The Team House - Inside the Disastrous New U.S. Security Strategy | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: December 8, 2025

In this episode, the team breaks down the newly released U.S. National Security Strategy, calling out its dramatic shift away from Europe, democracy promotion, and traditional alliances in favor of a hardline, transactional, Western Hemisphere–first approach. They dive into what this means for Russia, Ukraine, NATO, mass migration, and the growing risk of global power realignment. The conversation also examines Venezuela, Europe’s urgent need to rearm, and whether America is walking away from its role as leader of the free world.Support 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.comCheck 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=n6piIu8XRcag1Z0K43A3bQYoutube:https://www.youtube.com/@UCd0Hq6QFk8CoTu5j-VU0Ong Find 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.social"Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio"00:00 – Start01:08 – Why this NSS is a historic break & Monroe Doctrine 2.09:20 – From promoting democracy to raw transactional power18:09 – Russia no longer an “adversary” & what that means for Ukraine22:55 – Can Europe still rely on America? NATO, decoupling & rearmament31:08 – Migration, “cultural erasure” & the immigration reality check35:03 – Middle East reset, Israel downgrade & shifting U.S. forces44:04 – Venezuela, Western Hemisphere war footing & closing rant on democracyBecome 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 am Dimitri Kontakos. I'm here with Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy. We're here. Do us a favor, like and subscribe. If you're listening to us on audio, give it rated five stars, subscribe there as well. And if you want to support the show,

patreon.com slash the team house. Mick has a new podcast, of course. The Pub and the Porch, Applied Stoicism. It's great. Comes out every Monday. Check it out. Links are in the description. Jason's links are in the description.

Everything and anything you need to know is down in the description or the show notes. So thank you. All right, guys. A lot happening as usual. The big news, I think it came out on Friday was the national security strategy. And I dubbed it and I'm going to trademark this. I'm going to call the love letter to Putin or love letter to Vladimir. Incredible stuff.

I'm sure, Mick, you mentioned that you've been talking about it since it's came out. So what are your initial? thoughts and then after you started going through it what did you come up with that anything change where are you at with this yeah um yeah i've been totally geeking out i don't get a lie about this not in a good way but certainly really digging into what this means for the united states in the world because we are the most consequential nation i think bias of course but the national security strategy for the United States impacts essentially the globe. Where to start? See change from the last, really any national security strategy going back to the end of World War II, including

the national security strategy we drafted in 2017, the first Trump administration, which was very much in line with past national security strategies. This is a complete departure in my estimation. So the, and we could talk about this for three episodes, to be frank, even though it's a, you know, what, around 30 pages. The first thing is the reorientation from basically having a major impact globally to a focus that's on the Western Hemisphere. So what they're calling them on Road Doctrine 2.0 or the Trump corollary. And I'll stop at each second. because if not I'll just be rambling for a no. Yeah.

That is, you know, it's an allusion to the Monroe Doctrine of, what, 1820, so it's a 19th century doctrine where the United States said, you know, we need to control our backyard. It was predominantly about European powers coming into the Western Hemisphere, and we thought that was a challenge to us. Now it is focused mainly on mass migration. So the issue of, and it's called mass migration, so not just illegal immigration, but of course it's probably mostly illegal in the context they're using it. Stopping a flow of narcotics and essentially dominating the Western Hemisphere. So it, and it took some quotes from it.

So the new national security strategy frames U.S. security is beginning at home in our hemisphere where threats now move faster than alliances. So that says, you know, exactly what I just mentioned, that we're focusing on the Western hemisphere and we're doing so regardless of any kind of cooperative effort. So it's not based on alliances. It's not trying to develop, you know, countries to be trading parts. partners, et cetera. We've got done away with most of our foreign aid. It is trying to force our agenda on the Western Hemisphere. We can see that in Venezuela right now. Right. So I'll stop there because there's a lot more to say about this, but that means, of course, much less emphasis on Europe, and we'll get to that. I got that in a whole separate category. Less emphasis and less military power in the Middle East, even after these new security arrangements with Qatar and Saudi Arabia and running the, you know, ceasefire in Gaza, but less emphasis on that.

Africa's barely mentioned, but it's mostly, you know, economic opportunities that are valuable to the United States, not a cohesive, like, plan to build partnerships and democracies and free market systems and stuff like that. And then Indo-Pacific gets a little bit more emphasis, probably Colby's influence, but also because of the United States. But also, because we still view China as a competitor, Russia, by the way, and the first time ever is not listed as an adverse adversary in this. But China, it's predominantly based on economic competitions, but it talks about the need to have a substantial military presence. But of course, if we're going to also signal that we're not going to do things like defend Japan and South Korea and the Philippines

and all these things, then just having a military force there isn't as consequential as you would think, Because if you're sending a clear signal to China, like, you're not going to invade or we're not going to defend Taiwan. Then who cares if we have aircraft carrier strike group out there? So I'll stop there, throw it back to you guys. But my first category from this NSS is the Monroe Doctrine 2.0. Yeah, it's, I mean, for lack of a better term, it's going to be a lonely road if we stick with this. And my fear is how is this going to weaken us as a nation? Because as you said, we are the most consequential nation on earth.

