[00:00:00] Announcer: Secrets and Spies presents Espresso Martini with Chris Carr and Matt Fulton. [00:00:30] Chris Carr: Hello, everybody. Welcome to Espresso Martini. Uh, Matt, how you doing? [00:00:34] Matt Fulton: Hi, Chris. Uh, I mean, I think we're all kind of doing the same way, uh, this week. We'll get into it. Uh, yeah. [00:00:42] Chris: Yeah. [00:00:43] Matt: It's gonna be a bit of a different, a bit of a different episode, but yeah, [00:00:46] Chris: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Today, I mean, this week just, uh, yeah, this episode's gonna be a bit different, um, because today we are sort of dealing with the White House, sort of the infamous Zelenskyy White House meeting and kind of the various articles about that. Um, so that would be today's focus. Um, I think just going into this episode, I mean, like I was just saying to you off-air, I, I just feel a bit like a kite in the wind today because there's been so much going on, so many different angles. Everything from the transatlantic relationship feeling like it's about to implode, to World War III might happen as we get into a shooting war with Russia and Europe, to then just feeling bad for Ukraine. Um, and then, yeah. And so just, I don't know, I just, I feel overwhelmed today, and I don't know how audience members are feeling, I don't know how you are feeling, but, um, and yeah. Yeah. [00:01:41] Matt: I think, um, the premise of this show, maybe not the premise of the whole podcast, but this premise of our Espresso Martini episodes is a kind of, I think, a rational, level-headed, sober, clear, truthful discussion about these topics as they relate to the transatlantic relationship. And all the feedback I've heard from the show that isn't just like, you don't like Trump, you know, all the other feedback that enjoys it, a lot of the through line through that is that they appreciate that kind of transatlantic perspective that you and I bring to it, right? So I think this episode, I think is arguably, I don't know, we'll see how it, how it comes out, we haven't, we haven't recorded it yet. I mean, we're just starting right now. [00:02:28] Chris: We only just started, yeah. [00:02:29] Matt: I mean, me looking at the outline and stuff, yesterday and this morning and everything, as I'm putting it together on my end, it feels like kind of the most important Espresso Martini that we've done. Like a logical thing that like, yeah, no, this is, this is why we have this platform and we should talk about this. And I sort of see it like a, a frank, you know, honest kind of family meeting, you know? A discussion amongst friends and family. And I think that's, I don't know, maybe that's, that's that tact we, we take here. And I hope listeners get something out of that. [00:03:04] Chris: Well, yeah, this, and I, I remember when, when, you know, obviously Trump became president, we would talk about balls and strikes and, you know, I'm always conscious of, you know, I, I, I don't want to be seen as a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Trumper. I can't say I'm a fan of Trump, but I think most people know that. Um, and just looking at everything that's been going on today, to me, um, I just feel like what is playing out is kind of what we suspected, well, at least what I suspected might happen when Trump, if Trump became president. And, um, and it's, it's, yeah, so it's all trying to find a way, because I start to feel like I'm becoming a bit partisan because [00:03:50] Matt: Mm-hmm. [00:03:51] Chris: I just see a disaster unfolding, and it's very hard to, um, be objective about that. [00:03:58] Matt: I don't think being partisan means that you have to sort of ignore the reality in front of your face. It does not mean that you have to find a silver lining or a, Well, okay, well this, let me find one nice thing to say about the situation that does not, that's, that's not being nonpartisan to me, you know? That's just, if anything, I think, a lot of people who think they're being nonpartisan in their analysis of these things delude themselves in their analysis because they're trying to look for those moments to say things that they think will seem nonpartisan, you know? I mean, some of the stuff that we're talking about, and I mean probably some of the perspectives that we have on it will surely seem extreme to certain people, but that is because the stuff that we are talking about and the times that we are living in are extreme, you know? So it's just, it's just, it's just the nature of it. But let's do it. [00:04:50] Chris: Yeah, let's do it. Just a quick thing, I apologize. I'm still suffering with a cold, so, uh, my voice is a bit all over the place today and already I can still up getting a bit, uh, you know, teary and stuff [00:05:02] Matt: Verklempt. [00:05:02] Chris: Um, so forgive me, uh, my voice is just, uh, all over the place today, uh, as are my energy levels. But, um, I think what we'll do, I'm going, I liked your suggestion earlier, we will try what we'll do today, we'll just quickly kind of go through the different pieces that provide different perspectives of the White House meeting. So for maybe the next 10, 15 minutes, we're gonna be a bit just telling you different opinions and then we will do our best after that to kind of have a back and forth between us about what we think of the different sort of aspects that have been being, um, expressed. So, uh, so we'll, we'll, we'll plow on. So I'm gonna start with an opinion piece that came out by David Frum, and it was in The Atlantic. Um, and well actually just before we go into that piece, I'll just quickly just in case anybody has been on Mars or something this week, um, we'll just quickly explain what happened. So on [00:06:00] Matt: Lucky [00:06:00] Chris: them. On Friday the 28th. Yeah, no, imagine that. So if you're waking up from a coma right this second. [00:06:06] Matt: Go back to sleep. [00:06:07] Chris: On Friday the 28th of Feb, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy traveled to Washington planning to sign a deal that would give the US access to 50% of his country's mineral wealth. It's one component of Trump's plan to secure a peace deal to end the all-out war now going into its fourth year. But after the better pass of an hour, the relatively cordial talk descended into a shouting match. The much anticipated US mineral deal with Ukraine was then canceled, and the future of Washington support for Kyiv is now in question after US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance engaged in an unprecedentedly heated argument with the Ukrainian president in front of all the cameras. So going into the David Frum piece, David from his, basically he says that Trump and V, sorry, Trump and Vance used their oval office meeting with Zelenskyy to display outright disdain for Ukraine and for the Ukrainian president, criticizing him personally, accusing him of interfering in US politics. Their remarks and behavior signaled a deep alignment with Russia and rejection of longstanding US support for Ukraine. This public hostility, rather than quiet, diplomatic maneuvering, makes clear where the administration stands. The US is increasingly isolating itself from its democratic allies as shown by its recent votes at the UN against Ukraine siding with Russia and China. The administration's decision to eliminate the PEPFAR program, a program that has saved millions of lives in Africa, reflects a move away from America's historical role as a global leader with a moral purpose. This shift suggests a new foreign policy approach that prioritizes transactional and authoritarian friendly relationships over traditional democratic alliances. Trump is no longer a lone disruptor within his own administration, but is actively reshaping the US national security system to align with his views. Unlike his first term where cabinet members and advisors often counterbalance his more extreme positions, his current administration is built around figures who share or tolerate his pro-authoritarian stance. This makes US security policy less predictable and more concerning for allies who rely on American leadership. Past fears of hidden foreign allegiances in American leadership such as the Alger Hiss case involve secrecy. Today, Trump and Vance openly display their admiration for authoritarian leaders like Putin, while showing hostility to democratic allies. Their public rejection of treaties, alliances, and traditional American values risks fundamentally, fundamentally altering the country's global role. The concern is not just for their policies, but the growing public acceptance of this new isolationist and authoritarian friendly stance. Then, um, there's another piece that came out in The Guardian that sort of followed this, um, that points the finger of blame for what happened in the meeting at Vice President JD Vance. So I should quickly say that, so JD Vance, once seen as an inconsequential vice president played a leading role in provoking a public confrontation with Zelenskyy, accusing him of leading propaganda tours. His aggressive stance combined with Trump's appeared designed to humiliate Ukraine and escalate tensions. Vance's Euroskeptic views were already on display in Munich where he antagonized European leaders. His efforts to reshape US foreign policy were further solidified in the Oval Office, where officials and allies saw the confrontation as a signal that the US is shifting away from supporting Ukraine and towards a more pro-Russian stance. Observers suggest that the Trump administration was looking for an excuse to sever ties with Ukraine with the Oval Office confrontation serving as a pretext. The swift, coordinated messaging for Republican leaders reinforced this perception with discussions emerging about cutting all military aid to Ukraine in the aftermath of the staged altercation. So, um, those are the sort of two pieces that I sort of brought up. So Matt, you, you brought out, uh, you've got some other pieces he wants to mention as well. [00:10:22] Matt: Yeah, I have two more. Um, I thought had pretty, pretty good perspectives on it that were, you know, like, like I said, at, at, at the top of the show were reasonable and not breathless. Not saying yours were, but I thought at the moment when they were published, these were like, okay, let's, let's take a look, I think it's worth taking a look at this. So, yeah, I, I think it's important for our understanding of that Oval Office debacle, and it was a debacle, um, to dig into how the Trump team is framing it or has framed it over the last week. Uh, according to Hugo Lowell in The Guardian, Trump's advisors insist this wasn't a deliberate setup to humiliate Zelenskyy, but rather a case of him misreading the moment. Their argument is