0:00

At EverNorth Health Services, we believe costs

0:02

shouldn't get in the way of life-changing

0:04

care. And we're doing everything in our

0:06

power to make it possible. Behavioral

0:08

health solutions that also keep your projections

0:11

at their best? It's possible. Pharmacy

0:13

benefits that benefit your bottom line? It's

0:16

possible. Complex specialty care that

0:18

cares about your ROI? It's

0:20

possible. Because we're already doing it. All

0:23

while saving businesses billions. That's

0:25

Wonder. Made possible. Learn

0:28

more at evernorth.com/wonder. Do

0:32

you know who the lead negotiator is for the United

0:34

States? CIA director Burns. That

0:37

is not a role for a career

0:39

intelligence official. Somebody whose job is to

0:41

lie and steal and cheat without getting

0:44

caught. They want to have the

0:46

ability to deploy fucking airplanes and warships

0:48

into the Middle East, into friendly territory

0:50

when we fight China. That's what they

0:52

want. Zelensky

0:54

could have reached basically the same outcome, the

0:56

same best outcome, could have been reached within

0:58

a few weeks. Why do we

1:00

think that Russia expansion means

1:03

Russian tanks? Why

1:05

does that concept come to mind? Because

1:07

that's the narrative that the West has made. No,

1:09

it's because of history. I mean, as a Russian,

1:12

I can tell you, right? Every time Russia has

1:14

a strong leader, it expands westwards and very often

1:16

with war. Andrew,

1:18

awesome to have you on the show. And we

1:20

were excited about anyway, but then we started talking

1:22

while we were waiting and there's so much we can

1:25

talk about. Before we get into that,

1:27

tell us a little bit about your career, particularly

1:29

CIA and other stuff where you've served abroad and

1:31

all of that. Yeah, I mean, I'm excited to

1:33

be here, guys. This is a conversation I've

1:35

been looking forward to for a while. But

1:39

my name is Andrew Bustamante. I started

1:41

in rural Pennsylvania, a brown kid

1:43

in rural Pennsylvania. Ended up going to a

1:45

military school because it was the best of

1:47

all the bad options that I had. And

1:50

then from there, I actually got

1:52

recruited into CIA, had an awesome experience

1:54

at CIA. Living and working

1:57

undercover, operating abroad. I met my wife, who is also

1:59

a CIA officer. The I Yasir at the time. And.

2:02

We ultimately ended up leaving Cia.

2:04

Two. Thousand and Fourteen which is ten years

2:06

ago and a mind boggling are for family

2:08

reasons because. Surprise. Surprise Cia

2:10

is not a family first organization.

2:14

S and then when we less cia we

2:16

kind of had to start all over again

2:18

because I you you feel like you're special.

2:21

As. Cia. But when you leave see I you

2:23

don't get to take. Really? Any

2:25

references home with you younger to

2:27

take friend's home with you because

2:29

everybody remains under cover. Everybody remains

2:31

inside That. That organism.

2:34

That is undercover operations and you say you

2:36

were recruited of what? what, why and why

2:39

did what does that look like? He never

2:41

gets know exactly why they're interested in you.

2:43

I have some theories. I'm one. I was

2:45

recruiting two thousand seven as part of the

2:48

tail end of the Surge coming out of

2:50

September eleventh. So. If you recall, Nine Eleven

2:52

happened in United States in two thousand and one. Two.

2:55

Years later there was a giant

2:57

commission that was completed a big

2:59

investigation that was completed and as

3:01

one of the findings of that

3:03

investigation was that the Cia of

3:05

two thousand and One was not

3:07

equipped to handle the rising terrorist

3:09

threat that was coming against the

3:11

United States. so they had to

3:13

plus up people. That. A plus

3:15

up operations and one of the big things they

3:17

push for was more diversity. In. There

3:19

are in their. Country because

3:21

prior to two thousand and one, Cia

3:23

was basically ivy league like eyes. And

3:26

skin be hard to place an Ivy

3:28

league white guy in any kind of

3:30

Arab community. I'll tell you, in Afghanistan

3:32

I am gonna stand out for X,

3:34

but it ambiguously brown rural Pennsylvania kid

3:37

right has a better chance of being

3:39

completely. Forgotten. The mean, I

3:41

was unknown all through high school so

3:43

I was very well trained. Manhattan. that's

3:45

so interesting so that that was the

3:47

moment they actually said look, we need

3:49

to infiltrate. These particular

3:51

organizations monitor them. And.

3:53

Why guns and gonna cut it? I mean,

3:55

economy goes on in that way. Diversity might

3:58

be a strength. Yes. And that's what. Though

4:00

interesting, a CIA at took a

4:02

very practical approach to diversity, not

4:04

a legislative approach, nobody tried to

4:07

come in and. Place. Policies

4:09

on the importance of having. People.

4:12

Of color and. Are people

4:14

of different ages and people different genders?

4:16

It was very practical Need. You.

4:18

Need you can't send a male.

4:20

have any skin color. To.

4:23

Infiltrate a female. Muslim.

4:26

Society You can't. You. Have

4:28

to have females. Even better if you have

4:30

females who are also Muslim who are also

4:32

Arabic speakers who are familiar with the region.

4:35

I'm. In you know it's jail. Puts out

4:37

a lot of good quality people. But.

4:39

It's hard to find that from an ivy

4:41

league universities. Sometimes you need to look somewhere

4:43

else and even now see I is looking

4:45

at are people who don't even have formal

4:47

degrees. I mean there's all sorts of opportunity

4:50

that is pushed out what we call the

4:52

the pace of operations. What's. Required

4:54

to keep Americans safe because that's

4:56

the priority. A sickness. The priority

4:59

for Cia is national security privacy.

5:01

Andrew. I feel is really important before

5:04

we really delve into the conversation. Those

5:06

people who of course aware of the

5:08

sea ice, but those people who might

5:10

not be aware of what exactly the

5:12

Cia does and is probably a whole

5:15

lot of conspiracy as well. That probably.

5:17

Ah yes, there's a lot of conspiracy

5:19

that is molded him with us. so

5:21

let's just. Talk. About what

5:23

does the see I do and they explode

5:26

some myths which people who bethany listen said

5:28

nah it's a great it's very fair point

5:30

right? So C I A does what's known

5:32

as human intelligence or in our world humans.

5:35

Now. Intelligence has a very broad

5:37

sweeping term, and there's multiple subcategories

5:40

inside that there's measurements, intelligence, signals

5:42

intelligence, odd, imagery, intelligence. The So

5:44

There's multiple disciplines inside the intelligence

5:47

field. One of those disciplines, as

5:49

told: Human Intelligence, which is the

5:52

process of extracting secrets from a

5:54

human being. Rather, Than from

5:56

a radio or from a picture from something

5:58

else, right? So Cia. The. Central

6:01

Intelligence Agency has to purposes

6:03

one, is it's the primary

6:05

human intelligence agency in the

6:07

United States. But. Then second, it

6:09

is also the primary. Analytical

6:11

resource that feeds the Executive Branch

6:13

which is really just the executive officer

6:16

the opposite, the President's So all the

6:18

intelligence agencies in the I See intelligence

6:20

community. All. The intelligence agencies feed

6:23

their raw analysis the Cia who creates

6:25

a finished analytical product called the President's

6:27

Daily Brief that gets breached to the

6:29

President everyday. What about don't? price and

6:31

side to see? I isn't just about

6:33

gathering intelligence like Cia. takes people out

6:35

and stuff like that. What about that

6:37

side of it? It's. That's

6:40

were part of the Mrs, right?

6:42

So Cia has a paramilitary. Elements

6:44

but it's a very small Elm and

6:46

just like a had a cyber security

6:49

element That's another small element is has

6:51

a Ah and offensive cyber element a

6:53

counter intelligence element. These are all small

6:55

elements inside Cia that are hyper focused

6:58

on human intelligence operations. So.

7:00

If you can't get secrets from

7:02

a terrorist, maybe the best thing

7:04

to do is just neutralize the

7:06

terrorist in those moments. Lovely use

7:08

of language. I jumped at this.

7:10

In those moments, you need to

7:12

have that capability and Cia being

7:15

out in office that serves the

7:17

present directly. It doesn't want to

7:19

outsource. Sad to say d I A The

7:21

Defense Intelligence Agency doesn't want to give that

7:23

task to the Marine Corps. It wants to

7:26

give a do that in house. So it

7:28

has what's known as a paramilitary capability because

7:30

there's a lot of people and places I

7:32

wear my mom's from in Venezuela and their

7:34

guy I D C I a day destabilized

7:37

that that that address how can I do

7:39

some very offended madame ssssss a figure that

7:41

resides you how my mom speak since the

7:43

and that is very offensive this but they

7:45

say you know that you know that the

7:48

Cia. Destabilize governments that are perceived

7:50

to be the enemies or not.

7:52

Oh no, even enemies but a

7:55

not. Don't act within the interests

7:57

of the United States. And.

8:00

they help to depose and put

8:02

in their own regimes, etc., etc.

8:04

Is that actually true? There

8:06

is truth to that, but we have to

8:09

look at CIA very much as a black

8:11

and white pre-2001, host

8:14

2001 organization. And it's

8:16

because when the Twin Towers fell on 9-11,

8:19

there was really one organization to blame, CIA.

8:23

And CIA takes that squarely on their shoulders. They

8:25

failed to do what they were supposed to do

8:28

in conjunction with FBI, and that was

8:30

the finding of the 9-11 Commission. So

8:33

you can't have a failure like that on

8:35

your record and not

8:37

be forced to completely change.

8:40

So that's what happened with 9-11. Many people don't realize

8:42

that when you hear stories of 1990s, 1980s, 1970s CIA, you're

8:47

talking about an organization that had a few

8:50

thousand people at most and

8:53

didn't have any oversight and those

8:55

people were largely Ivy League white

8:58

guys who were part of an old buddy network.

9:02

Post 2001, even further back after you look past 2003,

9:04

2004, when Congress became heavily engaged

9:09

in overseeing what the CIA did,

9:12

now you have an organization that has multiple

9:14

thousands of just undercover officers and then

9:16

tens of thousands of officers on top

9:19

of that and an organization that has

9:21

a whole different set of rules and

9:23

obligations that it has to abide by.

9:26

Many people say that the pre-2001 CIA

9:29

was the more effective, more dangerous,

9:31

more nimble CIA. And

9:33

the CIA now is so heavily bureaucratized

9:35

that it's been neutered in many ways.

9:37

And it just seems to get worse

9:39

each year from the point

9:41

of view of what CIA is capable of

9:44

because now that we're so

9:46

politically divided, it's an organization

9:48

that was built to support the president. Well,

9:51

the president switches extremes

9:53

every four years right now. And

9:56

What does that mean for an organization? How Does that

9:58

organization have a better place? Continuity Success:

10:00

If you are part of the organization, how

10:03

do you have any hopes for a career?

10:05

Now the idea that See A does not

10:07

work in the best interest of the American

10:09

people. That. Is also something that

10:11

people talk about that is patently false. You

10:14

notice that the Cia only works in the

10:16

best interest of the American people. It works

10:18

so diligently in support of the American people.

