The Bulwark Podcast - Mark Hertling: Aiding and Abetting a War Criminal

Episode Date: March 12, 2025

Putin has been named a war criminal because of the Russian way of war in Ukraine—bombing Kyiv and other cities, attacking civilians and first aid workers, and destroying infrastructure. The administration's pause on aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine made the US complicit in those crimes. Meanwhile, Trump does not have any leverage to force Russia to comply with the proposed cease-fire. Plus, the escalating trade war with the EU harms our national security, our allies' hesitancy to share intelligence because of Tulsi, and the South African DOGE bro's laughably absurd attack on Mark Kelly. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling joins Tim Miller. show notes Hertling's Bulwark piece on the damage of Trump's pause on aid and intel sharing with Ukraine Hertling's Bulwark piece on a frozen conflict in Ukraine Andrew's interview with Sen. Mark Kelly

Hey, everybody. Before we get to General Hurtling, I got a few news items and programming notes for you. For next level fans, JBL, Sarah and I will be together on Thursday. So we're taping a little late this week. It'll be out probably Thursday evening, Friday morning. Keep an eye on your podcast feeds. Also a reminder to download our Bullwork Takes podcast feed on your podcast player of choice for bonus content, breaking news, hot takes, et cetera. Because there's no next level, I wanted to pop off quickly on a couple of news items for you.

The House passed a budget to keep the government open. It was a continuing resolution with support from one Democrat, Jared Golden of Maine. Now it goes to the Senate where it will need seven votes to pass. This is a little bit of a sticky wicket for Senate Dems. And while I think they should hold the line in opposition, I've already seen Chris Coons out saying that this morning. There's going to be some legitimate counter views. So I'm going to explore that more tomorrow with Sam Stein, et cetera.

But I think that will be an interesting strategic battle coming this week. One wrinkle in this budget for our DC listeners, one fucking enraging wrinkle really, is the bill includes 1.1 billion in cuts to the DC budget that could affect policing. I thought these guys were tough on crime. It is going to affect access to healthcare services and other public services for people that live in DC. And here's the crazy thing about this. It doesn't actually even save a single cent.

It is just the cruelty is the point all the way down. It is just revenge and resentment and going after these big city liberals and the DC swamp and whatever. This money is DC. It's in the DC budget. So it will just sit around in the DC Treasury, rather than be used as the mayor and the city council had determined. So I expect there'll be a big fight over that in the Senate and a couple of other items as well. We'll have more on all that tomorrow.

There's a new CNN pullout today I wanted to flag. It shows Trump with his lowest marks on the economy ever, for good reason. It looks like the economy's in shambles right now. It's lower even than it was during COVID as far as his personal approval ratings on the economy. 56% oppose. I think there's room to grow there. And there's already a Politico story out this AM where some internally are trying to blame Howard Lutnick for all this.

That's right. The secretary of commerce is responsible for Donald Trump's impulsive, ridiculous, harmful trade wars and all of the other instability that is resulting in the market crash. It's resulting in the cuts to jobs, you know, particularly in the federal workforce, but as my colleague, Andrew Egger, reported this morning, even in some private sector companies were starting to see announcements that there are going to be layoffs related directly to Trump's policies.

So I don't know. Lutnik may be the fall guy for this. We'll see. But it's telling that even inside the administration, they're recognizing the trouble they're in on economic matters. So all right, up ahead, we got a deep dive on foreign policy. Our good friend, excited to welcome back to the podcast, Mark Hurtling. Stick around for that.

Hello and welcome to the Bored Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. Delighted to welcome back a retired Lieutenant General and the former commanding general of the US Army in Europe and the pride of Christian Brothers College High School in St. Louis. It's General Mark Hurtling coming at us from Florida. How are you doing, sir? Hey, Tim, how are you doing today? I'm doing all right. You know, we're just, we're both just living here recovering from the flu and the red states, you know, trying to hold the line, you know?

Yeah, just thankful it's not measles or COVID. That's the way I feel about it, you know, trying to hold the line, you know? Yeah, just thankful it's not measles or COVID. That's the way I feel about it, you know? No measles yet, no mumps, no rubella. I wanted to give people an update on the state of play regarding Ukraine. And then we got a bunch of other kind of related issues. There was a, I guess the outlines of a deal, at least a deal between us and our adversaries, Zelensky in Riyadh. The US put out a statement that was kind of weird

and overly fawning towards the kingdom of Saudi Arabia who hosted us, but they announced that Zelensky had agreed, if Russia agrees, to a 30-day pause in fighting. US intel sharing has continued now, that's already happened. US weapons shipment are back on, that's already happened. The polls confirmed that this morning. Meanwhile, the Russians didn't really change their operations any. There were reports of explosions in Kiev

