The Team House - Putin Doesn’t Want a Ceasefire | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: March 17, 2025

Today we talk about the ongoing ceasefire talks between russia and ukraine, and how putin side stepped the ceasefire proposal made by the us and ukraine to present his own. We also talk about the gaza ceasefire, the isis leader who was killed and protests at universities.New merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comSupport the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseFind 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?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_appBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.sociBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

on Lieutenant General Kellogg. I mean, he, I don't think we should be taking any directions from Russia on who we're going to send to this. He has extraordinarily long history and national security. Obviously, a tired three star, but also vice president's national security advisor in the first Trump administration. So he is incredibly knowledgeable, I think fully respected by the Ukrainians, which matters. and the fact that he might be a bit pro-Ukrainian, okay? I mean, yeah, exactly. How is that a big deal?

Right. Yeah. I mean, you remember at one time, the national security advisor, our national security advisor, was his biggest criticism is we weren't given Ukraine enough fast enough. Yeah. Right? So I think the history of most of our people in national security

and Rubio as well, I'll send a secretary of Ruby. know they're all pro-Ukradian i mean it's our partner you know so and as soon as we start bow into their demands then all they're going to do is make demands right yeah you know yeah it's it's you know it's it's you know we should just not even acknowledge it's like yeah we're going to send our team this is our team we don't need we didn't tell you you to send hey everybody welcome to another episode of eyes on mcmolroy of course myself demetri um thank god mix here because i couldn't do this by myself uh

Andy Milver and Jason Lyons are they're here. We love them and we miss them. Lock cooking today over the last, you know, week or so, there's been quite a bunch of news. First and foremost, what's going on with Ukraine? The U.S. and Ukrainians met in Saudi Arabia a few days ago, came up with a ceasefire plan for 30 days. And it seems like the Russians have rejected it and kind of slipped in their own.

ceasefire deal or what looks like a ceasefire deal, not exactly something that is shocking to most people that they wouldn't go for it. Mick, what are you thinking? Also, a big point in that was Kellogg got kind of put on the back burner, I guess. Russians didn't like him being involved.

So just, that was just my life. Yes. Yeah, I'll have to discuss there, but I'll start with happy almost St. Patrick's Day to America and Irish around the world, obviously, but I had to point that out. I have my contribution to the Green Spot. No one I don't have any investments in this, but I recommend it. You haven't had a green spot. And fun fact, for an honor of our national security bend of our podcast and the Irish. Irish are about 9% of the U.S. population, Irish Americans that is.

What percentage do you think of Medal of Honors D were awarded to Irish Americans? I'm going to say it. 9% remember, they're only 9% of the population. I'm going to say 40%. 58%. Oh, wow. Almost 60%. And I think if they updated it, I think it would be over 60%.

You guys can check me out. but that's your Irish propaganda for today. I got a lot of it. So to your question, on Ukraine, obviously several big things. I think it's important to point out. It's good that we are now what appears to be on the same sheet with Ukraine. Need to recognize that. It was a little messy getting there, but, you know, it is what it is.

And this is a U.S. proposed ceasefire. So I think that is what we need. need the U.S. to focus on is that now this is the U.S. wanting a ceasefire. And there has to be not just, you know, everybody has to compromise, I suppose, in any negotiation, but there needs to be consequences to Russia if they don't agree to the ceasefire. And there's reports now, and although it's not like it's a secret, but there's an FSB report, apparently, that's been reported that their plan is to essentially continue to fight, make completely unrealistic request of the ceasefire, and basically place.

They think they're, you know, in the Kersk region, they're taking back territory, apparently they're mobilizing to go in the Sumi region of Ukraine. They think that they're partly because of the disruption and aid and intelligence, but partly just because this is a war of attrition. And Russia has four times the amount of troops. that Ukraine has. So the longer this goes on, the more territory they'll take.

I think that's a big concern is that they don't see any value from the military perspective of a ceasefire right now because they're, they believe they're on their front foot. So I think the way the U.S. and Europe as supporters of Ukraine should start looking is what can we do to make that turn, right?

to give Ukraine an advantage that can start potentially taking territory back from Russia or whole territory they currently have. And that rhymes with increased security assistance. Right? Yeah. That's what they need to do. We need to do. And we don't have to have a press conference about it.

We don't have to, you know, leak our deliberations on it. We just need to do it, I think. And that is what Russia will understand that we're doing that. And so not just turn back on what we had, but actually increase it. And potentially, if that doesn't work to get them into the ceasefire negotiations, then the releasing of Russian assets that are frozen in Europe, $325 billion, it's my understanding. That's another point. Moving, I mean, obviously Europe has been awoken, which is a good thing.

And I think President Trump would take some credit for that. they are building out their military. They're spending more on their own national offense, and they have potentially some of these countries ever. So that's going to keep increasing, which Russia doesn't want to see, and that's too bad. They shouldn't be invading countries in Europe.

