The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - The Oval Office Moments That Shocked The World - What Now?

Episode Date: March 3, 2025

It was brutal, unprecedented and shocking -- but what happens now?  The exchange between Trump and Zelensky with J D Vance playing a supporting role was one for the history books

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, you're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. The Oval Office moments that shocked the world. What now? Jana Stein joins us, coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Monday, welcome to March, welcome to another week, welcome to the final week for Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party. The Liberals will announce their new leader this coming Sunday. Should be interesting. So where's Justin Trudeau today? Well, as we record the bridge for this day,

he's been to a meeting with King Charles in Britain. The Prime Minister was in Britain yesterday for the meeting, the summit meeting, dealing with the Ukraine situation. And he took time today to slip up to Sandringham, where King Charles resides, or at least was this weekend, and met with him this morning. What did they talk about, you say? Well, as of this recording, they're not giving us any details although the prime minister made it clear he had things to talk about in terms of canada

sovereignty so i'm assuming this trump 51st state stuff came up although i don't know that i know the monarchists are saying oh no, King Charles can't say anything about that. You know, excuse me, maybe that's what convention says, but this country is bled for that family. Okay? And I consider myself a monarchist. All right? More than 100,000 Canadians have died for king and country

over the last hundred or so years. And he can't say anything about some foreign leader trying to annex us? Please, give me a break. Good luck coming here next time. He's had pretty small crowds the last few trips he's made over here anyway. But now they may add a few placards to the arriving crowds. But enough about that.

That's not what I'm here to talk about today. Although I wanted to vent a little bit. Because I know some of you feel strongly about this and some of you have written to me saying, oh, Peter, he can't say anything. Well, maybe that's what convention says, he can't say anything. But I'm sorry.

Say something. Okay. I got to, we're going to get, Janice Stein is ready and waiting and eager to talk about the craziness of last Friday and what it all means and what could happen now. But before we get there, we've got to get to question of the week time, right? Because Thursday is the question of the week on your turn. And if the last month or so is any indication,

you have lots to say on various topics. I got a note over the weekend from Nola Marion. That's one of our listeners. And it's a great note. It's a long note. It's about the qualities we should expect or do we expect from politicians and all i'm going to do is read you the headline of the letter because i don't want it to influence what your possible answers could be so here's the headline. Exactly what are the qualifications to be a politician?

Now this is timely, right? We're about to go into a federal election campaign. Could be as soon as the next couple of weeks. It'll you expect the qualifications to be for a politician is a good question. Parties will be picking candidates. Some have already done so. You will be picking candidates when you check your box. So what do you look for in a politician? And I don't mean they should be a conservative, they should be a liberal, they should be NDP. That's not the qualification I'm talking about.

And you know what I mean. What are the qualifications you're looking for to be a politician who's going to represent you? So that's your question. The questions go to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com themansbridgepodcast

at gmail.com Back to our normal time, 6 p.m. Wednesday is the deadline. Anything after that, even a minute or two after that's out. Okay? You know where to write. You know when to write. You have to include your name and the location you're writing from.

Okay? And keep it short, paragraph or so. We've been so successful in the last month or so in getting so many different views in. And we hope to do the same with this one. The question again, exactly what are the qualifications to be a politician?

What do you consider those qualifications to be? Okay? All right, let's get to today's topic. Janice Stein, the director of the Munk School at the University of Toronto, is our regular Monday guest.

And all you had to do was watch television on Friday, Saturday, Sunday. You saw it over and over and over again. That incredible back and forth inside the Oval Office of the White House between Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, his sidekick, Vice President finally getting to strut his stuff and not be outshined by Elon Musk, and, of course, the President of the Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky. All right.

Here she comes, Janice Stein. All right, Janice, let's start at the beginning. Let's start with the moment on Friday. You were watching this live. What was going through your mind as you're watching this live what what was going through your mind as you're watching this you know peter i was watching it live in a room full of professionals and the stunned silence um the shock um none of us have ever seen anything like it um And there are people who have been watching this and doing this kind of thing for decades. None of

us have ever seen anything like this. You've never seen a vice president and a president explode like that at somebody that is sitting in the other chair in the Oval Office. There's no precedent for this in public. In public. I'm sure it's happened a few times in private, but certainly not in front of the cameras and all the reporters standing there.