last night, 14 killed across the day, across Ukraine. And so Russia, I guess the other thing I should mention is that there's a Reuters report out this morning saying that they may not agree to a temporary truce. There's a Peskov statement saying you're getting a little ahead of yourselves. We don't want to do that to reporters asking about the truce. So that's, I think, my summary of the state of play. What I miss, what do you want to add to where we're at? Yeah, I'll just say from the very beginning, I'm very, you know, I was skeptical of the Hamas Israel ceasefire. This one, I'm very pessimistic because I agree with Peskov. The administration is getting out in front of their way out in front of their skis thinking

they're going to drive this deal through Russia the same way they did with Ukraine because they don't have any tools to extort Russia that I know of. And what's going to happen is this could very easily follow the paths of other frozen conflicts which Russia has instigated inside of Europe. And I think there are all kinds of challenges with what Secretary Rubio and National Security Advisor Walsh agreed to even with Ukraine yesterday. It was a horrible negotiation. I wasn't in the room, obviously, but you can tell that Ukraine went into this with their

hands tied behind their back. They couldn't do much else because they had to get that intelligence sharing back and they had to restart the flow of arms and ammunition to just survive on the battlefield today because they were taking some pretty good, they were taking as many good hits on the battlefield as we were taking in the stock market yesterday. That's a good point. Let's actually roll back the clock a little bit before we go forward because it does seem pretty clear at this point that the ending of intelligence sharing was aimed at forcing

Ukraine to the table and that the United States, the president, vice president, Rubio Walz had decided that it was okay to sacrifice the Ukrainian deaths and the injuries and the destruction that we saw over the course of last week because that served a longer term goal of, I guess, bullying Zelensky into coming to the table on this sort of deal. That was pretty clear at the time, but with the view of hindsight, that seems like that's what happened, right? Yeah, absolutely.

And I think, too, we can't ignore the fact that there were moral implications to this. I mean, it's one thing to cut off intelligence when someone's on the battlefield and fighting, but what Russia has been doing is not just attempting to retake ground, which is typical of any kind of war fight, but they were continuing to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure, kill Ukrainian citizens. Those are all war crimes. So I would even go to the point, Tim,

where we were complicit and maybe even accessory to war crimes over those couple of days where we just kind of unplugged the intelligence servers within Kiev and in the front lines, not just for the tactical fight, but for the defense of Ukraine infrastructure and citizens. I thought I was really negative and outraged over what happened. That's really just settling in with me right now, the accessories to war crimes element of it, because it is true. I mean, it's a great point because that's really what they were doing. I mean, they were attacking Kiev, attacking cities, attacking

first aid workers. Which they've been doing since the very beginning, by the way. Right. But they had a lot more success because without the intel sharing, a lot more of the drones and bombs were getting through essentially. That's basically what happened. Yeah, absolutely. And when you think about the Russian way of war, where they do area fire as opposed to precision fire, where they really don't do the targeting process the way most modern militaries do,

where you're attempting to destroy the enemy's military and their enemy's capability, they were really focused primarily, as they had been from the start of the war, on causing pain to Ukrainian citizens and their government. And that's the part that just kind of continuously... I mean, the Hague has said Putin is a war criminal, and all the people who are executing his operations, the special military operations are war criminals. And if that's the fact, if we're giving them an advantage, then we do become complicit in their war crimes and maybe even accessories to the act.

Did you know that the skin around your eyes can be 20 to 30 years biologically older than the rest of your face? I'm just reading this ad script here for the first time and I got to tell you one skin people, yeah, I know. All you got to look at is that these bags under my eyes from this podcast grind I've been on. I know that. I've been working on it, but 20 to 30 years older? That's a fun fact.

I didn't quite know, but I understood the sentiment. Well, here's the other thing that the Oneskin ad script writers are telling me. It's up to five times thinner too, which it makes it more vulnerable to things like wrinkles, sagging, and cellular damage. That's why Oneskin's founding team of scientists created OS-1i. Designed specifically for this ultra-delicate area delicate area OS 1i has the highest concentration of one skins proprietary OS 1 peptide the first ingredient scientifically proven to reverse skins Biological age it works by switching off the senescent cells. I love saying the word senescent That accumulate here and make your skin look older than it needs to. I've been lathering on that one skin eye.

Don't judge the sponsor based on how I've looked on the last two YouTubes, okay? One skin can only do so much, you know, when I haven't shaved and I've been coughing and hacking up a lung and had a fever and then chills and then a fever again. You can't judge one skin based on that because otherwise, I was looking fresh at Mardi Gras. You had a great under Mardi Gras curve, but my face was looking fresh, my eyes were looking fresh, given the work plus alcohol intake that I was doing.

One Skin is keeping me going over here, people. So take my advice, go get some One Skin, especially if you're a straight guy. Founded and led by an all-woman team of skin longevity scientists, OneSkin is redefining the aging process with their proprietary OX1 peptide, the first ingredient proven to help skin look, feel, and behave like its younger self. Get 15% off with code BULLWORK at Oneskin.co. That's 15% off.

