Piers Morgan Uncensored - EXCLUSIVE: President Zelensky 'BETRAYED' By Trump & Elon Musk

Episode Date: October 14, 2026

Piers Morgan sits down for an exclusive, in-person interview with President Volodymyr Zelensky in his London studios. In this hard-hitting discussion, the Ukrainian leader addresses his feelings on Trump’s energy ceasefire and diesel deal with Putin, admitting he feels ‘betrayed’ and warning that stepping away from Ukraine is "the wrong side of history."  He also delivers a direct message to Elon Musk, breaks down the staggering reality of Russian casualties on the battlefield, discusses ongoing energy attacks, and tackles the tough questions surrounding peace negotiations and territorial integrity. (00:00:00) Introduction (00:01:30) Ukraine War, Trump and Putin (00:03:52) ‘Yes, I feel betrayed’ (00:08:22) Is Putin the ‘Hitler of our time’? (00:09:35) Zelensky’s message to President Trump (00:15:30) Civilian death toll ratio: Ukraine vs Russia  (00:17:30) Elon Musk and Zelensky’s message to him (00:22:24) Is surrendering territory the price of peace for Ukraine?  (00:27:11) Does Zelensky plan to resign any time soon? (00:31:23) Panel reacts to Zelensky interview (00:49:57) Jim Hanson calls Zelensky ‘delusional’  (00:53:05) The American people’s support for Ukraine  (01:02:00) Clash over Russia’s invasion of Georgia (01:05:36) Trump’s war on Iran and midterms Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's a pity that we are losing strong partner. You think you're losing America? Yeah, but not because of us. We can't be weak. Otherwise, we can't survive. Putin, he's losing at the battlefield. Are you angry with Elon Musk for doing this? No, it's a big mistake.

People will die. Of course, if attacks will continue. So my message is absolutely clear. We are asking to switch on. And I think it will be honest. It will be fair between partners. to be. All and a half a million Ukrainians are without power after an overnight barrage of Russian

missiles and drones hit the country's energy facilities. The capital city, Kiev is once again under attack. In the three days since President Trump announced a so-called energy ceasefire, Russia has systematically bombed Ukrainian power plants. Now, its defenses have been weakened by apparent speed limits applied overnight to Elon Musk's Starlink. Ukraine is critically dependent on the satellite service because Russia has destroyed its telecoms. Both Musk and Trump have this week called for the Ukrainian president to be replaced.

And the current crisis began with Trump's announcement of a diesel supply deal with Vladimir Putin, reversing years of US policy and new sanctions that he personally signed into law just 21 days earlier. Ukraine's president, Vladimir Zelensky, is in London for talks with Prime Minister Andy Burnham and for a meeting with King Charles. But first, he joins me for the first time in the uncensored studio. Mr President, welcome to London and welcome to uncensored. Thank you very much. First. This is the fourth time that I've interviewed you.

The first time was four months into the war in the summer of 2022. And I went to Kiev, and we had a very powerful conversation with you and the First Lady. And it's hard to think that here we are nearly five years on, and this war is still raging. What is happening? What is happening? So I think for us, it was very clear from the very beginning that, Putin personally. He wants to occupy our country and break us totally. And it's his goal. It was from the very beginning of full-scale war. But it's clear now. Then it began to be clear for EU members,

not to all of them. I think, I hope now, to all of them. Then it was clear to the United States. And I think that the pressure was very strong on Russia, not enough. Yes. And now what's going on? Not enough pressure. Russia learns, of course, how to circumvent sanctions, how to destroy energy. And they pushed us through these absolutely terrible winters. And what is understandable?

It's the war for us, but for somebody, it's economy, for somebody's business. and it's not fair. The events of the last few days must have been very disturbing for you and for the people of Ukraine. It appears that President Trump, to quote a phrase that we would use over here, has thrown you under the bus.

He's done this diesel deal with Vladimir Putin, having just announced renewed sanctions, which people find inexplicable. And now you have a situation where President Trump announced a energy ceasefire, and within hours, Vladimir Putin launches an absolute bombardment of Ukraine, aim directly at your energy. And Elon Musk, who controls Starlink, owns the company, which you rely on.

It appears it's been powered down. Do you feel betrayed by what has been happening? Really, yes, really, between us. But I mean, it's a little bit more complicated than just my emotions or my feelings. Yes, it depends not on my not on me. I mean this our country has to survive and we count on our real partners, strategic partners, United States and President Trump, they wanted us not to attack this. My opinion was it's not fair energy is fiery. It's okay. It's understandable. I mean, this, it's the worst version of peace, but anyway, it's some steps to the peace.

So, de-escalation, energy ceasefire. When President Trump said, I didn't know about it, but of course we support it, because we need our people to live, to go through this winter and to stop the war. This is what we want, but he said about energy ceasefire, and we didn't attack during three days any kind of energy objects, and we didn't not just attack, we didn't respond. That you absolutely correct said that after energy, she's fire, Russia, answered, especially, by the way, directly to Trump,

but we had these feelings on our day. They attacked us, our guest stations, infrastructure, and etc. Then I said that, okay, we will hold our emotions, and we will not respond on diesel. But believe me, what I said, American partners, they will attack energy. They will do it. It's about ours or about this. And it was this night. But what was really strange and what was not like between partners, that they switch off Starlink. So something absolutely crazy steps between us. So we hold

energy ceasefire from our side. Russia attacked us with hundreds of different missiles, including 40 ballistic missiles and all these ballistic, by the way, all 100% that they use them against our energy infrastructure. Of the 40 ballistic missiles, only four were able to be brought down. So 36 presumably got through. And of the 128 drones, the majority were taken down, but presumably had Starlink been working at the normal speed, you might have taken them all down. So this is having real consequences on the damage that Russia can inflict and on the casualties involved? You know, the problem is that at night,

the Starlink was reached on. So this is the problem. And do you believe deliberately? Do you think it's been done deliberately? Has Elon Musk, because he posted on X, his own platform, he posted that he thinks there should be a new president in Ukraine, not you? He did that in the last few days. Do you think he has deliberately turned the speed down on Starlink to damage it?

I'm sure that they knew what they did. Absolutely, because it was one a.m. So one at night, he asked about this. So, and Starlink was blocked, of course, by the SpaceX and of course by the United States. It is their rights, of course, but I mean, the Starlink is not for attacks. Part of this, it meets strikes. And of course, they blocked our mid-strikes. What they did, they made whole pressure on us.

