EXCLUSIVE: President Zelensky 'BETRAYED' By Trump & Elon Musk

It's a pity that we are losing strong partners. You think you're losing America? Yeah, but not because of us. We can't be weak, otherwise we can't survive. Putin is losing at the battlefield. Are you angry with Elon Musk for doing this? No, it's a big mistake. People will die. Of course, if attacks will continue. So my message is absolutely right. We are asking to switch on. And I think it will be honest. It will get fair between partners. Have to be. Well, half a million Ukrainians are without power after an overnight barrage of Russian missiles and drones hit the country's energy facilities. The capital city, Kiev, is once again under attack. In the three days since President Trump announced a so-called energy ceasefire, Russia has systematically bombed Ukrainian power plants. Now, as defenses have been weakened, by apparent speed limits applied overnight to Elon Musk's starlink. Ukraine is quickly dependent on the satellite service because Russia has destroyed its telecoms. Both Musk and Trump have this week called for the Ukrainian president to be replaced. And the current crisis began with Trump's announcement of a diesel supply deal with Vladimir Putin, reversing years of U.S. policy and new sanctions that he'd personally signed into law just 21 days earlier. Ukraine's president Vladimir Zelensky is in London for talks with Prime Minister Andy Burnham and for a meeting with King Charles. But first, he joins me for the first time in the Uncensored studio. Mr. President, welcome to London and welcome to Uncensored. - Thank you very much, Ferris. - This is the first fourth time that I've interviewed you. The first time was four months into the war in the summer of 2022. And I went to Kiev and we had a very powerful conversation with you and the first lady. And it's hard to think that here we are nearly five years on and this war is still raging. What is happening? - What is happening? So I think for us, it was very clear from the very beginning that Putin personally, he wants to talk about our country and break us totally. And it's his goal. It was from the very beginning of his scale war. But it's clear now that it began to be clear for EU members, not to all of them. I think I hope now to all of them. Then it was clear to the United States. And I think that the pressure was very strong on Russia, not enough. Yes, and now it's going to not enough pressure. Russia learns, of course, how to so-called sanctions, how to destroy energy. And they pushed us through these absolutely terrible winters. And what is understandable is that it's the war for us, but for somebody it's economy, for somebody's business. And it's not fair. - The events of the last few days must have been very disturbing for you and for the people of Ukraine. It appears that President Trump, to quote a phrase that we would use over here, has thrown you under the bus. He's done this diesel deal with Vladimir Putin, having just announced renewed sanctions, which people find inexplicable. And now you have a situation where President Trump announced a energy ceasefire. And within hours, Vladimir Putin launches an absolute bombardment of Ukraine, aimed directly at your energy. Andy Lon Musk, who controls Stalin, owns the company, which you rely on, it appears it's been powered down. - Do you feel betrayed by what has been happening? - Really yes, really, between us. But I mean, it's a little bit more complicated than just my emotions or my feelings. Yes, it depends not on me. I mean, our country has to survive. And we count on our real partners, strategic partners, United States. And President Trump, they wanted us not to attack. This, my opinion was, it's not fair. Energy ceasefire, it's okay, it's understandable. They, I mean, it's the worst version of peace, but anyway, it's some steps to the peace. So, this collision, energy ceasefire. When President Trump said, I didn't know about it, but of course, we have supported. Because we need our people to live, to go through this winter and to stop the war. This is what we want, but he said about the energy ceasefire, and we didn't attack during three days, any kind of energy objects, and we didn't, not just attack, we didn't respond. That you absolutely cracked the sad that, after energy ceasefire Russia answered, especially, by the way, directly to Trump, but we had these feelings on our day, they attacked us, our guest station, infrastructure, and etc. Then I said, okay, we will hold our emotions, and we will not respond on diesel. But believe me, what I said, American partners, they will attack energy, they will do it. It's about hours or about days. And it was this night, but what was really strange, and what was not, like, between partners, the days which of Starlink. So something absolutely crazy steps between us. So we hold energy ceasefire from our side, Russia attacked us with hundreds of different missiles, including 40 ballistic missiles, and all these ballistic, by the way, all 100%, that they use them against our energy infrastructure. Of the 40 ballistic missiles, only four were able to be brought down. So 36 presumably got through. And of the 128 drones, the majority were taken down, but presumably, at Starlink being working at the normal speed, you might have taken them all down. So this is having real consequences on the damage that Russia can inflict, and on the casualties involved. You know, the problem is that at night, the Starlink was switched on. So