Piers Morgan Uncensored - “This is NOT America First!” Donald Trump Backs Ukraine To Win War Against Putin

Episode Date: September 24, 2025

Six months ago, President Zelensky was summoned to the Oval Office for an almighty dressing down which sent foreign policy experts into grief and shock. Then just one month ago Putin got the red carpet treatment in Alaska, when all the talk was about Ukraine having no chance of recovering occupied territory. But overnight, everything changed, with Trump following up his extraordinary speech at the UN by declaring that Kyiv “can win back all of Ukraine in its original form.” He also said European NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft in their airspace, which some have argued is gambling with World War Three. Joining Piers Morgan to discuss is ‘Provoked’ author Scott Horton, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Wes Clark and former Republican congressman and US Army reserves Iraq veteran, Peter Meijer. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Preorder Woke is Dead by Piers Morgan: https://harpercollins.co.uk/products/woke-is-dead-how-common-sense-triumphed-in-an-age-of-total-madness-piers-morgan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

People thought it would be over quickly because Russia is a big military power and Ukraine, I tell you, they are good fighters. This is Joe Biden's policy. Donald Trump should know that this is not America First and the America First and MAGA movement should not stand for this. We tried to tell the Biden administration, many of us tried to call. We went. We couldn't get to the president.

Who can lose this? Trump tried to reset that table and Putin was not having it. This is a choose-your-own-adventure presidency, and Putin, I think, has made the wrong choice. Six months ago, President Zelensky was summons to the Oval Office for an almighty dressing down, which sent foreign policy experts into grief and shock. You don't have any cards, Trump told him. You're gambling with World War III. Well, just one month ago, Putin got the red car treatment in Alaska

when all the talk was about Ukraine having no chance of recovering occupied territory. Overnight, everything changed. President Trump followed up his extraordinary speech at the UN by declaring that Kiev can win back all of Ukraine in its original form. You also said European NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft and their airspace, which some have argued is ironically gambling with World War III. Well, joining me on the panel is Scott Horton, author of Provote, General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied commander in Europe,

and Peter Meyer, the former Republican Congressman and U.S. Army Reserve's Iraq veteran. Welcome to all of you. General Wessie Clark, we've spoken many times during this war in Ukraine. a pretty dramatic about faced by Donald Trump in terms of rhetoric yesterday. How significant do you think it is? I think the rhetoric itself is significant. I think it makes a difference to European allies and publics.

Certainly will warn the hearts of people in Eastern Europe who are concerned about President Trump's commitment to NATO and his relationship with Mr. Putin. The rhetoric's good, but maybe there's going to be more behind it, Because after all, the U.S. is the NATO lead. The Eastern Resolve aircraft are under NATO control commanded by U.S. four-star general in Mones. And so I think it represents a change of policy. Whether it goes deeper than that with more military assistance to Ukraine, faster imposition of greater sanctions remains to be seen. But I do think that the change in rhetoric, is significant in itself

because I think President Trump has recognized that he's not going to be able to charm Mr. Putin into ending the war. Yeah, I mean, Scott Horton, you know, I've spoken to President Trump quite a few times during this whole process of his war. I've not seen him come out and basically say this war can be won

emphatically by Ukraine and they can get all their land back. Now, many will question whether that's even possible, but the principle behind what he said was that actually the economy in Russia is really struggling now and that it suffered enormous losses and the reality may be that it can't afford to go on much longer with this war. What is your reading of what Trump said?

It's just typical Trump hyperbole. Nothing has truly changed on the ground in the war there. The Ukrainians had their last big successful offensive three years ago, September of 2022, when they made their great faint and took back all of Harkiv and about a third of Kurson there at that time. It's been all downhill, albeit slowly, ever since.

I'd like to say I agree with the general very much on one point, which is that Trump obviously cannot charm Vladimir Putin out of this war. When Trump said, I can end this war because I'm so great, and I'm just going to tell everyone, everybody to relax, buddy and chill, and then it'll end. He wasn't basing that on anything.

He doesn't really know that much about it. And so it was basically just a slogan. This wouldn't have happened if I had been there. But by the time he was sworn in, as I said on your show before, by time he was sworn in for his second term, he just picked a really bad time to begin his second term as far as his ambition to end the war, which I believe is sincere.