10:21

That. It really will. Do

10:23

whatever it takes to keep Americans

10:25

safe. To keep Americans America as

10:28

the primary superpower. The singular superpower

10:30

in the world. I mean, we,

10:33

essentially we'd. Put. Even the

10:35

promise of democracy seconds to

10:37

making sure that the Great

10:39

American experiment is always. Up

10:41

the prime superpower. Let me stress test that

10:43

a little the because it brings a son

10:46

to charity that I wanted to cover anyway.

10:48

which is I don't think anyone actually would

10:50

say that the Cia is not attempting to

10:52

serve the interests of the American people. I

10:54

think what people would say is the way

10:56

that they see the interests of American people

10:58

is not necessarily the way some American people

11:00

see the interests of the American people. And

11:02

that's where I think the conversation comes in

11:04

and one of the things I think the

11:06

Francis is trying to raise and it's interesting

11:08

to me on this is a genuine question.

11:10

Nine posing anything is. For. Example

11:13

Nine Eleven There are people who will say,

11:15

well, As. I I I don't

11:17

mean this in a moral sense. Americans chickens

11:19

coming home to roost in the American deserve

11:22

their butts. The when you lay was dogs

11:24

you get fleas. So when you support. That.

11:27

The Taliban and the Mujahideen against the

11:29

Soviet Union is not a surprise that

11:31

the got some crazy guys with weapons

11:33

and money and guns and whatever us

11:35

to what extent you think. I

11:37

know Cia pursuing short term objectives without necessarily

11:39

thinking on the twenty year schedule is Sub

11:42

is where I think some of these issues

11:44

time in wise like he comes back to

11:46

bite you in and nos one as we

11:49

send the Uk known. I think you've got

11:51

it at It's an excellent point for sure.

11:54

One. of the things that are that

11:56

worrier as a collective world as a

11:58

collective western dima our democratic

12:01

world specifically, one of the things

12:03

that we're coming to discover now is that democracy

12:05

has its flaws. And one of

12:07

those flaws is the cycle

12:09

of change. So the

12:11

United States, not the CIA, but

12:13

the United States has never been able

12:15

to think further than six or eight

12:17

years in the future. I mean,

12:20

even when it comes to federal budgets inside

12:23

the United States, a long, one

12:25

of the longest federal budget is about five

12:27

years. Everything after five years

12:29

is like, what's the point of even

12:31

planning? So most budgetary cycles

12:33

are literally year to year. Sometimes

12:36

you have two-year money, sometimes you have three-year

12:38

money, and in rare occasions you have five-year

12:40

money. That means we can't plan

12:42

more than five years in the future

12:44

as a federal government, let

12:47

alone dictate to a sub-agency like CIA

12:49

a five-year objective. So to your point,

12:52

all of the American objectives are short-term

12:54

objectives. Wow. Right? That's

12:57

a guarantee to me, man. No, no, no,

12:59

no. Because, I mean, you guys have seen it with your

13:01

prime minister. The

13:03

turnover is incredible and unpredictable. That's

13:06

the person who's leading the country. They're

13:08

the ones that in many ways dictate who

13:10

supports them on their staff. How

13:13

do you do that? And the American people, just

13:15

like the British citizens in the UK, we're

13:18

in it for life. I'm

13:20

not going to ever be not American. I

13:22

may not live in the United States, but I'm

13:24

not going to be not American. I'm

13:27

in it for the next, I mean, if

13:29

I'm lucky, another four-year, 50 years, how

13:31

can we only be making decisions two to three

13:34

years in advance? No, that's a totally fair point.

13:36

I've been saying this for a long time. The

13:38

one advantage authoritarian regimes have is the ability to

13:40

plan on a 20, 30-year timescale. Now,

13:42

that has trade-offs, negatives too. But what

13:45

I'm asking is slightly different though, Andrew, which is the

13:48

reason I think people sometimes criticize CIA

13:50

operations or decisions or stuff like that

13:53

is they go, well, did

13:55

you not think that when you give

13:57

these cave-dwelling Islamist Weapons and

13:59

money. The that I would

14:01

not wouldn't Just and in that

14:03

moment when they defeat the Soviets

14:05

the actually will create. Things. Down

14:07

the line and so you're messing with things

14:09

perhaps they don't understand well enough. In a

14:12

region that's very old and very complicated and

14:14

you're pushing buttons, hear that Would that was

14:16

the results will show is is is complete

14:18

different sample. Boom talking to buy this other

14:21

day and we've done interviews five years ago

14:23

when we were completely different. People move with

14:25

changed over time. the people now use against

14:27

us to criticize us for something rights. I'm

14:30

talking about that but on a much bigger

14:32

scale. Absolutely. I would say that criticism is

14:34

fair. There is absolutely fair because you can

14:36

see. It play out in the headlines. But.

14:38

The reality of it. Is. That

14:41

you don't know what the future holds. There's this

14:43

concept that we haven't see. I called the cone

14:45

of uncertainty. And a cone of

14:47

uncertainty is if you've imagined like I'm a

14:49

party hat like a birthday hat, those cone

14:51

conical hats. And you put it with a

14:53

string the goes through it. The. String

14:56

as a timeline and in a cone is here at

14:58

the end. Use you know

15:00

exactly what happened the past. It's a it's

15:02

a very clear string of events. And.

15:05

Then there's this point where the string enters the

15:07

conical hat. Right there at

15:09

that moment you have high confidence of

15:11

what the next moment which is hidden

15:13

inside the cone. you have high confidence

15:15

what that's gonna look like. But as

15:17

you start looking further into the future,

15:19

the cone of uncertainty gets bigger. The

15:22

strings completely change. You could morph. all

15:24

sorts of unknowns could happen, right? So

15:26

when Cia or when Us policy, when

15:28

any democracy makes a decision. They're.

15:31

Looking at that point of uncertainty and

15:33

they're looking forward. Seven days, Fourteen days,

15:35

Thirty days, Ninety days a year. Of

15:38

Us presidential campaign cycle they're trying to

15:40

find a reasonable period look forward to

15:42

so they can assess the the likelihood

15:45

of what the future will look like.

15:47

but with every year. That. You

15:49

have to look for the uncertainty gets more

15:51

and more so it's It becomes a game

15:53

of diminishing returns. To. Start

15:55

what is saying. Well. what if this

15:57

and what is that you know and nobody was thinking about

16:00

in 1988 when they were

16:02

arming the Mujahideen, nobody was thinking, well

16:05

what if this group transforms into

16:07

something called al-Qaeda and become Islamic

16:11

extremists that somehow

16:13

learn how to target the

16:15

World Trade Center in the United States in

16:17

the financial capital of the world, nobody

16:20

was thinking about that in 88. Well

16:22

that would be the criticism, I guess

16:24

that's what I'm trying to explore here because I

16:26

think the people who make that criticism never think

16:28

of the counterfactual, what would happen if we didn't

16:30

give those guys the guns and I think that's

16:33

totally legitimate. On the other hand,

16:36

should the United States be running around the world giving guns

16:38

to people who are desperate to use them? Now

16:41

you're getting into a very interesting

16:44

question because when the United States

16:46

makes their decisions, who

16:48

do you think the primary concern is with

16:51

regard to blowback? It's

16:53

the United States. How will this come back

16:55

to bite us? And what

16:57

is our assessment on being able to counter whatever

17:00

that threat is, known

17:02

or unknown, estimated, overestimated or underestimated,

17:04

what is our likelihood of being

17:06

able to combat that threat? Versus

17:10

what's not our problem, right? If we

17:12

arm a bunch of Taliban

17:14

to fight Russia in the

17:16

80s and they go rogue

17:18

and they transform into some kind of

17:21

extremist group that harasses

17:23

Russia or the UK or France, I

17:25

mean think about it, throughout the 80s

17:27

and 90s it wasn't the United States

17:29

that al-Qaeda was targeting. It

17:32

was Paris. It was London. It was

17:34

Turkey, right? Right, mate. But

17:37

from an American point of view, when all you're

17:39

focused on is American primacy, like, I

17:42

know we're friends, guys, but this is your mess. But

17:44

we'll come help you if you want to pay us, partner

17:47

with us or increase trade. That's

17:50

how American government

17:53

officials think. Because if

17:55

we make a mess that somebody else has to clean up, guess what that

17:57

means? It means you're too busy cleaning up the mess. to

18:00

compete with us as a superpower and Even

18:03

better if you're like the UAE or the

18:05

Saudis or the Qataris where you want our

18:07

weapons to clean up the mess That

18:10

we made that you now have to deal with you

18:13

get what I'm saying Yeah, it's a capitalist market

18:15

in politics just as much as it is in

18:17

economics and Andrew How

18:20

would the CIA change if someone like

18:22

Trump came to power because Trump is

18:24

very much about? Withdrawing

18:26

a little bit not intervening

18:28

letting countries as essentially

18:33

Operate in a far more free way

18:35

than someone like the Democrats and Biden

18:38

would that have a massive impact or? Not

18:41

much at all. Well, what I think is really interesting

18:43

is that when we talk about a potential Trump presidency

18:45

we have precedence And

18:50

we can never mistake a a

18:52

campaign promise with a with a presidential

18:55

reality the

18:58

If if Trump wins in 2024

19:01

there's a couple things we can very likely

19:03

expect we can expect a mass

19:05

exodus from CIA more people will leave people

19:07

have been Leaving CIA in the highest numbers

19:09

ever since his first presidency

19:12

Why because they have ideological

19:14

differences with the president? They don't want

19:16

to gamble young people when I

19:18

say young I mean young careerists under the age of 35 They

19:21

don't want to gamble their 30 year

19:23

government career on a white

19:26

house that keeps flipping back and forth between extremes

19:28

They just don't want to do that not when

19:31

you can go to Google or Amazon and

19:33

have a perfectly good 20 year career Right

19:35

as a security expert or an threat assessor

19:37

who knows whatever else? So there's a there's

19:39

more attrition than ever before coming out of

19:41

CIA and not just CIA but across the

19:43

federal government So we know

19:45

that Trump will if he becomes

19:47

president We know that he if

19:49

he disagrees with CIA, he'll just cut funding. He'll stop

19:51

using them Because he's

19:53

already proven that he's happy to go

19:56

to the commercial market To

19:58

do what's known as private intelligence. How

20:00

did that is? something that didn't really exist very

20:02

in in the numbers that it exists. And now

20:04

prior to two thousand and sixteen. When.

20:07

Trump came into office and the see his

20:09

own service to see. I spent all of

20:11

its time and effort accusing him of Russian

20:13

collusion. He was just like our I guys.

20:16

Are you're not hired? not going to work with you

20:18

and lighting a difference on my answering? Why does it

20:20

do that? Because it it's clearly not true. Rang. I

20:23

don't know That's clearly not true. It's

20:25

very difficult to defend. It's very difficult

20:27

to prove. Arm. And and

20:29

intelligence is not an art of proving

20:31

things, as is something that people don't

20:33

understand. Intelligence is an art of assessing

20:36

what is unknown. If. Something

20:38

is known as fast as not. Intelligence.

20:40

Intelligence. Is always unknown. It

20:43

is a series of probabilities.

20:45

Based. On things that you don't know for

20:47

sure, when you have a fact, you've turn it

20:49

over to someone like as the I Law Enforcement

20:52

right when you have a theory. It's.

20:54

Intelligence. So. I

20:56

think what happened with Cia was you

20:58

had eight years of an Obama administration.

21:00

You had very deeply rooted careerists who

21:02

were who were progressive, who were liberal

21:05

politically and when Trump came into office,

21:07

they didn't want to be part of.

