a national flood insurance program already this is

different this is focused on a home backstopping for natural disasters and that the theory here is that you know the insurance companies will still pay their first dollar but if there is a massive loss this doesn't bankrupt the insurance companies or make their business insolvent.

And I'm frankly less concerned about the insurance companies and more concerned about keeping them here where they could compete against each other and drive down costs.

This is very much focused on a cost agenda.

We have surging utility prices, Food prices, everything is going up and partially because we are making some terrible decisions with this administration and the rubber stamp.

My opponent, Ashley Moody, signing on, for instance, to a war, 10 times voting to give this administration a free pass that is surging the cost of gas.

Let me ask

do if elected to the U.S. Senate if the war in Iran is still ongoing in January of 2027?

Right.

Wars that are justified by the f- the real threat, imminent danger, uh, national security.

Not a war that is foolish and, frankly, a, a, a vanity project, and something that we should be h- should be asking the question of what is the objective here? How do we get out of it? Instead, we have something that's creating huge burdens for the people of Florida, huge burdens for the people, people around the country.

Gas is ab- above $4 a, a gallon, but we're also losing soldiers.

We're having f- uh, soldiers wounded, and it's, and this has a long-term effect on US security.

This is supposed to be an easy, in target to, for us to knock down Iran.

How do you plan to close that?

Uh, it's, it's a margin of error race.

How do we begin to recover from this?

I think that some of this is going to be a years-long project, uh, of, um, reviving, rebuilding institutions that were harmed.

Some of them are, are broken and, uh, all but erased, uh, like USAID.

Others have been, are bruised and battered, like the Department of Defense, uh, which is, um, you know, is still the best military in the world, but it is steadily being degraded on its fundamental mission of defending the nation.

Uh, so those are going to be years-long projects.

We are, you know, this, uh, Pete Hegseth in particular is one of the most nefarious and incompetent characters, uh, s- sidelining some of our, uh, nation's best and brightest, our national defenders, um, based on his, um A far right nationalist view of whose, whose, uh, should be, who should be serving, uh, attacking women and, uh, men and minorities, um, and LGBT community that served honorably.

Uh, those things are, you know, some of those things we could turn, flip a switch after this administration, but it's gonna take years to make sure that we, we develop the, the, uh, make and, um, foster the best and brightest, uh, to, to make sure that we're at the apex of, uh, national defense.

Given everything that you have endured since your testimony, given the persecution of journalists and opponents of the regime, do you still believe in the title of your book, Here, Right Matters?

Can you talk about your priorities in that arena?

It's, uh, that's absolutely right.

I think we do, we have, uh, unchecked, uh, corruption at an unprecedented scale.

And to me, uh, it's, it's something that's crystal clear that the electorate is, uh, voting on, is driven by, that no matter how hard they work, they're falling further and further behind because the sy-sy-system is rotten.

Uh, there are corrupt career politicians that are happy to deliver a trillion dollars in ta-tax cuts, happy to deliver for power, happy to deliver for special interests because they're owned by the special interests.

And, you know, you mentioned at the national level, but before I get there and, and do, uh, check it at the national level, I've got to figure out a solution to my own problem, which is unseating a corrupt career politician that is Ashley Moody.

You know, you, the same things that you mentioned at, uh, uh, are features of her own biography.

It's about what we need to hold America accountable for and expect of it.

Yeah.

Folks with poor records, folks that don't have the proper temperament to be able to handle themselves with regards to populations.

I think about my time in, in the military, and, you know, when we were in Iraq, we were operating amongst the, the civilian population with the intent of winning hearts and minds.

Our folks were properly trained to deescalate, to, uh, limit the use of force, not going in there to crack some skulls the way we see some of this happening, not there with face masks on to protect identity so that this, they could engage in abuses.

So it's, it's masks off.

It's proper training.

It's making sure that they're deescalating in confrontations.

How can political leaders in this country win some of that back?

What's happening there that's making a state that went for Donald Trump by what, seven, eight, nine, 10 points? Why is it so competitive now?

Yeah, that's exactly right.

This, uh, poll that came out just a couple of days ago has me up by two, and it's r- a run on a Trump plus 12 electorate.

We modeled a Trump plus 12 electorate, so we didn't do a layup for ourselves.

The reason that's happening is that the electorate is, um, is in a completely different space.

This is a, a generational shift that we're seeing, that Democrats are an, out in force.

Uh, they're, they're showing up in large numbers.