But the Russians are winning very slowly. And they have not succeeded in finishing their goals. The Ukrainians aren't about to turn around and quit territory where they still stand. And the Russians, they should. But they are not going to just stop fighting now and take all of what they have in Donetsk and leave the rest. And so Trump is in no position to just sweet talk them out of it. So now this is probably, you know, his idea of just playing a diplomatic card and threatening that he will increase American support for you. Ukraine. There's nothing that we can do for the Ukrainian army, short of outright intervention

by the American military itself, that's going to turn the tide in the way that he describes there. There's just nothing to that at all. And as far as, you know, Russia is bankrupt, no, they're not. They're sitting on all oil and timber and metals, and they are resource exporters, and they have all of Asia as their market. And so this is Joe Biden's policy. Donald Trump should know better. This is not America first. And the America first, and the America First and MAGA movement should not stand for this. Peter Meyer, what's your take on this? I mean, I've known Trump 20 years.

And he can be very patient with people if you want something out of them right to the point when suddenly you wake up and he's done stuff. And Iran discovered that a few weeks ago. And I think Putin, the way he's now talking about Putin makes me think that Vladimir Putin might wake up to a nasty surprise before too long.

I certainly wouldn't say that Trump is incapable. of doing something which surprises everybody. But this general sense that the war is unwinnable, Trump has now thrown that on his head. Do you think part of what he's doing is encouraging the European community to step up much further and help Ukraine try and achieve what he has now said is achievable?

You've already seen that with the way that he's approached weapon sales, you know, saying, oh, we're not going to sell to the Ukrainians, but we will sell to NATO member countries, and they are more than welcome to pass on those weapons to the Ukrainians, up to an including weaponry that the Biden administration was too hesitant to sell. And I think it's important to step back. You know, Joe Biden, you know, I was in Congress, I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee when Ukraine was invaded.

The Biden administration, their rhetoric for the beginning was very nice about supporting Ukraine, but they were clutching their pearls every time a new weapons request came in for fear of us. The reality is that Russia has been fighting a total war since the beginning, and the West and the U.S. in particular, for fear of that escalation, have tied Ukraine's hands. And what that has done has led to, you know, a relatively frozen front line. There's been, you know, marginal territorial gains by the Russians over the past several years, you know, after that major offensive that Scott was talking about. But where the Ukrainians have succeeded, and this is where in Trump's eyes, nothing succeeds like success, is about creating domestic political pressure. on Putin, which you're not going to see in polls, you're not going to see, you know, in election

results because there's no such thing as a fair election in Russia. But the gas lines, the shortages, the ways the Ukrainians have been leveraging their asymmetric abilities to inflict some of the same frustrations and challenges and bring that war to Russia's feet on their homeland, that has been a significant shifting of the pressure, right? Because we've seen that war of attrition going on in the front. And this is where casualty numbers are hard to come by, you know, international estimates are always challenging, but it does seem that Russia is losing significantly more of their personnel than Ukraine is. They're a much bigger country. They can afford to lose more. But it's foolish to think that at some point, you know, having losses that are

triple, quadruple and potentially quintuple the losses that the Soviets suffered in their invasion of Afghanistan, that at some point you're not going to reach a tipping point. And what Trump is saying here is don't expect us to be the ones to lose patients. Trump has lost patients. Trump has lost patients. and Putin. He let Putin, you know, if there was an opening for Putin to take and to seize and to have an off ramp here, Trump was more than willing to give it to him. But Putin at every stage has spurned that. And I think you're seeing this patience that Trump was extending, trying to do something different than Biden was because, yes, it had entered into a frozen stage. Trump tried to reset that table, and Putin was not having it. And so, you know, this is a choose-your-own-adventure presidency,

and Putin, I think, has made the wrong choice. General Clark is interesting. When Trump suddenly ratcheted up the tariffs with India, for example, citing their purchase of Russian oil, you know, you look at that now and you think, is this really what Trump is doing with a lot of the tariffs now with big countries, saying, look, you've got to put the economic squeeze on Russia and will be a bit more lenient on tariffs

so that he's waging a kind of economic war against Russia, which might, in the end, be more effective than anything else he can do? Well, it's no alternative to the military action on the front. It's a supplement. But as the Congressman said, the fact that the Ukraine can strike deep, that Ukraine can hold the front line, that Ukraine is in a technological competition with Russia, and actually marginally winning this competition, it goes from first-person view drones to