Oneskin.co with code BULLWORK. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Invest in the health and longevity of your skin with Oneskin. Your future self will thank you. All right. So I want to look at where we go from here. You wrote for us a really, I think, compelling piece about what a frozen conflict could look

like and how it could benefit Russia if they do, and we don't know at this point, but if they do decide to agree to a ceasefire, that could be in their benefit. And you lean on your experience in Europe and having to monitor some of these other frozen conflicts. So just talk about that and how you think the situation could benefit Russia if we do end up in a frozen conflict. Yeah. Well, I left the military in 2013. And at the time, Russia had not yet invaded Ukraine the first time in 2014.

But prior to that, on a daily basis, when I'd go into the office, I'd get something called the Black Book, which showed intelligence capabilities of the US force and what we were collecting on and how we were collecting it. At the time, there were three major frozen conflicts in Europe. And it was interesting, Tim, the other night I was with a group of Americans and I said, has anyone heard the term Transnistria or Narganokharabakh or Kaliningrad or South Ossetian Abkhazia? I'm three for five on that.

So that's not too bad. Yeah. And none of them had heard of any of those places. Well, these were places where the Russians had invaded or had stoked conflict within Moldova, Georgia, between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and then most recently in the Donbas and Crimea. And in every single one of them, they have continued to stoke that over the years and the decades to disrupt governments. I'll use the case of, well, both Moldova and Georgia.

They have prevented from attempting to join NATO because they can't right now. The member action plan says you can't have a conflict on your territory. And both of them have, in fact, iran dentist or a minor civil war in Transnistria and Moldova and in the two provinces in Georgia. So you can see not only those kind of active conflicts, the so-called asymmetric warfare of Russia, but then you include things like electronic attacks in Estonia or little green men going into different places or assassination attempts in Great Britain and Germany. So all of those things contribute to the kinds of turmoil that Russia creates.

When we now go into Ukraine and we're talking about a ceasefire, which includes, first of all, a 700-mile front in the four occupied territories. And it takes away 20% of Ukraine's territorial integrity, which includes the oblast or the provinces of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kersan, as well as Crimea since 2014. I think it might be best even to compare it to the United States. If we were to have 20% of our territory taken away, it would be like occupying all of California

plus South Carolina, or all of Florida, Georgia and Alabama together. And when you do that, when you occupy those territories or draw a line, a fence line or a pausation line between a no man's zone, if you will, you're talking about taking away grain production from Ukraine. It's most of the sunflower oil which Ukraine produces, which is indicated by their yellow over blue flag is in the region which was taken over. They're coal mining and metal.

I mean, that could go on and on, but you can see the disadvantage it puts Ukraine at if Russia continues to occupy these territories and how it gives Russia a foot forward in controlling the country. Don't give, Magda, any ideas about giving away California and Oregon. That might sound like a nice idea. I don't know the other one. So like, what is your sense? You don't have a crystal ball, but you know, if you were gaming this out, you know, war game in this, are you expecting that Russia will accept this ceasefire? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. They will not. There will be boundary disputes, additional requirements placed on each side. You know, the big thing Ukraine is looking for is some

type of security agreement. And I think Rubio and Walsh wished that away. They said the Europeans will put up a peacekeeping force. Really? How do they control that? And what does it look like? Because the UN is the one that normally establishes a peacekeeping force and the UN has not been involved in this at all. There is the continued asymmetric possibilities that Russia could do. And I'm a Cold War kind of guy. I was a young lieutenant when the Cold War was still going on all the way up through the rank of majors.

And I actually as a tanker did border patrol between the old Czechoslovakia and West Germany and West Germany and East Germany. And you know for the guys on those front lines, even in a Cold War, that there are activities taking place that have to do with kinetic events, people shooting at each other. This is a hot war. This is not a Cold War. This is going to continue on This is not a cold war. This is going to continue on along that 700 mile front. And Russia will take advantage of it because I know that's

what Russia does. Yeah, I saw one military expert I was reading this morning about kind of the various possibilities suggested something seemed interesting to me, which was, you know, that this is could be Putin at his most devious, or maybe decide to kind of play along with this for a little while. And then Trump up some pun, not intended there, some idea that the C-SAR is broken by Zelensky, right? Because his goal in the end, right, is to continue to not have the US, you know, be involved more and more.

And so you don't want to anger Trump though. I don't even know what you could do that wouldn't have Trump in Vance change their tune on giving more weapons to Ukraine, but, but maybe something, but I don't know. What do you think about that notion? Yeah, I don't think we're going to see that. Uh, I mean, Trump has already in his first administration has said he wants to get out of NATO and he's already made comments about getting

all of our forces out of Germany and maybe putting them in Poland. But now there's a fight between Poland and the United States. I mean, that's going on. So when you take a look at the European continent and who would be supportive of US forces over there, everyone would be except Mr. Trump. He is doing the shift or the pivot toward Asia, which is, it's a strategy. I'm good with it.

