Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/3/25

Episode Date: March 3, 2025

Trump, Vance berate Zelenskyy in Oval Office meeting

Why don't you wear a suit? You're the highest level in this country's office and you refuse to wear a suit. Just want to see if you... Do you own a suit? Yeah, yeah, problems. A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting the security of this office. Really? I don't have such... I will wear a costume after this war will finish. Mr. President, Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. You should be thanking the President for trying to bring it into this

Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have? I have been to come once I've actually I've actually watched and seen the stories And I know what happens is you bring people you bring them on a propaganda tour You got to be more thankful because let me tell you, you don't have the cards. With us you have the cards, but without us you don't have any cards. The problem is I've empowered you to be a tough guy and I don't think you'd be a tough guy without the United States and your people are very brave, but you're either gonna make a deal or we're out and if we're out you'll fight it out. I don't think it's gonna be pretty but you'll fight it out but you don't have

the cards why don't you wear a suit you're the highest level in this country's office and you refuse to wear a suit just want to see if you do own a suit yeah yeah problems a lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting the United States office. Really? I don't have such. I will wear a costume after this war will finish. All right. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe.

It's Monday, March 3rd. With us we have the co-host of our fourth hour, contributing writer at The Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, president and founder of Eurasia Group and GZERO Media. Ian Bremer is here. Columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius. Chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative, former world chess champion, Garry Kasparov, and Wall Street Journal reporter, Alan Cullison. He is a former Moscow correspondent for the journal reporting from Russia

for over 20 years. Mr. Kasparov, I suspect this is more personal to you than most. I'm curious your thoughts on what you just saw there, what you saw on Friday, what you've been seeing throughout the weekend. Yeah, of course I was surprised by the spat in the White House, but somehow it was expected because when you look at the actions of this administration and also at the words from many officials like JD Vance, you saw that the train has been moving in this direction and everything they did and said, you know, somehow benefited Russia, so supporting a neo-Nazi party in Germany on Russia funding,

supporting a neo-Nazi candidate in Romania, actually open fascist, also funded by Russia. And everything that, you know, that we saw, every action had a Russian component behind it. And I say that I believe in coincidences, but I also believe in KGB. And I'm still, I don't understand even now, looked again at this, at this episode, if the deal was good. So why this kind of exchange, you know, derailed it. If the deal was good for the United States, why the JD Vans intervened and clearly was an intention to take Zelensky of the balance and make sure that this signing does not happen.

Well, it certainly triggered a response in Europe. One day after that tense Oval Office confrontation, President Zelensky arrived in London, where British Prime Minister Keir Starmer walked out of 10 Downing Street to greet him with a warm embrace. He reaffirmed the UK's support for Ukraine and pledged a $2.8 billion military loan to the country. I hope you've heard some of that cheering in the street. That is the people of the United Kingdom coming out to demonstrate how much they support you,

how much they support Ukraine, and our absolute determination to stand with you, unwavering determination. The prime minister also hosted a high-stakes summit yesterday with European leaders urging nations to boost aid, maintain pressure on Russia, and form a coalition of the willing for Ukraine's defense. Compare that with the contentious Oval Office meeting on Friday between President Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The visit started off cordial, but got more tense as Trump took questions from reporters in the room. The meeting turned hostile after Vance accused Zelensky of being disrespectful and not being thankful enough for U.S. assistance, leading to several minutes of heated exchanges.

What kind of diplomacy, G.G., you are speaking about? What do you mean? I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction of your country. Yes, but if you are not... Mr. President, Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems.

You should be thanking the President to bring it into this conflict. Have you ever been to Ukraine, that you say what problems we have? I have been to... Count one. During the war, everybody has problems. Even you, but you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future.

God bless. You don't know that. God bless. You don't know that. God bless. You will not have war. Don't tell us what we're gonna feel. We're trying to You got to... Don't tell us what we're going to feel. We're trying to solve a problem. Don't tell us what we're going to feel. Because you're in no position to dictate that. Remember that.

You're in no position to dictate what we're going to feel. We're going to feel very good. We're going to feel very good and very strong. You're right now not in a very good position. You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position and he happens to be right about it. You're not in a good position. You don't have the cards right now. With us you start having cards. Right now you don't have your playing cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War people. You're gambling with World War III.

You're gambling with World War III. And what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country. Have you said thank you once, this entire meeting? No, in this entire meeting have you said thank you? The problem is, I've empowered you to be a tough guy. And I don't think you'd be a tough guy without the United States. And your people are very brave.

But you're either gonna make a deal or we're out. And if we're out, you'll fight it out. I don't think it's gonna be pretty, but you'll fight it out. But you don't have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you're in a much better position. But you're not acting at all thankful.

And that's not a nice thing. I'll be honest, that's not a nice thing. All right. I think we've seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television, I will say that. Fascinating that JD Vance, I guess, maybe for the first time, decided to just jump in in a meeting and take over a meeting where Donald Trump is running that meeting.

