Inside the Putin/Trump Summit: Does it Go Anywhere?

like he's some kind of fucking great guy. I mean, we could we could pick apart the specifics all day long and this could be a four hour podcast. But they talked for three hours. It was three on three. Initially it was supposed to be one on one, Thank god it wasn't. But it was three on three. Uh, wake Coff Rubio and President Trump with Putin, Lavorov and what's poot guy's name? His aid?

press conference up. The working lunch never happened. Everybody jumped on their jets and went home. What came out of it was basically, instead of talking about a ceasefire, they want an actual peace deal. Uh not. Many details have been coming out slightly some over the weekend. Have I saw Wick, Cough and Rubio, they were on the Sunday shows. We're expecting the Lenskin, a lot of European leaders to meet in d C in the White House tomorrow. What

do you guys tracking with this? What are your thoughts on this? You guys can want to wrestle for hogles first.

for ABC, or at least analyzing it. We really wanted to see him come out of there and say that there was a ceasefire because it's you know, the concern is that Russia is just going to use these talks to look like they're actually heading towards some kind of into the conflict and the negotiated element, but essentially just keep doing what they're doing, which is incrementally taking territory

from Ukraine and deliberately targeting civilians and killing civilians. Five died since the summit to where we're talking right now, right, and let's lead clear on who Putin is. He's a guy who deliberately targets maternity hospitals and nursing homes, right to two sub parts of any society that you would think would be completely off limits. That's who he is.

So the concern is that that's what he's doing. He's just going to play this out and keep going to meetings and you know, try to get the president to come to Moscow, and it's it's just a delaying tactic for him to try to, you know, do he what he wants to do, which is he doesn't want to cease far he wants Ukraine, right, So that's one thing. I think what the US has to do now is walk the walk. So we said, and there's a bill pending right now, the Blumenthal Graham Bill or Yeah bill

that's in the Senate. If that passed, and it has eighty five co sponsors, so it will pass, and it goes through Congress, there's ten days for the president to sign it. It's veto proof but it or he doesn't sign it and it just becomes law on ten days. That's where we need to go. And I think I heard the Vice president, former Vice President Pence say that this morning on television, So I think that's an indicator. That's a lot of Republicans think that's the case, and

obviously Democrats do too. So that's where we need to go.

record for a reason. And let Ukraine start buying very advanced weapons systems with zero caveats on them, right shoot them wherever you need to. Don't hit some civilians obviously like your adversaries, but anywhere on Russia's open game. And there's three hundred and fifty billion dollars that I know of or I think I know that could be used for that. And then I would start talking about and this is where I'd go into a little bit of

the positive that came out of this. What is going to be the security assurances, because it can't just be Russia saying I promise not to attack you. That's not worth anything. So I just saw a special Envoy Witkoff saying that what was agreed with Russia was that there'd be Article five type security assurances from the United States and Europe. Of course, that's a big deal. That's a big deal, even if it's not NATO, which I think

Ukraine will eventually end up in NATO. But if they have an Article five, which means they're attacked again, it's like they attacked all of us. We're all going to war. That's the big benefit of NATO membership Article five. So if there can be some treaty, some iron clad, you know, is a term everybody's using to do that, that's a big deal for Ukraine and it'll make it much more palatable for them to seed some territory. I believe ultimately they have to make that decision, not the United States.

But if they do get to a point whether they can't agree to some and I would say not seeded, I would just say acknowledge you can't get it back militarily, not legally, just give parts of your country away. But if that's acceptable to Ukraine, then this security assurance is ironclad, which would be I think would have to be a treaty of some sorts, you know, So it goes through the Senate with the United States, and then the Europeans should start planning right now how they would move forces

into Ukraine to have an actual physical presence to shore up any of this security assurance. I think the Ukrainians would need to go in and stay there until you know, just have rotations through there until either Ukraine is firmly in NATO or it's just you know, clear that it's not going to happen. So I know that was a big dietry, but I think there was some positives, handsome negatives that came out of this.