Ballistic missiles, then not working information about ballistic before attack, and then switch off Starlink's. When you destroy Shahis, and often, when we destroy jet Shahis, we use drones with starlings. So it's not about just attack. As I said, we didn't attack their energy. It's not about attack. It's also about defending the lives. So people were killed because not enough destroying, not enough interceptors, including interceptors with sterling.

which didn't work, of course. You've had people who were very supportive of President Trump, like Laura Luma, who've posted, how come Russia isn't being held accountable? She went to see you recently for an interview for violating the energy ceasefire. President Trump said he wanted Russia and Ukraine to abide by. Russia fired 39, now 40, you said,

ballistic missiles into Ukraine last night, most of which targeted Ukraine's energy facilities. Putin is the Hitler. of our time. Do you agree with her when she says Putin is the Hitler of our time? Absolutely. Absolutely, it's true. You think he's that evil? No, he's not, I mean, he's not so strong as evil. I think so. But people are afraid of him. And he's not, I mean, United States stronger between us. We understand. We understand. stand it, stronger, and they have to be on our side. And when you speak or compare Putin and Hitler, like Laura said,

so what can I say, United States have to be on our side, if it's the same situation. If President Trump is watching this interview, and he might well be, if he is, what's your message to him? President, we've always been very thankful for his support or the support of American people. and he has to understand that Russia wants him to be weak. This act, after his words about energy, this act against him personally. They're mocking him, they're mocking him, aren't they? Absolutely.

They're literally. Ah. They're laughing. They're laughing. Making him look stupid. I don't know. I mean, there's, it's... So...

I think they are. I think they're just saying, look, we don't care what President Trump says. They don't care. He can have an energy ceasefire. We're going to rain missiles and drones all over Ukraine. They don't care what America thinks. They don't care about elections in the United States. They really care what will be with Ukraine, because, again, this is their goal.

They hate Americans. It's absolutely clear. And they're, I mean, when they speak for today, they speak even publicly about it, not on the level of Putin. Putin speaks about it, not loud. As I said, he's not very strong as he wants to show to the world. He's strong till the world will stop him. Do you believe that the diesel deal?

Not. Of course, it doesn't have any influence on the price. Right. It's a negligible amount. Absolutely. And America doesn't really need that amount from Russia. So what is going on here? There is a theory, a well-sourced theory, that what is going on is that Trump is under huge pressure

with the mid-term elections coming, the Iran war has not been going well, energy prices have spiked as a result. Americans are paying more money at the pump for their gas and so on. And that actually he's done this as a distraction to kind of blame you for the energy prices in America that Americans are having to pay

for what's happening in the Iran War. Do you subscribe to that theory? Do you agree with that? I think that there are a lot of different reasons. And your reason is also absolutely correct. And for me, what's going on now? Yes, elections and possibility to push us to capitulation between us. If not to choose the wars, it's about capitulation.

They want us to find any instrument, any instrument Russia wants, to push us out from Donbass, not by ourselves. Yes, and of course they use the United States. And of course, they sell them some, I don't know, business, John Winchard, economic projects, economic projects, and etc. I don't know. That's why I said there are a lot of different reasons. But yes, Middle East, of course, straight off or most.

This is real reason why. the prices increased in the world and all the world understands it absolutely clear 100%, not even 90. When you found out that President Trump had done this deal with Putin, 21 days after new sanctions, what was your immediate response to that? It's a pity that we are losing, we are a losing strong partner. So this is my opinion. You think you're losing America?

Yeah. But not because of us. I mean, we can't be weak. Otherwise, we can't survive. Otherwise, we will just, we are not selling our country. Look, guys, it's not about business for us. It's just our life. And this is our country, it's our body.

So our home, our children. And this is very important for us. That's why it's painful. When President Trump chooses one side, not our side, but we are okay that he's in the middle, but if you're in the middle, you have to stay in the middle, not on the wrong side. I think his advisors are wrong. I don't know who is pushing him not to the right side. This is not right side of history.

You see, I feel that many Americans, I've spent a lot of time in America, and I speak a lot of Americans about this, many Americans are with you. Yes, I know. I'm thankful to that. I believe the majority of Americans support you and Ukraine. I'm sure. So you have just people around President Trump, I think, who do not represent the majority thinking of Americans

who are pushing for this, to me, crazy deal with Putin, which looks like he's taken a side against you. And it makes no sense to me. And the whole energy ceasefire was obviously, honestly, bullshit. because within hours, Putin's just doing what he likes. No, no. Now Putin is laughing because, I mean, this is for him simple victory. Yes.

This diesel deal. Yeah. It's, I mean, then block Starlink. It's simple victory, tactical. What's going on? For example, Starlink, we use civilians use. That's what I said, were imported for defending. But also, our soldiers use Starlink's on the battlefield.

When Putin, why he's laughing? Why, it's a small victory for him. Why? Because he's losing at the battlefield. He lost so many people in 2026. Now, huge amount. The biggest during all this, all this. How many casualties? 43,000 each month now.

Really? Can you, can even? On the Russian side alone? On the Russian side alone. And how many are you losing on the Ukrainian side? I can't share. But it's, I mean, between us for today, it's, from seven to 10, one to seven, one to ten.

The ratio? Yeah. From Ukrainian to Russia? Yes. So every Ukrainian being killed, seven to ten of Russians being killed? Absolutely. Every Ukraine and now kills from seven to ten. Which is an astonishing statistic. But when I said 43, we have to be clear.

43,000, what is the difference? When they lost 43,000, it's been heart wounded, tough wounded and killed. And among these 43, it's about 20, 25 killed every month. Every month. And that's why I said 1 to 7, 1 to 10. Yeah. And the difference between killed and wounded also is interesting. I mean, for them, it's nothing.

For us, it's important. We have one killed, 5, 6 wounded. It's our statistics. Right. Their statistic is 50-50 for today. Right. So killed and moved it. 50-50.

So they're having a much higher majority of casualties are dying on their side. Of course, yes. And with all these losses, we stabilize the front. And of course, they switch off starting for what? So it will be helpful for Putin, of course. Of course. So why has Elon Musk done this? You know Elon Musk.

He's previously been supporting. No, no, I had communication with him. We've been very thankful for Starlings and you know that it was not the present. Yeah, I mean this it was... Or what we don't we don't know if Elon Musk and the president spoke to each other. I mean, it's Europeans, yeah, Europeans paid for Starlinked, including our big friends and neighbors in Poland. They paid for the for these Starlings. It's not just...

Are you angry with Elon Musk for doing this? Yes, I think he is not right. It's a big mistake. I don't know. him or somebody pushed him to the, I don't know, really, but our soldiers, when we've got this information at night, they tried to make connection with SpaceX and not only SpaceX, with American partners, with generals. Yes, I said them, of course, connect and ask, what's going on, maybe technical problems, and etc. They said, no, we don't think that this is

technical problem. It was deliberately restricted. It's two big problems. The first one is intelligence when American partners shared with us intelligence about ballistic. Another thing, it's Stirlink. It's mid-strikes, which helped our soldiers

and also civilians to defend Shahits. It helps because we use some interceptors with Stirling's to defend Jet Shihis because they are very quick. So it's two different issues. When you speak about intelligence, Yes, they said that we had some technical problems. Now it will work, but half of the night, it again didn't work.