I believe that as well. But, I mean, literally we're handing this to our allies, our friends, and then turning our backs. Say, here, read this and turning our backs on them. And I fear where down the road, even if 2028 and beyond this, this administration is out of office that this is going to take years to repair, if at all. And so that's my big fear. I think that's founded. Yeah, I have a couple questions.

So how often does the national security strategy come out every year? So we did one for the term. It's usually done once. And that's a good point to make here is, so you get the national security strategy, which is everything, right? So it's diplomacy, economics, obviously security, intelligence. It's the big picture. And then from that, and that's what Secretary Hegsef is doing at the Reagan Foundation this week, or this weekend.

He's talking about, I don't know if it's completely come up, but the national defense strategy flows from the national security strategy. So that's how the military is going to do its part in the national strategy. And then from that, the national military strategy. So that's the actual uniform military saying, okay, this is our defense strategy. This is how we're going to carry it out. So that's what gets down to the nuts and bolts. But that's how it flows.

And it's usually done with all those every four years. Okay. Yeah. Somebody, maybe I'm a dummy, but somebody explaining to me when the Western Hemisphere, outside of illegal immigration has ever been a place where we have not dominated the area.

So the original Monroe doctrine was concerned about European powers and that's just not a concern anymore. If anything now, I think the proponents, and I have to be frank, I know a lot of people that wrote this were involved in it and they never talk like this before.

Ever. So I don't know what happened there. But I think the proponents of this plan would say that China, Russia, Iran, are having, especially in places like Venezuela, are having too much of an influence, and it's right in our backyard, and we've got to change that.

I don't know why we couldn't, you know, do that as well as still be the leader of the free world, the leader that Ronald Reagan envisions, you know, be that champion of democracies. But that's another clear part of this, is that we are not, it's, you know, I have some quotes from it on how we're basically not going to focus on being that Chinese city on the hill anymore. It's going to be, you know, American prosperity is the foundation of American power.

Our policies will prioritize economic returns of our citizens. Yeah, we're open for business is what it's saying. Foreign engagements must demonstrate clear financial benefits to the United States. Yeah. Right? So that says, yeah. That's, that's, I mean, I'm not saying that we shouldn't look out for our own financial

interest, but it has to have a clear benefit or we're not going to take part. Yeah, but I feel like the overall national security strategy of the last 40 years has been like American interests, right? Which American interests were believed to also include promoting democracy and civil rights. Yeah. Yeah. One more quote for you. From the thing.

The United States will pursue peace through strengths and advantage, not ideology or moral aspiration. It's hard to believe somebody would put that last three words in a strategy for their own country, not ideology or moral aspiration. So, I mean, the issues that people have, and I think next we should talk about the Europe situation. sure but is it clearly indicates profit over principles yeah i guess is the way i put it and i don't think the u.s. has ever viewed themselves that way i think we should put our interest first right because i mean especially our government employees they work for the people but our interests should include in my i guess dated view of the world is the promotion of democracies to promotions and individuals of beliefs. Free markets. I mean, free markets used

to be a core part of conservative political beliefs. It clearly states in this document that that's not true, at least for this administration. It is tariffs as a means of coercion, which is not,

which is antithetical to the idea of free markets. Okay. Yeah. And then, I don't know. I don't think you read that point. It says about, Africa, the Africa section says for far too long American policy in Africa is focused on providing

and later on spreading liberal ideology. So there's that and then the Latin America one says they talk about encouraging governments and political parties that broadly align with ours, but we must not overlook governments with different outlooks with whom we have nonetheless shared interests and who want to work with us. That is a really broad and open door to saying, we'll work with the worst of the worst, you know, as long as it gets us what we want. And people can come back and say, well, you guys are CIA. Isn't that what you do? You know, you did all the time?

Yeah, on a tactical level, yeah, that's what we did. But it was in the furtherance of our democratic policies, you know. So, and it was against those bad guys, you know, so that's not an excuse. Very good point, Jay. And I think it's clearly stating that they're not so concerned. I mean, one of the things that AIDS, USAID was supposed to do was help develop the economies of other countries to be trading partners with the United States. It wasn't to keep them in a perpetual state of need, right? But now it's, and that's all gone.

