuff that you would have expected
(12:43):
out of out of Vladimir Putin's spokesman.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
Yeah, the dance had that tucked away here. I knew
what he was gonna say. Look, the insults began when
Zelensky arrived, got out of the car, and Trump looked
at him and said, that's how you're going to address
right began right there. So the agitation began there, okay.
And then they go into the into the Oval office
and there's discussions. Lensky takes a question and Advance pounces
(13:09):
on him. It says something to the effect of how
dare you come to this office and disrespected President. He
didn't disrespect the President. He answered a question, okay, but Vance, okay,
Advance did two things. He provoked the uh Z Lensky
and then he gas lit uh Trump by saying disrespect.
Trump cannot stand to be felt ass though he's been
(13:30):
disrespect and that would alone put Trump on on on,
you know, on a different pedestal. And then he started
to attack Zelensky, and it was all downhill from there,
and I'm surprised they actually won as long as he did.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Is it is it recoverable?
Speaker 3 (13:47):
It is? It is. But but what's gonna have to
happen is that is that uh you know, Speaker Johnson,
Secretary of State, Rubios, you know Secretary h are not
Secretary but but Walt. So they're all go have to
come off this after this assertion that somehow or another,
uh Zelenski has to apologize to come crawling back to
the White House. I think they have to agree that
(14:09):
mutual mistakes were made. It could have been handled separately,
but they don't have to be any apologies. But they
can apologize in private. But to do it in public
is more I think in mine mind, is more humiliating
him in the what and delitering him in front of
the global media. Look again, I've said this before. They
want Zelensky out of the way. There's deals to be
(14:31):
made of Russian Zelensky is in their way. They want
new elections to where someone else could be there that
that they can guide or even putin can guide, depend
upon if the right guy gets in office. So no,
it's recoverable, but it's gonna take more than demanding apologies,
it's gonna have to be, you know, jointly saying yeah,
that was bad and it shouldn't have happened.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Yeah, if I if I were trying to thread that needle,
what I would probably propose if I were the Ukrainian
side is I would offer some kind of apology in private,
and then in public what I would say is the
same stuff as Zelensky has said for a long time,
every every time, how how thankful and grateful he is
(15:16):
to the American people, the American taxpayer, and the American
government for helping support him.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
So I think he does say that.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
At last Countain, I was gonna say, at last Countain,
Zelensky has thanked the United States ninety four times. Yeah, Okay,
Van's asking him to have thank that the Trump in
the Oval Office for the ninety fifth time for something
that hadn't even been transpired. I think it was a
little over the top, you know, and it was meant
(15:47):
to humiliate and to belittle him in front of a
global media, and he got the reaction. I believe he
got the reaction. He won it well.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
I think I think Trump feels like he probably won
a little bit politically I think JD. Vance feels like
he won huge politically trying to cement himself as the
MAGA candidate for president in twenty twenty eight. You know,
obviously Zelenski lost. The biggest winner is Putin. The second
(16:15):
biggest winner is Shijin Ping. And when you think about
it like that, I just hope that you know supporters
of Donald Trump who are happy, and I understand. I'm
I'm happy too to see a president stand up for
the United States just as a macro thing. But you've
got to remember what specifically happened on Friday. Yes, I
appreciate Trump standing up for the United States. I don't
(16:36):
appreciate Vance. That's not what he was doing. But the
big winners were our enemies and we should not forget it.
I'll give you the last nineteen seconds because I like
prime numbers.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
Yeah. No, I agree with everything you said, and I
think the administration needs to look at this from a
perspective of who is the aggressor. Russia is the aggressor
who is still bombing in civilian cities, Russia, who we're
still attacking in the Dambas Russia. All Ukraine's doing is
defending itself and they're forced to go out and look
(17:08):
for money and weapons in order to continue to fight.
And I think that's all Zelensky was trying to accomplish.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
John Sweet is a retired US Army military intelligence officer
frequent writer with his co author Mark Toth on national
security issues. You can find his writing all over the place.
Thanks for doing this again, John, I appreciate it, and
thanks for your service to our country.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
All Right, Ross, thanks for having me back on all.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Right, glad to do it. Okay, so we'll see. I mean,
I think the key question there is can it be?
Can Humpty dumpty be put back together again?
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.