So that leads me to the next question from in that moment. You know, do you think it was a setup? I tend to think it was a setup because, you know, I followed this guy for 30 years, Trump I'm talking about, or longer, and everything is a setup. Right down to the way he used to, you know, pretend he was somebody else when he tried to get a reporter to cover him in the gossip pages.

Yeah. You know, I mean, this guy thinks through the things he's about to do, crazy as some of them may be. He kind of sets them up. And the first thing I thought of when I watched it was, this is a setup. And he got J.D. fans to play along with it. Yeah, you have every reason to think that, Peter.

As you say, there's a long history of doing this. In this particular case, here's a little context, which makes me think, wow, I'm not sure. Before the decision was made that Zelensky was going to the White House, Andre Yermak, who is his most senior advisor, you know, he's a principal secretary. He's the old Tim Coots for Canadians. He's up for Zelensky.

Said he wanted Zelensky to go to the White House. And Kellogg, who is a special envoy, said, no, no, this is not a good idea. Don't come. And Yermak dug in his heels and said, no, we need to go to Washington. So the energy behind this trip, the push behind the trip came from the Ukrainian side, not the White House. Now, could they still have set them up? Once they agree to it, for sure. But it is interesting that that push came,

and they ignored the advice they were getting from Kellogg. Don't come, not now. This is not the moment to come. Why would they say that? Why would that advice be given? So if you're in Kellogg's position, and there have been a lot of background conversations already, as you know, both with the Russians on an end to the war because this president is a man of peace

and I know what comes of that later. But there have been a lot of conversations and it's very clear Trump is figuring out, oh my god, this is hard. An end to this war is really hard.

So he's reverted to let's get a ceasefire. That's what he wants now because's get a ceasefire. That's what he wants now because that's easier to get. That's what he got in the Middle East, right? He got a ceasefire. Well, let's get a ceasefire. And Zelensky has pushed back against that ceasefire. And you saw him

do it again in the White House at that meeting. And so I'm sure that Kellogg knew there was frustration already there on Trump's part that he couldn't get Zelensky to buckle. And he probably gave him the advice, don't come now, it's not a good time.

Well, you know, he's not buckling now to a ceasefire because he wants security guarantees. Yes, that's right. Which is not an unheard of thing to be asking for if you're going to sign a ceasefire. No. And look, that's at the biggest strategic level of what this was about. And just to remind all of our listeners peter when the cold war in ukraine had a lot of russia soviet nuclear weapons deployed on its own and it gave them up an american urgent

and three countries signed the deal a memorandum recognizing the sanctity of Ukraine's borders. Russia, the successor state to the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. So Zelensky knows all about how much good a piece of paper can be. And that's where he's coming from. And he was trying to say that over and over, but shut it down. They broke their word in 2014. They broke it again in 2022 after the

Minsk agreement. They break their word and that's why he doesn't want to cease fire. But he is now standing between Donald Trump the maker of peace because you know is he the only one that's standing?

I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure that Putin would agree at this point to an unconditional ceasefire because his appetite has been so whetted, you know, by what Trump has done, frankly. You know, it's so hard to decide who to believe in these things. Like Putin is saying since Friday, he's saying, oh yeah, we and the Americans are in the same headspace. We're thinking exactly the same on this. They're not. No, they're not.

They're absolutely not. And of course, there's a huge trap here for Trump, which you could hear in that moment that we were watching when somebody asked him, a reporter asked him. And by the way, Peter, there were Russian media in that room. And there were questionable American media in that room too. Right. So who is in that room from the media side is probably worth talking over.

But when a reporter asked him, well, what if the Russians break their word? He said, what if a bomb falls and hits you? Right. Utterly dismiss that issue of the future security and security guarantees and a deal with somebody that has twice broken their word and invaded Ukraine. Obviously, I want to get to what happens now. But before I get there, I just want to deconstruct a little more

in terms of that moment and what was said in the in the harshest moments there were like four or five six minutes of them really quite something in the back and forth um were either of them telling the truth in the things they said to each other were either of them factually correct so we certainly know where donald was trump was factually incorrect he started and that's you know let's just go back over this is a script writer for a second right i don't know how many thousands of scripts you've seen peter over the years if you actually play the the start of this back, it was Shady Vance who got this going.

