The Ben Mulroney Show - Are we on the verge of finding out what really happened to JFK?

Episode Date: February 12, 2025

Guests and Topics: -Are we on the verge of finding out what really happened to JFK? with Guest: Nathan Radke, Co-Host of the Conspiracy Theory podcast The Uncoverup -Ukraine Prepared To Offer Territory Swap With Russia with Guest: John Hardie, Russia Program Deputy Director with The Foundation for Defense of Democracies If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-ben-mulroney-show Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

TD Direct Investing offers live support. So whether you're a newbie or a seasoned pro, you can make your investing steps count. And if you're like me and think a TFSA stands for total fund savings adventure, maybe reach out to TD Direct Investing. Hey, it's Ben O'Hara Bird filling in for Ben Mulroney. We had so many great conversations on the show.

Here are some of them. Great to have you here. It is indeed Ben. It's just not Ben Mulroney. We had so many great conversations on the show. Here are some of them. Great to have you here. It is indeed Ben. It's just not Ben Mulroney. It's Ben O'Hara Byrd. I'm the host of Conversations. Normally you hear me in the evenings. You're hearing me just a little bit earlier today. If you're turning it again, as I was mentioning, if you turn on the radio expecting to hear one voice and you hear another, you always want to know, well, who is that if you don't know the show? Don't know me. Just quickly, I spent decades as a reporter in the field. I was a foreign correspondent, lived abroad for quite a while, covered wars, covered disasters and so on. Spent some time on Parliament Hill, so I have a real healthy skepticism of all politicians of all parties.

So I'm a bit of a straight shooter, a bit of a fair guy that way. I don't hate them. I don't hate just one. I tend to dislike all of them to a certain extent, but some more than others. And just as a quick aside, why this is such a circular moment for me, many years ago when I was in Beijing, I sat down for the very first time to interview Brian Mulroney. And it was a great interview. I forget exactly what it was about at the time. It goes back a bit. Wasn't the last time I interviewed him. I met him again a few times after that. I had him on my show, the late, great Brian Mulroney. But when I sat down to interview him, I said, my name is Ben.

And he said, oh, by the way, my son's name is also Ben. I said, yes, yes, Mr. Mulroney. I know, and here we are. Here I am sitting in for Ben Mulroney. So a bit of a circular journey for me. I've been thinking a lot about the late Brian Mulroney today, what he would make of the new Trump administration, its threats around trade, its willingness or want to tear up Acusma or replace NAFTA ultimately.

And just his whole talk about making Canada the 51st state. This is the sort of talk that folks like Brian Mulroney, obviously Jean Chrétien, Stephen Harper, we'll talk about him later, come out to say is absolutely unacceptable. I would agree, I think these days, at least when it comes to Canada-US relations, Irish eyes are certainly not smiling. I mean, this has been an existential threat to our economy. The idea of tariffs, the idea of tariffs already placed on steel and aluminum is a big deal. We have those other tariffs hanging over us still which could come into place on March the 4th. I mean, let's be frank here. There are many issues, many reasons why Canada was ill-prepared for this and that was unforgivable. We found ourselves in a vulnerable situation at the very time where our economy should

be the strongest and it's not. And that's our fault. But the threat and the way this is being carried out, talk of making us the 51st state, talk of economic warfare against a loyal and long time trading partner isn't of itself absolutely unacceptable. I think we'll be hearing more of that. I was looking on Amazon the other day, there is merchandise out there

calling Canada the 51st state. I heard from a friend of my mom's, they went down to Florida, told they weren't welcome at a place they've been going to for years. So make no mistake, this is intentional. This is an intentional attack on us and how we respond to it is going to dictate how the next four years are gonna be.

And it's a very difficult needle to thread because you have many different people saying many different things about what exactly Donald Trump wants out of all this. Don't forget, he has the weight of the most powerful country the world has ever known, and the most powerful economy the world has ever known to bash us with. And that's not fun. If you're trying to stand up to a 10 foot bully in the school yard, you

got to be careful. You got to be careful. And tariffs are not a negotiating tool. They're a bludgeon. And of course, there's a lot of falsehoods in here as well. Donald Trump saying that we stole the auto industry from the US, we didn't. Henry Ford came into Canada and worked out a deal just a few years after he opened up shop in Detroit and opened up Ford Canada. We helped build the auto industry.

