Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - Stories of Week 10/9: Russian Attacks, DC Warmongering, Chips Competition, Uvalde Police, & More!

Episode Date: October 15, 2022

Krystal and Saagar cover the Russian attacks, DC warmongering, US-China competition, Uvalde police force, Biden's weed policy, & more!To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Cable news is ripping us apart, dividing the nation, making it impossible to function as a society and to know what is true and what is false. The good news is that they're failing and they know it. That is why we're building something new. Be part of creating a new, better, healthier, and more trustworthy mainstream by becoming a Breaking Points premium member today at BreakingPoints.com. Your hard-earned money is going to help us build for the midterms and the upcoming presidential election so we can provide unparalleled coverage of what is sure to be one of the most pivotal moments in American history. So what are you waiting for? Go to BreakingPoints.com to help us out.

Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for all of you today. We're going to dispense with the normal stuff at the top because we've got major breaking news that's happening literally right before we started filming. So we went ahead and scrambled the show to bring it to you as fast as possible. So we're going to go ahead and start with this. The Putin regime in Russia has announced new strikes all across Ukraine and specifically on the capital of Kiev in Ukraine, launching missiles, cruise missiles, and a variety of other air assets against critical energy infrastructure. We have a little bit of video that was released by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Here you can watch a cruise missile, which was launched from Sea Crystal. There are two separate missiles that were launched there. That was hundreds of missiles that rained all across the country of missiles that rained all across the country of Ukraine that happened in the early hours, Washington time. We have a map, actually, we can go ahead and put that up there on the screen. This is a map that just shows you all of the strikes across the entire country. Notably, there is the city of Lviv, which is all the way there in the Western part of the country near the Polish border, that is the major thoroughfare for a lot of the NATO armaments that are making its way into

Ukraine. It's a largely untouched city. It's only been bombed or struck a couple of times. Other places, Kiev and other five different places across the country, in retaliation for the Crimean Bridge attack that we're going to be getting to a little bit later in the show, all current indications show that they tried to target critical infrastructure. And yet, as usual, you know, we don't have a lot of the footage because things are happening so quickly right now, but it's horrific. I mean, you could see downtown Kiev in the middle of rush hour being bombed, maximum retaliation against civilians. There was a children's playground that was literally struck, you know, supposedly in retaliation. It shows you also that the Russian precision-guided munitions are not as good as,

or at least they have expended some of their best weapons in the early phase of the war, moving to less accurate type of munitions. And unfortunately, it's just wreaked horrific damage all across the country. And it is a sign of the escalation in this war that unfortunately is a result of Putin has his back to the wall. The bridge attack really was a big moment for the war, both in the way it was received in Russia amongst policymakers, also for Ukraine, you know, came after that warning from the U.S. intelligence community about Ukraine launching extrajudicial assassinations inside of Moscow, basically throwing up the flag saying, hey, we know that

you're planning something, maybe don't do it. It's possible that this might have been one of the things that they were trying to warn them against doing. Regardless, we are now in a new phase of the conflict with Putin and others saying the gloves are now in a new phase of the conflict with Putin and others saying the gloves are now coming off and all of that. That's exactly right. I mean, for a while now, the hawkish, most hawkish faction within Russia

has really been upset with the prosecution of this war. They wanted strikes that look a lot more like this. We know also, and we can put this up on the screen, this is highly relevant. So Russia just appointed a new commander for the war in Ukraine. This was sort of a different approach to put one person in charge of the entire operation.

There was a lot of speculation about what this meant, but a lot of folks noted this dude, Serovkin, I'm gonna go. Serovkin, yeah. Serovkin. He was known for, you know, he's a veteran of their war, the war in Syria. He is known for being sort of a brutal gloves off kind of a guy. No accident that he's put in charge.

And then just days later, you have these attacks across all of Ukraine. And I think there's a couple of things that we know at this point, you know, and this is very early. We're just getting details in about where exactly these strikes hit and what sort of infrastructure they took out. It seems very, very clear they were designed to take out the electricity and water capabilities of Ukrainian civilians or reports of outages across the entire country. And then also, I mean, seems very clearly designed to sort of terrify the citizenry. The strikes in downtown Kiev, this is something we haven't seen since the very beginning of this war when Russia was successfully, you know, pushed back from those regions.

Now you have citizens who, in Kiev yesterday, they were out sort of like enjoying the last bits of summer, out at that cafe, sort of feeling a bit of normalcy in their lives. That is now completely upended. And I think it's worth saying we're going to get to more with the bridge that Ukraine successfully was able to cripple, not completely decimate, but to cripple, which was a humiliating strike for Russia.

You know, Ukraine hit what was a critical piece of infrastructure. This bridge was something that was being used by Russia to, you know, bring troops in to supply their troops. So they're hitting a critical piece of sort of military infrastructure. And the response here is basically to terrorize citizens. I mean, that's really this is supposed to strike fear in the hearts of all Ukrainians. And, you know, it's unfortunately predictable. It's something that we've been concerned about for quite a while now, as Putin does become increasingly desperate, as on so many fronts he's been, you know, getting pushed back and effectively losing this war. So the hawkish faction is delighted this morning. They've essentially gotten their way. These are the types of actions that they've been pushing for for quite a long time. Yeah, just to underscore that, Ramzan Kadyrov, you know, the Putin's tiger, the leader of Chechnya, he put out this message this morning, quote, we warned you, Zelensky, Russia hasn't really started yet. Stop complaining like a sucker and run away before it gets to you.

Run, Zelensky, without looking back. Now I am 100% satisfied with how the special military operation is conducted. So for context, Kadyrov was one of those people who was very vocally criticizing the Russian military and Putin for not taking the gloves off. He's saying he is now, quote, 100% satisfied, meaning, and this also fits into what I think controlled opposition in the Kremlin looks like, which is that they allow, all the peaceniks are either drafted or thrown into prison. Everybody who's the most hawkish, they're allowed to have dissent. To say their piece. And then they're like, hey, we're just listening to the criticism. And that criticism happens to be, we should continue to escalate the war.

Now, Putin actually gave a speech early this morning, Washington time, where he specifically said that this was in retaliation for the, quote, terrorist attack at the Kerch Bridge in Crimea. He says that Russia's military had, quote, used long-range, high-precision air, sea, and land-based missiles in the strike and warned he was going to repeat them. He claimed that the targets were military. He says, if attempts to carry out terrorist attacks on our territory continue, Russia's response will be severe and at the level of the threats that are facing it. Nobody should be in any doubt. That was on top of a message that was put out by Medvedev, who used to be the president of Russia, kind of the caretaker, and that fake scheme to legitimize Putin as the autocratic ruler for basically his entire life. He put out a message on Telegram also saying that the strikes on Ukraine are, quote, the first episode, and that, quote, there will be more.

He said that Russia is working to dismantle the Ukrainian political regime. On top of that, quote, there will be more. He said that Russia is working to dismantle the Ukrainian political regime. On top of that, President Zelensky actually appearing above ground in Kyiv, making it clear like we're not going to be intimidated. He says we are dealing with terrorists, dozens of missiles and Iranian drones. They have targets, energy facilities throughout the country. Such time and targets were specifically chosen to cause as much damage as possible. And he said that Kyiv will survive all of these Ukrainian attacks. Let's turn to the domestic front. Some big news also from President Biden last week. Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. So this is a fulfilling of a campaign pledge he made.

