The Team House - Gaza Peace Plan: Do Hamas & Israel Play Ball? | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: October 6, 2025

In this episode, Dee, Mick Mulroy, and Andy Milburn discuss the recent developments in the Gaza peace plan, analyzing its implications for both Israel and Hamas. They explore the potential for a ceasefire, the role of international pressure, and the internal dynamics within both Israeli and Palestinian leadership. The conversation also touches on broader geopolitical issues, including NATO's response to Russian aggression and the future of Ukraine, as well as energy dependencies in Europe. The episode concludes with reflections on the uncertain future of Hamas leadership and the potential outcomes of the peace negotiations.Check out Mick's new podcast here:⬇️Apple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/at/podcast/pub-and-porch-applied-stoicism/id1836955475Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/show/1k3QPmkAMwnGJxMLDwUSSd?si=n6piIu8XRcag1Z0K43A3bQSupport the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseSubscribe to our new newsletter!!!!https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/joinNew merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comFind Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️https://fogbow.com/Lobo Institute ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/Twitter ⬇️https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCALinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/Bluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialMick’s publications ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023Substack ⬇️https://amilburn.substack.com/Andy’s book ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-OperationsBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?uBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.social00:00 Introduction and Overview of the Gaza Peace Plan06:05 Analysis of the Peace Plan's Viability12:53 The Role of Regional Powers and International Support18:46 The Impact of Public Opinion on the Peace Process24:51 Military Strategies and NATO's Response to Russian Aggression29:56 Putin's Endgame and the Future of the Conflict36:42 Energy Dependencies and Alternatives for Europe41:09 Conclusion and Final Thoughts"Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio"Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics. I'm here with Mick Mulroy. You guys all know him. I want you guys to do me a favor before we jump into it. Check out his new podcast. The Pub and the Porch Applied Stoicism. It's on all the podcast platforms. Apple, Spotify, you can check it out there.

Just search it. I'm also going to put a link in the description. So check it out. It's a cool podcast. Comes out every Monday morning, I think, because I've been listening to it. So check it out. We're going to be joined short.

Shortly by Andy Milburn, Andy Reginald Milburn, full name. Very unionist name too. But that's all right. We don't hold it against them. A lot happening as usual. The big news, obviously, the 20-point peace plan in Gaza was accepted by Hamas. They put out a statement and then just a little bit of a timeline. And then Trump came out and made a statement saying this is great.

Let's do it. kind of putting Israel and BB Netanyahu's back against the wall. So now we have Jared Kushner and Steve Wickhoff heading to Egypt to hammer out the technical details. And it looks like there's signs of like a ceasefire. We'll see if Israel actually go. I'm editorializing. We'll see if Israel actually plays ball

because they've been bombing Gaza since the announcement. Mick, what are you tracking with this? So I start D. pointing out, you know, well done by the U.S. team that put this together, 20-point plan, very comprehensive. There is certainly elements in it for both sides. By sides, I mean obviously the people of Israel, the people of Palestinians in Gaza, and for the region, right?

It stabilizes it if it goes all the way down every point in this plan, it'll go a long way to stabilizing the Middle East. So well done. And then well played, to be frank, being public about it, wishing Prime Minister Netanyahu into accepting, did he want to accept it? You know, the reporting is not so much, but, you know, he invited him to the White House

and essentially laid out the plan, which is beneficial to the, like I said, to Israel, right? So it not only would end the war and bring back the host. which obviously needs to happen and never should have been an issue in the first place, but we are where we are. But it also talks about Hamas disarming and then, you know, disassembling, if you will, and not being part of a future Gaza, where that would be made up mostly of technocrats, technocrats that focus on the people in Gaza and, you know, building up their economy,

their education system, health care system, things that they should be worried about, and not not consciously trying to figure out how to attack their neighbor, in this case, Israel. So big plus for the people in Israel as well. And then it also talks about continuing the normalization process between Israel and a lot of countries in the region. So the Abraham Accords, expanding that. There's, I think, things that are very beneficial. And more importantly than what I think are the polls that I've seen, about 70% of the population of Israel supports this 20-point plan.