21:10

Some giant Russian operation are still very much as a

21:12

Cold War. the goes on the heads of people. A

21:14

Cia. We don't want to lose to the Russians, we

21:16

don't want to lose to to the Soviets. I'm in.

21:19

we don't. We want to defeat them at all costs.

21:21

It's. Hard to break them mentality. And the people

21:23

who are in charge are people who had

21:25

a twenty twenty five, thirty year career. Not.

21:28

The People Who are five years and Seven years.

21:30

And so if you had a thirty year career

21:32

in two thousand and sixteen, that means that you

21:34

started your career. In. The mid to

21:37

late eighties can you be progressive and

21:39

liberal work for the Cia On those

21:41

two things Mutually incompatible, you would be

21:43

shocked at what the construct is inside

21:45

Cia. there are lots of because they

21:47

hire so many young people. You.

21:49

Have a lot of progressive ideas come in at

21:52

the start. Over. Time Those

21:54

people. And like most people I would

21:56

say when you have real responsibility or

21:58

when you have real. Honey. You.

22:00

Started very away from your liberal roots

22:03

and you start to become more at

22:05

least fiscally conservative if you still, even

22:07

if you still do believe in like

22:09

liberal causes. So what happens is either

22:11

liberal, started Cia and then. Become.

22:14

More center or center join

22:16

Cia and shifts more to

22:18

the right or. People. That

22:21

are fairly right. Join

22:23

Cia and just love

22:25

life. Ah, I

22:28

really expected that to go somewhere around. So

22:32

let's say because the Cia have got

22:34

a tough, tough job At the moment,

22:36

the world is becoming ever more unstable.

22:39

That. Was happening. Proxy Wars,

22:41

Adcenter. So. Let's say what's happening

22:43

with the Middle East? What would the

22:45

sea ice job be? At the

22:47

moment. With the conflict

22:49

that is happening with Israel and

22:51

palace I love this question because

22:54

what Cia is doing. What?

22:56

What we know they are doing from the

22:58

headlines, they should not sucking be doing. You

23:01

know who the lead negotiator is for

23:03

the United States negotiating between Hamas and

23:06

Israel. Cia. Director

23:08

Burns. Why? Is

23:10

a Cia director. Why? Is

23:12

the head of the Intelligence? the

23:14

undercover covert intelligence wing of the

23:17

United States? Why is he. Negotiating.

23:21

With. What we accused of a

23:23

terrorist group. And. And

23:26

Israel, Israel's or political party. Why

23:28

is he the interlocutor? That's.

23:30

Not that's not a role for an intelligence

23:32

officer. That's a role for a diplomat. That's.

23:35

A role for a statesman. That. Is

23:37

not a role for a career intelligence

23:39

official. Somebody whose job is to lie.

23:42

And steel and seat without getting caught.

23:45

At. Shows two things. One, it shows

23:47

how the United States views. The.

23:50

Conflict between Hamas and Israel. It

23:52

shows of United States does not

23:54

view it through a diplomatic lens.

23:57

otherwise they put a senior ambassador in there they

23:59

put a statement They'd put somebody from the president's

24:01

cabinet in there. You know where the diplomats are

24:03

spending their time? Saudi Arabia Because

24:07

the United States knows that it has

24:09

very real diplomatic needs in

24:12

the Middle East that it must maintain and Israel is not one

24:14

Of those needs it knows that what

24:16

Israel is is a fucking mess That

24:19

they created that they exacerbated early on and

24:21

that they need to clean up quietly and

24:23

they're hoping that CIA director Burns will help

24:25

make that happen and how what do you

24:27

think is the agenda? How does it get

24:30

cleaned up so to speak? So? There's

24:34

there is no good outcome. There's no

24:36

outcome that makes everybody happy But CIA

24:38

is not interested in making everybody's happy

24:40

the CIA is interested in making American

24:42

primacy prevail So what America

24:44

wants is a two-party solution or a

24:47

two two states to lose a solution

24:49

in This what is currently

24:51

known as the state of Israel? That's what the

24:53

United States wants They want a safe place for

24:55

Palestinians They want a safe place for Israelis and

24:57

then they want to be able to encourage relations

24:59

between the Muslim and Arab world The

25:01

Israeli world they want to increase trade

25:03

They want to have the ability to

25:06

deploy fucking airplanes and warships into the

25:08

Middle East into friendly territory when we

25:10

fight China That's what they want. That's

25:13

what the United States cares about However,

25:15

they get there the fastest that's what matters to

25:17

them the reason that you have

25:19

diplomats meeting in Saudi Arabia and spies meeting

25:21

in Israel is Because what you need to

25:24

have is you need to have the the

25:26

Saudis and the Emiratis two of the leading

25:28

groups in the Middle East except

25:32

Israel which requires Israel

25:34

to accept Palestine That's

25:37

that's the mess Interesting

25:39

you think the United States is thinking five years beyond

25:41

this point They're thinking

25:43

two years beyond this point But to me that

25:46

is look and I accept it and as an

25:48

analysis it makes sense I

25:50

guess the question is how much of this is a

25:52

cynical thing as well in that the UAE Saudi

25:55

Arabia have way more cash in Israel

26:00

Yeah, I'm I understand what you're saying when

26:02

you ask how much of it a cynical,

26:04

right? Yeah, it's not cynical. If it's economic,

26:06

cynical means that there's no real rational. Foundation

26:08

for it that the fact that. That.

26:11

There's real oil. In.

26:13

Both the Uae and Saudi Arabia. In Saudi

26:15

Arabia, that's a very real issue. The other

26:18

thing to keep in mind is the Nazis

26:20

is always trying to counter the Iranian threat

26:22

than while inside the Middle East. Irans.

26:25

Primary. Enemy.

26:27

Of in the sphere of influence

26:30

is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia always

26:32

wants to make sure it contains

26:34

the Iranian threat as well. So

26:36

you have Iran regionally as a

26:38

point of of a. Collaboration.

26:41

For United States and for Saudi Arabia. And for you

26:43

A And on top of that, But. Then you

26:46

have this Palestinian issue which is clearly a point

26:48

of contention and a long time point of contention.

26:50

And. As long as a

26:53

Hamas and and Israel continue to

26:55

be in conflicts. More specifically, as

26:57

long as Israel continues to kill

26:59

Palestinians, That's. That's the

27:02

real problem. Nobody has a problem with Israel

27:04

fighting them, us. Would. It but they

27:06

have a problem with is Israel's. Tilling. Palestinians

27:08

in the name of fighting from

27:11

Us. So. As long as

27:13

that situation continues, You. Have

27:15

a Un is turning against Israel.

27:18

You. Have the question of the International

27:20

Criminal Court. Pressing. Charges on

27:22

Israel. You have the United

27:24

States who used to back Israel

27:26

and is now backing away from

27:28

Israel. United States needs

27:30

Israel because Israel is one of the

27:33

top three wealthiest countries in the app

27:35

in the isn't sub continent. They.

27:37

Have incredible trade and buying power for our

27:40

weapons, systems, our technology, our security interests right

27:42

that there's There's lots of reasons why the

27:44

Nine States wants and needs to continue being

27:46

part of Israel, but to do so in

27:48

a way that distances them? Let me ask

27:50

you what is a horrible question. But if

27:53

we're talking about people whose job it is

27:55

to lie and steel and duel of that

27:57

for a living and to do well and

27:59

it's. You will a about the

28:01

inches United States. Why doesn't the

28:04

United States just let Israel destroyed

28:06

Gaza completely and and this conflict

28:08

forever. There's. There's a few

28:10

reasons for that, right? Reason: Number one: In: by

28:12

the way, just to be watching. I'm not advocating

28:14

for that, but but if we're thinking with a

28:16

cynical how on. That. Would be

28:19

of an approach that. People.

28:21

My look and and you know it.on that's

28:23

I Again, I don't think that's a cynical

28:25

hat What I would say. What we have

28:27

we have a process as the I called

28:30

the At the analysis of competing hypotheses A

28:32

Ch. the analysis of competing hypotheses. When you

28:34

create competing hypotheses, you basically start at the

28:36

extremes. So. There are two

28:38

extremes here: Extreme number one. Just

28:40

let Israel just kill everyone, destroy everything,

28:43

start over from a clean slate. However,

28:45

however, Netanyahu plays as the out his

28:47

brain when he's you know, in his

28:49

bath tub at night. That's. One

28:51

option. The. Other option is cut

28:53

off all support Israel sweeping to support

28:56

the Palestinians and bring every Muslim country

28:58

along with you. right? And

29:00

just completely overthrow Israel. Those.

29:02

Are valid options. On

29:05

a spectrum of extremes so you

29:07

can't just rule them out. But.

29:10

When it comes to why we can't do

29:12

that, Why the United States can't maintain it's

29:14

role as the world's superpower by letting that

29:16

happen. You. Can't op. We need

29:19

the Middle East. The. United States

29:21

needs the Middle East, the you the

29:23

oil from the Middle East and the

29:25

wealth in the Middle East. The Middle

29:27

East has become a financial hub that

29:29

competes with all the financial centers. Me

29:32

I states so to ostracize Dubai and

29:34

Riyadh and Abu Dhabi is unacceptable. Qatar,

29:36

Bahrain Like that the collegiate countries control

29:38

so much wealth and so much oil

29:40

flow. We. Would we

29:42

would be shooting ourselves in the foot

29:44

like we did back in the seventies

29:46

If we try to ostracize or or

29:48

minimize their priorities, their issues and we

29:50

know that that Palestine is one of

29:52

their top priorities. Qatar. Saudi

29:55

Arabia. All of them. So

29:57

we can't just. We. Can't

29:59

just let. We'll do whatever Israel wants

30:01

to do because to do that would cost

30:03

us Jordan, which is a huge strategic partner

30:05

Muslim country in the region. Saudi.

30:07

Arabia and and yea, So. Had

30:10

to send. Unfortunately,

30:12

I think the way that this ends. Is.

30:15

Twofold. So first, Netanyahu is Not

30:17

going to get what he wants.

30:19

He's not going to. Push.

30:21

Out. Hamas. He's not gonna

30:23

push out the Palestinians. Egypt is

30:26

not to that. Jordan is not

30:28

going to accept that there will

30:30

be some sort of brokered ceasefire.

30:32

hopefully soon. There. Will be

30:34

a long term. Truce.

30:36

That's created and in there will continue

30:38

to be a two state solution no

30:40

matter how much politicians in Israel don't

30:42

want that. That's. What's going to

30:45

happen? It. That's what has to happen. Through.

30:47

The eyes of everything that

30:49

is democratic. That's what must

30:52

happen. Where. I'm

30:54

hoping it will go is that countries

30:56

in the west and countries in the

30:58

Gulf will realize that the only way

31:00

to keep this time violence from continuing

31:03

his to force. Palestine.

31:05

And Israel to have some sort of

31:07

economic dependence on each other. So.

31:10

Whether that means you take the entire state of Israel

31:12

and literally cut it and Sas instead of making it

31:14

this weird. Like. Hodgepodge of

31:16

this part belongs to see. This.

31:18

Part belongs to Palestine and despite a big the even

31:20

southern Israeli none of it belongs of house members are

31:23

allowed to live here and they're allowed to live here

31:25

and and not in between. I.