They didn't want to see that. So I think that's what the U.S. needs to do to really leverage our, and then sanctions, of course, sanctions can be increased, you know, for talking to some people. economic except. And you know what? And when Russia says we don't like European forces to be there after a ceasefire, we need to hold the line on that because that is what's,

that's the security guarantee for Ukraine, right? That's it. If not, then it's, if Russia doesn't want them there, then that's basically telegraphing to us if they intend to yet again, right, the ceasefire. Yeah, right? Yeah. That's why they don't want them there. Because why would it matter if they were fighting with stuff?

So in Europe, Europe doesn't need to have permission from Russia to send European forces to European countries. So I think we need to hold the line on that. The last part that I, to your question, the assent of this, he has extraordinarily long history and national security. Obviously, a Tart 3-star, but also Vice President's National Security Advisor in the first Trump administration. He is incredibly knowledgeable, I think, fully respected by the Ukrainians, which matters. And, you know, the fact that he might be a bit pro-Ukrainian, okay. I mean, yeah, exactly. How is that a big deal?

Right. Yeah. I mean, you remember at one time, the national security advisor, our national security advisor was his biggest criticism is we weren't given Ukraine enough fast enough. Yeah. Right. So I think the history of most of our people in national security and Rubio as well, a secretary of Rubio, they're all pro-Ukradian.

I mean, it's our partner. And as soon as we start bow into their demands, then all they're going to do is make demands. Right. Yeah. You know, we should just not even acknowledge it. It's like, yeah, we're going to send our team. This is our team. We don't need, we didn't tell you who to send.

And it's just clear. And yes, Europe is going to send in peacekeepers. If you're not for that, that just tells us you're essentially already planning to violate the whatever agreement we could get to. Yeah, it was interesting. I saw one of the clips from like the Russian state TV or whatever where it's like, it's like their nightly show where they're like, you know, hardcore propagandists. And they're like, this is a mistake because Europe's arming up, right? Like Europe's going to start stepping up on their own, you know, Poland is not, I feel like. is not to be fucked with.

Like, they're down to bump their military spending, maybe go nuclear, right? Or at least kick the tires on that, which I can't say I blame them, really. If I'm, if I'm Poland, like, what's the one thing that I'll keep people off your back? And that's unfortunately nuclear weapons, right? Like, that'll completely, you know, more than likely avoid an invasion. Well, if they don't consider the U.S. to be a secure ally in NATO, I mean, I don't know how many nukes you need, but they are vastly outnumbered by the Soviets, like 5,500. Yeah. And all the few countries, in my knowledge, are in the, without the U.S., have nuclear weapons, UK and France.

Yeah. So France is talking about expanding their umbrella, potentially put in, I think Poland, to your point, they requested nukes. in their territory. But they're also probably going to, in Germany, I mean, there's going to be countries that acquire their own, and they're probably, there might be a nuclear arm trace here. I mean, they might want to be on par with the, you know, the Russian threat. So they don't feel, for whatever he's no feel they can rely on us.

So that means they're going to literally 5,000 additional nuclear weapons. I mean, listen, if you're Germany or Poland, right? Like, sure, it'd be great if France extended Laude. nuclear umbrella maybe place some nukes in their in their country but who's got command and control of those right so if i'm a country like poland it's more like if i want to guarantee completely guarantee my security it's like i want my own arsenal even if it's a deterring one whatever a couple hundred you know 150 nukes or whatever it is you know um yeah and it won't be difficult for these countries to develop it i mean sure some of the most technologically sophisticated

countries on the planet. It wasn't, it wasn't a lack of either funds or knowledge. It was just a belief that, you know, collectively, you know, especially with the U.S., we had them cover when it came to nuclear weapon. And that's just, they don't believe that anymore. And they're, and it's not just new because they're talking, I mean, Poland's doubling the size of their military, doubling. Yeah. Germany's spending, I think it was $500 billion next year. They're completely, and they're completely revamping their industrial, military industrial base. They don't want to to be relying on the U.S. anymore. So they're going to, you can see every, you know, every day there's another cancellation of F-35. I saw that. I think, was it Portugal that canceled one?

Portugal and Canada, a European country. Canada just canceled their F-35. So it's going to have a pretty big consequences to, you know, we promote U.S. defense interest here around the world. We, the U.S. government.

Yeah. partly because, you know, it's U.S. jobs, but also because it's in our own interest, national security interest, to have our partners compatible with us using our equipment, right? Right. But for reasons, both because of their concern about our, you know, alliance with NATO but also some of the things they saw happening in Ukraine when they started shutting down stuff, that's going to have a big effect on the future of U.S. dominance in this. this area.

