Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/24/25

Episode Date: April 24, 2025

Trump slams Zelenskyy for rejecting Ukraine-Russia negotiations, saying a deal was 'very close'

He keeps pounding Zelensky and saying it's harder to deal with him than it is with Putin. Putin so far, as I can tell, hasn't agreed to much of anything, except yes, he'd love to annex Crimea, which was part of the proposal that's before him now. That's no concession. That's just that. All that is is taking a gain. taking again uh... those alexki resist that because crammy up up until russia invaded uh... ten years or so ago was what was part of ukraine

so i'm not exactly sure i have what the president's talking about when he says that uh... that the ones he has been more difficult to deal with them than putin you know him they have been a series of ceasefire proposals. Putin either hasn't agreed to them or has immediately broken them. I'm not sure what concessions Putin will ever be willing to make, but he's certainly hadn't made very many so far. Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume baffled by President Trump's comments that it was harder to deal with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky than Russian President

Vladimir Putin when it comes to his efforts to end the war. It comes after a social media post from President Trump where he blamed the Ukrainian president for derailing negotiations to end Russia's invasion of his country. We'll go through all of that, as well as the possibility of another Trump-Zelensky meeting. Plus, we're learning more about Defense Secretary Pete Hegsath's use of signal amid his second scandal for sharing attack plans through the app. Also ahead, we'll dig into the president's latest comments on slashing tariffs for China

and other major trading partners. And tonight, in Green Bay, Wisconsin, NFL teams are hoping to pick their next franchise player. We'll have a preview of the draft's first round. And, Willie and Jonathan Lemire Big question on the back of all the sports pages. Who are the Giants gonna pick? Well, that's a good question It's most likely at number three to be Abdul Carter the great edge rusher for Penn State I know you've been calling that I know months. I was that was you've been preaching Abdul Carter Abdul Carter

You keep saying it But then there's a lot of talk about them trading into the first round a little bit later so they can get a quarterback. Shadr or Sanders probably won't still be there at that point. Might be if they get up high enough. Could be apparently Jackson Dart the kid from Ole Miss. Yeah when this draft process started people thought Shadr or Sanders might be a top five pick. That seems like he probably will slide a little bit now. But the fate of our teams are really linked. The Giants pick third, Patriots pick fourth. So Willie, I say this sincerely, I hope your team blows the pick and leaves someone really good for us. I think the Pats would love Abdul Carter there.

Or I don't think that's gonna happen. I think the Patriots probably take an offensive lineman, which they need, we have many needs, or trade back a little bit. But it should be good. It's not considered as strong of a draft class this year as others, but you never know in terms of top talent. Cam Ward expected to go number one quarterback to the tight knees.

You know, Amika, having it at Lambeau Field is just so cool. A cathedral to football for generations. Having it outdoor, the draft has become such an event and a spectacle where you get hundreds of thousands of people showing up to watch it. So it'll be fun tonight no matter who your team is. Yeah, I've been thinking about it all night. I can't wait. We knew you were. Gosh. OK.

Also with us, managing editor at The Bullwerks, Sam Stein joins us. Let's get to our top story this morning. President Trump once again grew angry at Ukraine's president on social media yesterday, accusing Zelensky of, quote, inflammatory statements that will only prolong the war with Russia. In a lengthy message, President Trump criticized Zelensky for saying Ukraine would not recognize the Crimean Peninsula as Russian territory. Trump went on to call the situation dire for Ukraine, while adding, the United States, Ukraine and Russia are

very close to a deal and, quote, the man with no cards to play should now finally get it done. It's painful. Hours after the president spoke about the negotiations and was asked directly if the deal on the table includes officially recognizing the Crimean Peninsula as Russian territory. I will say that I think Russia is ready, and a lot of people said Russia wanted to go for the whole thing.

And they've, I think we have a deal with Russia, we have to get a deal with Zelensky, and I hope that Zelensky, I thought it might be easier to deal with Zelensky. So far it's been harder, but that's okay. It's all right. But I think we have a deal with both. And if I may, this deal that you have with Russia, does it include recognizing Russia's sovereignty over Crimea? Well everything is good. Look, I just want to see the war

end. I don't care. If they're both happy, they both sign an agreement. I have no favorites. I don't want to have any favorites. I want to have a deal done. More on those remarks in a moment. They followed a series of developments in peace talks that began with the announcement that Secretary of State Marco Rubio would not attend what were supposed to be high-level meetings in London with European negotiating teams. Instead, Trump's envoy for Ukraine and Russia, retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg met with Ukrainian officials. Those Ukrainian officials met separately with teams from the UK, Germany and France. Tomorrow, Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff is set to meet with Vladimir Putin for the fourth time. All of this comes as Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian cities.

Nine people were killed in the capital of Kiev overnight, and more than 70 were injured by a massive Russian missile and drone strike. So, Jonathan Lemire, obviously Russia, Vladimir Putin emboldened by having a new president who they view as very favorable to his approach here and his war aims. But if you go back to what President Trump said, again, explicitly attacking our ally, attacking President Zelensky, and again, putting all of the burden, all of the onus on the victim of this invasion three years ago, all of the onus on the victim of this invasion three years ago. Where does this go from here? Are they setting a pretext to walk away completely from all of this?

