reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 argues that Cuba should make a deal and asks what that deal would entail and what Cuba should do. He describes Cuba as currently a failed nation, noting that they “don’t even have jet fuel to get for airplanes to take off” and that they are “plugging up their runway.” He says that the United States is talking to Cuba and to Marco Rubio, and asserts that Cuba should absolutely make a deal because it is a humanitarian threat. He emphasizes that many Cuban Americans will be very happy when they can return to greet their relatives and do things that they should have been allowed to do for a long time. He states his interest in the people who were “treated so badly by Castro and the Cuban authorities” and notes that they “have been treated horribly,” adding that they will see how it all turns out as “Cuba and us, we are talking.” Speaker 0 asks whether that would be a good deal. Speaker 1 responds by outlining the current situation: there is an embargo, there is no oil, there is no money, and there is “no anything.” He then asks rhetorically whether, if a deal isn’t made, the United States would consider an operation like the one in Venezuela. He says he doesn’t want to answer that, suggesting it would not be a very tough operation if he did answer, but states he does not think such an operation will be necessary. He concludes with “Mister president.”

And yet we we let Japan come in and dump everything right into our markets and everything. It's not free trade. If you ever go to Japan right now and try to sell something, forget about it, Albert. Just forget about it. It's almost impossible. They don't have laws against it. They just make it impossible. They come over here. They sell their cars, their VCRs. They knock the hell out of our companies.

Jeffrey Sachs and Glenn discuss the threat environment around Iran amid Trump-era tensions. - Observed mobilization: The United States has a massive military build-up in the region; allied transports appear en route to the Middle East. The impression, from Tehran’s view, is that an attack seems unavoidable, with Israel and Washington seemingly seeking regime change. - Threat framing and regime change: Sachs says Israel has pursued over thirty years to overthrow the Iranian government, with the United States broadly acting in lockstep with Israel. He notes that last summer’s effort aimed at regime change did not succeed, and that a carrier task group is now moving toward Iran, signaling imminent attack. He asserts that “the goal here has never been negotiation.” - JCPOA history and negotiations: A nuclear deal, JCPOA, was reached and ratified by UN Security Council resolution 2231 (2015). Trump ripped it up in his first term. Sachs argues there has never been genuine readiness by the United States or Israel for a negotiated settlement; when negotiations occurred, Israel resisted, and the attack on Iran two days before scheduled U.S.–Iran negotiations in June 2025 is cited as proof that the goal is regime change, not diplomacy. - Hybrid warfare and tactics: The plan is described as a regime change operation carried out through hybrid warfare—cyber, street unrest, economic strangulation, bombing, assassinations. Trump is characterized as blustering to pressure Iran to comply with demands that would amount to dismantling the regime. - UN Charter and legality: Sachs invokes UN Charter Article 2(4), stating that all members shall refrain from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, and argues the current posture is a gross violation of the charter. - Venezuela comparison and propaganda accusation: He likens the current stance to the coercive U.S. approach seen in Venezuela, accusing the United States of invasion, kidnapping, oil seizures, and confiscation of oil profits, with Trump claiming the money goes to him. He alleges similar propaganda is present in major media regarding Iran, including misrepresentation of economic collapse as a sign of Iranian misgovernment. - Economic statecraft and its effects: Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, is cited as stating that sanctions aimed to “collapse” Iran’s currency and provoke mass unrest, enabling a political outcome favorable to U.S. aims. Sachs claims sanctions caused a December economic collapse, bank failures, currency issues, and imports shortages, driving people into the streets. - Marketed outcomes and media treatment: Bessent is accused of describing a “positive” outcome from destabilization, with mainstream media avoiding coverage of this stance. The claim is that weaponized finance is a tactic to destabilize Iran without conventional warfare. - Containment risk and nuclear considerations: Sachs warns that if the situation deteriorates, Iran could decide to dash for nuclear weapons, particularly if existential threats mount. He emphasizes that a broader regional war could involve many countries and risk nuclear escalation, making prevention imperative. He argues the UN Security Council should convene immediately to stop escalation. - Prospects for Europe and regional actors: He criticizes European leaders for not resisting aggression, noting skepticism about who would oppose U.S. aggression. He suggests some regional players (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Turkey) may not want a wider war, but questions whether they can prevent it given U.S. leadership and Israeli influence. - Final note: Sachs calls for a strong, principled international response to prevent an explosion in a highly volatile region, urging opposition to unilateral threats and actions.