So I think there was pressure, obviously, from the United States, President Trump, but also growing pressure, as you can see, over 100,000 in Tel Aviv last night, essentially saying take the deal, take the deal. So there's a lot of pressure internally, but it's obviously a lot of pressure externally, not just on Israel, but on Hamas. I mean, Hamas does not seem to care at all about the plight of the Palestinian people. They brought this to them. But ultimately, for their benefit, they can either not take the deal. Israel will then likely stay in perpetuity as an occupying force in Gaza and hunt them down one by one. The far right of that Yahoo's cabinet will likely push for annexation of parts of the West Bank.

and after Hamas turns down this deal that literally the entire world supports, they probably will push and be successful in getting Nanyahu to do that. And then if they do take the deal, they get to, you know, get amnesty. So I certainly understand

some of the commentators are saying there's not a whole lot in it for Hamas. Well, there's even less in it for Hamas if they don't take the deal and the way I view it. And so, you know, today's the day. We want to want to see hostages start being released.

As you pointed out, Prime Minister of Nanyahu announced the end of offensive operations in Gaza, but the complication of that is if you're attacked, right, then you're going to respond. That's defensive, but it looks a whole lot like offensive. Hamas has got to now start

planning to release hostages. Just like in the past exchange, that comes with a pretty substantial release of Palestinian prisoners. And 250 of the, and then thousands are going to be released, but 250 we're serving life sentences for killing Israel. It's a pretty substantial compromise on the side of Israel. But anyway, we'll find out today. Hey, welcome aboard, Andy.

Whether we're going ahead with this, I think everybody should hope that we are. Yeah, Andy, I just, we just went over the timeline and Mick gave his initial thoughts about, like, what it looks like, what's your take on the whole Gaza peace plan and will it happen? Yeah, good, good to see you both. And hello, everyone. Can you hear me okay, by the way? It's just going to get a call. It sounds perfect, silky, smooth.

Oh, really? Yeah, well, my internet has been like crap. So, that's hence my late arrival. So I want to be the optimist on this. And I think I can say, even though I didn't hear it, from the beginning, I can say I agree with whatever he said, because I normally do. I want to do the optimist too. No, I mean, absolutely, you know, this is the best option that has come along.

Frankly, it's something that I don't think any of us could have imagined a month ago. So while it is imperfect, and I'll get into that in the moment, it is far better than anything that we have seen to date. So we should welcome that. I have a couple of concerns. One is, of course, that Hamas has not actually agreed to a couple of the terms they're in, right? and is unlikely to because Hamas is not incentivized to give up all prospects of control of the Gaza Strip or having a say in the Gaza trip, right? Remember we're talking about Hamas's leadership.

That's number one. Number two, I think that, of course, I'm a cynic about Netanyahu too. You know, I think, yes, while right now he is on the path. to agreement, he is being increasingly squeezed. While the majority of the Israeli public, I think polls show over 70% of the Israeli public support his peace plan, his coalition rests, of course, on those who do not. He's aware of that, and I think as the opposition within his coalition gets more and more strident, he's going to look for ways to wiggle out.

And that concerns me. And so you've got at either end of the spectrum, Hamas and Netanyar who are certainly who perhaps aren't wholeheartedly in support of this thing. But and of course the devils in the details, right? You know, the Palestinian, the role that the Palestinian Authority is going to play right now from Israeli perspective, if they want them not to play a role at all in the intermediate period until they have passed some reforms and the responsibility for sovereignty over the strip or the authority for running the strip will then pass to them, supposedly. But it's a little vague as to who's going to take control in the meantime, you know, a group of Palestinian technocrats under this. What is it called, the Council for Peace with Blair and Trump?

Board of Peace, no? The piece board, yes, but the... Yeah, I think President Trump's a chairman, which seems a lot of... Actually, making it happen. You know, governing the strip in the interim period is going to be a tough sell. The last piece that I think is a little bit concerning is the fact that... So right now, you've got kind of lukewarm buy-in or you've got buy-in from... Arab nations, right?