Because if you look at what we've had reported out from this apparent peace deal, it gives everything Russia could have ever wanted when it started this war. Let's start right there. The White House Trump administration has asked Russia to give up nothing. There's been no compromise, no concession requested from the Trump team. He has a number of times even blames Zelensky for the start of this war, which is preposterous. There's a sovereign nation. Russia invaded in February of twenty twenty two.

We know from Marco Rubio last week saying that the United States would might be willing to walk away from peace talks if a deal can't get done soon. We had JD Vance yesterday, so while overseas spelling out, and we'll get into the details in a moment, but conditions for a ceasefire for peace, which would involve Ukraine giving up Crimea. And that's the sticking point right now. The Ukrainians are simply not going to recognize Russian territory.

Now there's going to be dispute over it. There's certainly been since even during the, while President Biden was in office, whether Ukraine really had the ability to retake Crimea, but that is simply not going to be, you don't start the negotiations there. And that's where the Trump team seems to want, you know, with such a huge concession from Zelensky also having to say, we'll never join NATO, while asking nothing of Russia, continuing to fawn in many ways, as Wyckoff has done over Vladimir Putin, siding with Moscow day in, day out in this conflict. And Lemire, as you mentioned, while traveling in India yesterday, Vice President JD Vance

repeated the administration's warning about the U.S. walking away from negotiations between Russia and Ukraine if a deal isn't reached soon. Well, I'm going to echo something Secretary Rubio said, which is look, we've issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians and it's time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process. We have engaged in an extraordinary amount of diplomacy, of on-the-ground work. We've really tried to understand things from the perspective of both the Ukrainians and

the Russians. What do Ukrainians care the most about? What do the Russians care the most about? And I think that we've put together a very fair proposal. All right. And before we get to our experts, what idea? Tell me what you're thinking right now. I mean, right now, I mean, even as the vice president said that, he said, we're trying

to understand each side's perspective. The trying to understand the Russians, Russia's perspective. We know what their perspective is. They invaded a sovereign nation. They want to seize territory and Trump wants to give it to them. Yeah. That is the bottom line. Doesn't seem much up for interpretation.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board has a new piece entitled Trump's Ukraine Ultimatum. It reads in part, quote, Mr. Trump's current offer looks more like an ultimatum than grounds for a durable peace. Mr. Trump is angry that Ukraine won't accept a deal that legitimizes Russia's occupation of Crimea, as if this is a minor map revision. The U.S. refusal to credit territory seized by invasion is a principle intended to deter future marauders. Letting Russia keep its navy in Crimea is a threat to Europe as much as to Ukraine. A peace or even an armistice worth the name requires compromise on both sides.

But Mr. Trump has applied pressure only on Ukraine. Mr. Trump likes to say Ukraine doesn't have the cards, but it does have one ace. The president won't be able to abandon Ukraine without paying a heavy political price. Mr. Trump can still salvage a deal in Ukraine, but the current final settlement offer looks like it would set up Mr. Putin to win the war now or later. The world's rogues will notice, and Mr. Trump's headaches will have only begun, Willie. You know, the New York Times reminds us this morning that now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, then Senator Rubio, just three years ago, co-sponsored legislation, an amendment

to prohibit the United States from ever recognizing any Russian claim over parts of Ukraine that has seized, which includes Crimea saying exactly what the Wall Street Journal just said. It's a terrible precedent. China's watching. Taiwan is watching on and on. Let's bring in staff writer at the Atlantic, Anne Applebaum, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO Policy, Ian Brzezinski.

Good morning to you both. Ian, I'll start with you and just read a quote from President Zelensky in reaction to this apparent proposal, this peace deal, as the United States is calling it. Quote, there is nothing to talk about. That's from President Zelensky. So where do you see us going from here? Thanks. You know, let me put this in historical context.

I mean, what we see President Trump doing is basically forcing Europe and Ukraine to make concessions of territory and sovereignty of the likes that we haven't seen since the 1938 Munich agreement, when Neville Chamberlain forced Czechoslovakia to give up the Sudetenland to Hitler, an agreement that unleashed the violence of World War II. It's something we haven't seen since the Yalta Accord, an accord that enabled Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin to impose a sphere of influence over Central and Eastern Europe, a domination that lasted for five decades. And the tragedy of this is totally unnecessary,

because Trump likes to say he has all the cards. And in fact, the transatlantic community, led by the United States, does have all the cards. We have some $55 trillion in GDP among NATO nations. That's about half of the world's GDP against Russia's $2 trillion. The alliance spends about $1.5 trillion on defense annually against Russia's $200 billion. That's a factor of 10.

It's amazing that the West, led by Trump, isn't forcing or enabling Ukraine to end this war on its terms. And it's a tragedy. You know, Biden failed to leverage that power against Putin. But Trump is even weaker than Biden. Not only is he forcing Ukraine into concessions, he's setting up dynamics that history has taught us will set up the pretext for a wider and more dangerous war. So Trump is not leveraging American power very effectively.