that, uh, the White House had made clear in advance that the immediate goal of the meeting wasn't a sweeping security agreement, but rather to sign this minerals deal. And if later in the show, Chris, you think it's good to sort of go into the details of that mineral deal, we can do that. [00:11:17] Chris: I think it probably will be worth it if we've got the time to do it, but yeah. [00:11:20] Matt: For sure, for sure. [00:11:21] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:11:21] Matt: Um, so a first step toward a larger economic partnership, as they see this mineral deal, um, in, in their view, would effectively signal a long-term US commitment to Ukraine's stability. Republican seNATOrs who met with Zelenskyy before the meeting also advised him not to press the issue of security guarantees, um, to Trump's face. Uh, the thinking from Trump's camp is that by locking the US into an economic relationship with Ukraine's critical mineral sector, Washington would have a vested interest in ensuring Ukraine's survival, which could later translate into security support. But, at the end of the meeting, when Zelenskyy challenged Vance's didactic position on peace talks and restated Ukraine's need for firmer US security guarantees, Trump's team saw it as a failure to read the room. They argued that Zelenskyy's pushback, especially his direct engagement with Vance, undermined the diplomatic groundwork that had, that they had been trying to lay. Uh, Zelenskyy himself has since said that he sees the incident as regrettable and sent Trump a letter of which Trump read parts at the Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday night, which I think was a little kind of unnecessary for him to do that. But, of course for Trump's critics on both sides of the Atlantic, many of whom are no doubt listening, uh, that explanation rings hollow. They see the entire episode as a staged confrontation designed to manufacture a break with Ukraine while justifying a future shift in US policy. And given what we know now that Trump personally workshopped calling Zelenskyy a dictator on Truth Social with Vance ahead of time, before later denying ever calling him a dictator the day before this meeting, uh, there's reason to suspect the outrage from the Trump side wasn't entirely spontaneous. But even if you take their argument at face value, and I don't think anyone necessarily should, this meeting has left the minerals deal in limbo and with it any broader economic or security arrangement that might have followed. Uh, Trump may still see himself as a deal maker who can broker Ukraine's post-war future, but for now, the damage done in the Oval Office has made that path much harder, and I would argue unnecessarily so, for everyone involved except the Russians. Um, there's been progress over the course of the past week, and we will talk about that a bit later, surely. Um, but as we record this, the jury's still out on how this will all go down. Um, another one that I had, so I, I wanted to bring into more kind of a, a perspective that specifically comforted me, um, and which I even shared with you, Chris at the time. I, I texted it to you and was like, hey, read this on, on Friday night. Um, Dan Drezner writing in his Substack the night of the blowup took a deliberately dispassionate approach as a IR professor, uh, to analyze what happened. His main takeaway was that the meeting confirmed that Trump believes he has to be careful in how he talks about Putin, but not Zelenskyy. Trump outright said as much questioning why he should publicly criticize Putin if he still wants to negotiate with him, only to then turn around and unload on Zelenskyy with zero hesitation. That's telling, and Drezner sees it as a reflection of how Trump views power, which is the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must, and Ukraine, in his view, falls into the latter category. Drezner also flagged some subtler details that got lost in the outrage. Trump, for instance, over the course of this nearly hour-long meeting, emphatically stated, he doesn't want to dismantle NATO and specifically pledge to protect Poland -- and I have some more context on that specifically that we can get into later -- something that might have reassured European allies if the press conference had ended a minute earlier. But the bigger picture is still grim. The White House gave Russian state media access to the Oval Office while barring AP and Reuters. The White House claims that that TASS reporter got in accidentally. But how that could go down, even if you believe them, is troubling in its own right. But we'll leave that one there. Uh, Vance was visibly enjoying the spectacle and Rubio looked like he wanted to sink into the couch cushions. Drezner's bottom line, though, uh, this will end badly for everyone but Russia, again. Uh, the Oval Office fiasco likely cost Ukraine further GOP support, or at least eroded it, uh, weakened America's standing globally, and further damaged transatlantic relations. For Russia, it's a gift that keeps on giving. Um, that's what I, uh, that's what I got on that. [00:15:38] Chris: Yeah. Well, I think that this is a good point to reflect on those things. So, yeah, so I think I, I'll just kick off a little bit and then you can, you can come in with what you think. I mean, the feeling in, I don't speak for Europe, but obviously being in Britain, I'm close to Europe, um, and, and certainly the other side of the Atlantic. So the feeling I'm getting from the majority of, uh, both pieces that I've read, um, and obviously the pieces I picked and, um, and from sort of people I talk to offline and online, um, is that there's something, you know, there's a very concerning development about the, um, about America and it's standing against Russia. Um, so like with that last piece, you just say that, you know, um, that, this, it is a fallout between America and Ukraine. Um, the only one who really benefits from that is Russia. If there's a fallout between Britain and America, who benefits from that? It'd be Russia. If there's a falling out between Britain, America, and Europe, who benefits from that? Russia. So it feels like this week's been a very good week for Vladimir Putin. [00:16:51] Matt: Yeah. [00:16:51] Chris: Now I could be wrong, could be misreading the tea leaves, but, um, always with regards to Trump and with regards to his sort of language and his, so looking at his behavior, he and JD Vance's behavior towards Zelenskyy and towards allies in general at the moment. I mean, God who, who picks a fight with Canada. [00:17:15] Matt: Yeah. [00:17:15] Chris: What is the point of picking a fight with Canada? I just do not see how that is in any way helpful for the United States. And if anything, from what I'm reading, um, not only is NORAD now at risk in some respects, you've got Trump's floating an idea or somebody in Trump's uh, team is floating this idea of now removing Canada from the Five Eyes agreement. [00:17:37] Matt: Yeah. [00:17:37] Chris: Um, and it is just, you know, I don't want to go into this sort of, so there's a, a very popular idea that's circulating on the internet, it was popular in 2016 as well, that Trump is some sort of asset of Russia. Um, I cannot confirm or deny that. I, I, my suspicion with Trump is he's just a believer in Putin and Putinism. Putin is a man, uh, who acts like a strong man who can pretty much do what he likes politically because he manages to, um, either kill his political opponents, which he's pretty much done, or he finds ways to circumvent them. And I don't think Trump necessarily wants to kill his opponents, but I think Trump likes the idea of how Putin has, is able to just do what he wants. And so for me it just sort of, I've always felt that Trump has always been in Team Putin, when really as the president of America, he should be in Team America. And there's something not right there. Now that is how I read the tea leaves and how I feel about it. If I'm correct or not is another matter, but it just sort of feels that way through his behavior in the last six weeks. And with this Zelenskyy meeting, it kind of felt like the cherry on the cake of, um, this pro-Russia stance. So Matt, I'll hand over to you for a minute and see what your thoughts are. [00:19:06] Matt: Yeah, I would, um, as far as the issue about Five Eyes and the intelligence partnership and everything, I would definitely direct listeners if they haven't already heard it back to the interview, that as we're recording, uh, was released yesterday, so the episode out before this one. [00:19:20] Chris: Yeah. [00:19:21] Matt: Uh, that I did with, with with Shane Harris where we sort of dug into those issues in a bit more detail. Um, Five Eyes is constituted under multilateral agreement. It's the UK-USA Agreement between of course, all the members of Five Eyes, the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand. So, the UK-USA, it's a, Five Eyes is constituted under a multilateral agreement. It's called the UK-USA Agreement. Um, between, uh, the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Um, how you would in theory kick one of those five out without the agreement of the other five is just kind of like, it's nonsensical. I mean, Shane described it as, in his words, it's like a diplomatic form of shitposting. And I really, I, I completely agree with that. Um, on a sort of technical, physical, practical level, when you look at Five Eyes in the SIGINT collection sort of apparatus, all that technology is physically interconnected. [00:20:21] Chris: Yeah. [00:20:21] Matt: Literally, computer servers, wires, you know, uh, satellite intercepts, downlink, uplink, you know, stations and everything. Like, they're all kind of interconnected to one network. You cannot just shut part of that off. You know, it doesn't, it doesn't work that way to, you know. Some US listeners will probably remember a commercial back from a couple years ago. There was like this older lady who was going like, That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. You know? And that's true here. And I think as far as Peter Navarro who did, um, who sort of made, uh, that sort of passing reference in a Financial Times article and then later denied it, I mean, yeah, going back to Shane's point, it's a diplomatic version of shitposting and a lot of this being a decade into this Trump era over here and having been forced to live through it, like that scene in A Clockwork Orange with, you know, what's his face that has his eyes like, you know. [00:21:17] Chris: Yes. Malcolm McDowell. Yeah. [00:21:18] Matt: Yeah. Malcolm McDowell. His eyes like, you know, forced open to watch. That's how I felt here for the last decade. Um, all of this, I think, the Canada stuff, trade stuff with Canada, the border stuff