We helped build a lot of what America has. I was reading today that they're gonna have trouble serving Big Macs and McDonald's if they ban imports of potash that is all Canadian, mostly Canadian, by the way, we're all Canadian, the ones that they get. You know, the price of a Big Mac would go through the roof. The idea that somehow you can get rid of Canada in this relationship is obscene and ludicrous. He says it's true, but it's not. So we do have some cards to play here. And it's with that in mind that all 13 premiers, including Doug Ford of Ontario, is in the middle of an election campaign, are in Washington together. have some cards to play here. And it's with that in mind that all 13 premiers, including

Doug Ford of Ontario, he was in the middle of an election campaign, are in Washington together. It's the first time they've ever been in the American Capitol all together at the same time. And they're really down there to try to send the message that this relationship is fundamental, fundamental. Now, Kevin O'Leary, who you've heard from before, obviously the Dragon's Den host, he says this is just about renegotiation. Have a listen. The Canadian thing is different. I think what's going on there is a renegotiation of NAFTA,

if you wanna call it that, because let's just take aluminum. The reason aluminum, 70% of the imports into the US comes from Canada, is Canada has the cheapest power in North America. You need a lot of electricity to make aluminum. Most of us know that bill data centers in the US comes from Canada, is Canada has the cheapest power in North America. You need a lot of electricity to make aluminum. Most of us know that bill data centers in the US that there's no power left on the grid. Canadians have it in that gas, they have it in hydro.

So that's really a discussion about an integration of the economies that's beginning. Unfortunately for Canada, we're in a limbo zone there because the government has fallen and there's no elections for another six weeks. So we don't have anybody to negotiate with right now. Trudeau, as you know, has fallen out of favor, doesn't have a mandate with the Canadian people. However, the premiers like Doug Ford in Ontario and Daniel Smith, they're talking with their counterparts like Doug Burgum and Howard Litnick and they're all talking every day. Yeah, I mean, uh, Kevin makes some good points there. I I want to think that this is about renegotiating

Kuzma NAFTA, whatever NAFTA 2 whatever you want to call it the USMCA About negotiating the deal that donald trump said was the greatest deal ever signed when he signed it In his first term not that long ago I worry sometimes that it's not though that it's gotten beyond that that this isn't about negotiating with us this is about grabbing what we have taking it not negotiating for it because throughout his history as a deal maker Donald Trump has been someone who steals he essentially takes and doesn't pay his contractors for instance I think sometimes he looks at Canada and thinks we're an easy mark and that's what I worry about.

The federal government did do one of the things they promised to do to try to get to get that delay in those tariffs, that one month delay. They've named a fentanyl czar. It is former Mountie Kevin Brosseau. Now he spent a lot of time in the upper echelons of the RCMP, including in Manitoba, including in a head office. He's most recently been a security advisor to the Trudeau government. So he's inside.

Now, there's been a lot of criticism as to why would you appoint someone who's essentially already inside your circle to take this position. Now, I see the good and bad in it. The good is he's already in government. He obviously has been around the country. He's been in the upper echelons of the RCMP.

He knows the machinations of this because they're gonna have to deal with provinces, they're gonna have to deal with policing. There's all kinds of different levels of government that are involved in policing the border, in taking care of the drug trade, and fighting the drug trade. And this person could be the point person for the Americans. That's what they want. And he's a cop and that's good. The bad part is he's already in Trudeau's inner circle. So what happens if there's an election? Does he get tossed right away? Do we have a Fentanyl Tsar for six weeks and then he's gone?

It would have made more sense, and this is not a knock on his qualifications. It would have made more sense to go out and find someone, honestly, who was a bit more impartial in all this, or at least seemed to be impartial, because that way maybe they hold on through a change of government. Maybe the Americans can come back to the same Fentanyl czar after the next

election and not have him tossed because he happened to be too close to the federal government. Speaking of trade, one of the big things that's come out of all this is diversification, right? One of the issues that one of the ways that Canada can come back and fight back in all this is by diversifying our trade. Easier said than done often, but Quebec's Premier François Lago, he's in that Canada can come back and fight back in all this is by diversifying our trade. Easier said than done often. But Quebec's premier, France Willigo, he's in Washington too these days. He says when it comes to Canada's very important or Quebec specifically, is very important aluminum trade.

