reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Stanislav Krapivnik, a former US army officer from Donbas, returns to discuss the escalation of NATO-Russia proxy warfare, the role of drones, and potential strategic escalations. The conversation centers on how Europe is contributing to deep strikes in Russia, especially against energy installations, and the resulting danger of a broader conflict. Key points and claims, as presented: - Drones and deep strikes: The EU, through its defense alignment, aims to overwhelm Russian air defenses and threaten strategic assets, including nuclear-capable targets, by using long-range drones. The objective is to degrade Russian defensive systems and the production rate of missiles, potentially opening the path to strikes on radars, early warning systems, strategic assets like bombers, and even nuclear submarines in port. - Nuclear war risk: The interviewee asserts that by mid-to-late summer there could be a zone of possible nuclear war if ground warfare arises or escalates due to Western actions. He notes that Russia’s anti-aircraft and early warning capabilities are limited to manageable scopes, with occasional corridors allowing strikes in, and that Europe’s current strategy could push the conflict toward a nuclear dimension. - Deterrence and first strikes: The discussion contrasts U.S. first-strike doctrine with other nations’ second-strike assurances. The speaker argues that in a blinded Russia, the logic for targeted first strikes becomes stronger for the other side, while lamenting that Europe’s leadership might be pushing toward a nuclear exchange. He cites studies suggesting that as few as 47 key targets could collapse the U.S. in a nuclear context, highlighting the fragility of a high-tech economy under nuclear disruption. - European psyche and policy: There is criticism of what the speaker describes as a mass psychosis in Europe, where warnings about striking Russia’s early radar or deterrent systems are dismissed in favor of defending Ukraine. The rhetoric suggests deep political and media reinforcement of pro-Ukraine narratives, with limited space for risk discussion about nuclear consequences. - Energy installations and economy: While drone strikes have targeted oil facilities, the speaker notes that most damage has been to storage facilities rather than critical infrastructure like pipelines or refineries. Refineries are large, and damage to some vessels can take longer to repair. Russia’s production has not been significantly reduced, but the attacks are accelerating a shift of energy facilities eastward toward Asia, while Europe faces higher oil prices on the spot market and potential disruptions to gas routes like TurkStream and Caspian Pipeline Authority, with broader economic impact on Southeastern Europe and Turkey. - Russia’s response and drone modernization: The Russian military has reorganized its drone capabilities, forming dedicated drone battalions and establishing new schools to standardize and professionalize drone operations. The move encompasses reconnaissance, kamikaze, bombing, and supply drones, with adjustments after initial disorganization. Ukrainians reportedly helped inspire and provide drone countermeasures, and Russia’s modernization integrates drones with air defenses. - Zelensky and Victory Day threat: The possibility of Zelensky threatening to strike Moscow’s Victory Day parade is discussed. The guest suggests Zelensky would want to be at the head of such a move, while acknowledging the uncertainty of who controls decisions in Kyiv and the level of Western involvement. The parade’s downscaled format is noted, but the broader question remains whether such a strike could occur. The guest asserts that Russian deterrence may have been eroded, and Western actors might not take credible deterrence seriously until an incident occurs. - Africa and Mali: Russia’s activities in Africa, especially Mali, are described as significant. Mali’s leadership under Asimi Goata is navigating between Western and Russian influence. Russian forces, including elements from the former Wagner group now under the Russian defense ministry, are described as rebuilding Mali’s military and supporting a campaign by jihadist groups. The situation includes rapid, mobile “flying columns” that can cause chaos but lack staying power against organized defenses. Russian drones and aviation (including ME-20 aircraft) are reportedly effective, and Mali is moving toward energy and resource development, including three nuclear power plants proposed by Russia to Elektrify the country. France’s position is framed as colonial, with Mali’s uranium, gold, and other resources creating strategic interest. Burkina Faso’s involvement and regional dynamics involving Niger are cited as part of a broader, expanding conflict network across Africa. - Global frontlines and war risk: The guest argues that multiple frontlines are forming—Ukraine, the Persian Gulf, and Western Africa—and that they could merge into a single broader conflict if not stopped. He asserts that the West is driving this escalation, and he characterizes Western public sentiment as often indifferent to Ukrainian casualties, focusing instead on political or financial gains from the conflict. - Frontline realities: On the ground, Ukraine has tactical successes but limited staying power due to heavy casualties and supply problems. Russian forces are reportedly stronger in Donbas, Kherson, and Sumy, while Ukrainian forces face difficult conditions, including open fields and heavy artillery advantages for the Russians. Drone warfare has prompted reorganized Russian drone corps, with improved training and standardized units. The discussion ends with a warning that the conflict has global implications, with fronts expanding and risks of a broader, possibly world-scale war if not curtailed. The interviewee emphasizes that the West’s actions are fueling escalation and that African theaters, particularly Mali, are becoming an integral part of the wider confrontation.

- The conversation opens with a discussion of escalating dynamics in the Ukraine conflict as a new year begins, focusing on how the rules of war have shifted over the past four years, including the depth of NATO involvement and when actions cross into direct war. The speakers note that political leadership has largely been exempt from the war, but Russia has had opportunities to strike Ukrainian leaders that have been avoided, raising questions about future targets and the diplomatic path. - Speaker 1 argues that the political leadership has indeed been outside the war, and that voices inside Russia are growing more critical. They challenge the Western portrayal of Vladimir Putin as a dictator, suggesting Putin has restrained destruction that could hit the West, and asserting that the West and Zelenskyy have grown comfortable with exemptions. They warn that continued escalation could lead to a nuclear conflict with Europe at risk due to its geographic compactness, citing the potential fallout from attacks on American nuclear bases and the broader geopolitical consequences. - The discussion moves to the potential consequences of Western strikes on energy infrastructure and frontline energy targets, including refineries and civilian vessels. The speakers examine how Russia might respond if its assets are attacked at sea or in the Black Sea, and the possibility of Russia forcing Ukraine to lose access to the Black Sea through strategic military actions. The analysis includes a few provocative specifics: British and European actors allegedly orchestrating or enabling attacks, the role of third-country-flagged ships, and the idea that reflagging to Russian flags could be treated as an act of war by Russia. - The dialogue delves into the operational dynamics of the Mediterranean and Black Sea theatres, noting incidents such as sunflowers and other oil cargo damage, the Caspian transit company's facilities, and the implications for Turkish oil revenue and Western economies. The speakers argue that Western powers are drawing in broader international actors and that the war could expand beyond Ukraine, potentially dragging in NATO ships and submarines in a conflict at sea. They warn that if escalation continues, it could trigger a broader, more destructive war in Europe. - The conversation shifts to the likely trajectory of the battlefield, with Speaker 1 offering a grim assessment: the Donbas front and the Zaporozhye region are nearing collapse for Ukrainian forces, with Russian forces dominating missile and drone capabilities and outmaneuvering on three axes. The analysis suggests that within two to three months, upper-river-front areas, including the Zaporozhzhia and surrounding Donbas fronts, could be fully compromised, leaving only a few large urban pockets. The absence of civilian protection and the encirclement of cities would accelerate Ukrainian withdrawals and surrender, while Russia could enhance pressure on remaining fronts, including Donbas and Sumy, Kharkiv, and Dnieper regions, as weather and terrain favor Russian movements. - The speakers discuss the impact of collapsing command posts and morale, likening the abandonment of Gudai Poia to a sign of impending broader collapse, with open terrain making Ukrainian forces vulnerable to rapid Russian breakthroughs. They suggest that strategic fortifications will be overwhelmed as the front line collapses and supply lines are severed, with a predicted sequence of encirclements and city sieges. - The US role is analyzed as both a negotiator and strategist, with the assertion that the United States has long led the proxy dimension of the conflict and continues to influence targeting and weapons delivery. The discussion questions the coherence of US policy under Trump versus Biden, arguing the conflict remains a US-led enterprise despite attempts to reframe or outsources it. The speakers describe the US as hedging its bets through ongoing military support, budgets, and intelligence cooperation, while insisting that Ukraine remains a core objective of US hegemony. - A critical examination of European Union leadership follows, with strong claims that the EU is increasingly tyrannical and undemocratic, sanctioning dissidents andSuppressing speech. The dialogue condemns the deplatforming of individuals and argues that the EU’s leadership has undermined diplomacy and negotiated peace, instead pushing toward a broader confrontation with Russia. The speakers suggest that several European countries and elites are pursuing escalating policies to maintain power, even at the risk of deepening European instability and economic collapse. - The conversation ends with reflections on broader historical patterns, invoking Kennan’s warnings about NATO expansion and the risk of Russian backlash, and noting the potential for the EU to fracture under pressure. The participants acknowledge the risk of a wider conflict that could redefine global power and economic structures, while expressing concern about censorship, deplatforming, and the erosion of diplomacy as barriers to resolving the crisis. They conclude with a cautious note to prepare for worst-case scenarios and hope for, but not rely on, better circumstances in the near term.