Now it seems to be our policy in Africa is where is the rare earth minerals and whoever is in charge of that is our friend. and we'll work with them for the economic benefit. Now, I get it. I mean, it's easy to sound like a complete ideologue and say, you know, but it's a balance, at least the way I view it. We want to develop countries to be trading partners so that we don't have complete imbalance economically. That's what causes the mass migration, which is the undercurrent of the entire national security

strategy. In fact, this is the first one I can remember where it's specific. It talks about, you know, specific policies of another country like Europe. So Europe is one of the next to the United States, the largest bastions of democracy, right? And it specifically criticizes Europe, challenges the very notion that we're in an alliance with them. It says things like, quote,

internal governance failures. It says European partners must confront the consequences of uncontrolled migration that's trained cohesion and fuels extremans. And they actually use this term, and I didn't write this down, but it's like cultural erasure. Oh, yeah, I saw that. Right. So it's criticizing Europe, not the countries, the despots around the world. Yeah.

Again, we already talked about Russia, who has no legitimacy in its elected leadership, and specifically invaded a democracy, has deliberately targeted. civilians and stole 20,000 children. So we're not going to criticize them, but we are going to criticize Europe for its lax, what we're calling lax, migration policies. It also says the United States will not underwrite Europe, European security indefinitely. Well, the one thing I've mentioned this before, I mean, Europe should have woken up a long time ago that it needed to defend itself and not just rely on the U.S. umbrella, but now it is crystal clear. It's crystal. It's clear that they're actually challenging the future of NATO. So Europe needs to, and if I was European,

I would start taking my security entirely in my own hands. I wouldn't rely on anything outside. I would develop a comprehensive integrated European military and that would be as strong as anybody else on the planet. That'd be my plan. And we could get into how that would affect Ukraine. But right now, I would hope that European leaders are waking up to this. There's no more neutrality. I'd also throw that out, you know, my beloved homeland and ancestral homeland being part of it. If you're in Europe now, you need to contribute to the overall defense of your coalition. You've got the example of why right next to you, waging a war in Europe, which they've already said this week, although they don't want to,

they're perfectly ready to go to war with Europe, which if you don't take that as another warning. In addition to this national security strategy, you have your head in the sand. This time of year, the pace doesn't slow down, but you still need to. The calendar's packed, the weather's changing, and your body's reminding you that it's time to rest and reset. That's where ghost bed can help. It's a family-run company founded by a team with over 20 years of mattress-making expertise. They've spent decades perfecting how to build a bed that's durable, comfortable, comfortable, and engineered to help you recover. Every ghost bed mattress is made with premium materials, proven cooling technology, and their exclusive pro-core layer, a targeted

support system that reinforces the center of the mattress where your body is the heaviest. It helps to keep your spine aligned and your back supported, so you wake up ready to take on what's next. And ghostbed's cooling materials don't just keep you from overheating, they help regulate your temperature year-round. Each mattress comes with a 101-night sleep trial and a 20-to-25-year warranty, plus fast, free shipping. Most orders arrive in two to five days, so better rest is just around the corner. Right now, during Ghostbed's holiday sale, you can get 25% off site-wide for a limited time. Just go to ghostbed.com slash house and use the promo code house at checkout. That's ghostbed.com slash house promo code house upgrade your sleep with ghostbed the makers of the coolest

beds in the world some exclusions apply see site for details and thank you ghostbed for sponsoring the show please check out the link down in the description and uh support our sponsor it's kind of a wild place to be where you have uh european leaders doing damage control in terms of uh we're going to stand for democratic institutions and stuff like that and America isn't and whether whatever you believe it or not like America's imperialist whatever your view might be the fact that um and Europe's got a lot of problems like any other country but they're democratic for the most part right like they are not China they're not Russia they are not Iran which are fucking straight up authoritarian plus plus plus countries that are up to no

fucking good. The only thing they give a shit about is their own regime survival. Putin has thrown a million plus people into this meat meat grinder in Ukraine doesn't give a fuck about

any of them. And it's like unbelievable that an American administration can come out and do something like this. I mean, the writing's been on the wall since they got in. Let's call it a spade of spade. Like that February meeting in the Oval Office was the launching point.

But to actually put it in like hard writing, which is like this is our actual strategy, is a fucking joke. And when you come out and the, you know, Russian, the Russian government has publicly welcomed the shift saying the new NSS is largely consistent with Moscow's worldview. We should never be consistent with the Kremlin or Moscow's worldview. They're fucking lunatics.

