Okay, everybody, welcome back. Email us as always, freedom@charlkirk.com. Live from the bitcoin.com studio. That is the bitcoin.com studio. Joining us now is Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Great American Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Thank you for taking the time. So, I want to explore this with you because we had the Putin meeting on Friday. We now have the Zalinski, you know, European chaperone operation where Zalinski is being chaperoned by his European parents. So I I don't want to get into all the kind of like lower level stuff and people attacking Zalinski's wardrobe and I I want to go deeper. Okay. I want to go to what the from what I understand there are three sticking points. The land, >> NATO and security guarantees. Those are the three sticking points. Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, how are you thinking about this war and our path to peace? >> Yeah. So, first things I want to make sure because I think that I've watched social media and a lot of the regular media talking about this for everybody. This war began in 2014 while President Obama was the president of the United States of America. And in fact, the the the time frame was February of 2014, right after the Sochi Olympics. So, this war has been going on a long, long time, and it has just worn out Europe. It's worn out. Certainly the Russians. I mean, you know, we can go into the details, but like you say, Charlie, I that's number one. During that period of time, Russia, this is in 2014 while Obama was the president. During that time, Russia attacked two of the eastern provinces, Donbass as they call them, of Ukraine, and they also attacked Crimea. And since the about March of 2014, they've held those those uh that land. So you mentioned land, right? The since you know when when Trump comes in, then Trump basically puts everything in a hold and and Putin basically kept everything as status quo and there was a lot of back and forth going on. And then when Biden comes back in, the war then began to rage in earnest. And this is where the reason why it raged in earnest because the Biden administration really threw fuel on the the fire of of this Ukrainian war by by basically funding it to the tune of I mean the the congressional numbers are around 170 billion. The actual numbers we think are closer to 500 billion. So I mean you know if you look at it from the interests of Russia what Russia wants is no further NATO expansion. And now I understand that Russia would consider some sort of of NATO security guarantees for Ukraine, but not Ukraine joining NATO, you know. So, there's some there's some wiggle room right there based on the conversation that Trump had with uh with Putin uh this past weekend, right? this past Friday at the Alaska summit, the security guarantees and and NATO. You know, I I think what people need to understand and this is again these are these are lessons that we have forgotten. NATO is a defensive chartered military uh uh organization and that means if one is attacked that you know then then all others are attacked and then something has to happen. It was designed to protect uh itself from principally Europe from the former Soviet Union. It is not an offensive organization. It is not an organization that was designed to do offensive things. In in 1994, there was an agreement that said there would be no further NATO expansion. The United States signed off on it. Uh Russia signed off on it. at that time, Gorbachev, the French signed off on it and uh the Germans also signed off on it and Great Britain signed off on it. Since that time and and at at the time of that signature, there was about, you know, roughly, let's just say 20 nations that were part of NATO since that time where we said there would be no further NATO expansion on the Russian frontiers. There's like another 25 countries that have joined NATO. and and so now you have this expansion east against the Russian frontier. So, you know, that's kind of where and I'm looking at it from the perspective of Russia, not the perspective of NATO or the perspective of the United States because I think that we tend to forget we must look at these these types of gives and takes from the perspective of those who we are about to sit down with, right? I also think in terms of Trump, Trump looking at you got a picture of Trump and Zalinski up there now. You know what are the what are in the best interests of the people of Ukraine, right? The people of Ukraine are worn out and we are now tapping into 60 year olds to fight, you know, in in the in the military for the Ukrainian military. the the the war itself from a loser and winner perspective and I've written about this and people can go look at what I've written about in the last week that the war itself is a is a lost war. So Ukraine has lost this war. Ukraine has lost terrain. They have lost significant prestige. And we also know, we also know this and we know this for a fact, Charlie, that Ukraine is also filled with corruption. We have seen the corruption in the pre in the previous Biden administration in many ways. We've seen it with human trafficking, with weapons trafficking, with with the biolabs that are in Ukraine. I mean, these are things that matter and they matter in a deep deep way with the other side, meaning the Russian side, right? We also have on the frontier on the border of Russia. We have Ukraine asking to be a member of NATO and you have these handlers, these handlers of Zalinski that are there now, the Russian the Russian, you know, parents that you called them. They're really handlers for Zalinski that are going to try to convince Trump that we've gota we've got to defeat Russia. We've gota we've gota, you know, have Ukraine join NATO. Well, that