This is from the AP. They say Biden pardons thousands for simple possession of marijuana. Let me read you some of the details here. So President Biden pardoning those Americans convicted of simple possession of marijuana under federal law. And that's important as his administration takes a dramatic step, they say, toward decriminalizing the drug and addressing charging practices that disproportionately impact people of color. His move also covers thousands convicted of the crime in D.C., and he is calling on governors to issue similar pardons for those convicted of state marijuana offenses, which reflect the vast majority of marijuana possession cases. The real news here, I think, because ultimately there's no one in federal prison for simple possession of marijuana. Now, this will be significant for people who have convictions and they're struggling to get jobs or housing or those sorts of things.

It will be helpful ultimately for them. But I think the biggest, most significant news here is that he also is looking at rescheduling marijuana. He's directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Attorney General to review how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. Rescheduling the drug would reduce or potentially eliminate criminal penalties for possession. Currently, marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, so it's alongside things like heroin and LSD, which is insane, but it is ahead of fentanyl and methamphetamine. The White House didn't set a timeline for the review. So ultimately, that would be the biggest and most significant shift in terms of drug policy if it was ultimately rescheduled. And it also is worth saying,

I mean, this is a dramatic departure from how Biden has approached marijuana and every other substance throughout the entirety of his career. I mean, he really prided himself on being a drug warrior. Of course, we all know he's very involved in that 1994 Federal Sentencing Act. So he has been very, very tough. And even his own administration, remember, they tossed down a bunch of people who had been like who had smoked weed. They were like fired for admitting that they had ultimately smoked weed. So this is a really significant philosophical, I think, shift for Biden, I would say, undertaken under pressure based on a campaign promise and with the understanding that the midterms are coming up. And this is a very clear political winner here. I mean, the polling on this is clear.

Let's go ahead and put this morning consult poll up on the screen. 60 percent of voters say marijuana should be made legal entirely. So that's going way further than Biden is going here with this order, compared with only 27% who say it should not be. And Sagar, this is really across demographics. Even Republicans, that's plurality support. Even among the oldest demographics, it's plurality support. And it's most popular among young people. You're talking about like 70% support and only 17% oppose among young voters and also among black voters as well.

So for people who care about this, it's a significant issue. And it's just like such a clear political winner that it's kind of astonishing it hasn't been done yet. It is interesting, you know, much to my chagrin that all of this is happening. I do want to reiterate that there is not a single person in federal prison for simple marijuana possession. I will not deny that there are horrific, unjust tragedies that have happened over the years at the state level, of which I've always made clear I'm 100% against. I do not think anybody should be in jail for marijuana possession. I do think that the HHS thing is going to be interesting. So I read up a little bit about this, which is that the reality is that HHS civil servants are the ones who are in charge of this decision. They are required by federal law to review the scheduling of marijuana and all controlled substances every five to ten years, of which eight factors of analysis must be required to meet to de-schedule. Marijuana has never reached those, quote-unquote,

failed on all of those factors around the way that the definitions have said regarding harm, et cetera. Now, I don't even disagree that Schedule 1 status, especially given what's not Schedule 1, doesn't make any goddamn sense. This is totally insane. I am fully, I want to be very, very clear. The reason why that this matters from a bureaucratic point of view is that the HHS recommendation is actually binding for the Department of Justice. So this isn't really something that you can just do without the – you essentially need whoever the equivalent of like the parliamentarian of the HHS is. That guy or those guys and girls have to sign off before the DOJ were to make anything. Now, of course, the DOJ can also change its policy about what it will and will not prosecute, but I'm speaking specifically on what the overlying policy is. And I also will say part of why I'm deeply skeptical

of all of this is I think all of this is being done on behalf of the marijuana industry, of which is completely unregulated and of which there have been insane. It's essentially like the supplement industry. You have no idea what you're getting. Just to reiterate, my friend Andrew Huberman, he's got a great podcast on cannabis, which I recommend everybody go and listen to. I'm not going to sit here and say it's safe. I don't think alcohol is safe either. Personally, I don't even drink alcohol anymore. I just want people to know that for a lot of the claims that the industry is making is really all about money. They want marijuana descheduled so that they can make a shit ton of money by selling it commercially and use the commercial banking system.

A lot of people don't know this, but originally the way – because marijuana is still federally illegal and Schedule I drug, they're not eligible for a lot of banking services. So they have like special marijuana banks, and it's also a high a high cash industry. That means that they don't get loans. They have basically cut off from like the normal financial system, almost like OnlyFans also was. They want that removed so they can make a ton of money. There's a lot of venture capitalists, corporate, and even Pfizer and the big drug companies that are eyeing this as a multi-billion dollar thing. I think it would be the worst thing possible in order for that to happen. So I've eventually come around to some form of, if it's going to be legal, I think it should have to be non-profit. There are a couple of countries and other places where they have taken profit completely out of it and they make it. So on a couple of levels, A, you know what

you're getting. B, you're not like using deceptive advertising in order to target children. And C, which is that anytime profit is involved in drugs, I'm just going to go ahead and say that things are bad. Yeah. And I say the alcohol industry is perhaps one of the biggest killers in the United States. And that's a whole situation. And tobacco as well. I mean, I support that as well. I mean, your issue really is with capitalism, not the availability of marijuana, you know, directly.

And there are models within the U.S., too, that are promising. Yes, I'm saying it. There's some percentage that would have to be co-ops. So there are sort of models that can be employed to make sure, yeah, it's got to be regulated. Obviously, the like illegal black market for marijuana right now is not regulated at all. And it can be laced with all sorts of things which are even more dangerous. So that's a really bad situation. Overall, obviously, I think this is a really positive potential step forward. We'll see what happens with the rescheduling being Schedule 1 right now. It's completely, I mean, it's just totally insane. No one would say that marijuana is as addictive or dangerous as, like, heroin, for one very clear example.

There have been, you know, people who have found medical benefits from marijuana as well. So I think it's really interesting from a political perspective, too, that Biden is reaching for this just before the midterms, because it does show you what a dramatic shift in public opinion there has been on this issue over the course of just the past two decades. I mean, when just very recently, public opinion was completely on the other side of this issue. And now you have even some red states which have at least decriminalized marijuana. It's become a very mainstream position. So as I said, I think it's kind of surprising that no one politically has reached for this previously when Biden obviously, like, I mean, he's still the same guy that he's always been. But he sees, both with this and I think with the student loan debt cancellation as well, where the numbers are, where his campaign promises were and what it could ultimately do for him in the midterms.

You know, I found this this was just a little lament for this block up on the screen. I thought this was interesting in a Walker-Warnock focus group. So the bulk of this article from our friend Dan Marans is about, you know, how people are responding to the various Herschel Walker scandals and how they think about that race. But there was this one little note in here that I thought was really interesting. They were interviewing this one woman, and she said she was neutral on Biden because she appreciates the student loan forgiveness, but at the same time is struggling with inflation and nervous about the declining value of her investments. And they have this little side note in here that Biden's forgiveness of student loans and steps to decriminalize marijuana were his most popular policies among the participants who ranged in age from younger to middle-aged adults. These were all people who were sort of, they were swing voters. I think they were folks who had like

voted for Biden, but also voted for Kemp. It was something like that. They'd like divided their votes between Republicans and Democrats. And these two policies actually seem to land most with them. Now it's a focus group, it's a small group of voters, et cetera, et cetera. But I did think it was kind of an interesting note. These sorts of things, which, you know, no one would rank, very few people would rank as like their number one issue, they can be disproportionately impactful and motivating for the group of voters that really, really ultimately care or are impacted by it. That's what Michael Moore always used to say. I think it's going to be a good test case. I cannot wait for the election results to come in.