this is the problem. Do you believe deliberately? Do you think it's been done deliberately? Azil on Musk, because he posted on X, his own platform, he posted that he thinks there should be a new president in Ukraine, not you. He did that in the last few days. Do you think he has deliberately turned the speed down on Starlink to damage it? I'm sure that they knew what they did. Absolutely, because it was 1 AM. So 1 at night, he has bowed his. So the Starlink was blocked, of course, by the SpaceX, and of course, by the United States. It derives, of course, but I mean, this Starlink is not for attacks. Part of this, it mistrikes. And of course, they blocked our mistrikes, what they did. They made whole pressure on us, ballistic missiles, then not walking information about ballistic before attack, and then switch off the Starlinks. When you destroy Shahids, and often, when we destroy jet Shahids, we use drones with Starlinks. So it's not about just attack, as I said, that we didn't attack their energy. It's not about attack. It's also about defending the lives. So people were killed, because not enough, destroying, not enough, interceptors, including interceptors with Starlink, which didn't work, of course. You've had people who were very supportive of President Trump, like Laura Luma, who posted how come Russia isn't being held accountable. She went to see you recently for an interview. For violating the energy ceasefire, President Trump said he wanted Russia and Ukraine to abide by. Russia fired '39 and now '40. You said ballistic missiles into Ukraine last night, most of which targeted Ukraine's energy facilities. Putin is the Hitler of our time. Do you agree with her when she says Putin is the Hitler of our time? Absolutely. Absolutely, through him. Do you think he's that evil? No, he's not-- I mean, he's not so strong as evil, I think, so. But people are afraid of him, and he is not-- I mean, United States, stronger between us. We understand it, stronger. And they have to be on our side. And when you speak or compare Putin and Hitler, like Laura said, so what can I say, United States have to be on our side? If it's-- What if President Trump is watching this interview? And he might well be. If he is, what's your message to him? He-- President, we've always been very thankful for his support, for the support of American people. And he has to understand that Russia wants him to be weak. This is-- this act, after his words about energy-- this act against him, personally. They're mocking him. They're mocking him, aren't they? Absolutely. They're literally laughing. Huh? They're laughing. They're laughing. They're laughing. Making him look stupid. I don't know. I mean, I think they are. I think they're just saying that we don't care what President Trump says. They don't care. He can have an energy seesaw. We're going to rain missiles and drones all over Ukraine. They don't care what America thinks. They don't care about elections in the United States. They really care what will be with Ukraine. Because, again, this is their goal. They hate Americans. It's absolutely clear. And they are-- I mean, when they speak-- for today, they speak even publicly about it, not on the level of Putin. Putin speaks about it, not loudly. As I said, he's not very strong as he wants to show to the world. He's strong till the world will stop him. Do you believe that the diesel deal? Not. Of course, it doesn't have any influence on the price. Right. No, no, no. It's a negligible amount. Absolutely. And America doesn't really need that amount from Russia. So what is going on here? There is a theory, a well-sourced theory, that what is going on is that Trump is under huge pressure with the midterm elections coming. The Iran war has not been going well. Energy prices have spiked as a result. Americans are paying more money at the pump for their gas and so on. And that, actually, he's done this as a distraction to blame you for the energy prices in America that Americans are having to pay for what's happening in the Iran war. Do you subscribe to that theory? Do you agree with that? I think that there are a lot of different reasons. And your reason is also absolutely correct. And for me, what's going on now? Yes, elections have the possibility to push us to capitulation between us. If not to choose the words, it's about capitulation. They want us to find any instrument, any instrument, Russia wants, to push us out from the bus, not by ourselves. Yes. And of course, they use the United States. And of course, they sell them some, I don't know, business, joint venture, economic projects and et cetera. I don't know. That's why I said there are a lot of different reasons. But yes, Middle East, of course, straight up or more. This is real reason why the prices increased in the world. And all the world understands it absolutely clear. One hundred percent, not even ninety. When you found out that President Trump had done this deal with Putin, 21 days after new sanctions, what was your immediate response to that? It's a pity that we are losing a losing strong partner. So this is my opinion. Yeah. But not because of us. I mean, we can't be weak otherwise we can't survive otherwise. We will just, we are not selling our country. Look, guys, it's not about business for us. It's just our life. And this is our country, it's our body. So our home, our children. And this is very important for us. That's why it's painful. When President Trump chooses one side, not our side. But we are okay that