It's a pity, but they said it's technical problem. But about Starlink, so, I mean, we are professionals. We understand what's going on. If you are losing the speed, so it's been of Starlink, so we understand what's going on. So they switched off it. It's their decision. What is your message to Elon Musk?

No, it's a big mistake. a lot of losses. This decision will bring a lot of human losses. People are dying because of this decision. Of course. People will die. Of course, if attacks will continue. And if Starlink will not work, of course, I mean, it's not helpful. So my message is absolutely, I hope, that it's mistake, maybe huge technical problem. I don't know, but we are asking to do it, to switch on. And I think It will be honest, it will be fair and it's like between partners have to be. Donald Trump, when he was asked about the situation, he said this.

Listen to what he said. You know what I suggest? I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal because he could have made many deals that for some reason he'd ever does. And let me go a step further. If I were president, you wouldn't have ever had that war. That war would have never started. There was no reason that that war with Ukraine and Russia started. It started due to incompetence. Should have never started.

You wouldn't have lost 30% of your country already. You've lost 30% of your country and you've had over a million people killed. Between the two of them, over two million people killed. That's a war that should have never started. And I think it's time for Ukraine to get a new president. I mean, he's throwing you under a massive bus there, isn't he? He wants you out. He wants you out.

Yeah. When I, by the way, when I became the president, Crimea and Dunbass partially, was already occupied. Of course. Yes, it wasn't you, by the way, president. President Trump has to know another president was in my cheer. Then it was, how to say, atoll? said that, nović. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so long period,

quite long period, till the full-scale invasion began. Yeah, and it's meant that moving me, but it's decision, of course, of our people, yes, no, Trump, no, Musk, no anybody in the world can choose the president or elect in other countries. But this is not the problem of the president. I mean, this moving me, And I'm sure the new man or woman will defend our country.

Because we are, I mean, it's our, as I said, it's our home, how you can do another way. It's the question how to do it, somebody will do it better, somebody not. But in any way, we speak about Ukrainian president. What is extraordinary, I think, when I went to Ukraine four months into the war, Many people were predicting it would be over quickly. Russia would win because they'd throw everything at it. And here we are nearly five years later. And they haven't.

They've taken a section of the Dombas. But the question, I guess, for you, can you imagine a scenario where you don't have to give any territory to Russia? Or is the only way this war ends with you agreeing to give some territory to the Russians? It depends on several things, not too much, by the way. The first thing, the first thing, how our partners will be ready to stay closely with us. Better to be closer than now. Because when we speak, as I said, I mean, there's no shadow games.

Nothing. Everything will have to be between partners, very open, clear and very understandable. sanctions, fundings. And it's very understandable what to do, to stay strong, to be strong. And Putin will not win, will not prevail, 100%. Without partners is more difficult. And it's, I mean, it's unbelievable how to survive without huge losses. This is the key, not to have too much losses.

And is America key to them? America and Europe, EU and Europe, I mean this... Because Georgia Maloney today from Italy, obviously, she has come out very strongly against the diesel deal. She's furious with President Trump, who she was very friendly with. She's a conservative politician, but she's enraged by this deal, thinks it flies in the face of everything that had been agreed with the sanctions, encourages Putin and so on.

Are you encouraged that leaders like Georgia Maloney are now coming out? Obviously, the British Prime Minister Burnham as well. Andy, Georgia, strong leaders. Quiroz, who was always on our side. Yes, he was. And Emmanuel is on our side, mostly people, Donald Tusk. Yeah. So, and I'm in these, and countries, even with a changing, you know,

changing with the leaders, the policy was. continuing. So they supported us. Metta in Denmark, Swiss, Sweden, Ulf, Sweden, Prime Minister, Finland, Alex Stubb. So they stay now with us and they are very clear and direct. It doesn't matter. Georgia is a friend of Trump, of Donald Trump, or not, it doesn't matter. It's not right. Can you win, President Zelensky? Can you win without the Americans on your side? So we will not in any way lose our independent country. Yes, we will have huge problems with how to push Putin to diplomatic way of ending this war to negotiations. This is the problem.

Yeah, so that's why with the United States, it's more simple. It's difficult, but it's more simple to push Putin to. the right position to negotiations. And only during negotiations, you can find a way out of these war, real. Is your position, just to push you on this?

Is your position, as the president of Ukraine, that in those negotiations, you would never agree to any territory being given to the Russians, or is your position that it's negotiable? In other words, obviously you don't want to give the whole Donbass,

But is there a deal to be done that would involve potentially some Ukrainian land being given to Russia? I think in your question, yes, there is an answer why some big guys want to change me. Because I will never accept Ukrainian land as Russian land. Yes, I am a realist. And I understand that people are more important than one kilometer or two kilometers. It's not about kilometers. I mean, it's about land and homes. This is important.

Yes, it's occupied, but this territory is occupied. It's temporary. Yes, I am finding the way of dialogue. I'm on this side to have dialogue and try to manage it. Because in the future, in any way, these, all this thing, people who want to be Ukrainian, they will be Ukrainians because they are. And these territories are Ukraine. In any way, it will come back, but without weapon because of losses.

To my mind, because a lot of things will change. Leader in Russia will change. Yes, of course. Not next. If the next will be the same, you know, in 10 years. With your position, to be clear, you have no intention of resigning. You're not going to quit. Not, of course. It's my responsibility.

And then people will say, okay, when will you have an election? Now, obviously, you were supposed to have one in 2024, but because of the war, you weren't able to have one. Many millions of people, Ukrainians have left the country, many more are fighting on the front line. Is it possible to have an election of the kind that President Trump has been talking about? Not, of course. No, 10%. It's because of each hour we have attacks. This massive attack, what we discussed, it was about night. But during the day, the same.

Drone Shahis hundreds and thousands each hour attack. So that's why from the point of security, you can't do elections. Then soldiers are on the front. We can't choose the president without soldiers because they give and gave their lives. They're first who has to vote, and I think it's fair. Do you believe the Ukrainian people are on your side? Yes, of course. I'm sure. We are all Ukrainian people, and we're all on one side.

We have only one enemy, it's Russia, and it's also in their interests to end this war. Because Putin will end, and Russia is a country. They want to have a history not only history, Yeah, they want to have future, but how to live with such a leader, how to manage it. They killed a lot of people, thousands and thousands of Ukrainians, came to our houses, occupied it, our homes, and now their solution is go out again. But who can give guarantees, even if somebody wants to make steps back? You've been achieving...