Are you starting to see signs in Florida, uh, that the president's unpopularity with the particular brand of Latino voters that are in Florida, uh, is as bad as it is nationally? And how much do you think that will play in the, in the statewide races in your state this fall?

Uh, Colonel, what are you hearing?

Well, uh, uh, Ali, it's great to be on with you.

I'm really grateful for you being, being able to, uh, put those voices on.

That's what I'm hearing on the streets.

I've crisscrossed the state.

I started a statewide tour on Monday.

Went from, uh, down south in Miami all the way up to Tallahassee.

Are people making the connection between the fact that this doesn't have to be this way?

There were real valid questions as to whether she's qualified for this position, partly out of ideology, because it's not really clear where she stands on some things, and partly because this is a, this is a big, important job

jobIt is.

You know, to me, um, I think the fact is that we, the bar has, has, uh, fallen too low for, um, office holders and f- fallen too low for electeds.

Uh, the...

Ashley Moody, my op- opponent, is put there to be an automatic yes vote for the chaos, for the Iran war, for corruption.

She tr- traded, uh, over a million dollars in stock trades as one of her first acts.

This is not the standard that we should have.

the Strait of Hormuz was open and had never been closed in history before that.

But, but talk to us about, you know, the, the plan to flip the seat.

Hey, thanks for having me back on, Ben.

Uh, in a diff- different role this time.

Look, I, I stepped in-- I've been in Florida for, uh, uh, more than three years.

Uh, we came here, uh, as the first place we got a chance to choose to live after the military, sending me across different parts of the world and just telling me where to go.

Uh, we planted our roots here.

Uh, my daughter's thriving.

And then you add on top of it the energy costs rising, the insurance costs rising, and just the, the day-to-day issues that are not being addressed in Florida while you have this MAGA cheer, you have this Trump MAGA cheerleading without dealing with the day-to-day issues of Florida.

But, but talk to us about, you know, the, the plan to flip the seat.

Hey, thanks for having me back on Ben.

Uh, in diff- different role this time.

Look, I, I stepped in-- I've been in Florida for, uh, uh, more than three years.

Uh, we came here, uh, as the first place we got a chance to choose to live after the military sending me across different parts of the world and just telling me where to go.

Uh, we planted our roots here.

Uh, my daughter's thriving.

And then you add on top of it the energy costs rising, the insurance costs rising, and just the, the day-to-day issues that are not being addressed in Florida while you have this MAGA cheer, you have this Trump MAGA cheerleading without dealing with the day-to-day issues of Florida.

Now Alex, I just gotta ask you, why do you wanna run for Senate?

Uh, hey, Aaron.

Good to see you.

Uh, thanks for having me on your show.

Uh, I think frankly, the moment requires action.

Um, I, I'm looking around my community here in Florida, I'm looking around the country, seeing the chaos, um, seeing the, the violence in the streets, something that we haven't really witnessed in, in, in a long, long time.

This is being perpetrated by the federal government against, um, you know, peaceful civilian populations.

And then yesterday, Senator Ron Wyden sent a letter to the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, simply with one line saying, "I'm essentially worried about some type of CIA activities." Is this normal? I mean, is, is this how this operates?

What made you decide to run?

Thanks for having me on, Lawrence.

Uh, our, our country is in chaos.

Uh, there's violence in the streets.

People don't feel sa- safe or secure in their homes, and frankly, the system is rigged.

It's rigged for the ultra-wealthy, and it's rigged for the powerful, and all the burdens are being shifted to ordinary, uh, Floridians and Americans.

F- the...

Uh, how important do you think that's gonna be in a Florida campaign?

A

little surprise for you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So Admiral Baker knows I tend to be quite informal and we'll keep this conversation also informal.

We'll cover the topic of how the United States can advance its interests without abandoning its core values.

I'll tell you a little bit about what I've been up to in the intervening years.

So regarding vote vets, what's the strategy for reaching out to veterans or maybe active duty people who are very conservative? As we know, most of the military is very conservative and very red.

Mm-hmm.

... who doesn't have e- either a formal role or frankly any expertise or a basis.

I, I served in, with, uh, with Kushner in the first administration when he was a senior advisor.

He didn't, he never touched Russia or Ukraine.

So it's, it's strange that he's getting involved now, but there's a business component to it which makes it, makes it, uh, uh, you know, uh, gives it some sense.

Bottom line, this looks like the, the, the signals from the top, Trump is a, is a corrupt actor, he's looking to enrich himself.