perhaps even into the EU. So those do mark points that the US has leverage on, and you know, I would just like to just kind of like to make the point that we don't need you know that with Russia's got nothing on the US. Russia is a tin pot nation. It's not like, you know, it's not even like China, Russia is no I mean, I won't say Russia is no threat to US. Russia's that's certainly a

threat to US interest. But my point is that that raid against Russia, and given the day di plomatic military might that the United States has, we're dealing with an adversary who is who is way beneath us, you know, just like again, I mean, there's no Russia's in no

position really to make demands of us. Now, admittedly, Russia has a chunk of Ukraine and has the ability to continue the war indefinitely, although they're taking, as we've talked on this show, huge amount of casualties, by which I mean an estimated a thousand casualties a day, and some days that's close to one thousand dead, you know, and a number of casualties varies between the thousand and fourteen hundred a day by the most conservative estimates. That's just

a huge amount, you know. But the fact that Putin can very cynically just continue this war indefinitely shows how little he cares for, you know, for his own people. Yeah, that being said, I think everyone on the show understands Putin is just a bad person. Getting back to what

Mick was saying about secondary sanctions. So first of all, yes, absolutely, you know, the way that we leverage Boutin is that if he doesn't come to the table, and we need to hear more of this really other than the negative sanctions on him, if he doesn't come to the bargaining table, then we do back some path I would say path,

a pathway to NATO and certainly security guarantees. And secondly, as far as secondary sanctions, yes, you know, the sanctions on those countries about backing Russia or trading of Russia, China, India, Turkey being primary among them, that that will hurt, that will hurt Russia. But we've got to be serious about this. I mean, you know, we've been talking about putting tariffs on the entire world with the exception of Russia. I don't know, I don't know why it's so reluctant.

I do to see US military personnel on their knees rolling out a red carpet for a man who I consider an adversary to our national interests that discussed me and Putin lap set up those those optics are huge for him.

entirety of Dombas for kar Ki. Even summers and sum me where it's like they don't even have that. They're trying to get.

to seize fire. There should be some iron well I mean iron clad. I mean it's not an executive order. What we all can see is not necessarily iron clad. It can just switch with the next administration. So it has to be some kind of treaty I think that everybody agrees to for that to be actually worth it for Ukraine. And then down the road. I mean, first of all, Putin doesn't get a veto on NATO right or Finland and Sweden wouldn't be a NATO right now. I mean they wouldn't be a NATO right now. So

down the road, I agree with Andy. I think we need to get to a point where Ukraine is firmly part of NATO, and I think that should be part of the plant. We got to stop just conceding everything

before theotiation start. That's the other thing, Like we shouldn't go in there saying, oh, we already agree that no US troops are going to be on the ground, No NATO know this, know that these are all things that're supposed to happen during negotiations, not saying that we can see them. But you certainly don't concede points before you start the negotiations and they haven't even started yet. I

would I would, you know again, to try to balance this. Hey, the US is putting a lot of effort into this. They I do agree with Andy. I don't know what the deal was with the red carpet stuff, but I think it. I think the US is putting a lot of effort in this. Obviously we're going to see them meeting with President Zelensky. I think President McCrone, President Stubbs, Starmer's going Starmar's going out. Okay, you know they're not asking me. But i'd also suggest that they don't lay

everything on the table. They don't come out there and just say everything they talk. I mean, part of negotiations should be you know, we had a great meeting today. We're making pro progress. This is the kind of things we're looking at. The next step for a tripart a trilateral meeting is going to happen then, but not not put everything out on the table. It's certainly not are you dirty, launder out. And the newsletter that we're launching it just doesn't help.

And I think I don't know that I would imagine that European leaders and Zelenski have planned for the worse, and they certainly should when they come to the White House on Monday, such that, you know, My point is the US does not have as much leverage as we did maybe a year or two years ago, and that Europeans around the point probably of saying, well, okay, fair enough,

but we don't agree. You and Putin can talk about what you want, but we're going to continue to support Ukraine in its fight and and then just walk away. And then we now we look really now we look really powerless, right, you know, So I mean it's hard and soft power, right, soft power diplomacy. I mean, you've got to back it with obviously, you have to back it with with action. And my point is simply this that we're not really necessarily in position, but we have that leverage anymore.