Who will give you security? You've been achieving a lot of success attacking Russia in Russia, including in Moscow. You've been hitting these data centers, the Yandex data centers, which many people think... But we'll respond, by the way. Yes. They attacked our data centers and destroyed. But you're being more successful than perhaps the Russians anticipated. Do you believe in your heart, President Zelensky, that you can beat the Russians,

that you can actually achieve victory in this war? I think that Putin's goal is total occupation of Ukraine. We already bid it. What is your goal? To stop this war, make it be it. Stay where we stay. Everything will come back because we are a real country. We really Ukrainians.

And all this part which is occupied is temporarily occupied. I'm sure. Mr. President, I'm being told by your team that we have to wrap up because you have two important meetings, one with my prime minister and one with my king. I can only thank you for coming all the way to the studio. Thank you. It's great to see you again.

You know how I feel about this. I want Ukraine to win this. And I want America and I want President Trump. I've known him a long time. And if you're watching President Trump, do the right thing here. Siding with Vladimir Putin against this guy and his country is the wrong thing.

It's what we called in World War II appeasement to Hitler. Don't be that guy. give this guy the support he needs to defeat the modern-day Hitler. That's how I'd like to end this interview. I wish you all the very best. Thank you, and please send my best to the Ukrainian people. We in England, in the UK, we're right behind you. Absolutely.

We are no doubt about that whatsoever. We are thankful to you and to your nation, absolutely. Great nation, great people, great Britain, which is from the very beginning on the right side of history. By the way, on our side, we are thankful to your support. And it's, I mean, it's clear way of friends. Thank you. Great to see you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Well, joining us now for their reaction to that extraordinary interview with President Zelensky is the former NATO Supreme Allied commander, General Wesley Clark, also here with me in my studio. The author of Provoked, Scott Horton, and the US Special Forces Veteran and Chief Strategist

at the Middle East Forum, Jim Hanson. Well, welcome to all of you. General Clark, first of all, welcome for your first time in my studio here. Great to have you here as well. well. You watched the interview. You've all watched the interview. What was your reaction? Well, my reaction was I thought he gave you some really straight answers. He couldn't tell you what the casualties were exactly. They didn't want to give away certain things. He was very clear about the need for Starlink. He's very concerned about U.S. support. He certainly didn't appreciate

the oil diesel deal. He would have gone along with the energy ceasefire. and so forth, and it's going to be very difficult to hold elections. I think those are all solid positions, and he said basically his objective is to get the war stopped. He didn't say he had to retake Crimea, he didn't say he had to, but he did say it's going to be very difficult for anyone to provide security and really keep Ukraine safe even when this is over, and the implication is if Vladimir Putin's still there.

What he said about President Trump was very interesting. I mean, he clearly believes he's been betrayed by President. President Trump in the last few days. First, with this diesel deal with Putin flying in the face of the sanctions, which Trump had renewed only 21 days before. But also, of course, with this issue of potentially Elon Musk's Starlink being turned off

via SpaceX and the damage that's caused to their intelligence capabilities and their ability to thwart incoming missiles. And, of course, this fact that Trump announced has going to be an energy ceasefire and within hours, Putin totally ignored. and attacked a load of Ukrainian energy areas. What do you think?

I mean, I asked him a straight question. Can you win this without America? From a military perspective solely, General Clark, can the Ukrainians win without full-scale American support? Well, they don't have full-scale American support right now because we've got $400 million tied up in the U.S. Congress that the president hasn't released. And, you know, we could have, we could have diverting.

more air defense missiles there. We've given a few, and there's other things. But they do need American intelligence support. The ability to warn of missiles, the ability to monitor communications, the ability to target key Russian targets, command and control, especially in Donbos and in the nearer part of Russia. They do need that because there's no substitute for that. But they're getting a lot of support from Europe, especially strong moral and emotional. support that has been much more, let's say, nuanced coming from Washington. Right. Jim Hansen, welcome back to Unsencent. I've got to say, I was absolutely shocked and appalled, frankly, about the news of the deal, the diesel deal with Putin. Can you defend what

President Trump has done there? Because obviously, it's tokenism. The amount is negligible, really. It appears to be him wanting to say, hey, you know, I'm ready to do business with Russia again. But if you're Ukraine, you just feel like you've been thrown under a massive bus. I think President Trump is making a point as well that he has no confidence that Zelensky will lead Ukraine to peace. And he showed that in your interview. He said he's not going to seed a single kilometer of Ukrainian territory. Why should he? Because it's already taken. Russia's had it for almost five years.

He can't take it back. Would you see, if America was invaded in similar way, you know. Let me sort of look at that. No, Canada can't take territory from us because we'd kick their butt in an afternoon. Okay, well, let's put, let's put, let's put, let's put. If Russia was our neighbor, hang on, Jim, hang on a say. Let's put the sort of, you know, the chest beating to one side for a moment. From a purely comparative point of view,

if somebody decided to invade a chunk of the United States, are you telling me that a single American, obviously some would, but if you're telling me the vast majority of Americans would tolerate ceding any inch of American land, even if it took years in the way you're categorizing, they wouldn't. And nor would I in the UK.

We had this with Hitler in World War II, right? Why on earth of the Ukrainians, even if they've currently lost land, why should they agree to give it up permanently to a bunch of Russian invaders? So we should continue to fund this meat grinder that's been going on for five years now. World War II was a meat grinder,

and that went on for longer than this. Let me make my point, peers. They can't defeat Putin. They can't defeat Russia. Even with Europe's help, they can't push them out of the territory that Russia holds now. Because they haven't been able to,

and they now have, less chance than before. They're not going to get additional American support, so they're going to have to make do with whatever Europe can. So they cannot push them out. Now, we can continue to let people die in this, or they can face reality. I wouldn't like it, but we're not losing a war to Mexico. We're not losing a war to Canada. They are tied in a war with Russia, and that territory is already gone. And Putin's not going to take a loss. He wants to go down in history as one of the great Russian men. Losing a war to Ukraine doesn't do that. He'd rather be with Ivan the terrible, Captain the Great, as Vlad the vicious in whatever it takes to do that, then lose to Ukraine,

which if he does not keep the parts of the Donbassie has and the rest of that land bridge to Crimea, it's a loss. He's not going to do that. He can't be moved. So it's Zelinsky and the Ukrainians who are going to have to face reality. They can't win and that war can't go on forever. If they want to fight it, they're going to do it without American support. And that was President Trump's point. Scott Horton, welcome back to you to Uncensored. What was your view of what Zelensky said in that interview? Okay, well, so there's a lot here. But first of all, I agree with what it's Jim, I believe, correct, just said. This is the same thing, Pierce, is it's not a direct analogy in the situation, but morally it's the same thing as in Vietnam and Afghanistan, where the enemy was the