Glenn opens by noting a year has passed since Jeffrey Sachs urged Europe to adopt a realistic foreign policy that understands Russia, Europe, and the United States, and to avoid being invaded by the U.S.—even suggesting Trump could land troops in Greenland. Glenn asks how to read the current situation, including Davos and Europe’s anger at U.S. hostility, and the revived emphasis on international law. Jeffrey Sachs responds with a version of the “ride on the back of a tiger” metaphor from Kennedy, arguing Europeans forgot that the United States is an imperial power that has acted brazenly and brutally for about twenty years. He lists U.S. actions: invasions, regime changes, and reckless interference in Ukraine, and U.S. complicity in Israel’s wars across Africa and the Middle East, along with involvement in overthrowing Ukraine’s Yanukovych and other interventions. He claims Europeans were silent or complicit as the United States bombed Iran, kidnapped its president, and pursued Greenland, calling the Greenland push a grotesque power grab by Trump. He asserts New York Times recognition of U.S. imperial tendencies and says Europe’s naivete and hypocrisy are evident. He states: “The United States is thuggish, imperialistic, reckless, and that The U. S. Has left a large swath of the world in misery. Europe has been mostly compliant or complicit.” He urges Europeans to understand what the United States is about, to stop Russophobia, and to keep lines of communication with Russia open; he argues Europe’s Russophobia made it boxed in with little diplomacy with Russia or the U.S. Glenn adds that Europe’s stance mirrors a Cold War-like unity against Russia, but that the current reality differs: the U.S. does not view Russia as its main adversary, and Russophobia deepens Europe’s dependence on the U.S. Glenn notes mixed reactions at Davos, including Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney signaling a shift away from a rules-based order that privileges the West, and Macron’s private message to Trump seeking a cooperative stance on Syria, Iran, and Greenland. He remarks that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg praised NATO while Trump hinted that the real enemy is within NATO, highlighting the chaos. He asks if this signals a decline of the U.S. empire or NATO. Sachs discusses Carney's stance as significant: Carney’s trip to China and a dialogue with Beijing indicating diversification with China, including a Canadian-Chinese investment plan. He credits Carney with being a rare straightforward statesman and notes instability ahead. Trump’s Davos retreat from threats (notably Greenland) may have been influenced by stock-market declines, according to Sachs’ theory. He mentions a possible European concession about U.S. sovereignty over parts of Greenland, though he doubts any negotiation has been meaningful. He cites Scott Bessent’s Fox Business interview as revealing: sanctions on Iran are a form of economic statecraft designed to crush the Iranian economy, with Iran’s currency collapse and bank failures cited as evidence; Sachs condemns this as a violation of international law and UN Charter, and calls Bessent’s pride in wielding currency-destabilization as alarming. He points to sanctions against Cuba and a broader pattern of “thuggish gangster behavior” by the U.S., noting Europeans’ silence on Iran and other regimes until it backfires on them. Sachs argues Europe’s Russophobia is self-destructive, and he emphasizes that diplomacy remains possible if Germany, France, and Italy adopt a rational approach. He criticizes Germany for duplicity in NATO enlargement and Minsk II, blaming Merkel for dropped commitments, and notes that Italy shows less Russophobia and could shift toward diplomacy. He believes Central Europe and some leaders (e.g., Orban, Czech and Slovak figures) favor diplomacy, but German leadership has been weak. He stresses that Europe must avoid dismemberment and choose diplomacy with Russia, warning that continued war policy will leave Europe isolated. He closes with optimism that there remains a path forward if key European powers act differently. Glenn thanks Sachs for the discussion and ends.

The conversation centers on accusations about Venezuela’s leadership and the international response to Middle East conflict. Speaker 0 asserts that “the woman” who is supposedly taking over Venezuela is pro Israeli and pro Likud, noting she signed a cooperation deal in 2020 with Netanyahu’s Likud party and fully supports Netanyahu’s war on Gaza, asking, “This is why we're seeing the bombing of them right now?” Speaker 1 counters by outlining a pattern of what they view as permissive international inaction. They assert that “The UN has allowed the bombing and destruction of Beirut and Lebanon. They've allowed the bombing and destruction of Syria. Every day, they permit the bombing of Yemen's Arab people.” They then ask what major Western capitals—Berlin, Paris, London, Washington—will say as they “keep encouraging the Hitler of the twenty first century now against the noble peaceful people of Iran.” They declare, “The Bolivarian humanist peaceful people of Venezuela say no to war,” urging that the madness must be stopped. Speaker 1 then addresses Israelis and Jews directly, framing themselves as a Christian and Sephardic heir who tells them to “stop Netanyahu's madness.” They state that only “the people of Israel can stop this madness.” They question where warmongering will lead and warn about the consequences of racism, intolerance, hatred, and violence. They ask whether missiles and bombs will subdue the will of the world’s peoples and call for an end to aggression against Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Yemenis, and the noble people of Iran. The speaker emphasizes that “The ball is in the court of Israel's Jewish people” and urges an end to this “immoral war, this criminal war.” The exchange conveys a sense of urgency and moral appeal, framed as a call for stopping perceived aggression and imperial complicity, while highlighting the interconnections between Venezuelan solidarity with peaceful movements and opposition to ongoing bombardments in the region. We shall see.