he done to deserve that? And the other wild part was like Trump had an interview with John Hannity afterwards and he says, oh, yeah, now it's all up to Zelenski, Like what, like, piece isn't up to Zelenski, It's up to the Russians, who invaded a fucking country that was not aggressive with it three years ago to get out of their country like, uh, it's just incredible the hoops that Zelenski has to go through compared to like his

bro woop. Frankly, he looked ridiculous. I mean, that's what it's playing like, Honestly, That's how it's been playing from the last two days. Is that Trump look ridiculous super like uh like Jovia like their best bud. It's like, dude, they see't your best bud. Sorry to break it to you. I know he's got a uh proclivity towards like dictators stuff, but it's like, at some point you got to act

like an actual, like American president. And it's crazy because the most liberal guy here is acting like the most hawkish right because I could just swarm my mouth and say whatever I want, but it's I mean, it's just kind of mind boggling, to be honest.

an independent branch of government. He didn't agree to a ceasefire. It's time to pass it. I mean, we can't keep making threats and then not following up or they're just gonna be like, Okay, well it doesn't really matter. We're gonna lose. It's gonna clout this like like Andy was saying, you know, eventually the Europeans will just say, just get out of the way. Then, because you guys aren't, you're just hosting lavish, you know, beatings and not sorry to say.

to trade. Yeah, I mean it's it might as well be ten thousand by then. Right now, I've seen economists which I'm not say this could be super disruptive to international trade. So I don't know the actual consequences to it. I'm looking at it from a national security Ukrainian and an or in Ukraine perspective. But I think even the prospect of it is why Putin asked for the meeting.

He didn't agree to anything but that we know of, But I do think the prospect of it is concerning, which means I think we should move forward with it. I mean, like dr he said, we're basically putting tariffs on everybody in the planet, so except for Russia, So why not in this they would not be affected by it. China, India, and Turkey are the countries that by the most energy from Russia.

you're trying to high jump before you can even crawl. Also, the other part that we didn't, like we have talked about before, like for Ukraine to okay because they are a democratic country like it or not Bouten and everybody else, like they have to change their constitution and get like parliamentary approval to swap to like actually hard make the make the borders like hard borders.

that rehousing. Who's paying for that, the international community? Russia? Russia, all of its assets that are frozen right now. You know, the way I see it should never go back to Russia. Either they need to use it to defend themselves or they need to use it to rebuild themselves, which was

caused by Russia. This is going to That's why it's so important to have a ceasefire during negotiations because even if this is good faced negotiations, which is a big if, it's going to take a long time to get there, just because of all of the issues they have to deal with, the ref the men in the constitution, the referendums, the resettling population, all the other issues which are also

extraordinarily important, Like the first Lady wrote this letter about these Ukrainian children that were stolen. I mean, this is just barbaric act. I mean, all that stuff has to be included in the agreement, and then we have to have an iron clad security assurance, which to my way of thinking, is some kind of treaty. Right, there's something that just can't be broken, Like like I mean, we gave assurances Ukraine, we defend them in the nineties when they give up the NRD good weapons.

those threats. I mean, you're going to have the most two most powerful armies in Europe combat experienced with the most and that on the Ukraine had side certainly the

best equipped militaries in Europe facing each other over a you know, a very short distance. I mean you can't. You can't rely on a peacekeeping force to enforce that ceasefire. It has to be the terms of the agreement. And as Mike points out, that is what's going to be so complex about this.

so they would be making both decisions. And you know, my way of thinking, they need to start putting consequences on Russia, which means they should start planning how if there's a ceasefire, like okay, so how are these units going to work together and enforcing that cease fire. How are they going to move into Ukraine? How they're going to integrate, at least in coordination wise with the Ukrainian military.

I think they got to start doing that now for practical reasons, but also to show to show putin this has happened, we're planning on it, and and I know this might be controversial, I'd also say I'd also put a line in the sand, like, is there a place that Russia gets to when Europe decides no Moss, Like, are they gonna let him take keep? I'm not saying it's any happen anytime soon. I'm not saying it's ever

gonna happen. But when is Europe going to say, Okay, we're willing to contribute troops to prevent Ukraine from being taken over? Entirely right, because now every all the West, including the US, is just reacting to what Putin wants. Yeah, we need to start hitting having him react to what we are saying we want and what we're gonna do.

I guess we're talking a lot about the summit, but the question remains it was the summit even about you know, where we were in We certainly are not and we're certainly in no better position as from the US standpoint than we were before this summer. We seem to have even less leverage because we have shown such extraordinary deference to Putin. I mean, you know, I know, we keep getting back to the the optics, but they were they were really they were really harmful to the United States.

