The Team House - Trump Goes After Zelensky in Meeting | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: March 3, 2025

Today we talk about what went down in the oval office last week with Trump, Vance & Zelensky the fallout and how Europe may have to stand up to Russia without U.S. assistance.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/Blusky ⬇️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-OperationsBlusky ⬇️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_appBlusky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.sociMusic by - Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio#trump #zelensky Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

We've got to start coming up with leveraging what we have, collectively, the West, against Russia. Yeah. Right? More sanctions. Don't agree to the ceasefire. More sanctions. Don't agree to ceasefire. Release more of your frozen assets.

Freeze more assets. Send more. You know, the only thing that Russia understands going back to, you know, Stalin is strength. You know, we have this old expression with bayonets. You know, if you proceed with bayonets, if you find much continue, if you. you find steel withdraw. Like they don't listen to any platitudes. Right.

If you try to, you know, say nice things about them, they only respond to strength or weakness. That's it. And they'll tell you that. It's part of their, you know, their whole being. And we got to start showing strength. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Eyes On. I'm Demetio Comtokos and I'm here with Mick Mulroy.

All the other guys are not available. today. Maxwell, thanks for doing this. Had a pretty spicy last three or four days. I'm sure everyone by this, by now, I've seen the exchange that went down in the White House and the Oval Office between President Zelensky, President Trump, and VP, J.D. Vance.

It was funny because I was just watching the entire, I watched the entire thing a little, a day ago, the beginning until the last five minutes where, like, the sparks really flew. Um, people are saying that it was like a kind of normal press conference, but I mean, you could tell that there was some, a little bit of tension in the air. Um, there were a couple of moments where Zelensky like, uh, you know, they, they made a joke of it, but when the part when Zelensky, uh, mentioned how Europe's put up a good, you know, more than the U.S. and stuff, um, it, it seemed like it was okay and a lot of glad handing like, you know, what Trump does normally. And then it devolved and, and, to something crazy. Mick,

you've been in the Oval Office before. You've been in government. Have you ever seen something like this? But in public, in front of a pool spray, where two world leaders kind of arguing back and forth like that in front of everybody. So no,

I haven't. In fact, I haven't seen that in public or private. And to be honest, I think even if it happened in private, where, you know, obviously I wouldn't be at the table.

I mean, I've been in a lot of senior meetings where I was backbenching, as they call it. So I would imagine they would have told the backbenchers like myself to get out. That's what I would have guessed in the past. And I have been in meetings where there were certainly tense issues discussed. So it was unusual. I think we can all agree on that. You know, I was in D.C. the week before talking our humanitarian stuff on the hill and in the executive office building, which is, I guess, technically the White House.

But it was mostly on Gaza and Syria, which is where we do a lot of our in Sudan. But Ukraine did come up. And some, I've got friends on both sides of the political aisle. And my friends on the Republican side were essentially really concerned about. this. They kind of foreshadowed that something could happen and it would be best if President Zelensky just kind of nodded and took it was coming. I'm not saying he should, but that's, it was clear to me. And then the same people, when this happened were texting me and saying, told you. And essentially, what I asked, like, this kind of looked to me as if it was prepared, right? They said, of course it was. The vice president is not going to inject himself in the middle of a meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky and essentially do what he did in front of the media unless it was planned. And, you know, they've changed their position on that. I don't think my friend did, but it was pretty clear to him that this was this was something that was planned and that, you know, as a lot of people are saying, that President Zelensky took the bait, you know.

Yeah. So whether it was or wasn't, you can lead that to the audience to decide, but I think if you really look at all the circumstances around it, it simply wouldn't have happened if it wasn't planned, in my opinion. But that said, you know, there's issues much bigger than just this contentious meeting in front of the press, right? This is U.S. national security interest, Russia's, who hasn't been asked to, to do anything yet, hasn't even agreed to come to the table.

Their belief that they might not need to come to the table because there's nothing pushing them that way. And then, of course, the consequences to the U.S. when it comes to our relationship to NATO, Europe's obviously holding an emergency summit today on what they're going to do and whether this prolongs the war and potentially increases the likelihood that it could expand into Europe. So there's things much broader than this contentious meeting, I would say. I mean, we can certainly talk about it. But ultimately, you know, there's another conversation at today.

If you're not familiar with the concept of an Irish discussion, as the Irishman, I'll explain it. It is generally when, you know, you can have a regular discussion in which party sit down and talk and all that. Or you can have an Irish one. And I know that's somewhat of a stereotype, but we embrace it. their stereotypes that can turn into fisticuffs and flipping tables and all that, right? I would also say, and I think my fellow Irishman, Irish Americans would also agree that you could come back an hour later and the tables put back an order and they're buying each other drinks and their arm and arm. So I'm not saying that is what happened here. I'm not saying that's

going to happen, but I would hope that it would. I would hope that since we already had the first part, that cooler heads would prevail on both sides and not look at this as some kind of ego thing, but look at, you know, ultimately the position of the United States as leader of the free world, pushing back against autocracies like Russia and their desire to simply take territory, terrain, countries over in Europe. And if we don't, then they're going to view that as potentially a license to continue, not just in Ukraine, but, you know, There's also other countries that are in NATO that they could have their eyes on or even NATO countries if they think that ultimately the U.S. is not going to, and I don't know that this is the case, but not honor Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which requires every country to come to the aid of any country that's attacked, much like Europe did for us after September 11, 2001. So I think hopefully Secretary Rubio, potentially Mike Walsh, who I think fully understands, both of them fully understands the importance of the United States being a partner to NATO and Europe and Ukraine. And the consequences if we simply abdicate that role.