Is a youth vote going to be up or down? Let's see. It's a perfect test of like student, everybody said for years, if you do this and the young people will come out and vote. This one is not as one-to-one, but I think student loan is pretty one-to-one. Let's figure it out. If it's actually true, if it's not, then we can reform our talking about how exactly it will all work out. I'm genuinely pretty skeptical just because of where the polls and all that stuff have moved. And some people, people anecdotally say a lot of things. Are they really going to break their voting pattern and actually come out to vote?

I don't know. I mean, does anybody really care about weed enough in order to come just specifically for a possible descheduling in a couple of years? I'm deeply skeptical. That's why I think that the student loan one is a good test case. Are you going to come out and vote or not? I think it's more, you know, people get this sense of like people who are more progressive or who are directly impacted by this policies. They just get a little bit more of a sense of like, OK, he's doing some stuff. It creates a more generally positive impression of him for a certain group of voters. Now, I continue to think the most important things

are going to be inflation in the economy and the fact that gas prices are probably going back up. I still think that, you know, gives Republicans a significant edge ultimately. But I did think it was interesting that that was something that was brought up by this focus group participants. We're going to talk to Kyle Kondik today. It's also interesting that Republicans really, I think when the student loan debt forgiveness thing happened, they really thought they had maybe a winning issue on their hands. They're not running any ads on it, but neither are Democrats. I mean, it's basically in terms of the ad wars not being focused on at all. So that's kind of an interesting note as well.

Okay, guys, we have some updates for you out of Uvalde. One of them good. One of them, I just can't even wrap my head around what they continue to do down there. Let's go and put this first part up on the screen. So they hired this ex-Texas trooper, this woman, who was actually at the shooting, okay, the day of that horrific, unconscionable massacre. She was one of the first people into the building after the gunman. And she is one of seven troopers who are actively under investigation for their failures on that day. And this woman, the Uvalde School District, turns around and hires for their specific school district police force. What are you doing? Now, they've since been forced to reverse course because the outcry over this, understandably, was so loud and so great that they had to ultimately go back and let go of this woman.

But what the hell are they ultimately thinking? And by the way, this was not some oversight. There were documents that were released that showed that they were made aware of the fact that she was there and that she was under investigation for her failures on that day. And they still saw her, went ahead and hired her. Yeah, the Uvalde family victims put out a joint statement saying, quote, we are disgusted and angry at Uvalde CISD's decision to hire her. Her hiring puts into question the credibility and thoroughness of their HR and vetting practices.

Yeah, you think? Continuing, and it confirms what we've been saying all along, UCISD has not and is not in the business of ensuring the safety of our children at school. I don't think you could possibly deny that. You know, even representatives from that area are saying that this trooper was on the scene within two minutes and failed to follow training protocol and duty she was sworn to. People's children died because officials failed to do their jobs. And then she was turned around and hired her. These people, I mean, it's like a den of the most like useless rats possible. All they're capable of doing apparently in the CISD school district was, you know, covering up both for Pete Arredondo, the CISD chief who made the

decision not to go in in the first place, and apparently hire other people who are also involved in the cover-up. And also, what was it? Intimidating that mom who spoke out against their failures. It's insanity down in the world. I mean, I can't explain it other than just total nepotism and corruption. Just this good old boys and apparently good old girls club looking out for each other above any and all other principles. She was literally the first DPS member to enter the hallway at that elementary school after the shooter gained entry.

She didn't bring her rifle or her vest into the school, according to the results of an internal review. And yet this is someone that they thought would be appropriate to put on the Uvalde School Police District force. So the other, in the wake of all of this, the more positive update here, let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. Long overdue, Uvalde School District suspends their entire police force. The superintendent is also going to retire amid fallout from the shooting. I think the superintendent was probably involved in some of the cover-up here since it seems like everybody in any position of power was involved in the cover-up here. So they say that the school district, still facing withering criticism, announced the suspension of their entire district police force on Friday. This is actually a relatively small number of people because we're not talking about the overall Uvalde police,

which, in my opinion, everyone who was at that freaking school on that day should be suspended and ultimately fired. But they're just suspending the school district police force, which is like, it's like four people. It was like six people. I mean, to be fair, they were like four people. It was like six people. Yeah, I mean, to be fair, they were the ones who made the call not to go into the building. Pete Arradondo specifically. I agree, which is that it's not just them.

Arradondo was the fall guy. And so is the, I mean, you had federal marshals. You had Texas DPS, Border Patrol. I mean, look, we've all seen the photos. We've all seen the video about what happened in the hallway. Every single person who did not actively try to break the commander's protocol and go in should be fired. And in my opinion, those at the top should be criminally prosecuted for negligence and negligent homicide. I know that's not how the law works, Supreme Court

decision, et cetera. I just said, in my opinion. I know that that's not going to happen. The point is, though, is that there are a hell of a lot more people who need to be held to account. And I think a lot of Texas authorities are hoping that the world just moves on. Some people had attention to the story. And I get it. We started with Russia, with all of that. Of course, nuclear issues are always going to trump this. But this was a scandal of which the country cannot and should not move on from. And I think the whole world, you know, put gun policy aside, what did we all agree on? These people have got to pay. And so, you know, until they do, I don't think that we should drop it at all. Yeah, exactly. And certainly the parents who lost their kids because of the cowardice demonstrated on that day have not forgotten. And, you know, I think we also have to remember all of the public officials who were involved in covering this up

and lying on behalf of the police and trying to make it sound like, oh, they were brave and they were out there getting shot at and getting injured and all of this stuff turned out to be complete and utter nonsense. So at least some tiny, small step forward in terms of accountability, but obviously far from what the unconscionable nature of that situation ultimately demands. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. A lot of important and also interesting stories. We have new developments with regards to Russia and Ukraine and also our administration's response. We have some very, very revealing and interesting comments. A very prominent official calling for diplomacy, something that you rarely hear on cable news. So we're going to break all of that down.

Also some new developments in terms of the stock market and new regulations from the Biden administration with regard to chips being exported to China that could be quite significant. This is a story I've been following for a while, our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Now you have Senator Menendez, who is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying, hey, you know what? It's time to stop selling arms. It's extraordinary. To the Saudis. Right. Huge development.

His rationale is interesting and revealing in and of itself. We'll get to that. And we also have an important update for you. On a story we covered a while back, animal rights activists who had been arrested and charged for rescuing two piglets, which were on the verge of death. They sent in like half a dozen FBI agents across state lines, all with regard to these two little piglets expending these incredible federal government resources. Why? Because they're embarrassing the, you know, big ag, agricultural, industrial farming industry. So we'll break that all down for you as well. We've got two Chipotle workers on who are organizing Chipotles across the country.