with Mexico, and the trade stuff with Mexico, the, the pressuring on European defense spending, stuff with Ukraine where you get the strong, the, the strong-arm tactics of cutting off intelligence support and military aid, and now threatening to pull, um, the legal status of Ukrainians who fled the war and came to the US, I think it's about 200,000 Ukrainians, that story just broke this morning as we're recording it, to them, in the Trump world, these are all just negotiating tactics, right? It's a cudgel with which to beat on a, as they see it, a weaker, lesser sovereign nation. Um, Trump has no, we're gonna get a one star review for this, but I, I truly do not give a shit, um, at this point. And I know there's a, there's a Lutheran minister who, who listens to us. And pastor, I apologize for my language this week, but I am stirred. Um, Trump has no way of being, if not an asshole. Um, that is his only mode that he knows. So this is all, people are gonna hear this and they're gonna think, no it's not. And they're right. It's not. But to them, in their world, this is all just banter. [00:22:52] Chris: Oh yeah. [00:22:52] Matt: You know? [00:22:52] Chris: Yeah. [00:22:52] Matt: It's all just a negotiation. Trump has no way of. His, his worldview is sort of framed in this 1980s, um, uh, New York Post kind of tabloid editorial frame, right? And he approaches every sort of negotiation as if he's trying to low ball a deal for granite countertops for some gaudy condo development, right? And if you look at it that way, you see how some of this bleeds through into now high-level diplomacy and international relations and very serious issues of war and peace, right? And these alliance structures that have sustained us for 80 years now. Um, it's all just dollars and cents to him, you know? And that's wrong. But that's, that's, that's where he is. Zooming in a bit onto that Oval Office meeting and my read of it now, almost a week removed from it, I think while many people right now see that debacle as premeditated, designed to humiliate Zelenskyy and justify an even more radical break from Ukraine, I'm skeptical of that a bit and I'll, I'll, I'll tell you why. So, uh, or at least I'm skeptical that it was fully orchestrated by Trump himself. [00:24:10] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:24:10] Matt: If it was premeditated, I think it was only premeditated by JD Vance. Um, again, drawing back from a lot of the things that I said just previously about how Trump sees the world and how they negotiate and that kind of maximum pressure strategy. And as we've said in previous episodes since he was inaugurated again, um, why he applies these maximum pressure tactics to like, you know, Denmark and Ukraine and Canada, but not Russia? Fair question. I can't answer that. Um, but so, Occam's razor, an understanding of human nature, and everything, and everything we know about Trump's personality, to me, all point to something more impulsive and ego-driven. Um, and again, I don't share this viewpoint of mine as an effort to be bipartisan or find a silver lining or say something nice. This is just, you know, saying I would call balls and strikes. This is honest to God how I sort of see what's happening here. So once again, as was often the case in Trump's first term, we should ask ourselves, Ben Wittes kind of pioneered this, is this malevolence or incompetence? And, and really I think the answer might just be both, mixed with a staggering level of petty, small-minded grievance. So, on the David Frum piece. [00:25:30] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:25:31] Matt: Uh, so he kind of, I think, does a pretty good job of laying bare how Trump and Vance openly broadcast their alignment with Russia and their disdain for Ukraine in that, in that Oval Office meeting, right? Again, something I said with, with Shane on that last interview, I think that makes the, the thing that makes that meeting the moment and, and the crisis that it has become the last week is because it happened in front of the TV cameras. That to me is the thing that really sets it apart. You know, there have been plenty instances in the past, in the first term and everything of Trump sort of, like, berating allies, and you know, again, being nothing if not an asshole, right? That's not new. That's not new information to us, right? But it happened in front of rolling TV cameras right in front of the White House press pool. Um, but what, what really stood out to me here was Vance's position on Zelenskyy. It's completely deranged. On one hand, he slammed Zelenskyy for supposedly never showing gratitude to the US for military aid. Then in the same breath, also slammed him for thanking American workers. And these are blue-collar ammunition plant workers in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Salt of the earth people. I have family members who line up exactly with that description, like I know exactly who he's describing, uh, for producing weaponry that Ukraine's military is using to fight off Russia. Um, he cynically dismisses that as a campaign ad for Biden. He said, you know, yeah, Zelenskyy went up to that plant in Northeastern Pennsylvania and did that as, you know, as a, as a, as a help to Biden's campaign. Nothing if not cynical and just wrong and pigheaded. [00:27:06] Chris: Mm-mm. [00:27:07] Matt: That's an insane contradiction. You can't, with a straight face, accuse someone of ingratitude and attack them when they do express gratitude. And journalists have since counted. Zelenskyy has thanked America for its support over 90 times since the war began. Um, but that's exactly what Vance did. Why? Because none of this is about logic. It's about creating a narrative where Zelenskyy is always in the wrong. Suspicious. You know, corrupt. Um, uh, not a good actor in their minds, right? Not an ally that we would want to have, in their worldview. [00:27:42] Chris: Yeah. I've got a thought in that. I mean, [00:27:44] Matt: Yeah. [00:27:44] Chris: So with, with this question about whether this was orchestrated or not, I mean, I, I don't know for sure. Um, in the buildup to this meeting, just, uh, two weeks, over the two weeks of prior to the meeting, you had sort of Trump calling Zelenskyy a dictator. Then there was a point where Trump was demanding or, yeah, he, I think demanding is the right word there, elections in Ukraine. He was floating this sort of thing that there should be elections in Ukraine. Even though when you talk to Ukrainians, it goes against their constitution because they're currently in a war. [00:28:15] Matt: Right. [00:28:16] Chris: And, you know, and it kind of is feeling like that this blowup is possibly part of an attempt by Trump and Vance to get Zelenskyy out of office and possibly for Putin. You know, um, Zelenskyy [00:28:32] Matt: I'm sorry, for, for Putin in, in what way? In exchange for a pro-Russian leader of Ukraine? What do you, what do you mean by that? [00:28:37] Chris: Potentially just to, to basically, I think what Putin wants is Zelenskyy out of the picture. [00:28:42] Matt: Sure. [00:28:43] Chris: Because Zelenskyy has obviously humiliated Putin, [00:28:45] Matt: Archnemesis. [00:28:46] Chris: He's galvanized, and he's, Putin sees that Zelenskyy is a galvanizing force in Ukraine. He's a man who has, you know, took this country that was supposedly not gonna last four days and turned it into arguably the second-most effective military in the world. And, um, and that is not something that's easily done or, or can be easily replicated, if you know what I mean. So if you just suddenly changed figures, have we found, I don't know who you would replace Zelenskyy with, I'm not talking about a pro-Russian person at this point. Even if you just replace Zelenskyy with another pro-Western Ukrainian, I doubt the person who replaced Zelenskyy could pull off what Zelenskyy is doing. [00:29:28] Matt: Mm-hmm. [00:29:28] Chris: Zelenskyy is very effective at going to, um, to Western allies and, um, you know, basically he, he uses the right sort of language. He knows how to sort of talk to and communicate to people and work with allies. And that is a skill. And Zelenskyy is brilliant at it, and I doubt that there are other Ukrainians who will be able to just fill those shoes immediately. And I think Putin knows that. Even if it's not a pro-Putin or pro-Russia candidate, whoever takes over from Zelenskyy in this scenario would not be as effective immediately as Zelenskyy, I think. And I, I really do feel like, I mean, and this is why I think Zelenskyy has had to do has, has to do what he has to do to kind of capitulate himself to Trump a little bit because I think, I feel like we were building up to, and it was already one commentator in the UK said it Zelenskyy should step down. Um, someone else from Ukraine can negotiate with Trump. Because it's this whole, can we negotiate with Trump? And this is the thing that sort of is annoying. There's a lot of Trump wis, um, Trump whisperers out there who are trying to say to us that, oh, this is just Trump's negotiating strategy. This is how Trump works, blah blah, blah. And it's very frustrating and it's very difficult to know then how to [00:30:51] Matt: Sure. [00:30:52] Chris: Think or respond to that. Because frankly, looking at the tea leaves, the way I read at the moment, all of this is just basically, um, bending over backwards for Putin. [00:31:03] Matt: Yeah. [00:31:04] Chris: And that's how it really feels. But at the same time, I'm aware of sort of so-called Trump whisperers who are trying to tell us that, oh no, this is all just his negotiating tactics. And I just wanna put in one last piece here on that, um, from Rory Stewart, because I was watching the, The Rest Is Politics have done quite a few emergency podcasts about this fallout in the last few days. And, and Rory Stewart brought up a really good point that he said there's this sort of optimism bias among politicians at the moment and some commentators towards Trump in that if you flatter Trump and play along on his terms, et cetera, you will get what you came for. And, um, we'll go into the mineral deals in a minute because I'd love to go through it because, um, Rory was also saying that he felt that this mineral deal was a really bad deal for Ukraine, especially with no security assurances. Now, I, I know we would talk about, in that previous piece you mentioned that security assurances were off the table at this point, and I have feelings that, I think, well, Zelenskyy was intending to sign this deal, as far as I know, up until this blowup, so whether, so whether, um, well, and, and this deal actually wasn't even the deal, it was just the framework of an agreement. So basically this, what Zelenskyy would've signed wasn't actually legally