As European economies decline, young people can't afford homes, and energy costs are much higher, leading to a declining standard of living and low birth rates, which is a sign of civilizational collapse. There's a lot of rage in Europe, and the Russia-Ukraine war serves as a relief valve for European leaders to blame Putin. The UK's response to fighting a new war against Russia is sad because Russia could easily defeat the UK. Turning the population's rage towards Russia distracts from domestic issues. Intelligence sources believe Ukrainians were behind the Nord Stream pipeline attack.

Ian Proud argues that while ending the war and accelerating Ukraine’s EU membership are important, there is a missing focus on the future relationship with Russia and a broader, Pan-European security framework. He notes that Europe is already experiencing economic decline as energy policy shifts away from cheap Russian energy toward more expensive sources, which he says contributes to factory closures and cost-of-living pressures. He warns that simply ending the war or admitting Ukraine into the EU could result in a hostile, “anti-Russia” posture within Europe, unless the long-term security architecture is reset. He emphasizes two key consequences of the Ukraine crisis since 2014: (1) Europe’s energy and economic policies are driving a decline, partly due to cutting off cheap energy from Russia; (2) focusing only on ending the war and integrating Ukraine into Europe risks creating a new, hostile dynamic with Russia if the relationship is not normalized. Without addressing the future Russia-Europe relationship, he suggests Europe could end up with a remilitarized Europe and higher defense spending, while postponing a durable settlement. Regarding peace negotiations, Proud argues for a treaty-based, comprehensive approach to pan-European security rather than only ceasefire promises. He contends that peace cannot be achieved by refusing to discuss Russia’s security concerns or by treating Ukraine’s EU accession as a standalone solution. He traces a long history of failed attempts at a broader European security architecture—from Helsinki Accords to the OSCE and the 2005 Common Space—showing that NATO expansion and Western reluctance to embrace a wider security framework undermined these efforts. He asserts that “the red line” on Ukraine’s status was drawn too late and that a durable peace requires a broader security settlement that includes Russia and the European Union, not just NATO. If advising Putin, Proud suggests pushing for a broader, treaty-based agreement on future pan-European security, rather than accepting merely tacit assurances or expanding NATO. He argues that Ukraine’s EU membership could become “NATO light,” potentially achieving the same military posture as a formal alliance but under EU institutions, thus reinforcing Moscow’s concerns. He calls for a comprehensive accord that reorganizes European security within a broader framework—reinstating indivisible security, sovereign equality, and an integrated approach to security that encompasses Russia, the EU, and potentially broader Eurasian arrangements. He warns that without such a deal, the conflict risks a prolonged stalemate and a dangerous re-escalation. Proud notes that the atmosphere around diplomacy is terribly toxic, with Western leaders and institutions increasingly sidelining Russia from formal talks. He criticizes the Munich Security Conference for excluding Russia from diplomacy and laments the overemphasis on military solutions and the symbolic, sometimes confrontational rhetoric by European leaders (for example, chancellor statements about arming Europe and projecting suffering onto Russia). He argues that Europe’s foreign policy today is driven by a single objective—defeating Russia—and that this approach has left Europe economically and strategically paralyzed. Towards the end, Proud cautions that post-war Europe will face a transition to a multipolar world, where the United States will shift priorities toward Asia and the Western Hemisphere. He questions Europe’s readiness to engage in a multipolar order and stresses the need for Europe to reestablish normal relations with Russia to avoid a new Berlin Wall-like division. He also critiques the perception of Ukraine’s resilience and Zelensky’s role, suggesting that Europe should develop its own foreign policy vision rather than being dominated by Kyiv’s stance. Overall, the dialogue centers on the necessity of a broad, treaty-based security framework for Europe that includes Russia and the EU, a genuine normalization of relations, and diplomacy that moves beyond ceasefires and symbolic gestures to a lasting peace architecture.