Vladimir Putin is a lunatic. That's why I called it Love Letter to Vladimir. because it's an absolute joke. And the fact is this, like, all this is NSS is saying is, hey, guys, whoever you are, whether you're an authoritarian, whatever, we're open for business. So we don't give a shit what you guys do. How many people you starve, how many people you kill, we're open for business. If it's in our interest in terms money-wise, like, we're all in. And I don't know if that speaks to whether this is like some late-stage mutated, you know, mutating.

capitalism or what it is because yeah free markets it's not free it's who fucking controls shit and has the biggest guns they can make the rules there's nothing free about this at all make back to you sorry I blacked out just now I blacked out so just a direct

comparison I you know I this is a quote from the 2017 Russia is described as revisionist power seeking to undermine the US and a allies and is explicitly labeled as an adversary. I asked our cyber overlords, i.e. AI, how was Russia categorized in the 2025 NSS? And its response is Russia is no longer identified

as an adversary rival or a threat category at all. That's what AI, when it read it. So that, you know, do that at your own peril, right? Russia, would love for the U.S. not to be viewed as even an adversary anymore, yet they're going to do whatever they can to undermine us all around the world. If you go in Ben Connoble, a friend of mine, super smart, I used to be at Rand. He did a thing, one of his posts talks about all of the terms used against Russia in the 2017 one, and it is what I think most people would think we view Russia. None of it's in there this time. It is a complete. shift. So that has to have some consequence. I mean,

Ukraine should read that and view that they need to basically get Europe more, not only on their side. I think they're obviously on their side, but they need to be their main advocate. Like, if we're going to just send special envoy Whitkoff with a pro-Russia dictated peace plan to go talk to the people who dictated it, it's not going to, amount to anything. It's not going to amount to any ceasefire. It's just a delay and a reason to actually put consequences. So we're not going to do the secondary sanction bill that has overwhelming support in the Senate. We're not going to push for releasing the over $400 billion worth of frozen Russian assets so Ukraine can defend itself. We're not doing these things because Russia agrees to have a meeting next month and then the next month and the next month, even though, and they're, and

shockingly, and not shockingly, yes, the Russian advances are incremental right now in Ukraine, but the Institute for the Study of War just highlighted that they took more territory in the last four weeks than they did in the previous four weeks. Almost 250 square miles, right? I think it was. Yeah. So the other thing that's attached to this, the consequences of this security strategy is when is Europe going to start talking about where is our red line?

Like a real red line. Like, are we going to allow them to take Keefe? I'm not saying they're going to. I think some of the, it's overstated how much. But from Russian perspective, I mean, from the Europeans' perspective, when would they be willing, if they will be willing, to deploy forces to stop an advance that consumes Ukraine? And again, I'm not saying it's going to happen,

but you've got to talk about this now. And you've got to start sending clear messages that if you can't come to an agreement, If not, and say hypothetically, Russia takes Ukraine for the rest of history, they will ask what did all these European leaders do as they clutch their pearls and twiddled their fingers as Russia kept taking incrementally over parts of Ukraine until it was too late. And then what if Russia immediately turns and goes after Moldova or another or a NATO country? Yeah. We're just going to clutch our pearls and twiddle our fingers for that. I mean,

I'll bet money that the U.S. wouldn't do shit to be honest. I'm going to be completely honest. I mean, that's the signal that's coming out of the administration. If they went and took over Estonia, which is probably not that difficult to do, it's a tiny country.

God bless them, like they're, they fucking hate the Russians more than most. If they, what would we do? Would we actually fucking step up? I don't even know. Europe would, sure. but like would we I doubt it well I mean if you view the the strategy as definitive on the topic

and I would point out we write strategies sometimes and don't do it like we're always talking about pivoting for the Middle East for example it's like it's like a perpetual thing that people in D.C. talk about and then I mean look look look how engaged we are in the Middle East right now yeah yeah but anyway if this is definitive then the answer to your question would be Europe needs to do it. It is clearly Here's some other quotes from

I already read that one. I also think while you get that Europe really needs to decouple and like I know they have a military industrial base they should really decouple from the American one and be as self-sufficient as humanly

possible. I know they do have a really solid one but you know our stuff is kind of their back stop to, you know, like from engines to F-35 to everything, I wouldn't trust America as an ally. Going to be completely, if I'm a European country, if I'm Poland, I'm fucking sketched

this shit out with what's going on with America. You know, like I really am. Or any European country. It's like we can't trust these guys. And it's a funny thing when because everyone's tiptoeing around Trump and everyone's trying to get

like a great meeting with Trump. So like the headlines are good. the next couple days, but what is the substantive change that happens after a quote unquote good meeting? Nothing fucking happens. Everything stays the same. And now it's in black and white for Europe to see it. That they're not, U.S. is not coming to their backs.

And it's a fucking joke, to be honest. It's like, what the fuck are we spending a trillion dollars a year for in defense? What? Give me some free health care. If that's the case. If this is a deal, let's all get free health care and not spend a trillion on defense. If we're not going to fight for or even support, uh, tyrants

invading a democracy and Ukraine might be corrupt and I get it like every other country we can look in the mirror and look at America yeah we got a lot of corruption going on the United States right but the fact is

Olenski was it's a democracy yeah he was elected leader and he's actually more popular than I ever was right so it doesn't even matter I mean it's not it's I mean he was elected leader their constitution says they can't have an election in the middle

of an invasion, right? That makes sense. Plus 20% of their country's gone, right? Who does anyone vote there? How does that work? Like, what are the logistics? And so we're obsessed about whether Zelensky gets another Democratic election and gets reelected when Vladimir Putin hasn't been elected in how many years? Right. I mean, it's, I mean, this is a clear right and wrong, right?