But I was there when Obama said he wanted to do a pivot toward Asia, and it caused huge disruption on the continent in terms of how people were interacting. I spent a good part of my career in Europe and understand how NATO works, how the US forces in Europe work, and what they do for a relatively small amount of people. They fight above their weight class in terms of pulling people together. But you make that combination with the fact that the Trump administration continues to demonize Zelensky and Ukraine. And I can't figure out how they're getting away with that

with the American people and even with members of Congress because there were so many people in Congress and the American people that understood that all of these things were transgressions against Ukraine and they were supporting them from the very beginning. And now almost half of that has turned around. All right. Well, I'm going to, I'm going to read you the spin then from the, from the ostensibly

pro Ukraine, the old traditional pro military wing of the Republican party. And you tell me what you make of this. Here's Dan Crenshaw. He wrote this yesterday following the deal. Great work by Team America. Let's examine what happened. One, Trump means what he says and his intent on making good on his campaign wrote this yesterday following the deal. Great work by Team America. Let's examine what happened. One, Trump means what he says and his intent on making good on his campaign promise to

end the war. Two, ending the war and ensuring Putin obliges and never takes Kiev is in America's interest. Our strategic deterrence remains established. Three, Trump isn't abandoning Ukraine. The pause on aid was very short, but Zelensky had to be brought back to reality. Trump did that effectively. Four, the minerals deal is a great idea. Five, now the ball's in Putin's court.

He'd be a fool to continue his maximalist policy. Six, Trump still has plenty of leverage over Putin, even without additional military support. There are still many economic screws that can be tightened on Russia. What do you make of the Dan Krenschoff spin on the state of play? Well, we'd take about an hour to go through all those things, but he is, I think as we sometimes say in the army, talking through his ass. You know, he would like all those things to be true, but none of them are. Trump has not put Putin under his thumb. He created a huge problem by interfering with the supply chain to Ukraine and basically negating their intelligence feed for even a short period of time. The

ball isn't in Putin's court. He knows exactly what he's doing and he will play it the way he wants to play. I read a piece by Anne Applebaum this morning about the ball being in Putin's court. And she said, yeah, he can hide the ball, take the ball away and go home, deflate the ball, throw it over the fence. And she basically said all the things that this so-called ball being in Putin court could create that would go wrong.

She's a great writer, by the way, and she knows Russia more than anybody in the United States. So she knows exactly what's going to happen and I'm always in agreement with her. Yeah. I think the interesting thing of both the Crenshaw comment there, on number five on the ball on the court there, he said, to be full to continue his maximist policy of fully conquering Ukraine and eventually moving on to other Baltic states in Moldova. Marco Rubio in the aforementioned spat with the Poles that you talked about earlier, he

said something similar, which is like the Polish, they need to thank us because Russia would be on their border if it wasn't for the effort here. And to me, that just shows there's this massive disconnect between like the old neocon wing who are kind of quasi acknowledging that Putin does have aspirations beyond Ukraine and like the JD Vance Trump argument, which is essentially like this was, you know, this was about NATO and encroachment and, you know, it was Ukraine started it. I don't know how you square those two points of view.

Well, it's interesting because Vance was at the Munich Security Conference. And whenever I used to get with a group of Europeans, they would all tell me how much they hated Russia. In fact, Georgia makes a joke out of toasting. When you toast with beer as opposed to with wine, you're supposed to say something you don't mean. And I had one Georgian toast with a beer and he said to Putin's health,

they hate this guy because the majority of them have been under Putin's thumb. And I'll bring up the point too, it just shocked the bejesus out of me yesterday, Tim, when I saw all of the European force chiefs, all of the military chiefs from the European countries coming together with Macron. Because back in the day, when I was the commander of US Army Europe, we used to have something

called the Conference of European Armies, where we would have all the European defense chiefs in Heidelberg, and we would talk about commonalities and things we were going to do and exercises. And, and by the way, Hegseth has eliminated exercises from the European force, so we can't work and play well with others next year. All of those things are detrimental to our security. And I can't see what level of earth these guys are living in right now to think any of this is good. This time of year, a good hoodie is essential, but it can be tough to find one that will

last through the season. If you're somebody like me who caught the Mardi Gras flu or a spring cold and you need to sit around in something nice and cozy, well there's nothing better than an American Giant hoodie. As I've told you guys before, I've been long a fan of American Giant. Well, actually my husband's been long a fan talking about how his American Giant hoodie was his favorite. I never got to borrow it and I never really got to just enjoy the comfort and coziness

of it until they joined as a sponsor. And now we're an American Giant Hoodie family. And boy, were we bundled up in our American Giant Hoodies, well, you know, at least during the chills part of the flu. Then during the fever part, we take it off, and then the chills part, you put it back on. You know how it works. Let me tell you why this is such an incredible hoodie. The iconic classic full zip is the jacket that started it all.