So I think this needs to get back on track, obviously signing this minerals agreement we talked about last week. is something that's kind of a prerequisite, then I would say let's do it and try to get our coalition back. Because Russia basically, the way they enter these things. And let's remember in 2019, they signed a ceasefire with Ukraine, 2019. And then invaded Ukraine in 2022. But I think it's- That was the Minsk agreement, right?

No, so the- I'm sorry. Well, it wasn't the Minsk agreement. I don't know what I think you might be right. The Budapest agreement was when they gave up their nuclear weapons. In 94, right? They annexed Crimea, of course, in 2014. Yeah.

2019, it might have been called the Minsk Agreement. So somebody has a fact check. Yeah. I know they signed ceasefire in 2019. So they're very concerned that if there's no securities assurance that the paper isn't, you know, worth what it's written on or the agreement isn't worth what it's written on because, you know, they just did it for you. Ukraine and decided as soon as they had the advantage from their perspective, they launched a full-scale invasion thinking they were going to take over Ukraine, the entire country. So this is something that needs to be addressed. Russia loves the fact that we're now not only arguing amongst ourselves,

but completely splinter. They've managed to splinter the U.S., not only from Ukraine, but right now, and you can see this playing out real time with Europe. And that is not in the U.S. interest. It was pretty crazy to see like just unfold kind of on Twitter where you see all of the European leaders coming out saying they support Ukraine and uh while it's going while like the fallouts going on and like the new cycle spinning and you you see like every single leader in Europe and NATO just coming out hardcore like yeah we're with Ukraine all the way and uh they signed the Minsk agreement in 2015. So there might be another agreement from 2019.

That was right after the annexation of Crimea. Yeah. And then there's something they signed in. I mean, I guess the point being is they've, they have violated their own agreement that they sign multiple times. So that's why it's so important to have security guarantees, either from the United States or NATO. or if NATO won't do it because the United States, of course, is part of NATO, so it would be essentially doing a security guarantee, then Europe, right? So that's what I imagine is on the table today.

I think it's a good thing that Europe has, you know, inspired itself to take its security much more serious. To be fair to both sides of this debate, including President Trump's consternation with how NATO has been. in our European partners. I mean, they've, they essentially spend collectively around 350 billion a year on their own defense. The U.S. is around 850 billion, right? So there's a bit of inequity when it comes to contributions to the collective defense.

It's not, it doesn't go into a pool. It's not like, right? Right. But collectively, Europe has, I think, in many ways not been the partner. It is, you know, for all the countries. as the United States. And now they see it because they're concerned about our willingness to continue with NATO. Now they're talking about substantially increasing their expenditures on their own defense.

I think they said today that they'll all go to 3%, which is substantial. But they need to do more than that. They need to actually integrate their military so they can fight as a joint force. I mean, you could have, you can spend a lot of money on fancy, you know, aircraft and such. But if you don't have that capacity, you know, the air ground concept of modern warfare, maneuver warfare, if that's not completely integrated, it doesn't, it's not, it's not as effective as it could be that put put it mildly. So they're, if they're going to duplicate NATO and that's part of a discussion, I think today, you know, they're going to have to do more than just spend more. They're going to have to have a unified command structure like we do in NATO, right? The Supreme Allied commander that runs everything.

It has to have a unified ability to actually go to war and be successful in war. So, and ultimately, if we can keep the NATO, you know, this is really putting glass hat full on this, but if we can keep the NATO alliance together and stay together, we'll come out at the other end with Russia going, oh, damn. That didn't work out the way we planned because now. we have a Europe that is potentially as strong as the United States, the United States still as strong as we are, and a unification behind Ukraine, which would not obviously be in Russia's interests, which is good for us. Yeah, I mean, I can't, I don't see the, like, the, the real aim in the U.S. having such a, for lack of a better word, belligerent view on this.

I understand like the reconstruction fund and stuff like that and like trying to, you know, invest in Ukraine after there's some sort of peace deal and ceasefire. But I can also really understand why Zelensky and Ukraine needs a security guarantee, right? Before they secede any territory before they, you know, stop fighting. Because you can't trust the guy like Putin. You know, it's not because I'm anti-Russian, obviously not. It's just because the guy's track record's been pretty. pretty terrible as far as like holding to ceasefires and things things of that nature um even if it

meant like ukraine says i all right we won't be a nato for 30 years right um they need to have some kind of security guarantee before they're just like yeah no problem because like what will stop Putin nothing i mean nothing stopped in three years ago right um right yeah what jakespers said what is past his prologue right so you don't have to take anybody's word for whether you can trust Russia, just look at whether history bears it out. It doesn't. I mean, would, I think Ukraine would likely take a security guarantee from the United States or its European partners.

That is essentially the biggest part of NATO. What would that look like, like an Article 5 type similar to that, comparable to an Article 5 or what? Like just, what would a security guarantee in theory look like? So from, I think from Ukraine. Ukraine side, although they might not be able to get this. When it comes to the United States, it would probably have to be codified by the Senate. So the U.S. promised Ukraine when we asked them to give their nuclear weapons to Russia in the mid-1990s, we promised security assistance,

but they never got ratified by the Senate. And so we obviously did not hold up. So that would be one. And I assume that would be the case with our European partners and Ukraine. I don't, they might have to have parliamentary approval. But, you know, I don't know if Ukraine would accept just the word or some kind of written document sign between heads of state. But ultimately, and of course, we're having on this entire debate before we have even asked anything of Russia. In fact, part of the component plan, part of the, one of the components of the plan that we put together, the U.S., was European peacekeepers on the ground in Ukraine after the ceasefire commences. They already rejected that.