Speaker 0: The speaker questions the pretexts for international interventions, starting with Yugoslavia. “В какой предлог? Что, санкции Совета безопасности, что ли? Где Югославия, где США? Уничтожили страну.” The speaker acknowledges internal conflict in Yugoslavia but asks who gave the right to strike the European capital, insisting, “Никто. Просто так решили,” with satellite powers following and cheering. They label this as “всё международное право.” Next, the speaker asks about the pretext for entering Iraq (referred to as “Рак”). They describe the action as “Разработка оружия массового уничтожения” used to invade, destroy the country, and create “очаг международного терроризма,” only to later claim that a mistake had been made. They recount the line: “нас разведка подвела. Ничего себе! Разрушили страну разведка подвела.” They say, “И всё объяснение,” arguing that “Оказывается, не было там никакого массового оружия поражения, никто не готовил.” They state, “Наоборот, когда-то было всё как положено уничтожили.” Finally, they ask about Syria: “А в Сирию как зашли? Что санкций Советой безопасности? Нет. Что хотят, то и делают.” The speaker contends that in Syria, as with the previous cases, the actions were taken without regard to UNSC sanctions, with force used to satisfy unspecified objectives. In summary, the speaker challenges the legitimacy of military interventions by citing Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Syria, highlighting claimed pretexts of weapons of mass destruction, UNSC sanctions, and the perceived disregard for international law, suggesting that decisions are made arbitrarily while authorities and precedents are cited as justification.

Roger, should people be worried that a Jacksonville company is operating in concert with the Cuban military? I certainly think they should, Matt. Crowley does not provide weapons to Cuba, but they're in and out of that Cuban port, and that is problematic. They've got a $2,300,000,000 federal contract. There’s a real possibility that Chinese agents could infiltrate Crowley's port vehicles while they're in the port, which could lead to surveillance of our trade routes. You would see there, actually, footage of the brutal, communist dictator of Cuba, Bermudez, hobnobing with Crowley executives. Right now, the largest spy station in this hemisphere run by the communist Chinese is only 90 miles off our shores in Cuba. Crowley's shipments provide a cover for Cuba to redirect goods or materials to Venezuela. What I don't understand is why Jimenez is asked no questions about this in his subcommittee.

Well, we have every reason to be mad because the Clintons have destroyed Haiti for the decades. And, you know, they pretend to be our friends when in reality, they are our number one enemies. The money is much more than $6,000,000,000. Bill Clinton was in charge of the money. Haiti have oil, more oil than Venezuela. Tony Radham, Hillary Clinton's brother. He's got a twenty six years contract. Bill Clinton destroyed our rice so his brother can sell the rice from Arkansas. The Clintons are the one who's running Haiti. We are the first black people who liberate ourselves from from the French rule. They dropping disease in Haiti. They they stealing our money. This have to stop.

The speaker contends that the European Union does not have the authority to determine international law or dictate how the United States defends its national security. They assert that the United States is actively responding to threats to its security, describing the country as being “under attack from organized criminals in our hemisphere” and stating that the president is taking measures to defend the nation in this operation. The speaker notes a contrast in international reactions: many countries advocate for the United States to supply and deploy nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles to defend Europe, yet those same countries view the United States placing aircraft carriers in the hemisphere near the speaker’s location as problematic. This juxtaposition is highlighted to illustrate perceived inconsistencies in support or criticism from other nations. Overall, the speaker emphasizes that the president’s stated mission is to protect the United States from threats against the United States, and asserts that the current operation aligns with that objective by defending the country.

I signed the exchange of prisons agreement, but the other party didn't follow through. What kind of diplomacy are we even talking about here? I'm referring to the diplomacy that will prevent your country from being destroyed. With all due respect, it's disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and try to argue this point in front of the American media. Right now, you're forcing conscripts to the front lines due to manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for intervening.

