your thoughts on where we're at with the

Ukraine and if we're going to get a

ceasefire, a peace negotiation or a

peace settlement or if the United States

is just going to walk away because it

seems like Trump is a little perturbed

by the progress here and he has said,

you know, maybe it's just up to them to

figure it out and he'll be done with the

whole thing.

>> Your thoughts, Saxs?

>> Well, I think that the the Alaska summit

was major progress. I think that first

of all, the president deserves enormous

credit for reestablishing diplomacy and

communication with the Russians. There

literally hasn't been a meeting between

the US president and the Russian

president since 2021 while this war is

going on and while the war has continued

to escalate. I guess the Biden

administration's policy was just to

ignore the Russians and roll their dice

and hope that the war didn't escalate

out of control. In any event, I think

Trump deserves a lot of credit for again

reestablishing that diplomatic

connection and trying to use diplomacy

to end the war. And it was shocking to

see how much Democrats and the media

were openly rooting for him to fail in

these efforts to end this war. And

effectively, they're rooting for

hundreds of thousands of more people to

die or get maimed.

>> They were pretty hysterical, right, on

the news. It was pretty crazy.

>> Yeah. And by the way, they they claim

that they care about the Ukrainian

people, but the Ukrainian people by

large majorities now want this war to

end and they're willing to make

meaningful concessions to do it. So

there was a poll by Gallup, which Nick,

maybe you can throw this on the screen

where a year or two ago something like

70% of Ukrainians wanted to keep

fighting the war. Now that number is

down to 24%. Again, the vast majority

are looking to achieve a peace. And I

think that President Trump and President

Putin made some important progress in

terms of getting to an eventual peace

deal. And I think there are a few planks

here. Number one was the recognition

that we should try to get to a

comprehensive peace deal, not a

ceasefire. A ceasefire is temporary. And

the Russians have already said they

wouldn't do it because they understand

from their point of view that this would

just give the Ukrainians time to regroup

and rearm and try to reset, but it

wouldn't end the war. And the truth of

the matter is that when you're fighting

a war and losing, you don't get to call

a timeout. So the Russians have been

rejecting this idea of a ceasefire for

months. And I think that it was wise, if

our ultimate goal is to get to a deal,

to recognize that the comprehensive

peace deal is what we want to get to. So

that's point number one. Point number

two is that President Trump acknowledged

that Ukraine would not be joining NATO,

which was the key source of the friction

and the thing that ultimately led to

this war. So I think that definitively

taking NATO off the table I think was a

very important precondition to getting

to an eventual peace. And then I think

the third thing was that the parties

both the Russians and the Americans

agreed that there would have to be

territorial concessions of some kind.

And we don't know all the details yet.

There was some conversation about land

swaps. But the point of the matter is

that we're not going back to the pre-war

status quo ante. The Russians have taken

the big chunk of territory. The

Ukrainians have not been able to get it

back. People are trying to blame Trump

for this somehow. But the real cause of

this is the failure of the counter

offensive in the summer of 2023.

Remember, we gave the Ukrainians

something like hundred billion dollars

worth of weapons to retake that

territory. And it was an abysmal

failure. They didn't even make it past

the first Survivican line. That is a

real cause of why the Ukrainians are

going to lose territory in this war is

they're simply not able to retake it.

And I think there was a a general

recognition coming out of that Alaska

summit that there would have to be

territorial concessions. And I think in

these three pillars, I think you have

the basis for a comprehensive peace

deal, which is again, number one, we're

going for a peace deal, not a ceasefire.