So excited about that one. Let's start with Ukraine. Of course, the most important. After missiles rained down, not only on Kyiv, but really across the entire country, hitting critical energy infrastructure, stopping Ukraine actually from exporting energy for one of the first times in the war and causing longstanding blackouts everywhere. There has been increased calls from Ukraine and President Zelensky in order to get allies to send them advanced air defense systems. I'll go ahead and put this up there on the screen from the Washington Post, which is that the attacks against the cities and the key infrastructure actually has galvanized a longstanding debate amongst allied countries on what exact sophisticated air defense systems and critically long range weapons systems that

they should provide to Ukraine. So going a little bit into this, it's complicated because the United States actually does and has provided surface-to-air missile defense systems known as, and I don't want to screw this up for the geeks out there, NASAMS, the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System. They're always very creative with what they say. Now, we have actually been providing Ukraine with those systems since July. However, we provided them two anti-aircraft systems, of which the Ukrainians say that they have actually used quite well during that attack, Crystal. Yeah.

There's no way to know. The Ukrainians claim that they shot down like half of the missile cruise missiles that were fired on Ukraine. I don't know. Russians say they hit all their targets. Right. Russians say they hit all their targets. Yeah. Who knows what's true and what's not. In fact, there was some video showing that there were some backfire on the surface air missile system. The problem is, is that for the United States to provide Ukraine with all of systems systems that they are going to be asking for, here's the issue. We don't have them. It will take, quote, several years to procure and to deliver, as in we literally do not have any of the leftovers. What we do have are some Soviet-era defense systems that officials have said are already being familiar to the Ukrainian troops. Now, those have been provided by Slovakia and a few other of the allies. Germany also announced yesterday it will be providing some air defense systems as well.

They're known as IRST air defense systems and said that they would have arrived, quote, in the next few days. However, this is not the fulsome nature of what the Ukrainians want. Because they are actually combining what has just happened with air defense systems on top of, hey, by the way, we also need those long-range missile systems that you refuse to sell us. Because they're saying they need to have a war of defense to be able to strike on the missiles that are targeting them. Well, that brings us into a very different strategic territory because we did not provide them those weapons systems specifically because we were afraid that it would spark a bigger conflict with Russia, according to Biden.

However, and let's put the next one up there on the screen, Ukraine is very, very savvily, I will say on their part, approaching and it's, quote, weapons wish list as the winter approaches. So what we've seen here is that on top of their new air defense systems, really what they want is to be able to deter critical Ukrainian infrastructure strikes, the likes of which that we just saw yesterday. The issue is that there is a major conflict in Washington to try and separate out any defensive system from an offensive system.

Right. And you can completely make sense, which is that in U.S. military doctrine, for example, part of the reason we were so against a no-fly zone is because there's no such thing as just declaring a no-fly zone. Like, if you declare one, that means you have to be able to take out any of the systems which are going to shoot down your planes. So now you're in a war of offense, even though you're technically in a war of defense. And this is going to be the critical debate, I think, in the next couple of days, given the fervor of how people are reacting after the Ukrainian attack. Yeah. So there's a lot of interesting context here. First of all, you know, in the early days of this war, Zelensky, and you all will probably recall this, was very upfront about what his demands were, what he

wanted, was making public, very public appeals. Those public appeals were sort of dialed back over time because he recognized that this was not really the most effective way to operate. The demands did not go away, but instead of being publicly issued, instead it was talking to the administration directly and continuing to press for more and more weapons, including these missile defense systems and also the longer range missiles that they still are very much pressing for. So what was interesting here is the minute, effectively, that you had these Russian strikes across the country, you had a concerted public effort from

the Ukrainians to ask specifically for anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems to Ukraine. So you had the defense minister tweeting the best response to Russian missile terror is the supply of anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems to Ukraine. This will protect our cities and our people. This will protect the future of Europe. You had the foreign minister tweeting after Russian attacks that we urgently need more modern air defense and missile defense systems to save innocent lives. You had a presidential advisor tweeting, instead of talking, we need air defense, MLRS, longer range projectiles. And Estonia's intelligence chief, and we've been covering Estonia, they're very hawkish in terms of their approach to this

conflict. They also are calling for these types of longer range weapons to Ukraine. And that's the piece that, you know, the Biden administration is concerned would be very escalatory. As, Sagar, you were indicating, the concern over the anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems is less about that escalatory factor and more about just not having those systems available. And also what we may need should we ever get into a conflict. Right. So the idea was that, you know, we would provide them certain things that we have been providing and we would sort of fund their ability to procure on their own these types of systems. And, of course, that will, as you indicate, take quite a while for those to be developed. And then there's the question of training and whether they'll be ready to go to effectively utilize those systems. So, you know, if you're

Russia, just think about this, because I'm reading reports this morning, you know, the lights, electricity and water is basically back on mostly across the country. You know, there's no doubt that this, first of all, killed people, including civilians, and that this, you know, was a terrifying situation for Ukrainians across the country. And it was designed to be so. But also, they didn't, unlike the attack on the Crimea Bridge, which was a big psychological blow and also a big strategic blow, this didn't accomplish any sort of real battle objectives.

Their hand in terms of their military tactics and where they stand has not changed because of these attacks. This is essentially like a sort of like an anti-virtue signal, like just being able to show like we can still do something, which is both designed to terrify the Ukrainian public and also to sort of placate their own domestic hardliners. So they have this sort of showy display that doesn't really accomplish their battlefield objectives. And then right away, you basically have the Biden administration saying, you know, those anti-aircraft, anti-missile defense systems that you guys have been asking for, we're going to go and we've been dragging our feet on. We're going to go ahead and provide this. And that's also what complicates this so much, because on top of this, there's actually secret negotiations going on right now between the U.S. and Ukraine on whether to send F-16s and Patriot missile defense systems to Ukraine. Now, the thing is with the Patriot

missile defense systems is we barely have enough in order to protect NATO and ourselves. There's a longstanding supply problem of which is very boring and I could go into for a long time. But the secondary part of that on the F-16s is one that has been one of those lines that the Biden administration and NATO in particular has been refusing to cross. Yeah. Poland, Romania and others will remember the whole respond to this and the type of weapons systems they send could actually change the strategic situation overall. President Biden put out a readout of his phone call. Let's go and put this up there on the screen with Zelensky yesterday. Here's what he said. Biden spoke today with President Zelensky in Ukraine. He expressed his condemnation of

Russia's missile strikes across Ukraine, including in Kiev, and conveys his condolences. Biden pledged to continue providing Ukraine with the support, adding to defend itself, including advanced air defense systems. He also underscored his ongoing engagement with allies and partners, etc. Now, the reason why that this matters, again, is it's all being looped up. The debates on defensive and offensive weapon couched in the realm of supposedly being able to stop future Russian attacks within the context of these strikes. Now, the other problem, too, on the strikes, this is what you just said. Power is back on in Ukraine. Did it work? I mean, kind of. Like, the Ukrainians are probably more resolute than ever. They're like, wow, I really hate these people. We're not going to.