"Please explain to me the difference between Putin's invasion of Ukraine and our invasion of Iraq." "Somebody tell me what was different." "Why was ours considered okay and Russia's not?" "The only they're for the same thing, regime change." "Same thing." "We wanna change who is governing Iraq." "Putin wanted to change who is governing Ukraine." "Now don't get me wrong." "I didn't support either war." "They both suck." "But everybody you notice our national media doesn't bring that up at all, do they?" "And you notice they brought up now the Fed or the international courts have made it so Putin can't travel now because he's considered a war criminal." "Let's not forget the international courts did the same thing with Bush and Cheney after the invasion of Iraq." "Why do you think George Bush can't leave The US?"

Speaker: The speaker argues that a “plan of pedophiles” aims to end democracy in Colombia, stating that despite the harsh reality, they would not allow themselves to be silenced or betrayed by invading neighbors. They claim people would not applaud invading a brother country or a neighbor, emphasizing that the Colombian people are not the enemy, and that invading Venezuela would be traitorous. Speaker: They reject the idea of Venezuela as a villain and say they do not mock the Venezuelan people or trap them in an invasion driven only by oil greed and violence. They warn that such actions would turn this corner of South America into a place like Syria, Iraq, or Libya, filled with slavery and slave trading, and would degrade the region. Speaker: They criticize those “friends of STEIN” who do not want the list to appear in the United States and assert that these friends want to use violence to force the United States to ignore its own government, fueling xenophobia, racism, and ideas of racial superiority to distract from domestic issues. Speaker: They state that the Colombian president has long denunciated narcotraffickers, but note that the narcotraffickers who have been denounced have always been in power in Colombia, in the State. Speaker: The speaker reiterates a stance against betraying bloodlines or supporting invasions of brother countries, condemning any move by the Colombian president to seize lands for invasion from Colombia into a neighboring country. They denounce the president as “maldito” (damned) for generations to come for such a betrayal. Speaker: They emphasize that they do not belong to those who wanted to kill Bolívar, defending Bolívar’s legacy and the dignity of the region, while criticizing external powers’ influence and urging a stance against internal complicity with narcotrafficking and imperialist motives. Overall: The speaker frames a narrative of political betrayal, invasion threats, and manipulation by external actors framed as defending democracy and regional unity, while opposing violence against neighboring peoples, denouncing narcotrafficking within Colombia, and calling out alleged foreign influence and manipulation aimed at destabilizing the region.

The speaker explains that boycotting a country or company is not a decision individuals can make on their own. They emphasize that if the government or ruler instructs a boycott, it should be followed because they have knowledge and agreements that the public may not be aware of. However, if there is no official instruction, boycotting may harm without the public's knowledge. The speaker argues that boycotting is not allowed and should be left to the government or relevant agencies who have made deals with the company in question.

Speaker 0 warned that if any ally tries to help the ICC, they will be sanctioned. They said, "we're gonna sanction you," and that "we should crush your economy because we're next." They referenced Justin in Canada and his position, asking, "What should the penalty be?"

The speaker addressed the Security Council on the issue of whether any member state may determine Venezuela’s political future by force, coercion, or economic strangulation, stressing that the question concerns the prohibition on the threat or use of force against a state's territorial integrity or political independence under the UN Charter. The council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned. Background is offered on U.S. foreign policy, described as repeatedly using force, covert action, and political manipulation to achieve regime change since 1947. The speaker cites Lindsay O’Rourke’s documentation of 70 attempted U.S. regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, noting that such practices continued after the Cold War. Regime-change actions attributed to the United States since 1989 include Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria beginning in 2011, Honduras 2009, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela from 2002 onward, employing methods such as open warfare, covert operations, instigation of unrest, support for armed groups, manipulation of media, bribery, targeted assassinations, false flag operations, and economic warfare. These measures are described as illegal under the UN Charter and typically yielding ongoing violence and civilian suffering. Specific Venezuelan-related actions cited include: the April 2002 coup attempt known to the U.S.; funding of civil-society groups engaged in anti-government protests in the 2010s; sanctions following crackdowns; in 2015, President Obama labeling Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat”; in 2017, President Trump discussing invasion options at a UN General Assembly margin dinner. Between 2017 and 2020, sweeping sanctions on PDVSA reduced oil production by 75% from 2016 to 2020 and dropped real GDP per capita by 62%. The UN General Assembly is said to have repeatedly voted against unilateral coercive measures, and the speaker asserts that under international law only the Security Council may impose such measures. On January 23, 2019, the U.S. unilaterally recognized Juan Guaidó as interim president and soon after froze about $7 billion of Venezuelan sovereign assets abroad. The actions are framed as part of a two-decade-long regime-change effort. The speaker notes U.S. bombing operations in seven countries in the past year without UN Security Council authorization or lawful self-defense, listing Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela, and cites threats by President Trump against six UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela. The speaker invokes realist theory and the League of Nations’ failure, arguing the UN was created to place international law above anarchy and urging that failure to uphold the Charter would threaten humanity. The proposed resolutions call for: the United States to cease all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela, terminate the naval quarantine and related coercive measures without UN authorization, withdraw all military forces and forward-deployed assets from Venezuela’s vicinity, and require Venezuela to adhere to the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The secretary-general should appoint a special envoy to engage Venezuelan and international stakeholders and report back within fourteen days with Charter-consistent recommendations; the Security Council should remain urgently seized of the matter. All states should refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions outside the Security Council’s authority. The speaker closes by emphasizing that the UN Charter must remain a living instrument of international law.