Glenn: Welcome back. Stanislav Krappivnik, a former US military officer, born in Dolbaz and recently returned, joins us again. Stanislav: Always a pleasure, Glenn. Glenn: In the last two days, Russians entered the strategic city of Orekhov in the Saporiyansko region, which may indicate that if this falls, the whole region might begin to collapse. In Slaviansk, the last Donetsk conglomeration, there are real advances that, if successful in circling the region, could mean the entirety of Donbas falls. Is the Russian spring offensive already begun? Stanislav: It’s hard to say, partly because mud season is ongoing in those areas. The South is still mud-prone; the terrain there is different from Haryakov and Sudirmy, where ground is firmer, forested. In the South, there’s black earth with fewer trees, causing severe mud this time of year. If the melt is fast, flooding can occur; if slow, the ground acts like a sponge and mud persists as water seeps down. Nightly freezes persist while daytime temperatures rise above zero. Weather affects movement and logistics. He notes that the briefings from the Russian command vary from independent mappers, suggesting either undisclosed advances or battlefield confusion. The Russian high command’s reports and geolocations may not always align with independent assessments. If credible, Russia’s forces from the South may have entered Ariakhov, with two parallel rows advancing toward Ariyakara and a long urban sprawl to the south. There is a gray zone because Ukrainian claims differ from Russian assertions. Ukrainians often withhold confirmations for long periods; e.g., Gudaiipoya/Gulyaporiya discrepancies show how contested reports can be. Stanislav says it’s not clear that this is a bold, continuous offensive up and down the lines. A big push would require enough armored vehicles, artillery, and aviation, which he has not seen yet, though it could be developing. Ukrainians have conducted desperate counteractions not just to retake territory but to disrupt Russian preparation for a potential spring offensive. If he were in command, he would launch a big spring offensive, at least partially toward Sumy, which is about 14 kilometers from Kharkiv. Sumy would be a key logistics hub and could cut off Kharkiv from the west, accelerating the fall of the region. He explains that Kharkiv could be surrounded by blowing bridges from the south and encircling through Sumy to the west and the east along the Russian line toward Bianka and the Big Water Reserve. He mentions continuing Russian movement in the north and the city of Kasatirivka, which has been split by a river; all bridges were blown about a month ago, complicating approaches. North of Slaviansk, the gates of Krasnyomar require closing first. There are contested claims about Yaman, with Russians saying around 50% controlled vs. Ukrainians claiming 10–15%. The central concern is the Russian push in the south, where Yemen sits in a triangle formed by the Oka and the Sri Bianca rivers, and Russian forces are closing in from the north as well. Crossing Yamana is expected to fall; it’s a matter of time, though how long remains uncertain. Glenn: Ukraine does not withdraw after encirclement. There’s a rational explanation tied to PR wars: if the US and Europeans lose interest in Ukraine, weapons and money dry up, and Zelensky appears addicted to PR victories to keep support. Do you think the war in the headlines affects Western support? How does the Iran conflict influence Ukraine, given weapon and money dynamics? Stanislav: There’s additional pressure on Western governments from the military and certain military societies not to rush into direct NATO engagement or a large-scale conflict with Iran. He notes Iran’s demonstrated ability to strike American bases and key targets, and that Iran’s actions have shown the US and its allies that American power isn’t unlimited. He argues Iran’s strikes and the broader Middle East conflict complicate Western calculations, as American bases and interests face increased threats. He asserts that Iran has shown it can strike at American bases and that American casualties would be far higher than reported. He claims Iran’s actions press Western governments to reconsider involvement in the region and to reassess commitments to allies such as the Saudis, who reportedly told American bases to stand down. He also discusses how Russia’s deterrence posture could shift in response to ongoing Iran–US tensions, and suggests that if Russia sees an opportunity to restore deterrence, it might be tempted to push back more forcefully. Glenn: Russia’s approach to diplomacy with Europe and the US is complex. Macron’s bid to join a Russia–US–Ukraine format could spoil negotiations. Belgium’s stance on Russian assets and broader EU politics complicate any settlement. Stanislav: He explains distrust in European leadership, questioning whom to trust in Europe. He suggests that a broader reform in European leadership and doctrine is unlikely soon. He notes that among European politicians, there’s disagreement and strategic posturing, with some populist voices but institutional leadership often failing to present a coherent strategy. Glenn: What about China and Russia’s support for Iran? How might that evolve? Stanislav: Russia previously explored a mutual defense pact with Iran; the document lacks substance, and real support has been practical, including MiG-29s, Su-30s, and S-400s, along with jamming systems enabling Iran to counter US satellites and missiles. He describes Iran’s military buildup and how Russia’s support has extended to drone technology and air defenses. He predicts Syria could reemerge as a battleground, especially if Iran’s militancy expands and if the US and Israel are drawn into broader conflict. He suggests China may reassess its stance and consider leveraging its position as US capabilities wane, potentially viewing Taiwan’s reunification as a strategic opportunity. Glenn: Any final thoughts? Stanislav: He emphasizes the high level of risk and unpredictability in the current international security environment, with multiple actors pursuing aggressive strategies and the potential for rapid shifts in alliances and deterrence calculations. He notes Iran’s broader influence and the risks to regional stability, hinting at a world where war remains a possible, though increasingly costly, option for major powers.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor and the host discuss rising tensions around Venezuela and the broader implications for U.S. strategy and global balance of power. MacGregor argues the Navy’s buildup off Venezuela signals more than intimidation: there is a willingness to intervene in Venezuela, with plans to intervene having been “on the shelf for years.” He notes Hugo Chavez’s legacy and Venezuela’s potential ties to China and Russia make it a longstanding potential target, but he questions the practicality and aims of any proposed operation given Venezuela’s size and population (about 30 million, many along the coast). The host presses on objective clarity, asking what political-military goal is sought and whether it is attainable, warning that war is unpredictable and that the president has not articulated a specific objective. MacGregor expands on the ambiguity, pointing out that there is no expressed U.S. objective from the president, and he likens the situation to LBJ’s Vietnam-era ambiguity—“we’re going to support the legitimate government and fight communism” as a slogan, not a military objective. He underscores a concern that there is no workable exit strategy or realistic plan, and he cautions about the risk of unintended consequences. He highlights the Beltway chatter about narcoterrorism, but notes that bombing Venezuela without a clear, attainable objective invites failure. He then outlines possible wider consequences: CIA operatives, potential involvement of MI6, and mercenary forces could be drawn in if a conflict escalates. He observes two Russian destroyers off the coast of Venezuela as a signaling move, framing it as Moscow signaling that Washington’s actions push Moscow to respond. The conversation moves to how Russian actions in Ukraine shape a multipolar world order—“the post rules-based liberal order”—and how Russia could respond if U.S. actions trigger a clash near Venezuela, risking a broader confrontation. MacGregor stresses Russia’s capability to threaten a broad swath of Europe and the potential for Latin American states to realign with Russia if Washington presses too hard. On objectives tied to resources, MacGregor contends that Washington believes it “owns the entire Western Hemisphere” and that Venezuela’s resources (oil, gas, lithium, rare earths) are a tempting collateral. He argues this ignores the limits of U.S. ground forces and the illegitimacy of unilateral resource exploitation, comparing potential actions to Cortez’s arrival in the Americas. He asserts there is no solid strategy, no coherent plan to substitute for the current leadership’s approach, and notes the long-standing history of failed interventions. The Ukrainian conflict is invoked to illustrate the dangers of escalation and misperception. MacGregor criticizes Zelensky for actions that he says could constitute war crimes and notes that if a broader U.S.–Russia clash develops due to Venezuela, the “slow boil” in Ukraine could intensify. He contends Moscow has restrained itself to some degree, but questions whether American restraint will be interpreted as weakness. He argues Europe should recognize Russia’s legitimate security interests and that Europe’s leadership is vulnerable to internal pressures, migration, and political shifts. He predicts changes in leadership in France and Britain that could alter the trajectory of European policy toward Russia, while noting Poland’s precarious position and Hungary/Slovakia’s peace-oriented stances. Regarding U.S. leadership, MacGregor criticizes Trump’s strategy as unpredictable and focused on optics, suggesting the president could offload some conflicts to Europe but is surrounded by advisers pushing adversarial postures on Korea, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. He contrasts this with the need for a sober, calculated approach that recognizes limits and emphasizes long-term strategic priorities over short-term “greatness” theater. He laments a lack of a coherent scientific, industrial, and economic strategy in Washington, describing an economy driven by short-term profits and financial capitalists, with limited productive investment outside of a few exceptions like Elon Musk. He uses the analogy of a locomotive running out of steam, arguing that without a real plan, debt and multipolar realignments will push the U.S. toward crisis. In closing, MacGregor reiterates that the current approach risks triggering a costly, destabilizing conflict and that the United States would benefit from stepping back, acknowledging limits, and pursuing a more organized path to a multipolar order rather than ad hoc interventions and prestige-driven military commitments.

Europe is divided on the war in Ukraine. While some leaders and public opinion polls show a desire to end the conflict, many politicians aren't following suit. This is puzzling because these leaders aren't acting in their own self-interest. The last 30 years have been a US-led adventure of unipolarity, with Europe reluctantly signing on. Europe institutionally lacks a unified foreign policy, and some Baltic states are panicking without US backing. Diplomacy requires communication, but engagement with Russia has disappeared. The US aimed to force Ukraine into neutrality in 2022, but the US and UK scotched a potential agreement. Despite this, there's hope for a revival of European diplomacy, especially with Germany potentially seeking a more independent position.