One more thing about that. I've seen a couple places over the last week or so where the reason why the U.S. is pulling away from Europe and Ukraine, specifically, and NATO, is because they're doing a hard pivot to the Pacific, to China.

And I'm kind of having a hard time really, like, squaring that circle a little bit, because, like, there's no way we're not able to do both, right? Where we, Our main focus obviously is going to be on China. They're the next, you know, strongest economy and military and a Taiwan issue. But we can't do both. I mean.

Exactly. That's like the biggest false argument in D.C. It's always like an either or. Like we can't. There's a war, a raging war in the Middle East. There's a raging war in Europe. And we're going to say that we're only going to focus on the Indo-Pacific. I mean, that would be, you know, not in our interest, put it politely.

And the more we show a weakness when it comes to NATO, which is, I mean, there's certainly some complaints with our partners in the past. But it is the best military alliance in history. I mean, it won the Cold War. And, you know, it actually activated to help us after 9-11. If we show a weakness in that, what do you think China's going to think? Yeah. You know, what about our partners in the Indo-Pacific?

You know, we have treaty allies out there, Japan, for example, South Korea, I think the Philippines. It just sends the wrong message. I mean, a strong NATO, especially at the end of this, is going to be even stronger, right? Because we have energized the Europeans. And I do think that's a good thing. That would make it less likely, in my opinion, that China would look to do anything toward Taiwan, whether it was a blockade or, you know, an actual invasion. Hey, guys, it's Jack.

I just want to talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show if you've been watching it, enjoying it. But you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue to do this. You can check out our Patreon. It is patreon.com slash the teamhouse. And for $5 a month, you can get access to all of these episodes of the team house ad free. The same goes with our affiliated podcast, Eyes On, with Andy Millwood. Burn, Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy. That one, you will also get all of those episodes ad-free. And you support the channel and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon members are

literally what has helped this company, this small business survive, especially during our early years. And you are what continues to help this thing going, even as we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we really appreciate all of you guys. going to be a link down in the description to that Patreon page. And there is also going to be a link to our new merch shop. So if you guys want to go and get some Team House merchandise, we got stickers and we also have patches. And I should mention, if you sign up for Patreon at $10 a month, we will mail you this patch as well. So we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale on the merch shop. And additionally, they got T-shirts up there, water bottles, a tote.

boat bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff. So please go and check them out and support the show. We really appreciate it, guys. Thank you. Yeah, I agree with you. And, like, if we show that we're, like, staunch allies with our actual allies and we're willing to, like, invest, and whether it's tech or anything else, everything, from intelligence to hardware, yeah, China's going to balk at a full-scale invasion of Taiwan.

It just is. Like right now they see what's going on. If I'm trying, I'm like, maybe we can get it going by 2027. Because I have a feeling that the U.S. won't respond. And if they do, it might be economically, but it won't be kinetically. Right. And we're not, and we're, we haven't been clear. I mean, there's this thing called strategic ambiguity when it comes to. Taiwan, we don't really tell them what we're going to do. We have a law that requires us to support it, but not direct military. You know, I think you could make the argument. We should be. strategically clear and say we are going to order. Why not? We just don't make the decision at the time. Yeah, and it will be a difficult decision to try to convince Americans that, you know, that we're going to go to war with China to save Taiwan. I think that would be tough. But, yeah, but one of the ways to prevent it from even being an issue for us to have to

decide is to show great strength in NATO and to build up our partnerships and alliances to have some version of an Indo-Pacific NATO. Yeah. Right? I think we could do that, and it would be to our benefit, because oftentimes alliances, military alliances,

lead to trade and economic benefits. I mean, it's tied completely, which is another reason why we got, you know, I guess to be a little concerned about who we're picking fights with economically. Sure. Also another bit I saw about like kind of like our, allies moving away from American hardware.

I mean, this has been a long back and forth with Turkey. Like Turkey was going to get the F-35, but they bought the S-400 and we didn't, we kicked them. We stopped that purchase. But Turkey hit up the UK Ministry of Defense about purchasing 40 Euro fighters, typhoons, you know?

So also I understand why they're a little apprehensive, the rest of Europe. Like there was talk about an F-35 kill switch and stuff like that where it's like, yeah, we, to make sure we're secure, we need to make, you know, we need to be able to trust our allies, historical allies, right, 80, 90 year allies. It's just, yeah. Yeah, it's just something they have to consider. We certainly would.

I mean, allies switch too. I mean, one of our closest allies now is Japan. Right. Yeah. So, I mean, you don't know. I mean, I would hope that we maintain our allies and they don't become adversaries. but from any country's perspective, you want to have ultimate control of your

strategic weapon systems and all your weapons systems, but certainly the big ones. For sure. Anything else on this Ukraine, a ceasefire, and what happens next, maybe a little bit of like some speculation at least? Well, I think the way to force Russia to really come to the table and into an agreement

is to make it in their advance. for their advantage, right? In the sense that we have to start taking stronger measures. We have to start giving Ukraine, as many said in the last administration, the ability to win, not just survive. Yeah. And that means leaving the restrictions or cutting the restrictions on our weapon systems and how far they can fight into or be used into Russia and just start giving them more material, period.