We send tons of aluminum to the US. We're by far the biggest supplier. Kevin O'Leary was mentioning it's to do with our cheap energy. It is. And Quebec's the main producer of it. He feels like he is province to's the main producer of it. He feels like he, his province, can diversify. Have a listen. There's not much risk for the aluminum business in Quebec because there's no overcapacity. So if the United States decide to buy aluminum aluminum from Asia or from Europe then we'll send.. we'll sell to Europe and Asia. So there's a balance, so it's not much risk.

I think the risk is for Mr. Trump because in the United States they use every year 5 million tons of aluminum and they only produce 7 or 800,000 which is 14% of their needs. We supply 60, we Quebec supply 60% of their needs. There you have it, so they have the US over the over a barrel to a certain extent but here speaking of barrels here's an interesting contradiction. So Frostwell-le-Gaulle comes out says, we need to diversify. But you know what Quebec won't do? Allow a pipeline over their territory. At least that's what Bloc Québécois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet has said. No new pipelines across Quebec. So how is the rest of the country

supposed to diversify? It's all fine and dandy. Quebec can diversify. Good for them. But the rest of the country needs to diversify too. And that can't happen if Quebec stands in the way of provinces like Alberta being able to get their energy to market. Contradictions there that simply make no sense if we're in a real trade war with the US. When we return, how close are we to blowing the lid off the JFK assassination and the truth behind it? It's a fascinating one. This is such an interesting story.

I think, when I think conspiracy theory, I think the first one I ever heard of, the first one I ever became obsessed with was the assassination of JFK, which happened seven years before I was born, almost to the day, seven years. You know, obviously I read Dom DeLillo's Libra, I saw the JFK movie when it came out,

when Oliver Stone's movie came out. It's one of those stories that never ceases to interest folks. On the anniversaries over the past couple of years, I've spoken to the JFK Museum, which is in the book depository right where he was, the official story goes, where Lee Harvey Oswald fired those shots.

I had the author of the JFK site on Substack on recently this year to talk about the anniversary as well because we were anticipating the release of the remaining declassified documents in this case. Donald Trump has of course promised and he made this promise to RFK Jr., JFK's nephew that they would declassify what remaining documents exist on the JFK assassination.

What I heard from at that point was there actually wasn't much out there left to learn. Most of what we've understood about what happened that day is either on paper or we'll just have to continue guessing for many years. But the representative that's been put in charge of this declassification process, who's essentially head of this new declassification

task force is a woman named Anna Paulina Luna. And she came out with this remarkable statement about this long talked about conspiracy earlier this week. Have a listen. Our first investigation will be announced, but it's going to be covering on a thorough investigation into the John F. Kennedy assassination. And I can tell you based on what I've been seeing so far,

the initial hearing that was actually held here in Congress was actually faulty in the single bullet theory. I believe that there were two shooters, and we should be finding more information as we are able to gain access into the skip, hopefully before the files are actually released to the public. Yeah, there you have it. Two shooters. So says representative Republican in Florida Anna Polina Luna how she came to that conclusion when people have been pouring over this data and all this stuff for years and decades and decades and speculating about it who

knows who knows what she's seen I was led to believe there wasn't much in those classified documents that would get us there. Nathan Radke is co-host of the Conspiracy Theory podcast, the uncover-up and author of Symbalance and Hyperion Las Vegas, and he joins us now. Nathan, thanks for your time. Well, thanks for having me on. That is quite the statement. I mean, this, by the way, I should point out that the representative also thought she wanted to call members of the Warren Commission back to testify or to talk to them, and they're all all dead. So I mean, I don't know how her grasp on history is, but she seems to think two shooters, man, this one endures and endures. I mean, she can't be that old.

Yeah. I mean, this is a pretty wild thing for a representative to say. And she's referring to the Warren Commission, which of course was the official government investigation of the assassination. And the Warren Commission came to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, there was no conspiracy, there was no second shooter. But there actually were a bunch of issues with that commission. There was political pressure to conclude that Oswald acted alone because any hint that the Soviet Union was involved could have possibly escalated things and maybe even led to World War III.

We know now looking back that the CIA deliberately withheld information from the Warren Commission in order to ensure that the Commission supported that lone gunman hypothesis, which was the hypothesis that the CIA wanted to arrive at. Right, and which continues to this day, right? I mean, that still is the official story. Interestingly enough, what do you think's in those still classified documents? Because I was speaking to people on the anniversary of the assassination last November, who follow this pretty closely. They didn't think there was much left to learn. I mean, there's been so much documentation released already. They didn't think there was much left to learn, but who knows?