binding at this stage. It was kinda like the, a framework for the actual agreement and to set up a fund that would, um, be for, in a sense, um, you know, the 50% stake that America would get as far as I'm understanding here with this, this whole so-called deal, because Trump called it a deal, but it's actually a framework. [00:32:40] Matt: Mm-hmm. [00:32:41] Chris: So maybe, um, maybe you could come to talk to us a little bit about this, you know, so-called deal, uh, because I know you've sort of got some bits on that. [00:32:49] Matt: Yeah, so I think, I mean, I, with Rory Stewart's sort of statement there, [00:32:54] Chris: Yeah. [00:32:54] Matt: I, I do not consider myself a Trump whisperer at all. [00:32:58] Chris: Hmm. [00:32:58] Matt: Um, nor do I believe that you can behoove yourself by always just sort of kissing his ass and appeasing him. [00:33:07] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:33:08] Matt: Right? I do not believe that. I think anyone who is a regular listener of this podcast should already know that by now. You know? [00:33:13] Chris: Yeah. And I hope you don't feel, I was saying you're Trump whisperer. [00:33:15] Matt: No, I, no, no, no. Um, but as far as the election thing, I just wanna address that, address that first. So, Zelenskyy is in office longer than what his term was set to be. That is because they had delayed elections because the Ukrainian constitution says you can't hold elections while under a state of martial law. Just also from a practical, [00:33:35] Chris: Which makes sense. [00:33:36] Matt: It does. It does. I have no issue with him being there, nor do I think that Zelenskyy should be forced out or made to resign in some way. Frankly, it's not, it's not our decision who gets to lead Ukraine. That is up for the Ukrainian people to decide that. Full stop. Right? I believe that all people have the right to self-determination. Um, but the issue there from a practical standpoint of holding those elections, and the reason why they haven't been held yet is because if you have lines of polling places, lines of Ukrainians going to polling places across the country, those are flashing red targets, right? And now, countries have held elections under really dire and, and, and problematic security situations before. I mean, Iraq held a couple rounds of elections during some of the worst days of the insurgency. Right? The difference was, at the time, al-Qaeda could not launch drones and cruise missiles at those polling places from hundreds of miles away. Right? Al-Qaeda did not have an air force. That's the difference. Now, I think just objectively speaking, if we, in the alternate universe where we're talking about President Kamala Harris and her national security team sort of figuring out, okay, how do we wind down this war, you know? How do we sort of look at the end game of this whole kind of conflict? I, I think it's a, I, I don't see how at some point in the terms of, in some, in within the terms of some phase of that peace agreement that Kamala Harris' White House would've hypothetically reached, that it would not have called for, okay, now at this point, Ukraine, uh, ends its martial law, and there's an election, right? And I'm sure to ensure it's, it's, you know, safety and, and, and efficacy and fairness, you would have the UN involved and all sorts of other international NGOs. Like this is what they do, right? That, that would clearly happen. Um, so again, going back to, you know, is this all negotiating tactics? I, for them, it's, it's boorish, it's ugly, it is, um, counterproductive and destructive to our alliances. It is, um, extortionist. It's gangsterism in nature to sort of pull those levers of freezing intelligence support or aid, or threaten to revoke the legal status of the 200,000 Ukrainians who have come here for safety since the war began. That is all true, but I, I, to them it's still negotiating tactics. It can be horrible, wrong negotiating tactics and still be a negotiating tactic. Does that make sense there? My point there? [00:36:24] Chris: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I just, I think one of my frustrations with this thing is this sort of lack of security guarantees upfront. And I'm trying to understand whether it's a diplomatic move or whether it's just that, um, Trump doesn't want to commit forces to, um, you know, guaranteeing, uh, the security of an ally. [00:36:44] Matt: He doesn't, he doesn't wanna commit, he doesn't wanna commit troops on the ground. And my read of that, he, he sees that, I mean, as far as because security guarantees, he would say that a mineral deal has to come before security guarantees. Like, you sign the mineral deal and then we work out security guarantees later. Zelenskyy and a lot of Europeans, I think, and they're completely justified in this concern, would like, security, would like security guarantees to be part of that arrangement. I think it's completely fair, right? [00:37:11] Chris: Well, yeah, especially as you're about to give up 50% of your, you know, the profits from your natural resources, you kind of wanna get something from it. [00:37:18] Matt: Right. [00:37:18] Chris: It's like insisting, I don't know, money up front for something you haven't bought yet. [00:37:22] Matt: Here's, so here's, here's some deal, here's some, here's some facts about that, about that mineral deal. Um, so that agreement establishes a joint investment fund rather than a direct mineral-for-aid repayment scheme. Again, I think the whole framing of this is like repayment is [00:37:39] Chris: Yeah. [00:37:39] Matt: Wrong because it's sort of like, you know, putting Ukraine in debt for the, for the circumstances that has been under for the last three years is wrong in the first place. I also think the Trump team is operating from the objectively wrong idea that we've been like shipping, you know, C-17s full of cash into Ukraine and that's the aid. No, it's not. Much of the military aid has been us and European countries supplying them with our older stockpiles, whether it's, you know, older stuff that we can't use anymore or for the Europeans' cases, uh, older, you know, Soviet weaponry that could easily integrate with the Ukrainian Armed Forces that the Ukrainians don't, that, I'm sorry, that, that the Europeans don't really need anymore. Right? So it's, it's giving them weapons that we already have that Ukraine can and needs right now. And that, you know, the dollar numbers comes from um, us going to US defense contractors, such as that ammunition plant in Northeastern Pennsylvania and, and refilling those stockpiles for ourselves, right? Restocking what we gave them. That's what this is, okay? And I think they fundamentally misread that. But so, under the terms of this agreement, Ukraine would contribute 50% of revenues from future government-owned resource projects. So that's minerals, oils, natural gas, the rare earth stuff gets bandied around a bit, um, into this fund. Uh, the fund will reinvest in Ukraine to develop further mining, energy, and infrastructure projects. Private sector investment is crucial to the fund's success. US companies are expected to be involved, but they will not be forced to invest. There's no security guarantee upfront in this agreement, which is, you know, the point of, the big point of contention, though US financial stakes may serve as an implicit incentive for ongoing support. So, they would say that, the Trump team would say that, well, we are now having this sort of big economic relationship and investment in Ukraine. That sort of implicitly is the security guarantee that we wouldn't want the Russians to re-invade again in a couple years time after they rearm and blow that up. Right? That's again, just, that's what they say. [00:39:54] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:39:54] Matt: So, why it could be seen as unfair or extortionate? The original proposal under Trump sought $500 billion in mineral revenues as repayment for past military aid. And I've just explained why I think that framing and that idea is just wrong. Um, again, it goes back to he's approaches everything as if he's negotiating granite countertops for a condo, right? Or, you know, you're not paying your, you're behind on your Mar-a-Lago dues for the year. [00:40:22] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:40:22] Matt: That's how he sees it. [00:40:24] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:40:24] Matt: Um, this was dropped from the agreement, but it set the tone for these negotiations. Uh, Ukraine is giving up half of its future resource revenues without direct security assurances or guarantees of continued US aid. The fund is structured to benefit US private sector investments, raising concerns that Ukraine is being strong-armed into handing over resources. That's where the extortionist nature of this comes in that I described, uh, in a, their vulnerable position that they've been in. [00:40:51] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:40:51] Matt: Uh, Trump's transactional approach to diplomacy, framing US support as contingent on resource deals has raised concerns of coercion, rightly so. Uh, is this assessment fair? I think the agreement, look, looking, reading the text of the agreement and some analysis that I have, and there's really good stuff, uh, that the Center for Security and International, the Center for Strategic and, and, and International Studies put out that I'll link in the show notes that a lot of this is drawn from. So, the agreement does not directly force Ukraine into an unfair position, but it is heavily skewed toward US economic interests of, you know, yes, that is, that is true. And I would wholeheartedly agree that that is not the kind of tact that we should be taking with Ukraine right now. Um, Ukraine retains 50% of its resource revenues and the fund aims to reinvest in the country. However, the lack of security guarantees and the timing of the deal amid war and economic distress make it easy to see this as a form of economic pressure. The deal assumes Ukraine can attract private sector interest, but given its ongoing security risks, this is major uncertainty and, and will remain that. So then you ask, this is sort of where my own thinking comes in here, how long until Ukraine can export these minerals to the US, right? Because right now the agreement is just a piece of paper, right? [00:42:06] Chris: Yeah. [00:42:06] Matt: Extremely, there's an extremely long timeline there, and I'll break that down. So on average, it takes 18 years to develop a mine from initial geological assessment to production. Ukraine lacks modern geological mapping, relying on Soviet-era surveys from 30 to 60 years ago. So all that has to be redone, right? Um, then consider the infrastructure