And the United States is position as appearing as a I mean in part not even I didn't even portray us as being impartial in this is my point. You know, of course we should be leaning towards Ukraine as the invaded country. And I think I mean for me again, I mean, you see endless churn about what was accomplished,

what was discussed. You know this, this this memo was found in the Captain Cook Hotel, and reporters are pouring over it to clean some substantive insights into what occurred, and it appears to be just kind of a you know, a protocol direction.

was just weird. And I tell you, if I'd been one of the military commanders ordered to do that, I would have I would have I would have felt. Now I'm just glad I wasn't in that position. I would certainly have heard I wouldn't see I mean, uh, And I think probably someone realized during the summit, Hey, this is this is going south for US. This is not looking good. When I say, I'm talking collectively is the US.

And so that's why you kind of saw this scripted I think press conference afterwards and the plans afterwards for dinner and all of this where it was a working.

who actually wants peace? And when the Zelenski and the EU leaders are like, this is crazy. What he said has come for is being ridiculous like he has been for the last three years. They could kind of paint it on like Zelenski, they being like, oh, you know what, you really don't want peace. That's my speculation as to what Russia would like. And I can't even begin to try and like understand what Trump wants. Frankly, what are your thoughts? Make you go first?

saying that was a positive. I mean, he's unless that's not the case, but he's a spokesperson he's a special onvoy, so but tomorrow I think needs to be a lot behind the scenes, like what do we all collectively trying to get to with President Zelensky in the lead on what he could accept and probably equally important, what he could actually sell to the Ukrainian people, right, because he's not making these decisions. Ultimately he's the best position to represent.

Obviously it's democratically elect the leader of Ukraine. But he can't even just go on there and slap the table and say.

negotiation milestones to be known. Not only do you not want to give away things like NATO membership and US boots on the ground before he actually enter the negotiations, but you don't want to actually say what your your bottom line is. And I think that everybody should know that, and then everybody should keep it mum, and then the consequences should be discussed. Okay, So we want to have a trilateral meeting with Putin and Zelenski being basically the

primaries in the US, you know, facilitating it if they need us to do it, or they could get the Europeans to do it, and then and then if Putin doesn't show any progress, consequences have to happen, or he'll meet you know, he'll have the red Coppert rolled out for him every month as long as he can keep his word going and make it look like that he's he's advancing it. So there has to be consequences, and we have to get all of our stuff in one sock.

any other areas where whether fighting is taking place. He means the south, I can take any area I want in Ukraine. And I was thinking, hey, well, of course Putin's saying that. But if he could do that, why he wouldn't he do that?

are they to be open for questions? It's going to be like you know, the normal like Oval how it's been for the Trump administration, that Oval Office kind of like pow wow, gaggle whatever of just like where they're just they're basically like just rap rap sessioning. It's just like a jam session, like anything goes. It'll be kind of interesting. There will be a lot of it. So I think it's gonna get a little bit crowded in the Oval Office. I do.

like about them, but they are. They are center stage now in substantive issues and going so and again it's I mean, the proof will be tomorrow and Tomorrow's discussion to see how it pans out. But I think I think they're coming with armed with the worst case scenario of hey, look us, if you're not on board with what we're saying and with a path to peace having to involve the cease fire, having to involve all these things. If you're not on board with this, the war will continue.

And we're quite capable of supporting Ukraine without your help. I think that's what's going to happen. And you know, so again it gets back to, yeah, that's that's kind of positive. We've been certainly financially, we've been trying to get European nations to step up to the play when it comes to the defense of Europe, and now they're willing to do it. But unfortunate we the United States, don't seem to be leading that. We don't seem to be on the same train. I hope, I hope I'm wrong.

it doesn't it's it's not to our own advantage. You don't see Russia, you know, well they just say maximalist stuff, but they're not they're not talking about their internal discussions and maybe they don't even have them because it's, uh, you know, an autocracy. But we need to be much more circumspect about what we're saying collectively to the media, even though I'm an analyst in the media. Uh, they don't need to We don't need to know everything. We

want this to actually work. And sometimes giving away everything we're willing to do and not do is not beneficial to our part of the negotiations. And then again, and I think Andy just said it, Europe needs to be ready to you know, not just be the guys sitting around the speakerphone listening to everything that just happened. They need to be in the room. I mean, they're the ones that are going to move troops into Ukraine to

support the ceasefire. And they're the ones that I didn't just come up with this, they're the ones actually talking about, well, what is our red line? A we're going to let you know, if the worst case scenario, we're going to let Russia take all of Ukraine, or we're gonna we're

going to decide that you know that's not going to be the case. You know you're going to be a Chamberlain or a Churchill here. So I hope tomorrow they just come out full support. They basically explain without giving details, that we're on the same sheet of music, and then they're ready for the trilateral or marta multi national right include the UK and France, and they have more than a right to have a seat at the table. They're the ones that are going to put their troops into arms away.