interceptor drones against fiber optic drones, and now it's electro-mac. warfare. There's a lot of technology at play here. But the Ukrainians, I believe, have the edge in innovation. They certainly have the edge and resilience in determination to win. Ukrainian soldiers know that there's no recourse but winning this. And the fact that President Trump has changed his view on this, he now has a policy different than the Biden administration. I welcome this. We try to tell the Biden administration. of us trying to call. We went. We couldn't get to the president. We couldn't get to Jake Sullivan. They kept with this irrational food theater of escalation. But Putin can lose this. Not that the

economy is weak, but the combination of the deep strikes by the Ukrainians, the disruption to the petrochemical complex, the interruption of exports, the tariffs, the ability to take banking and shut it down with Russia, the $300 billion of Russian currency that's held mostly in Belgium, all of this, along with some assistance from the Europeans and providing the weapons. And look, I think the other thing is President Trump understands there's no recourse to this. The reason I say that is because Ukraine has the strongest army in Europe. And if Ukraine fell tomorrow, Poland, Germany, Italy, France would not be able to simply stand up and say, okay, mobilize, stop the economy, create reserves.

Everybody, there's conscription now. Let's form a massive army. You'd have 700,000 Russian troops that are now in Ukraine free to go against Europe. They would pick up whatever's left with the Ukrainian forces, and you'd be confronting a massive security problem in Europe. And it's in our vital interest to maintain stability in Europe. I think President Trump understands it. So I think he has shifted. We'll see if the actions support the rhetoric.

But I do believe the Russian conquest is not only flawed, it's vulnerable. I do believe Ukraine with assistance, more technology, the A. Takams continue the U.S. intelligence support can push the Russians back. And if you want an agreement in Ukraine, you've got to convince Putin he's losing. Right now he doesn't believe that. But this rhetorical shift by the President of the United States will go a long way in convincing Putin he's going to lose. Okay, Scott Horton, I want to read just some quotes from President Zelensky today speaking at the UN in New York. There are no security guarantees except friends with weapons, he said.

He warned that the weapons of war are evolving quickly. We're now living through the most destructive arms race. in human history. Weapons are evolving faster than our ability to defend ourselves. Only Russia deserves to be blamed for this. Rather than wait for a country to develop a drone that can deliver a nuclear weapon, he said, it was cheaper to stop Russia now. If it takes weapons to do it, if it takes pressure to do it, it must be done. He says Ukraine doesn't have the big fat missiles. Dictators love to show off in parades. He said peace depends on all of us. Don't stay silent while Russia keeps dragging this war on. He warned that Putin would keep driving.

the war forward wider and deeper and that Ukraine is only the first. And he also said that God saved Donald Trump, which I thought was quite interesting. President Trump stood right here in this hall and God saved him from a murder attempt during the campaign. A shot was fired from a rifle and just half as a fraction of an inch saved his life. So they've come a long way those two since the Oval Office bust up and clearly a better relationship. And we don't know what's being on behind the scenes in New York, but quite a lot, I would think. And, you know, Zelensky is right. Ultimately, the best security guarantee that Ukraine can have

is a lot of very well-armed friends, giving them a lot of big weaponry. But to General Clark's point, I mean, do you believe that Putin is vulnerable? Well, I mean, there's a lot here. First of all, yes, Zelensky has been briefed that Donald Trump likes flattery a lot. So, yes, sir, Jesus, intervening to save you from that bullet

is a great way to get on Trump's good side. there's nothing actually substantive there at all. But you understand now, we're supposed to believe that with a little bit more help from America, Ukraine can turn this thing around and rid the whole country right back to 2014 borders, 2013 borders, Crimea too, I guess, and retake the whole country. At the same time, though, if we don't back them, they'll be crushed, and then the Russians will be next in Berlin and then Paris. And there will be nothing to stop them because that's what an unstoppable juggernaut they are.

You could see the massive contradiction here. I think my argument carries much more weight that they're having a hard time taking the east. It's inevitable that they will. They have the Institute for Study of War. The Kagan's just put out a new thing saying that the Russians have built up a new 300,000 man reserve, mostly of battle experience guys who've rotated into Ukraine and out again. And so, yeah, they are winning, but it's being, it's a real pain in the ass. I think the fact that we got to resort to these ridiculous exaggerations that the Russians are losing five times as many men on the battlefield as the Ukrainians or these analogies to Afghanistan.