He's proving weak, and he's undermining not just Ukraine, but our own interests in having enduring peace and stability in Europe. So Anne, if we're reaching back to Neville Chamberlain, reaching back to Yalta, not a good sign, obviously. I'm curious what you make of what we've seen just in the last 24 hours, the statements from the president, secretary of state, Marco Rubio declining to show up for those negotiations in London. All against the backdrop of the enduring question of more than a decade, which is why? Why does President Trump, why does he always as a reflex side with Vladimir Putin in Russia?

So I will start by saying, agreeing with Ian, to say that Putin has never given up his main goal in Ukraine. His goal is to remove Ukrainian sovereignty, to change the nature of the Ukrainian government, to make sure that Ukraine does not ever integrate with Europe, to make sure that it stays inside some kind of Russian sphere of influence, preferably, you know, maybe even sharing sovereignty with Russia. So he has never, ever said that he has given that up. Sometimes he'll change his language a little bit, but he maintains that all the time.

And so even in all these negotiations, they keep talking about how, you know, they've been talking and talking, and they're tired of the negotiations and so on. They've never, ever put any pressure on Russia to change it. And you're right to ask why is it that Trump continues to support this. And the only answer I can see is that Trump admires people who have unlimited power. He admires people who don't have checks and balances. He admires people who simply exercise violence, who use it without restraint. He sees that Putin does that, and he admires it.

And we've seen him take baby steps towards that here at home. Sam Stein, Mika Redd from the Wall Street Journal editorial, really powerful, really strong, really right on. But I wanted to ask you about the last line, this idea that, well, if Trump were to sort of kowtow to Moscow here, he would pay a heavy political price. Certainly he would in the West and Western capitals. But my question is, is that actually true here at home? This is a pressing question, but would he pay a political price from fellow Republicans,

many of whom have sort of abandoned Ukraine as the years have gone on? Would he pay a political price with the American public at large? Poll suggests they do support Kiev. We don't know how strongly they feel right now, multiple years into the war. What do you think? Well, I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I think it's undeniably true that the domestic politics around Ukraine has shifted dramatically.

It used to be that there was widespread support, especially in the Republican Party. That's dissipated, clearly, if you look at any public opinion survey. There's antipathy towards war, especially from Trump supporters and even in pockets of conservative media. Then again, it's not hard to imagine a scenario in which, let's say, some form of capitulation to Putin happens. And then over the next subsequent months, we continue to see images out of Ukraine of Russia violating terms of the agreement of atrocities happening like the one we woke

up to today, of bombings in Kiev, of people really suffering. And it's not hard to imagine headlines constantly of how poor this peace negotiation actually was, of how much of a capitulation to West of Putin, and of the atrocities that have occurred because of what Trump has done. And in that case, you can easily see that this would be a political blunder for Trump domestically. But that's a longer term proposition, not a shorter term one. And so I'm not totally convinced about the journal.

Ian, if I could ask you about this deal that they've proposed, obviously, Ukraine was never going to accept it. But is there any sort of fertile middle ground? And if you were to see Trump take Trump-like demands of the Russia, so obviously not severe demands of the Russian side, but moderate demands of the Russian side

so that they could actually have some concessions, too. What would they be? Well, I think Trump has the power. He has the leverage if he seeks to exercise it. And one could imagine an outcome in which the West demands of Russia accept a ceasefire, the current lines, in which the West refuses to accept Russian sovereignty over the occupied territories, and in which the West backs up that step

by deploying a robust deterrent force involving the United States in Ukraine to ensure military stability over the long term. We are capable of doing that. We have the resources to do that. It's just whether or not we have the leadership to exercise that power. Anne and Andy, and I'd love to hear from both of you on this.

Anne, you've written the book on autocracy, and, Ian, you've spent a lot of time in Ukraine. You lived there for three years, helping the country establish defense policy. But, Anne, if you could speak, I just, because I know who watches this show, and I would love a little bit of a Ukraine 101, if I can, at this pivotal moment. If you could speak on who the Ukrainians are, what they stand for, and what they must be thinking right now. So Ukraine is a nation that didn't

have independence until 1991. It's a country that has since then fought really quite extraordinarily from the grassroots level, self-organizing all the whole time in order to create a flawed but ambitious democracy. The Ukrainians have repeatedly shown that they want to be part of the Western world. They want to be part of the democratic world. They want to be integrated into Europe. They want an alliance with the United States. They want open markets.