Although they are, I think it's fair to say, concerned about some of the details, how it's going to run. You've got Saudi Arabia, in the last year or two, that has become increasingly firm about the outcome of any peace process. Saudi Arabia has not backed down. None of the Arab nations have, but Saudi Arabia has, in particular, it's not back down from the prospects of there being a two-state solution and has not backed down for its support of the Palestinian Authority. And I think that they are, you know, the governor of Saudi Arabia right now

is probably saying, okay, well, we'll see how this plays out because at least it's a better thing for the Palestinian people. But sooner or later, there's going to be some kind of collision course between the policies of the current Israeli government, which is kind of over my dead body, will there be a Palestinian state? Netanyahu has said that. Smoldrich and Ben Gavir have said that and the prospects of everyone and everyone else who do support, I'm sorry, the perspective of everyone else who do support the prospects for a two-state solution. That's right. And we are, I think we're at a fork in the road, right? So if it goes down the 20-point plan, then there is still a possibility of a viable Palestinian state. In fact,

it tends to lead toward that. If we do not, and either Hamas, foolishly, in my opinion, rejects this offer, or, to Andy's point, Nanjahou figures out a way to get out of it, it's going down the opposite direction. So that'll probably increase the likelihood of annexation of parts to West Bank, of a permanent occupation of Gaza. So from the Palestinian people's perspective, are those that support the Palestinian people toward getting a state of their own, there's a clear route that you would want to go down,

and there's a clear route you wouldn't want to go down. So hopefully all pressure, and I think Qatar and Egypt are putting this pressure, as well as every other country in the Gulf, save Iran, are pushing Hamas to accept it. the question is whether whether they will do it or they hand

Prime Minister Netanyahu an off ramp. So if they say no and if they don't release the hostage, they are essentially duming the Palestinian people, I think, to the wills of Smoltrich and Ben-Gavir that

Andy just talked about. So they have to make the decision today and we'll see. But it's it's a clear, it's a clear distinction between which route we go down. And again, good on the folks that put this together. I think it was, it was well considered. And they obviously got support of basically the world for it.

Now it's going to come down to the two combatants in this bold conflict. And it's good news. It's potentially good news for the Palestinian people who, you know, have the undergone unbelievable suffering. And, you know, it's okay to say that without people thinking you're taking a political stance. It's okay to say that without people thinking you're against Israel. As Mek has said on the show before, there's no reason for children to starve, and yet children are starving. And if you, you know, that's absolutely has happened.

Even in the Israeli papers that are reporting even now, which is rare that, you know, yesterday, a handful of another few kids died of of starvation. I mean there's absolutely no for that to happen. And anyone, anyone who justifies that on any grounds is quite simply, they're out on a very extraordinary limb in there trying to find a way to do that.

You know, and I'm quite quite not shocked but just again astounded by the fact that you cannot say things like that

without being labeled as being left wing or anti-Israel semitic or yeah it's well it's interesting you brought that up because there's a Washington Post poll that came out yesterday

among Jewish Americans. 61% saying Israel has committed war crimes and almost 40% around 39 in change. Yeah. The country's guilty of genocide against Palestinians. I think it's worth absolutely remembering that that Jewish Americans who, you know, and I don't be disturbed by,

they tend to be among the intellect of this country, right? I mean, let's just, let's be honest. I mean, they tend to be to represent an extraordinarily successful component of this country's population also tend to vote central or left center Democrat and to be liberal in their views. And by the way, I don't think you could call them anti-Semitic, right? That's going to be a challenge for anybody to know. Hey, guys, I want to tell you about the sponsor for tonight's show, which is true work.

They make performance workwear that's built like it matters because it does. In the fall, the weather changes real fast. It can be hot, cold, wet, windy, sometimes all during one shift. So you want performance workware that will carry you through the entire day, like these pants that I'm wearing here today. True Work was founded by a trade professional who is tired of wet, heavy gear, weighing him down. True work set out to make workwear that keeps professionals comfortable,

capable, and ready for whatever the day throws at them. They're designed with advanced performance fabrics for lasting comfort, all-day mobility, and year-round job site protection. Every piece is tested on job sites with trade professionals, so when conditions change, you're still ready. This product right now has over 50,000 five-star reviews from professionals in every trade and every climate. So I really enjoy wearing these pants. I think you will too.