challenges. Russia has wiped out much of Ukraine's power grid, and that's just the power grid. I mean, there's all kinds of, you know, highways, I mean half the country's been destroyed, especially in the east, right? Uh, which is of course critical for resource, uh, for resource extraction. All that would have to be rebuilt. Um, given these factors, uh, it's CSIS judges that it's unlikely that any significant mineral exports from Ukraine will reach the US within the next two decades. So, can the terms be changed by a new administration? Uh, yes. A future US administration could alter or even abandon the deal for one that's much favorable for Ukraine. Um, since the, since the agreement depends on private sector investment, if the US government removes financial incentives or shifts it foreign policy priorities, investment could dry up. Ukraine could also renegotiate terms, especially if its economy and bargaining position improves after the war ends, where you have a peace agreement, right? Or least a cessation of hostilities and a sort of like a, a Korean War kind of scenario, right? Where you have a ceasefire but not, you know, like a peace agreement. Um, and that in Korea has held, yeah, since the fifties. Um, if a pro-Ukraine administration follows Trump, and it's Americans' responsibility to deliver that, uh, US security guarantees could be added, making the deal more favorable to Kyiv. So that's, that's my take on the, um, on the mineral deal, for what it's worth. [00:43:55] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's your point about another administration kind of coming in and could change things, um, at this point feels very hopeful and optimistic. [00:44:08] Matt: I am sensitive to sort of like taking it as a given that, you know, that this is a Thousand-Year Reich. [00:44:16] Chris: Yeah, because the feeling in Europe, at least at the moment is, um, well, yeah, for some of us in Europe, it just, it, it, at this point it just feels like democracy in America is falling apart and there's, there's no guarantee there even will be elections in four years' time. That's sort of a feeling that's growing over here. Is that justified? I don't know. [00:44:34] Matt: I don't. I don't. Right now? No, I don't think it's justified. You're gonna have midterm elections. I think, um, the, uh, yeah, you're gonna have midterm elections. Margins in Congress are very close as of today, you know, very close right now. Um, I think it's incredibly likely that Republicans will suffer significant, perhaps even historic losses at the way things are going domestically, in those midterms and lose at least the House. The Senate, it's a bit more tricky because then you have issues of, you know, the geographic and sort of cultural makeup of the country and how, you know, a state like West Virginia has the same number of seNATOrs as California. You know? That's an issue. So the Senate is a bit more, is a bit more tricky. I'm not making any predictions there. If that happens. Um, and you control at least the House, if not both houses of Congress. [00:45:24] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:45:24] Matt: It makes it very difficult to screw around with 2028. I just, I, fullheartedly just reject the framing that again, that this is a Thousand-Year Reich now and this is just how it's gonna be. I just, I just don't, I don't believe it and I will not let someone say that, yeah that is. No. No, it's not. [00:45:43] Chris: Yeah. I think we were saying this on the, the phone the other day. I think what freaks people out at the moment is the, the perception of a lack of legal pushback to Trump, who's had a very, who's been just sort of signing endless executive orders. And then you've got the DOGE wrecking ball that's kind of going in and [00:46:01] Matt: Yeah. [00:46:01] Chris: Pretty much dismantling the federal government as we speak. And it, it feels like that he's dismantling all the systems that will be the systems that kind of, um, would insist on an election. [00:46:16] Matt: He's dismantling. [00:46:17] Chris: If that makes sense. [00:46:18] Matt: He's dismantling the systems that will keep people out of, he's, he's, he's dismantling systems that by dismantling them would put people in the streets in massive numbers. He's dismantling systems like gutting, um, you know, the administrations that do, uh, entitlement spending, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. You know, playing around with tariffs. Uh, you know, yeah, we're gonna have tariffs and the next day, no, we're not gonna have tariffs, or they're gonna be delayed, or we're gonna have a carve out for this specific industry, or whatever. All that kind of uncertainty and chaos is really threatening to wreak havoc on the economy. And it's, it's those kinds of things that will ensure that, that Thousand-Year Reich that I'm describing it as, does not happen. [00:47:07] Chris: Mm-mm [00:47:08] Matt: People won't, people won't stand for it. I mean, this is, people don't, people in this country don't know how to deal with instability like that. And as soon as you hit their pocketbooks, the kind of, that's the thing that's still, I think in, in, in large ways, kind of just melts away the political tribalism, you know? When you hit someone in their pocketbook and that's what the stuff that they're playing with, especially around DOGE and the tariffs and everything, and the layoffs of federal employees. That's, that's, they're playing with fire there. I really do. And I also just, I, I've seen this on, on online on the, in, in the last week, you know, this sort of, there was one Bluesky post, I don't know who it was, but it was saying, you know, like America is now amongst the, the Axis of Evil of, of Iran and North Korea and stuff, and Russia and I, I frankly find that just on a personal level, you know, just like emotional, on an emotional level, this is not what I need right now, being over here, living through this, dealing with it, does not help me at all. And I frankly find that kind of framing or even the conventional wisdom that, you know, they're gonna be around forever. And this is how it is to be very insulting to Americans like myself, scores of Americans like myself, and, you know, thousands of whom listen to this podcast every week who are determined to fight like hell to keep our democracy afloat. [00:48:36] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:48:37] Matt: It's not, it's, it's, it's just not the support that we need right now. Um, and it's also just, it's, it's not true. I mean, is, is Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader of the Senate, is he sort of rising to meet the moment and stuff and, you know, effectively pushing back? No, he's not. But I don't have his direct cell phone number. I can't text him and tell him to step it up. I'm sorry for that. [00:48:57] Chris: No, no. [00:48:57] Matt: Um, but there are protests here every single day more, and it's, it's growing in number [00:49:03] Chris: Town hall meetings as well. I've been seeing those on, on Bluesky, et cetera. [00:49:08] Matt: You have, um, members of Congress going out in deep-red parts of the country and getting screamed at by their constituents for the stuff that Elon Musk is doing. Um, you have, again, it's been six weeks. Uh, you have cases going through the court system that, that, that, that takes time. Um, so again, I just, the idea that, you know, we have all been sort of, we're all accepting of it or lulled into passivity is just not, it's just objectively not a correct read on the state of the country right now. Let me give you some other sort of facts and figures here [00:49:44] Chris: Mm, please do. [00:49:45] Matt: That could be useful. So, according to a CBS News/YouGov poll from the end of February, 52% of Americans support Ukraine in the war. Only 4% support Russia. I think syphilis is probably more popular than Russia here right now. Um, and 44% support neither or don't have an opinion. That doesn't strike me as a particular shocking thing. I think for a lot of people, foreign affairs is just not something that they have any knowledge of or, or, or think of. For most Americans, the rest of the world is not something they need to ever know about. Um, most Americans don't have passports. Most Americans can spend their entire lives, very sort of long, fulfilling lives and never leave the country. They don't have to. Um, so I think I would see that 44% number is just a reflection of they don't know and they just don't care. Whether it's right that they don't care, that's, that's a, that's a fair question, but 4% say that they openly support Russia. That's it. 4%, 52% support Ukrainians, 75% view Putin unfavorably compared to 28% that views Zelenskyy unfavorably. So again, the suggestion that, you know, we're all sort of just Russian apologists and along for the ride and, you know, down for dictatorship is just not true. [00:51:04] Chris: I think the, what I suppose is the issue at the moment is obviously there's this history of some MAGA Republicans who've been very pro-Russia and pro-Putin and you know, because we've talked about this before, like how Putin likes to present himself as the savior of the White Christian sort of world. [00:51:21] Matt: Mm-hmm. [00:51:21] Chris: Um, and how that seems to resonate with some MAGA Republicans and so should we say Christian MAGA Republicans. Um, and the problem is those MAGA Republicans are very loud on social media and, um, and at the moment are, seem to be enjoying the chaos, um, because it's sort of in a sense owning the libs. Um, which seems to be this kind of constant thing. And it's, and the problem is again, like we still have this sort of feeling over here, at least as, um, outsiders looking in, it's like, is Trump, is it possible to ever hold Trump to account? I just don't know at this point looking at things the way things have been last six weeks. Obviously six weeks is a short time. It feels like a long time and he's done, it feels like he's done a lot in six weeks. Um, which is what shocks people. [00:52:17] Matt: Hold him account in terms of, like, putting him in jail after this is over? [00:52:21] Chris: Well, no, I mean, pushing back. I mean, you know, as we were talking about earlier with, uh, insisting in four years' time there is an election. Or, or if Trump suddenly tomorrow does, here's the, here's the thing, so, um, there's a fear at the moment that Trump potentially could, uh, want to, you know, leave NATO. [00:52:39] Matt: Yeah. [00:52:40] Chris: Certainly, he's, he's, he keeps flipping and flopping because it in build up to election last year, he floated the idea. People around Trump like to float this idea and it spooks Europeans [00:52:51] Matt: It spooks me. [00:52:52] Chris: And it spooks