would be like saying, you know, to to Mexico or to Canada or in this case the Cuban missile crisis, which we tend to forget in our history lessons, right? We almost went to nuclear war over the Cuban missile crisis because Russia at the time wanted to put weapons on into Cuba. But let me let me ask you that that that's a ti that that ties in. Do you think there is a scenario we can end the war without us giving security guarantees? Yes, I absolutely do. And it's not going to be it's not going to be a pretty ending here there. So, in 2022, those eastern donbasses, those eastern provinces, eastern states, if you will, for those that don't understand provinces and donbasses, those eastern states of Ukraine voted. They voted which direction that they wanted to go. And in 2022, they voted to be aligned with Russia because the majority of the the majority of them are are Russian speakers. Anyways, now the interesting part about this is Crimea because Crimea it may be there may be some negotiating space there where we allow a portion of Crimea to be used by the the uh the black what's called the Black Sea fleet of uh of the Russian Federation. Right? So Russian Navy has access. You can see the Sea of Azav. You can see Black Sea. I mean, that's a great map right there because that's an area of serious contention. But I actually think that we can use that as a almost as a trade zone, if you will, visav like the Hong Kong uh issue. But now Hong Kong, you know, even though it's going back to China, there was a long period of time. I think it was like I think it was either 30 or 60 years where it was a trade zone. So there's some smart ways to to to slice this thing, you know, up where Ukraine, you know, sees and and the Ukrainian people achieve some modicum of peace. There's going to have to be some zone of separation. And this is not a a ceasefire. Ceasefires never last. This has to be a legitimate long-term peace agreement where that zone between the Russian borders and and these these eastern provinces and Crimea, there has to be some sort of agreements within there to that allow the people that live in there to make decisions for themselves. And what we have learned in 2022 is those people decided that they wanted to be aligned with Russia. And I I think that Trump has been really uh an extraordinary uh in terms of of wanting to sit down and and to meet with Putin, to meet with Zilinsky, and to continue this dialogue because we we should never back a nuclear power into a corner. I mean, one of the things that I want your audience to understand is that, you know, despite what they think about and what what has what the media has described Russia to be there, there there was a great poll that was done about a year ago where 80% of the Russian people want to have a stronger relationship with the people of the United States of America. And I think Trump has not been able to, and this goes back to his first term, he has not been able to really deal with Russia on a in a you know, sort of in an equal footing, certainly geopolitically because of the Russia gate, you know, situation that happened during his first term. And we've learned a lot about that. I mean, you know, so what Trump is trying to do is he's trying to be really magnanimous here. He's really trying to rise above it all and he's saying, "Hey, look, Russia is a one of the great powers on the planet. They're certainly one of the top, in fact, they are the top nuclear power on the planet. They have more nuclear capabilities than we do. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to stop the killing." That's sort of, you know, used to use Trump's phrase. But we we cannot think that we are going to defeat Russia. We're going to defeat Putin. We're going to what? Regime change Russia. I mean this is a large large country you know it's one of the largest geographically on the planet 11 time zones and NATO is not a cohesive organization right now there's a lot of dis disagreements going on inside of NATO there there are people that are members of NATO that are not in agreement with the direction that this war is going the and the bigger picture the bigger strategic view Charlie is that the war is not going well for Ukraine When you look at the comparison of forces, when you look at the comparison of economies, when you look at the comparison of the alignments geopolitically, the the big winner here is not Russia. The big winner here, and it's not it's not Ukraine. The big winner here is China. And I keep going back to that because when we when we made agreements back in 1990, and I'll tell you, James Baker, I got I I wrote it down here. Secretary of State James Baker promised in 1990 and they signed an agreement to this effect that NATO would not move quote not one inch eastward. Yep. West German foreign minister at the time Hans Dietri Genture he repeated the assurances. The four leaders at the time in that period of uh of our history recent history all agreed to that. And yet here we are talking about NATO on the border of of Ukraine. Now when I when I look at the the makeup of Russia and again for your audience just to give a look a little class here because I think people need to understand this Russia has a population of about 140 million. You know it they're almost one to one men and male and female. I mean Russia is essentially a declining population although they've maintained a strong military force and in certainly they're one of the they are the top nuclear weapon nuclear power on the planet. We we have talked about nuclear weapons. The Biden administration talked about them. President Trump recently talked about the realignment of our nuclear submarine forces. We should not be talking about nuclear capabilities like this at all because that is too