prepared to march cars Europe. But they have, you know, they they've they've changed their perspective on and this is all this all goes through the massive strategic mistake by President Bootin. Right, So he vaded a country that's twenty eight times smaller and land mass four times smaller and population. It's been three and a half years. Over three and a half years, and he's taken about nineteen percent of

the country. He's also caused NATO to expand by two more countries at the thirty two now, I guess, and he's got every country in NATO to want to spend more on their own defense because of him. So he can he writes the history books in Russia, but he doesn't write the history books. The history books are going to look at this as a huge strategic mistake, and we need to make it an even larger one.

telling the line. When it comes to what the West wants in regards to a ceasefire and peace agreement, the consequences have to be really bad because he already, he already sees, he already perceives the fact that if he turns, you know, if he comes back with less than owning all the train that he is, you know that they've

already earned all these things that he has said. If he comes back less than that, there are going to be elements of the Russian population, sizable elements that start questioning why this war happened in the first.

country for nothing. I cannot recognize the fact that we have spent only money in the US, have spent only money in really creating a in delivering a devastating blow to Russia via our proxy Ukraine. You know, I mean that from it from a pure US standpoint, it's samboled US interest. That was a remarkable feat and all we did was spend money. And yet there are still knuckleheads who think that that. You know, phils start talking as though we were cheated.

This is advantages the United States of America. It means all those nine hundred and fifty thousand casualties, if we were to go to war with Russia, wouldn't be available to fight us. All the tanks, all the armored personnel carries, all the aircraft, all that stuff that Ukraine has managed to take off the battlefield literally is not going to go up against the United States if we were to have a conflict with them. So it's not charity, as President Selenski has said anything.

and you know, Aghanistan and Iraq. But that's not the case and sixty one hundred and fifty billion to like literally decimate the the Russian army and also do the right thing too. Let's put that on top of it, right, Like Ukraine didn't do anything. They got innovated. It's not exactly. That's a fucking rounding error in our deficit and national debt.

of our weapons systems, and it showed the world. You know, whether or not this is fair, but a lot of countries that that had been all out on buying Soviet era or Russian made equipment associate now that equipment with being it it being destroyed by Western weapons systems, and so you know, there's it's had kind of a shift in the way the world views not just military power, but you know, Ukraine siding with the Web, I mean, the West siding with Ukraine, providing Ukraine with all these

systems from storm Shadow to attackers high mass that have just devastated had a devastating effect. He had short term, but devastating short term simply because we didn't give them enough. Has been a great laboratory and a kind of exposure to the world of some of the weaknesses in Russian military equipment, a doctrine, training, tactics, all of the above.

I think they even see, like conventionally Holy Mackerel, like the Ukraine basically was a David and gliascenario and David's still fighting, you know, Yeah, David's still fighting and gliath Is is turned out out to be Goliath. So that's why they always talk. It's it's there there. As soon as they start seeing that this that everybody can see that they're not as strong as we thought, they start talking about nuclear weapons. So I don't say we even

engage with that anymore. You can let Medvedev or whatever his name is just say stuff like that. We need to focus on ending the conflict and then understanding once and for all that NATO has a significant role to play in the future of protecting democracies, including our own. I think this has made it clear that it's not obsolete. It's not something that just won the Cold War. It's something that is beneficial to all the countries that are in it, and they need to play a part, you know,

to promote Trump's whites. It's not just get behind the US and we'll protect everybody. We will, but you got to do your part. You got to bring you got to bring your game to the to the fight, and that means to build up your own defenses, which now they clearly are and standing unified when it comes to the autocracy of the world like Putin and and showing unifying unity.

topical or current on the High Side. So it's another way for us to get the information out to you as social media algorithms are pretty iffy and you never really know what you're gonna get. So this is a once a week email. It'll slide into your inbox and it will have you know the greatest hits of that week.