I hope you'll go check them out. This is the T2 work pant. It's durable, flexible, water-resistant. The thing I really like is that they're stretchy. Like this is something like you could even like actually work out in if you really wanted to. But certainly during the workday when you're bending over and crouching over and picking things up, these are very comfortable. It also has like some like a lining inside so it's comfortable, you know, around your hips and like where your belt would go. They also make the M3 Wobby hoodie, which is wind resistant, insulated and very comfortable.

And they make the tower parka, which is a full. weatherproof and insulated jacket designed for cold, wet job sites. And they also have a line of flannel shirts that I hope you guys will go and take a look at. So upgrade your day with workwear built like it matters. Get 15% off your first order at TrueWork.com with the code house. That's T-R-U-E-W-E-R-K dot com. And the promotion code to get 15% off is House, H-O-U-S-E. Thanks, guys.

And it's really interesting how, you know, I mean, I'm trying to stay off social media now, but how in American popular vernacular, the term liberal, you know, is used as a term of abuse. I mean, liberal, essentially, what does it mean? You know, it means that a, to me, it means that a country has a responsibility to look after its least able citizens, right? And I mean, that's, it simply comes down to that. It means that those who are least able to take care of themselves are looked after by the government. And that is seen as it's incredible by some people as being an evil or weak or no, that is, that's one of the values that I fought for this country for all. I mean, it's, you know, where do you? Well, we are a liberal democracy.

Absolutely. The whole sense school of liberal, right. Not the political liberal, but we are a democracy that protects the minority, right? I think that triggers some people because they don't understand the nuance of the word. Yeah. So I think they hear that and they're like, what? No, we're not. You know, sadly, the American population, an extraordinarily large percentage of the American population.

It's a question of education. Again, this is an applicable comment, but I think it's a lack of education. It's a, that most Americans grow up with a very snapshot view of history. They don't understand the underlying concepts that have built this country into what it is. You know, they don't, they don't understand concepts like, I don't know. I mean, the Marshall Plan, the aftermath of the Second World War. You know, when you look at, when you look at the fact that all these, this ridiculous, absurdity about, hey, why are we spending all this money on Ukraine?

I know, don't worry, I'm not going to go on this, banging this drum again. But seriously, I mean, you look at the fact the whole basis of the United States' involvement in Europe after the Second War, by the way, after the U.S. had lost almost half a million soldiers in the Second World War, all right, for those values. But the basis of U.S. involved in the SEP World War was, hey, we'll front up the money. We're going to make this an extraordinary economic investment towards stability in Europe. You guys are going to be the front line, but we will provide the investment. I mean, we did agree, yes, of course, to bolster security with our own military.

But my point is that the understanding was that it wasn't going to be our civilians who went in harm's way. that was the implicit understanding that because of the nature of potential conflict in Europe, the war would be fought in Europe, but the US would fund that and stand on the side of freedom and liberal democracy and all these things. And somehow we've forgotten that and now it becomes a bargaining tool about who's spending too much, so much money on what. But again, money somehow wasn't important to people during the 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan down when we were wasting not just money

but our own blood and pressure. It's a very it's an extraordinarily convoluted view of the world. And like the money during the 20 years is astronomical, right? It's in the trillions of dollars between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Completely wasted. Plus, you know, it's on by the Taliban. Yeah, thousands of guys who have died, many of people who died, you know, so doing it. I mean, take Iraq, you know, estimated 100,000, objective estimates, 100,000. When you factory in, everyone died in the Civil War, et cetera, et cetera, since 2003, almost 100,000 deaths, Iraqi deaths, whether or not, you know, Americans care about that. And then how many U.S. troops do we lose, 7,000, somewhere around there, right? I think it's around 6,000.