he's in the middle. But if you're in the middle, you have to stay in the middle. Not on the wrong side. I think his advisors are wrong. I don't know who is pushing him not to the right side. This is not right side of history. You see, I feel that many Americans, I've spent a lot of time in America. And I speak a lot of Americans about this. Many Americans are with you. Yes, I know. It is thankful to them. I believe the majority of Americans support you. I'm sure. So you have just people around President Trump, I think, who do not represent the majority thinking of Americans who are pushing for this, to me, crazy deal with Putin, which looks like he's taken a side against you. And it makes no sense to me. And the whole energy ceasefire was obviously, honestly, bullshit. Because within hours, Putin's just doing what he likes. No, no, no, Putin is laughing. Because I mean, this is for him, simple victory, this diesel deal, then block Starlink. It's simple victory, tactical. What's going on? For example, Starlink, we use civilians use. That's what I said were important for defending. But also, our soldiers use Starlinks on the battlefield. When Putin, why is laughing? Why is it small victory for him? Why? Because he's losing at the battlefield. He lost so many people in 2026. Now, huge amount. The biggest during all these, all these. How many casualties? 43,000 each month now. Really? On the Russian side alone. And how many are you losing on the Ukrainian side? I can't share. But it's between us. For today, it's from 7 to 10, 1 to 7, 1 to 10. The ratio? Yeah. From Ukrainian to Russian. For what? So, every Ukrainian being killed 7 to 10, Russians being killed. Absolutely, every Ukraine, and now kills from 7 to 10. Which is astonishing statistic. But when I said 43, we have to be clear. 43,000, what is the difference? When they lost 43,000, it's been hard-wounded, tough-wounded, and killed. And among these 43, it's about 20, 20, 25 killed. Every month. Every month. And that's why I said 1 to 7, 1 to 10. Yeah. And the difference between killed and wounded also is interesting. I mean, for them, it's nothing for us, it's important. We have 1 killed, 5, 6 wounded. Right. It's our statistic. Right. The statistic is 50, 50 for today. Right. So, killed and moved it. 50, 50, so. We're doing a much higher majority of casualties are dying on their side. Of course. Yes. And with all these losses, we stabilize the front. And of course, they switch off Starling for what? So it was helpful for Putin, of course. Of course. So, why has Elon Musk done this? You know Elon Musk. He's previously been support. No, no, I had communication with him. We were very thankful for Starlings, and you know that it was not the present. Well, we don't know if Elon Musk and the president spoke to each other. I mean, is Europeans paid for Starlings, including our big friends and neighbors in Poland? They paid for these Starlings, it's not just. Yes, I think he is not right. It's a big mistake. I don't know him or somebody pushed him. I don't know really, but our soldiers, when we got this information at night, they tried to make connection with SpaceX and not only SpaceX, with the American partners, with generals. Yes, I said them, of course, can I act and ask, what's going on? Maybe technical problems and they said, no, we don't think that this is technical problem. It was deliberately restricted. It's too big. There are problems. The first one is intelligence, when American partners shared with us intelligence about ballistic. Another thing, it's Starlink, it's mid-strikes, which helped our soldiers and also to defend shahids. It helps, because we use some interceptors with Starlings to defend jet shahids because they are very quick. So it's two different issues. When you think about intelligence, yes, they said that we had some technical problems. Now it will work, but half of the night it again didn't work. It's a pity, but they said it's technical problem. But about Starlink, I mean, we are professionals, we understand what's going on. If you're losing the speed of Starlink, so we understand what's going on. So they switched off to it. It's their decision. What is your message to Elon Musk? Now it's a big mistake, a lot of losses. This decision will bring a lot of human losses. Yes, people are dying because of this decision. Of course, people will die. Of course, if attacks will continue and if Starlink will not work, of course, I mean, it's not helpful. So my message is absolutely, I hope, that it's mistake, maybe a huge technical problem. I don't know, but we are asking to do it, to switch on. And I think it will be, I mean, honest, it will be fair, and it's like between partners. Have to be. Donald Trump, when he was asked about the situation, he said this, that's what he said. You know what I suggest? I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal, because he could have made many deals that for some reason he'd ever does, and let me go step further. If I were president, you wouldn't have ever had that war. That war wouldn't have. never started. There was no reason that that war with Ukraine and Russia started. It started due to incompetence to the never-started. You wouldn't have lost 30% of your country already. You've lost 30% of your country and you've had over a million people killed between the two of them, over two million people killed. That's a war that should have never started and I think it's time for Ukraine to get a new president. I mean, he's throwing you