Patrick Baab and the host discuss the perceived erosion of freedom of expression in Europe and the role of governments and institutions in pressuring speech. - Baab asserts that there is “no freedom of speech in the EU anymore,” citing a 160-page US Congress report published in February that allegedly finds the EU Commission created a system of complete censorship across the European Union. The report states the EU regime “pressured platforms in the Internet to suppress lawful speech, including speech that was true simply because it was politically inconvenient,” and that the Commission is transforming itself “into a censorship authority against democracy.” - The discussion moves to Jacques Baud (spelled Baud by Baab, sometimes Jacques Baud), a Swiss colonel and analyst who argued that the war in Ukraine had been provoked. Baab notes Baud was sanctioned by the EU, with consequences including travel bans, frozen assets, and limited monthly food funds (€500). Baud cannot travel to Switzerland; his bank accounts and property are frozen, and neighbors reportedly cook for him. Baab calls these measures extralegal, asserting they punish a person for an argument, not for crimes, and claims such sanctions illustrate a mechanism to suppress dissent. - Baab elaborates that Baud’s sanction is part of a broader pattern: “extralegal sanctions” against multiple individuals (Baud and 58 others) within and partly outside the EU, aimed at silencing those who challenge NATO or EU narratives. He argues this signals a “death of freedom” and a move to shut mouths through sanctions. - The host asks if the media’s shift toward propaganda is temporary or permanent. Baab responds that the transformation is structural: democracy in Europe is becoming anti-democratic and warmongering despotism. He cites Viktor Orban’s view that the EU intends to wage war against Russia, with propaganda and censorship as two sides of the same coin to close public debate. Baab says the war will be ugly, as Russia has warned it could escalate to nuclear conflict, and ties this to investments in Ukraine (Shell deal) that were lost when territories changed hands, implying economic motivations behind policy and casualties for profits. - The conversation turns to self-censorship. Baab describes widespread fear among journalists and academics; many refused to join a board intended to assist Baud, fearing repercussions. He cites a US Congress report alleging the EU manipulated eight elections, including Romania, Slovakia, and France. He also notes the EU Commission’s engagement with major platforms (Meta, Google, TikTok, X, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Rumble, Reddit, OpenAI) to enforce content management under EU rules, threatening sanctions if not compliant. - Reputational attacks against critics are discussed. Baab shares experiences of smear campaigns, such as being misrepresented as a “Putin poll watcher” in Germany, and notes that state- and EU-funded NGOs sometimes amplify misinformation. He argues mainstream media generally ignores these issues, turning to “new media” and independent outlets as alternatives for information. - On Germany specifically, Baab identifies EU-level figures (German-origin leaders) who drive censorship: Ursula von der Leyen as EU Commission President (authorized COVID-19 disinformation monitoring), Vera Jorova (values and transparency), Thierry Breton (pressures on platforms), Prabhat Agarwal (Digital Services Act enforcement), and Renate Künast (translating DSA into practice). He says national governments decide sanctions but pass the burden to Brussels, creating a “kickback game.” He notes the German Bundestag extended EU sanctions into national law, punishing any helper of a sanctioned person with up to ten years’ imprisonment. - For optimism, Baab says Europe needs external help, such as the US Congress report, and citizens must seek alternative information sources and organize to defend democratic rights, including voting for different parties. He suggests that without broad public pushback, the propaganda system will persist. - The discussion closes with reflections on broader geopolitical dynamics, warnings about a multipolar world, and a dystopian vision of a Europe dominated by conflict and state control, with elites colluding with Western powers at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Richard Wolff and Glenn discuss Trump’s political project, the trajectory of US capitalism, and how Europe is adjusting to a perceived decline of Western hegemon. - Trump’s politics are, in Wolff’s view, more traditional Republican strategy than a wholesale break with the past. The core priority remains to “make money for the top one to 5%” of people—corporate executives and the employer class that the US census identifies as about 3% of the population. The first-term flagship was the 2017 tax cuts for corporations and wealthier individuals; in the second term, the “big beautiful tax bill” of April likewise serves the core financial base before other issues like immigration or tariffs. - Trump’s more radical or theatrical moves—anti-immigrant campaigns, ICE enforcement, heightened rhetoric toward immigrants, and provocative international actions—are political theater intended to mobilize the traditional Republican coalition and reassure the business constituency. This theater targets the mass voting blocs, while the core funders provide the money to sustain the spectacle. - The domestic political dynamic: while a sizable segment of his base remains supportive, there is growing election-time anxiety within the business coalition and among some voters who are unsettled by his handling of events, including the Epstein scandal. Still, his base numbers hover around 30–35%, giving him a platform to push ahead, though the broader economic critique remains largely taboo in US politics across parties. - The fundamental economic problem: US decline as a structural issue is not debated openly by Trump’s circle or rival parties; the decline persists as China continues to outpace the US in growth. Even with tariffs, China redirected exports to other markets, maintaining a large overall export footprint and signaling the limits of unilateral US pressure. - The “tribute economy” concept: Trump’s international approach can be read as trying to convert other countries into tributaries—using tariffs, coercive measures, and diplomacy to extract relative gains from others while protecting US interests. This aligns with a broader narrative Wolff attributes to a waning hegemon resorting to coercive leverage rather than genuine economic strategy. - Andrew Jackson frame vs. reality: Trump’s use of a Jacksonian nationalist rhetoric is a superficial political device, not a deep historical redefinition. The honest historical view is that Trump adopts a veneer of Jacksonianism to justify a broader, conventional Republican agenda oriented toward the business class, while the world has changed in ways that the Jacksonian frame cannot fully accommodate. - The European reaction: Europe faces a difficult, shrinking trajectory. Wolff argues Europeans are increasingly likely to become an adjunct to the United States, with growth constrained by dependence on outside high-tech powerhouses (the US and China), shrinking industry from auto to other sectors, and rising social strain as welfare states come under pressure. - European policy implications: leaders may resort to increased militarization and a stronger anti-Russia stance to justify repression and social control at home, even as Russia’s actual military threat is overstated as a rationale. Wolff foresees growing social fragmentation, a potential class split between ruling elites and the working/middle classes, and the risk that external threats become a justification for expanding state power and military spending. - A longer arc: Wolff suggests that the current European and American trajectories reflect a broader decline of liberal hegemonies post-World War II. The solution would not be to return to a full Cold War-style confrontation but to acknowledge new multipolar realities, diversify alliances, and address domestic social needs rather than pursuing an ever-expanding militarized security paradigm. - The Minneapolis example and domestic politics: events like the ICE deployment in Minneapolis reveal a troubling trend toward heavy-handed, performative state power that could backfire politically for Trump, especially as more Republicans question Epstein-related narratives and other scandal-driven headlines intensify. - In Europe, the declining empire dynamic suggests a potential return to earlier anti-establishment currents, but leaders face the dilemma of maintaining welfare states while contending with reduced imperial leverage. The conversation anticipates rising social tensions unless new economic strategies and political alignments emerge that recognize changing power structures.

Emmanuel Macron and his husband reportedly went into hiding in a Paris bunker as thousands of French farmers blocked the capital with tractors, prompting arrests and rising calls for Macron to resign. Professor Richard Werner notes the protests are significant and may influence EU decision-making beyond France. Werner explains that the French government appears to be wavering on the EU–Mercosur free trade deal (Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Paraguay), which has been in the works for decades. The European Commission has binding authority, and under the new qualified majority voting system, France blocking it alone won’t stop the deal. Germany and Spain back the deal, while France’s opposition complicates approval, potentially delaying or revising the agreement if farmers’ pressure persists and media coverage sustains the public push. Farmers fear price declines from the Mercosur influx could undercut European agriculture. The current trigger allows governments to intervene if European prices fall by more than 8%; French farmers want this threshold lowered to 5%. They argue that European farming already operates with slim margins amid rising energy costs and EU-imposed burdens intensified in recent years. The discussion touches broader farm policy and nationalism in Europe: Dutch and German farmers faced herd culls and other policies, with Dutch and Danish protests cited. The Netherlands’ culling of herds and other measures are mentioned as part of a trend toward tightening control over farmland and food production, with alleged aims toward urban-planning shifts (15-minute cities) and reduced reliance on animal agriculture. The UK is also in the picture, with tractors in solidarity with French farmers. In the UK, inheritance taxes are framed as a tool to force privatized farmland back into state control, a tactic criticized as an expropriation policy. Oxford was among protest sites. Beyond agriculture, the conversation highlights Europe’s broader economic strain: Germany is in a third year of economic contraction—the longest since 1933—while other EU economies, including France and Austria, show weak indicators. Banking sector vulnerabilities are noted, with the ECB’s asset-bubble strategies in real estate contributing to potential instability. A new EU CO2 import tax system is described as highly complex (a 3,000-page framework with a 1,600-page registry), imposing substantial compliance costs on importers and potentially driving more firms out of business. Energy costs remain high, and climate-policy mandates are viewed as further straining the economy. The speakers critique leadership for focusing on external conflicts (Ukraine) rather than domestic economic revival, suggesting that ending the war could help economies recover. Viktor Orban’s Hungary is cited as a contrasting example, with border control policies claimed to reduce crime and pressures elsewhere. The exchange closes with a sense of urgency about Europe’s deteriorating situation, as leadership debates and domestic policy choices appear to align with worsening economic and social stress across the continent.

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.

Glenn and John Mersheimer discuss US interests in Venezuela beyond democracy promotion and narco-terrorism. Mersheimer argues the Monroe Doctrine defines US Western Hemisphere aims: preventing distant great powers from forming military alliances with or basing forces in the Americas. He asserts the Venezuela operation is not about the Monroe Doctrine or great-power competition, but an imperialist or neocolonial effort by the US to control Venezuela’s politics and oil. He notes Trump’s emphasis on who controls Venezuelan oil reflects blunt imperialism, not classical doctrine. Glenn asks if this aligns with past patterns of intervention or if it’s more brazen. Mersheimer says the US has a long history of interfering in Western Hemisphere politics, targeting leftward movements, toppling regimes, and even hinting at broader regional actions under Trump. He emphasizes Trump’s blunt rhetoric and actions—saying the US can “run Venezuela” and that Venezuela’s oil is “our oil”—as evidence of a brazen approach that lacks typical liberal-justifying rhetoric and resembles a naked imperial project. The conversation shifts to international law and the liberal rules-based order. Glenn notes that liberal order sometimes legitimized force (as in Kosovo) and asks how the Venezuela episode fits. Mersheimer argues that during the unipolar moment the US adhered to international law more and created many rules, but Trump has shown contempt for international norms, trashing the rules-based system. He contends this shift harms US interests and shows that Trump cares primarily about the United States, not about international law or other countries. They discuss European reactions and the Nord Stream incident as a test of Western liberal rhetoric. Glenn notes perceived hypocrisy in European support for Israel’s actions in Gaza and questions whether Europe will push back against Trump. Mersheimer says Europeans fear losing the US security umbrella and NATO, so they appease Trump to maintain American presence in Europe, even as they recognize his bully tendencies. He suggests Europeans might criticize but avoid costly confrontations that would threaten NATO, though Greenland could test this dynamic. He predicts the possibility of a US move on Greenland given Trump’s willingness to use force “on the cheap,” and notes that such a move could fracture NATO and European unity. They discuss the broader West, arguing the concept of a homogeneous West is fading. The US pivot to East Asia due to China’s rise undermines traditional Europe-centered alliances. The deterioration of US-European relations, combined with Moscow’s efforts to exploit European fault lines, could produce a fractured West. The discussion highlights the erosion of liberal values as a coordinating narrative, with European dependence on the US as a pacifier intensifying appeasement dynamics. The Ukraine war remains central in assessing future alliances. Mersheimer asserts Trump’s strategy shifts burden to Europe, which cannot sustain Ukraine support, and predicts blame games if Ukraine loses, with European leaders and Washington trading accusations. Russia’s efforts to deepen European and Atlantic tensions will persist, potentially leaving Europe more divided and the US less able to serve as a stabilizing force. He concludes that the Venezuela episode, while notable, does not fundamentally alter the trajectory set by Ukraine and the pivot to Asia, though it underscores weakening Western cohesion and the fragility of NATO if US commitments wane. Glenn and Mersheimer close reflecting on the difficulty of maintaining a unified Western order amid shifting power and repeated demonstrations of Western frictions, expressing concern over future stability and the risk that major actions—such as potential Greenland intervention—could further destabilize the transatlantic alliance.