Yeah. Just pointing out there's some corruption, apparently that continues in Ukraine, is both accurate and irrelevant. it. I mean, we should do everything we can to make sure the money we provide gets used for the purposes. But there's corruption in the United States. There's Congress people that are both caught, convicted, and pardoned all in a matter of a few years. And we just kind of look the other way. That has nothing to do with, I think, I think in the past, the United States has viewed itself as that beacon of democracy and leader of the free world. If you don't want to be the leader of the

free world, then it's going to be less free, in my estimation. Sure. And it's going to leave a vacuum that might not be created by the next champion of freedom and democracy. It might just be overcome by China, who says, great. They're detaching from the world. They're focused on the Western Hemisphere. We're going to dominate not only the Indo-Pacific, but Africa and the Middle East.

And then Russia says, great, we'll take Europe. and we're over here focused on on the Western Hemisphere. Again, I think we should probably be paid more attention to the Western Hemisphere. It is in our backyard. But I don't think we're coming at it as benevolent with benevolent tensions. I think we're coming at it to dominate.

Right, right, yeah. You know, it's, you know, I call it hemispheric fortification is what it sounds like. They want to basically force countries, to deal with migration. I'm okay with that, but it's going to be done with military because the national defense strategy, they just created, I think, a Western Hemisphere section of the U.S. Army, right? So it all adjusts. Everything adjusts based on the national strategy, the defense strategy, the military strategy, and of course, I've always advocated for having an appendix to the defense

strategy that's for intelligence, right, especially covert stuff. But either way, it's all going to adjust based on the strategy. Yeah. That's how it works. So if this is actually carried out, we're going to be getting, again, hemispheric fortification. We're going to be going from a more alliance-based

to a more transactional-based world, and we are going to get away from promoting democracies, civil rights, et cetera, and more just totally geared toward economic self-interest of the country. And that's probably going to be. for corporations, right? No shit. What do you think?

U.S. corporations. I mean, I don't know how necessarily the U.S. taxpayer would. You think it's trickling down to like the middle class? Yeah, bullshit. I got a fucking, yeah, go ahead. Sorry. No, I'm just saying they're, I mean, they're not stupid. They throw buzzwords into these, into the NSS, like prosperity.

You know, this is about prosperity, but who is that prosperous for who, you know? The cronies, the orbiters. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. But they know, along with, they also threw in that beloved buzzword DEI in there that this is for, you know, to root out DEI. Somebody tell me, and I'm guaranteeing I'm going to get a text or a message or something. Well, actually, tell me where DEI has been a burden on national security. Give me one instance where it has. But they know if they throw these deep, these buzzwords in there, you know, prosperity on the positive side and DEI on the.

the negative side, it's going to, number one, it's going to get people row back up. And number two, there are people who already support them. It's going to fortify them. See, this is why he needs to do this. And going back to what Mickey were saying about Russia and China, in the long run, they can afford to abandon the Western Hemisphere. Whatever they're doing in South America, they can afford to, you know, hey, not a problem, you know, America, we're out of here.

As long as you leave us alone in Europe to do what we want and in the Pacific. you know to do what we want they they can afford it in the long run yeah that's a huge trade point that's a massive trade up who wouldn't take that right exactly yeah yeah that's a very good point um people should be looking at that very point jake is it i haven't heard it made but this could be an offer to like basically just to bite up the world yeah absolutely yeah and then as far as europe is concerned um you know we we just had an incident with them you know, where they certain countries said, we're going to stop sharing intel with you as far as vis-a-vis, or vis-a-vis South America and Central America are concerned because we don't agree with what you're doing.

Well, now let's shift that to Europe if we cut them off. You know, we still have U.S. citizens that live there who go vacation there. You know, we still have embassies there, things like that. So what says that they get, somebody gets wind of an impending terror attack or something like that and they decide, screw them you know they're not you know u.s. isn't helping us so we might hold off on this for a little bit until we know for sure that it's going to be an attack you know so the ripple effect the butterfly effect of this is going to be far reaching it is it is I think we're going to be talking about this for a long time especially if we see it play out in policy yeah like I mean to go to do have this

big of a shift um in in it over any president right over the last since night 1947. Well, like, for example, European, Europe was a core partner, like the core partner with U.S. on security matters since 1947, right? So this is a complete departure. So if it's a complete departure, that tells me they intend to do it, right? What's the point of writing, like, a very controversial, totally changed perspective, even from your first administration, and then not do it? Yeah. Right? Also, yeah. I think it's happening. Totally. Nick, what's, what do you call it cultural erasure that's happening, right? That's what they mentioned in the NSS in terms of like mass migration from into European countries and our country.