So, I mean, we have a, I think that it would behoove all of the West, including the United States, to have back room discussions on what we're willing to do and not do, and then have a unified front when it comes to the negotiations with Russia. right now we're we've almost spun out of control without even starting the ceasefire negotiations so I mean I don't I think there's a way to get it back in the box I hope we can do that even with the U.S. I think so yeah I mean we've all seen that President Trump can forgive uh even people that are currently in his most senior positions in his captain right so yeah want to look at Class F full, then it can't be done. So I think, and it's, again, it's in our own interest. I don't think there's anything wrong with the U.S. having an investment in Ukraine, either from the U.S. point of view or the Ukrainian point of view, right? From the Ukrainian point

of view, it's kind of a good thing for U.S. to have a rare earth minerals agreement in Ukraine because it will take, and I'm no expert on this, but just reading some of the reports that's put out, It'll take, you know, decade plus to actually get to these reserves. They're not proven. So we don't know exactly how much there is. It would take billions of dollars to do so. And it would be a long-term investment in Ukraine. And I think that's in the Ukrainian interests.

But ultimately, there have to be a ceasefire for any of this to pan out. Right. There's not a security guarantee in the mineral agreement. there's also not a promise to continue security assistance, which seems to be what would be the biggest benefit for Ukraine, giving 50% of the unproven mineral resources to the United States would be that we'd continue, you know, funding. Right. Hoping them out. Yeah. Yeah.

So my, what do you think happens like if this riff continues? Because there was some word when they were negotiating the bullets of the. mineral agreement or the agreement to have a mineral agreement at some point about a yanking starlink internet from ukraine also because i mean i know you can't comment on this but i mean i think it's pretty clear that like u.s and allies have been sharing a bunch of intelligence with the ukrainians right military intelligence does that does that train stop at some point like as a kind a bargaining chip from the on the u.s. aside on ukraine

so that would be if that happened it would essentially be signing with the russians right right so it would be beyond we're not going to continue our support in the you know the amount that we have in the last four or five years it would be actively promoting the military interests of the russians right it would be making

them blind in many cases, particularly the communication side, the intelligence side, the U.S. by far has the most extensive intelligence capabilities and assets than anybody in the world. So that would be put them in a position where they're blind. I don't know that the Europeans could make up for it. I think a lot of what Europe relies on when it comes to intelligence collection is the U.S. So that's going to be another thing they're going to have to address if they really do have an alternative to NATO or even if they don't, if they really try to create this European defense force, it's more than tanks and bombers. It's the intelligence capability. It's a standing

functional military, army, navy, air force. It requires all of that. Now, there's a lot of, you know, quite frankly, folks in the United States that can help them with that, that they might want to reach out to, since we are very good at that. But they need to do, I mean, yes, they have to have some months to talk about it, but it's going to have to move very quickly beyond words. Right. And move into action. In fact, the Polish president today said, essentially, we have 500 Europeans begging 300, 500 million Europeans, begging 300 million Americans to protect them from 140 million Russians, right? So, you know, you know, Europe needs to understand that they are responsible ultimately for their own defense.

And right now, they're they're super concerned because they haven't prepared. I'm beating that drum pretty hard. But I think it's, I think it's important. I think they are, they collectively understand that now. It's just too bad. It's taking this long. You know, the Chamberlain approach is made way to the Churchill approach. Some news out of today where a bunch of European leaders met with Zelensky.

the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer holds a press conference some of the highlights that they're willing to send troops to Ukraine to protect the implementation of a peace deal the UK and France to develop a plan to end hostilities in the Ukraine

Britain has loaned 5,000 air defense missiles to Ukraine Starrmer announced a new meeting with Trump on a peace plan for Ukraine we will not recognize agreements like the Minsk agreements today a number of EU countries said they wanted to be a part of a European peace plan in Ukraine and

Starmar apologized to some of the leaders of the Baltic States for not being invited to the summit but it feels like the summit was kind of hastily put together or I might be wrong on that I don't know Yeah I was probably put together because of the The events yeah the Oval Office I mean they're not asking for me to how to run their plan for Europe but I think it's safe to say that

you need to invite everybody to the people. There seems to be a trend here. Yeah. You know, if this is going to be a collective effort and every country contributes, they should have a seat at the table. Obviously, the big three are going to be the UK, France, and Germany. But unless they want to take on the responsibility of protecting the rest of Europe, they need to include every country. Yeah, absolutely. Why wouldn't you? I don't even understand why. Let's say the next couple months go by and Europe gets their act together and they have some kind of framework for like a European Defense Force, right? Even if it's a carbon copy of how NATO works, right?

And the majority of the EU countries are down. How long does that take to stand something like that up? It's going to take a while. Based on the, to your point, they could duplicate or try to duplicate use it as a model. Sure. The, you know, NATO, the Supreme Allied commander and all the staff that goes under that. But they have really relied on the U.S. military capacity for NATO and actually everywhere were deployed.

I mean, that's one of the things that I guess it shouldn't have been surprising to me, but every time we talked about leaving a place, say Iraq, as soon as the U.S., you know, withdrew our infrastructure, NATO couldn't be there. 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 Milburn, 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 us. 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. There's 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, tote 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. So, I mean, NATO, we're leaving, too, because we can't even feed her. And this wasn't in an active war zone, right? This was in Iraq and, you know, after the major combat operations to include ISIS. So this is something that they're going to have to really focus on intensely. I mean, almost, you know, to the exclusion of anything else other than economics, which is, of course, intimately tied to all this to get up and running in any time that would be relevant to the current issue. But Russia's got to see that it's happening. So even the process starting in earnest would send a strong message to Russia. They might double down on what they're doing in Ukraine to try to gather as much.