We're not going to roll over. I would feel the same. At the same time, you know, you know, it's like, what, you're going to bomb one of our childhood parks. And it's like we're going to parks and a pedestrian bridge where people take selfies. Right. Like a beautiful national place. And we're just going to capitulate to you whenever you have the unproven capabilities on the battlefield. No, the issue is that Russia also does not necessarily have a lot of these precision-guided munitions. So I looked a little bit deeper into this, and from all current estimates of their actual precision-guided

munitions, there is a reason that we saw this limited one strike happen yesterday, and it had not happened effectively on that scale since March. It's because Russia has two things. They're not in a total war with Ukraine. If they wanted to dedicate 100% of their military capability to this, I guess they could. And frankly, it would be horrific for the Ukrainian people and for the world. But they also have to consider, hey, what if we get into a war with NATO? What if we get into a war with any greater power than Ukraine? We're going to need these advanced missile systems, and they do not have a lot of the production. So they have, and there's all

this propaganda about the amount that's rolling off of their production line and more. But it seems that they are very limited to the conventional world, basically like weapons developed from the 1950s to like the 1970s, like everything that's advanced and requires a lot of electronics, microchips, and more, that stuff is very difficult for them to procure at mass scale, and especially at speed, which is why they have not been able to bring it to bear. Anyway, so it bears the question of like, is this actually a real, you know, is this actually going to be a real problem in the future? I mean, all current stocks indicate that Russia, yes, they're capable of lashing out like this, but unless they go to a total war footing, which by the way is possible, like if the Ukrainian,

if the Russians, this is what we've warned about a tactical nuclear strike, if their regime is fully up against the wall, then yeah, I think they might fully mobilize, dedicate their entire economy, population, and weapons cash is to war with Ukraine. But in the current environment, like I just don't see how, I don't think it would be conventionally possible for them to do so, which is, and that's not just me, like everything I've read from arms experts and more that estimate their actual force capability, in a lot of ways, the strike yesterday was a position of weakness to show you like, we can't do this all the time, but we can do it every once in a while if we want to. Well, and then it begs the question, like, what was the real purpose of these strikes? And,

you know, I do think potentially, like, just as a reminder to Ukraine, like, we have other stuff we could do and you should continue to be terrified. But I actually think, and this is the point that Yegor was making to me, this is more about placating a domestic hardline audience, which immediately, you know, Kadyrov and all these guys that have been out there chirping and, like, complaining about the direction of the war and, like, really raking across the coals, the military leadership. Well, they put a new, more brutal guy in charge. They unleashed these attacks on energy infrastructure and sort of across all of Ukraine, hitting strategic cities across the entire country. And now those guys are all happy as they could possibly be and celebrating this

great win for Russia and all of this stuff. When again, in reality, what have you done? You've burned through some of your precious stockpile. You've sort of demonstrated the limits of your capabilities. And you've also ultimately not changed your position in terms of the outcome of the war really whatsoever. If anything, as you said, you've probably ultimately not changed your position in terms of the outcome of the war really whatsoever. If anything, as you said, you've probably strengthened the resolve of the Ukrainian people even more to push you all of the way out. So that's why I thought, you know, when Yegor was making this case to me, it made sense to me that this is really more about quieting the hardliners and placating a domestic audience after this very humiliating situation with the Crimea Bridge and, you know, however that unfolded and whatever happened there, so that he would sort of quiet that dissent. As we've been saying all along, the strongest adversarial voices in Russia are not those who would actually want peace.

It's the hardliners. It's the people that want that wholesale mass mobilization, that want more of a hawkish approach that even in certain cases have called directly in Medvedev's case for tactical nuclear strikes. So that's the audience that it seems like these strikes were really designed to ultimately message to. Yeah. And at the same time, the U.S. also committing 100% beyond President Biden. Let's put this up there. Secretary Blinken, he says, quote, I just spoke with my Ukrainian foreign minister to reiterate U.S. support for Ukraine following the Kremlin's horrific strikes this morning. We will continue to provide unwavering economic, humanitarian, and security assistance to Ukraine so Ukraine can defend itself and take care of its people? So basically unwavering from the United States. And I think that that is a pretty good overview of where things stand.

Not necessarily this changed anything on the battlefield situation, but it may change things in terms of how NATO and the Western allies continue to supply Ukraine. And it does show you the dance the Russians have to walk, which is if you go too far and you actually commit to it, you could get into a broader war. If you don't go far enough, you might lose the war, which is happening right now. Anyway, critical times remain on the battle ground. Or lose his power. And it's very hard to have any sort of insight into whether there's a real threat of that or not. But these sorts of actions sort of indicate that he's feeling some pressure just in terms of maintaining his own grip on power. Yeah, I think that.

I think the fact that he did it to play, and the fact that Kadyrov came out saying he now supports the military operation shows you who the intended audience for it. Beyond Ukraine, there's also many domestic audiences that he has to fulfill. We have a lot of foreign policy news in the show today. This was another really significant move that I wanted to make sure did not get overlooked as we, of course, have continued to focus on the possibility of nuclear Armageddon, which I would, you know, dare say is an important focus, place for our show to focus these days. But the Biden administration making some significant moves with regards to China and those crucial semiconductor technology. Let's go ahead and put this tear sheet up on the screen. From Bloomberg, they said no possibility of reconciliation as U.S. slams China chips. The crucial semiconductor technology. Let's go ahead and put this tear sheet up on the screen. From Bloomberg, they said, no possibility of reconciliation as U.S. slams China chips. The Biden administration implemented sweeping new restrictions and the U.S. move hampers China's

efforts to develop domestic technology. Okay, what are we talking about here? Now, first of all, let me say that according to all the analysts, the devil is really in the details here over how this is all implemented. However, the Biden administration on Friday announced sweeping export controls on semiconductor technology to China. The idea is to sort of cripple Beijing's access to those critical technology. It's needed for a lot of things, but including sort of defense and guided weapons. So that seems to be what it is aimed at. Technology experts said the rules appear to impose the broadest export controls issued in a decade. This is per the New York Times. Similar to the Trump administration's crackdown on the telecom giant Huawei, the new rules are far wider in scope, affecting dozens

of Chinese firms. And unlike the Trump administration's approach, which was viewed, this is the New York Times editorial, as aggressive but scattershot, that's probably fair characterization, the rules appear to establish a more comprehensive policy that will stop cutting-edge exports way behind the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea in their ability to produce the most advanced chips. In fields like AI, China is actually more at par with where we are, but in terms of semiconductor chip production, they are apparently behind. This is also crucial because it's really sort of broad-reaching. So even companies that are overseas, like in Taiwan, for example, but rely on U.S. technology are also subject to these export controls. The market is, and again, you know, they add in these potential loopholes where basically like on a case by case basis, they can issue exemptions. So that's why analysts are saying like the devil's in the details and it depends how this is all ultimately implemented. But the

markets are certainly reacting like this is a big deal and like it's going to be enforced in a quite an aggressive way. Let's go ahead and put this next piece up on the screen. I don't know if you guys followed this yesterday. The NASDAQ closed at a two-year low on Monday, hurt primarily by those slumping chip stocks. They say this comes after the Biden administration announced those new export controls. And the Nasdaq's losses for the year are now greater than 32 percent after Monday's decline. The S&P 500 is off by 24 percent. And in terms of how much teeth this is ultimately going to have, this is the last piece here, so I'll get your reaction.

Taiwan has also signaled, let's go ahead and put this last piece up on the screen. Taiwan has also signaled their chip firms are going to follow these new U.S. rules, which, again, apply to them because they rely on some U.S. technology. So interesting development. Yeah, I mean, this is the new gold. It has been for a while. Frankly, this should have been policy for 10 years, you know, 15 years ago. The idea that it took until 2022 and the idea that the Trump administration didn't do it just shows you how laughable they really were in the first

place. It took Biden also nearly two years in office to get there. So look, let's not applaud anyone. But he didn't get there. He got there. It's happening. I'm glad it's here. Unfortunately, and I do not want to be the Debbie Downer, everything I have read so far, Crystal, is that almost all of this is 10 to 20 years too late. Here is the very simple truth. Taiwan semiconductors is 25 years ahead of the entire global populace. These machines and facilities are so sensitive, if a single human hair gets in the wrong place, the entire thing will shut down. Also, they work 24 hours a day. There's a great interview with the TSMC CEO, and they ask him a question. It's translated, but they're like, hey, so why did you beat America?