Does anyone think that Afghanistan was as important to the Russians as Ukraine? It was never even one of the Soviet republics. It was just a kami sock puppet dictatorship. Two stands away from Russia. They didn't care about that. Ukraine has been part of Russia for 300 years. And it's been, obviously, it's their absolute highest security concern. We're supposed to believe that somehow long gas lines in Russia as temporary as they may be,

or as long as they may exist, or these slight disruptions to Russian industry or fuel resources or whatever, that that is going to cause the people of Russia to cause Vladimir Putin to quit the field and turn around and come home, due to their popular dissatisfaction, give me a break, give me a plan, and in general, all due respect, without resorting to an analogy about World War II, like the last three times we've argued here. Tell me how in the world the Americans and Europeans, without putting their own soldiers on the ground,

bringing our Navy into this fight, our Air Force into this fight, can help the Ukrainians actually drive the Russians out of Lujansk and Donetsk, Zeproja, and Kursan, and the territory that they've already taken. Without telling me something about internal politics in Moscow, tell me how the Russian military is going to be defeated on the field here, when, yes, there's advances in drones, but there's advances in drones on both sides, tit for tat.

There's no massive qualitative advantage for the Russians there, and I know that you have to know, I mean, for the Ukrainians or the Russians there, as you must understand. Okay, well, you've posed a question, so let me get the generals to respond. Today's show is brought to you by Oxford Natural, makers of the optimum day and optimum night all natural supplements. Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results.

Optimum day is designed to boost your energy and support weight loss throughout the day. Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep. And don't just take their word for it. Here are just a few of their success stories. England football legend Michael Owen lost £40. pounds. Robbie, the face of AFTV, dropped over £100. Linda, a top laurel firm executive, lost £50. And Anita, an immigration lawyer, shed £60 to watch their full stories and find out more.

Scan the QR code on your screen or visit Oxfordnatural.com slash peers. And here's the best part. Use the code peers, P-I-E-R-S, and get 70% off your first order. Get 70% off with the promo code, Peers. Unsensit is proudly sponsored by Cozy Earth, which like me delivers next level quality and comfort. If I wasn't hosting this show today, I'd be wearing a pair of their bamboo joggers. Why? Well, they're buttery soft.

They never lose their shape. And besides TV appearances, you can wear them for pretty much anything. Flight, school runs, or just relaxing at home. For those seeking intense comfort in more formal attire, take a look at their everywhere pant. Lightweight, breathable, ludicrously flexible, but still polished enough, to wear out. If you're ready to look sharp and feel great, go to cozy earth.com and use code peers, P-I-E-R-S, for up to 40% off joggers, pants, shirts, everything. And remember to tell them that I sent you. Cozy Earth built for real life. I think the Russian military is vulnerable to

offensive operations. The Ukrainians are establishing core level, command and control. They'll be able to use the combat multipliers. They'll take advantage of the U.S. multi-domain task force that's operating in Europe and their support. And with the right combination of artillery, electronic warfare, air defense, the use of offensive air support, there are many things that Ukraine can do to drive the Russians out. The Russian military is thinly stretched right now. They are still trying to execute offensive operations. They failed to make a significant penetration in the Northeast. They're struggling around Pocross.

Every penetration they make is isolated and encircled and then eliminated. They haven't been able to advance toward their objective in Kyrgyzon. Of course, they want to take Mikhailiev and Odessa this year. That's why Putin is stalling. That's why I won't agree to anything. And President Trump, I think, sees it with U.S. intelligence. support. I'd like to get them a-tacombs. More artillery ammunition. Let's get better spare barrels for those 577s, those 777 artillery pieces we've given them. They're only good for

2,000 rounds per two. We can do better than that. Those are just some of the things. And the Europeans can do more armored fighting vehicles, drones, et cetera. We have U.S. drones. Sir, is that very effective? Isn't that what we've already been doing? The technological advantage is fleeting. Right now, the Ukrainians have it. They can gain it. And with the right kind of support from the United States and allies, they can punch a hole in those Russian lines and go forward and regain terrain.