communists and the Taliban. And if you want to, you know, talk for an hour in purely moral terms, how sinful is it to turn over the poor people of South Vietnam or the people of North Afghanistan to the tender mercies of these terrible enemies? But the reality is they're going to win the war anyway. It's actually immoral to keep the war going for 10 years or 20 years and have all these hundreds of thousands, or even in the case of Vietnam, millions of people die. And then they lose anyway. And that's the same thing here. Jim is right that this is a fool's air and it can't be done. And the only thing that could truly turn the tide in this war, as General Clark knows, would be direct intervention by the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force. And we're not

going to do that because that means thermonuclear war. But does it not be part of you though, Scott? Yes. It's all very well us sitting here. I remember vividly getting the long 12-hour train into key four months into that war, you know, being told to turn off all my devices and the lights in the cabin because if the Russians saw any lights or power, they might attack it and so on. Pretty, you know, for me, a civi. It was a pretty uncomfortable 24 hours on a train, I can tell you. But I was struck then by Zelensky in particular by the extraordinary resolve he had. This is the guy who, on the night it started, everyone expected him to leave. And instead he went on FaceTime video, whatever it was, on his phone, and told the world.

I'm not going. And he has stood there as leader of that country for nearly five years, when everyone has been predicting the fact that Russia would win. And they haven't won. And we've pretty well reached a kind of military stalemate. And what we're really talking about in any settlement would be the Dombas and what happens to it. And he, you know, I agree with him. Why the hell should they give up any territory, even if it's currently occupied by a bunch of invaders from Russia? Why should they give that up? in any deal. Okay, well, first of all, I'm sympathetic with him.

He's in a difficult position there. I don't completely disdain the guy. He's no more corrupt than any national leader in the east or west, I don't guess. And he's in a very difficult spot here. But, of course, there's this huge moral hazard here where the Western alliance, including the United States, still are backing his effort here in a hot war on Russia's border that I hasten to remind you that all this moral talk about Adolf Hitler and all of this stuff completely obscures the fact that, in fact, Putin is not, you know, enraged, you know, insane ideologue like that.

This is much more like Weimar Russia than Nazi Russia and the fact that they have hydrogen bombs pierce, which means that the NATO alliance and the Russian Federation must not, can not ever go to war. And that is of risk here. And you're talking about losing London permanently. You're talking about losing Austin, Texas, permanently over who controls DeNepro Petro Provost. And I'm sorry, no, I don't care about that. I'm not willing to get the United States in a war, even Joe Biden. So what if you take, okay, so what if, what else would you give Putin?

Would you give him Poland if he decided to march in there? Would you? No, but look, see, come on. You think it's very unlikely. You think it's very unlikely. I say it's highly likely if we roll over to this guy, it's highly likely Putin, who never ever wanted the Soviet Union to break up. He wants this vast rambling empire.

And I reckon he'd go after new places to take in a heartbeat if he sensed we don't have the stomach for the fight. Now, Pierce, I know you've read Provoked. I know you've read Provoked, Pierce, and I did bonk all that. All those quotes of Putin waxing on about the Soviet Union are all taken completely out of context. As not what's going on here. This is really Donald Trump is right,

and that clip that you played, to blame Joe Biden, and for that matter, to blame Barack Obama for the intervention in 2014 that overthrew the government and then sending John Brennan there immediately to start the war in the East.

They did not do a full diplomatic push to compromise, as the Washington Post recommended, to compromise with the people of the East to prevent conflict. John Brennan, the CIA guy, went and started the war. And then what did he do? When Donald Trump won the election,

Obama and Brennan framed Trump for treason with Russia, which completely hampered him. And as they put it, as the FBI put it, reined him in and prevented him from adopting a more conciliatory policy when he could have ended the ongoing so-called civil war then. And instead, his entire first term, he was prevented from reconciling with Russia.

And then the country and the world was turned over to the tender mercies of Joe Biden. who absolutely ham-handedly stumbled the West into this war. And I do, and I've told you before, Pierce, I do blame Vladimir Putin for this. He did not have to invade on the 24th if he didn't on the 23rd or the 20th, okay? However, Joe Biden, in 21, continued to reiterate that, oh, we're bringing them into NATO all right.

You're damn right, we are, and we're going to continue to standardize their military and make it essentially a de facto member of the NATO alliance. And there's nothing that the Russians can do about it. And no, we are not willing to negotiate their treaty in good faith, because, as they said repeatedly, we're going to do like Rambo 3, and we're going to lure them in, and we're going to inflict upon them a strategic defeat. As Lindsey Graham said, Russians are dying, and we, our soldiers aren't dying.

It's the great, it's the best money we ever spent because we are overextending Russia. We're giving them an expensive problem. Okay. The Ukrainians, in your morality play, the Ukrainians are just the club in America's hand that we're using against Russia here in a way to weaken them in an attempt to weaken China, which is completely ham-handed and also backfired, right? We just put Russia even further into China's arms. Let me bring—

Tell me how long about any of this. Okay, General Clark, what's your response to what Scott has laid out there? Well, he's laid out a lot, and it's a little hard to unpack it all, to be honest, fears. But let's start with this. Peace, general peace, since the end of the Second World War, has been built on principles. And one of those principles is you don't change borders by force. What we learned from World War II is that if you don't stand up to potential aggression, appeasement doesn't work, and so you've got to actually stop it.

So what you're saying, basically, Scott, is, is, you want after five years to continue appeasement. And that's not a policy that's going to bring stability to Europe or the world. Everybody's watching this. They're saying, is the principle of not invading and crossing borders that kept major peace? There were fights, sure. But that was the principle. We're going to just throw it out, because that's the consequence of the argument

that you're making. That's why Europe and the United States are standing strong behind Ukraine. Aggression should not be rewarded. It should be punished. And if you can't punish it, you've got to at least stop it and block it and block the objectives. And so the likely consequence of following the thought train that you're projecting there is, let's just give up on it, Okay. But then what happens is we know that's not the end of Vladimir Putin's ambition. We know he wants to restore control, Russian control, over the nations of Eastern Europe, especially the Bolshev. Completely wrong, General. I'm sorry. General Millie, in November, November 2020.

You're interrupting me, Scott. So I did not interrupt you. In November 2022, General Millie told the Ukrainians, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, you boys should quit while you're only this far behind. They had a great success in Harkiv and Lujansk, and he said you should deal now because it's only going to get worse from here. So you can wax on about all this moralizing stuff, but all that's happened is hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people

have been killed. You're going from geostrategia and history into military tactics and technology and a lot of things and throwing a lot of word salad out there at the audience right now. Actually, what's happened is that this is a war in which Ukraine has mobilized its population, the population's fully behind it, the United States has held back. We're not even explaining to the Russian people what's going on. Now, that was a decision that I disagree with that the Biden administration made,

but they did make the decision that we won't take the so-called information war into Russia. So Putin has free play with the Russian people. They don't know the truth. And I don't think that you or others have the right to tell the Ukrainian people give up on your country. They have the right to continue to fight. I've been there. I talk to many Ukrainians, including members of the government, soldiers and others.