Number two, no NATO. And number three,

we have to recognize the realities on

the ground. Now, I think the big

question mark, I think we could get to a

peace deal pretty quickly if Zalinski

and the Europeans were willing to

acknowledge these three points, but so

far they have not been willing to

acknowledge those three points. And I

think this is one of the things that if

you're listening to the remarks the

following Monday when the Europeans came

to the White House, there was no

recognition. They were still clamoring

for a ceasefire, you know, again, which

the Russians had rejected as opposed to

a comprehensive peace. They were still

clamoring for NATO and they were still

rejecting the idea of any territorial

concessions including even Crimea which

was lost over a decade ago. So I think

that the issue we have right now is that

Zalinski

and the Ukrainian government, not the

people, but the Ukrainian elite and some

of these European countries that are

backing him are not willing to make the

compromises necessary to achieve a peace

deal. And as President Trump has said,

at the end of the day, you need the

Russians and the Ukrainians to agree. So

I think that President Trump deserves

enormous credit here for reestablishing

diplomacy, for making substantial

progress towards a comprehensive peace

deal. But at the end of the day, unless

Zinsky starts being willing to make

compromises, I don't know how you're

going to get to that deal.

>> Yeah. Freeberg, Dave, any thoughts on

this?

>> No.

>> Negotiation? Shimoth, anything? Well, I

was pretty curious about the

historical pattern of this. So, I just

went back and here's what I learned.

What's interesting to note is that since

1945,

so not assuming, you know, conflicts in

Africa because they are not really quite

part of the western political global

order per se, it's important to ask the

question like how have other

territorial disputes panned out? So

there are disputes that end in

stalemates and when you end up in a

stalemate you basically arrange a DMZ

demilitarized zone type arrangement. So

there's one in Korea right 1953 to now.

There's one in Cyprus 1974 to right now

and there's one in Kashmir 1947 to

today. And then there's this kind of

thing in between Israel and Lebanon. And

then second, there are disputes where

there's some action taken by one country

to take something by force, but then

there's no consensus

internationally

as to who owns a territory. So Crimea,

as Saxs mentioned, 2014 to present, and

then Israel and West uh East Jerusalem,

sorry.

So I think the point is that unless

President Trump figures out a way to do

something that's frankly truly

unprecedented, the historical pattern is

that it's been nearly impossible for

even the most powerful and influential

person in the world to frankly draw

deals

in these kinds of situations, especially

when they become protracted. And I think

that's what he's getting to when he

reinforces these things never would have

started or gotten this far had I been

president. You know, that's what he says

in quotes. And I think this is what he's

referring to, which is that the longer

these things get drawn out and

particularly with Russia, Ukraine, and

Israel, Gaza, you're talking about

conflicts and historical

issues that have been simmering for

hundreds of years and in some cases

thousands of years all the way back to

the antiquity. So, I don't know. I I

just think that it's an incredibly

incredibly difficult position and

I just don't know what's going to

happen. But I think that for modern

progress to happen, I think it's

important for both of these two issues

to get put to bed as quickly as

possible.

>> Jake, what do you think? And we saw the

media attacking Trump for even daring to

hold negotiations with the Russians. Do

you think this was a good idea or do you

think that somehow uh Trump was caving

to Putin?

>> I give Trump a lot of credit. He is

incredibly good at foreign policy and

specifically with dictators. If you look

at our past presidents, they didn't want

to meet with Putin. They didn't want to

meet with Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il. They

thought isolation was the best policy.

It's not. I think talking to these folks

and trying to find common ground is the

best policy. Even if it's a 5% chance of

it actually working out, which is what I

think any president dealing with a

dictator and a death spot like,

you know, Putin is going to have. I

think you have a 5 or 10% chance. And I

think Trump and Biden actually had a lot

in common that worked. the lone leasing

of the weapons and not costing the

American taxpayer any money where a lot

of partisan people said, "Oh my god,

this is costing the Americans so much."

It's actually Trump has figured out a

way to make it profitable. He's selling

more weapons to Ukraine and he got us

the minimal rights. It turns out Trump

was able to turn a cost center or a

supposed cost center into a profit

center in terms of this specific war.