31:27

Can see them literally cutting the entire state

31:29

in half and just enforcing. That.

31:31

The two sides have to live together

31:33

and they have to have some sort

31:36

of economic cooperation because of you need

31:38

the economics so that the Paulsen is

31:40

can become self sufficient? You've heard. ah,

31:42

you've heard Biden talk about the right

31:44

to self determination. For. Both the

31:47

and Palestinians, you can't have

31:49

self determination if you can't

31:51

determine. Your. Own future and a

31:53

big part of determine your own futures. Having control

31:55

of your own economy was the Palestinians have

31:57

never had but the problem is answer is. we

32:00

kind of looking at through this lens of

32:03

economics and whatever else. And for the

32:05

vast majority of governments, I would say

32:07

that makes sense. But Hamas

32:10

are extremists. They do

32:12

not want the state of Israel

32:14

existing. They're rabidly anti-Semitic. How

32:17

can you negotiate with that type

32:19

of government who are

32:22

Islamic fundamentalists? I would argue

32:24

that part of what you're repeating

32:26

right now is actually rhetoric and

32:28

not fact, so

32:30

there is a fundamentalist element

32:33

to Hamas. But Hamas is

32:35

also the legitimate elected government in

32:38

what was Gaza.

32:42

And even now in the West Bank,

32:44

you see an increasing rise of support

32:46

for Hamas. If

32:48

you just look at the news, October

32:50

8th, nobody trusted the numbers that

32:52

were coming out of Gaza because

32:54

they said that tens

32:57

of thousands of people were dying. But

32:59

this was reported by Hamas, which is

33:02

the currently recognized government of whatever. They

33:04

were always pulling

33:06

out the idea that Hamas was not a reliable

33:08

source because it was potentially a terrorist group. Now

33:11

you don't see any kind of verbiage

33:14

like that. Now you literally see Gaza

33:16

officials say this, Gaza officials say that. Well,

33:18

the fucking Gaza officials are the same Gaza

33:21

officials they were on October 8th. So

33:23

what's changed? What's changed is the

33:25

rhetoric from the West. And

33:28

now after seeing that, well,

33:30

maybe Palestinians and Hamas as

33:32

a ruling body, maybe

33:35

they actually do have support on the ground. And

33:37

oh, by the way, Israel has a

33:39

split decision about whether or not they

33:41

support Netanyahu and what he's doing in

33:43

Palestine. So you've got a

33:46

huge shift in public opinion on both

33:48

the Palestinian and the Israeli side. So

33:50

being able to just jump in and say,

33:53

well, Hamas is an extremist organization isn't

33:55

100 percent accurate. They still have

33:58

legitimate grounds to be. there

34:00

because they have been policing

34:03

and forcing, maintaining health, safety, and

34:05

the movement of

34:07

humanitarian goods. I guess my push back

34:10

to that would be just because a

34:12

government is legitimate does not mean it's

34:14

not extremist. So for example, in Venezuela,

34:16

they elected Hugo Chavez, and

34:18

I think most people apart from the

34:20

not so people on the left would

34:22

argue, would agree that Chavez was an

34:24

extreme figure and he had extreme policies.

34:27

Again, it's in the eyes of the

34:29

beholder. So what

34:32

would you call China being

34:35

ruled by the CCP? Are they

34:37

extremists in their commitment to communism?

34:40

What would you call the United States and our commitment

34:42

to capitalism? And

34:45

we, the United States, we are deemed

34:47

a terrorist organization by the Iranians

34:50

because of our extreme fundamentalism. What

34:53

would you call a state where there

34:55

is no division between church and state? Because

34:57

that's Israel. Nobody

35:00

calls that an extremist state.

35:02

So it's all in the eyes of the beholder and

35:04

how you define that. Now here in the West, we

35:07

have over labeled terrorism. We call

35:10

everything terrorism. We call it terrorism

35:12

because inside the United States, once

35:14

you label something as a terrorist

35:16

organization, all the rules

35:18

and all the oversight are much like

35:21

the relieved, the reduced. So

35:23

now it's faster to send troops, it's faster to

35:25

make money, go that direction. It's faster to cut

35:28

off and seize assets. You can

35:30

do anything once you call somebody a terrorist organization. And

35:32

that's why you see this back and forth, even

35:35

in legislation about

35:37

what they call a terrorist organization

35:39

versus a functioning terrorist group versus,

35:42

etc, etc. So that

35:44

being the case, what do

35:46

we do with Iran? Because Iran seems

35:48

to be the major problem in this

35:50

area. You have, I think it's

35:52

fair to say, an extremist government who

35:55

have been funding terrorist groups. So

35:58

what do you do? Do you let them continue to... Do

36:00

you let them continue to fund them?

36:02

Do you apply political pressure? Do you

36:05

introduce sanctions? What do

36:07

you do with Iran? The

36:09

question is so much bigger than Iran. So I'm

36:12

going to answer your question with a second question.

36:15

Where did Iran develop this methodology?

36:19

The methodology of funding Hezbollah,

36:21

funding Hamas, funding

36:24

insurgent groups in Iraq, while

36:26

simultaneously also making itself

36:29

indispensable in the Middle East, because

36:31

Iran is the bread basket of the Middle East. You sit

36:33

in UAE, you sit in Saudi Arabia. The

36:35

headlines say Iran is evil,

36:37

Iran is evil, Iran is evil. The

36:39

produce shelves all say, grown in Iran. The

36:43

food that feeds Saudi Arabia comes from

36:45

Iran. The food that feeds UAE comes

36:47

from Iran. So if

36:49

you want to talk about complexity, how

36:51

do you label somebody a villain when

36:54

they are the ones providing your food? Just like

36:56

the American Civil War, all the

36:58

industry happened in the North, all the agriculture freight came from the

37:00

South. So I say

37:02

that because Iran is modeling a methodology

37:04

called proxy wars. They're using

37:07

revenue to fund extremist guerrilla

37:09

groups to execute their will in foreign

37:11

countries. They learned that from us. That's

37:14

exactly how the United States executed operations all through the

37:16

50s, 60s and 70s. That's

37:18

still how we execute operations. Oh, by the way, China is

37:20

doing the same thing, Russia is doing the same thing, Saudi

37:22

is doing the same thing. What is

37:24

the state of the world right

37:26

now is proxy conflict. It's what happened in Libya,

37:28

it's what happened in Syria, it's what happened, it's

37:30

still happening in Yemen, it's what's happening in Ukraine.

37:33

And you can see how the same elements are present right

37:35

now in the conflict between Hamas and Israel. So this is

37:38

what I was going to ask you because I'm

37:41

not an expert on these things, but just as

37:43

an outside observer, it feels to me like

37:46

we're at a point when the

37:48

West has spent so much time signaling weakness and

37:50

division and distraction and all of the stuff that

37:52

people can see with their own eyes, especially foreign

37:54

people to whom 53 genders isn't a thing

37:58

that they take for granted. the fuck is this?

38:03

When I see Russia feeling

38:06

more confident to

38:08

expand and to fight that conflict,

38:10

when I see Iran more empowered

38:12

to do things in the Middle

38:15

East, when I see China talking

38:17

more aggressively about Taiwan, I

38:19

see the king of the hill is

38:22

weakened, everybody senses it and

38:24

now they're all coming for us. Is that a

38:26

fair analysis? I don't think it's an unfair analysis.

38:28

I do think it's a bit of an oversimplification

38:31

because when we say king of the hill, generally

38:34

what we're talking about or what people might

38:36

imagine is the president of the United States,

38:39

which isn't necessarily how I think we should

38:41

look at this situation. I meant the United

38:43

States. I agree with that. So the United

38:45

States is the leader of the

38:47

free world. At least that's

38:49

what we've been known as for however many decades. The

38:53

problem that we're really seeing here is that

38:55

the West has been

38:57

introducing concepts for the last

38:59

few decades that we

39:02

have all accepted and labeled as democratic

39:05

ideals, as the path

39:08

to a functioning, healthy society, something

39:11

that makes us strong by democratizing

39:13

as much as possible. Let's

39:16

have more people who vote and

39:19

more candidates to vote for and

39:21

more frequent elections and that's

39:23

democracy and that's going to be successful.

39:25

The truth is democracy in

39:27

the American terms is an experiment.

39:30

It's only a few hundred years old. It's

39:32

never been proven out. You know what's

39:35

lasted for thousands of years? Authoritarianism.

39:38

I mean, look at the United Kingdom has

39:40

proven that monarchy can last

39:43

for centuries. The United

39:45

States is still an experiment. We are still

39:47

very much in our middle school years and middle

39:49

school wasn't very much fun for me. I

39:52

don't know what they call it. I don't know what they

39:54

call it in Europe. What I'm saying is that what we're

39:56

seeing is that the United States and this great democracy,

40:00

experiment hasn't evolved in

40:03

the last thirty or four years. If anything, what

40:05

it's done is it's rooted

40:08

itself in idealism

40:10

that isn't actually healthy. And

40:13

now authoritarian regimes are

40:16

developing and evolving faster, growing

40:18

faster. You see more and more countries ever

40:20

than you see more countries than ever before

40:22

opting for authoritarian rulers,

40:25

strongman rulers, or

40:27

ultra-nationalist rulers. Look at Germany, look

40:29

at Italy, look at what President

40:32

Macron in France

40:35

just announced this week, that

40:37

the Europe we know could die, it

40:39

could go away. We

40:42

have to be clear about the fact that

40:44

our Europe today is mortal, it could die.

40:47

It could die and that depends

40:50

solely on our choices.

40:55

It could die, it could go away. Meaning

40:57

the idea of a democratic continent

41:01

where multiple states agree to work

41:03

together could go away in favor

41:05

of multi-centered

41:08

nationalist nations, which is exactly

41:10

what Trump represents, exactly what

41:12

Netanyahu represents, and that's

41:15

what the primary threat is in France to

41:17

win the elections this year in France. I

41:20

guess what I'm getting at is the broad,

41:22

I know you said it's an obvious simplification, I'm sure

41:24

that's true, the broader sense

41:27

of the West is weakened

41:29

one way or another for whatever

41:31

reason and other people smell that

41:33

and they're using that to their

41:35

own advantage as they should. Is

41:38

that what's happening? I would say

41:40

I hesitate to use the words

41:42

weak because I don't want to say that the West

41:44

weakened. What I want to say is that the West

41:46

hasn't evolved, right? It's the

41:48

difference between pitting a 22 year old

41:51

athlete against a 42 year old athlete, right?

41:54

The 22

41:57

year old athlete heals faster. Has

42:00

more modern training alternatives? Has you

42:02

know been? I've been in better

42:04

gyms with better coaches with all

42:06

of optimized modern society. For last

42:08

eight years, the forty two year

42:10

old athlete has had the same

42:13

access to those tools. But. As

42:15

dealing with a forty two year old body. And.

42:17

All the life changes, the hormone changes, the come

42:19

at forty two, the life changes, responsibilities, etc. etc.

42:21

So you just nobody would think about putting a

42:23

forty two year old against a twenty two year

42:25

old and. And betting on one or the

42:27

other to win or lose and foot race. One.

42:30

The United States. We've been focusing on our

42:32

Forty Zero athletes instead of finding a way

42:34

to constantly reinvent ourselves and bring up our

42:36

twenty two year old athletes. which is why

42:38

we're looking at two presidential candidates are both.