and yeah, [00:52:53] Matt: Spooks the fuck out of me. Sorry, Pastor. [00:52:55] Chris: And I, I, and I think, I personally think that that makes a lot of sense if you think like Trump to leave NATO. Um, and I obviously, I don't agree with this, um, but it, it, it feels just like a logical progression of Trump's thinking and what, so when, when we're talking about leaving NATO, obviously it's not simple, but at the same time, what stops him, A, signing a presidential order, and B, the US then leaving NATO. What stops that? [00:53:25] Matt: Let's talk about that. So as far as the US leaving NATO, it was uh, I think it was the day or two after that Oval Office meeting. [00:53:33] Chris: Oh yeah, it was the Saturday. Like Musk put some, yeah, Musk tweet, whatever you call it. [00:53:37] Matt: You know, did a very Muskian way, sort of, someone said, I don't know, I don't, I have no idea who the hell he was responding to. Probably it was some, you know, far-right Twitter troll who just said, you know, it's time for the US to pull out of NATO and the UN and Musk quote tweeted that and said, you know, I agree. And then there was Mike Lee, who's one of the most conservative and frankly just weird members of the Senate who kind of chimed in on that. I haven't seen it, frankly, go any farther beyond that that I'm aware of in like real sort of meaningful ways that would put that into effect. Now. As for the mechanics of how a president could potentially pull out of NATO. So just, um, last year, anticipating this, um, the Senate on a bill that was, um, Marco Rubio was half of pushing this bill through Congress. This is his bill. Um, they made it law that a president needs, um, it has to be done through an act of Congress to pull out of NATO. He cannot unilaterally get up and just say, I'm gonna pull out of NATO. I mean, could he, if we're talking about the [00:54:44] Chris: Quick question. [00:54:44] Matt: Yeah. [00:54:45] Chris: So with regards to Trump's recent appointees, did they not go through Congress? [00:54:51] Matt: They did. [00:54:51] Chris: You know, the, like Kash Patel, et cetera? [00:54:53] Matt: Yeah. Yeah. They're all Senate-approved. [00:54:55] Chris: So that doesn't give you much faith in Congress right now. But anyway. [00:54:57] Matt: I think, I don't, [00:54:59] Chris: Hmm. [00:55:00] Matt: Right now, sitting here right now, no, I don't think there are the votes in the House and there are enough votes, and with the margins that we have, I don't think there are enough votes in the House and Senate right now sitting here right now to pull the US out of NATO. I really don't. If we're talking about the whole, you know, sort of dictator, executive order, I'm just gonna do whatever I want kind of thing, I mean, that would go to the Supreme Court as to whether or not that's an illegal, um, an illegal action to, to, to pull out of or, or an unconstitutional action to pull out of NATO. [00:55:32] Chris: And if the Supreme Court ruled against him, what happens then? Sorry to throw all this at you. [00:55:37] Matt: There's a whole bunch of issues right now that are sort of creeping up to the Supreme Court and the question remains on all of them, What happens if the Supreme Court rules against him? I mean, I think just the other day, um, the Supreme Court ruled that he had to honor $2 billion in canceled USAID contracts, that he had to pay them. Um, it was a five-four vote. Uh, Amy Coney Barrett, uh, Trump appointee to the court from the first term, uh, voted in favor of it and that put it, the five votes in. Um, MAGA has been flipping out on her since then for that. But, to my knowledge, I haven't heard anything about them, um, disobeying that ruling yet. [00:56:21] Chris: Mm, mm-hmm. [00:56:22] Matt: So, I mean, I cannot tell you with a hundred percent certainty what they would do in that kind of a situation. I think, right now, I think the NATO thing is, again, just to borrow Shane's term, more kind of just diplomatic shitposting. On, on that issue of Trump's questionable support for NATO, and I think how he views it and how he frames it, and again, I think it comes back to an idea of, his idea of he's negotiating for a deal for granite countertops or, you know, you're behind on your Mar-a-Lago dues, right? So, in that meeting with Zelenskyy before the, you know, blowup happened, he was asked by a Polish journalist about his commitment to keeping troops on NATO's eastern flank. And I went back through and I watched all 50 minutes of this because I'm a masochist. Um, uh, yeah, he, he was asked about, uh, his commitment to keeping troops on NATO's eastern flank, and he said, I'm paraphrasing here, Poland has really stepped up and done a great job for NATO because they pay more than anyone, I think it's 4.7% of their GDP on defense as of this year. For what it's worth, we pay three, the US pays 3.7% currently. Um, and the, he said as of for concerning the Baltics, protecting the Baltics, he said, the Baltics are in a really tough neighborhood and we're committed to protecting them, um, too. But, and that's to Dan Drezner's point that he made in his Substack there, that like, if given that and the circumstances and, you know, the past context and history with Trump, I, I, I agree with, with Dan Drezner's point there that if the meeting had ended a minute earlier and we had not had that issue with JD Vance and, and, and Zelenskyy, I think it would've been at least a neutral, um, exchange, you know? And we would definitely would not be in the situation where we are right now. But every time he mention, every time Trump mentions NATO, it's always in the same breath that they need to pay more, uh, that they're not paying their fair share. He may truly believe that NATO membership is akin to paying your yearly Mar-a-Lago dues. We know that it's not, right? Um, but that's, that's where he is. Uh, and I frankly agree that much of NATO needs to greatly step up its, its defense spending to deter Russia. I mean, uh, there's a, the last agreement in 2014 was that NATO members would spend 2% of their GDP on defense. That has made great progress. There are still some countries like, um, Belgium, uh, Germany, um, the Netherlands, a few others that aren't quite there yet. They're still hovering just below 2%. But, of course, they're gonna get there. We know that now. Um, so, yeah, I, I, I do agree that they need to, to step up their defense spending to deter Russia and possibly yes, defend the Baltics on your own. Not because we don't want to, but because of a scenario where our forces are overcommitted fighting China in the Pacific. And I, I think you now all, we all now clearly agree that Europe needs to spend more on defense. European leaders agree that they need to spend more on defense. So while the way he talks about this is, again, boorish and frustrating and childish and ignorant, if you squint, there is a point and we don't disagree on that point. [00:59:42] Chris: Mm. Well, this is one of the things that's have come up in the last week. Obviously, there's been a lot of, um, discussion about if, um, Europe could protect Ukraine without American support and [00:59:56] Matt: Not right now. [00:59:58] Chris: No. This is the thing, and this is the issue, and this is in a sense what, um, kind of feeds into what you're saying about, you know, Europe and, um, and NATO members' GDP contributions. Europe, you know, if we, we've said this many a time, Europe has sort of taken this sort of position that the Cold War ended and we don't need to spend so much on defense anymore. And they've been stuck in that mindset up until probably since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, not the 2014 one because they probably should have stepped up then, but it didn't. Um, and so yeah, there's a massive, so there's a massive sort of equipment issue that if America, you know, if America banned, um. So if in the worst case scenario where America says, right, we're not gonna support, you know, uh, Europe helping Ukraine, you guys are on your own, you know, we haven't got the, the missile technology at the moment domestically. Um, because again, in that scenario, America, we might be able to buy weapons from America, but America might say we don't want to sell weapons to you if it's gonna be given to Ukraine. So then Europe really is in a tight spot because then it can't, it hasn't got the technology, um, to give to Ukraine. Like missile defense, um, is the big one. [01:01:11] Matt: Yep. [01:01:12] Chris: Obviously artillery rounds, in time, we could give Ukraine that, but, uh, I think we're way behind on our artillery manufacturing at this time. Then there's also, um, like, uh, there's sort of air, certain types of aircraft that have like jamming capabilities and things that if America says you can't use our tech. Like, so if we can't suddenly use American planes that we have for jamming, et cetera, that puts us, again, Europe in a very difficult situation. And so, yeah, this is, uh, you know, so out of all this sort of terribleness and, and again, it kind of, it is what feeds into the anxieties people have at the moment. Because if, if there is a kind of, um, should we say rupture? I, I can't think of a better word at the moment. Um, there is some sort of problem in relations between Europe and America over Ukraine and America says, right guys on your own and you can't, we're not gonna help you in any way, shape or form, that really is bad for not only Ukraine, but for Europe. Because then, um, if Europe do potentially, because there's the other fear of Europe gets into an actual shooting war with Russia, because if we start, you know, providing air cover for Ukraine, et cetera. Let's say RAF jets start doing peacekeeping patrols over the skies of Ukraine and shoot down a Russian bomber, what happens next? You know, and all British troops are fine, you know, are deployed in Ukraine, boots on the ground, and then one of them shoots a Russian soldier. What happens next? [01:02:39] Matt: Yeah. [01:02:39] Chris: Because we, apart from, and it's the, it is something that came up on, on Warships Pod with, um, Ian Ballantine. One of the issues he talks about is how, the problem is because we've allowed, um, conventional warfare capabilities to decline so much that the only other option is the nuclear option, which is bad because the nuclear option is never really supposed to be an option. It's just supposed to be a deterrent. [01:03:05] Matt: Yeah. [01:03:05] Chris: Really it's supposed to be conventional artillery, et cetera. It's supposed to fight off Russia, not suddenly getting our submarines to fire rockets at, uh, Moscow, because that's World War III. It's almost like the apocalypse, et cetera, you know., [01:03:19] Matt: We've, we've raised this point on this podcast