Yeah. Why don't we just call it what it is and call it white supremacy, bro? Because that's what the fuck it is. Let's be real. Like, oh, they're not Western, they're not Western European white people that are coming into these countries. Meanwhile, the only fucking reason America is so proud. because of immigration. Let's call a spade a fucking spade here.

The reason why we're so, we are so popular and have dominated the world the last 80 years is because of our immigration. I'm a child of an immigrant. My dad came from Greece when he was nine. It's what? Because I'm fucking white. I look, I'm white-coated.

It's all good. A brown guy from fucking Mexico's no bueno. Like, this is a joke. I mean, I'm a total. Sorry, I'm getting. about coming back on to talk about this on the news and stuff. Yeah, I don't know. Anybody out there has a different definition of cultural erasure? Yeah, exactly.

I mean, you're talking about a culture, you're talking about European culture. People can have, you know, if European culture is democracy based on individual civil liberties, human rights, freedom or religion, all that stuff, right? You can come from anywhere. and be part of that culture. Right. Look at America. Look at America.

There is no skin tone requirement for that. So, but then they're equating migration, so people coming in from other places to the erasure. So, I mean, over to somebody else who explain that they're not talking about a racial group. Right. Yeah, it's just incredible how this is just plain as day. in our faces in a official U.S. government document that is super important, right? The national security strategy. Like, I mean, what are we doing, bro?

What do we do? Like, honestly, it's an absolute joke. And what is it going to mean? What is it going to mean for actually where the U.S. will push its force around the world? Right. Does, I mean, right now, obviously, Europe should be. It's the highest bidder. just where our economic interest in or that means, you know, very limited places in Africa and

largely working with people who are dictators. It's Europe, you're on your own. It's Middle East, even though we just made a lot of commitments. It's kind of like stabilize yourself. There's also a lot of talk, you know, I do in Middle Eastern media. There's a lot of talk about a shift from Israel being, what was the term they used? exceptional, that wasn't the term, to a partner who needs to deal with its own stuff. I'm kind of mischaracterizing the way it was term, but it downgrades Israel as not like

the preeminent relationship with the United States. No, just a partner with requirements, right? So that's going to send shockwaves in Israel if they read it that way. and the Arab countries that were really tight with. We were like, oh, I thought we were doing all these mutual defense agreements and having you guys stage your forces in the Middle East for a reason. You know, like Al-Odeid, for example, and there's Bahrain in the Fifth Fleet.

I don't know. Does that mean we're moving them out? Will that stabilize the region, or will it just become an arms race? Will Iran rebuild its strength? I don't know. So there's consequences. I know this is the Middle East, but wasn't there? Maybe you sent it.

A story about U.S. troops in Romania got pulled out, I think. Yeah. And there was no announcement. It just happened. Yes. Yes. I have family members over there who were being told their last ones to deploy. Right?

So you're already seeing the consequences of the strategy. Yeah. And again, you know, and I have seen, I talk to a lot of European national security types. They are standing there like Germany's decided they're going to have the baddest army in the best in, I mean, in Germany. I mean, in Europe, right? Poland's kicking butt. And you're seeing a lot of money go into the military. It's going to take a little while.

And again, they shouldn't have been in this situation. They shouldn't have just said, you know, we got, you know, a big brother here, so we're just going to go ahead and spend money on ourselves and let them cover our defense for the last four decades. But they are doing it, and that's good. And I need to do it. They need to just completely take responsibility for their own security and for the advocacy of Ukraine, I think. Yeah, if Europe's not ringing alarm bells, specifically defense economics-wise, where they're just like, let's get, we cannot.

not count on America as a defense partner, really, in terms of soldiers and alliances to all the way down to the nuts and bolts, literal. They're crazy. In fact, it specifically says that they, because of migration, that European countries are going to become so non-European that it challenges our belief in their ability to be in NATO. Oh, shit. Why don't they just goostep and seek Kyle real quick? Why don't they just fucking do that?

Google that on specific. I'll just read. It's 33 pages. A lot of stuff people don't read because it's just like a thousand pages of stuff. This is not, this is not, you know, complicated. You could read it at a half an hour. So there's that. Yeah, great.