That's, you know, again, you don't have to rub it anybody's face. it doesn't serve us a purpose to do that. Just do it. And then, you know, as they start realizing they're not going to win, it comes to a complete standstill. Then they'll come to the table. And then when they do, we need to just ignore the ridiculous over the top. Because that's how they, everything is maximized on theirs.

They'll ask for maximum amounts of concessions. And they'll try to turn us against each other. So we just need to know that's the playbook and just not fall into it. They've been doing a decent job of it. kind of lie to you over the last month or so. Yeah. Yeah. They think right now everything's going to the direction, their direction, which I don't think

they're ready to come to the table. Also, does Russia really think that Ukraine, even if they did collapse and they were able to take up more and more territory, that like the Ukrainian people, that wouldn't be like the craziest insurgency in the hit, like, ever? And that last part of getting a cut off. So if, if, like, let's say. let's say U.S. backed up and Russia really made some huge games where they were able to maybe even get to Keeve again, right? It's like the early days in the war.

You don't, like, they're not thinking of like the insane insurgency that would happen afterwards and what would like what that would be like to be fighting street to street urban warfare. Yeah, sorry. They don't want to come in a claim of a room. No, no worries. Yeah, I mean, the idea, I mean, let's look how tenacious is. Ukrainians have been so far, right? So most analysts like myself, you know, they're like three days, three weeks, three days,

and you know, in February 22nd when they crossed the line. Now we're over three years. We're in our fourth year. And they're making 20% of the train. And now they're trying to take back terrain that was the, that the Ukrainians actually took in Russia. So let's not be so quick to lose face. I'm not that you are,

but and what the Ukrainians can do. They've proven they can fight. Yeah. You know, this is a David Goliath type scenario, literally. And the idea that you could have a long-term occupation of Ukraine without like the worst, to your point, insurgency ever, they got to realize that just not going to happen. And there could be a point where Europeans actually go in without a ceasefire.

I mean, that's a plausible scenario, right? Yeah. And just say, okay, we're going to man line. here and you're not going any further. And if you do, you're going to be fighting, you know, European forces that are in NATO. And I mean, whether that would be a NATO Article 5 situation, I don't know.

But it certainly would change the discussion from the, from the Russian perspective. Yeah. Gosh. Man. All right. Swinging over, segue into

another sunny part of the world. Gaza. And the extension of phase one, U.S. Israeli citizen is being released. And I think they're also releasing a couple of bodies as well. And the other big one that like stood out for sure was like there was talk of like relocating Palestinians in African countries. I think Somalia being one, Sudan, another one where places where like I don't know if they influx of refugees is exactly the best thing for countries like that. right now? Yeah.

What are you tracking with that? So the extension of the first phase seems to be continuing, at least as far as the pause in the fighting. But there does seem to be not all the parts, right? So the other parts to the first phase was increased humanitarian assistance, which has now been essentially cut off. to a population that, you know, we do some humanitarian work there, so we tend to know the statistics. But it's essentially 100%. It's like 97% of all Palestinians are, you know, at risk of starvation, right?

So if you cut off the supplies, eventually the stockpiles, at the extent there was much, are going to run out. They cut off electricity to most Gaza, which not only, of course, affects the ability of hospitals to be hospitals, but also essentially to make clean water. So you need power for the desalamization plants. So they're down to no food coming in and not being able to make clean water, which is super critical to any population. So I think the request on the part of the Israelis right now is, and you know, there's a lot of legalities with cutting off humanitarian assistance to a civilian population. So you can't use that as a means of warfare, so to speak. Exactly that.

So if they can extend it where the hostages are still coming out, from the exchange of Palestinians and humanitarian assistance is better for everybody. Sure. So hopefully Hamas does that. They claim to care about the Palestinian people in Gaza. I think there's little evidence to support that they do. But this would be like the basic level, right? Do you want to keep releasing hostages for Palestinian prisoners to be released

and for humanitarian assistance to go back to high levels? I think that this should happen. And your other point, yes, there's reports that the U.S. has gone to I think was Somalia, Sudan, and Somaliland, which is part of Somalia, but I would like to be its own country, and asked about whether they would take Palestinians. I can't, I still think it seems to be completely impractical. I mean, how do you forcibly relocate two million people that don't want to? Of course, many of them are armed.