before that Oval Office meeting, before Trump was even reelected, right? [01:03:28] Chris: Mm-hmm. [01:03:28] Matt: In a different world that we were in at the time, we've raised this exact point. [01:03:31] Chris: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. [01:03:31] Matt: You and I agreed on this. [01:03:32] Chris: Mm-hmm. [01:03:33] Matt: Right? [01:03:33] Chris: Mm-hmm. [01:03:33] Matt: Long ago. Europe should be able to defend itself and the Baltics against Russia, an economy over five times smaller than your own. Um, and this isn't like, again, this isn't something that became, uh, suddenly true after that Oval Office debacle. Maybe it became true for some people, but it was not. Um, objectively, this has been the case for a long time. And even again, even if Kamala Harris had won the election and that, or that meeting with Trump had gone smoothly, that would still be the case. I mean, I think, you know, during the Cold War, American military might, was a stabilizing force in Europe, yes. It was a, a guaranteeing kind of force in Europe with his nuclear umbrella and everything. But the difference was that Europe hadn't completely disarmed itself during the Cold War. Um, or, you know, not completely disarmed itself, but disarmed itself to the extent that it cannot face an economy five times smaller than it. Um, and, uh, nor were we facing the possibility of fighting both a re-armed Russia that's set its entire country on, its, sort of mindset of total war against the West and modern China. Um, as you know, you and I definitely totally agree and have said on here countless times, uh, the quiet stability of the nineties and the early two thousands is gone and it's not coming back anytime soon. Europe has got to start treating its own defense as a necessity and not just an afterthought. And I want to be clear about something here, advocating for European defense is not a pro-Russian position. [01:05:11] Chris: And it's not a pro-war position either. [01:05:12] Matt: No. [01:05:12] Chris: Because this is the other thing, the other thing people do, [01:05:15] Matt: It's a pro-deterrence position. [01:05:16] Chris: It is, yeah. And I think this is the other, [01:05:18] Matt: It's strategic common sense. And I think just a, anyone arguing otherwise is, is deluding themselves. [01:05:24] Chris: Yeah. [01:05:24] Matt: Saying that Europe needs to be able to defend itself against Russia is not a pro-Russian position. [01:05:29] Chris: No, no. Or a pro-war one. And, and this is the other thing as well, it is not just, um, it's not just, should we say the right who benefit from Trump and, um, and Russia is also the far-left and the anti-war left to see, uh, you know, American, Britain as just purely imperial forces. [01:05:47] Matt: Mm-hmm. [01:05:47] Chris: Who are just the bad guys. [01:05:49] Matt: Yeah. [01:05:49] Chris: And, and somehow turn a blind eyes all the crimes of Russia. Um, because apparently when Russia backed dodgy regimes or whatever, they somehow are doing it in a way that's not imperialism. Never quite understood that. Um, and, uh, yeah, sorry. [01:06:04] Matt: I just think as far as Ukraine is concerned, the far-left, I don't know if this is subconscious or, or whatever, I think the far-left has never, you know, with all its sort of anti-colonialism and the, you know, stronger versus weaker and the, you know, just versus the unjust kind of like moralism that frames a lot of the far-left's view of the world, right? [01:06:26] Chris: Mm-hmm. [01:06:26] Matt: I'm just trying to be really objective with that, right? [01:06:29] Chris: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. [01:06:30] Matt: I think then what, why, why sort of their lack of support for Ukraine, their skepticism toward whether or not Ukraine is a, is a worthy cause, I think then is because that Ukraine and Zelenskyy, specifically, going back to his, his line, that I don't need a ride, I need ammunition, on the night when Kyiv was very much a frontline city, he has for the first time in a long time shown that Western liberal democracy is a cause worth fighting for. [01:07:01] Chris: Yeah, yeah. And, and it was a very strong contrast to the Afghan government that fell the year before. [01:07:06] Matt: Oh, completely. [01:07:06] Chris: And Ashraf Ghani just skipped the country and, and sadly the armies, the Britain, America, et cetera, have been training to defend themselves, just crumpled very quickly. And billions of dollars, um, had been spent in, in Afghanistan just ended up going up in flames and the Taliban returned. [01:07:28] Matt: Yeah. [01:07:28] Chris: Well look, I think, we've approached just over an hour, so let's, [01:07:32] Matt: I don't want to just dominate this whole thing. [01:07:34] Chris: No, no, no, no. I, I, I'm in a way, to be honest with you, in a way, I'm gonna glad you have because I just feel so conflicted right now. [01:07:42] Matt: Yeah. [01:07:42] Chris: And I don't know if I've got anything particularly insightful or constructive to contribute this week because I just feel royally pissed off. [01:07:52] Matt: I do, too. [01:07:52] Chris: Um, and like, I don't like this level of uncertainty and I think it's unnecessary. And I blame this on Trump. [01:08:02] Matt: Yeah. [01:08:02] Chris: And I blame this on his supporters, and I blame this on people who are trying to normalize this. [01:08:08] Matt: Yeah. [01:08:08] Chris: And I think it's unhealthy. [01:08:10] Matt: Yup. [01:08:12] Chris: I think the only people who, sorry, the only person who benefits from all this at this moment, or the only country that benefits from it is Russia. Um, and, you know, I'm sorry to keep banging on about Russia and as somebody's comment the other day was that we're, um, uh, some like anti-Russian podcast. Um, I, I, I don't know, I mean, at the moment it feels like Europe's kind of in an unspoken war with Russia whilst Russia's been at war of the West for a long time. So Russia, quite frankly can go and, you know, the Russian government, at least, quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned, can go and fuck right off. And that's kind of how I feel right now, so. [01:08:50] Matt: I agree. [01:08:50] Chris: I'm not quite sure how to be more polished or diplomatic about it, but, um, yeah, I just, this, this, it just feels unnecessarily messy right now. That's, that's my thoughts on everything right now. [01:09:07] Matt: My, my closing thoughts on this for today. So, my, um, grandfather was in the Battle of the Bulge, fought in the Battle of the Bulge. Um, he was in the 106th Infantry Division, which if there's any World War II buffs or military historians here, you might know where I'm going with this once I cite the 106th Infantry Division. So, he was a, um, a radio operator, uh, paired with a forward observer for an artillery unit, right? So his job would've been to sort of go far ahead of the US lines and, you know, help kind of coordinate artillery strikes back from those batteries, right? Very kind of simple, um, explanation of it. And the 106th Division, so at, by the time of the Battle of the Bulge, right? I mean, germany was sort of, conventional wisdom was that their combat effectiveness was just done, right? And the allies were very much preparing for an occupation, um, to rebuild and, and govern Germany, right? After the war, whenever that came. And they thought they were pretty close to it at, um, at the time. So the 106th, those men were, uh, largely, uh, very, very green, did not have any combat experience at all, right? They were meant to be the occupation force or part of it. Um, and they were put, uh, uh, the sort of the, the US front that was there, where the Battle of the Bulge took place, um, they were on the northern part of that front, right? It's an area called the Schnee Eifel, sort of was the one part of the Battle of the Bulge that was actually fought literally in Germany. Most of it was in Belgium and, and, and Luxembourg. Um, so that the night before that battle, uh, that would've been December 15th, which I always find it kind of interesting that, you know, a little over 40 years later, that would've been my birthday. Um, the men of the 106th were in their camps and stuff. And on the other side of those, uh, back, you know, in the woods where the German lines were, they heard all kinds of engines and movements and stuff moving around and everything. And it was German forces getting ready to, um, you know, attack those, those positions, um, the next day on December 16th. But because they were so green and had no combat experience, they didn't know what that was, right? Um, and the next day when the battle broke out, uh, the commanding general of the 106th famously had somewhat of a nervous breakdown, was not ready for command, was removed from command by Eisenhower. Um, and that division was, uh, encircled and quickly overwhelmed. Um, within two days, two entire regiments, the 422nd and the 423rd, were surrounded in the Schnee Eifel, where my grandfather was, or close to it. Uh, cut off, out of supplies. Um, and they had no choice but to surrender by German, by, by, they had no choice but to surrender by December 19th. Uh, and that was, so that's over 7,000 US troops were taken prisoner. That was the largest mass surrender of American forces in Europe during World War II. And many of those POWs were sent on grueling marches into Germany, um, and didn't survive. They didn't come back. And my grandfather, see, he, he, he passed away when I was eight, right? So my, my memory of him is I'm still, you know, very young. [01:12:44] Chris: Mm-hmm. [01:12:45] Matt: But what I was told was that he was ahead of those lines at the time that the battle broke out. And, um, he, he said the spotter that he was with just sort of took off into the woods, into the snow. He said he never saw the guy again. And, uh, he, like I said, he, he died when I was eight, but he never, he was one of the few people of the 106th Infantry Division that were, was not captured or killed. Was not taken, was not taken prisoner. And so his last name was, uh, Wentzel. With a W, right? So as a German-American soldier, if he was captured, he probably would've been passed over to the SS. And at that point in the war, they probably would've just shot him. And I would not be sitting here today, talking to you today. Um, so how he got back, how my grandfather got back to American lines, um, what he went through out there in the woods, uh, in the snow by himself, I have no idea. He never told, he never told, um, any of my family members, any of my older family members, um, the only thing we knew was really that, uh, he never wanted to be cold again. [01:14:01] Chris: Hmm. [01:14:02] Matt: And, uh, I don't know. I mean, it's one, one of my creative dreams is