That's what I think it was a set of. Yeah, I don't think he needs any encouragement to do this. Who knows whether it was scripted or not, but it was certainly he who got this going. He launched into the attack. Trump was actually

fairly restrained until that moment. We'll never know, I guess, whether that was scripted or not. And once J.D. Vance went on the attack, Zelensky attacked back, right? And he said to him to him well have you been in ukraine no by the way jd vance has never been in ukraine and you know unlike most european leaders and i know our foreign minister who's made that and our minister some of them who made the trip multiple times jd vance has never been in uk. So you got the start of a personal dynamic there

that in any altercation I've ever watched, and I've watched a lot, that's how they go. They spiral up. And from there on in, it was absolutely predictable what was going to happen. Trump then chimes in with a $350 billion worth of aid. Well, that's not true. We know that's factually incorrect, frankly. We know that Zelensky is factually correct when he says Russia's broken its word several times. So on the facts, I think there's no question. It's unambiguous. Zelensky was truthful,

accurate, and both Vance and Trump were not. There's a meta level. You go up one more level. Donald Trump says to him, you don't have any cards. Well, there is a huge asymmetry of power here huge ukraine needs the united states and we'll get to the repercussions and europeans are already um on sunday talking about what they're going to do now but let me let me just give you one example. Starlink. Without Starlink, it is impossible for the units in the Ukrainian army, frankly, to communicate.

Starlink is Elon Musk's, paid for by the Pentagon. There's no European power that can provide that. There's no European power that can provide that. When they started going at each other back and forth, provoked by J.D. Vance, no question about that, but did Zelensky lose his cool? Yes. Yes. And so I was in a room of professionals and I don't know if you saw the photograph of the Ukrainian ambassador putting her hand in anybody who has experienced diplomacy. And I know this is hard for people to hear because, frankly, let's call it spacious, he's the person of courage and integrity. The other guys are not.

But he took the bait, Peter, and he lost his cool and he argued back and he argued over Trump. All those things as tough

as it is for Canadians to say this and to hear this, because we're the object of some of that anger as well. You cannot do, you cannot do. Again, you know, when I'm in an argument with somebody and they're yelling at me, when I yell back, they just go up the escalator, it spirals out of control. You have to keep your cool. You have to sit there stone-faced. As galling as it is, you have to have iron discipline.

You have to wait for them to finish. And then you have to find a way around that isn't a head-on attack against them because it'll only start it over. And it wasn't in Zelensky's interest to have this outcome you see i i'm on the other side of that and it's partly because we've watched this guy trump ever since he got into the political arena be a total bully with everybody whether it didn't matter who it was whether it was, whether it was journalists, whether it was political leaders from other countries. Remember the way he pushed that guy aside in a NATO meeting and kind of shoved him across the room so he could get to the front of the line?

And then in the things he says, the way he's bullied or tried to bully Canada in this last while, you sit there and you go, when is somebody going to take this guy on and just tell him to shove it? And finally, we saw that on Friday and you go, you know, good for him. And if it cost him the meeting and he got thrown out of the White House, well, in the moment, it was worth it. Yeah. So, you know, look, a lot of my male colleagues have said this to me, by the way.

A lot of them. Oh, now you're going to play the gender card. Well, you know, it's really interesting because what do you do with a bully? You take the bully on. When there's a bully in kindergarten, you take the bully on, right? But you do that when you've got a bunch of guys around you watching you and those

guys are coming over to your side after you take the guy on. Here's the problem for Zelensky. He really needs this bully and I'm going to say it right out as a Canadian, as a patriotic Canadian we need that guy too and if you know

that, if you know you've got to deal with that bully tomorrow morning because he has assets that you badly need and only he has, you've got to forego that moment of great satisfaction when you shove it to the bully. Okay, so tell me how that's different than Munich in 1938. It sounds like appeasing. Yeah, so here's, I think when I was watching this thing, I did what the Ukrainian ambassador did.