They want free press. They don't want to be a dictatorship. They don't want to be a dictatorship. They don't want to be a kleptocracy. They want to be ruled by people and not just by oligarchs. And this desire, actually, it is this desire to be a democracy and to be part of the democratic world that is—that that's really what it is that Putin hates. You know, of course Putin is a is a Russian imperialist and of course he seeks to recreate some kind

of empire. But really what bothers him about Ukraine is that the Ukrainians succeeded. They succeeded in creating a democracy and that's a very dangerous that's a very dangerous a very dangerous example to Russians. So when he sees street revolutions succeeding in Ukraine, what he fears is a revolution like that happening in Russia. And his desire to crush Ukraine is a desire to crush the democratic world. But it's also a desire to show everyone around the world that autocracy wins,

democracy loses. People are watching this conflict in Venezuela, they're watching it in Iran, they're watching it all over the world, everywhere where people want to be, want to live freely, they're watching what happens in this conflict. And if the largest democracy on the planet allows Russia to win or appears to back Russia, it will dash the hopes and dash the, you know, ruin the imagination and ruin the future for millions of people. So, Ian, same question. And I just, I can never forget when the war broke out, when Zelensky and his generals,

they got on live stream, including the former president, and they said, we're fighting not just for our people and for our land, but for the safety of the world. If you could also take a stab at that question about the Ukrainian people who are often, I think, mistakenly underestimated here. Well, Mika, you're bringing back some fond memories of mine. When I was a volunteer in Ukraine in 93 and 94, it's actually when Anne and I first crossed paths in Kiev.

And when I left Ukraine, my memory is of a society that was probably and probably still is today Europe's most politically tolerant society. This is a peace-loving people. They were only looking for good relations with Russia. They wanted to be part of the West, part of the EU, part of NATO. They were on the road to be a success story. But from day one, from day one of Ukrainian independence, they have faced a Russian effort to suborn them again.

I'll never forget a meeting I had in Oberammergau, Germany, when I was in the Pentagon back then. We were meeting with the Russians just after Russia had become free from the Soviet Union, so to speak. And I was stuck in a bar hall with the deputy chief of staff of the Russian Armed Forces. And I had the temerity to ask him, you know, what is it like to lose your country, the Soviet Union, you served for 30, 35 years. And he said to me, looking straight in the eye, he pointed at me and said, you know, Ian, we Russians, we will endure this, but mark my words, we will get Ukraine back again.

And I will never forget that. And from that day on, there's been a steady pattern of Russian efforts, political, military covert to suborn Ukraine, leveraging their economic power, their military might, disinformation and such. This is a battle Ukraine has been battling for 30 years. And now it's escalated. And it is the moment for the West to respond with the power it has to bring peace back to Europe and to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Ian Brzezinski check out his peace in the Hill. Trump risks becoming Neville Chamberlain to Putin's Hitler. Coming up on Morning Joe, the Senate's number two Democrat, Dick Durbin, is our guest on the heels of his announcement that he won't be seeking reelection. Also ahead, what President Trump is saying about potentially slashing tariffs against China to de-escalate that trade war.

But first, Iran's foreign minister says the country has cautious optimism about indirect talks with the U.S. NBC's Richard Engel standing by for us from Tehran with more on that. We're back in 90 seconds as we look at a beautiful sunrise from New York City. Welcome back. Time now for a quick look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. One of the contenders for mayor of New York City received a boost of support yesterday. Adrienne Adams, the city council speaker, was endorsed by three major unions. And the state's attorney general, Letitia James. According to the New York Times, the move undercuts a perception that former governor

Andrew Cuomo has a lock on the race. The Times also notes that New York is the only major American city that has never elected a woman as mayor. Might be time to try. The price of President Trump's meme coin surged more than 50% yesterday after the president announced the coin's top 220 holders would be invited to a dinner to Washington. How many conflicts of interest are we looking at here? Can we count?

The spike makes the total worth of the Trump coin about $2.5 billion. So there you go. Next month's gala dinner will be held at President Trump's golf club outside Washington. The top 25 coin purchasers will also get a private reception with the president and a VIP tour of the White House. I don't even know where to begin. Let's remember the Lincoln bedroom scandals of the Clinton era. This is even that much more egregious where this is money for the meme coin that's going directly to Trump and his family. This is their family business and they're using not

just the golf course but the White House, VIP tours as part of that effort to raise funds. If this is something that if a Democrat were to do Republicans will be up in arms they will of course be silenced from them on Capitol Hill. So and also as you point this out we're gonna be talking with Anna Applebaum about her piece Kleptocracy Inc. which is right in line with this and one more for you newly released surveillance video shows how a woman was able to sneak onto a flight to Paris last year without a boarding pass Security cameras captured the suspect slipping by two gate agents at JFK airport and strolling toward the jet

With a group of other passengers according to court documents the woman who had initially been turned away from a security checkpoint after she was unable to provide the proper documents Delta crew members realized she was an unauthorized passenger while the plane was in the air and alerted French authorities. She has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges. So just FYI. You know like when you're waiting for the flight, and it's group one or pre-borders, and everybody crams it? The worst. Like if I'm sitting in the back of the plane, I am waiting across the hall, waiting for all the people in the front to...

You can't cluster people. That's the reason why. You'll get on the plane. Yeah, it is a small thing, but it's still a telling moment of the breakdown of society rules the way people crowd We're gonna get on right right you have a seat I'm sorry I don't know how how did she I didn't fully understand how she got through security to begin with if she I know boarding pass I'm gonna dig in a little more on that story

Okay, Alex says he does the clustering because he wants to get the overhead bag space. Well, you're the problem. Alex. You are the problem. Show them. All of his makeup and all, you know, what is it that he's bringing? So we've been talking this morning about these negotiations in London, about the war in Ukraine. There are also high stakes negotiations focusing on a new nuclear deal set to resume this weekend between the United States and Iran.