The signals are to all his billionaires to kind of follow suit.

Can we talk a little bit about the substance of that leaked pho- that leaked call transcript? Um, were you surprised by the way in which, um, it seemed like there was coaching going on, that, um, Witkoff was coaching the Russians on how to appeal to the President, how to negotiate with him on this matter of geopolitics?

I mean, this guy has gone from being a, a global pariah into be we- being welcomed on American soil.... pulling one over on Donald Trump yet again, and, and now chumming it up with everybody in, in China.

It's, it's pretty clear to me that the, uh, there has been a consolidation, a, uh, collaboration, uh, coordination amongst authoritarian regimes to challenge the established world order.

This, uh, idea that there are rules to the way states interact together, uh, uh, with each other, that aggression on, uh, from, s- large states, strong states against weak states is no longer tolerated.

This is something that we fought two wars in w- in this 20th century for.

Uh, hundreds of thousands of Americans, millions of, uh, souls lost, uh, to set these rules.

And, uh, Trump is creating an enormous amount of opportunity for authoritarian regimes to fill the vacuum of our absence.

If we don't build a team of strong allies, uh, to counterweight the, uh, convergence of China, Russia, uh, North Korea, Iran, and other, um, authoritarian, curious regimes, it's a vacuum for them to cast an image, as, as Tom pointed out, that they are the, the force to be dealt with, and that, uh, the US is no longer, longer reliable.

Wh- what is this thing about, uh, aid or, or, or, or some military assistance that we've, we've ceased to some Baltic nations? What's the implication of that?

I, I was a little surprised at how central this was to, to Donald Trump's meeting with, with, uh, Vladimir Putin in which we got no details of what they discussed about Ukraine and how one might resolve that war, but he needed to get it off his chest about the, the Russia hoax, with which he still disagrees with American intelligence.

Sure.

Thanks for having me on, uh, Ali and, uh, Ambassador McFaul.

You've had both, uh, a very long day covering this really important story.

Um, you know, a lot of this is expected, but n- nevertheless, uh, having thought through the d- different scenarios and the outcomes are not entirely surprising, I still started the day with a mixed- mixture of apprehension and maybe some naive hope.

I think we all were maybe hoping for some sort of positive outcome because this has been a tragic war, and I ended the day with, uh, some deep disappointment.

Um, not because I was surprised by the outcomes, but mainly because it, you know, it's, it's striking to see how far the office of the president has fallen, um, how easily this man could be manipulated and lured into a, uh, you know, a showpiece by an adversary.

But, um, I think at this point, he's going to look for other people to maybe salvage the situation and-

Tell me what it is and what we need to do about that." I worry that there are fewer of you around on this very night when there is war breaking out between India and, and Pakistan.

I think that's right.

We're, we're not ready for any serious crises or any serious confrontations.

I think it's not just the fact that we don't have the expertise.

Uh, we are losing...

We still have a depth of expertise.

I mean, the military largely is still there.

But are their messages getting to their bosses and are tho- their bosses getting it to the president so that we make the right decisions to prevent global war?

... and very bizarre statement.

Sure, sure. Thanks for having me on again, but I'm not a, uh, billion- weak-kneed billionaire, uh, that could be bullied around. I'm not a, uh, massive DC law firm with nearly unlimited resources that could be, uh, brought to heel by some, some empty threats. Uh, I haven't had an active security clearance for, for five years, and guess what? I revoke the president's revocation. I reinstate my security clearance-

(laughs)

... 'cause it's meaningless. I mean, it's noise. It's a Friday night theater is what we're seeing here because they're running out of, like, you know, really cool plays, so then now they're going, digging deep, uh, uh, and it's pretty absurd, uh, where they're headed, and frankly I don't care. Uh-

Alex, your new book, The Folly of Realism, shows how the US has spent decades misunderstanding and mismanaging the Russia threat. In case anyone missed it, the running theme here is that all three of you are trying to alert policy makers and the public to risks that haven't gotten enough attention, which is why I wanted to do this. Uh, first, rate how the US has responded to Russia's developing cyber program in the last decade and what is happening now, I would say. And obviously, the Russia-Ukraine war is the first major conflict to involve large scale cyber operations. Now, more than three years after the full invasion of Ukraine, what have we learned about the role it's gonna play and, you know, if there's nobody there, as Nicole says, on the Republican side and they're running, they're running the table, what happens?