George Bebe discusses the US need to adjust to a multipolar distribution of power by retrenching from Europe to prioritize other regions, particularly the Western Hemisphere and East Asia. He argues Europe is no longer the first priority and predicts US pivoting away from Europe will likely continue even after Trump. He also raises concern that abrupt US troop reductions from Germany and related policy changes can undermine long-term prospects for reduced US involvement and a more balanced Transatlantic relationship. Bebe says the Trump administration’s sudden drawdown from Europe does not enhance retrenchment; it increases the chances of instability in Europe. He highlights that a key element of the announcement was reversing the Biden administration’s decision to place intermediate-range missiles on German territory, which appears to signal retrenchment but could instead contribute to greater instability and a more difficult Transatlantic relationship. He adds that unstable regions tend to pull the United States back in, making disentanglement harder. He argues this environment increases the likelihood of escalation toward direct conflict. Bebe explains that Russia has held back from using much of its air power in Ukraine partly to avoid direct conflict with NATO and partly to keep open the possibility of a compromised settlement and normalization with the United States. He says Putin may decide normalization is unlikely if Trump is unable to normalize relations in a Washington still hostile to Russia, which would raise incentives for Russia to “teach the Ukrainians a lesson” and restore deterrence amid growing domestic pressure in Russia to do something. He links this pressure to domestic dynamics, including a crackdown on the Internet related to preventing Ukrainian drone targeting. Bebe describes an escalation ladder. He predicts Russia’s first step would be more destructive military action against Ukrainians, using air power to destroy fortress cities in the Donbas that Russia claims to be liberating, allowing ground forces to occupy with relatively low casualties. He says Russia would then face decisions about whether to go after other annexed regions it does not fully control or impose a unilateral ceasefire while ensuring the rest of Ukraine could not be reconstructed absent Russian demands. He argues that further escalation depends largely on European responses, particularly whether Europeans decide to punish Russia with larger deep-strike campaigns using drones from Ukraine. If that occurs, he anticipates massive bombing and missile strikes on Kyiv and potentially other Ukrainian population centers. Bebe says Ukraine’s air defense is not capable of preventing more massive Russian airstrikes and is unlikely to receive effective systems from the United States or Europe soon. He describes a “window” for months in which Ukrainian air defense will be essentially nonexistent. If Europeans respond by escalating further, he suggests Russia could attack supply chains and factories in Europe (including facilities not located in Ukraine) that provide capabilities to Ukrainians, creating a crisis inside the transatlantic alliance. He notes that allies could then seek to invoke Article five of the Washington Treaty, forcing the Trump administration to decide whether to confront Russia directly—under circumstances he says are likely to be difficult given perceptions in Washington that Europeans are not trying to bring peace and are instead seeking Russian capitulation through increased pressure. Turning to Europe’s mindset, Bebe argues European thinking has a “mindset problem,” resembling “mass hypnosis,” where the only way to deal with Russia is “more pressure, more deterrence,” and diplomatic engagement to mitigate threats is treated as unacceptable. He says this deterrence-only approach risks an escalatory spiral that could get out of hand, and argues a mix of deterrence and diplomacy is necessary, requiring pragmatism and cool-headed engagement without destabilizing Europe. In discussing narratives, Bebe agrees with the idea that mobilization for war often relies on good-versus-evil framing, which undermines compromise when it becomes time for peace. He adds that big European players (France, Germany, Italy) have not allowed engagements with other great powers to be held hostage by consensus of smaller states in the past, but in the current situation there is little momentum for engagement—at an early stage at most—driven not by Estonia or Poland but by major European powers. He emphasizes that the UK is outside EU foreign policy consensus constraints and is among the staunchest opponents of engaging diplomatically with Russia. On US interests, Bebe strongly argues the United States should orchestrate a compromise settlement in Ukraine. He says outsourcing the conflict to Europe or reducing US involvement would increase chances of escalation into an extraordinarily destructive Europe-Russia conflict and would only encourage Russia to align more closely with China. He argues a more autonomous Russia with relations to both China and the United States would simplify US challenges posed by China. He also says ongoing Europe-Russia conflict distracts US leaders from higher priorities and stresses that NATO’s purpose should shift toward facilitating high-technology cooperation with Europe (critical minerals, chips, supply chains, space, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence). He concludes that US action to end the Ukraine war would better enable these cooperation goals and improve Europe’s prospects for growth. In response to claims that Russia’s earlier restraint, including the May 9 posture, reflected weakness and that Putin is dying, Bebe says it is “a case of believing your own propaganda,” which he describes as dangerous.

George Beebe discusses how NATO expansion and Western narratives changed from the 1990s to the present, focusing on concerns within the U.S. and Europe about how enlargement would affect relations with Russia. He explains that after the Cold War ended—after the Berlin Wall fell, the Warsaw Pact broke up, and the Soviet Union dissolved—the West faced the question of what foreign policy should be. He says Western judgment was that the Western community was successful and should be extended: transforming former Warsaw Pact members, Russia, and even the Middle East through liberalization and “globaliz[ing] the Western system.” He argues this involved “social engineering” that the West was “really not capable of” and that it failed to account for Russia’s reactions. Beebe says NATO enlargement was built on the idea that extending the NATO and EU “security umbrella” would foster Westernization and liberalization, while Russia viewed this as offering subordinate status rather than co-equal partnership. He describes Russian concerns as including the placement of NATO forces on Russia’s borders. He adds that many Russia experts in Washington and Europe—especially those with deep expertise from the Cold War—believed expansion would trigger increasingly intense reactions as NATO moved closer to Russian borders. He says that in the mid-1990s it was widely considered “crazy” to expand NATO, and that it was “unthinkable” to go beyond Warsaw Pact states and bring core elements of the former Soviet Union—specifically Ukraine—into NATO. In his view, what is now treated as conventional wisdom—that Ukraine can choose its military allies and host forces—is “almost a sacred principle” that is central to the root of the current conflict. Beebe emphasizes that understanding these dynamics is critical to finding an exit from the war, stating that arguing the conflict was “completely unprovoked” ignores history and shaping dynamics. He also addresses how initial disagreement became a narrative that NATO enlargement had “nothing whatsoever to do with this” even after warnings. He mentions William Burns’ “Nyet Means Nyet” cable and its argument that no matter Russia’s political spectrum, Ukrainian NATO membership would be intolerable and would provoke reaction. Beebe says that after enlargement decisions were made, some opponents accepted the “new situation on the ground,” in part because power brokers in Washington would not publicly admit they were wrong and because a “new generation of Russia experts” emerged who were trained during a period expecting transformation of Russia into liberal democracies through internal-system-focused reasoning, with geography and balance of power treated as less important. He argues the European Union’s post-Cold War evolution left it unable to act coherently as a geopolitical actor because it became a regulatory superpower focused on transmitting values and expanding a Western community. He says Russian objections force Europeans into an “existential question” about Europe’s purpose, which he links to difficulties settling the war. Beebe then outlines how he believes Russia interpreted events in Ukraine as not starting in 2014 but rooting back to early NATO enlargement steps, especially the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary joining. He recounts Russia’s concern that NATO claimed to be defensive while intervening in Serbia without UN Security Council authorization, and how this led Russia to conclude that deterrence depended less on NATO’s stated nature than on Russia’s own ability to deter. He connects this to the 2008 Bucharest summit signaling Ukraine and Georgia could join NATO, describing Russia’s view that Ukraine was becoming “NATO-ized” through deepening military links. He says Russia believed a window was closing: Ukraine’s enmeshment would eventually remove Russia’s military option except war with NATO. He characterizes Putin’s action as “preemptive and illegally,” while also maintaining that there were causes beyond “Putin’s own imperialist desires.” In discussing current escalation, Beebe describes NATO involvement as something Ukrainians would like to see directly, believing it mitigates Russia’s advantages. He says Russia understands it is being baited into an overreaction, but that provocations have intensified, including attacks he references on Russian territory and nuclear-relevant capabilities. He says Russia’s messaging aims to pressure Washington and Europe to restrain Ukrainians, including Foreign Intelligence Service warnings about Latvian involvement in drone strikes and threats against Latvian facilities. He portrays a scenario where Article 5 could trigger a painful U.S. choice between fighting Russia—potentially nuclear—or hollowing out NATO, arguing that U.S. interest lies in diplomacy to avoid that decision. He also warns that Western fear of nuclear war has diminished, which he calls dangerous because nuclear deterrence relies on fear to bring sobriety. He cites Sergei Karganov’s view that fear of nuclear war must be restored and says restoring it could create a catastrophic escalatory spiral. On the “narrative war,” Beebe calls claims that Ukraine is winning “propaganda,” describing it as designed to buy time and allow opponents of settlement to avoid compromise. He argues the “stay the course” line seeks to avoid any need to compromise and that it is a fantasy, asserting that a compromise would require Russia giving up important things and the West and Ukraine also doing so. He compares the logic to the war on Iran analogy raised by the host: Western unwillingness to accept Russia’s existential threat perception prevents understanding why Moscow cannot accept capitulation terms. He closes by saying his optimism about compromise has fluctuated, becoming more hopeful after developments in the Israel-U.S.-Iran conflict that he connects to renewed prospects for negotiations in Ukraine. He adds that making Zelensky accept a settlement and getting Europeans to think about “the world as it is, not how they wish it was” would be complicated. He frames the struggle as between the Trump administration and a “deep state,” including links in Europe, and says the next weeks will show whether resistance can be overcome.