untold numbers of wounded because we had a very, very high wounded to killed ratio. And then untold numbers are those who are currently jacked up with issues that stemmed not just from PTSD, the thought of the fact that they sacrificed all of this for nothing for a country that in the end didn't care in Afghanistan, of course, is exactly the same story, at least in Iraq. there are prospects of something emerging from this that is that is relatively positive but I think no one

how anyone then turns around and says the few billion dollars that we spent on Ukraine was a waste of money is upset okay I know it's not what you're asking about the elsea no I know it just becomes a political wedge issue kind of you know and it takes a mind of its own and like people start

stop thinking with any kind of logic and reason with it's nominal in terms of of the amount of money we spend on anything. None of our guys are dying in Ukraine, none of our soldiers. It's a good ROI. If you're going to look at it as black and white as possible

and take away the human element, obviously, of war, it's horrible. But, you know, a lot's happened in the last three years, right? Go ahead, Mick. Sorry. No, I was just going to say, I don't know what happened, but it does look like the White House has shifted their view on the war in Ukraine.

That too, yeah. To won the way, you know, we've got to win. which is great, you know, take it when you can get it because it's the right answer, right? Ukraine needs to win and we need them to win and Europe needs them to win, not just because we should support democracies around the world, which we should, but it's in our own interest who's sure that Russia doesn't expand this to a country that then brings in the United States, in other words, a NATO country. So we need them to lose and we need to do everything we can to make that happen, which includes secondary sanctions that cuts off the country. funding. I do think, you know, the president made a good point. Europe shouldn't be buying oil or gas from Russia, any, no country. I think there's still like six. I know we're talking

mostly about Gaza today, but I agree with Andy. The amount of money that we spent there is in our own interest, right? And it's reduced our, I think, most dangerous adversary, maybe not the most substantial, but the most dangerous adversary being Russia and their willingness to invade another country for no reason. Their military might is going down substantially, right? So that means relative to them, our military might goes up. So it's actually a direct, very well spent amount of money to make sure that our more dangerous adversary has less capacity. And that's what's happened. We should look at the stats now to see how many troops they've lost, you know, go down. Armed personnel carriers, tanks, artillery, aircraft.

I mean, it's substantial. The idea that there were some superpower has been burst entirely. And they know it. That's why they constantly talk about nuclear, right? They want to remind everybody they have thousands of nuclear weapons because everybody can see that their conventional military is not near as capable as our analyst to give them credit. So we need to make sure we bury them. I got a question about what's going on in Europe now with all these drone incursions and stuff like that.

Obviously, we saw France a few days back, board a ship, a tanker, one of the shadow fleet tankers of Russia that was, they were thinking, they were also suspecting that it was a launch pad for some drones. What's stopping NATO countries that are on the border, Poland, Estonia, obviously they're tiny, Lithuania, Lafia, Lafia, And the rest, Norway, from, like, running combat patrols with their radars on, seeing, like, you know, is it like money? Is that, like, why they don't want to run sorities and stuff like that? What's stopping them from, like, doing combat patrols, obviously outside of, like, civilian airspace and stuff like that? Keep it away from, like, the commercial stuff. What's stopping them? When Estonia's case, they don't have their own air force.

Sure. They're dependent on NATO aircraft, and NATO aircraft are there under NATO ROE, right? And as we talked about, because there's kind of a dual track when it comes to Russian interceptions, in other words, it has to go up to the question of whether to open fire has to go up the NATO chain, but it has to go to that whoever owns the aircraft, their national chain too. and so you're going to, you know, and the rate at which things happen in the air, in air combat or potential air combat is such that by the time a decision has made, the incident is over.

But the Baltic countries cannot, I mean, they could only do something more aggressive by vote from NATO. Now, as far as Poland's concerned, I mean, Poland has been doing aggressive things in any cases. you know, a lot of it underneath the surface, Polish Special Operations Forces, Polish you know, there's, they mean they're being circumspect, but they're not necessarily holding back. I mean, probably the least effective thing they could do is start flying their aircraft over the border with Ukraine. It's not going to accomplish anything. It's no, no idea the front and Russian aircraft don't come that way anyway.