It can be done. But, sir, all you're saying really is more of the same, when, in fact, the Ukrainians have not been moving the line on the battlefield their way in three years. You're correct that the Russians are moving. very slowly, but the Ukrainians haven't made a single advance along that same line that you described. And you're not describing a difference, really, other than more of what we've already been doing. You asked me what could be done. I told you what could be done. I said more to same. Well, hang on, hang on. Let me jump in. Let me jump in, Scott. I think, unless I misheard of the general,

you say more of the same. He's saying a lot more of the same, because actually, Ukraine has put up a much better fight than many people ever assumed possible. In fact, they were supposed to be rolled over in Kiev in a few days at the start of all this. That didn't happen. They've actually managed to create a virtual stalemate on the battlefield. I agree with you that probably Russia is slightly edging it, but they're certainly not dominating this war in the way that I suspect Putin imagined they could. And I think what the general was saying, very articulately and with great detail, is that if we pile on the amount of weaponry that the Ukrainians can deploy, if we massively increase it, which is what Trump is getting at as well, and Trump puts on the economic squeeze on Russia at the same time,

it could get a lot more interesting. And I think it probably could. Let me bring Peter back in here. Peter, Trump has renewed a call for himself to be given the Nobel Peace Prize, effectively, saying he ended seven wars in seven months at the UN. I think we've got a clip of him talking here. I ended seven wars. And in all cases, they were raging with countless thousands of people being killed. No president or a prime minister, and for that matter, no other country has ever done anything close to that. And I did it in just seven months.

It's too bad that I had to do these things instead of the United Nations doing them. Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements. But for me, the real prize will be the sons and daughters who live to grow up with their mothers and fathers because millions of people are no longer being killed in endless and undelorious wars. What I care about is not winning prizes at saving lives. It's interesting, Peter, because, again, I've had a lot of conversations with Donald Trump privately about this. I don't doubt for a second his desire to forge peace, not war,

everywhere he can. I think he's genuine. He thinks wars are just too expensive in terms of human life, in terms of actual cost. He doesn't see the point of it. He wants to make love, not war. And you know what? To have an American-Republican president with that worldview, I'm good with that.

How much credit do you think he deserves for these seven conflicts wars that he says he's resolved? And should he get the Nobel Peace president? I was asked this last week on a panel show in the UK. And I said, well, Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize eight months into his tenure for a couple of fancy speeches. If that is the bar that Trump has to meet, I think he's way exceeded it already. He's only not got it because he's Donald Trump. But how much credit should he get for these seven wars he says he's ended?

I think it deserves a tremendous amount of credit because, again, Trump comes into office. And when I say he's a choose-your-own-adventure presidency, you know, the folks on the other side of the table, they have every ability to dictate how they are perceived. Whatever happened in the past, whatever grievances, whatever positions the United States took, that can change if they are willing to make concessions, if they're willing to approach things from a different standpoint. I think the most concrete example that I can point to is his actions around Armenia and Azerbaijan around the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

He came in, and instead of the prior administration is looking at it and trying to say, Okay, who's our friend, who's our ally? You know, where do we assign moral blame? Trump just says, let's find a tangible, articulable American interest here. In this case, you know, settling the conflict is in our interest. But how do we maintain that interest? Look for the minerals. Look for the national security angle here.

And let's consolidate our position around that. And what I think is brilliant about that strategy is that can live past his administration. That can be something that whether you're a Republican or Democrat, whatever may happen down the line, we can center our policy on something that the American people, when they ask, why do we care about this? What's in our interest? We can point to something. So, I mean, I love his foreign policy. You're not going to find me criticizing it. Seven wars, there may be some hyperbole. There may be some exaggeration. But his team is not just looking at what's in the headlines and how do we make sure that we have a response on X or Y conflict. But

they're actively looking across the globe and saying, where can we bring a different approach? to try to resolve this peacefully, because at the end of the day, the U.S. benefits from stability, Russia benefits from instability, from conflict, their entire periphery. Putin's goal has been to destabilize and foment chaos because those countries that are inward-looking and are engaged in some type of a chaotic civil conflict, that's not a threat to him. What that is a threat to is a threat to all of those who want to engage peacefully in the world. So I'm fully on board with what he's doing. Scott Horton, you maintained a very stoically statute-like expression through that.

Do I take it you're not entirely in agreement that Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize, or can you find it in your heart to think he deserves some credit? No, I mean, look, he's Joe Biden in the Gaza Strip, which is the worst thing that a human being could possibly be. It's just absolutely horrific what he's helping the Israelis do to the poor Palestinian, and their poor captive population that they have there. And as we've been discussing here, he's talking about escalating the war in Ukraine.