dangerous. If this war continues, if this war continues, if there's not success coming out of this meeting and then going back to where Trump probably brings Zalinski and Putin together, and I'm going to I'm going to I believe that he wants to do this very soon to end this thing to come up with a legitimate not a ceasefire, but a peace agreement, a long-term peace agreement where it's not going to be one of these everybody wins. There there's going to be some winners and there's going to be some losers. Most people don't know that President Zilinski has declared martial law in his country. He declared martial law in his country. And the reason why he declared martial law is because he didn't want to stand for another election because he would have probably lost. And so he he declared martial law. And he's essentially they're under a state of, you know, internal siege, if you will, but they're under a state of martial law inside of of Ukraine right now. And that's because the guy doesn't want to hold an election. I think if they held an election, he would be out. You would have somebody going in there. And there's a couple of members of Dada that have that, you know, that have aspirations to be president of Ukraine. And they also have great ideas about stopping the war and coming to a peace agreement because they know that they cannot continue with this war. One of the things that that Russia does not want to do and Russia cannot do, they do, they cannot militarily do it other than go on a nuclear nuclear exchange. Russia has no ability, no military capability like they used to when they were the Warsaw packed to cross the plains of Europe and and and nor do they have nor do they have the either the ambition or the capacity to govern all those areas. Keep going. >> Exactly. Exactly. And I think people need to understand that you have the neocons. We have these people that are pushing us to war with Russia and the only the only outcome, Charlie, is going to be a potential nuclear conflict because Russia will not allow itself to be uh put into a position to be backed into a corner where the where the survival of the Russian nation is at stake. And I believe that's where that's where Putin actually is uh sort of intellectually right now. and he and I do believe that they feel that and and with with Trump's uh you know basically stepping into this role, thank God that he's the president right now. With Trump stepping into this role, he actually is the guy that I believe Putin trusts and frankly I think the members of of Europe are going to have to trust because uh uh Trump actually has some ideas about what to do with coming to a legitimate peace agreement. You know, we'll see what they come out of today. It's going to be this is a very this is monumentally historic for what is happening right now in the White House, in the Oval Office, and what what conversations are going to take place, frankly, over the next week. We cannot afford to go to war against Russia. The United States of America cannot do that. >> And Russia doesn't want that either. Let's be clear. They don't want that. And so so it would be inviting a war that both sides don't want which is the ugliest of all things actually. >> Exactly. Exactly. And the and the and the big problem there Charlie is the is the idea of nuclear weapons. And and I just don't want I don't want that to be on the table. And the more these neo cons and and people on the left as well, these more these people that want this that that just have this hatred and that I don't know where it it you know drives from it. a lot of its power, control, and money. But this hatred of trying to get rid of of what? Russia. What are you then going to have? I mean, it's not going to happen. It is unrealistic. We have to think much more geopolitical. I actually would throw in a lot of other points of discussion where I, you know, and we we we sent some of this, but where I Trump talking to Putin about some of the other issues that are in play geopolitically. I mean, there are other aspects of the world that matter like the Middle East, like South America, like Venezuela, like Cuba. These are all things that the United States ought to be having conversations with Russia about. And you know, here what Trump has to do first, first steps first is we've got to come up with not just a ceasefire, but we have to have a long-term legitimate peace agreement. And that's what this is about. And anybody that thinks that we're going to continue this war with Russia is is on a fool's errand. And it it will the consequences for a continuation of a war are so bad for the rest of the world and they will only one minute. >> If you had to rank it, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, one minute remaining, what would be the greatest sticking point that you are concerned about? >> I think the greatest sticking point is and I and I think it's I think I think Putin's over the hump here is a long-term security arrangement with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. I think if that if that is part of it and if Putin is accepting accepting of that, then I think that those powers to be in Europe and I frankly think the the Russians need to be at the table as well as a legitimate president, a duly elected president of Ukraine, not one that's declared martial law, then I think we can have uh a long-term uh a long-term peace agreement where where we can allow peace to break out and we can get we can get on with economics, we can get on with trade, we can get on geopolitics and we can get on with dealing with the rest of the world. I mean, and frankly, the the the wolf closest to the sled and that's China. Charlie, if you're a homeowner, you need to listen to this. In today's AI and cyber world, scammers are stealing home titles and your equity is the target. Here's how it works. Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee with your county, and just like that, your home title has been transferred out of your name. Then they take out loans using your equity or even sell your property and you won't even know it's happened until you got a collection or a foreclosure notice. So when's the last time you checked on your home's title? If your answer is never, you need to do something about it right now. And that's why I've partnered with Hometitle Lock so you can find out today if you're already a victim. Use my promo code kirk at hometitleock.com and you'll get free title history and a free trial of their million-doll triple lock protection. That's 247 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud does happen, they'll spend up to $1 million to fix it. So, check it out right now. I trust Home Title Lock and so many of my friends do today. So, go to hometitlelock.com, use promo code kirk. That is hometitlelock.com. Promo code kirk. Senator, great to see you. Please tell us about your new book. >> Yeah, I'm excited. It's available on Amazon right now, Charlie. I think your audience is going to love it. It's really sort of a field manual of what it's like to be on the front lines battling this left uh left-wing lawfare machine and winning. Uh when I was attorney general in Missouri, we saw the landscape. We took on the left, whether it was the vaccine mandate case, the the COVID vaccine mandate case, we took that to the Supreme Court. We won. The student loan debt forgiveness case. Missouri took that to the Supreme Court and we won. We filed the Missouri versus Biden uh case that exposed this vast censorship enterprise. In that in the book that's available now, you can read about the deposition of Anthony Fouchy, the deposition about Elvis Chan, the deposition of of somebody from SISA, who most people never heard of that organization. They were working to suppress speech, the CDC working with the federal government to suppress speech. So, I just thought it was important to to sort of talk about what our playbook can be, what it was like to win those fights and really hold the line until President Trump could get back into office. And now, what does that play playbook look like as we fight the battles to make sure that the will of the people actually is able to move forward now that President Trump kind of broke this fever dream that we were in for four years. >> Let let's read this from the book. quote, "History will show the Biden administration brought the most aggressively liberal, authoritarian, and anti-liberty excesses of government that America has ever seen." This book tells the story of how Eric Schmidt and his small but mighty team held the line during those dark days until the calvary arrived. Tell us more about that because you were you were really holding the line and I mean from Fouchy to censorship. It's also a model how one state attorney general's office in Missouri could have nationwide implications. Tell us more, Senator. Yeah. I mean, I think Charlie, the first part of the book, which again, you can go on Amazon right now and order it. The first part of the book, I think there's a tendency to sort of now that we're kind of on the other side of that fever dream I I talked about about how this was all inevitable, right? That it was inevitable that President Trump would get back, but you got to go back four years or so into those dark days post January 6th. Uh this was the time of um you know uh lockdowns. This is compulsory COVID shots, forced masking of kids, ESG, uh DEI struggle sessions in this vast censorship enterprise. And what you needed was courage. So like for example, we brought these cases, they were ridiculed, they were called, you know, sort of l lending to quote unquote conspiracy theories, but really what it takes right now is authentic leadership to stand up and fight back. And so we did that. And and I'll just take the student loan debt forgiveness case. If Missouri hadn't brought that, we had the standing because Missouri had some loan servicing agency. If we hadn't brought that case there, you know, Biden would have got away with a half a trillion dollars worth of student loan debt forgiveness that the waitress and the truck driver would had to pay for the student loan debt of a theater professor from from Harvard. I mean, this was insanity. This was, you know, playgrounds being, you know, roped off with police tape. This was 5-year-olds being forced to wear masks all day long. This was parents being investigated for show up to schoolboard meetings. I think it's important uh there's a Czech writer Milan Cado who says that basically the struggle against power is the the fight between memory and forgetting and I think it's important to remember where we were at the courage that it takes to stand up and be that last line of defense which is the title of the book and ultimately the calvary did arrive the American people rejected the excesses of the Biden administration President Trump was able to come back now with this band of disruptors and all the good things that we're seeing right now but really at that time in that 4-year period, it was really left to some unknown folks. I included myself in that who stood up and said, "You know what? This is craziness and we're going to use the law and common sense to beat it back." >> Yeah. And so, so Senator, what now is the blueprint for some of the lawfare that we're experiencing from these judges? It's a different type of lawfare, right? But they are preventing President Trump from doing the most essential actions of his presidency. We have well over 80 to 100 of injunctions. I think 20 nationwide injunctions that it