What they could do, which we've discussed here, is start shooting down drones. over drones and missiles over Ukrainian territory. And for that to happen, for Poland or Estonia to that happen, they could do that under their own rules of engagement. They don't have to consult later. I mean, I would recommend that they do that. I think Poland probably will do that. Poland's already issued a warning that that's exactly what they're going to do.

I mean, there's no way Russia's flying a couple of migs into Poland. No way. think they made it clear they're going to shoot them down yeah yeah so if they do it's unreal well once you make the make the threat you got to carry but i mean i'm talking about shooting down manned and unmanned aircraft that are heading towards right that might be within 10 miles of the polish border yeah now unmanned that's that's a pretty that you know the levels of decision are are such that unmaned the estonians and the poles i can see them making that call to shoot down drone set heading that way manned aircraft, of course, another matter.

I can see the polls doing that, frankly, you know, but I mean probably at a point, I think they would be unlikely to do it until their airspace was violated. But for the most part, in order to do that, the Russians aren't going to do that probably with manned aircraft because they're going to run the risk from Ukrainian air defenses to get that in there.

But it could easily happen in it. It'll continue to happen with Estonia, I know that about it. But the whole strategic point of what Russia claims was the reason for going into Ukraine is completely backfired, right? So they're worried about the expansion of NATO. NATO expanded. They're worried about, you know, a revitalized European, you know, national defense. You're seeing it, man.

They're spending a lot of money. I mean, if you look at the rearm Europe 2030 plan, it's close to a trillion dollars by 2030. There's an immediate injection that's called the safe plan of, I think, $100 billion, right? So it's mobilization, modernization, and integration. It's happening right now in Europe. And I think they are preparing like this is going to be an expansion. There's going to be a war between the countries in Europe and Russia. That's the only way to look at it.

Hopefully, it's not the case that could be catastrophic for everybody. But if you put your head in the sand, like quite frankly, a lot of Europe, being countries did for decades, you inspire the bully, right? You don't, you don't placate them. The only way to get Russia to stand down is to, for them, believe that there is zero potential for winning, or rebuilding the Soviet Empire. What do you think this is more of like a broader strategic, like, and it's speculative, but Putin's like, what the fuck is he thinking?

I mean, at this point, three and a half years in, a million plus casualties obviously that's deaths and people who are injured plus like their entire you know tank inventory a ton of stuff completely you know just wiped out almost what's his how many people fled the country they could right it's like a whole generation of males that either dead yeah the brain drain in russia is like probably insane for sure i mean i'm sure ukraine too had the same issue right when the war first started there was like you know a few million refugees like took a left um what's his what's his end goal like i'm trying to understand he's not going to take all over all of ukraine clearly no i think i think the mistake is to look at

Putin as though through the eyes of a western liberal democracy or leader of a western liberal democracy is the casualties mean nothing to him and the absolutely nothing. And as long as he can isolate the Russian public from from reacting to those casualties. So far, the Russian government has been pretty successful in that. And you talk about the brain drain and that has been a significant issue. The economy being in the toilet is a significant issue. But growing disillusionment with the war, first of all, it's hard to gauge how strong that is, how strong that is. secondly, even criticizing the war gets a five-year jail term.

And from Putin's aspect, the worst thing that could happen is peace without being able to show significant gains. And holding on simply to what he is gained right now isn't going to be enough to justify that scale of casualties. You know, he's going to one or go or holding on to the ground that has been discussed so far in terms of peace fire. He's going to want a significant chunk. He's going to want all of Donbass, all of it, right, to include Krematosk, which hasn't been taken, and Pokrosk.

People don't realize that there's still a third of Donbass that is still in Ukrainian hands, a third, maybe a little bit more, to include two significant cities. And he's going to want a chunk in the south, right? The coastal strip is apprehend. He's going to want all of that. And that's just going to be a no-go for the Ukrainians.

That's, you know, if he takes all at Donbass and he's given Donbass, the Ukrainians have fought hard to retain what they have. That is going to be almost a quarter of Ukraine. Now, he won't stop short of that. I'm pretty sure. Because if he just accepts what he has now, and there's a fraudulent conflict. And I mean, he will accept it if he has no other choice.