So, I mean, think about how difficult of a middle. military problem that would be. And it would be obviously extraordinarily bloody. And of course, the legalities are forcibly relocating a population from their own land, enforcing them into a country, even if one of those countries agreed. Like we already know Egypt and Jordan said, know how, no way. It's not going to happen. I don't know, obviously, at least from the reports I read, it didn't say anything about, you know, whether they replied positively to that. but if they did to your other point D, I mean, somebody would have to pay for all of us. I mean, these are countries that like Sudan's, actually, if there's one place worse than Sudan,

I mean, then Gaza right now when it comes to a humanitarian crisis, it's Sudan, right? So taking two million people into a country that's having a very, because we work there as well, a very difficult time feeding its own population would be how that would work, but I guess somebody would have to pay the bill, I suppose. In Somalia, they're expecting a drought just met with the Somalis the other day about the stuff we do,

and they are expecting a pretty substantial drought with 6 million people would be at risk food insecurity. So these are two countries that not only couldn't just absorb it, they can't necessarily deal with their own. Mike, I got a question, right? Because you've been in these rooms where strategies talked about. This idea of like forcibly moving two million people to another country.

Are they just sitting in a room with a whiteboard and they're like, guys, give me any ideas, any ideas. And let's put it out there and try it because that's fucking insane. Yeah. So that's, you know, when the policy process, which I don't know if it's, I assume it's still being the same. You have like the deputies, which is right. Not the debt. I mean, you have different levels, put it that way. The PCB, the policy coordination.

But it starts at a lower level where people get cooking and they talk about things and recommend it to the next level. I can't see this being vetted months and months where they're like, you know what, this is a good idea. let's kick it up to the deputy assistant and the assistant then the whatever you know what I mean like and then we'll be in the NIC with the principals all talking about it like I cannot imagine that's how it went down right but just yeah it's called the PCC I think the policy uh coordination committee and I was on that for the Pentagon right and so the reason why I break it up is that if everybody agrees on that doesn't necessarily have to go up you know doesn't have to go the deputies or the principals or the full if everybody agrees.

Yeah. And obviously most cases you've already coordinated with your particular secretary. So you're not just free will in it. But from the DOD perspective, we are always with uniform, usually with our uniformed counterpart at the joint staff, right? So why, now they don't propose policy, but they are there to keep people in the realm of reality. Sure.

Yeah. Like, you know, somebody comes up with a great idea to, you know, move two million people that don't want to be moved. Then the military is going to be asked, like, tell us how this would happen. If it could happen, what would be the concerns we'd have and, et cetera. The agency, the CIA also plays a similar role in that they, they will, they're there to provide input on the soundness of a policy direction, not to see. say whether we should do it, but just the consequences,

pros and cons, if you will, of doing it or not doing it. So that, there is, there is healthy doses of reality, even to people who might, you know, not know, you know, what they're asking for. They get that injection with, and that's one of the key reasons we have, you know, for military and the intelligence services in these policy committee meetings.

because oh, in the intel community obviously sets the facts. So we're all supposed to be operating on the same facts. Yeah, thank God somebody leaked it, I guess, to show everybody how stupid it is of an idea to even, like, bring up in any kind of meeting. And at least it got to like the news, kind of dovetailing a little bit towards what's happening a little bit here at home in terms of like the revocation of Visa.

for some of the students that are protesting in Columbia and different universities. The kid, his name was Khalil. I don't remember his last name. Sorry, he got arrested, sent to an ICE detention center in Louisiana. As far as I know, they were trying to charge him with stuff in Louisiana rather than in New York, where Columbia University is and where he was detained. His attorneys, it's a shit show.

The guy's a green. He has a green card. He's a permanent resident. He has a wife, a wife that, or a girlfriend or fiance that's eight months pregnant, who is a citizen. And in America, you should be able to fucking protest something you don't like. That's where I stand. I mean, I don't know what you're thinking, Mick. Protests nonviolently, not violently.

Yeah, right. Yeah. So my understanding is that every person in the country, not just citizens have rights under the First Amendment. I think it's a Bridges case. A long, a lot of time ago, I was actually a lawyer. So not that that gives me any special. I usually don't tell people that because I just get lawyer jobs.

But I believe that is the case. Now, there's certain exceptions. There's certain exceptions even for citizens, right? You can't promote violence. Yeah. Like, it's speech, but it ain't free, right? You can't sit there and say you should try to tell people they should go and run into a theater, yell fire, that kind of thing. Yeah, there's plenty of exceptions.

We're not plenty, but there is exceptions. And I think inside the immigration laws that cover this, what the administration's saying is that if it harms U.S. foreign relations, that you can revoke a visa. And I don't know what this young man did. So I'm not like if he is just against the Israeli operation in Gaza, that obviously any American should be able to be for it or against them. Sure. It shouldn't just, if not, then even with people that are here on the bases, you know, you have to agree with the current administration, right?