Those discussions will take place in Oman, a country on the Arabian Peninsula that held a previous round of negotiations on April 12. Saturday's expert-level talks will be the third meeting of U.S. and Iranian officials aimed at securing a new deal. For more, let's bring in NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. He is live from Tehran. Richard, what more can you tell us here? Well, the Iranians, both on the governmental level and on a popular level, are taking these

talks extraordinarily seriously. In the U.S., they might not be getting a lot of attention. People are talking about Ukraine, the economy, the executive orders that President Trump is giving. But here, the only conversation that people are having is focused on these talks. People hope that they will be successful. People hope that they will end sanctions. And a lot of people are worried that if they fail, that there could be some sort of military action taken against Iran by Israel, by Israel

and the United States together. And I think just the fact that I am here is part of that initiative. The government is trying to open up. We've been given quite extraordinary access to government officials. I was at the Iranian parliament the other day talking to a ranking member of their national security committee. Iranian parliament the other day talking to a ranking member of their national security committee. We've been able to walk around the streets without any kind of minders or escorts.

A lot is happening here. There is a lot of change happening inside Iran that doesn't get out. A lot of the stereotypes people have about the Iranian people, they're not what you see when you walk around on the streets here. There is a sophisticated culture that is very, that very much wants to engage with the world. You go to a coffee shop in Tehran, and not just in the wealthy areas,

but anywhere in this city. And in many places, it looks like you could be in a coffee shop in New York City or any part of Western Europe. The problem is because of the sanctions, because of the impositions imposed on Iran, they are almost cut off from the world. They can't trade, they can't engage

in any real cultural exchanges. People here can't travel easily outside the country. The other day I went to a technology park full of young entrepreneurs, they're calling it Tehran's Silicon Valley, and they're working on programming, they're working on AI, but it is all at this stage for domestic use. And they want to break out of this sanctions box and engage with the world. And they're hoping that these negotiations will allow them to do that. But they could fall apart. The talks are centered on Iran's nuclear program.

And Iran says, and has consistently says, it is willing to allow in more inspectors. It is willing to get rid of some of its highly enriched uranium. It says it doesn't want to have a nuclear bomb, and it is willing to allow people to come in and check that and prove that. But it does not want to give up its civilian nuclear program. It doesn't want to give up the potential to make nuclear power, create radioactive isotopes. And that is the real sticking point, because Israel, some of the United States, say as long as Iran has any kind of nuclear program and has the capacity to enrich uranium, even

at a low level, that it could accelerate that and create weapons-grade uranium. So the Iranian people, the Iranian government want this deal to happen, but there is still a decent chance that it falls apart over this enrichment issue. Long way to go. And we should note that even a Democratic Senator, John Federman of Pennsylvania, yesterday in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon said effectively that these negotiations are pointless. Senator Federman encouraging the president to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

That's a Democratic Senator. Richard, I know you're there in Tehran reporting on these talks, but I do want to ask you about what's happening right now with Ukraine and Russia, where President Trump, again, leaning heavily in favor of Russia in a proposal to bring peace, to bring an end to this war, suggesting that Ukraine will have to hand over officially recognized Crimea as Russian territory, recognize Russia's war gains, and block explicitly its membership into NATO. What do you make of what we've heard here, and where do you see this headed?

So, if you look at all the different negotiations that are happening right now between the Israelis and the Palestinians, between the Ukraine and Russia. Those are profoundly complicated, profoundly difficult negotiations because in both of those cases, people are debating the future of their country, who gets to own what kind of territory. The Israelis and Palestinians want each other's territory. They want each other's land and cite many religious texts to justify that position.

The Russians under Vladimir Putin believe that Ukraine doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, and now the Russians wanna keep 20% or potentially more of Ukraine's territory and its people. This deal is much more simple. There was a, it's all about nuclear weapons. It's all about inspections. It's all about enrichment.

They had a deal under the Obama administration that President Trump tore up. So all they would really need to do here is find a new version of the old deal. And that's what people in Iran hope will happen, and they are pinning their hopes on it. The government is pinning their hopes on it. But, of course, they're also watching

what is happening in Ukraine. The people are watching what is happening in Ukraine. And as you said earlier, if it seems like the United States is favoring a dictator, giving in to the aggressor, that depresses people in Iran, that depresses people around the world who worry that the United States is not standing up for democratic values anymore, is not standing up for the underdogs fighting against aggressor, but is standing up for those in power, those with vested interests, those who take territory by force.

And that is certainly the way it's seen from here. That is the way it is being seen in Ukraine. I've been in Ukraine throughout much of the conflict there. And since President Trump returned office in his second term, Ukrainians feel abandoned. They feel a sense of whiplash. What happened? Many Ukrainians ask me, what did they do wrong to have the United States turn on them and feed them to Russia?