I was just feeling really, really good about what's going on here and the leadership in America. conversations about this. I mean, if there's people that want to defend it, you know, I obviously think we should control migration and it should be on our, I do think, you know, it talks about having the strongest military, of course, yes, I agree with that. I think every strategy said that. But, I mean, people that want to support dumping Europe in favor of Russia, go ahead and do

it. Jump on TV. You know, I mean, I talked to plenty of Republicans that are elected leaders. I don't remember for the stuff that's in this strategy. I mean, you even said it to a lot of the people that were authors of the strategy. Probably seven, eight, nine months ago were not in favor or not backing what is being said and what they wrote in the strategy. I think it's the same thing applies for most politicians where they,

move away and back away from their ideology and what they really believe it because it helps them professionally. Like, bottom line, we're all human. I get it. We all like the next wrong on the ladder. But at some point, the rubber's got to meet the road and you got to either be like, am I going to be a fucking chill or am I going to stand up for what I believe in? Yeah. And if you're not standing up for what you believe in, what's the point? I mean, yeah.

Might as just be stay in business and, you know, be just the scumbag businessman, yeah. Or be a good business, man. Sure. Or that. I'm not saying. You're not going to Congress to promote your ideas. Yeah. Right?

If you're not going to do that, what's a point? I mean, you're universally disliked. Politicians are. And, you know, for the most part, they're not doing anything. They've become just a punditry. And that's not the intent. It is the first branch of government, meaning that it's Oracle 1, right? So, yes.

And by the way, if you haven't seen the American Revolution by Ken Burns, please do. I'll plug it every time until I think everybody that listens to us has watched it. It's excellent. But it really does go through how we developed our system of governance. And the legislature who during the Revolutionary War was essentially running the show, right? Because there wasn't a president. The Continental Congress was running the show. through its general, Washington, right?

So they're supposed to have a lot more say in everything, especially in matters of war and peace. Yeah, no, they are abdicating their responsibility completely. And I'm part of this group called the Van derbyr coalition, which is it's nonpartisan, but the whole point, it comes from a quote from Senator Vandenberg that says, politics is supposed to stop at the water's edge, right? So we should have a uniform like national strategy that incorporates, you know, both sides of the political spectrum.

Because the other thing that could happen here is such a deviation that it lasts for three years. And then somebody else comes in, whether it's a more traditional Reagan-type Republican or Democrat, and that's all gone. So everything that we headed down in one direction, whether you agreed with the direction or not, is just going to do the drastic back and forth. The way to try to stop that is to have that dialogue, potentially in the foreign relations committees in the House and Senate with the White House to talk about, you know, where we should go as a nation. So we have a long-term projected strategy that we can actually compete with strategies of China, et cetera, who have a very long view. We don't really have that luxury, but we are making it such that this could be, you know, four years from now. nobody's talking about Monroe 2.0 right yeah right nobody

also I feel like what would help probably and not hurt is gutting the National Security Council I feel like that's probably a move that would help find a succinct policy when it comes to specific areas of the world that's where it's supposed to be developed in the national NSC national council

and then it comes down and then we at the Pentagon on and turn it into defense strategy and the military strategy. So we'll see within, as this comes down, I might already be happening. We'll start seeing force redeployments. Yikes. Maybe closing some diplomatic posts. I mean, it's a national strategy, so everybody should adjust to it.

So if we say we don't care about X region, then we should have less diplomatic missions there, left personnel in those missions, less military deployments there. potentially collect less intelligence there, right? It's all based on the national strategy. Wild. Yeah, I can see totally like embassy's closing in and around Europe, imagine, you know, like all those big money donors who, you know, who get the ambassadorships in the cush places. You're going to have to look for some other work,

but that probably just becomes, you know, Secretary of Defense or something, you know, get a bigger job. So I'm being spicy today, guys. I'm sorry because this national security strategy is a fucking joke. it's real clear especially when it comes to Russia like in Ukraine what's going on it's like not only

I mean I don't understand why we kowtow to everything Russia says and we copy and paste their fucking peace plan the fact that we're not outwardly and openly fucking with them in any possible way we can and by whether it's intelligence sharing weapons

tomahawks we went from Zelensky's getting Tomahawks in August to now he had a deadline another bullshit deadline that he wasn't going to get any intelligence sharing or anything

to make this bullshit peace deal by Thanksgiving this is as clear as day it doesn't matter if you're right left center it doesn't matter like what's going on with Russia Putin is a dictator

he is invading a democratic country this should be easy guys you know I don't know sending the wrong message, but it's definitely in line with the national security strategy that came out on Thursday night.

Yeah, there you go. So we'll obviously keep an eye on this. I mean, everything else is still going on. We're still, you know, blowing people up in the Caribbean, which is great. And I'm going all in, in my opinion, completely illegal. So we're still in a kind of holding pattern when it comes to, like, strikes on Venezuela,

inside of Venezuela. We'll see what happens there. Obviously, we're monitoring this as it comes, so we'll keep you guys updated. Things are still fucked up around the world, so don't worry, we'll keep an eye on it. Anything else you guys want to hit on? Well, I do think, you know,

we're going to have to see what happens in Venezuela because you can't just keep this level of military capacity in the Caribbean. Yeah. Cost a lot. So is it going, It's clearly aimed toward regime change, right? So you don't need the level of firepower to do the drug interdiction.