They want their country. Yeah. And it's an important principle for the rest of us. Because if we uphold that principle, we have a better chance of preventing further war, greater destruction in the future. And let me bring Jim in here. Hang on, Scott. Scott, I will, Scott, I will...

Every firm I say some of the Gubs and tape, all I get is a bunch of moralizing and Adolf Hitler and principle and valor and all of this stuff. Why don't you talk about the fact that they're more likely to lose Odessa permanently now? They're more likely to lose the entire southwestern coast of Ukraine.

I would argue, Scott, okay, but Scott, I would argue... But, Scott, I would argue they are much more to lose those things if they just roll over and let Putin take what he wants. That's what I think. They get a compromise on all of this. Let me bring Jim in. You know, Jim, I'm old enough to remember 1991 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

That wasn't part of NATO. America had no great obligation to go and kick him out of Kuwait, but it did because it was the morally right thing to do, and we all agreed with that. And it was a very quick operation. And unlike the next Iraq war, which I thought was fought. on a completely false premise and frankly, illegal and indefensible. That one seemed to me a very clear-cut case

of somebody invading another country and being kicked out by a country predominantly America, but obviously helped by allies, who just decided this was the wrong thing and they weren't gonna let it happen. And for Donald Trump to be doing diesel deals right now with Vladimir Putin, 21 days after he renewed sanctions against Russia, and basically throw the Ukrainians,

And say he wants Zelensky out, because he won't give up the Dombas, 20% of his country, to this marauding barbarian, Putin. I'm staggered that anyone on the conservative right who were unanimous about America doing the right thing with Kuwait, which wasn't even part of NATO or anywhere near anyone to do with NATO, I'm staggered that there are people on the conservative right in America cheering Trump on with this. He's doing deals with Putin. I mean, you should be outraged. I can respect Zelensky as a hero for Ukraine and being able to stand up to Russia for as long as he has.

But as I pointed out, he can't win the war unless America intervenes. We've all agreed with that. So he's not going to win the war. I haven't agreed to that. So half the panel have not agreed with that. Okay, fine. I don't believe it's possible. Well, Zelensky is delusional in that respect.

But the point is, as a threat to the world, Russia and Saddam Hussein, Hussein aren't even in the same league. They aren't even playing the same game. So whatever we did in Kuwait has nothing to do with dealing with the fact that Russia took the parts of Ukraine it has and is going to keep them. And now we have to decide what's the US strategic interest?

Why did we, okay, out of interest, why did America then attack Iraq after 9-11, which had nothing to do with Iraq, why did they attack Iraq if the belief, as we were told it was, was that Saddam Hussein, our weapons of mass destruction. By your argument, why would they have done that if they thought he had nuclear weapons? Because if that's the argument for not taking on Vladimir Putin...

That's not my argument. That's not my argument. Well, Putin... Hold on, Scott, let me finish, dude. Scott, Scott, let me finish, dude. Okay, but let me finish my point. Putin has thousands of nukes, we know that. But so does America, and America and the other nuclear power countries actually have marginally more than he does. He's not going to risk everything for a nuclear tear-up with an equally well-armed opposition. But he might, he might, if he thinks America, which is a huge factor in all this, if America is moving to Russia's way, then God help us.

So you think he's going, the only places he can expand are into NATO countries. All right, Ukraine he's already fighting in. He's friends with Belarus. Every other country on his flank is a NATO country. So if he moves west at all, he brings the big dog off the porch. because as many beefs as we have with NATO right now.

Does he, though? What would Trump do? We're not going to. What would President Trump do? Okay. So say he attacks one of the Baltic countries or Poland or wherever it may be, say he does that. Say he really is the next Hitler and he wants to invade Poland, right? Because he's got his gander up because we've forced Ukraine to surrender.

Say he does all that. Do you have any confidence that President Trump in that eventuality would do what you're suggesting? Of course he would. Why? Because the whole point is that NATO is designed to be a tripwire that brings us into something that stops Russia from turning it back into the neo-Soviet Union. We will not tolerate that. And he knows that. And that's why Putin

will not roll tanks going west. He hit Ukraine because it's not a NATO country and because he wanted Don Bass and his land bridge and to solidify Crimea. That's a done deal. Now the question is, what's the U.S. strategic interest? Our strategic interest is in stopping the war from expanding and turning into World War III, because Putin won't take a loss. And it's from ensuring that the rest of the world doesn't suffer for a war that can't be won. Our blood and treasure, the energy implications, and the rest of it. That war needs to end, and that requires Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to understand there is not going to be a continuous flow of material and treasure

to go ahead and continue a war that we do not believe they can win. Okay, Scott, you know, what's interesting to me is that the American people remain supportive of Ukraine. So they're against what their president and current administration are believing. So Trump's administration do not represent the majority in America about Ukraine. And they definitely don't represent the majority with the war on Iran. So you've got a very unusual situation here where you have an American president who is involved in various machinations. around the world where he doesn't have the support of his people. That's unusual.

Well, no, I mean, American foreign policy has nothing to do with the wishes of the American public at large. It's all just a faction fight over control of the empire. But America's never gone to war before like it did with Iran, where from the start, the American people and all the polling were opposed to it and have got increasingly opposed to it. We've never seen that before. Yeah, well, it's unfortunate.

You know, there was not public support for the war when Bill Clinton and General Clark started an aggressive war against Serbia without a UN resolution and in order to break off Kosovo, a precedent which Vladimir Putin, of course, invoked in his declaration of war against Ukraine, just as he invoked Bush's threat about WMD and Obama's pretension of protecting life in Libya to say that this is why he gets to cross these borders, is America gets to rewrite the international law whenever we want. And so as a matter of high principle, it's only high when it's the other guys who are violating it. But look, the fact of the matter is there's been a potential proposal.

You will. I'll bring you into when he's finished. Cushner and them have been talking about this right now. And there have been leaks like this. I think we discussed this on your show before, Pierce. There have been leaks about a potential for Russia to settle for the current line of contact. And so that would be essentially, as Jim just said, the land bridge to Crimea from Donbast, Azov coast there.

They control virtually all of Donyisk, so it's almost a done deal at that point. But they would be forsaking or foregoing trying to take Zaproja city and the last like third or more of Zaproja, as well as forgetting about the part of Kurson, the third of Kerson that is on the western side of the Nipa River. And essentially just calling it time out where they have it now. That is the best case scenario for peace, stability, loss of life, and whatever, and for any potential to turn this thing around. It just makes no sense to say that because of principle and valor and honor, that this thing should go the other way, therefore it will. And by the way, I really wish that you had asked him, because this is a serious thing.