And we can see that already today. They claim to have taken more towns. And they've obviously launched direct assaults on civilian infrastructure, a war crime, of course, today, you know, after this has happened. But they need to Europe, even starting the process, as long as it's more than just rhetoric and, you know, summits and. in London, it would send a strong message to the Russians. And there's also on top of this, right? So the biggest benefit they have right now is they are nuclear power, even without the United States, right? So the UK and France have around 500 nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the Russians have around 5,500 nuclear weapons. So I do think there's going to be discussion on

how to ensure the umbrella of nuclear protection between the UK and France is, you know, expanded to the rest of Europe. And if that's not easily doable, then I think you're going to see other countries like Germany looking to have their own nuclear arsenal. So we could also see a nuclear arms race spawn because of this. Yeah. Yeah, it's interesting, huh? I was talking to my friends who are not like, don't read on this.

like I do or obviously you do like where I'm looking at this like all the time and I told them like because there's talk about the U.S. getting out of NATO like from some senators and different people Elon Musk you know I would I would argue pretty pretty influential people on the administration and I told my buddies like a lot I got a couple of good amount of Greek buddies I'm like guys imagine that we've never lived in a world ourselves without the U.S. and NATO and having I'm not saying an overarching hand, which I don't think we should have. We should be allies with these people. But we've never lived in the world where the U.S. is not a NATO, right? And Greeks being Greeks, even if you're born in New York, know about the Turkish invading into Cyprus, all of that, right?

We all know about it. NATO, Turkey's a NATO member, Greece is a NATO member. The U.S. isn't there to like split up, stop a fight or provide arms or just keep the peace, really. I'm like, you think it's out of the realm of possibility? I ask this to my friend. friends where Turkey tries to take the rest of Cyprus or any of the other islands or something, right? Like we've never lived in a world where the U.S. influence isn't apparent in especially Europe and across the world, right? So like we don't know what it would look like with the United States completely isolated. Right. And I imagine for those that want to be out of NATO,

which obviously I think is a mistake, but that would also come with a significant reduction in any influence in Europe, right? So there's, I mean, with the same conversation of the people that are advocating for this, they're advocating to pull all of our forces out of Europe, right? So European Command, Africa Command are all in Europe. That's to our benefit.

I mean, I don't know how we would duplicate our forward presence for our own. interest with that. Maybe there's some discussion on that. I haven't seen it. But it would also reduce, not just the U.S.'s influence in NATO would go away, but also our influence around the world is we,

they might not want us, we might not want to be in Europe. I mean, the same, if that's the philosophy that holds true in, inside of our government, then our ability to project our force around the world is going to go down. Substantially. It's just the fact.

If you want to pull out of Europe, you want to pull out of NATO and polar forces home, then, yeah, it's the isolation. That would be the isolationist part of America succeeding, for sure. Yeah, it's interesting, too, because it's not like there's a plethora of world peace going on. You know what I mean? It's not like we're, there's, everyone's getting along and everything's great. So you would think the U.S.'s instinct would be to not pull out of, you know, Europe or the rest of the world at this moment in time.

I'm not saying, invade anybody, but I'm saying, you know, use the pressure that 80 years has built to bring peace to this, you know, to Ukraine or wherever else. It won the Cold War.

This alliance won the Cold War. And it's, and it's only been used, you know, as far as the Article 5 for benefit again. it's it's in you know and to my knowledge nobody that came to our i think it was a hundred to 30 something countries that came to our assistance after 9-11 over a thousand dying in Afghanistan i mean i don't think they ever ask us for any money back yeah uh or to be paid back i guess we could say well we

cover your security so there's that but ultimately it's in our own interest i mean we are the head of nato right so it's and if if you're i mean i've i've criticized a bit on their readiness to fight, but they can fight. I mean, they can't fight. And if they get their act together, they do spend quite a bit on their national security, not as much as we wish they would, but they do. And more so than Russia, like if you just take the UK, France, and Germany, they more than double expenditure of Russia spends annually out there depends budget. right so the other part of this is the u.s is probably going to have to increase our defense budget right because we don't have the we would have you know taking this potential withdrawing from NATO we don't have our allies right so we're going to have to make up for what they do provide in more so than bases but all the expenditures on their own national defense and capabilities i mean one could certainly make the argument that our budget annually would need to go from you know, eight, nine, hundred billion to one and a half plus trillion.

Yeah. If, yeah, I don't know how that's going to go over with like voters and stuff like, you know, like we all want a strong defense, but at like what cost really, right? Like, uh, you kind of got to thread that needle a little bit at least, at least, uh, optically, at least PR wise. Um, if you're a European country, one that doesn't have like a really strong military industrial base and you're buying a lot of ton of weapons from the U.S. Are you worried about like let's say the U.S. does pull back, maybe doesn't come out of NATO completely,

but like let's say, I don't know, they don't want to sell us weapons or give us parts to F-35, like if I'm some small European country, Italy or whatever. And they don't want to give us parts to F-35s or things like that. Like are you going to turn more towards like European men? manufacturers to make sure that you get your stuff, your orders filled and you make sure you have access to parts and stuff like that. Well, that's part of being in NATO is that you have preferential, you know, seat at the table when it comes to selling the arms made in the United States, right?