Even as you're speaking, we're watching images, Richard, of bombs falling this morning in Kiev in the midst of peace talks. NBC's Richard Engel, who has covered the Ukrainian war extensively live this morning in Tehran for us. Richard, thanks so much as always. We appreciate it. And Mika, just again, I'll say President Zelensky in reaction to this proposal saying, quote, there is nothing to talk about. OK, so coming up we're going to talk about Anne Alba bomb's piece in the Atlantic. Kind of frame it for you right here. April 4th The stock market crashed and four service members were killed during a training accident in Lithuania So where did Trump choose to go on that day?

The answer is the thesis of Anne's peace kleptocracy ink. We'll be right back Not I just found out about Sam Stein You know what I just found out about Sam Stein? Oh no. Now what? It's not good. If he's in zone four at the airport waiting for a flight. No. Yeah, he's the first one in line.

It's Sam. Boo. That's not exactly true. It's worse. It's worse. What? What's worse than that? I aggressively jump the zones.

If I'm on zones four, I'm moving into zone two. I'm just putting my head down like that French woman and getting there. That's where Sam's time stole. She stole my moves, okay? Let's just be clear. You have to have the proper size bags, just two. Well, I have the proper size bags. And everybody can fit their bags and everybody will get on.

Just follow the freaking rules. I don't get it. Yes, Sam. These people. Sam, that's, well, I'm just very disappointed. Sam, your response, reflection of your character. We move on now and we raise the bar and we go back to the great Ann Applebaum. You're writing about Trump's hosting of a Saudi-backed golf tournament while the stock

market was plummeting earlier this month. The piece is entitled Kleptocracy, Inc. And in it, you write in part, quote, once upon a time, and not even that long ago, blatant conflicts of interest, especially involving foreign entities, were something presidents sought to avoid. No previous inhabitant of the White House would have wanted to be seen doing personal business with companies from countries that seek to influence American foreign policy. During Trump's first term, the court system largely blew off his commercial entanglements.

Now, he not only does business with foreign as well as domestic companies that have direct interest in his policies, he advertises and celebrates them. We know the identities of the golf tournament sponsors, not because investigative journalists burrow deep into secret contracts, but because they appear on official websites and were displayed on a billboard observed by The New York Times at his golf course. Both the website and the billboard would have been scandals in any previous administration. If they are hardly remarked upon now, that's because Trump's

behavior is such a symptom of something much larger. We are living through a revolutionary change, a broad shift away from the transparency and accountability mandated by most modern democracies and toward the opaque habits and corrupt practices of the autocratic world. So Anne, take us a step further into this. And what are the dangers here? Because it appears when you have these blaring signs, instead of doing things quietly, you are also ignoring the American people to the autocracy in the making that is happening

before their eyes. Yeah, you know, Mika, a few minutes ago, you asked me about Trump's strange admiration for Vladimir Putin. And perhaps the deeper affiliation goes back 30 years into Trump's business practices. He's been involved in an industry, the real estate industry, that relied on secret Russian money coming through anonymous bank accounts, buying anonymous properties in his businesses for many years. He's been dealing in that world, in the kleptocratic financial world, his whole life. In his first term, he was restrained by people around him, by—perhaps by some ongoing anxiety

about legality. He didn't bring all of those practices, some of them, not all of them. He didn't—but he didn't bring all of those practices, some of them, not all of them. He didn't bring all of those practices into the White House. Now he clearly feels he can do whatever he wants. He's openly taking money from the Saudi backers of golf tournaments taking place at his golf course. You had earlier in this program a story about how his cryptocurrency money is accepting so-called investments from people.

He then invites those investors to the White House. So he's using his position in the government to make money for himself and for his family personally. And, of course, he's set an example that's being followed by a whole legion of people around him. I mean, start with Elon Musk. I mean, Elon Musk is somebody who has been involved in firing people and changing the policy at government agencies that regulate his own companies or that subsidize his own

companies. So, he's—you know, he has such a profound conflict of interest that it's hard even to know what to call this. You know, if you run a company and you get to decide what happens to the regulatory agency that regulates you, then what are you? I mean, what you are is an oligarch. You know, that's what, you know, that's the political system in Russia that created massive webs of conflicts of interest and corruption.

And I think it's also important to remember where those systems end. They end with people being made poorer. The system is rigged. The economy is altered so that it benefits people in power, so that it benefits people who are close to power. And it's not good for the rest of us. And part of this plan that this administration and Donald Trump himself have sort of been running in the last several months is to clear out any oversight.

So fire the watchdogs, fire the people who typically under a regular administration would be on this stuff and say, hang on a second, you can't do that. You can't sell and personally prop it from Bitcoin and then invite all the people to incentivize them, invite them to the White House to special ceremonies at your golf clubs and to meet you at VIP events. So is that not part of what he was doing when he was firing not just the tens of thousands of government employees, the rank and file, but these people whose job it was to watch exactly the kind of practices you're talking about? Yeah.