42:41

Like an ancient. how doesn't happen? right?

42:44

And how many people in our house and

42:46

in our in our Senate and in our

42:48

Congress. Are. Five.

42:51

Four. Five six term people. Like.

42:54

We are not investing our future. We are

42:56

and have always been as the United States

42:58

a revolutionary group, We. Still, literally pat

43:00

ourselves on the back for winning independence from

43:02

you. Focus is none an adult rice. And.

43:05

Look at what we've done. We talk about it. But.

43:07

We don't actually implemented.

43:09

And. The rest of the world is

43:12

leaning into their advantages in authoritarian regimes.

43:14

In a talker, sees. I'm

43:16

good, I'm good. You mention that because one of

43:18

the things that people talk about particularly in our

43:21

space and I'd love to us in i love

43:23

to ah see this question which is. They.

43:25

Talk about the threat from China. Particular.

43:28

When it when it comes to Taiwan. Did.

43:31

You see China as his massive

43:33

threat to the West. And

43:35

massive threat to stability. Or.

43:38

Do you think were overstating and we're

43:40

creating a Bogeyman out of China? Know

43:43

I think China poses the most real

43:45

threat that exists and s not just

43:47

me, that's actual written assessment from across

43:49

the United States military, my intelligence community

43:52

and policy network, right? Everybody views China

43:54

in the United States, everybody to shine

43:56

as the next great threats. And it's

43:58

a great threat. Not necessarily because of

44:01

missiles and guns and aircraft carriers. it's

44:03

because of it's economic power. In.

44:06

The United States. we have

44:08

enjoyed being the prime economic

44:10

superpower for decades. Nobody's

44:13

even close. Meanwhile, in

44:15

the top five or so, China has

44:17

slowly been climbing up the ladder. Japan

44:19

used to be number two, not Chinese

44:21

embassy, right? so he can imagine. The.

44:24

The gap between first place in second

44:26

place is getting smaller. Every

44:28

year while. whenever. You're the

44:30

first place person in a race and second place

44:32

as the cats at. You. Started psych

44:34

yourself out he said to wonder can

44:37

I keep this up. And. Then

44:39

the rest of the world is watching me

44:41

even more intently because somebody might be the

44:43

new number one. And that just

44:45

gives them more opportunity more advances even if even

44:48

if at the end of the year in the

44:50

race you're still first place and they're still second

44:52

place. but they got closer to winning. They.

44:54

Have more opportunities. You have less opportunities.

44:56

They have more friends. You have less

44:58

friends. right? That's that the. That.

45:01

Nature of competition. The.

45:03

Reason sign as a threat is because

45:05

they're catching up economically. They're catching up

45:07

in terms of global influence. Yes, they're

45:09

also catching up militarily a cetera, et

45:11

cetera, the Taiwan issue. Is

45:13

really just an indicator. Along.

45:15

The path of how far.

45:18

Ahead the United States really as because of Sign

45:21

of Finds a way to take time. One I

45:23

believe they will. I believe they will find a

45:25

way to take Taiwan whether be administratively, militarily or

45:27

or or socially right in many ways. They made

45:29

their first move in January of this year. Because.

45:32

The the can see. Like.

45:35

China Unification Group: Is

45:37

who controls their Congress. Who

45:39

controls Taiwan's Congress. After.

45:41

The elections and all of that came about

45:43

as a result of a massive influence campaign

45:46

from mainland China. The started know that sort

45:48

of well before October but was heavily reported

45:50

on in October. So even though people celebrated

45:52

the fact that it was a a pro

45:55

independence president's. The whole

45:57

fucking congress is pro China. imagine

46:00

What does that tell you about the country? That country is split

46:03

too. The control

46:05

of the day-to-day legislation

46:07

wants unification. The control

46:09

of the executive wants

46:11

pro-independence. That doesn't sound

46:13

like a Taiwan that has made up its mind yet, but

46:15

in the West, all we hear about is

46:17

the pro-independence and Taiwan making

46:20

closer ties to the United States. The

46:22

reason that we have a CHIPs Act in

46:24

the United States, the reason that we're bringing

46:26

CHIP production domestic is because we

46:29

think that Taiwan is going to remain independent. No,

46:32

we're hedging our bets against it. The

46:35

reason that Taiwan is building more,

46:37

or TSMC is building more plants

46:39

in other countries is because they

46:41

know it's just a matter of time. Do

46:44

you think the American global empire is overextended?

46:48

I don't know that it's overextended as much as

46:50

I think that it was a functioning, successful model

46:52

that other people are replicating. Coming

46:58

out of World War II, the United

47:00

States had a few advantages. One, if

47:02

you recall, we were suffering from a

47:04

great depression, an economic depression. We were

47:06

a poor, broke country in the

47:08

1930s. What

47:11

we discovered from World War II is

47:13

that war transforms your economy. It

47:16

makes everything that was poor and

47:18

broke and absent be flush and

47:20

wealthy and productive. Same thing's happening

47:22

in Russia. We've seized

47:24

Russian assets and put international sanctions

47:26

on Russia, and their country grew 3.2%

47:29

in GDP this year. The

47:32

currency is stronger than ever. The alliances

47:34

with China and India are stronger than

47:36

ever. Vladimir Putin looks stronger than he's

47:38

looked in the last five or seven years. How did

47:40

that happen? Because wartime economies

47:42

are good things. We

47:45

just empowered Russia the same way that

47:47

Japan empowered us by attacking us in

47:49

Pearl Harbor in World War II.

47:53

But the model coming out of World War II that

47:55

the United States had was that everybody else was fucking

47:57

bombed. Infrastructure

47:59

was destroyed. The UK,

48:01

Poland, all

48:03

throughout Europe, Japan, everybody needed

48:05

to be rebuilt and reinvented.

48:07

So the United States came in and said,

48:10

hey, we can rebuild, reinvent,

48:12

and give you guys loans. So

48:14

we basically forced ourselves, we thrust

48:17

our policies, our ideology, and our

48:19

currency across the globe because

48:21

everybody else had been fighting a war for an

48:23

extra five years longer than we had. That

48:27

model worked really well because it made everybody dependent on

48:29

the United States throughout the 40s and 50s. Well

48:32

then come by the 80s, other countries started

48:34

to realize how this worked. And

48:36

they started to lay their own foundation, China

48:39

being chief among them. And then come 2001,

48:41

what does the United States do? We launched

48:43

this massive campaign against terrorism, focusing all of

48:45

our efforts and all of our energy into

48:47

the Middle East. Guess who didn't fight in

48:50

the war on terror? China. They

48:52

just continued to build the same model that they had

48:54

learned from us coming out of World War II. So

48:58

they're not trying to go to war with the

49:00

United States because they know from Chinese methodology,

49:02

Chinese strategic discipline, it's all written

49:05

in the art of war. You

49:07

don't have to fight and kill your opponent

49:09

if you can starve your opponent, if you

49:12

can out farm your opponent, if you can

49:14

make all of your opponent's friends your friends

49:16

and isolate your opponent. That's the same thing

49:18

as winning without a single fire or shot

49:20

being fired. That's

49:22

why the Chinese are investing so much

49:25

in working in Africa and different African

49:27

countries with the mining, also

49:29

in South America. So they're trying to get

49:31

their fingers in as many different pies as

49:34

possible in order to enrich themselves. Correct. And

49:36

it's working, right? If you look at the BRICS, the BRICS

49:38

trading block, it used to just be the BRIC

49:40

trading block, the trading block with four partners. So

49:43

just who are the partners? Just people who don't

49:45

know. Absolutely. BRICS started

49:47

as BRIC, Brazil,

49:49

Russia, India, China, as a economic trading

49:51

block. South Africa joined in I think

49:53

2010-ish. That

49:56

five person group has grown again As

49:58

of January this year with four. War New

50:01

countries Ah Saudi Arabia. I.

50:03

Am sorry Nasa your idea yet. They're still undecided.

50:06

The. U A E Ethiopia, Argentina

50:08

dropped out. I'm. Ah

50:11

Uruguay think joined. And.

50:14

Is another country is escaping me. So

50:16

The Bricks is growing in terms of

50:18

volume and mass. The leading country in

50:20

the Bricks organization is China. Take.

50:23

Control like seventy percent of all the Gp

50:25

that is accounted for in the bricks. Very

50:27

similar to how the United States controls the

50:29

vast majority in the G Seven countries. So

50:31

here you literally have what is essentially a

50:34

democratic. Trading. Organization

50:36

the G Seven. And. A.

50:39

Less democratic. I wouldn't say

50:42

authoritarian, but I would say

50:44

functioning. Pragmatists. Trading

50:46

block. That. Involves everybody who's our

50:48

enemy, plus a few people who are actually

50:50

our friends. right? That.

50:53

That economic disparity. That that. Investment.

50:56

Of effort and money. Really goes

50:58

to show you what the world thinks

51:01

about where the future lies in terms

51:03

of economic power. And development.

51:05

We tell people you can't get our money

51:07

unless you play our way. China.

51:10

says. You. Can be trade with

51:12

us and we won't ever get in your knickers as

51:14

long as you trading in un. Well. This

51:16

is that I was gonna ask a

51:18

d think you mentioned the word idealism

51:21

earlier and it definitely seems this way

51:23

to me like. The. Western world goes

51:25

around reelect cheering everybody about how they're supposed

51:27

to do this and do that and your

51:29

spices have this attitude. Tell G B T

51:32

Que I liked we have the World Cup

51:34

and to title we saw on our Tv

51:36

screens is like in old stead the human

51:38

Rights light on the same those things on

51:40

matter I'm just saying when you come to

51:42

other people's homes and you start telling how

51:45

to live their lives. Most.

51:47

People and not going to react well to that safe

51:49

you've got someone else who comes in and says always

51:52

great Done business with the on a big fan Lead

51:54

said down: have a cigar. who

51:56

are you gonna be friends with right exactly

51:58

so do you think our ideal The

52:01

idea that our

52:04

world view and our ideologies takes

52:07

primacy over economics, over military alliance,

52:09

over everything is

52:12

causing us to lose friends

52:14

in the world. In many

52:16

ways, our ideology, our adherence

52:18

and forced ideology on

52:21

others is causing us to

52:23

lose influence in the world. Absolutely. You

52:25

can't, I mean, just think about it in terms of person

52:27

to person. You can't go to your friend's

52:30

house and if you're Christian and they're

52:32

Muslim, you can't come to their house and then tell

52:34

them, well, you have to cook me Christian food, you

52:36

have to put up crosses, you have to do this,

52:38

you have to do all these things. Where's my bacon

52:40

sandwich? Yeah. In order to make me

52:42

happy. How dare you? Right? You

52:44

can't do that if you intend to keep them as your friend. Right.

52:47

Now, when they're dependent on you

52:50

because you're the landlord and

52:52

they pay you rent and you're the one

52:55

that provides them the groceries and you're the one that provides them

52:57

the heat and you can turn off their electricity at a button

52:59

press, when you go to their house, guess what they do? They

53:01

make you some fucking bacon. Right? But

53:04

that's... They're going to be resentful. They're

53:06

going to be bitter, they're going to hate you and when

53:08

someone comes along who's going to give them the light and

53:10

heat and the groceries without being

53:13

forced to make them bacon, who are

53:15

they going to pay? Right. And that's what

53:17

we're seeing right now. We're seeing the world, when I

53:19

say the world, we're seeing all the developing countries

53:22

start to realize they have options. That

53:25

option, the fact that they even have options

53:28

is exactly why China is a threat. Without

53:31

China, they would not have options still. Their

53:34

only option would be the United States. That's

53:36

how our whole economy was built to make

53:38

sure nobody else had anybody else they would

53:40

ever choose. Now there's options

53:43

and we are too busy fighting

53:45

over who's going to be the next president, labeling

53:48

genders, changing the

53:50

definition of anti-Semitism so that our college

53:52

and university students can go to jail.