The speaker believes Europe is falling, and the United Kingdom is on the brink. The Prime Minister of Sweden stated his government has lost control of the monopoly of violence. The speaker believes Germany and France are in similar situations, and fears these countries will fall like dominoes. This has occurred through settlement and infiltration of institutions, including political parties. The speaker's nightmare is that the West starts to fall apart, and the current Labour government has done more to accommodate this in the last eight months than anything else.

Europe is not preparing for war, but for collapse, and elites are not gearing up for war with Russia because they care about freedom. They are doing it because their grip on power is slipping, economies are breaking, and the middle class is crushed. Hungary was sanctioned for refusing to send money to Ukraine, and Slovakia and Poland are breaking rank. The AFD is rising in Germany, and France is trying to stop Marine Le Pen. These are the voices of the people, and that terrifies the establishment. Elites crank up the fear, blame Russia, and push for war to cover for their own failures. The threat is coming from within, from the millions of people across Europe and the US who are done being lied to, used, and ignored. The media repeats the same script every day, and Trump is punching holes straight through it. The solution is to speak the truth, ask the right questions, and stop playing along.

The conversation centers on the idea that Europe’s leadership has deteriorated and that powerful voices from the past warned this would happen. Colin Powell, according to Speaker 1, told Speaker 0 in 1989 that Europe would end up with “horrible leaders,” and that those who replace them would be people “who have no conscience, people who have no sense of reality, people who have not been seasoned by warfare… who think they control their lives but don't.” Powell’s view, developed from his experience as a military and strategic analyst, was that once the pressure of the Cold War abated, there would be little rationale for NATO, and Europe would drift without a coherent security structure. Speaker 1 elaborates that Powell’s instincts led him to anticipate a dissolution of the postwar security order. Powell argued that NATO’s justification would erode, and a political debacle would accompany the military one as Europe’s leaders lacked direct experience of war. He advised creating a European security identity (ESI) consisting of a 3,000-person brigade, with its own equipment, training, and industrial base, divorced from NATO. The idea was that, over time (perhaps a 20–25 year period), the ESI could grow into a division, then a corps, with its own air power and arms industry, eventually allowing NATO to fade away while Europe managed its own security. Speaker 1 notes that Powell’s position was controversial with U.S. defense and defense contractors, who viewed him as dangerous for proposing such an independent European security framework. The discussion parallels George Kennan’s 1987 warning that if the Soviet Union collapsed, American society would face a shock because so much of its domestic and alliance structures depended on the external threat. The speakers discuss Clinton-era shifts, including Bill Perry’s attempts to revive cooperation with Russia, and the way Clinton’s policies altered the trajectory away from Powell’s envisioned framework. They mention a shift away from a fixed European security reliance on a NATO-centric model toward broader strategic engagement, but also criticize the departure from a legally grounded approach to world affairs. The conversation then turns to current tensions, including Europe’s involvement in Ukraine. The participants reflect on Powell’s broader aim of integrating security arrangements with law, noting that international law should guide actions, even if law alone cannot ensure outcomes. They discuss the possibility that the war in Ukraine could reflect the consequences of earlier decisions to preserve U.S. footprints in Europe and the Cold War security architecture, which in their view helped maintain stability but also embedded Europe within a security framework that relied on American leadership. The dialogue references the Balkans as an example of policy divergence: Powell warned that stabilizing the Balkans would require extensive forces, but President Bush was reluctant. Clinton eventually conducted a prolonged bombing campaign against Serbia, altering the dynamic with Russia and highlighting the tensions between ambitious security vision and political practicality. The speakers emphasize the importance of law and national security structures, the desire to rethink post–Cold War decisions, and the ongoing question of how Europe should secure its own stability while balancing relations with Russia and the United States.

The UK is seen as irresponsible, echoing the attitudes of the 19th-century British Empire and causing global tensions. Recent comments by President Macron are also viewed as reckless. Zelensky is perceived as a threat because he seems to be pushing for a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. The belief is that if the conflict remains between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine will ultimately lose. Zelensky's actions appear aimed at drawing NATO into a broader conflict.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor and Glenn discuss the current strategic picture across Ukraine, the Russia–China–Iran axis, and the broader Western political environment. On Russia and Ukraine: - MacGregor notes a major “Cauldron battles” situation in Southeastern Ukraine, with remaining Ukrainian forces being encircled and largely annihilated by precision strike weapons, and a Russian swarm anticipated to complete the encirclement. - He identifies two focal points of Russian activity: Odessa (where Russian special operations are reportedly active at night, Odessa largely undefended with air defenses degraded) and Kharkov, with ongoing pressure toward Kyiv. He emphasizes that none of these alone solves the core problem of removing Zelenskyy’s government in Kyiv, which he describes as a facade Europeans seek to preserve. - Russia has increased its force size, adding reservists and training new draftees; options for Moscow appear to be Odessa, Kharkov, and Kyiv. Putin is watching Western European political developments to gauge timing, potentially waiting for Western government changes to move decisively. - MacGregor argues NATO is effectively irrelevant to Russia’s calculus and asserts the United States does not want a war with Russia over Ukraine, giving Moscow more freedom of action than Western audiences realize. On Russia–China relations and Europe: - Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are pursuing a bilateral strategy to mutually reinforce military and economic capabilities, forming a large continental fortress against the United States. The two powers seek to strengthen ties as they view the U.S. as increasingly belligerent. - MacGregor contends that European leaders, including Starmer, Macron, and Metz, are aligned with globalist and financial elites (referencing ties to BlackRock and others) and that personal relationships between leaders are not meaningful in the international arena; strategic interests drive policy. - He argues that many European elites’ rhetoric about Russia serves to deflect from domestic vulnerabilities and to mobilize anti-Russian sentiment as political cover. On the Middle East and Iran: - The talk about Iran is framed as not serious; MacGregor describes a plan to escalate toward regime change in Iran, driven by U.S., Israeli, and allied intelligence communities, despite Iranian resistance and regional risk. - He claims Mossad, MI6, and CIA influenced President Trump regarding Iran’s fragility, while Iran’s internal protests (economic grievances) were legitimate and quickly mischaracterized as attempts to overthrow the government. He asserts Chinese and Russian assistance helped Iran counter covert efforts, including providing satellite imagery and assisting integrated air and missile defenses. - The declared Western goal is to destroy Iran as a nation-state, with the Iranian leadership prepared to respond with full use of capabilities if attacked. He suggests a potential air and missile campaign could target the regime and strategic hubs, with the United States likely relying on high-altitude precision strikes and long-range missiles, while questioning the effectiveness and survivability of U.S. platforms like B-52s against Iranian defenses. - China and Russia are depicted as unlikely to allow Iran to be pulverized; they could intervene if Iran is near disintegration, possibly through non-nuclear actions such as a collision at sea, leveraging their submarine capabilities and influence. On European political legitimacy and future: - MacGregor connects the Epstein-related discourse in Europe to a broader critique of ruling elites, comparing the potential for political upheaval to late-18th-century France. He argues that as publics grow disillusioned with elites, there could be a crisis of political legitimacy and a shift toward more realistic leadership, with potential upheaval in Britain, France, and Germany. On Putin and future moves: - He suggests Putin views the possibility of reconciliation with Washington as unlikely, having reached somber conclusions about the prospects for meaningful agreement. He predicts Russia will act on its terms, potentially advancing toward the Dnieper River, Odessa, and perhaps Kyiv, while noting Russia does not intend to govern Western Ukraine long-term. He emphasizes that events will unfold on Russian terms, with European irrelevance in the decision-making process fading as Moscow executes its plans.