And he's like, you people are lazy. He's like, we work 24 hours a day. He's like, we have our people on eight-hour shifts three times. The facility never shuts down. He's like, when you outwork somebody double, then you beat them. Very simple. Anyway, they are just magicians, essentially, that have the proper supply, workforce, technology, know-how. There's actually only a limited amount of executives in the whole world who even know how to do this. So look, I applaud the CHIPS Act, and I applaud this. The reason why America and

China are posturing over Taiwan is because of TSMC's facility. And as much as I support the $50 billion and Micron and all those other new things that we're building here, we are over a decade away from any capability of producing anything. I just want to be honest with people. It's true. It's baby steps that we've been taking. I mean, clearly this has been a concerted effort and focus of the Biden administration. I hope it works. Clearly, somebody in the administration gets that this is a big issue. It's a big vulnerability for us.

And not just in terms of like military and defense and those sorts of things, but in terms of like electric vehicles. And if that's something you care about and like the future of, you know, the climate, and that's obviously a big push of the Biden administration as well. This, you know, you don't have that future if you don't ultimately have the chips to facilitate it. So one interesting thing, just a political note, J.D. Vance and Tim Ryan squared off in a big debate in Ohio last night. I saw lots of clips flying around. Matt Stoller, of course, one of our great partners here, was pointing out that it's quite notable that both Vance and Tim Ryan said they supported the CHIPS Act. Yes, absolutely. Which I think, you know, I mean, just given how hardened and partisan everything is, the fact that you have

any Republican going along with anything Biden has done shows you that there's at least somewhat of a bipartisan recognition that this is extremely important. Don't forget that Intel is opening that facility in Ohio. So this is $25 billion. Jobs issue $25 billion. It's also a jobs issue on top of American security. And I will say, look, on JD, I've known the guy for a while, and he does genuinely care a lot about the chips issue in particular. I think the point that is very important to underscore is that this is good, but the major geostrategic questions on what happens in the event of a Taiwan invasion are still unanswered and will not be answered now for a decade. And it's interesting. There's a lot of discussion right now in Taiwan about essentially creating a mutually assured destruction on the chips industry should they get invaded, where they just blow up the TSMC facility.

And they're like, well, China's not going to get it, but neither is America. And look, I mean, the reality is it's such a sensitive facility in the first place that it's almost impossible. 92% of the world's most advanced chips come from there. And I think we should also all be honest. Like, you know, this MacBook in front of me, if there was a shutdown of TSMC, this would be the last one I'd be able to buy for probably seven years. iPhones, get ready, folks, and look at what's happening in Russia. Conceivably, the United States went to war with no

TSMC. It is very likely, Crystal, that we would have to basically dismantle all of our camera equipment and turn it into the U.S. government. I mean, think about what happened in World War II. You're talking about Russia's having to pull them out of washing machines. I actually looked into that story. It has happened. It's unclear.

But the truth is that they are cannibalizing some consumer electronics. Now, if we were ever into a war and there were no more TSMC, it is very likely the U.S. government would be like, everyone has to turn in their consumer electronics in order to run our missile systems off of. Let's just be very real about the vulnerability that we face in the global supply chain right now. And why? I mean, I do scourge so many of these policymakers for what they've done to us over the last year. I feel on semiconductors the way that if you are a rightful German should feel about nuclear energy and about reliance on Russian gas. I cannot believe you people put us in this situation. Let us get to this place. Because that is the level of vulnerability. We just don't feel it yet because there hasn't been a crunch. We got a small taste

in 2021. Our car companies lost $10 billion in revenue because of the chip shortage. $10 billion. That's, you know, a lot, but also not that much compared to what would happen with a total shutdown of the supply chain. Yeah. I mean, it's, yeah, it is that ultimately critical. And it's part of why, you know, Pelosi pulling her hawkish bullshit with regards to Taiwan and all these people who love to beat their chest. I'm like, do you have any idea what this would actually mean? Have you thought for five seconds about what this would mean for the world, what it would mean for us? And the answer obviously is no. Bingo.

Let's go to the next part here as well. And this is a perfect illustration of the logical insanity that I was alluding to. It's a piece in War on the Rocks by Jeremy Shapiro called We Are on a Path to Nuclear War. Put the inflammatory headline aside and exactly what Shapiro talks about here, who, by the way, is a director of research at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a non-resident fellow at Brookings Institution, who also served in the State Department from 2009 to 2013. This guy is a member of the quote-unquote blob, like the foreign policy establishment. So for him to say something like this, I think, carries more weight than, you know, just the two of us who have always kind of been beating this drum. And exactly what he lays out here, Crystal, is a direct and rational way in which the world gets into a nuclear exchange in a very, very quick time frame. Specifically what he says, and this is where the onus is, of course, on Russia, which is Russia

has laid out all kinds of red lines. They said that there would be a war if Finland and Sweden were going to be in NATO. Okay, that didn't happen. They said that there was going to be crazy response if we delivered anti-aircraft systems. That didn't happen. They keep saying and threatening the nuclear, beating the nuclear drum, and we keep basically doing it. And so what is the lesson? A, that the nuclear threat from Putin is probably a bluff, or maybe could be a bluff, and that the U.S. can continue to test red lines and see what we can get away with. Now, all of that's fine as long as the consequences of breaching that red line aren't catastrophe and Armageddon for the entire planet. What he points out is that eventually the ante is

going to continue to be upped. Ukraine bombing that, well, likely bombing, okay, let's say that, Ukraine likely bombing that bridge in Crimea was supposed to be a red line for nuclear war in a territorial, well, they didn't respond in nuclear. So Ukraine is going to continue to test Putin's red lines. Putin is going to continue to test the West's red lines. And the West is going to continue to ignore a lot of Putin's pronouncements and give the Ukrainians everything they want. With that, we have something called path dependency, which are two things where that's just going to keep happening. And as that goes, the path to nuclear war that Shapiro lays out here becomes ever more likely because eventually somebody's red line does actually get crossed. And you can logically explain how the insane situation of a nuclear exchange would then happen.

I really, really encourage people to read this whole piece. I sent it to a bunch of people yesterday because not only does he explain how the seemingly insane, which is, you know, how we would respond, and how you end up in this, you know, potentially world-ending exchange with each step seemingly intelligent and rational along the way. And that's what's so terrifying about this. And that's also why, you know, I appreciate Biden seems to recognize that that's the case. When he made those comments that we talked about before, which got a lot of attention in a fundraiser where he posited that we could end up in nuclear Armageddon, which for a president to say that is quite stark. He indicated to Jake Tapper here that that was really messaging towards Putin to help him understand. Because in Russia, there seems to be more thought towards, oh, we could use these tactical nuclear weapons and it might be okay. It might be okay. They probably won't respond that fiercely.

We could probably get away with it without having this escalatory cycle. And so Biden is really trying to clearly send a message to Putin like, that's not the way that this thing ultimately works. So you need to think again if you're considering following the line of the hawks and using these tactical nuclear weapons in this conflict. I'm going to read a portion of this piece by, what was his name? Jeremy Shapiro. I want to read a portion of this because it speaks exactly to what we're saying here.