It's custom heavyweight fleece with side panels for mobility. That's why they're calling it the best hoodie ever. It's body skimming fit with a double lined hood and reinforced elbow patches. I mean it's a hoodie that'll last and I can vouch for that. My husband's had this hoodie for a fucking decade it feels like. American Giant makes staples, other staples besides the hoodies that are anything but basic. I got a long sleeve crew tee that I really like. They've also got some high rise pants and slim rough neck pants you can check out as well. So this season go snag the hoodie that will bring you comfort for life. The American Giant Classic Full Zip and save 20% off your first order at American-giant.com when you use code BULLWORK at checkout.

That's 20% off your first order at American-giant.com code BULLWORK. Let's talk about the Europe side of it from your expertise. I had Michael Weiss on, I don't know, last week or the week before, and time's moving in very strange ways in Trump 2.0. We're talking about this question of, okay, so what if Europe has to go it alone? It doesn't look quite as bleak on that front as it did the morning we were talking after the Oval Office meeting, because, you know, we have, we have continued to send the material and the weapons as of today. So our weapons shipments are going back to Ukraine.

So it looks a little bit better. But if we get to a point where Europe has to go along with Ukraine and where, and to your point, where Macron or whomever needs to take a leadership role in this, you know these armies better than anybody. You know their preparedness better than anybody. I mean, is that even possible? Yeah, I mean, it would be possible. I think when you're talking about the overall strength of NATO, they are very good and they outweigh Russia and their military force. But that's really not what I'm worried about. If they are together as a NATO, they can withstand any kind of Russian aggression. But what we're seeing is it gets to one of Putin's strategic objectives when he started

this war in 2022. He truly believed that NATO was very divided and the US was very divided. And he didn't think anyone would take action. Well, he was surprised over the last three years. Well, now the question would become, will NATO pull together without a US input? I think they will, but you now even have competing governments saying, no, we're the lead. No, we're the lead. I mean, the dynamic between France, Poland, and Germany right now is very interesting to see who is building armies, who's going to be in charge.

The Supreme Allied Commander Europe has always been an American because they tried to pull all the nations together. The question is going to be, there truthfully is, as Rundfeld once said, an old Europe and a new Europe. The new Europe has experienced the threat of Putin during the Cold War. The old Europe is kind of good in their economic standards and they're feeling good about themselves. The question is, can those 32 countries of Europe, 31 if you discount the United States, pull together under one real main body?

And if Poland gets attacked, or let's put it in a different way, I'm sure Michael Weitz is concerned about this because he's got a lot of friends in the Baltics. If Estonia gets attacked, or Lithuania gets attacked, is Brussels and is Poland, well, Poland will, but will Spain, will Norway, will they come to their aid? That's the big question. Will Article 5 drive these 31 other countries to pull together and defend against Russia that quite frankly is a third of the size of the Californian GDP and their military is three quarters of what it used to be or one quarter of what it used to be.

So I don't know. I can't tell you. But just like on the equipment. Oh, yeah. Yeah, like as far as that's concerned, like Europe could do it. I mean, obviously there'd be a massive. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, but we made that mistake when we said, well, Russia's got the equipment.

Yeah, right. The key is do they have the will to come together and fight? And we found out in Russia is no, they did not. The French have been pretty impressive speaking of old Europe though, what we've been seeing from, you know, Macron and really across the board. I mean, hell, even Le Pen is kind of saying is Le Pen sounds better than Marco Rubio sometimes when she's talking about the war, which is interesting. Yeah, it doesn't take much.

That's true. One more thing on Europe, because there's some news this morning on the other kind of economic element of this, which is certainly going to impact our relations in addition to the military. Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum coming from the EU. Just before we started taping this morning, the EU announced they're retaliating. The measure would cover about $28 billion worth of goods, not just steel and aluminum, but also home appliances, agricultural goods, motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter, jeans, all the American apple pie will also be hit.

Again, having dealt with the sensitivities of these on the military side, obviously this sort of trade war is going to exacerbate the tensions and the issues as well, right? Sure. I mean, you couldn't do more things to disrupt the norm than what is going on right now. And that's the other thing. You read Crenshaw's statements. There just seems to be an apologist approach and in fact, a praising approach to all the things that the administration is doing without the recognition that it really is, first of all, driving our economy, but for me as a military guy, more

importantly, driving our national security toward the base, toward the bottom. And I just don't understand why. When things are in pretty good shape, you can comment on trying to get the NATO countries to live up to their GDP, which percentage of their GDP spent on defense, which is happening, or you can say, hey, we really need to take a look at our economic relationships with different countries unilaterally. But to throw something directly at the entire European Union, it represents a big hand, a little map approach to national security.

And not every country in Europe is Germany. There are differences of the 49 countries that make up the European footprint. I guess it doesn't really matter what the motivations are behind this. But really, if you just assess that, there are only really two options. One is just Trump pettiness.