So these are American, huge American companies that employ a lot of Americans. I could see Europe deciding, well, if you're out, then we're going to really focus on our own manufacturing of all these weapon systems and not. So we're probably going to, I don't know if it'll be as public as you might expect, but there's going to be a lot of these huge defense industrial companies in the United States weighing in here pretty quick. Right. And on a point on the manufacturing, Russia produced more ammunition than Europe and the United States combined last year. So we got a series in the United States too, but also in Europe, we need to have the capacity, the manufacturing capacity that if we're in a war, we can keep. up. Now, we have the best, you know, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Space Force, but we don't have

the capacity we need to even keep up with 155 millimeter rounds for artillery. That's a fact. So that's something that Europe has to now look at and the United States, that essentially we have the best military. Europe could easily, I think, with, not easily, with effort and expenditures get to where they have the second best military. Yeah. But it still comes down to the, you know, attrition warfare where you have to have the manpower, which can be made up in some cases by drones, but you also have to have the manufacturing capability to keep up with your adversary.

Mm-hmm. Um, the one going back to that Oval Office meeting and the blow up, um, where JD Vance says, like, are you campaigning? right with the opposition when he was in Pennsylvania. I mean, he went to Pennsylvania to see that Scranton factory that's doing the 155 millimeter shells. And, okay, the Pennsylvania's got a Democratic governor. Like, if a war leader's coming, you're going to go there

if you're the governor of any state, right? So I don't know if he was like, Zelensky doing a campaign stop for, you know, Kamala and, and walls. It was just, I don't know, man. It was like, you want to berate somebody

in private over to like, try to strong arm to get a better deal? Fine. But like doing it in front of everybody. While this guy Zelensky's like really trying to grind it out,

like he's, he doesn't seem like he's having a great time, obviously, like who the hell would? Right? You're the president and your country's invaded. And he didn't take off.

you know, he wasn't like, uh, Ghani who just fucking rent fucked off. Um, so, man, I just, I just don't see, I don't see the angle. I don't see the move that like, why we're doing this. Because he was ready to sign that, that agreement to have a fund for 50% like, you got the monetary, you know, you got the deal. So it's just, I don't even. No, it's just super confusing. It is.

And, you know, Vice President Vance voted against support for Ukraine, right? So I'm not sure what he was talking about as far as thanking somebody. I do think the Ukrainian should thank the Americans for the support, but I'm pretty sure he has. Yeah, like 33 times. Yeah, yeah. Right. So it shouldn't be, you know, we require our partner countries to grovel in order to support them. Right.

I don't know. I don't know about the campaign stuff. Obviously, if that was the case, that was not a good idea, part of Ukraine. I imagine he didn't do that, but I don't know enough about that. But I would say that ultimately, if we wanted to goad him into something like that, it was, that's how to do it. And he also got to remember the guy doesn't speak English that well. Right. If you ever, I've speak, I don't really speak any other languages fluently, but I've learned enough to be able to communicate with people over my career. And not that I've gotten a lot of arguments with foreigners, but as soon as it, I've used even in a room where there was an argument, I didn't understand what they were saying. Yeah. Right. It's, uh, you've got to be. So I'm not making an excuse for Zelensky with the, you know, folding arms and all that stuff. All I'm saying is ultimately, it's got to be bigger than any particular ego, even presidential. goes. It's, this is in our interest. We, um, you know, other than China, which is clearly our

adversary, Canada and Europe are our biggest training partners. And actually, Canada is talking about joining the EU right now to protect themselves. Yeah. They feel under, uh, threat, um, economically. And so this, this could shift not only the international security, um, alliances and allegiances, but also economic. Right. They generally goes together, right? They generally, you know, if you're on my side in a fight, you're going to be on my side when it comes time to, you know, trade.

So this is bigger than any particular meeting or person in my view, and it should be put back on the rails. I think Lieutenant General Kellogg, special envoy Kellogg, has a relationship with President Zelensky necessary. and obviously Secretary Rubio, who has experience in foreign policy and has clearly been on the side of Ukraine in the past, as well as Mike Wals, right? So Mike Wals basically said that Zelensky was a modern-day Churchill, period. And, you know, he's a former Green Beret.

So when it comes to the compliments, that's about as high on the list as you can get. You know, Churchill's known for standing up the tyrants against all odds. and leading his country. Yes, he eventually was voted out of office. I know that's a point people have made, but we still consider him one of the most significant leaders in history. Right. Because of how he stood up to Nazi Germany, right?

So even if President Zelensky, and this isn't a, you know, is a president Zelensky's fan club session, but to your point, he didn't leave. He said, I don't need a ride. I need more bullets, right? So it's very smart. Got an orchard trailing, if you want to say. So, but if he leaves after this and Ukraine is intact and survives, then, you know, I'm sure he would do that.

But this, again, this isn't about any particular person. This is about, one, our commitment to Ukraine, which people say, well, we didn't verify. That's like, that's almost like saying I had my hand on my back. We didn't verify what, like where the money was going. No, we promised that they, we would protect them if they gave away their nuclear. Oh, right. Okay. right so this it wasn't a secret it was an open in a court sort of Russia of course and so to the UK

yeah but now we're saying well we never we never got it um you know ratified Senate that's almost like you know say they have my hand behind my back and fingers across right sure yeah dude we have do we have any integrity in our own word and if that's the case like that's just what are we doing this time we even talked about Russia coming to the table for a ceasefire and then if we get a ceasefire They don't have any assurances from the United States that we're going to protect them if Russia violates the ceasefire. Right. Right. So, you know, from the Ukrainian point of view, and I think everybody would do well to look at this issue from the other side.