53:55

That's what we're doing. That's

53:58

not what the world needs right now. What I'm

54:00

hearing out of what you're saying

54:02

is really the way for the West to,

54:04

if we actually cared about the values of

54:06

human rights and all of that,

54:08

what we would do is instead of lecturing other

54:11

people, we would get our shit together and make

54:13

sure that we were working with other

54:15

countries in the world in a way that

54:18

was respectful of their cultures, even if we disagree

54:20

with them, so that we have

54:22

more influence in the world, so that

54:24

our values remain the predominant values, broadly

54:26

speaking, in the world. Every

54:30

fucking time a US president goes to any country,

54:32

it's always about, is she going to ask them

54:34

about the human ... People

54:38

don't take well to being

54:41

lectured about how to run their own

54:43

household. No one does. How

54:47

do you see a way for the West to

54:50

A, realize this and B, start acting in a

54:52

way that is actually coming back to the point

54:54

right at the beginning in our

54:56

own fucking self-interest? I

55:00

don't think that we have ... We've lost our

55:02

opportunity to change it quickly. Right

55:04

now, we're at a position where the only way to turn this ship

55:07

around is to treat it like an aircraft carrier. We've

55:09

got to turn it slowly now. That's

55:13

in part because we've gambled on the

55:15

wrong horses in multiple occasions. We've made

55:17

too many mistakes. Think about our withdraw

55:19

from Afghanistan, huge mistake. Think about

55:22

our incredible support for Ukraine out of the gates. The

55:25

American people, according to the White House, the

55:27

American people believe that the war in Ukraine

55:29

is a fight for democracy. You

55:31

can't change that overnight. You can't suddenly

55:34

change your stance on, well, they're

55:37

not democracy anymore. You can't. Even

55:39

though there's all the corruption in Ukraine, even though

55:42

there's all the valid points of

55:44

mismanagement in Ukraine, of Ukraine

55:46

partnering with some

55:49

shady ass people to fight against

55:51

the Russians. Now that

55:53

you've made the narrative that it's a

55:55

fight for democracy, to turn that

55:58

narrative in a different direction is going to take time. Same

56:00

thing is happening in Israel to say that

56:02

the that the Israelis have the right to take

56:04

on Hamas when there were 2,000

56:06

dead Israelis that

56:08

was one thing it's very different now

56:11

with the same 2,000 dead Israelis and 35,000 dead

56:13

Palestinians The

56:17

the world changes and it's hard for us to

56:19

change our narrative So the way that we start

56:21

to work towards changing it in my opinion is

56:23

to understand that we need to basically lick our

56:25

wounds For the next two to

56:27

four years get our shit straight actually

56:30

play the game that we try to portray to other people

56:32

and Recognize that we

56:34

have to become more pragmatic and less

56:36

ideological about who we partner with President

56:40

Biden ran on a campaign promise

56:42

of bringing the pariah state of

56:44

Saudi Arabia to justice Now

56:48

he's in fucking Saudi Arabia

56:52

Promising them security guarantees that the United

56:54

States will give Saudi Arabia if they

56:57

can help broker a peace

56:59

deal between Hamas and Israel

57:01

how far from our original

57:03

goal are we and all of

57:05

that started when Ukraine was invaded by Russia

57:08

He went he cut off Russian oil cut

57:10

off Sanctions to Russia and then had to go

57:13

to the Prince of Saudi to say hey guys

57:15

We need you to produce more oil but not charge more

57:18

money Right to be fair.

57:20

He doesn't remember what he said It's

57:23

gonna be a problem for him There's one thing

57:25

that I wanted to touch on briefly where you

57:27

said that Saudi Arabia are You

57:31

know undecided about whether to join

57:33

bricks if Saudi joined bricks, that's

57:35

huge, isn't it that changes the world

57:37

entirely it does It's really interesting because

57:40

if Saudi joins bricks So the Emiratis

57:42

did join bricks and that went unnoticed

57:44

by most of the Western world except

57:46

for the people who were actually watching

57:49

Economic interests in in the Gulf states. That's

57:51

a big deal One of

57:53

the bricks members the new members is Iran. That was

57:55

the fifth member. I didn't our member right Iran is

57:57

a member of The bricks trading block. So now the

57:59

UAE and Iran are part

58:01

of the same trading block. That means you can

58:03

be enemies and in the same trading block. Saudi

58:07

Arabia... Because you have a common enemy.

58:09

You have a common enemy and a

58:11

common motivator. Trade is your common motivator.

58:13

Your common enemy is the ideological

58:15

expansion of the West that threatens

58:18

to force you

58:20

to change your own ideology. So

58:23

you've got multiple competing priorities here.

58:25

But if Saudi Arabia joins the

58:27

BRICS then you're exactly right. What you basically have now

58:29

is a group where the

58:31

wealth just exponentially increased. The GDP,

58:33

the total buying power... Again

58:36

it's a game of economics. So now

58:38

if BRICS starts trading in Yuan or

58:40

Renminbi, the Chinese currency, instead of in

58:42

US dollars, all

58:44

of those US dollars that those 13 countries

58:47

possess go into the marketplace. Well what

58:49

happens when you have a flood of new currency into

58:51

the marketplace? The value of the currency goes down. Meanwhile

58:54

they're gonna buy up a bunch of Chinese Renminbi. Well

58:56

what happens when you buy a bunch of currency and

58:58

take it off the market? The value goes up.

59:01

So now you've got to drop a further declining

59:03

US dollar, a rising pressure on the

59:06

Renminbi. The currency alone tells you what

59:08

the economics of the countries will look

59:10

like. That's why it's such

59:12

a big deal if Saudi Arabia joins BRICS. Can

59:15

we talk about Ukraine a little bit? I was interested because

59:18

just so that you know, in

59:20

the original days of the conflict I was

59:22

very supportive of us supporting the Ukrainians with

59:24

a view to them getting the best deal

59:27

possible, which was what was

59:29

always going to happen. There was never a

59:31

question of Ukraine winning, as in like the

59:33

Ukrainian flag flying over the Kremlin. That was

59:35

never going to happen. But I thought that...

59:38

First of

59:40

all I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why

59:42

it's not democracy, but also I

59:44

did see that as an attack

59:46

on the Western bloc for

59:48

the reasons we've already discussed. So

59:52

first of all let's talk about the democracy part of it. What's

59:55

your Take on that? So prior

59:57

to the invasion of Ukraine... Ukraine

1:00:00

was seen as a struggling or

1:00:02

developing democracy as best. It had a

1:00:04

score for out of ten on multiple

1:00:07

mass human Rights Watch indexes, so it

1:00:09

was not a functioning democracy. It

1:00:11

wasn't. It was a developing or transformers of

1:00:14

democracy because it was still. Very.

1:00:16

Much corrupt, it was still embedded with

1:00:18

Russia, it was still practicing active political

1:00:20

may have ripped a pressure, etc etc.

1:00:22

It was not what we in the

1:00:24

West, what you in the Uk, What

1:00:26

we in the United States with any

1:00:28

of our g seven countries. It's not

1:00:30

what any of us would determined to

1:00:32

be a democracy isn't It was just

1:00:34

a country that was still on the

1:00:36

cusp of whether or not it would

1:00:38

have except well in another thing in

1:00:40

that direction I would say right? And

1:00:42

if you look at the region. It's

1:00:45

kind of the stand out in that region

1:00:47

in terms of moving towards democracy. What what?

1:00:49

other countries that a former Soviet Union countries

1:00:52

are than Latvia and Lithuania deliveries enjoy life.

1:00:55

More than what other countries in that

1:00:57

region. We're moving in that direction. so

1:00:59

I it's It's not about being comparative

1:01:01

to me, it's about the narrative that

1:01:03

was presented. To the entire

1:01:06

Not Just Americans. All.

1:01:08

English speaking countries were given a narrative and

1:01:10

that narrative was, This is a democracy and

1:01:12

we have to protect a democracy that was

1:01:14

false. It's like. Someone. Who's

1:01:17

moving towards graduating college? Is.

1:01:19

Not a college graduate, that's that. Totally,

1:01:21

thats what would I? What I think

1:01:23

I'm saying is part of the reason

1:01:26

that Ukraine finds itself and conflict and

1:01:28

Russia and seen this, I have lots

1:01:30

of family in crime. Whatever is since

1:01:32

Ninety Ninety One Ukraine repeatedly as made

1:01:34

the conscious choice to move animal westwood

1:01:37

direction right? and that's why it's partly

1:01:39

why it's being attacked. So.

1:01:41

he meat main you you're probably right

1:01:43

to say it is not when you

1:01:45

know probably right you are one hundred

1:01:47

percent right is not a democracy like

1:01:49

the uk the united states the oligarchs

1:01:51

have a ridiculous amounts of power in

1:01:53

ukraine ah etc but the direction of

1:01:56

travel was west side which is why

1:01:58

russia is coming in to prevent that

1:02:00

Absolutely. So I would argue we

1:02:02

are in supporting Ukraine,

1:02:05

we are defending the democratic

1:02:07

movement of that country. I wouldn't disagree with

1:02:09

that. I wouldn't disagree with that. But

1:02:12

is defending a democratic movement enough

1:02:15

to make the kind of support that we saw from

1:02:17

NATO and from the United States? Well, NATO is the

1:02:19

United States as part of NATO. I

1:02:21

would say no. The real reason that

1:02:23

NATO and the United States are involved

1:02:25

is not because anybody cares about democracy

1:02:27

in Ukraine. It's because

1:02:29

they all care about isolation and

1:02:31

degradation of Russia. That by

1:02:33

definition is a proxy war. Containment,

1:02:36

yes, the sorry, degradation is not about

1:02:38

wanting them to be destroyed, but it's

1:02:40

about making sure they don't continue expanding.

1:02:43

They weren't expanding before, right?

1:02:46

Like Putin invaded, according

1:02:49

to the Russian narrative, right?

1:02:51

Putin invaded Ukraine because

1:02:53

of many, many

1:02:55

years worth of warnings that NATO

1:02:57

cannot expand against the Russian border.

1:03:01

We can't take a threat from the West. And

1:03:03

that threat continued, like you said, was moving in

1:03:05

that direction. So he

1:03:07

made a decisive action. Since

1:03:11

that day, and even now with

1:03:13

Lord Cameron's announcement just

1:03:15

this week, that he doesn't

1:03:17

necessarily prevent

1:03:20

Ukraine from using UK-based

1:03:22

weaponry to bomb inside Russia. Like the United

1:03:24

States has made a hard line on this.