The speaker asks, why are we doing this and why are we so opposed to Nicolas Maduro. On the street, most people would say they don’t know who Nicolas Maduro is. But in places like South Florida, where people recognize Maduro and can identify Venezuela on a map, the typical answer shifts: because he’s a communist or a socialist. The speaker asserts that this is true: Nicolas Maduro and his government are very left wing on economics. The speaker notes an interesting distinction: this left-wing stance is economic, not social. In Venezuela, gay marriage is banned, abortion is banned, and sex changes for transgender individuals are banned. The speaker describes Venezuela as one of the very few countries in the entire hemisphere with those social policies, emphasizing that these policies are conservative socially. The speaker adds that Venezuela is one of the very few nations in the region with those social policies, specifying that it is on social policy, not defending the regime. The speaker mentions that only El Salvador comes close in conservatism, though El Salvador is much smaller. Additionally, the speaker brings up a political point: the US-backed opposition leader who would take Maduro’s place, if Maduro were removed, is described as eager to implement gay marriage in Venezuela. This is presented as a counterpoint to the idea that the opposition is globally liberal or that the regime is uniquely opposed to liberal social policies. The speaker references the notion of a “global homo” project and implies that the reality is different from that belief, labeling the project as not crazy after all. The overall argument ties Maduro’s economic leftism to social policy conservatism, and contrasts Venezuelan social policy with potential shifts under the opposition, while noting public recognition differences about Maduro.

The conversation centers on punitive measures allegedly imposed by the United States and the accusations surrounding who is responsible for violent crime and support of extremist groups. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being shut down because of criticisms of people profiting from mass murder. In response, Speaker 1 details a cascade of sanctions and restrictions: “I’m banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.” Speaker 1 adds that health insurance has been suspended “because I’m sanctioned by The United States,” indicating a broad range of denials tied to U.S. sanctions. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1, asking if anything is being left out and probing whether Speaker 1 has engaged in activities such as sending money to Hamas or participating in actions against the IDF, labeling Hamas as “A terror group.” The implication of the question is to suggest that Speaker 1’s sanctions might be connected to support for hostile or criminal activity. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the accusation, stating, “The only one who’s aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.” This assertion presents the United States as the active party in aiding or abetting crimes, according to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 concludes the exchange with a soft expression of concession, saying, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry to agree with you on that,” implying reluctant agreement with Speaker 1’s critical stance toward U.S. actions. Key points emphasize the scope of Speaker 1’s sanctions: travel ban to the United States, financial censorship, inability to use a credit card, inability to receive or make payments, and suspension of health insurance due to U.S. sanctions. The dialogue also highlights a dispute over responsibility for violence and crime, with Speaker 1 asserting that the United States is the one aiding and abetting crimes, while Speaker 0 questions whether Speaker 1 has engaged with or supported extremist activity such as funding Hamas or opposing the IDF. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging agreement with Speaker 1’s critical position on U.S. involvement, albeit reluctantly.

Speaker 0 states: "Can't charge a dollar. I would've used 1p, but we don't make the pennies anymore. We save money. Can't charge $1 to any country under IEPA. Not $1, I assume, to protect other countries." They assert this must have been done "to protect those other countries. Certainly not The United States Of America," which they say "they should be interested in protecting." They then claim: "That's what they're supposed to be protecting. But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country. In other words, I can destroy the trade." They further assert: "I can destroy the country. I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country destroying embargo. I can embargo. I can do anything I want, but I can't charge $1. Because that's not what it says, and that's not the way it even reads." The speaker emphasizes a broader power: "I can do anything I want to do to them, but I can't charge any money. So I'm allowed to destroy the country, but I can't charge them a little fee. I could give them a little $2.02 cent fee, but I cannot charge under any circumstances. I cannot charge them anything."