In one night of the long knives at the very beginning of the administration, they fired 17 government inspectors. And these are exactly those people. These are the people whose job it was to make sure there are no conflicts of interest, to make sure there's no corruption. You know, they talk a lot about fraud and waste, but there were systems in the government designed to block fraud, to block exactly this kind of double-dealing, and Trump has dismantled them. I mean, I would say he's also—his administration has also announced that it won't enforce

other government laws that are designed to block these kinds of practices. There's something called the Corporate Transparency Act. They're not going to enforce that. There's something called the Foreign Bribery Act that prevents American and other companies from bribing foreign companies. They're from paying bribes, and they're not going to enforce that either. So they're dismantling a whole apparatus of—it's not just regulation. It's the law of laws that were designed, that were put in place in order to prevent fraud and kleptocracy

from spreading inside our political system. You can catch more on Anne's argument here about what's happening in the Atlantic. Her piece is entitled Kleptocracy, Inc. And Anne, I just want to circle back to the conversation we were having about Ukraine with all the comments that we have been covering from the president, the vice president, and what is happening right now in this war. And my brother mentioned earlier about Trump's approach to Russia.

And I want to ask you, is it appeasement or how would you describe it? Because to an extent, Ian was saying that Biden, you know, had an approach to this war that obviously was supporting Ukraine, supporting the people who are fighting for the safety of the world. And Trump's is very different. And how would you describe it? Is it weaker, as Ian contended? And is it appeasement?

You could use the word appeasement. You could use weakness. You could also begin to ask, is this really about business deals? Are there people around Trump who are expecting some kind of financial benefit from a relationship with Russia? Is this really about creating another lawless zone of relationships between America and Russia? We don't know. And actually, the fact that we don't know, the fact that this is all hidden, the fact that it's not clear what Trump's motives are, I mean, that's already a sign of autocratic behavior. You know, in democracies, your leadership is transparent.

We knew what Joe Biden wanted in Ukraine. You know, when he said it, we knew what he meant. You know, in the case of Trump, we don't really know what his motives are. We don't know even what it means when they say we're going to walk away. There, you know, there's so much opacity and so much lack of clarity. And the lack of clarity is deeply connected to these practices that we're seeing at home. This, you know, conflicts of interest, double dealing, you know, the relationships between people in the administration and private

business, we don't really know for whom they're acting. Are they acting in the interests of the American people, or are they acting in their own interests? Staff writer for The Atlantic and Applebaum, thank you very much. It is always great to have you on the show. We really appreciate it. And coming up, round one of the NFL Draft begins tonight in Wisconsin. And one of our next guests is asking why anyone watches it as he argues the event is boring as hell.

Wow. Okay. I didn't write this. New York Magazine's Will Leach joins us to explain his words ahead on Morning Joe. It's a beautiful live picture of New York City. Another great day. It's been a good weather week. Don't want to jinx it. Although we're getting smoke from New Jersey wildfires

later today. Yeah, we do have the wildfires. Remember that last year. So not in New York, but at Lambeau Field, round one of the NFL draft is tonight in Green Bay, Wisconsin. How cool is that? Tennessee Titans on the clock as we speak. They have the first pick expected to take Miami quarterback Cam Ward would be a shock if they don't take him at this point. But not a lot of consensus on what could happen after that. Questions swirling about how many quarterbacks will be taken in the first round,

along with which teams are expected to take some big swings. Joining us now, contributing editor at New York Magazine, Will Leach, and of course, MSNBC contributor, our good friend Mike Barnicle at the table as well. So Will, Cam Warren's going to go one. Feels like Travis Hunter, definitely going to go two to Cleveland. Probably the most talented player in the draft. And then at three, we've been talking about a Giants fan. Looks like they're not going to go quarterback there.

They go Abdul Carter at Penn State. Are you expecting any big surprises? Where do you think Shadour Sanders from Colorado ends up? A lot of questions this morning. Yeah, Sanders in particular, you know, obviously with his father being Deion Sanders and Colorado just retired his number. I mean, he's become this like very controversial figure across the board. He seems to be falling actually. You know, that's always one of the stories of in the NFL draft is what player has been invited and gets stuck in the green Room and looking sad all evening. That's always I think Aaron that happened Aaron Rodgers actually many years ago

So, you know that that's always a subplot to a lot of these drafts and Sanders could be that guy tonight Which obviously considering his father could send his kind of ubiquity the fact that he could fall that far It's pretty surprising because he may have been along along with Travis Hunter, one of the most famous players in college football last year. Yeah, you're hearing a lot about the Steelers. I keep seeing that at the 21st pick, they need a quarterback, and if Sador Sanders falls that far,

he could make it to the Steelers. Yeah, the other rumor that the Saints, their quarterback, they have cards, got hurt, they pick at nine, Sador Sanders might be an option for them. Will, one thing about the NFL draft, we were just talking about it, it's become such an event, with weeks and months of coverage,

and I think sometimes it borders on the absurd. So for instance, the Patriots, my team, pick fourth. Will Campbell is rumored to be their selection offensive lineman from LSU, but a concern that came up is, during his draft day, during his combine, during his measurements, his arms are an inch shorter

than is considered ideal for that position. That's a true thing. His arms are considered an inch too short for that position and that's why his draft stock might be falling. That is to me the NFL draft in a nutshell. Who among us has not watched the NFL game and thought, oh if only his arms were an inch longer,

he would have been able to make that play. Of course, you can tell that with the naked eye. Sure. All the time. It is a, you know, because all those are these players. This has been going on for months, right? They're being measured. They're being interviewed.