You know, the book makes the point that we keep repeating the same mistakes of the past. We make, uh, the mistakes of, um, catering to our, uh, Russia's exceptionalism and buying into the hopes that we could do more with Russia or succumbing to fears that if we do too much with regards to Russia, that the relationship, you know, could, could break or spiral in, in a dangerous direction. And we've done this repeatedly across six different administrations, is the point I'm making. Same thing with regards to cyber, although we, we only s- really started paying attention to cyber over the last 25 years. Uh, we are now in an era in which we are the most transactional, we don't understand any of the lessons of the pla- past. It's only what's immediately in front of us. So we, you know, Trump in- he's been in power, he, he had four years in office. This is now really like month 60 or something like that of his, of his, uh, presidential tenure. But nothing beyond like last week or the week before except for some key themes, Russia good, Ukraine bad, continue on. Everything else is highly transactional, immediately what's in front of us, you know, we're, we're looking at a reset here coming between, uh, uh, conversation between Russia and, and-

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

The Japanese and the South Koreans are thinking that they need to mi- be much more, working, uh, much more tightly together. Same thing with the Australians. And in that kind of environment, you know, watching things unfold over the next, uh, s- several years as they build up capabilities, there's a- a decision point somewhere in that last year of whether the window is closing or it's likely to expand over the course of, you know, subsequent, um, decade or so. So I don't think we're, you know, in the next year or two, w- we're there. Uh, I think in the waning days of the- the Trump administration, if there's a deal to be had, um, th- uh, that might be an opportunity, a, a narrow opportunity for- for the Chinese, or it could be in the aftermath. So it's, I'd say me- short to medium term might be okay, but, uh, in the medium to long term, things could get dangerous, uh, for- for Taiwan in particular. And the noise coming out of the administration, uh, I'm not sure how many people caught Albert Kol- Kolbe's testimony. He's a- a uber China hawk-

Yeah.

... for, for peace. Uh, there is noth- nothing besides, um, what I think is, frankly, malicious, uh, throwing Ukraine under the bus, um, ma- maximum malice and maximum ignorance, something they've been repeating often. He doesn't care about Ukraine. He wants to normalize a relationship with Russia. He wants to embrace Russia. He is willing to bend over backwards. Trump is willing to bend over backwards. I don't think he wants to get played. He's willing to go pretty far. I don't think he wants to get played, but that's exactly what, uh, what Putin is doing with him. He's taking everything that Trump has offered thus far, banked it, and now he wants international recognition of, uh, of the territory that Russia's occupying, which is in fact a poison pill, something that's unacceptable to the international community except for rogue regimes and certainly not acceptable to Ukraine. But I think the pressure, uh, now there's gonna be, I would imagine there's gonna be pressure on Ukraine giving up the territory that it has, uh, c- uh, in controlling Russian Federation territory, this, uh, this region of Kursk that the, uh, Ukrainians have been fighting in for, for many, many months and holding out. Uh, so it's, it's really not much, it doesn't get us anywhere near, uh, anything that resembles peace. It actually puts it as a much more distant target because the, the, the sides are not moving closer together. Russia's asking for more, moving further away from anything that re- re- uh, resembles a compromise.

And, and the world is warning Donald Trump that you're gonna get played. Um, in fact, Keir Starmer, the, the British Prime Minister has taken up a, a pretty interesting lead role because should the United States, uh, not provide NATO with that sort of nuclear umbrella that it needs, uh, the UK and France do have those capabilities, uh, and, and other countries are certainly on the, the, the NATO borders with Russia, spend a g- spend a great deal on their military. There is a leadership forming across the Atlantic, uh, a- and including Canada, on countries that are remaining committed to being on Ukraine's side in this war.

Absolutely. I think it's clear from that, uh, moment of clarity in the Oval Office where, uh, Trump and Vance attempted to beat up on Zelensky and Zelensky stood his ground. Uh, uh, you know, that, that attended, uh, uh, resulted in a temporary blow-up that halted, um, uh, aid and intelligence sharing, but it is also a wake-up call for the Europeans, and they're moving out. The problem is that they've, uh, been, been pretty blessed to have NATO and the US as a backbone for NATO for 75 years and didn't have to make their own institutions, their own structures. So, they have to build out a whole concept, a whole pl- everything that we've done in 75 years, they have to, in certain regards, start from scratch. Who's gonna be leading it? What's the structure? Defense spending, who's producing what? These are very, very d- uh, complex questions that they're now starting to wrestle with. But the resolve is there. They're gonna start ramping up. The Ukrainians have something that they could count on and is Trump does not hold the trump cards here.