to sort of piece together what likely could have happened to him as much as I can, and do a screenplay about that story of, you know, in this division that famously gave up and surrendered, here's the story of someone who didn't. Um, so I, I don't know. I mean, I think those men, I've thought about that a lot in this last week, those men who suffered through that to save Europe and North America, um, to, to save the free world from murderous, murderous, fascist, authoritarian thugs, um, they, they suffered through that because they refused to give up. [01:14:53] Chris: Yeah. [01:14:53] Matt: Uh, even in their darkest, most impossible, most terrifying moments, like my grandfather somehow did. And it's an open question as to what he saw, what he faced, what he endured, how he got through it. I don't know. He took it to the grave with him. Um, but it's because he didn't give up or surrender, or just sort of lay down in the snow and die, that I'm even sitting here. Uh, and he somehow found a way to survive and escape from the depths of hell so that I could yet have a chance to live and thrive in that free world. So I think about that over this last week, and I, I ask myself, how could I surrender that gift to the likes of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Vladimir Putin? Um, so, you know, when I hear headlines over the last week, like America Has Turned, or America is, you know, now part of the Axis of Evil. [01:15:53] Chris: Oh God, yeah. [01:15:54] Matt: Uh, all because of a smug asshole like James David Vance? No. Over my dead fucking body. Um, I won't accept that. I can't. And I won't accept that any of you accept that. [01:16:09] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. And you shouldn't have to accept it. Um, yeah, we are in weird and uncertain times at the moment. But, um, thank you for sharing that story. I mean, your grandfather, amazing, amazing man. And, um, yeah, I just, you know, picturing it as you were describing and I was like, how on earth did he survive those, those situations? [01:16:31] Matt: Yeah. [01:16:31] Chris: I'm glad that he did, because we wouldn't be having this conversation if he didn't. [01:16:34] Matt: I would not be here. [01:16:35] Chris: No, no. And, and you know, he, he, you know, he put his money where his mouth is with regards to the, the war. You know, going out there, putting his life on the line for Europe. And, um, you know, it is very, this is what I don't like about like anti-Americanism that kinda creeps in in Europe sometimes. There's a sort of weird resentment in, in Europe and Britain sometimes with regards to America and the war, uh, because, you know, people like to sometimes say that, well, America came in late and blah, blah, blah, but you know, without America, we wouldn't have won the war. That's the fact. Um, and you know, I, I, I've, when I was a kid, I, I met a few, um, former soldiers who had been, um, on the beaches of Normandy at D-Day. Um, I always remember this American serviceman who, um, I was with my dad having a, a Crêpes Suzette, which is a sort of very fancy looking pancake. And this American soldier came over to me. You know, he was a man in his, I guess he must've been in his sixties at that point, you know, when he, about eight years old, anybody who looks over 50 just looks old to you. But so I can't be an accurate barometer on his age, but he said, um, he said, Son, what you have there is the slice of life. And, um, you know, I was only like eight or nine when he said that, so I didn't fully appreciate it. But when I think back on that, if it wasn't for him, I would not have been having that meal with my dad in this hotel in France on the beaches of Normandy, having, and my memories of Normandy are pleasant ones thanks to that man and his friends and colleagues who put themselves on the line in World War II. And, um, and I'm grateful that they did that so I could have that memory. And I just worry now, um, that potentially children of the future might not be in such a lucky situation to be able to have happy memories of holidays in Europe and stuff if things go the way, badly, in the way that they could. Um, and that's, that's what's at stake I feel at this time. [01:18:38] Matt: Like I said, sort of at the very beginning of this episode, I mean, the whole sort of point of at least what we do in these Espresso Martini episodes between you and I, sort of getting together and sort of talking about this stuff in the lens of the transatlantic relationship, we've been here before and this, in the stories that you and I both just told, and we won. Um, I guess if there's just this sort of one kind of like request that I would ask of people, especially people in Europe right now. Americans, but I think, you know, Americans who are with me kind of, I think already kind of get this, I think they might need to be reminded of it sometimes, but I think they already get it. But I would, I mean, to Europeans right now, especially, I, I'm just saying keep your heads about you. Because you'll need it. Um, and remember, they're an example of what happens when you lose it, you know? [01:19:29] Chris: Mm-hmm. [01:19:30] Matt: Um, the horrors persist, but so do we. [01:19:33] Chris: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And, um, there are many people who wanna exploit this from all political persuasions, and, and you gotta be careful about that. Um, and in fact, there was, um, Brian Dunning of Skeptoid was posting up about this a few weeks ago where, you know, people are trying to exploit this moment in history. Um, you know, there's like anti-capitalist, there's the far-right and, um, I always have believed in the center, you know, with things. And, um, capitalism's not perfect, socialism's not perfect, but if you take the best bits of both, maybe you can make something workable. Um, and there are people out there who don't share that view, who just, you know, see the European Union and think that's something that's gotta be destroyed. They see America and think that's something that's gotta be destroyed. They see NATO and think that's something that's gotta be destroyed. And I, as imperfect as all those things are, I think when they're gone, it's gonna be much harder to, and I don't think anybody really has thought about this. The people, typically, it's easy to break things and not build things. And the people who are in the mode of disruption, which is a term I've not liked in a long time, it gets used a lot and thrown around and people think disruption for the sake of disruption is good. I disagree. I'm a Taurus, so maybe disruption's not in my nature, but um, I tend to have noticed that people who are into disrupting tend to not know how to build stuff. Um, and it, and, you know, look at the, look at the world of streaming right now where it is pretty much killed off the television industry and now streaming's turning into the television industry of advertising. So where did that get you? [01:21:19] Matt: Yeah. [01:21:20] Chris: So yeah, so be wary of, of people who want to disrupt everything because I, um, what we need in the world right now is healers and builders, not disruptors, but, you know, that's my ten pence worth there. [01:21:31] Matt: Well, I think, um, we'll, we'll pick this up again. Um, [01:21:35] Chris: Yeah. [01:21:35] Matt: Next week, hopefully focus more on some of the, uh, some of the response that, I mean, I, I've, I've found from people like, um, Starmer and, and Macron to be pretty, um, productive in the, in the last week. Um, as we're recording this right now, there's a potential that Macron and Starmer could be coming with Zelenskyy back to the White House. Um, there's been sort of some movement on fixing this in a productive way, and I, I, I pray that that happens. Um, but we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll pick this up again and maybe in a week, you know, we'll be in a, we'll be in a better spot than we are right now, but, you know, to be continued. [01:22:12] Chris: Yeah. This just, this, there's so many moving parts right now. I think I was saying as we start, it's so hard to put any logical thread through what's going on at the moment. And, um, you know, for me personally, I found it very overwhelming, this week's episode, to try and prepare. Um, and I feel glad, I feel like we've got through it and done very well. Um, but I'm sure there's things we've missed. I'm sure there's things I could have articulated better. I'm sure I could have been more, less, uh, annoyed than I am. Um, but you know. I'm only a human being, so, yeah. Um, I, I'm doing the best I can today, as are you. And, and thank you very much for sharing your story, Matt, and for your thoughts and everything. Um, and thank you everybody for listening. Um, yeah. Uh, is there anything else you wanna add before I wrap things up, or? [01:22:59] Matt: No, I'm good. [01:23:00] Chris: No, that's cool. [01:23:00] Matt: Thank you. Thank, thank you guys for, for, for, for listening and for your support. Um, yeah, I appreciate it. [01:23:08] Chris: Yeah, no, thank you. Just a reminder for listeners, um, obviously we're, we're interested in having your questions and topic suggestions for, um, our last episode of March, because we we're sort of doing listener questions and the sort of last episode of March. Um, so just ping us an email at secrets and spies podcast at gmail dot com or send us a direct message on social media. That's absolutely fine. You know, talk, uh, tell us what your question is or your topic suggestion. If it is a topic you want us to discuss, please share a link with it. Also, tell us how you'd like us to read out your name, uh, and location online. Uh, just so you know, we can credit you. Um, but I wanna make sure we credit you in the, the way that you would like. Um, if you enjoy this episode or enjoy what we do, please share this episode or share the podcast. Um, and if you wanna go ad free, please go to patreon dot com forward slash secrets and spies. Uh, also don't forget we have a YouTube page so you can see us on, on here. Um, just go to, yeah, just type in Secrets and Spies Podcast on YouTube. Uh, click subscribe. Hello, there. Please click subscribe. Uh, like, and share our content. That'd be nice. Um, and you can connect with us on social media at Bluesky, Instagram, Facebook Threads and Spoutible. And they're all just at Secrets and Spies. Uh, well, Bluesky's got a bit extra on there, but they're all on the show notes there. So yeah, thank you again, Matt, for your time today. [01:24:31] Matt: Thank you. [01:24:31] Chris: Thank you, everybody, for listening. And um, well, yeah, just take care of yourselves and we will catch you next week. Bye for now. [01:24:55] Announcer: Thanks for listening. This is Secrets and Spies.