If not, you could, under that theory, you could just be launched. The question is whether he was promoting Hamas. Hamas is a U.S., U.S., U.N. designated terrorist organization who proved that it is in spades on October 7. So I don't know. Was he promoting Hamas, which, to me, would be promoting, obviously, a terrorist organization by the facts. or was he just in disagreement with the U.S. policy on, you know, the two-state solution, et cetera? If it's promoting Hamas, then I can see, depending to what level,

anybody, you know, not being able to do that, but certainly somebody who's a visitor. If it's just a political question, then we're going down up, as they say, in the law, slippery slope. Yeah. You disagree with me. I'm going to boot you out on the country. Sure.

That's going to be highly subjective if that's allowed and it's not actual promotion of a terrorist ideology. Yeah. It's a good question. I mean, what constitutes promotion of a terrorist organization, right? Like, he's not, I mean,

if he's raising money and sending it to Hamas, things of that nature, like I understand why, like, you can't fucking do that. And there should be consequences of that. I mean, if he's,

if he's organizing a anti-Israel protest in Columbia University. I think he's one of the organizers of it, right? Right. And whatever their chance might be outside of death to America or death of Israel. If it's like a lawful protest,

yeah. I'm really having a hard time wrapping my mind around like being able to snatch him and toss him, even if he's not an actual U.S. citizen permanent resident with a green card. Right. And there is a permanent resident. vision that allows the

Secretary of State to do that. So I guess the legality might be there, but the question is we start down that road, then it's going to literally people that are in our country at our permission are now expected to

be everything they say has to be consistent with the current administration. I mean, that's not American. No. But the question is, was he actually and I don't know that he was. I mean, do I?

I don't know either. You know, part of it, and I think, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Have a wonderful day. It was perfectly bad timing, right? What am I going to do? She's a super nice lady. She was good, though.

She was quiet. I'm at the J.NW. Marriott. You can maybe, if I get out of the way, you can see the... Yeah, it's common. Yeah. Yeah. There it is. It's a little cloudy air, Lucy.

Yeah, it's tough. I guess they need to really show what he did or did not do and what he said or did not say. I think one of the things that is really concerned people who have seen these protests, I mean, we have a long history of college protests, which is, I think, a good thing. But some of them really don't know what the hell they're talking about.

For sure, yeah. You know, when you've got people like saying, you know, you know, LG, you know, lesbians for Hamas. I mean, this is one of the, that organization is completely against any form of individual human rights on any life. Whether it's First Amendment, freedom of religion, women's rights, obviously gay rights. I mean, you couldn't get a group that's probably further from supporting Western, you know, ideas of individual liberties, then Hamas. us. Right?

So it's part of it, you know, you can always disagree. I mean, you always have that between younger people and older people. But some of it's like, come on. I mean, if you're going to spend this much time and dedicate your life to something, you ought to really find out what you're talking about. Sure. Because that's embarrassing. It's embarrassing to see people say stuff like that.

Yeah. Because they obviously have done no research on that topic. If that's, if that's. And just think about it, hey, you know, if you're a gay person or, you know, anything, and you go to Gaza, you think they can all, you know, you think you can find like the gay pride parade

where they do that? No. You know what I mean? Like it doesn't exist there. It doesn't. It doesn't, in Tel Aviv, though, just so you know.

Yeah. It doesn't Tel Aviv, right? So, I think that's a whole not different, different issue. But I think to your point, Dee, is it really depends on what this young person

did or didn't. Yeah. If it's just purely disagree. with U.S. born policy, which clearly U.S. Americans disagree all the time with each other. I would hope that that would not fall into the category that somebody could be forced out. Yeah. Yeah, like you call it, it's a slippery slope. I mean, if he's like a facilitator to that level, I get it, right?

I get it. You know, you cannot be screwing around like that. but if you're just some intellectual who's, you know, organizing a protest and there happens to be a girl like a lesbian's for Hamas or whatever their slogans might be. Yeah, I can't. There's like degrees to it, right? It's a spectrum of like, are you or aren't you? And there's also the harassment app, you know, part of this Jewish students.

Yeah. Jewish students should feel like they're under threat and their own college. For sure. anywhere in the U.S. And that was a, and again, I don't know if this person did any of that. But that's another reason why I think these colleges and universities are under so much criticism is they're basically allowing the speech they agree with to some extent. Right.

You know, and I can understand why you wouldn't, but you set a neo-Nazi on Columbia University and see how long they last. Yeah. And they're protests. how long they, and, you know, obviously not promoting your Nazis, but if you're totally cool with, you know, vandalism and taking over buildings and all that, with, with, with, speech and activity you agree with, you know, it should be content neutral for them too. Right.