That's actually become a big thing with the NFL draft, is trying, the general manager is trying to get into the mind of players and thinking if they can figure out something about who they're going to be 10 years from now in like a seven minute interview after they've been jumping and running for a couple of hours. It really is kind of an absurd process because that kind of speaks to the thing of the NFL draft. It's a whole bunch of anticipation, a whole bunch of research for a very small moment that after they're drafted, they're just another guy on the roster.

Like the excitement and interest level that we have with these players now, once they actually have to go through the dirty business of being on a roster and being an NFL player, then they're just another person. Then we just go back to training like we treat every football player. This in a lot of ways, this is the most we'll think about any of these players down the line. So, Will, you have a reputation of having great talent and great credibility. We've been talking about the NFL draft this morning and all the personnel and

whether someone's arms are an inch longer or an inch shorter or whatever. So tell me the truth when I ask you this question. Do you ever have to tape your eyelids open in listening and talking about the NFL draft? Goodness, yeah very clockwork orange like. It's certainly there are viewers that it has felt that way. And I said that, listen, I'm not here to harsh anyone's mellow. If you really want to sit and watch 12 hours of the reciting, basically a long, slow read of an Excel document is basically what the NFL draft is. Whatever you do, you and I understand there's excitement for the NFL draft.

You want to see my, I'm an Arizona Cardinals fan. I'm curious to see who they pick tonight. But there is something about the anticipation of this. You know, I think a lot of it is because the NFL, you know, the NFL obviously is the signature, but kind of almost the most popular thing in public and American entertainment. It really is the only time we see them from the Super Bowl

until training camp options. This is the only real time where everyone gets, the shield is out there. The NFL is the only time we see them from the Super Bowl until training camp options. This is the only real time where everyone gets the shield is out there. The NFL is the center of the world. I kind of related it in my article for New York Magazine. It's almost like a house, an old house ad in the newspaper or like a promotion for future programming on a television show. But the idea that the act itself, I mean, I'm sorry to tell everyone, but there will in fact be no actual football played at Lambeau Field tonight

They will they will be outside of there and they'll be though and listen They will make a big deal out of this and there are moments that can get excited about People seem to boo Roger Goodell less than they used to taking part of the fun out of it right there So I think that certainly I I'm not against football people love football. I love football There's just something about this this used to be done by guys in fedoras Certainly, I'm not against football. People love football. I love football. There's just something about this. This used to be done by guys in fedoras in trench coats writing names on a chalkboard and no one paid attention to it.

It was just in the newspaper the next day. The idea that now this is more of an activity because we hype it so much, it's still just 12 hours of guys, very big guys, stuffed into suits reading names off cards for, again, like 12 hours. Yeah, again, like 12 hours. Yeah, well, Sam Stein here. My dad and I used to watch the draft, and we'd have this ongoing joke about Mel Kuyper, the ESPN draft guru.

I think it was by Dr. Mel Kuyper. And we'd say, what does Mel do for the other 364 days? Where do they put him? Do they just take him out for this day? But now the draft has become actually almost like a four or five month process where you're evaluating these players. And I might, and I want you to play with this theory. My theory is that it's more about the psychology

of the fans, because if you're a Jets fan, for instance, and now increasingly if you're a Giants fan like myself and Willy, you're just waiting for your team to screw it all up. To take a pick that ends up being a disaster, or to take a good player and then trading him a couple years later. And so now we watch these moments,

as much for the players coming up and shaking hands with Goodell, as for the fans, as you see right there, and mostly for the Jets fans pulling their hair out when they make a selection. That's why I think we watch this, because we want to participate in this great psychological experiment of fandom.

Yes, and also remember, a lot of investment happens at the end of the season once you realize, oh, we're not making the playoffs. We're not very good this year. Then you spend the last two months kind of rooting for your team to lose so they can get a higher draft pick. There's actually the investment of negative fan engagement

in a way that comes to this too. But I think that's a part of it too is that like we get again another thing we get so fired up for is there's just not a lot of hope in the end and the NFL draft can represent hope. It can represent the promise of a much better future than our sad present, which I think we can all kind of relate to a certain way. But the problem is reality does come in. Eventually they do make the bad draft pick and they do have to

trade away There's a reason that again, I'm an Arizona Cardinals fan I can relate to this suggestion Giants fans There's a reason that we always pick pretty high So a lot of ways this is the one time there have been times in the past I'm like Oh, this is the one time anyone even looks at the Arizona Cardinals logo. At least we're having our moment to shine. So I think that's an element of the draft too, but that's kind of a negative corollary. They're like, great, here's our great moment.

We were bad enough last year that we're coming on early in the programming tonight. Well, it may well be boring as hell to quote you the title of your piece, but we know millions of people will be watching and hundreds of thousands will be treating it like a music festival at Lambeau. It'll be a big deal.

Contributing editor at New York Magazine, a man with perfect length arms, Will Leach. He's got a nice first punch to him. Will thanks Will's latest piece, available to read now online.