1:03:27

American weapons cannot be used to attack inside

1:03:29

sovereign Russia. The

1:03:31

UK has never been very express on

1:03:33

this. They're still not very express on

1:03:35

this. But the general understood agreement that

1:03:37

was struck yesterday between Lord Cameron and

1:03:40

Zelensky, or this week between Cameron and

1:03:42

Zelensky, was that the storm shadow missiles

1:03:44

specifically, I mean, if they make

1:03:46

their way into sovereign Russia, that's

1:03:49

okay, right? Why would the UK

1:03:51

let weapons systems in the

1:03:53

UK be attacked, go

1:03:55

into sovereign Russia? Why doesn't the

1:03:57

United States want American-made weapons to be attacked?

1:04:00

go into sovereign Russia. It's

1:04:02

because the United States does not want Russia

1:04:04

to believe they are being intentionally degraded,

1:04:07

attacked, reduced from

1:04:09

outside. If they want to have a wall

1:04:11

at Ukraine that we defend the wall, that's

1:04:14

one thing. It's completely different to go

1:04:16

into and across the border. Zelensky

1:04:18

has been attacking across the border for over a year. If

1:04:21

you can't keep your own country safe, what is

1:04:24

the point of going into the other country? The

1:04:26

only reason you attack into the sovereign country on

1:04:28

the other side is essentially to create and foment.

1:04:31

In a war, you want to degrade the

1:04:33

manufacturing, you want to degrade the military facilities,

1:04:35

the oil storage. I don't

1:04:37

know that that's ... But come back to

1:04:39

me to the broader thing, which is the

1:04:41

Russian narrative. There

1:04:44

are two things about that. One is the

1:04:46

question people like John Meyersheimer and Tucker Carson

1:04:49

and others never get asked is the counterfactual.

1:04:51

If you're saying NATO expansion is a problem, by

1:04:54

the way, clearly provocative to Russia. You

1:04:56

can't dispute that. Where would Russian

1:04:58

tanks be if we didn't have NATO including

1:05:03

Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania? Russia's always going to

1:05:06

want to control that area. Russia

1:05:08

has to control that area. Correct. My

1:05:11

argument is maybe the

1:05:14

fact that American military corporations really are

1:05:17

keen on NATO expansion because it means

1:05:19

they get to retool Eastern Bloc countries

1:05:21

into Western weaponry has been a bad

1:05:24

thing that we've allowed that to run away the

1:05:26

way that it has. If

1:05:28

NATO wasn't in Eastern Europe, Russia

1:05:31

would control all of the Eastern European Bloc

1:05:33

as it always has done, as it always has

1:05:35

attempted to do it. When you say control though,

1:05:37

are you talking about military control, economic control or

1:05:39

something else? Well, it totally depends. It depends

1:05:41

on whether Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and you want to

1:05:44

go back into the brotherhood of Soviet peoples or

1:05:46

whatever. Who do you think controls Europe now? Well,

1:05:50

depends which part of Europe. Okay. Who do

1:05:52

you think controls NATO? The United States.

1:05:56

Does anybody see that that is a problem? I'll

1:05:59

tell you who does see that. Germany sees as a

1:06:01

problem now. France. See that

1:06:03

as a problem now. Yep, they didn't see it

1:06:05

as a problem prior to Russia invading Ukraine. So.

1:06:08

The very thing that you're talking about. this

1:06:10

Russian expansionary. Want to self a dozen. Deny.

1:06:13

State has been doing it. Why?

1:06:15

Do we think them? Why do we think that Russia? Expansion.

1:06:19

Means Russian tanks. Why?

1:06:21

Does that concept come to mind? Because that's

1:06:23

the narrative that the West has made? No,

1:06:25

it's because of history. On.

1:06:27

As a Russian I can tell you right

1:06:30

every time Russia has a strong leader it

1:06:32

expands Westwood's and very often with war from

1:06:34

cats because the peoples of Eastern Europe dunno

1:06:36

want to be part of that the Russian

1:06:38

block I would say but in terms of

1:06:41

that that Russia narrative and then there's another

1:06:43

Potter which is in twenty Fourteen for I

1:06:45

mean there are some economic interests as I

1:06:47

think you'd agree that Russia's pursuing he respects

1:06:49

them of Nato expansion rush him once once

1:06:52

had Crimea back to the needs of back

1:06:54

the right. It needs the poor it needs

1:06:56

that the connection to to. That area to

1:06:58

be able to project power from the Black

1:07:00

Sea salts. a lot of the stuff that

1:07:02

boots and said these on our troops and

1:07:04

twenty four didn't they? What does it the

1:07:06

that with the Russian. Attitudes.

1:07:09

To communication. Is. Not

1:07:11

we're going to say you know the

1:07:13

exact truth here, Boots and said some

1:07:15

things and then they've turned out to

1:07:17

be completely untrue over and over. Now,

1:07:19

I'm not disputing that Nato expansion is

1:07:21

an aggravating factor. I'm just saying if

1:07:23

we're being super cynical about it, the

1:07:25

United States and Russia are competing for

1:07:27

influence in the region, right? right? That's

1:07:29

what's happening there for days, and I

1:07:31

interest to support that. The party that

1:07:33

we are. Packing effect of yeah

1:07:35

I agree but but I didn't want I would

1:07:38

say we need to wrap up the actually this

1:07:40

point. So twenty so eight eight. I.

1:07:42

Would actually say the opposite. Okay, tell

1:07:44

me why, Because. So. We're both

1:07:46

agreeing. Sounds like. That. The United

1:07:48

States should be supporting Ukraine. Yes, Because.

1:07:51

It serves American interest to support you. agree

1:07:53

us, right, and I'm. Thank. You for clarifying

1:07:55

that were different the same page that. I

1:07:57

don't know that's our. I don't know that

1:07:59

that. Russia. Will expand

1:08:01

via War Forever. I would

1:08:04

imagine at some point they'll learn it there's a better

1:08:06

way and put need a strong man what he

1:08:08

knows, his conflict. We noses war. So and you

1:08:10

talked about the impact on the war economy as well

1:08:12

and that's. That. Is exactly why

1:08:14

we need to keep fighting in Ukraine. Because

1:08:16

if we stop fighting in Ukraine, What?

1:08:19

We've just done is we've created

1:08:21

this fucking juggernaut in Russia. That's.

1:08:23

Dependent Now well attack on a military industrial

1:08:26

complex that continues to fight. Okay, that's really

1:08:28

see. I didn't expect it to say that.

1:08:30

So if we stop fighting in Ukraine, that

1:08:33

juggernauts not going to stop. Because.

1:08:35

To stop is going to kill it's own

1:08:37

economy, which is the one thing Russia can't

1:08:39

let happen right now because it doesn't have

1:08:41

the alliance's from the satellite states. To.

1:08:43

Create it's agricultural base. And.

1:08:47

It's. Last assets to the West. It's

1:08:49

last influence to the west. it's heavily

1:08:51

tied now said China and Iran. And

1:08:53

India through the bricks. Yeah, it has

1:08:56

basically become the world's bad guy. Yes,

1:08:58

If. We just back out of Ukraine. Right now

1:09:01

Ukraine's gonna get bulldozed and all the concerns that

1:09:03

Poland has and France has in Germany has

1:09:05

are going to come to fruition Shots. I

1:09:07

didn't mean back out. What I guess what I'm

1:09:09

saying is from day one, What I said

1:09:11

is the point of supporting Ukraine is to help

1:09:14

them get the best deal. And what I mean

1:09:16

by the best deal is look let's be

1:09:18

honest right? A sustainable from his

1:09:20

and coming back to the in. These.

1:09:23

Regions are yes there are some mineral resources

1:09:25

than some of them have potentially com important.

1:09:28

Again, I don't think they're coming to Reddit

1:09:30

and the beginning of the conflict. that one

1:09:32

coming back. And frankly, most people in Ukraine

1:09:34

didn't really care about losing some land in

1:09:37

the East. I'm sorry. I love that you're

1:09:39

saying this. I. Love what you're saying this

1:09:41

because. Two years ago. This.

1:09:44

Exact conversation would have been just totally on a

1:09:46

brother. I said this accuse I said this a

1:09:48

week after the conflict started on the biggest tv

1:09:50

show in the Uk. I don't I said this.

1:09:53

So you and I were saying the same thing

1:09:55

as I was on Let's Freeman right within just

1:09:57

a few weeks of the thing starting saying the

1:09:59

exact I. That we were saying the same thing.

1:10:01

So for the what I think the here's what

1:10:03

I think is the right outcome. because I'd I'm

1:10:05

not an American citizen unknown the Cia. I don't

1:10:07

just care about the West elsa care about people

1:10:10

in Ukraine have family there. In. Our Is

1:10:12

is and I have family in Russia to I don't

1:10:14

when these two nations to be fine interlinked other rights

1:10:16

but from what I see and please tell me your

1:10:18

opinion I'm just trying to solve their free their spawn

1:10:21

right from day one I said. We. Need.

1:10:23

The reason we support Ukraine is they get the best

1:10:25

the A what does that mean That means they least

1:10:27

and they lose the least amount of land. For.

1:10:30

Long Term security. Not a piece of

1:10:32

paper with some words on an actual

1:10:34

security south and Nato membership which is

1:10:36

ah Mr. Brown likely or like a

1:10:39

Korean type of scenario with physically. What?

1:10:41

Happened and Twenty fourteen and then and

1:10:44

Twenty Twenty Two can never happen again.

1:10:46

That's that's the best outcome for Ukraine.

1:10:48

That's what I'm saying now. When.

1:10:51

Ukraine is. Let's be

1:10:53

honest, losing. right? The.

1:10:55

Thing we need to do is. Help them

1:10:57

get the best deal which means long term security

1:10:59

for whatever they're gonna have to give away right

1:11:02

would would do You see out of what I'm

1:11:04

saying, I see it as exactly right. Like them.

1:11:06

The best thing that Ukraine has ever been able

1:11:08

to hope for. Is. Getting

1:11:10

a good deal, From

1:11:12

a from a truce or from a treaty. Yeah.

1:11:15

Zielinski made so many mistakes in

1:11:17

the beginning, talking about not just

1:11:19

restoring like. Mike. Pre Soviet

1:11:21

invasion Ukraine. but the all the way back

1:11:23

to like Ninety Seven or Ninety Six Arab

1:11:26

boundaries that you could clear you can see

1:11:28

he wasn't a statesman. You can see that

1:11:30

he was. Something. Else right

1:11:32

now that we've had to go through

1:11:34

the transformation now that you've seen that

1:11:37

now that the American people and Europeans

1:11:39

have seen the truth slowly get peel

1:11:41

back about what's happening in Ukraine between

1:11:43

Zealand skyn everybody else now that we've

1:11:45

had all this. I. Think we

1:11:47

can all agree that the best outcome

1:11:49

here is just Ukraine, not. Being.

1:11:52

Completely. Taken over by Russia not to put

1:11:55

in his ever said he wanted to take. Ukraine's.

1:11:57

sovereignty from the beginning he said he didn't want a drink

1:12:00

Now to your point, Putin

1:12:02

is an expert in information warfare. We

1:12:05

talk about it being like communication out of Russia.