Really interesting. So many things, deeply disturbing about that meeting, but you don't have to take that from me. Just look at Marco Rubio slouched on the couch when the question is asked of a man who has been enduring the most horrific of slaughter from Russian troops over the past three years and watching people that he knew and loved killed and watching the country that he loved invaded by Russian invaders and killed asked if he was wearing a suit, why he wasn't wearing the suit. Interesting, Winston Churchill never asked that question in Washington.

Well, the reaction of that stunning meeting, that sickening meeting, was swift. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote in part this, the point of the meeting was supposed to be progress toward an honorable peace for Ukraine. And the event's winner was Russia's Vladimir Putin. But as with the war, Mr. Zelensky didn't start this civil office exchange. He was supposed to... Was he supposed to tolerate an extended public denigration

of the Ukrainian people who have been fighting a war for survival for the three years? The Washington Post editorial writing, quote, Trump for his part should recognize the big picture. If he wants to avoid World War III, he should heed the lessons of World War II. Appeasing dictators doesn't work. Putin, a former KGB officer, responds to toughness, not trembling. He respects force, not flattery. And just ask the people of Georgia that, and the people of Ukraine that, and the people of Crimea that. One Putin invasion after another, met by non-responses by American presidents until 2022.

And we see what happens there. In the New York Times columnist Tom Friedman writing, it's hard to express what a break this is in American foreign policy. But I can't think of a single time when an American president declared that the democratically elected leader of a country preserving liberty was quote a dictator who started the war with his neighbor when it was vicious neighboring dictator who actually started the war this is a total perversion of US foreign policy practice by every president since World War one and that was Tom Friedman, the Washington Post editorial page, and the Wall Street Journal

editorial page. And yesterday, we did hear from some Republicans on this. We heard from Republican Senator and member of the Intelligence Committee, James Langford, as well as House Speaker Mike Johnson, who were both clear about the threats posed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. No, we're not turning our back on Ukraine, nor should we. Putin is a murderous KGB thug that murders his political enemies and is a dictator there. And so we've seen that.

We've seen his aggression. Countries around him have seen that. What I hear President Trump saying over and over again is, we need to get to a stop and fighting, find some resolution. I understand Zelensky is rightfully concerned that Putin has violated every single agreement he's ever signed and that he can't be trusted. I think they understand each other and that obviously there are differences. Whereas Zelensky wants more in the way of some kind of security guarantees. The United States is not willing to be able to put troops on the ground. I think Vladimir Putin is an old-school in the way of some kind of security guarantees. The United States is not willing to be able

to put troops on the ground. I think Vladimir Putin is an old school communist, a former KGB agent, and he's not to be trusted, and he is dangerous. The way I view this is that China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are engaged in a new axis, axis powers, and they are not on America's side. Everybody, of course, in the administration,

in the Trump administration, read straight-off notes, took the company line, even bizarrely. Tulsi Gabbard, a lot of people in the Intel community asking why she's deciding to do PR instead of her job. Meanwhile, there's this. I want to tell you and your people, you're the ally I've been hoping for all my life. Not one American has died defending Ukraine. You've taken our weapons and you've kicked their ass.

And I'm very proud to have you as our ally. So would I think complete utter disaster. Somebody asked me, am I embarrassed about Trump? I have never been more proud of the president. I was very proud of JD Vance. Standing up for our country, we want to be helpful. What I saw in the Oval Office was disrespectful, and I don't know if we can ever do business

with Zelensky again. I think most Americans saw a guy that they would not want to go in business with Zelensky again. I don't I think most Americans saw a guy that they would not want to go in business with. The way he handled the meeting, the way he confronted the president was just over the top. He either needs to resign and send somebody over that we can do business with or he needs to change. Lindsey Graham twisting and contorting once again, all for the benefit of Donald Trump. I must tell you, my last meeting with John McCain, there were two things that were on his mind.

One was the continuing threat from Vladimir Putin, which he talked about at great length, and brought up the names of all the political leaders that Vladimir Putin had killed and all the treaties that he had broken. And the second was his heartbreak with Lindsey Graham for basically selling out all of his values for a round of golf with Donald Trump. The first sound we heard there from Lindsey Graham was just two weeks ago at the Munich Security Conference. That's when he praised Zelensky, sitting alongside him saying he was a model ally. And then the last bit was Friday after the meeting where