Okay. So we gave you 50% of our rare earth minerals and we signed an agreement. Russia stops until they can get more North Koreans on the battlefield and we, you know, get their arsenals filled with. with artillery rounds, et cetera, et cetera. And then they start again. Yeah. Right. So I think what the Europeans are going to have to do in addition to get in there,

you know, this European defense force is they're going to have to. And I think you can see it today. They're talking about moving forces to the border. Right. So this is this is rapidly becoming what everybody was concerned. Right. It could be. It could be a massive war between Russia and Europe.

And that would be a nobody's interest. No. And that would affect, you know, the world economy substantially. What is this? Like the 1600s? Like, I know Russia and Europe going about, you know, going to war, knock on what? I hope it never happens. Yikes.

Oh, man, I never feel better after we speak. Sorry. That's okay. I had a question. I forgot it. Oh, fuck. Yeah. I don't know what the move is.

Oh, like, you, are you, brought up a couple times that I feel like the media, especially American media, is not really talking about is the fact that Russia hasn't really given any indication about any kind of concessions that they would make or that they're willing to do one thing or another in terms of making a deal. And that's not really reported at all. And like you got to have two people to dance, right? Like there's got to be two people tango.

And I don't know how anyone trusts anything Russia has to say at this point. They don't. They shouldn't. And I think if you could look at it this way, if there is any pause, let's just call it a pause in the fight. Yes, it could benefit Russia, but it can also benefit Ukraine. They could, you know, especially if Europe doubles. The other part of this that nobody seems to be talking about, and when we talk about reparations or revereating. paying is there's about $325 billion with this frozen Russian assets in Europe.

I don't know the legalities of that, but you know what? That should be immediately released to Ukraine to purchase weapon systems and ammunition for the fight. Why are we talking about, I mean, that's who should, or maybe, and then if there's any left over, then they can use that to repay the United States and Europe for our contributions. I mean, why? So we're now the smallest entity in this, right, 28 times smaller than Russia. is where everybody's focusing everything.

The one country that was invaded had 50,000 of their civilians killed. There's 350 or 325 billion, according to what I read. They need to immediately release that. Yeah. Immediately. Right. So that would be beneficial to the- Or use it as like a character in the negotiations for an actual ceasefire, right?

Like, we have this money of yours. Do you want any of it back? If you don't, we're going to make sure that Ukraine's flushed with javelins, 155, patriots and everything else they need. Everything, everything, right? And maybe you could even say every week that goes by that you don't go to a seatfire. We release, $50 billion, I don't know, something like that. And it just keeps getting released and released until it's now no longer a factor. But that's, but Ukraine gets the benefit of it.

There's, we got to start coming up with leverages, leveraging, uh, what we have collectively, the West against Russia. Yeah. Right? More sanctions. Don't agree to ceasefire. More sanctions. Don't agree to ceasefire.

Release more of your frozen assets. Freeze more assets. Send more. You know, the only way that, the only thing that Russian understands going back to, you know, Stalin is strength. You know, we have this old expression with bayonets, you know. If you proceed with bayonets, if you find musch continue, if you find steel withdrawal. Like they don't listen to any platitudes.

Right. care if you try to, you know, say nice things about them. They only respond to strength or weakness. That's it. And they'll tell you that. It's part of their, you know, their whole being. And we got to start showing strength, which means, okay, you don't want to ceasefire. We'll double what there.

Okay, you don't want to ceasefire. We're releasing your frozen assets. And that needs to include Europe, too, with all together collectively. And then they'll probably push them to the table. for a ceasefire negotiation. And it has to have some assurances. And in setting European forces into Ukraine could be an assurance, right? Because if you start dealing European troops, you're essentially tracking attacking Europe.

And we can make that clear when they're deployed. Right. And another point, like the mineral deposits, right? Most of them are in the occupied areas. Right. So how do you? Yeah. You're right.

It's not that simple, like, of a deal. No. Right. So I think it was surveyed in the Soviet times. That's why they keep calling them unproven, which means they don't actually know what they have. But say they do, say for whatever argument purposes, about 60% to my understanding, it is in the Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine. So that I would work on 40% of unproven. according to the CSIS study that I read on it,

it would take billions of dollars to put the infrastructure necessarily in place to get it out of the ground. Yeah. And it would take decade plus. If the U.S. is willing to invest in it, which could be a really good investment, especially if we're essentially not contributing to it, it's just a benefit.

It also benefits the Ukrainian people because the agreement would be made between the U.S. and Ukraine. So we can't realize it if it's taken over by Russia, right? Yeah. So that, that I think, I think is a no-brainer when it comes to President Zelensky signing it. Maybe he's just to sign it. Right. Maybe he's just signed it.

We can see if that will move on. Yeah. One last thing with in terms of the 320 billion that Europe has frozen. You think there's a shot that Europe uses that as a negotiation tactic? like without the U.S. involved? They could. It's like they control their banks. Yeah.

Yeah. So, I mean, it would seem like it would be the most logical and fair for them to use it to contribute to Ukraine directly because they're the ones that have their country. Right. And still, Europe does double, I think, their security assistance to Ukraine. This is all going to, that's what the messages you want to send to Russia is. Anything else. not calling Putin a dictator, all that stuff doesn't matter to him.

He's going to look at whether we're strong or weak. And if a weak are going forward, and actually he might actually view nonstop compliments or non, not calling a spade as weakness. I mean, how don't you? Yeah. Right? So it really needs to be, I think, the U.S. dictating terms to Russia.