I put my head in my hands, okay? At the mega level, Trump and Vance made the largest strategic mistake that you can make, right? If you're talking about somebody who messed up, those two guys did. And just listen to the rhetoric that Donald

Trump used, and you can see how this would play in the United States. I'm a man of peace. I'm a man of peace. I'm a man of peace. I don't want to see any more killing. Well, who's not going to sign on to that one? Except there's a larger issue here. Is there a chance that Putin would really make peace? And as I was sitting there listening to that, I thought, wow,

somebody who tried this on Winston Churchill in 1940 would have been that with the same response, right? You can't make peace unless you're confident that there are two parties at the table who are finally tired of fighting and are willing to stop. And Jane adds Donald Trump, no attention to that. And that, to me, was the real setup in the conversation. That's why Zelensky found himself in the spot that he did. And that's why I think they're wrong. They are deeply wrong, and they are putting all of us at risk, frankly. Ukraine mostly at risk, but every one of us at risk

when you give a guy like Putin, when you let a guy like Putin win and get the fruits of what he did through illegal invasion and occupation. In the moment, tactically, Zelensky had to figure out, I need this guy tomorrow morning. He needed to swallow it.

He needed to let Trump explode and say, Mr. President, we appreciate your leadership on moving this forward. We need detailed discussions about how we do this. Because they threw him out of the white house peter he wanted to stay and keep the conversation going they threw him out yeah that's a big cost for a country that needs the united states and i'm saying this with some conviction because i'm really talking to canadians as much as i am to ukrainians we are, you know, we live next door to the United States. We share geography. Geography is not going away.

We're having a, you know, a conversation in this country about diversifying. I'm glad we're having it. But how far do you think we're going to get? We sell 78% of our exports to the United States. I'll be thrilled if we get to 70%. Yeah, I think, you know, when you look at that picture of the various European leaders meeting yesterday and Trudeau's in that group as well. And you go, yeah, I mean, the Europeans have their case, but they don't live next door to this guy. Right.

There's an ocean between them and us. And the Europeans know the price of these kind of situations better than the Americans do. Right. There's no doubt about that, given the history. And not trusting the other side of an agreement and they learned that lesson in munich and elsewhere but what you know the the question becomes you know you mentioned churchill a moment ago if churchill had been sitting there across from trump

what would have happened i mean you know he had a meeting with the FDR in the beginning of the war in 1940, whereby, by the way, he wore a military uniform. Yes, he did. You know, not a dress uniform, but kind of like a battle dress uniform. So he wasn't any different than Zelensky was in the White House. But what would Churchill have done? You know, he found, we know from his memoirs, he found FDR incredibly frustrating.

You know, it was a nightmare for him. He felt that FDR, I looked, FDR was doing what he could, but it wasn't very much until the Japanese took the decision out of his hands. In fact, they would lend lease, which really mattered. Lend lease was when the United

States lent the United Kingdom the money to buy American weapons that they desperately needed. So, Churchill didn't let his frustration with FDR show. Came home at night, drank scotch, smoked cigars, and wrote

memoirs, but he didn't let it show in the meetings in the White House because he knew he needed FDR that badly. And FDR is nothing like Donald Trump. He wasn't a bully. You can't. You can't when you're the leader of a country. I can't when you're the diplomat.

You can't. And you know what? I think part of this happened, by the way, because Zelensky's tired. You know, the pace that Zelensky has set over these last two weeks, starting from Munich, the

frustration he's feeling, Peter, he, you know, he's watched that speech that JD Vance gave in Munich. These have been absolutely dreadful two weeks. And I think he just lost it, frankly. Now they've got to find a way back into the White House. And they do.

They have no choice. They've got to find a way back into the White House. And, you know, Macron and Starmer are stepping up to put a plan, to bring a plan to the table for Trump and Vance to look at. Whereas Zelensky has a voice. Thank goodness they're doing that. Let me take our break and then we'll come back and we'll deal with this, the what happens now question. Okay.