under a massive bus there, isn't he? He wants you out. He wants you out. Yeah. By the way, when I became the president, Crimea and Donbass, partially, was already occupied. Of course. It wasn't you, by the way, president. President Trump has to know another president was, in my cheer. Then it was, how to say, "Ato, Da-Yaks, Kazaretin, Dović. So long period, quite long period, till the full-scale invasion began." Yeah. And it's meant that moving me, and it's a decision, of course, of our people. Yes, no Trump, no mask, no anybody in the wall, can choose the president or elect in other countries. But this is not the problem of the president. I mean, this moving me and I'm sure the new man or woman will defend our country because we are, I mean, this is where it's our, as I said, it's our home, how you can do an other way. It's the question how to do it, somebody will do it better, somebody not. But in any way, we speak about Ukrainian president. What is extraordinary, I think, when I went to Ukraine four months into the war. Many people were predicting it would be over quickly. Russia would win because they'd throw everything at it. And here we are, nearly five years later. And they haven't. They've taken a section of the Donbass. But the question I guess for you, can you imagine a scenario where you don't have to give any territory to Russia? Or is the only way this war ends with you agreeing to give some territory to the Russians? It happens on several things. You're not too much, by the way. The first thing, how partners will be ready to stay close with us, better to be closer than now. Because when we speak, as I said, I mean, there's no shadow games, nothing. Everything will have to be between partners very openly and very understandable. Weapon, sanctions, fundings. And it's very understandable what to do to stay strong, to be strong. And Putin will not win. We'll not prevail, 100%. Without partners is more difficult. And it's, I mean, it's unbelievable how to survive without huge losses. This is the key, not to have too much losses. And is America key to this? America and Europe, EU and Europe, I mean this. Because Georgia Maloney today, from Italy obviously, she has come out very strongly against the diesel deal. She's furious with President Trump, she was very friendly with. She's a conservative politician. But she's enraged by this deal, thinks it flies in the face of everything that had been agreed with the sanctions, encourages Putin and so on. Are you encouraged that leaders like Georgia Maloney are now coming out? Obviously, the British Prime Minister Burnham as well. And the Georgia strong leaders. Heroes who was always on our side. And the Emmanuel is on our side. Mostly people don't all talk. So, and I mean, this and countries, even with the changing, you know, changing with the leaders, the policy was continuing. So they supported us. Matter in Denmark, Swiss, Sweden, Ulf, Sweden Prime Minister, Finland, Alex too. A lot of, so they stay now with us. And they're very clear and direct. Doesn't matter. Georgia is friend of Trump, of Donald Trump or not, doesn't matter. It's not right. Can you win, President Zelensky? Yes, can you win, of course? No, without the Americans on your side. So we can, we will not in any way lose our independent country. Yes, we, we will have huge problems with a huge problems with how to push Putin to diplomatic way of ending this war to negotiations. This is the problem. Yeah, so that's why with the United States it's more simple. It's difficult, but it's more simple to push Putin to the right position, to negotiations. And only during negotiations, you can find a way out of these war. Real. Because it is your position, just to push you on this. Yeah. Is your position as the president of Ukraine that in those negotiations, you would never agree to any territory being given to the Russians or is your position that it's negotiable? In other words, obviously you don't want to give the whole Donbass. But is there a deal to be done that would involve potentially some Ukrainian land being given to Russia? I think in your, in your question, yes, there is an answer why some big guys want to change me. Because I will never accept Ukrainian land as Russian land. Yes, I'm a realist. I understand that people more important than one kilometer or two kilometers, not about kilometers. I mean, it's about land and homes. This is important. Yes, it's occupied, but this territory is occupied. It's temporary. Yes, I'm finding the way of dialogue. I'm on this side to have dialogue and try to manage it because in the future, in any way, these, all these people who want to be Ukrainian, they will be Ukrainians because they are and these territories are Ukraine, that in any way it will come back but without weapon because of losses. To my mind, because a lot of things will change. A leader in Russia will change. Yes, of course. Not next, if the next will be the same, you know, in ten years. But in your position, to be clear, you have no intention of resigning. You're not going to quit. Not, of course. It's my responsibility. And then people will say, okay, when will you have an election? Now, obviously, you were supposed to have one in 2024, but because of the war, you weren't able to have one. Many millions of people, Ukrainians have left the country. Many more fighting on the front line. Is it possible to have an election of the kind that President Trump has been talking about? Not, of course. No, 10 percent. It's because of