is about delaying. It is stalling. So, it's a little bit different. But how do you as a legal mind, how do you recommend that this administration accelerate and push through? Because what it does is it creates a sense of demoralization where they come up with a great idea and then they'll say, "Well, if we do it, then a judge is going to strike it down." They want to try to demoralize the creativity and the forward boundary pushing mandate that this administration has. Senator, >> well, I think it's important to understand the difference. What we were doing was we were fighting against the excesses, the overreach of government and the suppression of individual rights. What they're trying to do now is to reimpose that. They want that government, they want the administrative state to be empowered again. want individuals. I mean, they're they're totally fine with, by the way, censorship as long as it's conservatives being censored. So, I think it's a very different perspective. By the way, the American people are with us. So, the question is, how do we win? Well, if you look at it now, interestingly, my solicitor general when I was Missouri attorney general was John Sauer. John Sauer is the solicitor general of the United States of America. Now, President Trump uh brought him on. He's doing a great job. As you look at these cases as they make their way up from a, you know, a random district court decision to the appellet courts and ultimately Supreme Court, we're fighting back and we are winning. You look at the nationwide injunction issue early on. There were a bunch of them. The Supreme Court finally stepped in at the urging of President Trump and his legal team to say, you know what, there's been this abuse of um nationwide injunctions. You can't do that. You can really only confine your decision to the district by which you're ruling. You look at the deportations. President Trump wanted to get rid of uh the the temporary protective status. The Supreme Court has said, "Yeah, the president has the ability to go do that even though district court said you couldn't do it." You look at programming and personnel, a lot. Think of the Doge stuff. The president is certainly within his authority as the leader of the article 2 branch to make those kinds of personnel decisions and the Supreme Court has affirmed that. So if you look at one decision here or there, uh it can be depressing in some ways. Like they take take Boseberg for example that was really you know he took a case he never should have had and ruled against President Trump but time and time again these district court judges now who are really radical have been pushed back as you make your way through the court system. So the the the lesson here is we have to have the courage to fight back. I think for a long time uh conservatives those on the right we sort of seated that territory to the left. You know they called it a living constitution. They had their activist lawyers. They had their judges. Now, President Trump has put in 200 plus judges in his first term. We have a conservative Supreme Court. He's going to be appointing more, but we have to have courage to stand up in that Article 3 branch, and we can win if we do it. >> The the the book title is The Last Line of Defense: How to beat the Left in Court. One minute remaining, Senator, I'd love to keep you for another segment. What did you learn about Anthony Fouchy and that entire gang of medical elitists when you had a chance to depose him and look a little bit into that rather sinister empire that he was controlling? >> I think people love this part of the book that Elvis Chan the people that we were able to take the depositions of. But one thing that was really striking with Fouchy, he claimed he was the science on one hand, then said he didn't remember 174 times. The court reporter sneezed. He asked her to wear a mask. I mean, this is totally insane. But he felt he sent this wasn't revealed before. He sent his chief deputy over to China at the beginning of COVID to look at what the the CCP was doing. And he loved this lockdown model. And then when people questioned him, he would silence him. He helped write sort of papers that dismissed natural immunity. There's a lot in here I think that adds color to what we knew all along that this guy was a tyrant and that that uh the the Fouchy candles now the light is dimmed on that and it's exposed in this book that again last line of defense people can order now. It's just a I think a important history lesson but also a playbook for us to win moving forward. >> Senator, right now Zalinsky is preparing to visit the White House. We had the Anchorage summit back on Friday. Your thoughts as a US senator on what President Trump is trying to accomplish here. >> I'm just really grateful that we have a president that's engaged in diplomacy. That's what this whole thing is about. President Trump is trying to bring the parties together. He's trying to get to a peace deal. This thing is a meat grinder right now. It's a war of attrition. uh over a million people have died, tens of thousands every month. And so he's trying to find some resolution. And I do think it's interesting. I was on Fox News Sunday last night and Jake Sullivan or yesterday and Jake Sullivan was on before me. And the criticism you hear from those in the mainstream media and on the left are coming from people that have been wrong about almost every foreign policy issue of the last 30 years. Jake Sullivan and the B administration presided over to the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the actual invasion of Ukraine in 2023. And if you remember, he was also the one that was sitting there on the stage on October um 2nd, 2023 and you know proclaimed that the Middle East was as quiet as it's