1:12:07

It's nothing about what comes

1:12:10

out of Russia can be called communication. It

1:12:12

is all shaped narrative. It is all informational

1:12:14

warfare. It's the same thing that's happening in

1:12:16

the West. We just have

1:12:18

free speech. But

1:12:23

that free speech can still be shaped

1:12:25

with an overall messaging and narrative that

1:12:27

appeals to Western ideals. The same thing

1:12:30

is happening out of Russia. So

1:12:32

I agree that what we can reasonably expect

1:12:34

to see is Ukraine

1:12:36

not lose much more. Everybody

1:12:39

stopped killing each other. And then some

1:12:41

sort of security infrastructure put in place

1:12:43

that keeps what is remaining of Ukraine,

1:12:46

along with some sort of support

1:12:48

to a new fledgling government that is going

1:12:51

to rebuild Ukraine. Because Zelensky can't stay. That's

1:12:53

going to be one of the things that Putin guarantees. France, I know

1:12:55

I've been hogging the mike. No, no, no. It's

1:12:57

great. What is your criticism of

1:13:00

Zelensky? Because this is interesting to me, right?

1:13:03

I think, here's what I would say. He's obviously

1:13:05

completely inexperienced in terms of government. I thought that

1:13:07

in the early days of the war, he was

1:13:10

heroic in leading his people. I really did. What

1:13:14

I have seen since, however, is he's

1:13:17

firing the head of the

1:13:19

army because he said some things that needed to

1:13:21

be said, frankly, in my opinion. And

1:13:24

look, the corruption side of Ukraine, Ukraine is one

1:13:27

of the most corrupt countries in the region, like every

1:13:29

other country in the region. It's not an outlier. The

1:13:32

only reason Russia isn't quite as corrupt

1:13:34

is the corruption has been nationalized and

1:13:37

the oligarchs are now appointed by Putin instead of

1:13:39

being their own men. So

1:13:43

what are the mistakes you feel that Zelensky has

1:13:45

made in the way that he's prosecuted in this

1:13:47

conflict? And by the way, everybody

1:13:50

would make mistakes fighting the war, right? What's

1:13:53

your analysis? I think that what you've

1:13:55

already summarized is 90 percent

1:13:58

of the problem. Okay. Right? that

1:14:00

the idea that this war couldn't have been shut down

1:14:02

in the first few weeks, it

1:14:05

absolutely could have been shut down in the first few weeks. Essentially

1:14:08

the territory has only shifted five or

1:14:10

seven percent in either direction over the

1:14:13

last two years. But

1:14:15

for all the death, all the destruction,

1:14:17

all of that for somewhere between two and five

1:14:19

percent of change is ridiculous.

1:14:22

Zelensky could have reached basically the same outcome, the

1:14:24

same best outcome, could have been reached within a

1:14:26

few weeks. The problem was

1:14:30

the same heroic Zelensky that you're talking

1:14:32

about, that was just a face, that

1:14:34

was an act, that was a sign.

1:14:37

That was something that was projected to the Western

1:14:39

world because at the time he was being coached

1:14:42

by Western powers, chief of which is the

1:14:44

United States. So when Putin presented

1:14:46

an offer early on, every

1:14:49

advisor on Zelensky's side, American

1:14:52

advisor, British advisor, NATO advisor, would

1:14:54

have said you can't take that

1:14:56

offer. Zelensky wouldn't have had the

1:14:58

experience himself to know what offer to take, what's a

1:15:00

good offer, what's a bad offer. But

1:15:02

what he did know how to do was rally

1:15:05

the people. So

1:15:08

now two years later, who

1:15:10

looks like the fool? Zelensky.

1:15:13

But who was the one that was actually puppet mastering

1:15:15

the whole thing? NATO. And

1:15:17

we don't take any of the fall for that. So

1:15:19

that's for me, when you talk about

1:15:22

a statesman, when you talk about a

1:15:24

diplomat, when you talk about a true

1:15:26

representative of the people, what

1:15:28

you're really talking about is somebody who has the courage to

1:15:30

stand up for what they believe is truly right

1:15:33

for their people. I totally respect your background and

1:15:35

your family in Ukraine and in Russia. It doesn't

1:15:37

mean I'm right, by the way. Yeah,

1:15:39

but I still respect it. The vast majority of

1:15:41

the people that I've spoken to, the Ukrainians that

1:15:43

I've spoken to, the Americans

1:15:46

who have gone to Ukraine to

1:15:48

support the conflict legally or illegally,

1:15:50

the vast majority of them that

1:15:52

I talk to are like, they

1:15:54

are disappointed and discouraged by how

1:15:56

Zelensky specifically handled this conflict from

1:15:58

the beginning. That I

1:16:00

would dispute. I don't

1:16:02

know now. I think now the situation is

1:16:04

changing and for the reasons that we've discussed.

1:16:07

In the first year of the conflict,

1:16:09

he was seen universally as a

1:16:12

hero in Ukraine. The polling showed

1:16:14

that the people I speak to, that's what

1:16:17

I saw. That's

1:16:19

fine. And I think that the first year is

1:16:21

the first year. Yeah, but that's when, see, this

1:16:23

is what I was going to ask you because

1:16:25

I feel like what

1:16:28

ideally should have happened is when

1:16:31

the Russians pulled back from Kiev, when the

1:16:33

Russians pulled back from Herrson, when the

1:16:35

Ukrainians liberated their area around Harkiv, when they

1:16:38

were making all of these gains. That's when

1:16:40

the deal should have been done. The

1:16:43

problem is when you're winning, you

1:16:46

don't, and the Western allies are

1:16:48

sending you weapons and they're like, why would

1:16:50

you do a deal? You're thinking, let's get back

1:16:52

to, well, let's get back to the Eastern regions.

1:16:55

Let's think about Crimea. Let's go back to 1991

1:16:57

borders. Do you

1:16:59

think maybe that's why they didn't do

1:17:01

a deal then? It's just maybe like

1:17:04

they were waiting to see the summer

1:17:07

counteroffensive that obviously failed and all of

1:17:09

that. So if you were, the first

1:17:11

counteroffensive was wildly successful. Totally. And

1:17:14

that's the point, in my understanding, that's the point in which you're

1:17:16

saying we could have called it, hey, let's

1:17:18

come to the table right now. We're winning, momentum's on

1:17:20

our side. Really, that's what we're talking about, is just

1:17:23

a shifting in momentum. Yes. All

1:17:25

the amateurs out there are the ones that are

1:17:27

talking about winning and losing. Yeah.

1:17:30

It's really just a shift in momentum and a shift in advance,

1:17:32

right? But when you're talking about that

1:17:34

shift in momentum as a time to negotiate, that's

1:17:36

one of those times. I want to know

1:17:38

what was happening in the back rooms. Were

1:17:40

the Western allies supporting Ukraine saying,

1:17:42

hey, you guys, this is

1:17:44

a great time to come up with some sort of offer?

1:17:46

There were offers that were being brokered by China. There were

1:17:49

peace deals that were being brokered by China. Turkey

1:17:52

offered a peace deal in the same period of

1:17:54

time. They weren't taken. Were they not

1:17:56

taken because the administration, under the

1:17:58

administration, was not taken? Zielinski was like,

1:18:00

we're going to go against what our

1:18:02

advisors are recommending and we're going to

1:18:04

keep pushing. Or was that deal not

1:18:06

taken because the advisors themselves said, hey

1:18:09

guys, you're winning. We're not slowing

1:18:11

down our support. Let's keep

1:18:14

pushing. I would venture to

1:18:16

say that the advisors encouraged them to keep pushing.

1:18:19

I still believe all

1:18:22

of my training and all of my spidey

1:18:24

senses, if that's what you want to call it, this

1:18:27

is a proxy conflict. The United

1:18:29

States is using this as an

1:18:31

opportunity to degrade Russian capabilities in the

1:18:33

long run. Not just like make

1:18:35

Russia lose influence. They

1:18:37

are literally stealing assets that

1:18:40

belong to Russia, that are currently being

1:18:42

held in European and Western banks. Sovereign

1:18:46

assets, they just passed

1:18:48

legislation. That means they can take and

1:18:50

sell those assets and use them for their own.

1:18:52

They just stole money from Russia

1:18:55

because of a disagreement over what Russia was

1:18:57

doing in Ukraine. That's

1:19:00

having that kind of power, having that kind of

1:19:02

benefit. That's not because they're trying to

1:19:04

protect NATO. That's not because they're trying to enforce democracy.

1:19:06

They're trying to degrade a global

1:19:08

power competitor within a GPC country. That's

1:19:11

the problem. Putin

1:19:13

knows that. Whoever comes after Putin when

1:19:16

that time comes also knows that they're

1:19:18

being degraded. The weapon systems are being

1:19:20

degraded. Thousands of tanks are gone. Rockets

1:19:23

are gone. Missiles are gone. Troops are gone. All

1:19:25

of the influence, all of the regional

1:19:29

damage, all of that is something that Russia is going to have

1:19:32

to deal with for the next two decades, just like Israel is

1:19:34

going to have to deal with their decisions for the next decade

1:19:36

to two decades. This

1:19:38

is strategic. It gives

1:19:40

the United States and Western allies that

1:19:43

much more time to be first place in the

1:19:45

race and it neutralizes Russia.

1:19:48

That's, to me, what's really happening in

1:19:50

Ukraine. The focus on Ukraine

1:19:52

is just a distraction. I know it's the

1:19:55

Ukrainian people. It's everyday life. But

1:19:58

what is American interest in Ukraine? How

1:20:00

does any American, how is their life,

1:20:03

how is their day impacted in any

1:20:05

way by the outcome of Ukraine

1:20:07

and Russia? It's not. So

1:20:10

why are American dollars, why are American

1:20:12

interests, why is so much American attention

1:20:15

going into what's happening in Ukraine? Because

1:20:17

what we do have, what we

1:20:20

do value is maintaining a dominance over Russia.

1:20:23

Andrew, it's been a wonderful interview. Before

1:20:26

we head over to locals where our

1:20:28

supporters get to ask you questions, we're

1:20:31

gonna end the interview with the

1:20:33

same question, which is what's the one thing

1:20:35

we're not talking about as a society that

1:20:37

we really should be? It's

1:20:40

a great question. You know, the thing that keeps me up

1:20:42

at night is not where we

1:20:44

are now and it's not where

1:20:46

we're going in the next one to two years. It's what will we

1:20:49

look like in ten years? I

1:20:51

have two young children. I have an 11 year old son

1:20:53

and I have a six year old daughter. I'm I'm

1:20:56

curious if not worried about what what

1:20:59

will the Western world look like when my son

1:21:02

is 20 years old? 21

1:21:04

years old started able legally able to drink

1:21:06

in the United States. And

1:21:09

when he's starting his young professional career, what will it look like

1:21:11

for my daughter when she's 15 16 years old? It's

1:21:13

so difficult

1:21:16

to be able to even visualize what the world will

1:21:19

look like then will we be Driven

1:21:21

by democracy will we be driven by autocracy will

1:21:23

the United States still be a superpower will the

1:21:26

United States be at parity with

1:21:28

China? Will my children have

1:21:30

to learn Chinese in order to

1:21:32

even have a career? Right.

1:21:35

These are really interesting and difficult questions

1:21:38

For me and what I find is that most people

1:21:40

are talking about right now and not

1:21:42

many people are talking about how to prepare for One

1:21:45

of two or three outcomes that are high probability in

1:21:47

about ten years. Ni hao. It's

1:21:54

been an absolute pleasure guys head on over to

1:21:56

locals where we ask Andrew your questions Now

1:22:00

Francis and Constantine, who'd make the better

1:22:02

spy? Who's the better spy? How

1:22:05

come?