Well, I mean, obviously I'm going to go over them as soon as they come out. And as soon as we hear something about previously unknown files, it's hard not to imagine that, oh, there's got to be some kind of secrets or covered up information. But we always have to remember that the FBI and the CIA are massive bureaucracies, and massive bureaucracies make massive piles of paper. And so some of it's going to be memos, letters, reports.

I agree with the other people you've spoken to. I'm not optimistic that this new file dump is going to get us any closer to establishing what happened to JFK, but it is possible that some of these files might have some damaging information to the FBI and to the CIA. Yeah. What's interesting given what you do is how

enduring the JFK conspiracy, the JFK story has been. I was talking yesterday on my show conversations about a murder that happened back in the early 60s and how the person who committed these murders wound up living out their life quietly in Tabor, Alberta. And it was amazing because people had completely forgotten about her existence if they weren't there at the time. This happened at the same time as the JFK assassination, and we've been talking about that for 60 plus years. Yeah, and it's very understandable why. There are a number of legitimate questions about this lone gunman theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Like the number of shots that were taken so accurately in such a short period of time from a difficult angle. Of course, the death

of the alleged assassin Oswald before he could testify, the links that Oswald's shooter, Jack Ruby, had to the mob, the links that Oswald had to the Soviet Union and to Cuba, the eyewitness evidence that suggested a second shooter, the smell of gunpowder at street level and the reported sound of where the shots were fired from and how many shots were fired. And of course, eyewitness testimony is flawed for a number of reasons, but it should still be taken into consideration. And in fact, what Luna said about a second

shooter, there was a 1976 congressional investigation that came to the same conclusion that there was a conspiracy and there was a second shooter. When you look at it in the grand scheme of things, and I think we often place everything in the modern context, how much did that individual,

what single event lead to sort of the birth of a lot of conspiratorial thinking, some of it absolutely bang on true about government and coverup, because I had the impression that prior to that, there was this idea that governments were sort of honest or at least transparent, that post JFK assassination, we entered this period of great, of great suspicion of the so-called official lie.

Absolutely. I mean, in the 1950s, people trusted their government to a degree. And then after the JFK assassination, we just saw a bit of a spiraling down into a skepticism that verged on paranoia. But it was understandable. There were a lot of sketchy aspects about the JFK assassination, a lot of sketchy aspects about Martin Luther King's murder, and Robert F. Kennedy. And then once we hit the 70s, we have things like Watergate. And we start to get information on secret programs like MKUltra, which was the CIA's mind control program or COINTELPRO, which was a massive FBI surveillance program that ran completely out of control.

And people started realizing, you know, maybe the government agencies have been getting up to some like real nonsense here. And maybe we deserve to know what those, what those things have been. Yeah. They crossed over the Canadian border as well, if I remember correctly.

Yeah. Uh, MKUltra did have an aspect that was done up in McGill where there were, there was involuntary subjects who were being experimented on. I mean, this stuff isn't even conspiracy theory anymore. It's tragically simply history. Yeah. Bang on fact. Oh, where to from here? I mean, I've isn't even conspiracy theory anymore. It's tragically simply history. Yeah, bang on fact.

Oh, where to from here? I mean, I've always suspected we're never going to know exactly what happened that day back in November of 1963. It will always be the subject of speculation, but maybe just maybe, maybe just maybe, um, you know, we have a representative now of the government saying there were two shooters,

maybe just maybe the official line will be changed. I mean, it's entirely possible. And I am extremely curious about, we're talking about maybe 2,500 new files that are going to be coming out that were previously, I mean, they weren't hidden. They just weren't labeled as having to do with the Kennedy assassination.

And as soon as they come out, I'm going to be spending, I'm sure days and days going over them with a fine tooth comb to try to put together this weird puzzle where unfortunately it feels like sometimes all of the pieces are different sizes and they're always changing location. Well, Nathan, I look forward to catching up

when you have an eye on those declassified documents. Thank you so much. Well, thanks for having me on. Nathan Radke, cohost of the conspiracy Conspiracy Theory podcast called The Uncover-Up, an author of surveillance and hyperion Las Vegas. Thanks for tuning in. It's Ben O'Hara Bird here sitting in for Ben while Rudy.