(laughs)

Donald Trump is Putin's wet dream. Why, why? Why? Because, um, there is, you couldn't even think of a scenario in which a president of the United States or, uh, the United States as a whole would pivot so hard for Russia, would... I mean, if you had, like, a Manchurian Candidate type of scenario, you know, if you remember that, that really, uh, cool movie. There's a couple of remakes of it, the one with Denzel Washington. He's caped weird, and then he's basically brainwashed, and then he's, you know... Uh, he doesn't even get into power yet, but he could be a guy that turns everything off his upside down and, you know, plays for the other team because he's a spy. You couldn't think of a scenario in which the Trump Administration could do that much more. I mean, maybe give up nuclear codes or something like that. But other than that, it's- it's gone, it's gone really, really heavy. And you normally would have a Republican administration that would, would first of all be initially shocked and then immediately, you know, seek to, uh, to, you know, organize to protect the nation because of the- the- the dangers that are unfolding very, very quickly. Burning bridges as fast as we could approach them with our allies and ingratiating ourselves, and not even just ingratiating ourselves, uh, you know, actually, like, uh, uh, aggressively and practically moving forward with relationships and normalizing with our, uh, uh, enemies, not in a way that, like, advances a US goal like peace, but a way that really is harmful and- and delays the- the cause of peace. So what is everybody doing in this kind of, you know, tragic situation? Um, they're in, in certain ways, uh, at a loss. They're shocked. The, the Ukrainians... I think Zelensky's biggest mistake was, um, taking that meeting. He's been pushing for these w- uh, you know, one-on-one engagements with, uh, Trump because he could think, he thinks that, you know, this is... That, that personal connection actually is really important for Trump, you know?

Well, I, I don't think Tr- Trump even realized he was bluffing and sticking with the (laughs) the, the poker analogy, right? He thought he had all the cards, but watching Europe step up, watching that convening of the European leaders when Zelensky immediately went to, to London and to the European capterba- capitals after that humiliation in Washington, that was so encouraging to me. But I'll tell you the downside of that. The downside of that, when the world, when the free world loses confidence in America, in America's, not just its moral leadership but equally importantly, its strategic umbrella. When you can no longer count on America's nuclear deterrence, what happens? You get proliferation. I think that is 100% guaranteed now, because if there is one lesson that the Ukrainians have learned, that the Taiwanese have now picked up on, that the Baltic states now understand, it's that America's nukes won't be there for you, even if they promised them they will. We promised Ukraine that, well, Alex and I have had a back and forth on this, but we all but promised Ukraine that if they gave up their nukes, we would assure their security. Look what happened. You think that assurance is gonna hold any water at all with the Taiwanese or with the Poles or anyone else? We are on the verge of a massive nuclear proliferation because of Trump's overplaying his hand.

I think it's a little bit worse than that unfortunately, 'cause I think it's the double-edged sword of, uh, nuclear extortion being effective, meaning that the, the adversaries, the, the hostile powers have this as the ultimate security guarantee that the US will do less than it needs to, that the U- US will be extremely risk-averse and deescalate. And I think, you know, there's something to be said about that, where you (laughs) we certainly don't wanna, uh, um, uh, stumble into a nuclear war. (coughs) But nuclear extortion means that we don't hold our ground and don't, don't advance our interests when we might need to show a little bit more resolve and, and, and, you know, call some bluffs, because that's what they are. Nobody's interested in, in waging nuclear war............................ But then, so it's on that side of the equation, our adversaries proliferating, and our friends no longer believing in extended deterrence or that the US is going to fulfill its obligation. So I think there is a huge... Certainly th- those conversations are occurring, uh, without question, uh, and whether we see something materialize, this is, you know, this... He will be o- overseeing, uh, the, the, potentially the largest nuclear proliferation, uh, since the launch of the nuclear age. Uh, and I don't think that's a far-fetched notion because we ha- we have completely destabilized the globe with our, our unreliability. So it's a dangerous picture. I guess, you know, this may be a moment to just briefly, uh, to delve a little bit into this, the history. We've had 30 years of, um, of, uh, deceiving ourselves about Russia, uh, and in that context we've, we've succumbed to hopes and fears. Hopes that we could do more with Russia, and fears that if we somehow held the line, that we would start a spiral that would, that would, uh, uh, uh, lead to hostilities. And we did tho- that under, you know, competent administrations, frankly. Uh, all the way through from George H.W. Bush to, to present day. We are now in an era of maximum malice and maximum ignorance.