been in decades. And five days later, you saw what happened on October 7th. So these folks have gotten it wrong. Uh the plan under Biden was just keep sending American money over there without a plan and have a blank check, no accountability. Don't ask the Europeans to step up. And President Trump has changed that thankfully to say, you know what, um we need to bring this uh war to a negotiated peace. Step one was engaging Putin. Step two now is engaging Zalinsky and other P other European allies. And then I'm sure there'll be a step three here where the parties come together and hopefully something could work out. This doesn't happen overnight. As you know, Charlie, this is like real work. This isn't some white paper. This is personalities. These are national interests and he's trying to bring the parties together. >> And and it's very telling. Putin flies all the way across the land mass of Asia to come to United States soil. The response from the media, of course, they're they're undermining. >> Yeah. >> They're consistently undermining President Trump's attempts to try and seek reconciliation and peace. Let's play cut 326. I want you to respond. I know you have to be very respectful in this way. Respond though to your colleague, Senator Chris Murphy. He had a completely different reading, a a different universe, and I do think it's worthy to have your response here. Play cut 326, please. >> That meeting was a disaster. It was an embarrassment for the United States. It was a failure. Um Putin got everything he wanted. I mean, first of all, he wanted that photo op, right? He wanted to be absolved of his war crimes in front of the world. he was invited to the United States. War criminals are not normally invited to the United States. President Trump said he wanted a ceasefire. It appears the ceasefire wasn't even seriously discussed. And then third, there's no consequences. Trump said, "If I don't get a ceasefire, um Putin's going to pay a price." And then he walked it out of that meeting saying, "I didn't get a ceasefire. I didn't get a peace deal." And so Putin walks away with his photo op with zero commitments made and zero consequences. What a great day for Russia. >> Okay, first of all, how does he know any of that? He was not in the room or associated. Your response, Senator Eric Schmidt? >> I mean, the Democrats on this point in particular are totally intellectually bankrupt. They have no ideas. They don't have a plan. The follow-up question should have been, Senator Murphy, what do you propose we do about it to bring the wars end? They don't have an answer. I sit in the Senate. I'm in the Senate. I listen to these guys talk on the Senate floor about how, you know, you need to stand up to Putin and we need to do they they hasn't worked. Like Ukraine's not on the verge of victory here, right? This is a meat grinder. This as sadly that is the deal. So there have to be like adult conversations and you have to be willing to engage people that you don't want necessarily to date your daughter, right? Like that's what the real world is and that's what real diplomacy is. And I think what they're really objecting to Charlie is a shift in foreign policy here from this kind of Wilsonian adventurism, this globalist view that America should be the cop on the beat everywhere. Um and you know we don't have our own core national interest. What the president is doing is reorienting all of that to say our role here is to try to bring these two parties together because in the United States life will go on. This is not, you know, the we we President Trump wants peace here, but having the European allies step up a little bit more. If you really believe that Vladimir Putin is some existential threat to Europe, then you ought to be acting like it. You ought to be providing more for your own defense. And you know, our subsidization to the degree that's out of balance of NATO um has to be rebalanced. Um you know, we basically subsidize their uh their their social welfare programs in Europe. All of that has to change and President Trump's that change agent. And so I'm I'm glad that he's willing. I to me it's a demonstration of strength and confidence that an American leader would take that on. Joe Biden, first of all, couldn't stand up to even do that. His handlers wouldn't do it because they on in many ways all this invasion happened on their watch and they had no real, you know, plan. So anyway, I just think this is all part of Trump derangement syndrome. Whatever he does, they take the opposite view. They're for crime in DC now. I mean, like it's just insane. Senator Eric Schmidt, thank you so much. Check out the latest book by Senator Eric Schmidt. It's terrific. It is on the la the last line of defense, how to beat the left in court. Thank you so much, Senator Schmidt. Joining us now is Ambassador Matthew Whitaker, US Ambassador to NATO. Thank you so much, my friend, for making the time. Uh you have a very difficult job and so you are navigating it brilliantly and really honoring the president's directive in NATO. Ambassador Whitaker, give us an update of how the president is thinking about this and will Ukraine be able to join NATO. >> Yeah, well, first of all, Charlie, it's good to see you again. Great to be on your show. Uh, you know, first, I think President Trump's been very clear that there uh currently is no path for Ukraine to join NATO. And it's not just a matter of snapping your fingers either on who joins NATO. There's 32 members. Everything we do is done by a unanimous decision. And so, uh, right now there's just there's there's not 32 people at the table that would vote for ascension. And that would assume that Ukraine could even qualify, uh, for membership. That would include some real rigorous uh, anti-corruption