Graham, like so many members of the Trump cabinet, looked like they were handed talking points. They all took to Twitter. They all praised Trump. They all thanked Trump for how tough he was in that meeting that includes Secretary of State Rubio. Do you think Marco got out of his like days to actually type in the words that were handed to him or do you think somebody did? I suspect someone on the secretary staff. I mean seriously you realize it was when when the question was asked about the suit it real was you can see that was a soul crushing experience for a life-long Russia hawk. The question asked by a reporter from a conservative outlet

let into the Oval Office because of how the White House has changed the press pool access. Mind you, that reporter also dating congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene. And we had two distinct reactions, Ian, in that Oval Office. We saw Marco Rubio look like he wanted to disappear into the couch itself because to Joe's point,

he's someone whose whole career has been someone who has tried to stand up to Russia in that moment he had to go along with the president we also saw the Ukrainian ambassador at the top of our show sink her head in her hands because she knew what a disaster that meeting was the meeting after the Oval Office canceled early there was no news conference no minerals deal signed lunch went uneaten yeah and then of course the reaction from Europe. The reaction from Keir Starmer, the British people, Ian lined up in the streets, cheering, I suppose Americans used to, cheering for Zelensky, cheering for freedom.

Keir Starmer saying saying we're with you. King Charles III, you notice, wasn't shocked at all that he dressed like a wartime leader as Churchill dressed like a wartime leader. And then of course the people of Europe, the leaders of Europe, Ursula von der Leyen, having the strongest words of support. Talk about that and what does it mean long term for the United States, long term for Europe, long term for Ukraine? Look, Trump sees Ukraine not as an ally, not as a courageous leader. He sees Zelensky as a supplicant.

He sees him as weak and America gets to make the rules. No different in that regard than the way he'd see the Panamanian leader or the Danish leader or the Mexican leader or the Canadian leader. These are people that have to come to him and who have to jump when he says jump. And the fact that the Ukrainians have fought for three years is irrelevant from Trump's perspective. He wants to end the war. That is the priority.

It's the only priority. And why is he calling Zelensky, why is he calling the victim the tyrant and the dictator and calling the invader, refusing to call the invader the invader? He wants to do a deal with Putin. He's made that very clear. What's interesting here, it's not just the decisive break with Ukraine. It is the fact that the Americans, the President of the United States and his administration

and the Russian President actually have strategic alignment on Europe. They both want a weak European Union, a fragmented European Union. They don't see them as principal allies of the United States. They see them as a challenge. This started with Munich a couple of weeks ago,

when the vice president, J.D. Vance, running the delegation went and he said, you are the problem. You in this room, not Russia, not China, not Iran, you in this room by being opposed to democracy, opposed to free speech, opposed to a party that you consider to be a neo-Nazi party. That was the beginning, and the conclusion was what we saw transpire in the Oval Office

on Friday when the same vice president and President Trump said, we are not going to support you. We're in between. We're going to cut a deal with Russia. That's going to be the end of the war. So if you're Europe, you better stand up. You've had years to stand you. We're in between. We're going to cut a deal with Russia. That's going to be the end of the war. So if you're Europe, you better stand up. You've had years to stand up. You haven't been.

You don't stand up now. You are in very serious trouble. And of course, Mika, Europe paying more money to Ukraine and the defense of Ukraine to the United States. That's one of the lies that was told repeatedly last week. The other lie that the United States has given $350 billion to Ukraine. That's a lie. We've given perhaps, we've appropriated half of that. that the United States has given $350 billion to Ukraine, that's a lie.

We've given perhaps, we've appropriated half of that. We've probably given in the end about a third of that, a lot of that money going to American factories, to American workers, to American jobs, to American munitions. So yeah, the fact that, by the way, this is a continuation of Donald Trump attacking constantly democratically elected leaders in Europe in the first term and then saying extraordinarily nice things about dictators like Vladimir Putin, autocrats like Orban in Hungary. And that continues today. David Ignatius, your response to this meeting, European reaction, and whether or not this

was just a complete and total gift to Putin. So Mika, Lindsey Graham had it right when he said it was a complete and utter disaster. It was a kind of piece of television that I don't think any of us have ever watched or imagined we would from the Oval Office. The question for me now is whether it's possible to pick up the pieces and if so, how? It's really striking to look at the reactions three days later. The Kremlin is delighted. The Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that U said that US policy is now largely aligned with that

of Russia. Can you imagine that? That's a description from the Kremlin of where things stand. Meanwhile, Keir Starmer, the head of what's traditionally our closest ally, Britain, is trying desperately, I think, to find a way to mediate between Putin, not Putin, but Zelensky and Trump and see if there's a way back towards having the kind of peace deal that they envisioned. I'm told that when Zelensky...

Well, David, what's your reaction? I'm curious. What's your reaction to how much of a break this has been for U.S. policy going back over the past 80 years? So I think in terms of rhetoric, it's a fundamental break. Is it going to last? My own guess is that over the next few weeks, we'll see an attempt to resolve these differences. to resolve these differences. Ukrainian sources have told me that Zelensky is eager to get back into a dialogue with the U.S.