each hour we have attacks. This massive attack, what we discussed. It was about night. But during the day the same, drones are his, hundreds and thousands, each hour attack. So that's why, from the point of security, you can't do elections. Then soldiers are on the front. We can't choose the President with our soldiers because they give and gave their lives. They are first who has to ward. And I think it's fair. Do you believe the Ukrainian people are on your side? Yes, of course. I'm sure. We all, Ukrainian people, and we all, on one side, we have only one enemy, it's Russia. And it's also in the interest to end this war because Putin will end. And Russia is a country. They want to have a, not only history, they want to have future, but how to live with such leader, how to manage it. They killed a lot of people. Thousands and thousands of Ukrainians came to our houses, occupied it, our homes, and now their solution is go out again. But who, who can give guarantees? Even if somebody wants to make steps back. You've been achieving, who will give you security? You've been achieving a lot of success attacking Russia in Russia, including in Moscow. You've been hitting these data centers, the Yandex data centers, which many people fail to respond, by the way. They attacked our data centers. Of course, destroyed. But you're being more successful than perhaps the Russians anticipated. Do you believe in your heart, President Zelensky, that you can beat the Russians, that you can actually achieve victory in this war? I think that Putin's goal is total occupation of Ukraine. We already beat it. What is your goal to stop this war? Make it worse. Stay where we stay. Everything will come back because We, real country, we, really, Ukrainians. And all this part, which is occupied, is temporary occupied. I'm sure. - Mr. President, I'm being told by your team that we have to wrap up because you have two important meetings, one with my prime minister and one with my king. I can only thank you for coming all the way to the studio. - Thank you. - It's great to see you again. - Great. - You know how I feel about this. - Yeah, I know. - I want Ukraine to win this. And I want America, and I want President Trump. I've known him a long time. And if you're watching President Trump, do the right thing here. Siding with Vladimir Putin against this guy and his country is the wrong thing. It's what we called in World War II appeasement to Hitler. Don't be that guy. Give this guy the support he needs to defeat the modern-day Hitler. That's how I'd like to win this interview. I wish you all the very best. - Thanks a lot. - And please send my best to the Ukrainian people. We in England, in the UK, we're right behind you. I have to be under no doubt about that. - I'm also very thankful to you and to your nation. Absolutely. Great nation. Great people. Great Britain, which is from the very beginning on the right side of history. By the way, on our side we are thankful to your support. And it's, I mean, it's clear we are friends. Thank you. - Great to see you. - Thank you very much. - Thank you. Thank you. - Well, joining us now for that reaction to that extraordinary interview with President Zelensky is the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark, also here with me in my studio. The author of "Provoked", Scott Horton, and the US Special Forces Veteran and Chief Strategist at the Middle East Forum, Jim Hanson. Well, welcome to all of you. General Clark, first of all, welcome for your first time in my studio here. Great to have you here as well. You watched the interview, you've all watched the interview. What was your reaction? - Well, my reaction was, I thought he gave you some really straight answers. He couldn't tell you what the casualties were exactly. He didn't want to give away certain things. He's very clear about the need for Starlink. He's very concerned about the US support. He certainly didn't appreciate the oil diesel deal. He would have gone along with the energy ceasefire and so forth, and it's going to be very difficult to hold elections. I think those were all solid positions. And he said, basically his objective is to get the war stopped. He didn't say he had to retake crime, he didn't say he had to, but he did say it's going to be very difficult for anyone to provide security and really keep Ukraine safe even when this is over. And the implication is, if Vladimir Putin is still there. - What he said about President Trump was very interesting. I mean, he clearly believes he's been betrayed by President Trump in the last few days. First, with this diesel deal with Putin flying in the face of the sanctions, with Trump renewed only 21 days before. But also, of course, with this issue of potentially Elon Musk's Starlink being turned off via SpaceX and the damage that's caused to their intelligence capabilities and their ability to thwart incoming missiles. And of course, this fact that Trump announced is going to be an energy ceasefire. And within hours Putin totally ignored it and attacked a load of Ukrainian energy areas. What do you think? I asked him a straight question. Can you win this without America? From a military perspective solely, General Clark, can the Ukrainians win without full-scale American support? - Well, they don't have full-scale American support right now because we've got $400 million tied up in the U.S. Congress that the president hasn't released. And we could have diverted more air defense missiles there. We've given a few, and