I wish that you had asked Zelensky. What about Dimitri Yarash from Wright Sector, who helped overthrow the government in 2014, who threatened to hang Zelensky from a tree on Krammatursk? street, the main drag in Kiev, I'm sure I'm pronouncing that wrong, forgive me, if he would dare to negotiate a peace with Russia? And is he afraid of the radical right inside his military, such as Andrew Beletsky, the leader of the Third Army Corps, who's leading the Vivaldi campaign right now? He's the author of the book, The Word of the White Leader, and the author of the speech, Ukrainian racial social nationalism. And he's the guy who said he's leading the white race against the Semitic lead unter mentioned, and is the third or fourth

most popular political figure in Ukraine right now, and has made his political ambitions absolutely clear. And is Zelensky afraid? And I think he is afraid that these Hitlerian Nazis, these avowed Hitlerian supremacists, would shoot him in the head to death if he would dare compromise, and how much of a disincentive is that to him to compromise in this war? Okay. General Clark, just the point that Scott made about Serbia and what NATO did there, what's your response first to that? Bill Clinton put it best, I think. He said, when you can make a difference, you should. So in 1994, in the African country of Rwanda, we stood by and watched 800,000 or 900,000 people hacked to death. children thrown down wells, heads cut off with machetes. We could have intervened.

We could have made a difference. Maybe we didn't understand it fully at the time. I was in the joint staff when I finally understood it, not as it was going on. We didn't really have good enough intelligence. We saw some pictures. We heard some stories, but it really took months afterwards before reporters came in on the ground and really talked to people and we saw what had been done. It was horrendous.

And I think all of us at that time recognized, we're not going to let this happen again. So the United Nations tried to stop the slaughter that began in Bosnia in 1992, and they weren't very effective. And so when it picked up momentum in 1995, we started a negotiation process. We backed it with NATO troops. And then again, in 1998, it started again in a part of Serbia known as Kosovo. I went down and talked to Milosevic three times. I asked him not to do this. I talked to the Serb generals.

They said, you're not going to, these people are just fighting for their rights. They're not terrorists. They just want to have a school with their own language. They want to have people from their own community in the police force. All that's been taken away from them. They're being enslaved in this province of Kosovo. And the Russians came in and said, don't pay any attention to it. If you want to wipe them out, just wipe them out.

And so that's what started it. So we had warned Milosevic not to do this. We saw the experience from Rwanda. We saw it in Bosnia. And the global opinion and the opinion of NATO was, you can't permit another such slaughter. Now, I have a problem right now, Scott. You're lying.

You've got a lot of time on this show. Give me a chance to talk. I have a problem with the Biden administration. because although they certainly warned the Europeans that this attack was coming, they didn't provoke it except by being weak. And so as it started, the Biden administration and NATO made perfectly clear that they wouldn't intervene to stop Putin. They set up an equation in which Ukraine was more or less left by itself. I went to the White House by phone. I talked to people there. I said, look, you say you believe in an international rules-based order.

Well, if that's the case, this is Ukrainian airspace. This is airspace that if Ukraine says bring in aircraft, we have the right to do it. Ukraine has the right to ask for it. Instead, NATO stood back. The Biden administration, of course, was behind this and saying, oh, no, no, no, we don't want to do anything with the Russians. time to have stopped it was then, but we didn't have the courage. We had a different group of people in leadership. They didn't have the same experience that those of us in the 1990s went through. And so the argument of using Ukrainian airspace became, oh, like a no-fly zone, and then you're going to have to bomb Russia or something. It was a deliberate effort not to face up to the reality of what Vladimir Putin stood for. We learned in the 1990s, and And Chancellor, NATO Secretary General recognized Manfred Werner that if NATO wants to be safe and secure, it cannot hide behind its borders.

It has to reach out of area. And we failed to do that effectively immediately in Ukraine. We pervaricated, we delayed, we postponed, we tried to dodge the issue because. of fear of Vladimir Putin. And we built him up. He was a mouse when he started this by going into Georgia. Instead of saying to Vladimir Putin, get out of Georgia, how dare you invade another country? We sent the French president in Sarkozy, who said, well, okay, you can keep a quarter of Georgia,

and we won't check on you anymore. And every year they move the barbed wire and take it a little more of Georgia. Exactly. Then they took him a dumb batch and still was supposed to think he won't take any more. Of course he will. This is what a scorpion does to a frock. Let me bring judge. Are you really going to pretend that Russia just started that war against Georgia in August 2008?

Georgia attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, trying to retake South Ossetia, and then Russia responded. Actually, it didn't actually happen that way, Scott. What actually happened is it was a false flag. provocation by Russia looking for trouble. That's not true. No, Vladimir Putin saw the power that Sarkozyly had, and Vladimir Putin figured a way to draw him in so he could then make the military argument go after him.

But I don't understand why, you know, a man like you who has fought for the United States and cares about the United States, and obviously you believe we're very, very powerful because you think that, you know, we should be determining the fate of other people. who are fighting for their own country, as though we have the moral authority to do that. Why do you then take Putin's side of everything? I don't understand it. I hear these people who are so-called realists and foreign policy, and what they do is they look at the past

and they say, well, a powerful country won, yes, but that's not the future. The future is what kind of country, what kind of world do we want? Do we want a world in which the mighty step over, over others? Do we want a world run by a couple of dictators? No, you don't want to live in that country. You fought for our country and free-off. I want to bring, I want to give, Jim has been very patient here. Jim, I just want to ask. He asked me a direct question. Scott, Scott, let me call me. Let him ask me a question, dude. I never said anything about America should force Ukraine

to do this or that. He's the one saying that the government ought to tax me and all the rest of my fellow Texans and force us to participate in this war for a foreign nation, which is an entirely separate question and is not what I was saying. And also, by the way, you know, all his talk about, oh, no, it was too much appeasement, too much weakness. Well, Zach Dorfman from Yahoo News had CIA officers before the war in January or February of 22. CIA officers in charge of receiving and distributing the arms in Ukraine told Zach Dorfman, they're calibrating this wrong. They're not deterring the Russians, they're provoking them. And we're trying to tell the bosses, to tell the White House, to stop sending arms now. Now you're just making war more likely. Maybe you could imagine a situation

we're pouring in arms is going to deter them up to some certain ratio. I don't know, but the CIA officers on the ground at the time said, this is backfired. We're going to cause the war. I guess they're just appeasers to the CIA officers are just taking the side of Vladimir Putin, instead of just being wiser than people like you, General Clark, who would cause a million-something people to be killed over an idiotic battle over who controls the Donbass. Okay. I don't think it's an idiotic battle for Ukraine to want to keep Ukraine. Let me bring in Jim for the final word here.