Right after this. And welcome back. It's our regular Monday conversation with Dr. Janice Stein, the Munk School, University of Toronto. And obviously, lots to talk about again this week. You're listening on Sirius XM channel 167. Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform. Glad to have you with us. Okay, so like what happens now? We heard what the various leaders,

Starmer and Macron and Trudeau had to say yesterday. And I think they all agree you've got to find a way back into the White House. What does Trump really want out of this? I mean, sure, he wants Nobel Peace Prize. Yeah. And he thought he was on his way to getting it, and maybe he still will. Who knows? But he's also alienated a lot of people, some of whom for the first time in his own backyard.

I mean, you saw Vance get hustled out of Vermont yesterday out of some ski resort because people were lined up outside against him. People around the world have sided with Zelensky, perhaps not the leaders, perhaps not the politicians, some of whom would see it the way you see it, as we've got to figure out a way to deal with this. It's not all just protest. But what does Trump really want want does he want a peace deal does he want a realignment of world order along with the where where the americans are aligned more with the uh russians than anybody else i mean what does he want there's two views here right the optimistic view is he really wants two peace deals. He wants one between Russia and Ukraine, and he wants one in the Middle East.

And he's going to use his political capital as a push because he wants a Nobel Prize for this. This is the big one, right? And somebody's already nominated him, as you know, Peter. But a nomination means nothing, frankly. They get hundreds every year. So how do you get that? These are tough deals.

These are long-term adversaries. And, you know, there was part of what Trump said. You have to say, he says, well, you know, and he's screaming. And he says, well, you know, Putin hates you as much as you hate him. That's true. There he spoke the truth, right? He asked me for one factual thing he said. That's one factual thing he said.

So he's now focused on ceasefires in both places. He's focused on ceasefires. So I think the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Germany, you don't have to figure out how can we structure a ceasefire? Because we're not going to get that security guarantee from the United States. It's just not coming. So how do we structure a ceasefire where we put as much muscle on the ground as we can so that Putin thinks twice before starting up again.

Because as you and I have said before, Putin has some reasons to want to cease fire now too. The big if to me, did Donald Trump, by that performance, give Putin enough to encourage him to go for broke when he saw Trump turn on Zelensky like that. There's a big cost to what Trump did there. So the United Kingdom and France are willing to put troops on the ground. Are they enough to stop the Russian army?

No. But, you know, we've had 40,000 American troops on the border of North Korea and South Korea. 40,000. That's not enough to stop any army, frankly, but they're what we call a tripwire. Nobody wants to go through those troops. And so he hasn't done it since 1953, frankly. There was a ceasefire in Korea, 1951, and it took two years to get to the deal. But there was a ceasefire. And it's still just a ceasefire.

And it's still just a ceasefire reinforced by U.S. troops. But it's how many years have there been? What are we now? Right. You do the math, 70 plus. But there's no peace deal. No peace deal. It's a ceasefire reinforced by troops on the ground.

My sense is that's where Starmer and Macron, hopefully the Germans, who knows, hopefully the Germans under merits will go. And that will buy everybody some time. Ukraine to reorganize, because it is true that Ukraine is struggling to get men to the front lines. That is accurate. So is Putin. Right.

They both are. And that's where I think we're going. But Zelensky himself is now going to need those partners to take his case to the White House because it's going to be difficult for him now after what happened. Where's Poland on this? Poland is 100% with Zelensky. Poland is 100% with Zelensky. Poland is so worried. You know, Sikorski, the foreign minister of Poland, he's so up frightened, so alarmed by the encouragement

that Donald Trump is giving to Russia. And Europeans, it's really stunning. There was a European conversation, Peter, and one of them, a Belgian said, I'm not even sure, we're not sure in Europe anymore that Article 5 applies under this. Article 5 of NATO, which is a collective defense treaty, which if somebody invokes it, everybody is supposed to go to the defense of the other. It's been invoked once by the United States after the attack on 9-11.

And everybody came to the assistance of the United States. Europeans are not even sure. They've lost confidence. They've lost trust in the United States. Europeans are not even sure. They've lost confidence. They've lost trust in the United States as a reliable ally on security issues. And the conversation is so different in Europe than it is in Canada, as you rightly said. Get up in the helicopter and try to look at this thing from not in the moment.

Let's assume that this somehow passes. Yeah, it will. It will sometime at some point. Yeah. But how is the world changing here? So when I look at this, I think there is a profound change in the relationship between the United States and Europe. Profound. I can't imagine after this that the Europeans will ever have the confidence and trust that they had in the United States before all this.