there's other things. But they do need American intelligence support. The ability to warn of missiles, the ability to monitor communications, the ability to target key Russian targets, command and control, especially in Donbass and in the nearer part of Russia, they do need that because there's no substitute for that. But they're getting a lot of support from Europe, and especially strong moral and emotional support that has been much more, let's say, nuanced coming from Washington. - Right. Jim Hanson, welcome back to Uncensored. I've got to say, I was absolutely shocked and appalled, frankly, about the diesel deal with Putin. Can you defend what President Trump has done there? Because obviously it's tokenism. The amount is negligible, really. And it appears to be him wanting to say, "Hey, you know, I'm ready to do business with Russia again, but if you're Ukraine, you just feel like you've been throwing under a massive bus." - I think President Trump is making a point as well that he has no confidence that Zelensky will lead Ukraine to peace. And he showed that in your interview, he said he's not going to seed a single kilometer of Ukrainian territory. - Why should he? - Because it's already taken. Russia's had it for almost five years. He can't take it back. - Would you see, would you see if America was invaded? - In a similar way, you know? - Let me sort of look at that. No, Canada can't take territory from us 'cause we'd kick their butt in an afternoon. - Okay, well, let's basically go. - Russia's not our name. - Let's put, okay, let's put. - Russia is, if Russia is our name, hang on. Hang on a sec. - Let's put the chest beating to one side for a moment. From a purely comparative point of view, if somebody decided to invade a chunk of the United States, are you telling me that a single American, oh, obviously somewhat. But if you're telling me the vast majority of Americans would tolerate seeding any inch of American land, even if it took years in the way you're categorizing, they wouldn't, and not what I in the UK. We had this with Hitler and World War II, right? Why on earth should the Ukrainians, even if they've currently lost land? Why should they agree to give it up permanently to a bunch of Russian invaders? - So we should continue to fund this meat grinder that's been going on for five years now. - Well, World War II is a meat grinder, and that went on for longer than this. - Let me make my point, Pears. They can't defeat Putin. They can't defeat Russia. Even with Europe's help, they can't push them out of the territory of the Russian holds now, because they haven't been able to, and they now have less chance than before. They're not going to get additional American support, so they're gonna have to make do with whatever Europe can. So they cannot push them out. Now, we can continue to let people die in this, or they can face reality. I wouldn't like it, but we're not losing a war to Mexico. We're not losing a war to Canada. They are tied in a war with Russia, and that territory is already gone, and Putin's not gonna take a loss. He wants to go down in history as one of the great Russian men, losing a war to Ukraine doesn't do that. He'd rather be with Ivan the terrible, captain the great, as Vlad the vicious, in whatever it takes to do that, then lose to Ukraine, which if he does not keep the parts of the Donbass he has, and the rest of that land bridge to Crimea, it's a loss. He's not gonna do that, he can't be moved. So it's Zelensky and the Ukrainians who are gonna have to face reality. They can't win, and that war can't go on forever. If they want to fight it, they're gonna do it without American support, and that was President Trump's point. - Scott Houghton, welcome back to you to Uncensored. What was your view of what Zelensky said on that interview? - Okay, well, so there's a lot here, but first of all, I agree with what it's Jim, I believe correct, just said. This is the same thing, Pierce, is it's not a direct analogy in the situation, but morally it's the same thing, as in Vietnam and Afghanistan, where the enemy was the communists and the Taliban. And if you wanna talk for an hour and purely moral terms, how sinful is it to turn over the poor people of South Vietnam, or the people of North Afghanistan to the tender mercies of these terrible enemies? But the reality is, they're gonna win the war anyway. It's actually immoral to keep the war going for 10 years or 20 years, and have all these hundreds of thousands, or even in the case of Vietnam, millions of people die, and then they lose anyway. And that's the same thing here, Jim is right, that this is a fool's errand, it can't be done. And the only thing that could truly turn the tide in this war, as General Clark knows, would be direct intervention by the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force. And we're not gonna do that, because that means thermonuclear war. - But does it not be a part of you though, Scott? - Yes, it's all very well us sitting here. I remember vividly, getting the long 12-hour train into key four months into that war, been told to turn off all my devices, and the lights in the cabin, because if the Russian saw any lights or power, they might attack it and so on. Pretty, you know, for me, a civvy, it was a pretty uncomfortable 24 hours on a train, I can tell you. But I was struck then by Zelensky in particular, by the extraordinary resolve he had. This is the guy, on the night it started, everyone expected him to leave. And instead he