He will accept it if he really thinks that his only other option is defeat. In other words, if he thinks that the United States will pile in and provide Tomahawk missiles of Ukrainians and everything else and open the floodgates, then that is the only way that he will accept the current terms of the peace plan. I think that's the bottom line. Otherwise, he's going to keep pushing. And he's aware there's a... There's a groundswell of opinion actually behind him in that

because Russians, for instance, Russian soldiers, the people who have lost family members on the front don't want him to compromise. So he's in a position. He either keeps swimming or he sinks. I mean, Putin's former warfare is exactly the way Tolstoy called warfare, right? Organized murder. It's only going to get worse.

I think Tolstoy actually fought the Crimean War. but it's only going to get worse. He's just going to intensify his direct attack against civilians, terrorizing those using more and more significant weapons. He can't lose now because, as Andy just said, he's lost so much in order to gain so little that he has to justify this, if not in the immediate, for history, the way he views himself. So we have to be ready for that. We have to outlast them. We have to help the Ukrainians in every possible way to not only defend themselves, but to win. But Putin has no restrictions on how he conducts warfare.

So he will, if need be, increases direct attacks against civilian targets, potentially with more significant weapon systems. Mick, you mentioned before a little bit... Yeah, yeah. You mentioned before about like European nations that still buy energy from Russia. Is there like a real alternative to like Russian energy for these countries? I'm not an energy expert. I've certainly heard that the Gulfies can, particularly guitar, could fill in the gap. But let's, I looked it up a little while ago.

I think even France still buys gas from France, like Belgium, the Netherlands. And then some Eastern. Yeah, you're going to have to come up with an alternative. And the U.S. can, I think, help. But they need to start working in that direction if they intend to actually cut off the spiket of support, funding support for the war. Right. So if there are. Yeah.

I'm sorry. If there are countries that can fill the gap, why isn't that like more of a pressing thing to try and, you know, know, hamstring, hamstrung, the Russians. It should be. I think there's a plan for like a oil pipeline that actually comes from the Middle East, up through Syria and then into Europe, a gas pipeline. Again, I'm not an expert, but that's probably years away, right? Yeah, yeah.

So they would have to be done, you know, old-fashioned way with tankers, tankers, etc. But if there's a way to do it, even if it's more expensive. I mean, think about much money they are to defend themselves. against Russia when they could, you know, spend more money on energy to cut off the Russian funding for their war. So I think we should impose the sanctioning Russia Act. I don't know why. And Europe needs to do everything they can to get off of Russian oil. It is like Senator, the late Senator McCain said, an army with a gas station. That's it. They have a one-track economy.

So if we can cut that off, we could go a long way to end of this conflict. Melbourne? Yeah, of course, India and China are massive uses of Russian oil. I think with Europe, I could be wrong, but I think it's liquidified national and natural gas, right? Thank you. And I think that the problem is that over the last decade, Europe has shifted to relying more and more on LNG for, I mean, for its fuel needs I'm talking about, for instance, heating. And so it's more than the last decade, last two decades. So finding an alternate source of LNG is the problem.

And again, I'm on a little bit of thin ice here. I haven't researched this, but to a mixed point about pipeline originating in the Middle East. And I can't. But I've, but I've, think that the war, that the fact that Syria is now potentially at peace improves the prospects of there being a ground pipeline of LNG and an alternate source for European countries.

So when one of our many educated listeners audience, I'm sure we'll chime in with a better response, but I got one more question I'm going back to the peace deal with Gaza with Hamas and Israel what happens I mean supposedly it's for like amnesty right the guy like the Hamas guys get amnesty I mean they know that there's there's no such thing right

I mean I feel like Musa's gonna be it you know if they go to Qatar or they go somewhere else to you know live in retirement Hamas Israel is going to do what Israel does, right? They have to know that. Well, I mean, if they lay down their arms and they get not only embassy, but safe passage to another country, I mean, you just saw the agreement that the U.S. signed with Qatar. Sure.