There's been a lot of movement of the past, the past while on the Russian Ukraine front. Some big developments to tell you about. One was the release of a prisoner by the Russians, by the name of Peter Fogle. He was a teacher who had been arrested by the Russians in Moscow in 2022, apparently for bringing, for trying to smuggle drugs in. He wasn't part of that big prisoner exchange last year. We don't know what the Americans ceded in return, but he was released by Putin and he flew back into Washington on Tuesday and was welcomed

at the White House. And US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has now saying that the way forward for Ukraine is to abandon its hopes of a return to its pre-2014 borders. I spent a lot of time there in 2013, 2014 and so on, so that would include Crimea, parts of the East and so on. And he's saying that they need to prepare for negotiated settlement with Russia, one that should be backed up with an international force of troops to try and keep the peace in the meantime. So ever since the election of Donald Trump or at least the inauguration of Donald Trump

there's been a lot of eyes on the Russia-Ukraine war. You know, it's been going on for a long time now. It doesn't show any signs of dying down between the two opposing nations at this point in time. But there certainly is a push here to try and get a deal done. Donald Trump said he could have this war ended. It never would have started if he had been president. He could have it ended before he even took office.

Here we are a few weeks into his second term. And of course, war is still raging there. Is there an appetite from all three sides to end this war now? John Hardy is the Russia program deputy director with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and he joins me now. John, thanks for your time. Thanks for having me on. I guess just your thoughts on the return of Mark Fogel. I mean I think it seemed like a relatively, if you weren't paying close attention it might have seemed like a separate issue but there was some fairly high praise for Russia and Vladimir Putin from the

president and from Mark Fogel himself yesterday or on Tuesday at least, and that seems important to me. Right, I think you know the White House has been pitching this as a show of good faith by the Russians and I think from Moscow, you know, there's very little that you're giving up here. Reportedly, according to the Kremlin, they're giving somebody back in return. We don't know who, but I think from Moscow, you know, there's very little that you're giving up here. Reportedly, according to the Kremlin, they're getting somebody back in return. We don't know who. But I think really this is a way to sort of smooth the path toward what the Kremlin hopes will be very favorable peace talks on Ukraine, meeting Putin's demands for essentially what amounts to Ukrainian capitulation.

So I'll put this in the same category of Putin's recent statement sort of buttering Trump up. Yeah. I mean, Pete Hicks says with it, with the new defense secretary was out as well talking about the idea of Ukraine needing to abandon its hopes for a return to pre 2014 borders. I think Ukraine might be okay with a return to its pre 2014 borders at this point. They mightn't be okay with a return to what, to what14 borders at this point. They mightn't be okay with a return to what to what to a frozen conflict with the borders are now. Vladimir Zelensky was out saying that they would want to trade territory of course they're inside the Kursk region in Russia they would give

that back for they haven't said yet. Is there an app are we approaching something like a settlement here it feels like both Moscow and Kiev are far apart on this one. They remain quite a ways away. And I think even more than territory, the key issue will be, what is post-war Ukrainian security guarantees? What do they look like? Does Moscow succeed in imposing constraints on Ukrainian sovereignty to include limits on the side of Ukrainian armed forces. For Putin, his demands were essentially Ukraine vulnerable to further Russian aggression. He wants it to be a favorable government in Kiev.

It's kind of pliable and respectful for Russian demands and interests. So he wants to kind of arrest its movement towards the West, whereas Ukraine of course wants the complete opposite and ironclad security guarantees from the West to include NATO membership, which of course, had except just ruled out. Yeah. I mean, one of the things I find interesting here, having spent time there in 2013, 2014, sort of during Maidan and then of course the invasion of Crimea is just how rigid and inflexible, and I don't mean this in a bad way, the Ukrainian population has become.

It's going to be a very, very hard sell for Vladimir Zelensky for anything that looks like capitulation. Now obviously Vladimir Putin on his side doesn't have any of those pressures, but Vladimir Zelensky is in a tough negotiating position here because he can't be seen to be ceding much here considering they've managed to fend off Moscow for this long. Right. So I think that the tough thing for President Zelensky is giving the good security guarantees I just mentioned. I think the majority of Ukrainian public would welcome a deal if it does include those guarantees, that's what polling suggests.