He came to the White House ready to sign a deal to turn over much of the proceeds of Ukraine's mineral wealth to the United States as part of an effort to get the U.S. involved. So I would think that although this appears to be a total break today, it's likely that a month from now it will appear less than that. I think the more basic problem is what Ian was saying. The U.S. is now in a very different position vis-a-vis Russia and Europe than in my lifetime. And that's going to be harder to fix. Trump, for some reason, sees his mission as reaching out to Vladimir Putin and bringing him into a peace deal, make peace.

He said he's going to do it in 24 hours. But that's his priority. To accomplish that, he's done an extraordinary range of things, insulting our ally Ukraine in the Oval Office as one, but one that's even more striking in some ways is the report that our secretary of defense has told the cyber command to stop aggressive cyber operations against Russia, at least for the period of these negotiations, as again a way to woo Putin into discussions. So these are hard to imagine that we would be telling cyber command at a time when Russia

still conducts intense offensive operations against the US to stand down on some of these. Ronald Reagan would say, Ronald Reagan would talk about peace through strength, say you never get to peace with Russians through being weak. That's exactly what's happening right now, though. A show of weakness. And Mika, it's a zero sum game, it seems, with the Trump administration, where he's basically saying, to make peace with Russia, I have to go to diplomatic war with Europe. And that's just not the case.

You can do two things at the same time, but this is the way he's...you can go back to 1987, where he's attacking NATO. He's been attacking NATO, that we're spending too much on NATO for 40, for 50 years. And it continues in a way, again, that acting this way gets Vladimir Putin into Georgia. And the United States, you know, if you say, you look into the eyes of Vladimir Putin, you see his soul, then he will invade Georgia. And the United States will sit there and do nothing. If you say, as Barack Obama did in 2012 after the election to Medvedev, after the election we can do more.

And then you talk about a reset. You're going to do a reset with Vladimir Putin. Then he invades Ukraine. You do nothing, he invades Crimea. You do nothing, he shoots down commercial aircraft. Peace through weakness? The Secretary of Defense saying, let's take it easier on Putin. Donald Trump saying, let's take it easier on Putin. Listen, you can pay me now or you can pay me later, as the Fram oil filter commercials went back in the 1970s. This weakness, this weakness towards Russia and specifically toward Putin in 0408, 2014, every time, Mika, weakness leads to more war, more invasions, more suffering. It's that simple.

As David mentioned, the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told a Russian state media reporter that the Trump administration's rapid changes to U.S. foreign policy, quote, largely coincides with our vision. Let's bring in NBC News chief international correspondent, Keir Simmons, live from Moscow with reaction from Russia. Keir, what are you hearing? Well, Mika, one interesting aspect of all of this is that we haven't heard from President Putin since Friday.

Now, that is fascinating because very likely he is watching and waiting. I'm told by a senior diplomat with knowledge of the talks that there aren't plans right now for more bilateral talks between the US and Russia. There's not a date in the diary. Clearly, that could be put in the diary very, very quickly. I suspect President Putin is thinking that there is enormous opportunity here and also risk. He will know that we are on the precipice of a potential major crisis in Europe and in NATO.

And at the same time, the Russians have been watching events in Europe, in the UK, yesterday and over the weekend, and commenting, the Russian media and the Kremlin on that. So for example, the Kremlin posting a picture of those European leaders and saying, here are the leaders who are organising opposition to Trump and Putin. So clearly trying to message to Washington that there should be an alliance between the Kremlin and the Trump administration and that Europe is the problem. But also at the same time, the Kremlin warning Europe, threatening Europe really, against using those seized Russian assets to help Ukraine saying there'll be serious consequences and I think that illuminates that there will be concern in the Kremlin

that a newly united Europe more determined to send troops for example to Ukraine actually does present some risks for the Kremlin. You know, President Trump described what happened on Friday as great television. Russian television agrees. Those scenes have been playing out on Russian TV all weekend. The interviews that you were playing at the top of the show from US TV, those are being played here on Russian TV consistently and where Kirstama for example talks yesterday about a coalition of the willing in Europe it would have been noted in Russia that of course that suggests that there are those in Europe who are unwilling so there are comments here in Russia but

not by not by the president himself, by those around him and by the media around him. And I think another piece of that to just note from last week is if you think about it from the Russian perspective what they watched happen. They watched the vote in the UN where the US refused to condemn Russia then just before that meeting on Friday they watched as the Trump administration extended sanctions against Russia and then that event in the Oval Office and all of the implications of that. So as much as this has been head spinning for all governments around the world. I think it is too for the Kremlin. And another interesting aspect of all this, there are signs from President Putin, amid

all of those events last week, that he is urging his government, his intelligence operation to double down on particularly targeting Europe. So where the Secretary of Defense Pete Heksef ordered the Pentagon to stop offensive cyber operations against Russia, on Thursday last week, President Putin held a meeting with the FSB, which was once, of course, the KGB, and he urged them to thwart any attempt to disrupt what he describes as the newly resumed dialogue between Russia and the US, urging them to significantly strengthen counterintelligence measures. So there are multi-layers here, there are many, many things happening at once.