He says, listen, no rational or even sane leader plans to start a nuclear war. And for all of the Russian regime's risk-taking, it does not show signs of suicidal tendencies. The essence of the problem is more insidious than mere insanity. Once an escalatory cycle begins, a series of individually rational steps can add up to a world-ending absurdity. In Ukraine, both sides have publicly pledged that they cannot lose this war. They hold that doing so would threaten their very way of life and the values they hold most dear. In the Russian case particularly, a loss in Ukraine would seem to threaten regime survival and even the territorial integrity of the country. He goes on to note that what we know so far from this conflict is ever-increasing escalation.

So anytime one side feels like the other side has a bit of an edge, they escalate. And then guess what? The other side feels like they're at risk now of losing the war. They escalate. That has been the history of this war to date. That's why he says, with the very provocative headline, we are on a path to nuclear war. Because if you continue step by step by step by step in that direction, that's exactly where you end up, as insane as that ultimately seems. Yeah, I think that, hey, you know, the peace is important. It does describe the exact steps. And, you know, ultimately, I just think that the general, and I've said this before,

the reason why that most people aren't aware of this is because they're not considering the day-to-day realities on the ground. They're not listening to Putin's speech in Russian in the translation where he updates his nuclear doctrine. They're not listening to Joe Biden when he says behind closed doors that we're on the path to nuclear Armageddon. Frankly, how many people are even watching this CNN segment or even our coverage of this?

The vast majority of people are like, yeah, Ukraine is good. Russia's bad. We should help them. They have no idea what the consequences and the chain of escalation will look like. And my fear is they're not going to find out until it's way too late. And then what say do we have? Nothing. I mean, there's no one of the crazy things about nuclear war.

There's no Democratic check. Congress doesn't have to say anything. Joe Biden has sole decision-making authority. And so does Vladimir Putin. You would think in a representational democracy like us, actually it would require people in the chain of command committing treason and saying, no, I'm not going to do it. So do you bet on that? Because I don't, you know, they all share the same assumptions in this war. So I could see it all happening very quickly. I mean, I don't. You know, they all share the same assumptions in this war. So I could see it all happening very quickly. I mean, I don't, I've seen estimates out there, you know, even people like Shapiro and others are saying that the risk right now of a nuclear exchange is 20 to 25%. I don't know if it's worth, you know, putting percentages and all of that. I would just say, you know, the five seconds to midnight seems like reality to me.

And that's a terrifying situation. Yeah. Yeah. Five seconds to midnight seems like reality to me. And that's a terrifying situation. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it falls to President Brandon to keep his eye on nuclear war. And the really sad thing is, like, we could do a lot worse, you know. I feel a lot better with him there than I would with, you know, Hillary Clinton. George W. Bush. Kamala Harris or George W. Bush or, you know, even Trump, who was extremely hawkish towards Russia, actually, when he was in office, in spite of what the media would tell you about

all of that thing. I mean, frigging Mike Pompeo's in his administration, John Bolton was in his administration. Pompeo is now they're going to get to this in just a minute. Like, you know, it's saying very escalatory, hawkish things. So, you know, it's I cannot possibly say enough what a precarious situation this is, what a frightening situation it is, what a predictable situation it is that, you know, if you escalate and escalate and escalate and escalate with nuclear power, you're going to end up in this exact scenario where it's, you know, 25% odds you're going to have a nuclear exchange. And that, in my opinion, might be on the low side at this point. So it truly, truly is a terrifying state of affairs.

What you were saying about the American public, you know, I think partly it's underestimated. I mean, number one, because the media does a horrific job of explaining these risks and really laying out the risks and the consequences. I mean, Tapper, you know, we played this out of him before being like, ah, that's crazy talk. What do you, to Senator Chris Murphy, like, why would you say this? This is ridiculous ultimately. But the other piece is, you know, it just, it does seem like an insane outcome. And it's been so long since we've really stared in the face of this kind of nuclear threat that I think it's hard for people to really comprehend that this is the place that we've ended up in the year 2022. But all that being said, you know, I would take the judgment of the American people over the, you know, elite elected officials here in Washington, because they are much, much, much more in favor of conditioning our continued support for Ukraine on some sort of

a diplomatic process. So even as they've been like misled and propagandized by the media, they still have the good sense to see the basic dynamic of like, this is not a good thing to just allow this war to continue. It should not be our government's policy that we want this war to continue. We need to find a way to bring this thing to a close for everyone's, the good of absolutely everyone around the globe. Listen, if we had an ability to have a democratic check, I will always put my faith. What I'm saying is I don't think that we have such a check, unfortunately. Let's go to the next part here and let's put this on the screen just to underscore

how exactly this is baked in now to basically the establishment and the foreign policy elite. This was an op-ed, which was written by Leon Panetta, former CIA director under Barack Obama and the former defense secretary, former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton, very, very tapped in figure in his own right. And probably, I think it's fair to say, he probably still keeps in touch with some of his colleagues in the Biden administration, many of whom he was once the boss of. So why does any of this matter? Well, he's writing this op-ed to say clearly, quote, if Putin uses nukes in Ukraine, the U.S. must respond with military force. And actually, why I took away so important from this is not only, Crystal, the acknowledgement

that the U.S. should respond, which is that the new canard from the foreign policy elite is that if a tactical nuclear weapon of any kind is used, is that the U.S. won't just respond in a nuclear fashion because, as we would under NATO, since we have no obligation to defend Ukraine, but we would instead use conventional military weapons to attack the Russian military. And then they're like, well, then it's Russia's choice if they want to go to nuclear war or not. I guess you could see how rhetorically that means that you're not effectively signing the fate

of tens of millions of Americans away. But the crazy thing in this piece is he acknowledges that it would be an escalation, which would likely lead to a nuclear exchange, and still says, yeah, we should just do it anyway. That's what we should do. So I just want people to know, like, this is the former defense secretary, Barack Obama,

the guy who, you know, in the movie played by James Gandolfini, who was like, let's go and get bin Laden. This is the guy, you know, not necessarily known as a neocon hawk, even in his time in Washington. And this is what he's writing in Politico magazine as a, the way that you should always interpret these things are twofold. A, it's a pressure campaign from the outside. Try to get the people on the inside in order to take your argument seriously. But sometimes it's the other way, which is that they use former officials to actually,

as a laundromat for their internal thinking as to what the debates are playing out. So I'm watching all of this very, very carefully. And there are two noteworthy things that have happened on this front. First and foremost was the day after the nuclear threat issued, David Petraeus, former four-star, you know, really, you know, the liberal intelligentsia kind of personified, goes on ABC News and said, absolutely, if that happens, we are taking out a conventional military response on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Of course, there is no follow-up question. Well, Ms. General, would that lead to a nuclear exchange? Nobody asked that. Nobody asked that. Crazy. Second is this piece. So,

now you have a former four-star, probably the most recognized general in modern U.S. history saying this. Second, we now have a former Secretary of Defense. So I think that we should take these very seriously. On the other hand, we already showed you that clip the other day, which took tremendous courage by Admiral Mullen, who was like, no, we need to have diplomacy. We need it now. Putin and Washington need to sit down at the table. I'm concerned about the rhetoric. So these are all, like I said, these people don't just come out of the woodwork. It's a game that is playing out in Washington in order to massage the Pentagon and shape elite opinion. And right now, I think unambiguously, the hawks are winning, which is why I want people to know, like, if it happens, I am 99% sure that we will be in a full blown world war with Russia, which will result in a