went on FaceTime video, whatever it was, on his phone, and told the world, I'm not going. And he has stood there, as leader of that country, really five years, but everyone has been predicting the fact that Russia would win. And they haven't won. And we've pretty well reached a kind of military stalemate. And what we're really talking about in any settlement would be the Donbass and what happens to it. And he, you know, I agree with him. Why the hell should they give up any territory, even if he's currently occupied by a bunch of invaders from Russia? Why should they give that up in any deal? Okay, well, first of all, all unsympathetic with him. He's in a difficult position there. I don't completely disdain the guy. He's no more corrupt than any national leader in the east or west. I don't guess. And he's in a very difficult spot here. But of course, there's this huge moral hazard here where the Western Alliance, including the United States, still are backing his effort here in a hot war on Russia's border that I hasten to remind you that all this moral talk about Adolf Hitler and all of this stuff completely obscures the fact that, in fact, Putin is not, you know, enraged, you know, insane ideologue like that. This is much more like why more Russia than Nazi Russia? And the fact that they have hydrogen bombs pierced, which means that the NATO alliance and the Russian Federation must not, can not ever go to war. And that is a risk here. And you're talking about losing London permanently. It's time out losing Austin, Texas permanently over who controls beneath pro-Petro-Provask. And I'm sorry. No, I don't care about that. I'm not willing to get the United States in a war, even Joe Biden. So what if you say, okay, so what else would you give Putin? Would you give him Poland? Have you decided to march in there? Would you come up with that? No, but you think it's very unlikely. You think it's very unlikely. I say it's highly likely if we roll over to this guy, it's highly likely Putin who never ever wanted the Soviet Union to break up. He wants his vast rambling empire. And I reckon he go after, he go after new places to take in a heartbeat if he says we don't have the stomach for the fight. Now, I know you've revoked, Pierce, and I did bonk all that. All those quotes of Putin waxing on about the Soviet Union are all taken completely out of context. As now what's going on here, this is really Donald Trump is right. And that clip that you played to blame Joe Biden. And for that matter, to blame Barack Obama for the intervention in 2014 that overthrew the government and then sending John Brennan there immediately to start the war in the east. They did not do a full diplomatic push to compromise as the Washington Post recommended to compromise with the people of the east to prevent conflict. John Brennan, the CIA guy, went and started the war. And then what did he do? When Donald Trump won the election, Obama and Brennan framed Trump for treason with Russia, which completely hampered him. And as they put it, as FBI put it, reigned him in and prevented him from adopting a more conciliatory policy when he could have ended the ongoing so-called civil war then. And instead his entire first term, he was prevented from reconciling with Russia. And then the country and the world was turned over to the tender mercies of Joe Biden, who absolutely hamhandedly stumbled the West into this war. And I do, and I've told you before, Pierce, I do blame Vladimir Putin for this. He did not have to invade on the 24th if he didn't on the 23rd of the 20th, okay? However, Joe Biden in 21 continued to reiterate that, oh, we're bringing him into NATO, all right, you damn right, we are. And we're going to continue to standardize their military and make it essentially a de facto member of the NATO alliance. And there's nothing that the Russians can do about it. And no, we are not willing to negotiate their treaty in good faith because, as they said repeatedly, we're going to do like Rambo III, and we're going to lure them in. And we're going to inflict upon them a strategic defeat. As Lindsey Graham said, Russians are dying. And we, our soldiers, aren't dying. It's the great, it's the best money we ever spent, because we are overextending Russia. We're giving them an expensive problem. What do Ukrainians in your morality play? The Ukrainians are just the club in America's hand that we're using against Russia here in a way to weaken them in an attempt to weaken China, which is completely hamhanded and also backfire, right? We just push Russia even further into China's arms. Let me bring down the call right here this. Okay, general club, what's your response to what Scott has laid out there? Well, he's laid out a lot. And it's a little hard to unpack it all, to be honest, fears. But let's start with this. Peace, general peace since the end of the Second World War has been built on principles. And one of those principles is you don't change borders by force. What we've learned from the War II is that if you don't stand up to potential aggression, appeasement doesn't work. And so you've got to actually stop it. So what you're saying basically Scott is, is you want after five years to continue appeasement. And that's not a policy that's going to bring stability to Europe or the world. Everybody's watching this. They're saying, is the principle of not invading and crossing borders that kept major peace? There were fights, sure. But that was the principle. We're going to just to throw