Jim, you'd be very patient, thank you. Although it's been a fascinating debate, I have to say. If I can take you back, Jim, to just before President Trump won his second term in office, and I was speaking to him before, during and I spoke to him, in the morning that he won. And he was full of like, you know, we're going to do this, this, and it's very positive. He hit the ground running with amazing array of executive orders,

many of which were very popular. He shut the border pretty much to all illegal immigrants pouring in there. A lot of things were going well. But if I said to you, as we come up to the midterm elections, that he would end up waging a pretty disastrous war with Iran which had an enormously negative impact on American cost of living for ordinary Americans, particularly the gas pump and so on.

And he'd end up siding with Vladimir Putin on a little dirty diesel deal which made no sense other than basically putting his hand up saying, I'm with Vlad now against Ukraine, which is how most people have perceived it to be. What would you have said to me if I'd said to you, this is what he's actually going to do? because I've known Trump a long time,

and I'm slightly flabbergasted about what I've watched. I didn't understand why he got talked into going to war in Iran by Netanyahu, that's what I think happened. I don't understand why he hasn't tried to get out of it. Now he can see the catastrophic effect on American cost of living. And I just was apoplectic when I heard about this diesel deal. So what are you doing, Donald Trump? Why would you want to be perceived as a guy getting,

into bed with Putin right now? Well, you're looking at the actual acts, not the plan behind them. President Trump's entire foreign policy is based around the idea that America is not the world's policeman anymore. We are not going to intervene in every single place

where there are bad things going on. We can't. Because Iran was building nuclear weapons. They had a plan. We were told this time, we were told last year that it'll be put back decades. 12 days.

Okay, and they started trying to, to bring it back. In eight months? The second they do that, it doesn't matter. They hadn't given up to eight months. Okay, they hadn't given up. So what he did, he took the political risk, which is less than the strategic risk of allowing a nuclear armed Iraq to dominate.

So America is being a world policeman then, exactly what you said it shouldn't be. If the case is stopping nation, stopping rogue nations run by tyrannical- That's called being a world policeman. Armageddon. Right. It is, okay, okay. We'll be a world policeman if someone's going to join the nuclear club who wants to I can't think of a more classic example of America being a global policeman.

We're not going to do it in places where that interest is not. Donald Trump didn't want to do it. You're right. But he ends up becoming the global policeman on the biggest possible war in the Middle East. And it's caused utter, it's caused mayhem. Can I finish the point about what his plan is? We don't want to be the world's policeman. When forced, we will act in U.S. interests.

It's in U.S. interests to not have a nuclear arms. Now let's go back to the Ukraine. It is not, the Ukrainian borders are not a U.S. strategic interest. Not being in a war with Russia is a U.S. strategic interest, making sure that NATO remains a deterrent to war and tries to stop an escalation. In America's national interest. Maybe. If you can't get Zelensky to make peace, somebody has to.

So this was not about sucking up to Putin. It was sending a message to Zelensky, which he made perfectly clear. when he said that Ukraine needs a new president if he's not going to make peace. So the idea is somebody has to. What he means by making peace? We've got to wrap things unfortunately,

but what he means by making peace with the situation with Ukraine is he expects Zelensky to roll over and give Vladimir Putin what he's taken. And I'm afraid I am absolutely with Zelensky and Ukraine on this and totally against what Donald Trump wants him to do. Why the hell should they give up

a fifth of their country to an invasion? It's already gone, Peters. They're not giving it up. It's been taken. It hasn't already gone. It's been taken. They can't take it back.

History is littered with territory that was taken and then reclaimed. Well, then good luck. I wish Ukraine could do it. I do wish them good luck. You know what they need? They need a bit of back-lone and resolve from America, who is the global police for when it suits it, and thank God they are when it's the right thing to do.

Anyway, look, we've got to leave it there. It's a war with the Russian Federation and Hydrogen. and hydrogen bombs. You know, the Nagasaki bomb, the implosion... I was very familiar with it. Why would Russia get involved? Why would Russia get involved in a nuclear shooting match

when it would lose immediately? Well, we would all lose immediately. Exactly. So why would they do it? Why would they do it? They're not nihistic fundamentalists who want to kill themselves. Show me the Russians who want to kill themselves for the cause.

They don't. The same reason they won't invade NATO countries. The Russians lose the war. That could lead to a general war between NATO and the Russian Federation, and you know it. Well, you know what? The day we stopped standing up to dictators, because you know what? If we... Because they got 7,000 H-bombs in a border dispute over the dawn back.

What would you have done with that all of H-in-Refiner in 39? Lenin laid this out. Lenin laid this out in the 1920s. He said, push until you meet resistance and then back off. Yeah. Until there's resistance, Putin is going to continue. continue to push. And if you want to jump in Europe, that's what's going to happen. And I actually do think he's the nearest thing to a modern-day Hitler, and I think Zelensky was right

to say that. That's another thing. You know what, Noriega's Hitler and Saddam is Hitler, and Milosevic's Hitler, and Putin is Hitler. It sounds to me like Adolf was just another Hitler. And apparently, any country that America doesn't like, we can just start an aggressive war against them because they're all the same as that one guy that one time. What a bunch of crap. And I know you know better than that, Pierce. Vladimir Putin is a center-right conservative. He is not a national socialist, like Andrew Beletsky, the leader of the Third Army Corps in Ukraine.

I think he's an absolutely despicable evil dictator. And I wish more people in America agreed with me and General Clark about this. But I'm saying he's not all the way to the right like that. I think the majority of people in America do agree with you. That's the weird position we're now in. You only have to look at the consequences of what has. in the immediate aftermath of the first invasion in 2022 in Boucha, where innocent civilian was captured, tortured, cut up, murdered for no reason.

Horrific. And, but it wasn't an accident. Actually, there was a reason. Because the instructions given to the Russian soldiers were to do everything you can to destroy the civilian population and straighten them and break their will. Break their psyche. Until Ukrainians great credit, they've refused to have. their will broken. And when I interview Zelensky, which I do quite regularly, when I interview him,

I see a man whose resolve has not been broken by nearly five years of war, and I admire that in him. He's there, Churchill in many ways, and I think we owe him collectively a debt of gratitude for standing up to Putin. Otherwise, I dread to think what Putin would do. We just rolled over. Anyway, we've got to leave it there. Scott, you and I agree about most things. We haven't today, but that's the beauty of uncensored. We are a free. free-spirited debate platform, and we can agree to disagree, and I always love having you guys on. Thank you all very much, indeed. Thank you so much, Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Pierce Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain. and we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media

has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.