This is what we are willing to do. And this is what we're willing not to do. and this is what you need to be willing to do and start the conversation and then have consequences if it's not going our way. Okay. We're doubling our expenditures. So is Europe. Okay.

We're moving European forces to the border. Okay. We're looking at taking in other European countries that are part of NATO into NATO. I mean, this idea that he only did this because Ukraine might be part of NATO is just not true. Right. When Finland became part of NATO because of his actions, he said he didn't care. He literally, I think, and Sweden. But he said it didn't.

came. Yeah. Right. And, you know, he knows he doesn't want to screw him. He expanded NATO. He expanded NATO, two countries that didn't join for the entirety of the Cold War. They stayed neutral. Yeah. Not neutral, but they weren't in NATO. They joined, right? So there's got to be consequences to Putin's continuous war in Ukraine. Or why stop unless he just runs out of bodies. I mean, they've lost, the amount of people they've lost is just staggering. It's truly staggering. I mean, in two weeks, they lost more than we lost in the war in Iraq. Two weeks. Right.

But they don't care. I mean, Putin does not care about the welfare soldiers at all, clearly. You have to assume at some point that's going to kind of come home to roost a little bit. Because, like, sure, you could probably get a bunch of, you know, mobilize a bunch of people from outside of St. Petersburg and Moscow for the most part. But you're going to run out of people to mobilize at certain points. you're going to have to start pulling from like where those the power areas are in Russia where he's going to feel it at least at home you would think yeah yeah you're right you're

right because there's there's not a whole lot of folks from Moscow the front lines right right right his people are you know back there blogging about it but it's those far-flung regions of Russia where they're just going in and and taking people and set him to the front line but trading or empty prisons or hospitals military hospitals i mean you've seen the reports of these guys on crutches at the front line sitting in a trench on grudkeys to the where they're using donkeys to move uh equipment and stuff like that now yeah that's what i don't get like there's got to be some kind of turbulence back at home i know he controls media and stuff like that but you know they got to have vpns there or some shit like they got to try and you know the seven

some information that's like an anti-putin thing where, you know, your sons are getting chewed up into this war machine. Because if it's really 700,000 casualties, I try to imagine what it would be like in America if we were in a land war with somebody and we lost 700,000 people in 2024, 2025, they would be riots in the street. We would not be going for this. You know what I'm like? In a war of our choosing.

Yeah. Yeah. Right. I mean, we launched a war in your scenario. If the U.S. launched a war that we were, didn't have to do and lost that, I mean, there would be no government in the United States that would be sustained. Yeah. Right.

And rightfully so. But, you know, Putin doesn't have that problem. And interesting enough, although there's calls for Selensky to resign. Nobody's calling for Putin to resign, right? The guy who started the war, right? So I just think we need to get our priorities and order. and I think we can't. I don't think it's, you know, bad week, bad week.

It started last, this week, I should say, you know, with us saying that, you know, Ukraine started for war and ended with that when we saw in the Oval Office. But, you know, next week is a week. Yeah, I feel like it can't get any worse. Let the table back over or buy some rounds for everybody. Chill us. Let's get back on the same team. Chill everybody out.

I mean, yeah, I think Europe and the need to step up big time. Germany is going to have to step up big time. I'm sure that German public is not thrilled about, like, them building up their military back again, just from, like, historical kind of. I was a lot of jokes about that, you know, with Germany, like asking the world, do you sure you want us to be a giant land army in Europe?

But, you know, they don't have a choice. So, no, they don't have a choice. Their armies are like 64,000. I know. It's crazy. And they have 80 million people. Yeah. They could, they could easily quadruple the size of their army.

Yeah. Of course, takes time to get trained and all that stuff. But again, part of it is showing Russia that it's happening. Right. Like if they've laid out the plan, this is what we're going to do. And by the end of it, we're going to be, you know, the second strongest military in the world behind the United States. Russia will see it happening. And then do it.

Right. Like, don't just, you know, tweet it and give speeches about it at summits. it's got to be it's got to be something they visualize on the ground happening and it'll be in the best interests of europe and the best interest in the united states as a partner to europe if they do and that i think uh not just president trump but president uh Biden Obama uh Bush um all said that all said that Europe was not doing their fair share when it came to the collective security of uh the coalition yeah well interesting times man I didn't I you know what else I mean, you want to touch on Gaza and what's going on there quickly?

I can. Yeah. So it looks like there was an effort to extend the first phase of the ceasefire. Or there was an effort. Israel asked for that to happen. The reason being is the second phase is essentially the end of the war. So you've met Prime Minister Netanyahu who would have to agree to withdraw Israeli defense forces for the second phase, that means a vacuum of security. That means Hamas, what's left of it, could potentially regrow and reconstitute itself in some form of authority in Gaza. That's unacceptable to the Israelis.

It would be unacceptable, I think, to any country. So you got to recognize just how difficult that decision would be for, and it might bring down the coalition government, which is not, you know, the world's issue, but from Israel's perspective, collectively, not just Prime Minister Nanyahu, leaving Gaza without an assurance that Hamas won't rebuild and then cost to the threat against. It's just not acceptable. So if they expand the first phase, which Hamas apparently is against, they would continue to have the three hostages come out and the 300 Palestinian prisoners released. They would agree to the increased humanitarian aid and according to many reports today, Israel is going to cut out humanitarian assistance if they don't

agree to the standing the first phase. I mean, the situation in Gaza is going to get extraordinarily dire and the war is going to start. Potentially. Yeah. Because if those hostages are coming out, then from Israel's perspective, the war's back on. And we can see them preparing. They're call their you know, notifying units, putting them on a state of redditiness, which means they could resume fighting and they're giving preserbis notice and they're calling out preserves. So it looks like that's where we're headed unless

special on envoy wetkov can can get these second phase negotiations started in earnest and an extension of the first first date. Yeah. So don't take your eyes off of Israel and Palestine and what's going on there. And you see what's also going on with Syria too. It seems to be a concerted kind of effort to try and keep Syria decentralized and weaker by Israel, Israel.