This is a stupid and harmful sanction for the people. The Russians and Europeans will benefit from it, as the Russian oil we won't buy will be sold to others, increasing its price. This means Russia will become richer, and the European Union will be pleased. But the moral question is whether it should be the Europeans funding the war. It's a stupidity that doesn't consider the difficult situation of the French and other Europeans, especially the French. I focus on the daily lives of the French, which are very difficult.

The conversation centers on Venezuela and regional concerns. Speaker 0 notes that there were voices suggesting Venezuela isn’t so bad and that Latin America isn’t either, but they remain unconvinced. They ask Abe for good reasons not to be convinced. Abe responds that there are good reasons: Venezuela is getting worse, little by little, as long as oil money continues to flow. Speaker 0 then relays information from experts: Venezuela, apart from Iran, is the only government that propagates anti-Semitism around the world. The claim is that it’s already formalized, first within the country and then outside. The discussion moves to what actions might be taken. Speaker 0 asks whether there is any pressing effort underway. They say they’ve talked to Jesse Jackson, noting the relationship, but it’s not for Kenra; there are other plans, which will be discussed in a moment.

You're asking about the kind of diplomacy that will end the destruction of my country. With respect, it's disrespectful to come here and try to argue about this in front of the media. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for bringing us into this conflict. During the war, everybody has problems, even you. You don't know what we're going to feel. You're in no position to dictate that. You're gambling with the lives of millions and with World War Three, and what you're doing is very disrespectful. Have you even said thank you once? You campaigned against us! You think speaking loudly will help? My country is in big trouble, I know, but we're staying strong. We've been alone and we are thankful. I said that. If you didn't give us military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks, maybe three days.

Speaker 0: Have you considered talking to the president of Colombia who you called a drop leader? Speaker 1: No. I haven't really thought too much about him. He's been fairly hostile to The United States, and I haven't given him a lot of thought. He's he's gonna have himself some big problems if he doesn't wise up. Speaker 2: Did you say Colombia is producing a lot of drugs. Have cocaine factories that they make cocaine, as you know, and they sell it right into The United States. So he better wise up or he'll be next. He'll be next too. I hope he's listening. Speaker 0: So was this operation a message that you're sending to Mexico, to Claudia Scheinbaum, president there? Speaker 2: Well, it wasn't meant to be. We're very friendly with her. She's a good woman, but the cartels are running Mexico. She's not running Mexico. The cartels are running Mexico. We could be politically correct and be nice and say, oh, yes. Is no. No. She's very, you know, she's very frightened of the cartels that are running Mexico. And I've asked her numerous times, would you like us to take out the cartels? No. No. No, mister president. No. No, no, please. So we have to do something because we lost the real number is 300,000 people, in my opinion. You know, they like to say a 100,000. A 100,000 is a lot of people, but the real number is 300,000 people. And we lost it to drugs, and they come in through the southern border, mostly the southern border. A lot plenty come in through Canada too, by the way, in case you don't know. But but they come in through the southern border, and something's gonna have to be done with Mexico. Cuban government, the Trump administration's next target, mister secretary, very quickly. Speaker 3: Well, the Cuban government is a is a huge problem. Yeah. The the the the Cuban government is a huge problem for Speaker 2: some So is that a yes? Speaker 3: Cuba. But I don't think people fully appreciate. I think they're in a lot of trouble. Yes. I'm not gonna talk talk to you about what our future steps are gonna be and our policies are gonna be right now in this regard, but I don't think it's any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro. His entire, like, internal security force, his internal security opera apparatus is entirely controlled by Cubans. One of the untold stories here is how, in essence, you talk about colonization because I think you said Dulce Rodriguez mentioned that, the ones who have sort of colonized, at least inside the regime, are Cubans. It was Cubans that guarded Maduro. He was not guarded by Venezuelan bodyguards. He had Cuban bodyguards. In terms of their internal intelligence, who spies on who inside to make sure there are no traitors, those are all Cubans. Speaker 0: He felt very strongly. We we needed for nationals. We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals. We had some we have so many sites for minerals and oil and everything. We have more oil than any other country in the world. We need Greenland for national security.