I'm all for him picking up the phone like apparently he did when it came to Indian Pakistan and they're a little skirmish over Kashmir and in the fight between Thailand and was it North Vietnam or Cambodia, I'm sorry. Cambodia. He picked up the phone and said, hey, guys, knock it off. That is what, I don't know if you guys ever heard this,

but William Jennings, Brian, back 100 years ago, bragged about how America was not weighted down by militarism like our European peers, and instead was a limited constitutional republic and that was in the position to host peace conferences and to try to get other countries to come to peaceful terms, but explicitly without having a dog in the fight. Quite frankly, we could have American corporations

with unlimited commercial interests in Armenia and Azerbaijan. That doesn't mean the United States of America has to be intervening there. And in fact, when the U.S. is intervening there, what are they doing? They're propping up the hereditary dictatorship in Azerbaijan since 1993, as long as the BTC pipeline goes west instead of south through Iran or north through Russia. And it's all these empire games, which I know General Clark used to be good on this stuff back in the 90s before he changed his mind. But Strobe Talbot and some of the others who are skeptical about NATO expansion

and skeptical about restarting the Cold War with Russia, said, you know what, we shouldn't be doing this until they changed their mind and decided to do it instead anyway. And that is a huge part. In fact, I wrote this book, it's this thick. It's 977,000 or 477,000 words, about a thousand page long book of a history.

It's called Provoked How America Started the New Cold War with Russia. General Clark, you're in it. You might like to read this thing. And I show how... You know better. They all knew better all along. The Hawks knew better. Madeline Albright knew better. Strobe Talbot knew better. And even Kissinger and Brzezinski and all of the people, the entire Bush administration, told him not to do the Bucharest declaration except the vice president's office. Victoria Newland and the war party in the vice president's office. But the entire embassy, the entire state department and secretary defense gates said, do not do this. It's an unnecessary provocation against the Russians.

The Germans of the French tried to stop them to. This whole thing is another case of America getting our friends into trouble and ultimately leaving them high and dry to be killed and destroyed. I'll take that as a no then to the Trump Nobel Peace Prize. General Clark, should Trump get the Nobel Peace Prize? I think he's doing some remarkable work. Here's, look, the conventional wisdom around President's years, don't do this, don't do that, check this, check that, send a low-level emissary, see what he can come up with.

What I like about President Trump and what a lot of foreign leaders respect about him is, he's a take-charge leader. He believes he has the ability to look through things and put to the presidential prestige, the credibility of the United States, behind it. And I think in the case of Ukraine, if he stays with the policy initiated, it's going to bring great results. Some problems are difficult. Yes, Gaza is difficult. But on the other hand, are you going to let Hamas be a winner? You're going to have them come out and say, yeah, we won, we won, we're terrorists. And so it is a dilemma for the United States.

It's been a terrible dilemma for the president. But here's the thing. President Trump's had the personal courage, whatever his motivation, you may say, It's a crazy motivation just to think I'm going to win the Nobel Peace Prize. But whatever that motivation is, he is a take charge leader. And that's what the world needs right now, and that's what the United States needs in its foreign policy. So I agree with what the congressman said about Armenia and Azerbaijan. And here's the other thing.

Mr. Putin drew his cards on the table. He gave up working within the international system. So in order to corral this and pull the system together, of course, we're going to. going to play games with Central Asia. Of course we want that pipeline to go through and not go into Russia. Of course we're going to be talking to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. We want stability, and we want Mr. Putin to understand he doesn't have to recreate the Russian Empire to be safe in this world. All he has to do is treat his citizens and other country citizens with respect. follow the UN Declaration of Human Rights,

move into the 21st century, work with other nations, give up 18th century Russian imperialism. What a great panel. What a great debate. Thank you all very much. Really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm here, Morgan. I'm a black lesbian. Hollywood has been trying to remove masculinity for it seems like the last decade. There were tears that ran down my face, but I did not. crying. I mean, that's crying.

Your tweet about a sex tape coming next is quite... inevitable. Inevitable. And incredibly inevitable. Inevitable. Americans are fat pigs and British people have effed up teeth. But we're allies. When we say good genes are the ones... What a load of crap. I saw Beyonce do a jeans ad.

Everybody drooled over it. Should trans athletes have their own category now? What's the answer?