efforts that uh, I'm not certain that they would uh, reach right now and and many other steps. Uh but remember the one thing that we need to understand about Ukraine is right now they're the second largest European um army uh that's that's actually the largest European army because Turkey who is also who is in NATO is the largest army and so Ukraine uh does bring some advantages and their defense industrial base is by far the most productive currently and so Europe I'm encouraging all my European allies and friends to buy from the Ukrainians once this uh uh peace is reached by President Trump uh because they, you know, they're going to need that hard currency to rebuild their economy, but they they have a lot of things to uh uh to improve before it would ever be on the table. But right now, you know, President Trump has been very clear that they're not in line and not going to be um a member of NATO. But ultimately, that's all up to the 32 allies. So, so Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that there's talk about Vladimir Putin being open to security guarantees for Ukraine in return for not being in NATO. Would those guarantees include US troops on the border of Russia and Ukraine? >> I would be surprised. Ultimately, that's up to President Trump, who's mediating, as you know, this um war and and trying to bring it to a truce and and hopefully an enduring peace because, as he says, the killing and the slaughter need to end. It's a complete meat grinder where tens of thousands of soldiers every single week are dying on the battlefield together with the collateral damage uh to property and to civilians. And so, it is uh it needs to end. President Trump uh is trying to do everything he can obviously to end this war. Um but at the same time, you know, Secretary Rubio when talk about security guarantees, uh I I I think the any boots on the ground, uh any security force is the coalition of the willing, which is currently being led by the Germans, uh the French and the and the British. And so I I don't think that there would be American boots on the ground. Certainly no not in any kind of significant kind of way. Um there might be some command and control. There might be some other things that only the US can bring to that. Uh and it would be outside of NATO. Charlie. I think that's the other thing we got to make sure because people are using this article five like uh guarantee and I think that's very dangerous when you talk about uh you know article five like guarantees because that's makes people think that NATO's involved. NATO won't be involved in any security guarantees. In fact, uh they will be specifically out of it because again, there wouldn't be 32 allies that would agree to that uh framework. >> Yeah, I I'll just I'll be honest. The perspective of my audience and for me is we don't want America involved at all. We think this is long past exhausted entire. And I think the president's perspective has been amazing, which is defy the national security establishment and the mainstream media and sit down and work this thing out. So, what can we expect today? Let me tell you where our perspective is. And you're the ambassador to NATO and so you have to be very diplomatic and you got a tough job and you're doing a great job. But let me tell you my thoughts and you can navigate however you want. This looks as if this is a fullcourt press by European leaders that want to continue this land and kinetic war in Ukraine and are very mad that President Trump might cut a deal with Vladimir Putin because for the European Union they they view this as existential. this. You got you got George Moroni, you have the Germans, you have all the big players of Europe that are in the White House right now that are likely trying to and Kierst Starmer that are trying to paint a completely different picture and potentially continue this war. Um, you could almost say the European leaders are here to chaperone Zalinsky through this entire thing in case there would be another blowup. And so tell us about the meeting and then I'll have a follow-up question. What's going on today? And can you give our audience some hope that America won't be involved and this thing can be ended? >> Well, first of all, Charlie, I want to on your on the the beginning premise, you know, like you because we were running into each other, you know, since 2019, there's been nobody um like you and I and and so many others, Cash Patel, uh that were out there, you know, supporting the president, uh in including, you know, in 2021 when there weren't a lot of people supporting President Trump. And so, you know, I I I have met a lot of your uh listeners and viewers. You know, I you know, I have spent a lot of time with them, gone to, you know, your events, so many other events in the movement. And so, I have like you as a sense of of what, you know, the base and what President Trump's supporters expect. Um I don't think, you know, this is my perspective as the US ambassador to NATO. I I don't see that Europe wants to continue this war. And one of the great things that President Trump did and that I'm involved in is the selling of US equipment to our European allies so they're paying for it and then they they can supply it to Ukraine. That changed the entire dynamic where under Joe Biden we were just sending uh American equipment and munitions uh to Ukraine with with no uh no payments uh no promises and and I think you know President Trump dramatically changed that situation. And so the the bearing of European security is now on the shoulders of European taxpayers. And you know, President Trump uh got that right. And I was I was proud to stand with him shoulder-to-shoulder and work on that. And that's part of the what we agreed to at the HEG a couple