If it's not, then they're just actively promoting one particular side, but, and if they want to do that, then they'll, they'll have the consequences when I, it's like, they can see right now. you know huge amounts of federal funding is getting cut off to a lot of these I saw that as well yeah yeah so it's something to keep an eye on for sure for a multitude of reasons last bit was we smoked an ISIS the Amir top guy in ISIS it seems like and this name will

allude me till the end of time Adidia Abbo-Kedesia is is terrorist name. Yeah. And like St.com released the footage of it. He was driving along in a car and he got smoked by

I don't know what, a couple of hellfires maybe. Yeah. And so a couple points on him. He was essentially in charge of ISIS in Iraq in Syria and the deputy overall worldwide. Right. So

big success. You know, according to reports, it was done through working with Iraqi intelligence, obviously our intelligence, CIA, and our Kurdish partners and the U.S. military is the one that brought the hammer. So hats off to all of them. And they were apparently wearing suicide mess when they got them. So they probably had that. you know, some of them do that because they know that one day there could be, you know, their door could fly off the hinges and, you know, some U.S. soldiers could be storming in there. So sometimes they wear those constantly.

But hey, good work. I think the big thing to take away from that is ISIS is going to keep going. We can't just unilaterally declare victory of the global war on terrorism. That's not how it works. it's going to keep going. It's more like, you know, the fight against crime. You never see cops like sitting around going, oh, crime's over. Yeah, it's, you just got to accept it.

Terrorism is not, it's going to ebb and flow, but it's going to stay as long as the conditions that make it so are the case. And we have to be ready to keep fighting the fight. And I think the Trump administration things they did since coming into office, they've powered down the decision to take these strikes. I think that's a good idea. And they've given it to commanders in the field, right? Yeah. So there's four-star command, you know, general officers, whether our generals or generals,

that are combatant commanders, right? So General Carrilla is the CEDCOM commander. I think we should be fully confident in him and every other combatant commander's ability to make an assessment based on the poland. they've been told by the president and the secretary of defense. Yeah. Right.

I think we should trust them to do that. And hopefully, that same case is also for CIA strikes. These, these, these are, they're not a, they're not a magic bullet, right? So they're not going to end the war on terrorism. But if there's an eminent threat, the, the answer is either we send in, you know, either military forces, J-Soc or my old unit, which puts a lot of people at risk, or we take them out with a munition that is specifically designed to kill the intended target. Nobody around them. We've actually done a great job, I think, getting to a point where we can do that.

And I'm going to go with the, I don't want to risk the force if I don't have to. Sure. And if you could take these guys off the battle space and we could do it quicker of the combatant commander or, you know, their equivalent at CIA's, making that determination, that I'm for it. Yeah. Yeah, I can't see how anybody would be against it, to be frank. Even my, you know, pinko-comi asses

for it, too. You know what I mean? Smoke as many ISIS guys as you can get your hands on. On a scale of 1 to 10, how amazing of allies and partner force are the Kurds? I know you'd hate these questions,

but the 1 to 10. one to ten i i i am uh i spent a lot of time with the uh the kurdish forces the peshmerga in um in iraq yeah i was on a team i went in uh way before the war started and helped organize the peshmerga which became essentially the northern front right the idea was we're going to have whole u.s division there turkey wouldn't allow it uh so it was basically just a handful of um c i folks like myself and And Army Special Forces, particularly 10th group, set out to retired Lieutenant Colonel Ken Tovo, who was lieutenant colonel at the time. He's now a lieutenant general retired. And all the Kurds.

And I got to tell you, they fought like freaking warriors. And that's why their U.S. military and CIA is so fond of the Kurds, quite frankly. They're a partner you can trust 100%. And they were the Northern Front, which essentially kept. about 13 Iraqi, Saddam, you know, Republican Guard divisions

into the north to not, you know, fight the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps coming from the South. Well, thank you, Kurds. And they, you know,

were outnumbered and essentially didn't have anything near the level of modern military equipment as the Republican guards. But not only held them up there, but pushed all the way to Baghdad, So I'm a big fan of the Peshmerga, obviously have a lot of connections with the Kurds, and the SDF.

So I think the SDF, particularly with the U.S. military and CIA in Syria, I mean, they won, they beat, they defeated ISIS, right? Without them, and they're not all Kurds. You know, that's somewhat of a misnomer. The leadership is primarily Kurdish, the YPG. and they have a lot of Arab soldiers as well. But that's one of the best programs we've run with the partners period. I mean, we've basically put very few Americans on the ground predominantly J-Soc, predominantly, predominantly J-Soc, the Army component and the CIA.