He thinks everybody else has been idiots and he wants to prove that everyone else is an idiot and he's the right one and so we've got to go in his way. And the other is that he actively actually prefers the autocratic world order and would like Putin to gain strength and is fine with our democratic, liberal democracies weakening. I mean, it's one of those two things and there's no other possible explanation, right? And it's got to be the latter based on the attempts at damaging various institutions that contribute to what we are as a democratic nation, all the way from the three elements of government

to the institution of the courts, the military, all of the different bureaus. I mean, it's one thing to say, as we've talked ad nauseum, it's one thing to say, hey, let's take a scalpel and eliminate waste. It's another thing to just chop half-heartedly in terms of what you know people do and how you're going to destroy institutions.

Let's talk about those chops. The thing that's been particularly striking to me is the VA. That one's kind of hard for me to wrap my head around. I mean, like as we are recording this morning, it seems like there's going to be massive cuts to the Department of Education, maybe 50% or more in workforce. That's something that everybody saw coming, you know, whatever, going after EPA grants, any Republican administration would have done that

for better or worse. The indiscriminate cuts at the VA, I don't really understand the rationale behind that. And I'm curious, like what you've been hearing from other veterans and like the degree of impact we're going to see there. Well, you know, Tim, I kind of compare this to what happened with USAID. Most people in the United States could not even spell USAID a couple of months ago. They had no clue. I mean, the letters are all right there. That's what I mean. But they had no idea what that organization did or does. And I would think, when you say VA to most Americans, what do they think of? Well, they think of former retired military people going to hospitals and getting medical

treatment. But the VA is just a massive organization that does everything from taking care of cemeteries throughout the country, all the veterans cemeteries, the national cemeteries, all the way to suicide helplines for a generation of veterans who have experienced post-traumatic stress. To have somebody like an Elon Musk who has never served go in and just start chopping away at it and eliminating programs without even knowing what they do. It's not as dangerous as eliminating the nuclear guys that he eliminated that monitored our nuclear programs,

but it is pretty frigging dangerous on an individual level for something that Abraham Lincoln created to say, let's take care of those who fight our wars. It just is mind boggling to me. You can't predict the repercussions of the slices to people who work in the VA facilities. But it's everything from doctors and nurses who get paid a whole lot less working at the VA hospitals

than they do working at a major healthcare organization because they have a sense of patriotism, all the way up to the people who run the cemeteries, which there are hundreds of across the country. And even the people that answer the phones on the VA crisis hotlines for people who are thinking about committing suicide, which the military

has the largest suicide rate percentage of any organization other than railroad workers in the country. Like, what's the chatter like about this? And I'm sure you're on either text chains or email chains or here a message for hearing from people that it's not my world as somebody that hasn't served. I'm just kind of wondering what you've been hearing from folks. Well, it's tough because the veterans can comment like I'm commenting right now, but the active duty force can't.

You know, they, according to civil military semi-requirements, you don't talk about the administration if it's elected by the people. You work for them. So there's this restraint by the military in that regard to even talk about it. And even guys like me as retired generals, they say, hey, you've got to stay in that zone too,

where you can't really show disrespect to the administration that's been dutifully elected by the majority or in this case, the plurality of the population. But I will tell you, there is unbelievable amounts of talk from what I'm hearing, not just at the senior leader level, but from soldiers I used to work with. And they're scared. They are very concerned. We could go into the Department of Defense and what they're doing to denigrate women

or transgender. But even that is, I think, going to cause challenges with recruiting and retention, because why would you want to stay in an organization that doesn't seem to care for you while you're there and then also doesn't treat you well after you leave? You said one thing there that piqued my interest talking about how it's a semi-requirement for active duty military did not comment on politics. It does raise, this time the pun is intended, the issue of the new nominee for the Joint Chiefs Chairman, Dan Raisen Kane. I'm just curious what your thoughts are on that. I mean, obviously you're not going to spare

somebody personally, but there is the situation with him where he put on the MAGA hat and said he'd kill for Trump. Some stuff that was a little eyebrow raising to those of us who are outside of the military. I'm just wondering what you made of his pick. Yeah, well, that's been reported by a lot. I don't think we have a whole lot of proof of any of that happening other than what Trump said happened. Right.

It was Trump that said that he did that. Yeah. That's right. But it seems to be a very strange pick. I met Dan Cain one time in a very short office call with him in one of his assignments. And he was an Air National Guard guy who rose to three stars and then left the military. I'm sure he's a very competent guy, but I do worry about the continued politicalization of the military by the current Department of Defense secretary and others. President Trump

meets somebody and says, hey, they look the part, they're the movie role model of a general, they say the right things in a three or four minute interaction. And then as Mr. Trump has found out with Mattis and Kelly and others, and Milley, by the way, I mean, I keep going back to the fact that he chose Milley to be the chairman and he chose C.Q. Brown to be the chief of the Air Force. So you know, those initial impressions sometimes are not long lasting. And what I'm very concerned about is there seems to be a tug toward doing everything that the president wants, whether it's illegal, immoral, or unethical.