months ago and the 5% uh you know of of of European security. It's going to it's going to make a huge difference. And on the war in Ukraine, you're right. I mean, this is ultimately it is uh a European's interest. It doesn't. Secretary Rubio, I think, said it really well yesterday. You know, this this is not America's war. This isn't Donald Trump's war. You know, it wouldn't never happened if he had been uh uh in office in 2022. And so, you know, the a lot of this is at the feet of Joe Biden. Now, that doesn't mean that as a peacemaker, Donald Trump can't come in here, having, you know, already settled about six uh other conflicts, come in here and try to mediate this and get to a position where the killing and the fighting ends. But, you know, ultimately those decisions are going to have to be made by the Ukrainians and the Russians because they are the ones that are fighting this war and they're going to have to come to some agreement. And I think President Trump's just trying to see if there's a circ set of circumstances where he can bring this to an end. >> You are correct. It is not our war. But here's the fear is it can quickly become our war because we're funding it. We'll send armaments and before you know it, we're involved in other quagmire. I mean, Joe Biden spent over $200 billion in this, you know, proxy conflict with with Russia. And so Ukraine's position is a little unclear. Is is it Some European leaders are saying you can't give any of the land back to to Russia even though Russia has won it. Can you comment on the land here because the the land component of this is major. Russia took Crimea. They shouldn't have invaded. It was wrong that they did it. It was that was a immoral action by the hands of Vladimir Putin. But they did win significant gains in Ukraine. How is the land factoring in all this? Because security guarantees article 5 N we got NATO off the table. Security guarantees is very very murky because you'll pro you can get basically the way we look at it is like okay you'll get the spirit of NATO without NATO. So not thrilled about that. But what about the land? I mean there's a lot of clamoring about this. Please Ambassador Whitaker. >> Yeah. Well, Charlie, first of all, there there is a lot of clamoring and to some extent right now, uh, what's going to happen soon here at the White House is the conversation with the Europeans and with President Zullinsky as to what what Putin put on the table in Alaska, why President Trump determined that we could take a step forward in those negotiations and in trying to get to a peace deal. Um, but, you know, I think a lot of it is yet to be determined. I think even, you know, we talk about security guarantees. I think there's a lot of uh meat that needs to be uh put on those bones. I just don't think that there is a complete agreement among the coalition of the willing. Um you know, President Trump has said that the US would be involved. I don't think that means American troops in in Ukraine. Now, obviously, they would love that, especially if there is an attack on one as an attack on all kind of an a treaty or an agreement. Um but you know right now I I I think President Trump has earned the space to try to negotiate this. I agree. >> Um and he's mediating it, Charlie, as you know. And so mediators often times see how far people can come try to get their best and final and and try to bring both parties to a deal. Uh that's a deal. It's not a great deal for either side, but ultimately gets the killing. I think that's right. So look, he he he more than earned everybody's confidence after the Iran Israel master class. I mean that that's and so we just got to let the master do his thing. The fear that we have is all these other European actors that are going to be lying to President Trump along the way. I know that you got to deal with them, but they got a whole separate agenda. And and President Trump had a truth social about this earlier. He said, "I'm convinced if Russia completely surrendered and give gave up all the land uh that the fake news media and their Democrat partners would say, this would be a humiliating day for President Donald Trump." And so, just in closing here, Ambassador Whitaker, can you just give the audience some faith and confidence that America First will be resolutely defended that we are going to have a commitment to this realignment of foreign policy while also in the pursuit of peace? because our audience is a little bit a little bit uneasy. Not at President Trump, not at you, but at the European actors that are trying to keep this thing unnecessarily going. Final thoughts, Ambassador Whitaker. >> My final thoughts, Charlie, are quite frankly, I think, you know, President Trump represents the America First movement. I'm with him and have been there from the beginning, as you know. And so, you know, we are fighting hard every single day uh for America first and for a resolution of this war. And I would not listen to a lot of the noise that you hear from the mainstream media and a lot of, you know, kind of the chatter that's coming out of Europe because again, that's not the deal that President Trump's going to cut. He's just going to see if he can get a deal done uh that is in the interests of the American people because again, this is not his war. It's not America's war. You know, we're not fighting this war. And so ultimately I think President Trump like I mentioned and you and I know you agree has earned our trust to try to land this plane if it can be landed. >> He has and in your discussions just reiterate it no US troops. That is a that is a very serious salvo here. That is the last thing that we need. Thank you so much Ambassador Whitaker. Keep up the great work. You have quite a challenge ahead of you. Thank you.