And if you look at the sanctions, Trump

has increased the sanctions. So Trump

had my exact position that I fought for

here on this podcast for the past couple

of years in this conflict, which was

keep the pressure up on Putin. And Trump

took it over the top by going to Putin's

main client for his oil now, which is

India, and putting a massive tariff on

them and threatening them with a huge

tariff. That was a bold, audacious way

to deal with Putin. So, I give Trump a

ton of credit for trying to make peace

here. And Putin has been, Hold on, let

me just finish. And Putin has been

absolutely humiliated. He can't even get

to Keev, let alone take over Finland or

Poland. And this has cost Russia, their

greatest customer, which is the EU,

Germany. These people are never going to

buy his oil again. Not after what

happened here. And that you can give a

lot of credit to Trump because he told

them when they built their oil pipelines

that the Germans were lunatics for doing

that and for creating a massive

revenue stream for a dictator who is in

my mind a war criminal. What he did in

invading Ukraine makes him a war

criminal. What he did in kidnapping

these children makes him a war criminal.

I think it's awesome that Trump is doing

this intervention even if it has a 5 or

10% chance of working and then making

the NATO alliance pay their fair share

and selling them more weapons. I think

also brilliant. So I I give Trump a lot

of credit here. He's aligned exactly

what I said we should be doing, which is

holding dictators who invade other

countries accountable for it. And he's

added to it the fact that he can connect

with people. So I give him a ton of

credit for it, Zach. I know that's maybe

not the answer you want, but that's how

I

>> look. I think you use this highly

moralistic language and you engage in a

lot of name calling and I actually think

that's kind of

>> which one which name is inaccurate,

please. Dictator or war criminal?

>> Well, look, you're complimenting Trump

for engaging in diplomacy with Putin,

but then at the same time, you want to

call him a dictator and war criminal,

and that's not going to be conducive to

actually trying to reach a peace

agreement. Now, it's fine.

>> But I'm not doing the negotiation. If I

was doing the negotiation, I wouldn't

come in and say, "Hey, dictator, war

criminal, let's fight for peace." I'm

giving you my personal belief as a

person not negotiating.

>> So you're praising and you're praising

Trump for increasing the pressure and

leverage that he has

>> with the Russians, which I think is

fine. My question for you is would you

increase the pressure or leverage with

respect to Zalinski? So for example,

would you tell Zalinski in no uncertain

terms, listen, stop demanding to be part

of NATO because it's not happening? In

fact, the president has done that. Uh

what about um

>> yeah, the the answer to that question is

yes. I would say listen, it's not

realistic to join NATO. You can get some

security guarantees.

There's sort of talk of this NATO light.

So, I would agree with that. I would say

listen, we're going to take and I said

this on a previous episode. We should

just take off NATO inclusion for like 20

years.

>> Okay. So, here's the what about

territorial concessions?

>> I think that's a decision Ukraine has to

make. We should encourage them to make

whatever decision is best for them. But

if they want to keep fighting this

thing, that's going to be up to their

people to decide if they want to fight

for their land.

>> Well, the people have said they don't

want to keep the the problem you have

right now is that 70% of Ukrainians say

they don't want to keep fighting.

They're ready.

>> Sounds like they're ready to make

concessions.

>> Yes. So, it sounds like Zilinsky should

listen to his people. Yes,

>> that's his decision to make. I think he

has sovereignty and the people get to

make that decision in his country.

>> Well, but the the problem you have is

it's not just Zilinsky, right? It's his

ruling click.

They have canceled elections and they

will remain in power as long as the war

continues. So they there's a conflict of

interest there and there's a lot of

money flowing into Ukraine because of

the war. So what if the ruling elite

wants to keep the war going forever

while the people want it to stop?

>> Yeah. They're going to face a revolution

right quick. And so I think they have to

take the

citizens of Ukraine into account. And

it's a tough decision for them to make,

but it's not our decision to make for

them. Is that a reasonable position? It

sounds like a reasonable position.

>> I think it's reasonable.

>> Yeah. I mean, I don't I

>> look, at the end of the day, the

Ukrainians and the Russians have to

agree.

>> Yes.

>> And I I think that of of the major

parties, I think President Trump cares

the most about peace. I mean, I think he

is pushing the hardest for there to be a

peace