You know, Donald Trump is not an accident. He's not a blip. He will have been in power eight out before all this. You know, Donald Trump is not an accident. He's not a blip. He will have been in power eight out of 12 years. How do you tell anybody that J.D. Vance is not on the horizon or somebody else, even though it was a 51% vote, you know, for Donald Trump, and not even when they did the recount. So what will that

look like Peter? There's a very alarming conversation starting in Europe already which is flying beneath the radar but it's really a scary conversation. They are talking about whether they can rely on the British and French

nuclear deterrent in the event that Russia moves west. You know, every president since JFK, and that is a long time, has made it one of their paramount goals to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. And they've resisted every power. Some have succeeded, but they've resisted every power. Some have succeeded,

but they've resisted every power that's done that. Donald Trump has put himself and the United States in the position now where the incentive for the United Kingdom and France to modernize their forces. The United Kingdom has what we call a second strike capability. It's the, strike capability. The nuclear weapons are at sea if they're ever hit. Those weapons survive.

France does not. But there is going to be an accelerated conversation in Europe about building out some sort of European nuclear deterrent. I have no doubt about that, Peter. Something that every president of the United States for the last 70 years has tried to prevent. So what is it that Trump sees? And let's be clear, it's not just Trump. I mean, he's got people around him, some of whom aren't, they're not stupid.

I mean, they have a lifetime in international affairs and trying to understand diplomacy and various aspects of which way the world is moving. And they must be watching all this and advising on all this and saying this is the right direction to be going. Right. Like, what's the right direction to be going. Right. Like, what's the end game for them? There are some like that.

Yeah, you're right. There are some like that. So what argument are they making to Trump? Okay. I'm going to put the best gloss on this that I can, you know, that I can. They are saying, you need to separate yourself from Europe.

Europe has to take care of itself because it is the Indo-Pacific and China that is going to shape the rest of this century, not Europe. We need to be able to move our assets, including our troops, out of Europe to deploy them in the Pacific. And you know, Biden bought some of that. And so did Barack Obama who was the first one who talked about a pivot to Asia. So this is not Trump craziness only, but that is the so-called pacing challenge for the rest of this

century. So Europe has to look after itself, and we're going to force that. For the Europeans, that's terrifying, and that's what you're hearing, but that is the strategic argument they're making. What that argument misses, Peter, if you do it this way, and if you do it, let's be blunt, in that brutal way. That was a brutal, that was a really ugly, ugly, ugly conversation. If you do it that way, and you turn your back on allies, and you attack your neighbors economically, which is what he's doing to Canada and Mexico. You encourage Russia and you encourage China to take him on and challenge him because you don't see any loyalty to anything.

Let me ask you this. If we assume that over time there have been brutal conversations like that in private between major leaders. And there have, yeah. Well, if there have been, why is it better that they be held in private and not in public like we witnessed? Oh, there's no question in my mind it's better if they're private. It is better if they're private. It is better if they're private. And the reason, let me tell you one really bad one that you know well about. It was LBJ with Lester Pearson.

It was private. Lester Pearson went down and told LBJ it's time to stop the war in Vietnam. LBJ is a giant of a guy. He literally picked up Lester Pearson by the lapels and screamed at him right now why is that better happening in private because you need

the next morning which is where we are now as we're talking the next morning you have to talk to these people again there is it's never over you can't leave Zelensky out of these conversations donald trump and zelensky are going to find themselves in the same room sooner or later

if there's going to be a ceasefire here if you bought in public it's, much harder to do so. Okay, final question. Is Zelensky on his home turf in a stronger position today than he was on Friday? Yes, and I think that's part of it too. You know, there have been a lot of discussion about elections in Ukraine. And that's one of the things that Donald Trump has been pushing. And there's an agenda there too. Let's face it, there is a personally very, very bad relationship between Zelensky and Donald Trump that starts over that insane issue

of Russian interference. And by the way, that came out when Donald Trump lost it because it wasn't only Zelensky, Donald Trump lost it in that meeting, the only person who didn't was J.D. Matz frankly, he knew what he was doing there's a bad relationship there and so Donald Trump had been pushing for elections hoping frankly that Zelensky would lose.