Europe is not preparing for war, but for collapse, and this is not about defending democracy. Elites in France, Germany, and the UK are preparing for war with Russia because their grip on power is slipping due to failing economies and a crushed middle class. They sanctioned Hungary for refusing to send more money to Ukraine. Slovakia is breaking rank, Poland is pushing back, and the AFD is rising in Germany. The establishment calls these movements extremist and tries to erase them because they are the voices of the people. They blame Russia and push for war to cover their failures. The threat is coming from within, from people tired of being lied to. The media repeats the same script, but Trump punches holes in it. The solution is to speak the truth, ask questions, and stop playing along, because when enough people refuse to lie, the machine breaks.

Ray McGovern, a former CIA officer who chaired the National Intelligence Estimate and prepared daily briefs for the president, discusses the newly released US national security strategy and its implications for the war in Ukraine, as well as broader US-Russia and US-Europe dynamics. - McGovern notes a dramatic shift in the national security strategy’s emphasis. He observes it prioritizes the Western Hemisphere, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, with Russia treated as part of Europe. He contrasts this with past eras, recalling Paul Wolfowitz’s post–Gulf War doctrine, which asserted US primacy and the ability to act that Russia could not stop, and he emphasizes the stark difference between that era and the current document. - He recounts a historical anecdote from 1991–1992: Wolfowitz’s belief that the US could win where others could not, followed by a warning to General Wesley Clark that Russia would challenge US primacy as times changed. He points to subsequent US actions in Iraq (2003) and Syria (2015) as evidence of a shift in capability to project power, and he argues that in 2022 Russia halted US plans by preventing NATO expansion into Ukraine. - McGovern interprets the current strategy as signaling a recalibration: the US may be acknowledging a changing balance of power, with a focus on deterring Russia and stabilizing relations with Moscow, while recognizing that Europe is central to strategic calculations. He stresses that Russia’s core principle, in its view, is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, and he underscores that the strategy doc frames core interests as seeking strategic stability with Russia and a negotiated modus vivendi, though he notes these appear as a “castaway” in the Europe section. - He discusses ongoing high-level discussions in Berlin involving Witkoff (Wittkop) and Jared Kushner, and Zelenskyy’s positions on NATO membership and security assurances. He recalls past European reactions, including Rubio’s role in watering down European talking points and US–Russian negotiations, suggesting a pattern of European concessions followed by US–Russian engagement that sidelines European voices. - McGovern argues that Russia has “won the war” on the battlefield and that Moscow’s tactic is gradual, minimizing Ukrainian casualties while consolidating control over parts of Donetsk and other territorial objectives. He asserts Putin’s priority is to maintain a workable relationship with the United States, with Ukraine as a secondary concern. He also notes Trump’s stated interest in improving US-Russia relations, including a willingness to consider extending New START, and he highlights that Moscow would react to whether Trump commits to the treaty’s limits for another year, which would influence Moscow’s strategic calculations. - The discussion covers the internal US debate over how to handle Ukraine and whether to pursue negotiations with Russia. McGovern argues that the reality of Russia’s position and Ukraine’s losses complicate any simple “win” scenario for Ukraine, and he suggests that a negotiated settlement might eventually emerge if a durable US–Russia relationship can be pursued, given Russia’s advances on the battlefield and its leverage in European security. - They discuss John Mearsheimer’s realist perspective, arguing that Western expansion toward Ukraine contributed to the conflict, and that voices emphasizing NATO enlargement as the sole cause are contested. McGovern mentions Obama’s warnings not to give Ukraine illusions of prevailing against Russia and to avoid escalation, and he contrasts this with Stoltenberg’s statements about Russia’s preconditions for peace. - They also critique EU moves to seize Russian assets to fund Ukraine, suggesting that European leaders may be acting to preserve political power rather than align with the public’s long-term interests, and question whether such measures will endure or provoke wider political backlash. - In closing, McGovern reiterates that Russia has the upper hand for now, with the war’s outcome dependent on political decisions in Washington and Moscow, particularly whether Trump can extend New START, and whether European and US policymakers can sustain a realistic approach to security guarantees and the balance of power in Europe. The conversation ends with a cautious note about the potential for a settlement but ongoing uncertainties about the strategic environment and transatlantic politics.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Glenn unpack how European security architecture evolved and why current moves toward a Europe-centered NATO, possibly including Ukraine and excluding Russia, look so perilous. - Sachs recounts a historic 1990 opportunity offered by Mikhail Gorbachev: a “common European home” stretching from Rotterdam to Vladivostok, with internal Soviet reforms, demilitarization, and, crucially, an end to NATO expansion. The promise by Germany and the United States in pursuit of German reunification was that “NATO would not move one inch eastward.” This indivisible-security concept echoed the Helsinki final act: no country would join an alliance threatening others. Yet NATO expanded, despite that explicit commitment, and that expansion contributed to the current Ukraine conflict. - Two motives behind NATO enlargement are highlighted. First, to keep the United States in Europe as a security defender, especially for Central and Eastern European states emerging from Soviet domination, which wanted continued U.S. protection despite no evident external threat. Second, the United States used NATO enlargement as a tool for projecting American power in a unipolar world after the Soviet collapse, turning NATO into the military branch of U.S. overseas power and serving a broader hegemonic aim. - Brzezinski’s influence is emphasized: in The Grand Chessboard (1997), he argued Eurasia centered on Ukraine; “he who controls Ukraine controls Eurasia.” Brzezinski advocated expanding Europe and NATO to diminish Russia, envisioning a weakened or divided Russia. This framed Ukraine as a geopolitical prize, with Ukraine’s joining NATO seen as a strategy to prevent a revived Russian power. - The expansion waves are traced: 1999 brought Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic; 2004 added seven states including the Baltic states and Romania; 2008 and the Bucharest summit sparked a pledge that Ukraine and Georgia would join NATO, a timetable Merkel later resisted but ultimately yielded to U.S. pressure. The 2004 expansion followed the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, further destabilizing the nuclear balance and fueling Russian resentment. - The Maidan coup of 2014 in Ukraine, aided by Western support, brought to power a government that favored NATO alignment, intensifying Russian pushback and making Europe’s pro-NATO stance more central to policy, even as Russia resisted. The aim was to bring Ukraine into NATO, which Sachs argues was not defense-driven but an assertion of American hegemony. - Sachs contrasts two mindsets: Eastern Europe’s Russophobia, rooted in decades of Soviet domination, especially among the Baltic states and Poland, driving a hardline stance; and a German role that has shifted from a historic commitment to make peace with Russia (Austrian-style realpolitik) to endorsing NATO expansion for commercial investments, a shift he finds dangerous. He criticizes Merkel for acquiescing to U.S. pressure on enlargement and labels Scholz and Merkel’s posture as failures to maintain a balanced European peace. British Russophobia also colors policy, he adds, underscoring a transatlantic appetite for confrontation. - The broader risk is a security dilemma: Europe’s defensive steps may provoke offensive reactions, potentially leading toward war, especially if a “European NATO” is formed to deter or strike at Russia without credible allied protection. Sachs argues the current direction shows a lack of political and security imagination in Europe, with a remilitarization path that could be a march to war. - In closing, Sachs notes the paradox: European leaders recognize risk but still pursue a path that could escalate conflict with a nuclear power, while the debate continues about deterrence, defense, and the future of European security architecture.