Another aspect of this, just to note, if the US this week, and there are signs that this could happen, pulls support for Ukraine, that would significantly strengthen Russia's hand. And I suppose you could say ironically, I think, makes it less likely that the Kremlin will look to a ceasefire or even a peace deal because it will think that that will give it opportunities on the battlefield. NBC's Keir Simmons watching reaction live from Moscow. Thank you so much for your reporting this morning, Jonathan. So Alan, we haven't heard yet from President Putin publicly, but we did hear from Dmitry

Medvedev who said, quote, the insolent pig, before he does Lensky, the insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office. So we're seeing jubilation there from the Kremlin as to what transpired. And as Kyr pointed out, I've heard this senior Trump officials say this over the weekend, they are considering immediately halting aid to Ukraine. They haven't done it yet, but that is a topic of conversation there. So let's get your take as to what you witnessed on Friday, a fundamental shift that frankly

I heard from several diplomats and former U.S., in current U.S. intelligence and military officials saying it seems like this White House siding with Moscow? Yeah, I think writ large, the most interesting reveal of this meeting is basically that the Trump administration doesn't really have much of a plan. I think that Trump has for peace in Ukraine, Trump had, of course, campaigned on a quick solution to the problem by pressuring both sides, both Russia and Ukraine. And what we are seeing is that he is pressuring one side more than the other. I mean, it's probably a natural reaction. I mean, it's of the two sides that he was going to pressure or, you know, Russia

and Ukraine. Ukraine is the easier one. And I think all the fireworks over this might might simply disguise that that is what's happening. There are a lot of conversations. It's true that Putin isn't making any public comments right now. But one thing we did see from the meeting was that Trump said that he is talking to Putin.

He's talking to him quite a lot. We're not getting any readouts about it. We really don't have any insight into what's going on, but it doesn't look like there are any concessions or there might be concessions, but there don't seem to be any pressure on Russia. So for now, yeah, it looks one-sided, and that is the direction of things. David Ignatius suggested earlier, and I'm curious your take on this, that a month from now we may be looking back on this as just one step in the process. Do you sense that Donald Trump is just winging it right now?

That this is like, you know, the opening pages of the art of the deal, walk into your office and just see what happens and keep moving until you get a deal? I think that, yes, I think there will be attempts. I don't think that, you know, this is not the first time that Zelensky has, you know, annoyed some American government officials asking for more aid. I mean, he, that's what he does. They need aid in order to fight this war. I think that that will continue, I think that that will continue. But I don't think that he'll be nearly as successful as last time. But yeah, I don't think he really has much choice except to come back. I don't think that, as I said before, I don't think that Trump is going to find this easy, because

I think he's gone into all this thinking that this is a lot easier than it really is. I think he's underestimated the difficulty of making a deal with the Russians. And what's more, this is not like a real estate deal. This is not a situation where both sides feel some loss because they have to pay something a little bit more than they expected. This is where both sides feel very deeply and aggrieved at many dead and war crimes and whatever atrocities that we all have in our heads. And it's going to be very difficult.

And I think that his short-term solution right now is to simply pressure the weaker side. All right. Wall Street Journal reporter Alan Cullinson. Thank you so much. His latest piece for the journal is available online now. So he suggested that perhaps Donald Trump has underestimated how difficult it is to make peace with the Russians and maybe underestimated Vladimir Putin himself, if that's the case. There's a long history of American leaders from FDR, JFK, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump who've underestimated Russian leaders, specifically here, Vladimir Putin.

What is the impact of that? And I am curious, what's the impact of Europe coming together this weekend? Look, I think the most interesting thing that's happened since the meeting in the White House is Stammer and Trump talking about the Europeans now having ownership of what a ceasefire deal is going to look like. Starmor has told Trump I'm going to present that to you after having discussed with the Ukrainians and the Europeans. Trump is now

expecting that. There's a lot of talk about Macron, Starmor, and Zelensky coming back to the White House in the coming week or two. That is a big deal. Zelensky clearly shouldn't be White House in the coming week or two. That is a big deal. Zelensky clearly shouldn't be seeing Trump and the White House by himself, but with the Europeans is a different story. And the fact is that for all of our discussions of how Trump wants to throw the Europeans out and work with the Russians,

Trump has also been saying, I want the Europeans spending a lot more on defense, spending a lot more on NATO. Putin doesn't want to hear that. Putin's not interested in that. So if it turns out that the Europeans come out of this actually taking more of a leadership role... I was going to say, this is actually what's happened. And so often in politics, you know, one of my favorite sayings, Senator Paul Simon of

Illinois said when he left after serving in politics for years, he said, the thing I learned in politics, sometimes when you win, you lose, sometimes when you lose, you win. The law of unintended consequences, think about this. For Donald Trump, who seems to have a deep distaste for European democracy, and Vladimir Putin, who has a deep distaste for Western European democracy. Think about what this has done. This has actually strengthened Europe.