I mean, that's just another whole can of worms. We'll have Lister back on. He was great. He's a good guy to talk to on Syria, for sure. Middle East Institute, which I'm part of. anything else Mick well I would like to say

since I had and I mentioned this before we started I had the opportunity to speak to the Naval Academy on Stoicism yesterday

super inspired to be frank it was it went well beyond what it was scheduled for because of the questions that's why I'm

bringing it up and they were it was clear and if you're not familiar with the Taoism it's a very old philosophy that's been infused in Western civilization since democracy, right? So it's made a resurgence.

I've been a stoic for my whole life, but it's good to see that it's a resurgence, and it really has come on strong in the military, right? So it's like required reading at most of our academies or OCS efforts inside the military. It was the Marine Corps for sure. And it was clear that these young midshipmen knew what they were talking about based on their questions. So, And again, if you're not familiar with it, there's much to it, but one of it is essentially the four cardinal purchase of courage, wisdom, justice, and self-discipline is what I like to refer to. The fourth one has. And it is, it is something that our society, I think, should be based on. It has been in many cases in the past. And certainly it is a pivotal part of any military

member's career because all of those things are needed and will be challenged. And I think they understand that and it was really inspirational to hear the level of understanding of what we were talking about and interest for sure. Yeah. I mean, I think a lot of young men could really use it. I think it would not the bastardized version of it. Obviously like the real version of it with people that are like good faith practitioners. I think a lot of people could benefit from it in a time where, like, there's not many,

there's not many role models out there for like young, young dudes, myself included. I might not that young. And shout out to Greece because we started it. You did. Yes. Started in Athens. And right around the time is the dawn of democracy. You can actually go for those.

And I bet you there are some Stoics in our audience. If you get to Athens, Google, the. James Joyce Irish pub and not just because I love me some Irish pubs because if you go to it, you're standing right next to where they found the Stoa Polki. Oh, wow. Literally it's right next to the American group, academic group, found it and bought the tavernor that was on it. And now they are excavating. And you could sit in the pub, you know, have a pint and it's right there.

I mean, you can see it. Yeah, it's literally like. you know, like 10 feet from the front door and then you've got, you know, tables and stuff. And, you know, it's like two of my favorite things, right? And it's right there. So if you're in Athens in particular, I would highly recommend it. It's right next to the agora, right under the Acropolis, right? Where everything significant happened in ancient Greece, quite frankly, when it came to philosophy and democracy.

Yeah. Yeah. All the good stuff. So you're welcome, world. I'll take the full. And we do need, I mean, yes, I think young men do really come to stoicism for good, good outcomes, but we need more. We need women.

We need, it tends to really attract the military people and, you know, men. And it certainly attracts business people now, especially the business people want like a broader meaning to what they're doing. Athletes are big. When I go to these conferences, those are the three main groups, but we need everybody. It's scientists. Scientists. That's how I got into it. My dad was scientists.

So those are the groups that I see mostly, but we need to expand it. We can expand it to. Make it not a, you know, a mail thing. It needs to be. And if you really, if you go back and I don't want to turn this whole thing into a podcast, which I could. If you could go back to Zeno, the founder, he wrote an alternative to Plato's Republic. And if you have a time to read about that, you would be supportive. you would be surprised just how advanced it would be even for today, even for today's world,

it would be advanced. And I think he did that on purpose, but it is very inclusive. It's very meritocracy. It is very against the caste type system of hereditary leadership, which you can argue Plato's was more aligned with. So it is a very relevant to not just military folks. or males. It is very relevant to everybody and it always has been. If you look at its origins, you'll see just what I mean. Yeah, you wrote a great article about that to the where you just

discussed. Yeah. Tale of Two Republicans. That link is in the description. Actually, if you guys are interested, so you could go check it out there. Um, make this is great. I appreciate. I was worried we weren't going to have enough to talk about, but I'm glad we, we rank through it. I feel like we could have sat here for a longer too. Hopefully it's helpful to people. We're trying to give the facts and some analysis and not just, you know, you know, a political perspective. Right.

This is a national security perspective. Yeah. I mean, guys, we're in a group chat and I try to get it out of Mick, even in our private group chats and he still doesn't give it to me. So you could trust Mick. Me, not so much. but guys do me a favor check out mix all of his links you're down down in the description his uh twitter blue sky lincoln lobo institute fogbo doing great work uh all the mixed

publications too if you want to read that article that he wrote about stoicism it's in the description and in the show notes if you're listening to us on audio everybody else's links as well andy millbird's book when the tempest gathers down in the description jason lines everybody um buy some merch we have eyes on merch you know eyes on t-shirts eyes on mugs check it out that link is also in the description and the best way you can possibly support the show is the patreon dot com slash the team house i'm almost done my sales bitch you get ad free episodes you get early access to episodes what else you get if you become a ten dollar member i myself send you a patch, a team house patch.

And if you want to get crazy and become a $100 member, you can do Zoom meetings with Jack and Dave once a month, if you want. So patreon.com slash the team house. Thanks for sitting through my sales pitch. No problem, buddy. See you guys next time. See you next week.