So we're going to have to see what comes from it. I mean, that's, you know, we've seen the reports on the negotiations. I assume my old organization CIA's doing that. I don't know. But I'm trying to get him to leave, right? That would be great. It'd be great for that as well. But who's going to come next, you know?

Yeah, didn't he offer to leave if he would get, like, him and 100 of his associates, amnesty and stuff like that and then put in power his vice president until elections were held. And we said no to that. Frankly, I don't give a fuck who runs Venezuela. I'm going to be completely honest, guys. I think we're just cherry picking a conflict to have. Maybe just to highlight and push the national security strategy.

Going to be completely honest, because we're not interdicting many fucking drugs. Let's be honest. I can get cocaine really easy around here. So who will we fuck? And there's no fentanyl coming from Venezuela. So. Right.

90% of Fennel comes from Mexico. And like you said, like, is this just a regime change? There's no actual, like, what are we doing here? This is the reason why we're doing X, Y, and Z. We might be seeing the implementation of the Western Hemisphere part of the national security strategy before the strategy actually came out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

This is it. So who's next? Who else are we talking? We're talking about Colombia, apparently. Columbia and Mexico, right? Mexico, who's a huge trading partner, you know, when we talk about free markets and stuff, there's a reason why things are relatively inexpensive.

Relatively inexpensive is because a lot of the stuff and manufacturing happens in Mexico, right? They are a legitimate partner. And I don't know if tearing up their area in terms of a war is really good for their economy. And what will that do for migration in terms of people from Mexico coming to the America? I don't I'm not an expert

But I feel like it would probably bump it up pretty pretty high Yeah And let's not forget people from Southam and Central America The people who run this fucking economy They're the backbone of it Sorry I'm done I'm off I'm off my lefty My lefty pulpit

All right As usual A pleasure I didn't expect to get so worked up But Mick was a little worked up So he got me going I was feeling mixed vibes And I was like all right I'm going

push it too. Fuck it. This is ridiculous. Let me talk about this for a long time. Mick, this is your life life's work. Jason too, right? Andy Miliburn, everybody who's on this show, right?

You guys serve for decades. Not because you guys want to see American power projected everywhere and everything like that. It's because we represent democracy. Like it or not, we do. I don't give a shit about the tankies out there who think we're imperialists, all this bullshit.

When a dictator invades a democratic country it's real easy what what side you need to stand on and the fact that the United States administration is not doing that

is a fucking joke and it's a disappointment and it's on American frankly on social media it said American men and women died fighting communism since the end of World War II and now we're just we're just basically spitting in the face

of those people that lost their lives. Yeah, I remember Russia was a bad guy. As of like Wednesday. Yeah. Magic. There are, it's amazing how they, there was nothing even said about Russia

in the NSS. Oh, it's in there, but it's like, you've got to work to stabilize the region and yeah, but it's not going to find it as an adversary. It's when they're clearly an adversary.

I mean, they're almost jumping up and down, hold up the hands, and I want to be an adversary. or the United States. They literally, I think sometimes you say, what does the United States want to do in this region? Okay, let's do the opposite.

It's literally just to be the villain for us. And then we go, no, you're not. You're not. And they fucking went and zapped a bunch of our diplomats and officers, Mark P.B. and one of them, right? Like, they're outwardly and offensively going after our people. It's time for us to start doing that to them. Yeah.

We've got to pee-wack them. They got to get pee-waxed. for lack of a better term. I know that's not high, you know. Diplomatic. Highbrow. I think it is. Bad visual.

Yeah. All right, guys. I think Nick said this, sorry. No, no, no. I think Mitch said this a while back. It's not like if we decide we're going to go all in with Russia and, you know, we're going to make peace of Russia and everything is great with Russia, that they're all of a sudden going to say, okay, we're going to match that, you know, one for one.

No, they're going to take that and be like, you idiots. and then stab us right in the back and go do what it was that they were doing anyway. Yep. Absolutely. That's what they've proven over and over and over again. Yeah. All right, guys. We'll keep an eye on.

As always, check out Mixed Podcast, the pub and the porch, Applied Stoicism, that links in the description. Jason's links are in the description. Andy Milburn, too, and support the show Patreon.com slash the teamhouse. You get eyes on geopolitics and the team house ad-free early. You can ask us questions, and you can support the show. So as always, guys, a pleasure. Thank you.

Thanks, Jans. Take care, everybody. 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 Naylor. 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 Aizon and the Team House and whatever's 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, you know, the greatest hits of that week. It's really good, man. Checking it out. The website for it is teamhousepodcast.com.com slash join.

teamhousepodcast.kitt.com slash join. 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.kitt, kit, kiloindia tango.com. backslash join you