nuclear exchange. I don't have any doubt about that at all. And that's why, you know, having a real debate and understanding of the facts is incredibly important. I also want to underscore, this is totally bipartisan. So let's put this up there on the screen from Mike Pompeo, quote, you know how we can convince Vladimir Putin to withdraw from Ukraine? Give the Ukrainians the weapons that they need to win. Why does that matter? Well, that's the former Secretary of State under Donald Trump, Crystal. So we just showed two prominent U.S. officials. Also, by the way, he was a former CIA director, so I'm sensing a little bit of a theme here about what exactly is getting laundered in public opinion. There are two side-by-side bipartisan responses making it

clear we will not back, not even back down because that's, don't even use their language. We will not go to the table and try to forego this or try to, uh, try to forestall this possible eventuality and move in a diplomatic direction. So without any pressure on that, oh, by the way, which is even with pressure, it was probably still fail. That's the crazy thing, which is that we are not even attempting at something that could give us the off-ramp. It's like we don't even want to see if it's a possibility. And by forestalling that, we're essentially ensuring that the path that we're on continues. The longer we wait, the more steps of escalation that are taken by the Ukrainians, by us, by the Russians, the more difficult it becomes to bring this thing to any sort of a

close. Ceasefire, you know, temporary peace deal, whatever it is. The further we go down this path, the more unlikely it is that we can form any sort of negotiation between the two sides. And to go back to what Panetta is saying here of, you know, we should strike Russian forces in Ukraine and basically make sure that Russia is going to lose this war in Ukraine and in the most maximalist way, pushing them out of the east, pushing them out of Crimea, where, you know, before this war, it was widely acknowledged that Crimea basically wanted to be part of Russia. And this is a very like this part. That part is incredibly important to Russia. So he's saying we're going to strike Russian troops in a way that will basically make it impossible for them to win this war. How do you think that Putin is going to perceive that? I mean, if that is not an existential threat to him and his power and his regime, I don't know what is. So yeah, what do

you think the likely response to that is? And going back to that piece that we put up earlier from Jeremy Shapiro, War on the Rocks, this is actually exactly the escalatory chain that he lays out that is step two. You know, step one is Putin uses tactical nuclear weapons in some way on the battlefield or even as a demonstration. Step two is literally this exact strategy, this exact thing that Leon Panetta is suggesting that we do. And he says that the next thing that is likely to happen is that they will see a direct NATO attack on Russia or Russian forces as confirmation of their view

that the West intends to destroy the Russian regime and kill all of its leaders. They say for Russian leaders, this is an ever-present reality. Putin reportedly obsessively watches the video of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's death after he was overthrown by NATO forces. Facing the prospect of death if they do not act to save their regime, Russian leaders will risk launching further conventional and tactical nuclear strikes on NATO troop formations and Ukrainian supply operations in bordering NATO states like Poland and Estonia to signal that Russia is willing and able to So, and then you're off to the races.

That is the way that this chain could unfold precisely. Like, and again, none of that is each step doesn't seem totally insane, you know, but the place where you end up is literal global suicide. So these things that are being suggested by the supposedly, you know, sober minds, the serious, you know, the serious credentialed folks in D.C. are total insanity if you care about, you know, the future of the globe. So the fact that you have, once again, this hawkish bipartisan consensus, and for all of some of the rhetorical things Biden has said that I've appreciated, saying we don't want to get into World War III, sounding the alarm about nuclear Armageddon, some of the comments that he made to Tapper about, hey, I think Putin's a rational actor. The fact remains that the policy has been one of escalation, escalation, escalation, and a total unwillingness to push Ukraine to sit down at the negotiating

table. Yeah. And unfortunately, the Ukrainians themselves, and look, this is an existential battle for them. They're actually preparing. Let's go and put this on the screens. Quote, some Ukrainians are bracing for the possibility of a Russian nuclear strike. Fears across the capital and more of severe retaliation grew after the attack on the bridge to Crimea. Now, you know, they say, they say, but U.S. officials have said they think the chances of Moscow's nuclear weapons use are slim, but they do quote officials inside of the Ukrainian government on background and more saying, look, there's not much we can do, but we are preparing for the reality. And despite Zelensky's initial pledge that, oh, Putin is bluffing, they have since retracted that, both Zelensky himself

and his military advisors saying, no, it actually very much could happen. Now, also, this is another thing. As I said, I actually went and read the national security strategy and found a very troubling line. Put this up there. Here is it straight from the mouth of the U.S. military. They say, quote, Russia's conventional military will have been weakened, which will likely increase Moscow's reliance on nuclear weapons in its military planning, effectively saying that the current situation on the battlefield for Moscow means that they are going to become more reliant on nuclear weapons, both strategic and tactical, in order to achieve their overall war aims, meaning that the likelihood of the strike is actually higher whenever you read this document. So that was another one that slipped out to me. And then finally, let's put this up there,

which is from the Washington Post. Again, we're reading these former officials, private U.S. officials. Here's what they said, quote, privately, U.S. officials say that neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright. They say they do not know what the end of the war looks like or how it might end or when, insisting that is up to Kiev.

Interesting, huh, Crystal? And actually, there's more to that quote. Yeah. So the full quote is that they say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright. And they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table. So the official policy of the U.S. government is just continue on this path. And as I think we've laid out in excruciating detail this morning, that path leads to total and complete disaster. So as much as we hear some, you know, at least like aware of the dangers of the situation notes from President Biden, which is better than you can say for like 99 percent of the media. The path that they are on continues to be terrifying and one of escalation and one of not even being willing to nudge the Ukrainians towards the negotiating table.

You have another some other quotes in that piece that are also really interesting, troubling. They say all this adds up to war that looks increasingly open-ended, as even those in Zelensky's inner circle most open to exploring negotiations with Russia said Putin's annexations marked a fatal blow. Quote, Putin injected the virus of infinite war with his annexation move, said a top negotiator for Zelensky and the majority leader of Ukraine's parliament in an interview. Ukraine will never accept this. That goes to the idea of what we've been saying, that the further you go along this path and the further steps of escalation, the more difficult it becomes to achieve any sort of ceasefire and end to this war. You know, the piece about Ukrainians preparing for a potential nuclear attack, there were parts of that that really got to me. Because you have to remember, I mean, some of the people that they interviewed literally fled from the nuclear fallout from Chernobyl. Like, this is a country that knows far too well what, you know, the consequences of radiation and nuclear fallout could be. So this is, like, very visceral for significant parts of this population.

And then they were talking about how some elementary schools have advised parents to put together an emergency pack for their little kiddos to have with them at school. One person who works in a market selling home goods said a mom came to her with a list from the school that included latex gloves, a poncho, boot covers, tissues, wet wipes, and a flashlight. As if that's going to do jack shit for you in a nuclear war. I mean, but that's where they are. I mean, trying to hold on to any idea that, you know, that they could ultimately get through this. And that really brought it home for me what an absolutely terrifying situation and how incredibly real this is right now. I think you're right, Crystal. I take solace in the fact that I live close enough to the

Pentagon that I will be vaporized in the event of a nuclear strike. This is an iHeart Podcast.