Oval Office? You mean the Oval Office last week?

That's right.

I think that was that was I mean, he's really quite decent.

He's a decent man.

Very earnest.

He wants to do the best for his country.

He thought that if he had this meeting, he could charm Trump and maybe kind of make sure that the relationship stays on the rails.

What's the answer to that?

All right. Courtney Kube, thank you so much. We really appreciate your reporting. Uh, we have to say, there is a, an alarm going off here, so we're gonna monitor this situation, folks. I am gonna bring in retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. He's the former director for European affairs at the National Security Council during President Trump's first term. He's also out with a new book, The Folly of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine. Colonel Vindman, hopefully you can hear me okay. We do have this alarm going off in the background, so apologies for that. Um, I, I wanna get your major, your reaction to this major shift in policy that the administration is now considering favoring NATO countries that spend a set percentage of their GDO- GDP on defense.

Yeah, uh, I had a viscer- visceral reaction just listening to, um, Trump talk about this. It, it is dangerous, willful ignorance. The fact is that when we were attacked on 9/11, NATO was there. Thousands of NATO troops served in combat in support of U... the, uh, uh, defense of the United States. It's the only time that Article 5 was, has been invoked in support of the US. So, to, to say that, uh, the sacrifice of our NATO allies, including hundreds of lives lost over the course of, uh, o- of the wars is just horrible, disgusting, disrespectful to those sacrifices. And it's dangerous because what, what is the Rus- what is the Russian takeaway from this? That they could start poking around much more aggressively in the Baltics, escalating to a hybrid warfare, testing whether the US is willing to defend the Baltics, these small countries in the far, uh, east of, uh, Europe. And I think we're gonna... this is gonna put our troops in danger. We have rotating true presence in that part of the world in, in Poland. He is, he is really endangering our, our troops and endangering US national security with this re- uh, thoughtless and, uh, not well considerate of second and, and third order effects, the consequences of what he's saying. He doesn't understand them, and he's putting our troops in danger.

And, of course, adding urgency to all of this is Russia's invasion in Ukraine. Let me ask you about the status of that. Obviously, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, we had that explosive meeting in the Oval Office just last week between President Trump and President Zelensky. Uh, uh, an, uh, we don't know if the mineral deal is going to be signed, but very quickly, can you tell me, do you think this can be resolved?

I think it can be resolved. I think, uh, Trump wants this deal. Uh, the Ukrainians want to, uh, this deal also. Now that the US is, is trying to, uh, uh, Trump is trying to extract a bigger cost, uh, I think this is, this is something that's necessary to keep the US engaged. But the, the dangers are unfolding as a result of that meeting. I mean, they, it's kinda rocked the world in a lot of ways with regards to adversaries and friends. We are no longer reliable. The Europeans still think that there might be a chance to bring us back on sides, but they're now, uh, consolidating their own activities, um, and making much, much bigger investments, something that we tried to, to avoid, frankly, under multiple administrations because we'd rather have them put their resources into NATO. They're gonna look at different architectures to defend themselves. And the bottom line is that we continue to deceive ourselves about Russia, and that Russia is not interested in negotiating, and we continue to betray ourselves, uh, uh, with regard to Ukraine like we did for six administrations. But now, in the Trump administration, with maximum malice and maximum ignorance, that's really putting, uh, our alliances and ultimately ourselves in danger, which is what Zelink- uh, Zelensky said that really provoked Trump, that the US will feel this eventually. Uh, it's true. Trump doesn't see it. Zelensky does. He's right there. He's been fighting for three years. Um, so I think the fact is that our allies were gonna try to stick with this as long as they can, but they'll go it alone if they need to.

Nostradamus is about right.

Yeah, I mean, that's right.

I think the subtitle, I would just change it to deceives itself about Russia and betrays Ukraine.

That would frankly be because it's continuous information.

And, you know, the only thing that really surprised me thus far is I was very confident that Trump would cut Ukraine off immediately.

And it's taken only about five weeks.

Now, whether he actually follows through because his.

It's amazing.

Who comes to the table first and under what conditions? Is it as simple as an

apology? I don't know if this is going to play out in the course of days.

If it plays out over the course of weeks and maybe even months, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Some of the tempers could simmer down.

The reality is that this is a deal that's good for the US.

The US wants this deal.

We want the rare earths.

Trump relationship?