But, you know, it's going to be, you know, that's easier said than done, especially given the Trump administration's position. One thing that's unclear, we know that Hexess said, you know, we're not going to put U.S. troops on the ground as part of a post-war peacekeeping force, but would the United States be willing to provide other support, enabling capabilities, intelligence support, etc. for a Europe-led peacekeeping force to make that mission militarily and politically feasible? I think absent that, I don't know what we're talking about in terms of security guarantees. Yeah, John Hardy is with us. We're talking about, he's the Russia program deputy director with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. We're talking about if we're any closer at this point to any kind of peace deal to

end the war between Russia and Ukraine that's been going on since Russia's further invasion of Ukraine several years back. Now we're on the air when it happened in 2022, if I get my dates right. So we're heading into towards year three now or year, the anniversary, the third anniversary. Um, when you look at this, John, I mean, one of the things that, what happens next, because of course the warning has always been not just from Ukraine, but many near NATO allies that are in that region, that if you allow Putin to get away with this land grab, and you allow him to

negotiate his way out of this and sort of freeze this conflict on Ukraine's borders, that it just will, he'll just bide his time, if he has the time, but this will just set a signal that this is okay. And I think that's what the West has been trying to avoid now for years. Right. I think there's a way to look at this that doesn't kind of accept the caricature position that, oh, well, you know, if Ukraine falls, Russia will immediately invade a NATO network. That's probably not true, but is it helpful for European stability and security and US interests to have a Russia that feels it's defeated the best the West had to throw at it? And Putin who's kind of bruised

and perhaps now overconfident, and we know he's prone to miscalculation and misperception of what his forces can do and Western resolve to confront them. So I think if you merge from this conflict with that sort of scenario, that's just a dangerous cocktail and it'll make Europe even more unstable. And I think it increases the risk for the US at a time when we're trying to pivot more attention towards China and the Indo-Pacific.

It kind of complicates that transition. Whereas if we stick with Ukraine, help it defeat Russia, and by the way also degrading its military forces, that gives us a little more latitude and it protects our interest in Europe and also abroad. Yeah, of course we all know from having spoken to people in Kiev and so on that it has been a grinding, they're coming out of yet another in the middle of another winter in this war where infrastructure has been damaged, there are more drone strikes. I mean this has been punishing not just on the Ukrainian military and on

the Russian military but also on the Ukrainian people. What can Donald Trump really, he considers himself a master dealmaker, how does he make this deal work? Because it feels like you you know, you offer those security guarantees, perhaps does Russia accept those security guarantees? I mean, it feels like there are a lot of areas here where there's a lot of daylight between the two sides. Right. Well, Russia certainly does not want Western troops in Ukraine.

I think, you know, from our perspective in the US, we need to focus less on, you know, what's acceptable or pleasing to the Kremlin and what, we need to focus less on, you know, what's acceptable or pleasing to the Kremlin and what can we do to increase our leverage to get the best deal possible? And so for me, that means, you know, continuing to surge aid for Ukraine, increasing sanctions, economic pressure on the Russians so that the point at which they can't sustain this war is move forward. You know, right now, maybe they can last another year, I mean, six months, eight months, whatever it is, we should do whatever we can to bring that date forward and incentivize to make a deal sooner rather than later and accept the best terms possible. Is there much leverage? I mean, there are sanctions on Russia already, it seems to have

found its way. It's got backing from China. It's got some tacit backing from India. It seems to sort of weaseled its way out of some of these, although we know the economy is in trouble, or at least that's what we're hearing. Does the US, does Donald Trump have much leverage on Russia here? We can do a good bit more to strengthen the economic pressure, you know, going after the so-called shadow fleet

that carries Russian oil, you know, lowering the G7 imposed price cap on Russian oil exports so it's closer to Russia's cost of production, and a variety of other measures on export controls and sanctions. On the military side, I think we need to help Ukraine stabilize its lines. If Putin thinks that his forces can continue making gains, albeit slow and at high cost, he has an incentive to continue trying to press his advantage to increase his leverage, right? So and especially when the future of USAID is uncertain.

So if we help him, hey, we're not going where we can help Ukraine stabilize, then he'll have an incentive to make a deal. John, thank you. Thank you. John Hardy with the Russia program, deputy director with the foundation of the defense of democracies. Daniel Blanchard is no ordinary thief. His heists are ingenious. His escapes defy belief.

And when he sees the dazzling diamond CC Star, he'll risk everything to steal it. His exploits set off an intercontinental manhunt. But how long can CC Star stay lucky for Daniel? I'm Seren Jones, and this is a most audacious heist. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.