And I think that's what he's trying to set up in a bunch of different organizations, and that concerns me. Yeah, that takes us back to Hague, Seth. I mean, it's like equal parts farcical and scary, like this idea that we're going to scrub the websites, we're doing a control F for the word gay, so we're going to get rid of the Enola gay, you know, we're doing a control F, you know, for transition,

and so like we're losing biographies or it mentioned that somebody transitioned from one job to the next I like the whole thing is absurd, but I'm wondering what what you make of it and whether there's any serious ramifications beyond just This kind of how like offensive and ridiculous it is. Well, it gets to the requirements of the various Cabinet secretaries. And if we wanna use Secretary Hegseth as one of them, do they have the competencies of running

the large organization that they've been put in charge of? Do they even know what those organizations do? Do they have the savvy to listen to the experts, the people who have been there for 40 years and say, here's why we do the things we do? I had one assignment to the Pentagon. It was on the joint staff, and I had a lot of interaction with Secretary Rumsfeld. That was tough in and of itself because he was smarter than everybody in the room. Whenever you have someone that's smarter than everybody in the room, you tend to make

mistakes because they don't understand they're not the smartest one. Secretary Hegseth just recently said that over the last weekend, and I wrote an article today about his comments regarding climate change. And that seems to be one of those things that, you know, there are elements of society that says, why are we even doing this? It's a hoax. It's a fake. Well, the Department of Defense have been studying this and they have data that says

it's going to be really critical to understand what climate change does to bases and to combat operations and to the force. And yet they're throwing that all array, as Secretary Hegson says, because it's all a bunch of crap. Well, it's not a bunch of crap. And when you dismiss something as important as that, it may not be your top priority of lethality and warrior spirit at the platoon level, but it is pretty important for a large organization.

The question comes back to what would you do to a CEO of a major corporation that was doing some of the things that they're doing to disrupt the efficiency and effectiveness of the various organizations some of these people run? The answer would be the board would fire them immediately. A couple of the other cabinet or quasi cabinet in the case of Musk on Tulsi. We've had this mixed bag. On the one hand, she has done some things that would assuage people's concerns about intelligence sharing, et cetera.

She did not go fully down the crazy pipeline right out the gate on a few of her decisions. That said, there were some reports out of the UK that now they're concerned that our allies in the UK are saying we're concerned about sharing Intel with our allies in the US. I guess my question for you is like if you had an old counterparty in the UK call you just to talk this over, how would you even think about this if you're in their shoes? It's not just the UK too. I've talked to a lot of European guys, especially Australia and New Zealand are saying the same

thing. But of course, if I were having in the old days a conversation with the chief of the German intelligence, and I knew anything I might say would be broadcast by their chancellor, I wouldn't say it and I wouldn't share intelligence. And those are the kinds of partnerships that are created in alliances where, you know, what you do is you don't, you know, I've said this many times before, you don't win hearts and minds, Tim.

You win trust and confidence and you don't deploy trust. It doesn't just come up in a heartbeat. It's something that's built over years. And when you suddenly become distrustful of another military leader's government, which by the way, I had to on a couple of occasions in Europe when I was commanding there. I mean, we were distrustful for a while

of the Italian government because of Berlusconi. We couldn't give anything to our Italian counterpart because we were afraid of where it would go. And that was minor compared to some of the things we were afraid of where it would go. And that was minor compared to some of the things we're doing right now. You know, you, well, I could cite all kinds of examples, but when you have the kinds of release of information or the kind of terrorizing of the intelligence community and what they produce and the knocking of their capabilities, it does everything to eliminate trust between

nations. And then in addition to that, we have our shadow cabinet member or maybe a supra cabinet member, whatever you want to call him, Elon Musk. I wanted to get your take on Senator Mark Kelly. We had an interview with him on our YouTube page. Folks should go check out. Andrew Egger did that. And he's been really stalwart on this. And he was over in Ukraine right after the, you know, we stopped sharing

intelligence, you know, basically just get a sense of what was happening on the ground to do what he could to kind of reassure partners there meet with, you know, counterparties. And he posted a picture of this of himself being in Ukraine. And Elon Musk replies, you are a traitor. That's pretty ominous stuff. Dr. Seheult Yeah, it's pretty damning. When I saw that, it was like, because I know Mark and Scott Kelly, by the way, both of the twin brothers, both are great guys. They are true patriots, unlike some of the patriot that's term that's used by others who aren't quite patriots. And they are trying to do the right things for the right reasons in every situation and to have someone with the visibility of a beeline must say

something like that about another individual first of all it's uncivil and that's the best you can say about it but secondly secondly, it's, and I'll say this, it's idiotic. Here's a South African saying someone that has rode a rocket, rode a piece of dynamite into the sky a couple of times and has conducted combat operations and really is trying to help a nation that's had its sovereignty and territorial integrity invaded, and he's being called a traitor, it's mind blowing in terms of the ridiculousness of it. You have to refrain from becoming furious so many times every single day to just not react to this kind of craziness.