And they did 99% of the fighting and were highly effective. And, you know, yes, it's caused issues with our relationship, of Turkey, but I think if you talk to most military, U.S. military and say, I folks, they have the same opinion that I do when it comes to their quality of a partner, their ability and willingness to fight with us alongside us, and for a very common cause. They are pretty, you know, all things considered for the region aligned, you know, with the human rights. and they're secular they're moderate yeah yep yep they accept other religions women are have significant roles in their government and in their military yeah the YPJ yeah they've got some

really good soldiers uh female soldiers and i think there's uh several books written about so we need to maintain our partnership with them uh for our own interest uh and you know over time it benefits both us and them. And I think that's what any partnership, you know, whether it's strategic global nation states to, you know, entities like the SDF, or just personal relationships, you know,

partnerships are as good as you are both willing to put in the effort. Taking that as like a 9.6 out of 10, I'll say. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. I don't know better partners. So, right. I mean, if you said, well, who's better?

I mean, I don't. Yeah, again, I'm biased. Sure, sure. I've fought alongside many, many of Peshmerga, and I can definitely attribute them the same in my, you know, my ass many times. So, I mean, who's the other partner force really, like the A&A or the A&P? Yeah, we had a great partner force.

And, yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. So there is. an issue right now, the, the, for those that aren't tracking, and I imagine most of our audience does, but, you know, when we withdrew, there's this program called the special immigrant visa. So people who work really closely with the U.S. could come to the United States on this special visa exemption. And, you know, eventually become citizens as they've proven their loyalty to the United States. And of course, we turn the damn country over to the Taliban, which is a large enemy that wants to kill them all.

Right. right so they are not all here and i don't i don't want to give the wrong numbers but i was looking it up because i was talking to people about it last week on the hill here um there's a lot tens of thousands that are still in the process of doing that and there's some talk about some new immigration restrictions would cut that off right and i think you know this isn't shouldn't be a political issue and it ain't for me so i don't stay out of that stuff but i would hope the particularly the vets that have been involved in this do let you know their representatives know that you expect you know the United States to honor their pledge to our partners that fought in

alongside us in Afghanistan and that any restrictions to stop them from being given what they were promised should be not happen here and hopefully that's going to going to be heard before if this is actually going to happen. Yeah, I completely agree. I mean, these people more than risked their lives. A lot of them lost their lives doing this working with us in Afghanistan. And they're still there, you know, probably under threat every single day. Yeah.

Yeah. So I hope, you know, they're allowed to come here. I hope it's expedited and there's no like roadblocks put up moving forward. That's all I got. You got anything else? Do you want to? Oh, I think we covered a lot today. Yeah.

Of course there'll be more as we go along. Mick, Fogbo. Tell everybody what you do at Fogbo. Explain it's people. So we do, we're basically a group that enables humanitarian operations. A lot of us are vets, so we take our skills that we learned in the past life. And, you know, obviously the mission is different now. The mission's delivering food, for example, the people who are in critical need.

And it might be by maritime, might be by air, might be by ground. But that's what we do. And we do, we've been in Gaza, we've been in Sudan. We're looking at expanding to Somalia, potentially Syria. That's what we do. Yes, you could check them out, Fogbo. The link will be in the descriptions of fogbo.com. Yeah, the website.

I have the link in the description. Check them out, see what they do. Of course, Lobo Institute as well. Really cool stuff. That link is in the description too. If you want to read any of mixed publications, that link is also in the description to find them on social media as well. all the links will be in the description as well please so i one one thing that i forgot so um we also

run an NGO called in child soldiering i should probably bring that up every week uh it is an NGO that supports um both requiring the countries don't use children uh to fight their wars but also the rehabilitation of children that were forced to fight it comes based on a documentary we did on a child soldier that got made into a best-seller book called All the Glimbering Stars. And part of the proceeds in the book goes to support our NGO. And we just issued the third Opaka word. Opaka is the name, last name of the two, the man and woman, husband and wife, we did a documentary on both child soldiers to the DeLare Institute.

DeLare Institute is a group that had been doing great work. If you remember the movie or book Hotel Rwanda, the Canadian UN general that was in the movie is Romeo DeLare. And he started this organization and they, I think, are one of the most active out there really doing good work to prevent children from being used as soldiers and to help those that were. And so the third Opoco Award that we've issued from Incheon Soldier Wing is going to the Blair Institute. They're great work. Cool. Yeah, I'm going to also place, I'll put some links in the description for that as well. So check them out all down there if you want to find out more.

Guys, I want you understand something about Mick. He could literally be making three or four times more money doing almost anything else and he's doing the right thing. So that's a little bit about Mick. Just FYI. I'm doing all right. All the other links are in the description as well for Andy and Jason. Check them out. Buy some merch if you want.

Find an Irish pub on Monday. Yeah. It's my only request. Everybody's Irish on Monday. Patreon.com. Do you like it or not? Yeah, you're just forced to. There's no, there's no negotiation there.

I don't want to be Irish. Thanks, Mick. This was great. All right, bro. See you guys next time. Thank you. See you next time.