When you bully a leader like this, you get a rally behind the flag result in the public opinion. Look at the transformation of Canada since this tariff discussion. We're not the same country that we were before Donald Trump said he was going to slap a 25% tariff on us, right? We're just not the same country. Things that you and I thought might never start, I mean, interprovincial

tariffs, what warrior discussion is there in this country than interprovincial tariffs? We spent decades and we haven't moved. We're having a different conversation now and there's a different east-west conversation. You know, Polyev and Trudeau make similar statements. That's exactly what happened in Ukraine over the last two days.

And somebody, one Ukrainian that I know quite well who's actually got a responsible job in the administration on defense procurement, you know we texted back and forth and she said what you just said to me. She said I'm glad Zelensky stood up and fought back. I'm glad he finally did it. Even if it costs us, Zelensky can face himself in the mirror and he's given dignity to Ukrainians. And I

understand. I understand. But it's Monday now. That's why we have professionals, Peter. Often people say, what do diplomats do, right? Why do we need to pay for them? They live in nice embassies and have drivers and

hold nice dinners. Yes, that's all true. But what do they do? They have iron self-discipline. And they all, if it's Monday today, they are thinking about what's going to happen on Tuesday and Wednesday. That's what they do. Okay.

Another fascinating conversation. And they just keep on coming. And who knows where we'll be this time next week. But I do know that we'll be sitting here with you trying to figure it out so janice thanks so much thank you peter and do you think we can hope for a quiet week every time i hope for a quiet week by the middle of the week i go jesus something's got to happen gone okay take care. See you next week. Another, as I said, another great conversation with Dr. Janice Stein at the Munk School, University of Toronto.

And as I hear every week from you, you love these conversations. You don't always agree with Janice. No question about that. And I get letters saying, no, no, no, she's wrong about this or that or the other thing, and that's fine fine that's what it's all about it's having a good in-depth lengthy conversation that provokes us to you know think of alternatives or to agree what have you I love the story about LBJ and Lester Pearson picking up by the lapels. I was thinking of it while I was listening to Janice because there's a picture today,

and Associated Press says it's a today picture, of Justin Trudeau with Prince Charles, where they had their meeting today that we still don't really have any details of, but maybe we never will. But it looks like Justin Trudeau has just told some kind of joke, or he's told a funny story of some kind. Maybe he said something about Trump, because he's not shy about doing that.

Anyway, Prince Charles is like doubled over with laughter. I mean, he is really laughing. So whatever it was in that moment. But I also, what happened in the other moments? Did the Prime Minister say to the King, Sir, you've got to understand the depth of concern upon Canadians about this whole issue of the 51st State. It's real. It's tough. Did he pick him up by the lapels and say,

Listen, King? No, of course he didn't. Okay, I'm not going to go there. Anyway, it's an interesting picture. So I'm sure you'll see it if you haven't already. Okay, that's going to do it for today. Tomorrow it is Smoke Mirrors and the Truth. Bruce Anderson, Fred Delorey will be here.

This is the last week and the Truth. Bruce Anderson, Fred Delorey will be here. This is the last week of the Liberal leadership race. Come Sunday, the Liberals will have chosen the replacement for Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader. How soon the Prime Minister thing changes hands, I don't know. Maybe that's at the same moment. Maybe it's shortly after. I don't know. There's that this week.

There's whatever continuing fallout that comes from last week's meeting that we just spent the last hour talking about. We could be in for an election race, federal election, very quickly with a new Liberal leader. Very quickly, like in the next week or two. A lot to see about that.

And I guess we'll talk. We'll talk about these things with Bruce and Fred tomorrow. As we go into the Anderson-DeLore spin room, as they both try to outspin each other. Okay, that's going to wrap it for this day. We'll be back tomorrow. I gave you the question of the week and all the instructions that go with it. Just go back if you want to see,

go to the top of the podcast and you get it all over again. Talk to you tomorrow. Thanks for listening today. It's been a again. Talk to you tomorrow. Thanks for listening today. It's been a treat. Talk to you in about 24 hours.