This has unified Europe. You and I have both, I know you visit Europe all the time. I've been to London a good bit over the past several years, and I've noticed post-Brexit, a lack of confidence, sort of a loss of animal spirits, a sort of this aimlessness. That all changed this weekend. I'm not saying that everything's going to magically, but they have given Europe a purpose to unite.

They have given Europe a purpose to move forward. And again, I don't think this is what Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin wants. I think that Trump would be very happy to pivot and say, look, I'm the only president that could get the Europeans to take the lead and pay their fair share if they're capable of doing it. Right now, Trump wouldn't take that bet. Putin wouldn't take that bet.

I'm not even sure I would take that bet, but they've got a better shot after the last weekend than they did before Zelensky blew up with Trump. Watch just what the Germans are doing right now. The next couple of days, watch very carefully. They are talking about before the new chancellor takes office, they're talking about a one trillion euro dollar deal.

One trillion for defense and for infrastructure. No way that conversation happens if we don't have the Europeans under the gun. Is it enough to get the Europeans together to take the lead to backstop the Ukrainians? As of today, I'd still say no. I'd still bet against it, but I wouldn't bet everything against it.

Give these guys at least a shot. David. So I want to ask a question of Gary Kasparov. Gary, give us a sense of how Russians are reacting to these amazing events in Washington. And second, I wonder if you think that Putin, feeling that he has what almost seems American support, will try to move further against Europe. Europeans are afraid of an aggressive Russia. Are they right to be afraid that they're next?

I'm afraid I cannot help you to disclose the opinion of Russians because Russia is the fascist dictatorship and all the polls should be taken with a great caution because I don't think people are happy or willing to give honest answers to the questions about the war or Putin's regime. But from all indicators that can be analyzed, we could see that Russia is a giant military camp. The country is just living in a state of hysteria. The brainwashing propaganda starts from the kindergartens. So no matter what Putin says or what Peskov says, Russia shows no

intentions to end the war. The decontaminabilization, there's more power goes to KGB. And when you look at, again, Putin's statements about empowering Russian counterintelligence, he calls it counterintelligence. And also the propaganda built, you know, the image of Vladimir Putin fighting for holy Russia against Western democracies. Yes, now America could be a temporal ally, but but he has not abolished his goal of this war. And the goal was is and will be to destroy Ukrainian statehood. They said nothing about about walking away from that.

Ukrainian nation doesn't exist. That's what every Russian student or even just, you know, kid in in in in in in kindergarten now knows. So I don't see how Putin can end the war. You know, the magic won't. Let's, you know, go 180. So there could be a temporary end of hostilities, but there will be no peace in Ukraine. Lasting peace, no matter what Trump says, no matter what other politicians say. And Russia will continue its war even in hybrid forms. And Putin believes now that Trump is offering him a great opportunity to buy time, because

Russia's economy is not in great shape. And Russia's advance in Ukraine has been slowing down. And I think there's some signs of growing uneasiness among Russian people. But again, those are pieces of data that should be very carefully analyzed because again, this is relying on what the polls present to you. It's not real. And also I would add that in my view, that is watching what happened at this meeting

in the White House and then reaction of many Republican, the senators, the members of the House and other officials, I think there is the deep split within the administration. And clearly J.D. Vance who intervened and caused all this conflict in the Oval Office. So he represents, you may call it a war party. And he explicitly said it in Europe, they view Europe as a problem, and they want European Union to be, if not dissolved, but to be much weaker.

But I believe that behind the scene, we are feeling the pressure from others that are not willing to actually to cut tie with data. So they don't criticize Trump, but you hear even Ted Cruz, even Ted Cruz, in his statement was, oh, Russia is an enemy. So I think this administration is just, in a very odd situation where you have two competing camps and I think instinctively Trump is close to JD Vans, but he also looks at the ratings.

And if the ratings will show that his views on Russia are not popular, so he may actually shift back and find a way to bring Zelensky and Europeans under his wing, because he wants to be a winner. And it doesn't seem that his position now is offering him an extra rating point. Chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative, Garry Kasparov, thank you so much. His write-up for The Atlantic, available online now. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, thank you as well. His latest piece is online now for the Washington Post

and president and founder of Eurasia Group and GZERO Media, Ian Bremmer, thank you as well. Coming up, new reporting on President Trump's so-called MAGA Media Army and how it's more influential than many realize. Plus, an update on the health of Pope Francis as he remains hospitalized this morning. Also ahead, all the highlights from the Academy Awards as a small-budget film came away with

many of the night's top prizes. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. You know, Inora is having a good night. Yeah, that's great. Yeah, that's great news. Two wins already. I guess Americans are excited to see somebody finally stand up to a powerful Russian. That was Oscar's host Conan O'Brien during last night's 97th Academy Awards, the only

time he weighed in on politics during the show, linking the film Anorah to what happened in the Oval Office on Friday. With us to talk about Anorah's big night is founding partner of Puck and former editor of the Hollywood Reporter, Matthew Bellamy. He attended the Oscars last night at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles. Matthew, I guess we should first ask, have you gotten any sleep? It's very little. No, yeah, look at him.