The discussion focuses on escalating security tensions in Europe and concerns about a potential NATO–Russia war, particularly after drone attacks allegedly originating from beyond Baltic States’ territory. The host says the attacks were first denied by NATO, then acknowledged with claims tied to Ukraine’s use of territory; Russia’s retaliation is described as increasingly likely due to continued escalation over four years. Jeffrey Sachs argues that there is no effective diplomacy between Europe and Russia, and that Europeans are “talking past each other.” He says leadership influence is concentrated among Baltic States and Poland, which he describes as highly Russophobic, and he criticizes the European Union’s external relations structure by saying that the voice of the EU community has been effectively handed to Baltic officials involved in defense policy. Sachs also claims that Germany and France have not “put on the brakes,” and he identifies chancellor Mertz as particularly irresponsible, describing him as an openly pro-militarization leader who has shown no interest in diplomacy such as contacting President Putin or holding meetings between German and Russian foreign ministers. Sachs emphasizes Germany’s responsibility, stating that Germany promised the Soviet Union in unambiguous terms that NATO would not enlarge, and that Germany was the guarantor of the Minsk II agreement, which he says failed as intended. He also claims that Germany has repeatedly “cheated” on commitments and that Mertz’s stance conflicts with the four-plus-two treaty governing German unification, which he says includes no remilitarization provisions. He criticizes France and the UK as well, arguing that “strategic autonomy” in Europe is being implemented in a hostile way toward Russia. Turning to Ukraine, Sachs describes its government as radical, corrupt, and extremist, asserting that a small group runs the state under martial law. He claims Ukraine is attempting to provoke Europe into an expanded war because Ukraine cannot fight Russia directly, and he points to alleged drone operations through Baltic airspace. He also claims Ukraine has attacked Russia’s nuclear triad by bombing aircraft on tarmacs as part of nuclear arms control surveillance mechanisms, and that Ukraine has taken other provocative steps. Sachs argues that the combination of Baltic-front escalation, European policy being driven by Baltic states, and Germany’s remilitarization rhetoric creates an extremely dangerous hotspot, possibly even more dangerous than the Ukraine contact line. The host responds that it is unclear whether Russia is directly responsible for drone incursions into the Baltic States or whether Russia is countering Ukrainian drones, calling it speculation. The host then notes mutual rhetoric and says there is a need to either prevent an entry into war or restore diplomacy. He points to Angela Merkel arguing it is time to speak to Russia and says Europe has spent four years boycotting diplomacy while treating the lack of dialogue as virtuous. He also describes internal EU coordination problems, arguing that common positions tend toward the lowest common denominator, potentially aggressive demands such as Russian capitulation. He asks whether Sachs is optimistic that efforts to restore diplomacy will work. Sachs compares the dynamic to Israel–Palestine, arguing that hatred can “boil over” into genocide. He frames the Ukraine war as great-power politics stemming from NATO enlargement and Russia’s resistance, and he claims it originated from the February 2014 coup under a Russian view that the United States was a major actor. Sachs then argues that European narratives have become dominated by “Russian evil,” while key historical elements are excluded from discussion, including Germany’s and the United States’ roles in reunification commitments, NATO decisions, Minsk II, arms control, and the U.S. abandonment of an anti-ballistic missile treaty. Sachs highlights Bucharest NATO Summit 2008 as a turning point, saying Merkel warned that NATO enlargement could lead to war and that Germany ultimately gave in, allowing an unequivocal NATO enlargement commitment to Ukraine and Georgia. He further describes Germany’s 2014 involvement in negotiating with Viktor Yanukovych to prevent a coup, followed by U.S. recognition of the new government and Germany’s acceptance. He says Minsk II created a new constitutional order granting autonomy in Donbas and that Germany and France were guarantors, while he claims the U.S. and Ukraine privately did not intend to implement it and Germany did not enforce it, later quoting Merkel as saying in 2022 they “never really meant it” to buy time. Finally, Sachs argues that face-to-face discussion is necessary and that responsible diplomacy could force Europeans to remember history and prevent destructive escalation. He says Lavrov would be a good counterpart due to extensive historical knowledge. He closes by repeating that Europe should talk to Russia, emphasizing historical accountability and urging Germany to review its recent diplomatic history before engaging in talks.

Glenn: Welcome back. We are joined today by Professor John Mersheimer to understand what is happening in the world with this new great power rivalry and how the outcome of the Ukraine war will impact this new Cold War. Have we entered a new Cold War? Who are the players, competing interests, and the rules? Mersheimer: I think we have entered a new Cold War. We're in a multipolar system, and the United States, China, and Russia are the three great powers. The United States is certainly in a cold war with China. China is powerful and threatens to dominate East Asia, and the United States will almost certainly go to great lengths to prevent that from happening, which axiomatically creates an intense security competition in China. An intense security competition is a cold war, and the name of the game is to make sure that security competition does not turn into a hot war. We are in a cold war with the Chinese, or the Chinese are in a cold war with us. The hot war is avoided. Regarding Russia, since we moved into multipolarity, the Russians and the Chinese have been close allies against the United States. This is largely a result of the Ukraine war, which has pushed the Russians into the arms of the Chinese and caused closer Sino-Russian cooperation. The United States, through the Biden administration, was involved in a cold war with both Russia and China. Trump tried to change that, seeking good relations with Russia to form a Russia-plus-US alliance against China, but he has been unable to make that happen. The result is that the United States is basically still in a cold war with both Russia and China. The war in Ukraine has made me worry greatly that the Cold War in Europe could turn into a hot war, even as the U.S.-China relationship remains cooler so far. Glenn: European leaders hoped the United States and Europe would unite in this new Cold War, with liberal hegemony fading and a return to unity against Russia. But Ukraine has instead divided Europe. How do you explain this? Is it the US not seeing Russia as the same threat as Europeans, or a concern about pushing Russia toward China, or Europe’s costs of the partnership? Is this uniquely a Trump-era approach? Mersheimer: From an American point of view, good relations with Russia make sense. China is the peer competitor, and the United States wants to pivot to East Asia to prevent China’s dominance. Russia is the weakest of the three great powers and not a major threat to Europe. The Americans believe Europe can deal with Russia, freeing them to focus on China. Europe, by contrast, is threatened by Russia’s proximity and thus prioritizes Russia. NATO expansion into Ukraine is seen by many Europeans as a disaster, poisoning Russia–Europe relations, making Europe deeply committed to using Ukraine to weaken Russia. The transatlantic alliance becomes strained, especially with Trump raising the possibility of leaving NATO. Europeans fear losing the American pacifier that keeps centrifugal forces in check, which would complicate European coordination with Russia. Glenn: If the United States signals a departure, won’t Europe face greater challenges in managing Russia? And is Russia truly an empire-building threat, or is this a post-2014 narrative that intensified after February 2022? Mersheimer: Bringing Ukraine into NATO was destined to cause trouble. The crisis began in 2014, and the 2022 war is ongoing. The Ukrainians and Europeans want a security guarantee for Ukraine, essentially NATO membership, while Russia demands territory and rejects a security guarantee that would enshrine NATO’s presence near its borders. The Europeans see NATO expansion as threatening, while the Americans view Russia as the weaker power and the need to pivot to China. The controversy over responsibility for this disaster arises from competing interpretations of NATO expansion and Russian aggression. Glenn: Do you see Russia changing course soon? There has been escalation—Odessa blockades, port attacks, and targeting infrastructure. Could this signal a new stage of the war? Mersheimer: The Russians believe Ukraine is on the ropes and expect to win on the battlefield in 2026, possibly expanding fronts in Kharkiv and Sumy. They may consider increasing conventional force and possibly using nuclear weapons if the war drags on. They view the conflict as existential and fear losing, which could push them toward drastic measures to end the war. The Russians could escalate if they think they cannot win conventionally. Glenn: What are the non-nuclear options to win quickly? Could the Russians deliver a decisive conventional victory? Mersheimer: It’s a war of attrition. If Ukraine’s army is weakened, Russia could surround large Ukrainian formations, disrupt logistics, and open larger fronts. They may build up forces in the rear, potentially for a breakthrough or to deter Western escalation. The battlefield outcome may determine the next steps, including whether nuclear options are considered. Glenn: How will Ukraine end? Is it a military defeat, economic collapse, or political fragmentation? Mersheimer: Ukraine is likely to be defeated on the battlefield. Its economy is in desperate shape, and losing Odessa or more territory would worsen it. Politically, Ukraine will face internal divisions once the war ends. Europe will face a broken Russia–Ukraine relationship, with some European states viewing the conflict differently. Ukraine’s demographic decline compounds its bleak outlook, and the country may become a problematic rump state. The war should have been settled earlier; the negotiators in Istanbul in 2022 could have sought a different path. Zelensky’s choice to align with Western powers and walk away from Istanbul negotiations deepened Ukraine’s predicament. Glenn: Any final reflections? Mersheimer: The war’s outcome will reshape Western unity and European security. Historians may view this as a major mistake in weakening the West. The blame for the disaster will likely be attributed in the West to Russia’s imperialism, but the expansion of NATO is also central. Europe’s economic and political landscape will be altered, and Ukraine’s future will be deeply challenging.