It's pretty, it's an elevated, you know, major non-NATO ally status. It's almost the equivalent of Article 5 type for NATO. which says basically don't strike here. Now you said Mossad, they could do things that would be clandestine covert. Yeah, it's possibility. But the alternative is that the IDF stays in Gaza and not sit down one at a time. So they have a better chance if they go to another country or maybe even Iran. I don't know.

I don't care too much about the future of any Hamas member. But it really is a crossroads. So you could take this, which would be beneficial to Palestinians. if you claim to care about them. And you probably have a better chance of survival if you care about yourself. Or you could take the other path where I think it's inevitable

that they will watch you down in Gaza eventually. And you will likely permanently end any kind of potential for a Palestinian state. Andy? Yeah, I think, well, first of all, I think that a lot of the Hamas, most of the Amas leadership is already,

you know, we've gone through several layers since 7 October of all of those that had decision-making authority or planning-making authority for the most part have been already killed with exception. You know, the political leadership in Qatar has escaped unscathed. I think, you know, to me, the law of this is for the rank and file, but the problem it is, you know, the Hamas members who have been fighting, for instance, Now at the prospect of putting their weapons away and escaping with their lives, I think that's probably where the law lives. But they're not the ones who make the decisions, of course.

That's one of the potential weaknesses with this plan. I mean, there are a lot of weaknesses. I think that, you know, I think, here's what I think is a positive, really positive aspect of, okay, first of all, U.S. government, right, announcing that this is the plan that the administration, facts and publishing it, that's huge. The fact that the Israeli public by all polls supported, as I said, by over 70 percent. And the fact that the Palestinian people supported, although I'd say the Palestinian people, unfortunately, have very little say in these things. But all of these things collectively do matter and indicates that, you know, this thing has a least a fighting chance of working. The other thing that gives me some encouragement

is that there is a kind of a safety clause in there in case Hamas does not agree. Hamas leadership does not agree to certain things, whereby the Palestinian population supposedly, we'll see if the IDFs can do this. They haven't proven to be very competent at running population control, but supposedly there will be safe areas

into which humanitarian aid can, continues to flow that innocent members of the Palestinian population can escape to and live in while Hamas continues to battle it out with the IDF. Make anything? I mean, I think we covered it all, man. I have to jump to. Right. Do us a favor.

Yeah, do us a favor. Like and subscribe. If you're listening to us on audio, subscribe there. Like it there. Check out Mick's new podcast, the pub on the porch, Applied Stoicism. a good one coming out it comes out Monday mornings I'm a listener I'll have the links in the description Andy Milburn is book when the tempest gathers that link is in the description as well and if you want to find these guys on social media those links are in the

description and of course patreon.com slash the team house to get ad free audio video for both eyes on and the team house I mean guys that's a killer deal honestly anything else There's a ton, but it's all right. We'll hit it next week. What do you got, Andy? Tell me. 38 years ago today, I was standing on the yellow footprints at Paris Island. Wow.

Footprints. 38 years. Yes. 38 years, huh? You're old. Thank you for that. I was born 39 years ago. Yeah.

I don't know what to add to that, except. All right, guys. Thank you, as usual. All right. all this everyone take care see you next week take care see you next week hey guys i want to tell all of you today about a new newsletter that we're launching that encompasses both the team house podcast the eyes on podcast and the high side news outlet which i run with sean naler uh the newsletter is going to be once a week it's going to come into your inbox

and you're going to get the most current podcasts on eyes on and the team house and whatever topical or current on the high side. So it's another way for us to get the information out to you as social media algorithms are pretty iffy and you never really know what you're going to get. So this is a once-a-week email. It'll slide into your inbox and it will have the greatest hits of that week.

It's really good. Checking it out. The website for it is Teamhousepodcast.com.com slash join. Teamhousepodcast.com.com slash join. You go there and you enter into your email list or you enter your email into the little thing on the website and you're good to go and that'll be it. So we really appreciate your support and hope you'll consider signing up. Where's the link?

The link will also be down in the description if you're looking for it there. And that's teamhousepodcast.com.k.k.k.k.k.com.com slash join.