But I did leave the parties a lot earlier than most people. They're still going on. Oh, my God. Yeah, I'm sure they are. Talk about a night of surprises. Absolutely. Going into this Oscars, it was really an open race. We were talking about any of four or five movies

getting big Oscars. And then it ended up a sweep. We had Enora with five wins and Mikey Madison beating Demi Moore in the Best Actress Race. We had a Nora with five wins, and Mikey Madison beating Demi Moore in the Best Actress race. That was a big surprise. I think a Nora is this $6 million little movie that most people did not think could go all the way

to Best Picture, and it did, and way more. Tell us why. Why did this capture the hearts of the Academy the way it did? You know, it's interesting. It is a movie with a lot of heart. It's a movie that makes you feel good at the end. And it's got emotion. Academy members typically vote with emotion. What makes them feel something. And this is a movie that, from start to finish, it's got laughs, it's got drama, it's kind of a road movie,

it's got a little bit of politics with the Russia stuff, it's got a fantasy element, it's sort of a modern, very R-rated pretty woman, if you say. And it's got all of that in one package, and it's the arrival of this independent filmmaker, Sean Baker, who's been around a long time, but has never had this kind of mainstream

or quasi-mainstream success. I think all of that put together, the Academy found it irresistible. So Matthew, let's turn to the best actor win for Adrian Brody. It was sort of seen as a, more or less a two-person race. Brody or Timothee Chameleau, of course, was played Bob Dylan.

Is this both deserving? Is this a sense of the Academy simply telling Shamilay, hey, you've got to earn it. You're a little too young to win? I think so. Over the history of the Academy, they've shown over and over again, they're willing to give the top acting award to a younger actress.

And we saw that tonight with Mikey Madison in Enora. But they're less willing to do that for a younger actor. And I think Timothee Chalamet at 29 years old, it was just the sense that it was a little too early for him. Also, Adrian Brody, an unbelievable performance in that film. It really is a centerpiece performance. It's kind of ironic is that he was the youngest,

best actor winner when he won the first time, and that was more than 20 years ago. And now at 51, he's got his second Oscar, is kind of ironic is that he was the youngest best actor winner when he won the first time. And that was more than 20 years ago. And now at 51, he's got his second Oscar in two nominations. The first time that's happened where he's won an actor has won two Oscars after having been nominated only twice. Happy to see Kieran Culkin win for best supporting actor for Real Pain. So Matthew, give us your sense, just big picture sense of the Oscars themselves. How do you feel like Conan O'Brien did as host and what this moment means for the movie business? Well, we'll see what the ratings are because we don't know yet and there were some glitches with the Hulu stream. The Oscars streamed for the first time on Hulu last night.

Usually they're just on ABC. I think Conan did a great job in the room, lots of laughs. He really got people going at the very beginning, some funny bits, very apolitical. You guys played that one clip of the Russia joke, but the words Donald Trump were not said by the host last night and he really avoided politics except for that one joke. And I think that's part of the reason why the Academy hired him, is they wanted an apolitical show. They are sick of becoming a punching bag on right-wing media shows. And this was the show that he delivered.

It was somewhat apolitical and very funny. Pucks, Matthew, Melanie, thank you so much for that recap. Good to have you on. And coming up... And good to have you on, and good night. Oh, yeah. Good to have you on. And good to have you on and good night. Oh yeah, go to bed. Coming up MSNBC contributor Pablo Torre is here to talk about this morning's sports headlines and a conspiracy theory about one of the greatest games in NBA history. Morning Joe is coming right back.

than anybody else. Shot there. Wrigley Field, Chicago. Sun not quite up yet there in the windy city, but it is time to talk. It's minus 87 degrees there right now. Yeah, it's not, thankfully today, not opening day just yet, but it's around the corner. So let's talk a little baseball and Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manford is reportedly considering a request filed by the family of Pete Rose to remove the all time hit leader from baseball's ineligible list. Rose, who died last year at the age of 83, received a lifetime ban from the sport back in 1989 for gambling, ending his budding career as a manager and blocking his path to the Hall of Fame.

ending his budding career as a manager and blocking his path to the Hall of Fame. Rose did admit in 2004 that he bet on baseball games but never against his own teams. Reports that Manford is reviewing the petition to reinstate Rose follow a promise from President Trump to sign a quote complete pardon of baseball's hit king in the coming weeks. Let's now bring in the host of Pablo Torre Finds Out. On Metal Arch Media, our friend, MSNBC contributor, Pablo Torre. I'll just note that Trump's declaration about Pete Rose came on Truth Social literally just hours after

the Oval Office meeting with Zelensky, prompting more than one person to say to me, why can't he just stick to stuff like that and not foreign affairs? But talk to us about Pete Rose, who of course, the all-time hit list, hit leader, but has never had his due in Cooperstown because of this ban.