I struggle with that. Well, and right after he calls him a traitor, he's ethically proclaiming all of the quality of his Tesla products on the lawn of the White House, which tells me that's tritourious toward how we look at the separation of the state and the citizens. Yeah, on the anger part, the thing that got me angry, and it was rare for me, General, so maybe I'm growing, but I drafted a tweet that I deleted because I was so mad because I felt like it was in some ways might be read by Senator Kelly or his folks as being a slight to them. And I didn't intend it that way. So I want to explain my

view longer. But he said on CNN, I think with Caitlin Collins, that several of his Republican colleagues have called him in private to just say that they were offended on his behalf and sorry and blah, blah, blah. And I don't even know if he said the word sorry. And I saw that and that was the thing that made my blood boil. I was like, if I was Mark Kelly, Mark Kelly's a bigger man than me. Because if I was Mark Kelly and these guys called me and said that, I would tell them to kiss my fucking ass. And you can go on Fox and say it and then call me.

But I'm not really interested in your private entreaties. But it is, I think, pretty telling about the nature of these guys. That like they know, there's at least some of them left, fewer maybe than in 2016 that know better, that know this is wrong. And I don't know what their calculus is here. So I don't know if you got anything to add on that, but I felt like I needed to get it off my chest. I'll go back to my army days, Tim, and say there are seven army values and one of them is personal courage. And all our new soldiers think about,

well, that means you attack and throw yourself on the grenade when you're other. No, it also means standing up for what's right and doing the ethical and moral thing. And what we've seen is a deterioration of that in some of our elected representatives who seem to have forgotten the phrase representative in their name. They represent other people. And yeah, they may be voted on by a majority or a plurality, but there's a great line in

the play 1776 where the congressman from Georgia, and I can't remember off the top of my head the name, stands up and says he's going to vote for independence even though most of his constituents don't want to. And he was the remaining vote for the declaration. And he says, sometimes your morals have to override what the people tell you to do. And we're not seeing the personal courage or the morality of some of our members of Congress, which is the most disturbing part

of all of what Trump has done to co-opt. I mean, there was a, I won't name his name, but I know him very well. There was a congressman all over CNN and MSNBC yesterday proclaiming how, a Republican congressman proclaiming how we had to stand with Ukraine. And bigger than Dallas, he voted for the CR last night, which basically shows he continues to support Trump when he knows that that was not a good CR. So anyway, that's my thought on it. And I don't know what we do about

that. Me neither. I think it's going to have to get worse before these guys get smoked out. All right. Well, some ominous topics today. Can we end with a laugh? Can we end with a laugh for folks? Please. All right. We'll see. Bill Burr, he's a comedian. You know that guy? Yeah. He was on Fresh Air with Terry Gross earlier this week. I don't know that Terry knew what she was signing up for. And somehow he got on to Elon Musk. And I just thought it'd be a nice way to end the episode to listen to Bill Burr talking about Elon Musk. Elon Musk, that guy, like who evidently is a Nazi,

like I just refused to believe that it was an accidental two times Seagile. And he does it at a presidential inauguration. This is why I hate liberals. It's like liberals have no teeth whatsoever. They just go, oh my God, can you believe, I'm getting out of the country. inauguration. This is why I hate liberals. It's like liberals have no teeth whatsoever. They just go, Oh my God, can you believe I'm getting out of the country? I'm just like, you're going to leave the country because of one guy with dyed hair plugs and a laminated

face makes a bad car and has an obsolete social media platform. You're going to leave this guy. Why doesn't he leave? Why isn't he stopped? What are we so afraid of this guy who can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag? General, got anything to add to that? No, I think he pretty much covers it. I think he pretty much covered it too. Thank you so much as always for coming back on the pod.

I think that we will need your expertise a bunch in the months ahead So I look forward to talking to you again soon. Okay. Hey, thanks, Tim. Thanks for having me. Appreciate it All right, everybody else we'll be back here tomorrow for another edition of the board podcast. We'll see y'all then peace in tonight funny how things look the same now that my friend Evan's changed gave me one of the cooey that I used to know now he's down with the PLO it's cold kicking in live with the KKK no JBC, no JFA cooey was sporting black denim shoes

dealing with what's leaking for something to use with a pistol in his pocket and a bottle of booze well it could be me Or it could be you I feel like bottle lock and pretty arranged And then you changed And then, and then, and then, and then you Oh, how you changed Oh, you changed

Oh, how you changed I gave you a hard time, and you wanna stay You got out of jail, took a third next day Last night you see, my friend there but he's a Nazi He was a Nazi, yeah yeah yeah It was a Nazi, yeah, yeah, yeah The clock down cracked just the other day Now we're down with the CIA We got COVID operations in Vietnam With a hitman assassin at the knob Now we're home

We wait there, people take this country Eat Mexican food, a red glass of money Come back, come back, drive up in my car You take a super plane down to Nicaragua When it's too dark, how many only want to blame? The Bullork Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with Audio Engineering and Editing by Jason Brown.