Yeah, look, Pete Rose has always been an unreliable narrator. He's always been a character who was himself trafficking in exaggeration and self-glorification. What is not in dispute, though, is how good a player he is. He was, certainly. And then you add to just that stew of stuff, the idea that, okay, wait, baseball's attitudes on gambling, sports attitudes on gambling have changed.

I was gonna say, the thing about Rose is, isn't it just the plain fact that if he had been a little less rough around the edges, he would have already been back in baseball. It seems like every time, like even when the Phillies wanted to bring him back, another controversy would explode. He would say the wrong thing.

I mean, I've always thought, yeah, give him a band for five years, a lifetime band for a guy who was one of the greatest hitters of all time and certainly guy who was one of the hardest ballplayers of all time. How do you keep him out of the Hall of Fame? Yeah, the hardest playing athlete you might say, right? Sliding, injuring people at All-Star games.

The thing about the Hall of Fame though, is always whether we consider it beatification or an exhibit in a museum. And Pete Rose to me, is the argument for why the Hall of Fame, if we're gonna do the morality policing thing, and certainly at the edges, I get it. But when it comes to one of the greatest of all time, the moralizing, especially in the era of legalized gambling, I'm more in favor of let's just tell the story of him in Cooper style, as

opposed to sanitizing the story. I mean, seriously, do we want to really go back and see what Babe Ruth did? A dangerous game. And see what, I mean, that is a dangerous game. That's like when people are talking about what artists have done in the 20th century. Do you want to go back and really stop listening to Mozart or Beethoven or Brahms? Picasso, looking at his art. Picasso.

I mean, go down the list. Here, it's baseball. It's a hall of fame. It's the list here it's baseball. Yeah, so Hall of Fame. It's the greatest players of all time. They should have done this a long time ago. My take is always in Rose, Fonz, Clemens. They're all should be in just put on the plaque what they were accused of having.

Pablo, let's make the turn now. The Estre marked the 63rd anniversary of Hall of Famer, Wilt Chamberlain's legendary 100 point game. It's a topic you cover in your latest podcast. And you look to there, he's holding the sign. So therefore it must have happened. Wait a minute though.

Well, we've known to exaggerate some numbers in his life. Let's talk about this one too. Yeah, so there are two big numbers in Wilt's life that we memorialize. 20,000 for the number of paramours, partners he had. And then 100, the of course greatest most dominant most unstoppable individual performance arguably in sports history. And you say neither happened.

I'm saying the former the 20,000 did not happen as we'll put it one time to a confidant to one of the 20,000 what's another zero between friends basically. But the hundred the 100 has been, it's been shrouded in conspiracy. So this is all across the internet today. And the reasons are understandable given that it's 2025 and there is no video footage. The radio broadcast had mysteriously disappeared

only for snippets to reemerge later. Of course, many of the participants, almost all of them had died by now. And the Hall of Fame itself, speaking of the participants, almost all of them had died by now. And the Hall of Fame itself, speaking of the through line in today's segment, beyond me doing a little bit of history class, is that the Hall of Fame has never had a Wilt exhibit because it's so hard to gather this evidence. And so we did.

We gathered the radio broadcast, the full fourth quarter. We found a primary source, Wilt's teammate, Tom Mesheri, who is alive and himself is an incredible story. And he, and also the archive of tapes we found in which we have at least 56 people who are in the building on tape talking to the author, Gary Pomerantz of Stanford University, attesting like they feel like they are taking crazy pills because they saw it happen. And although there was not the technology at the time, A testing, like they feel like they are taking crazy pills

because they saw it happen. And although there was not the technology at the time, it happened. 100 points happened in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Hershey, Pennsylvania. Okay, so you're saying actually he did score the 100 points. Yes, he did. And that said, of course, you have to make the argument

because kids today, there's pictures or it didn't happen, footage or it didn't happen and that one piece of paper with a hundred written on it, right? That was that was the closest thing they had and we tell the story of that as well how that came to be which is to say the statistician wrote that for wilt to hold up as a testament to a guy who was larger than life a self-mythologizing character not unlike Pete Rose, but himself actually did something that the history books have yet to fully clarify. And hopefully we do a little bit towards that. All right. Will speak claims one out of two.

That's okay. That's not bad. Out on metal arc media. MSNBC contributor Pablo Torrey. Thank you so much. Thank you.