it out because that's the consequence of the argument that you're making. That's why you're looking at it. In both states, your war against Serbia and Ukraine, aggression should not be rewarded. It should be punished. And if you can't punish it, you've got to at least stop it and block it and block the objectives. And so the likely consequence of following the thought train that you're projecting there is, let's just give up on it. Okay. But then what happens is, we know that's not the end of Vladimir Putin's ambition. We know he wants to restore control, Russian control over the nations of Eastern Europe, especially the Bolvian general. I'm sorry. I'm just answering. You're going to be Scott. So I don't know how to interrupt you. 22 General Milley told the Ukrainians, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, you boys should quit while you're only this far behind. They had a great success in Kharkiv and Luhansk. And he said, you should deal now because it's only going to get worse from here. So you can wax on about all this moralizing stuff. But all that's happened is hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people because you're going across more territory. And they're probably going to now lose their tactics and technology and a lot of things and throwing a lot of a word salad out there at the audience right now. Actually, what's happened is that there is a war in which Ukraine has mobilized this population. The population is fully behind it. The United States has held back. We're not even explaining to the Russian people what's going on. Now, that was a decision that I disagree with that the Biden administration made, but they did make the decision that we won't take the so-called information war into Russia. So Putin has free play with the Russian people. They don't know the truth. And I don't think that you or others have the right to tell the Ukrainian people, give up on your country. They have the right to continue to fight. I've been there. I talk to many Ukrainians, including members of the government, soldiers and others. They walk their country. And it's an important principle for the rest of us. Because if we uphold that principle, we have a better chance of preventing further war, greater destruction in the future. And then we bring Jimmy here. I'm going to start. I'm going to start. I'm going to start. All I get is a bunch of moralizing and eight-off Hitler and principle and valor and all of this stuff. Why don't you talk about the fact that they're more likely to lose Odessa permanently now. They're more likely to lose the entire southwestern coast of Ukraine. I would argue, Scott, I would argue they are much more likely to lose those things if they just roll over and let Putin take what he wants. That's what I think. Let me bring Jimmy. You know, Jim, I'm old enough to remember 1991 when Saddam Hussein invaded QA. That wasn't part of NATO. America had no great obligation to go and kick him out of QA, but he did because it was the morally right thing to do. And we all agreed with that. And it was a very quick operation. And unlike the next Iraq war, which I thought was fought on a completely false premise and frankly legal and indefensible, that one seemed to me a very clear case of somebody invading another country and being kicked out by a country predominantly American, obviously helped by allies who just decided this was the wrong thing and they won't let it happen. And for Donald Trump to be doing diesel deals right now with Vladimir Putin 21 days after he renewed sanctions against Russia and basically throw the Ukrainians and say what's Zelensky out because he won't give up the Donbass 20% of his country to this marauding barbarian Putin. I'm staggered that anyone on the conservative right who were unanimous about America doing the right thing with Q8, which wasn't even part of NATO or anyone near anyone to do with NATO. I'm staggered that there are people on the conservative right in America cheering Trump on with this. He's doing deals with Putin. I mean, you should be outraged. I can respect Zelensky as a hero for Ukraine and being able to stand up to Russia for as long as he has. But as I pointed out, he can't win the war unless America intervenes. We've all agreed with that. So he's not going to win the war. I haven't agreed with that. Okay, fine. I don't believe it's possible. Well, Zelensky is delusional in that respect, but the point is. as a threat to the world. Russia and Saddam Hussein aren't even in the same league. They aren't even playing the same game. So whatever we did in Kuwait has nothing to do with dealing with the fact that Russia took the parts of Ukraine it has and is going to keep them. And now we have to decide what's the US strategic issue. - Why did we, okay, out of interest. Why did America then attack Iraq after 9/11, which had nothing to do with Iraq? Why did they attack Iraq if the belief, as we were told it was, was that Saddam Hussein had weapons and mass destruction? By your argument, why would they have done that, if they thought he had nuclear weapons? Because if that's the argument, they're not taking on Vladimir Putin. - That's not my argument. - Good, no. Vladimir Putin has. - Hold on a sec, let me finish. Let me finish that. - Putin finished, dude. - Okay, but let me finish my point. Putin has thousands of nukes, we know that. But so does America. And America and the other nuclear power countries actually have marginally more than he does. He's not going to risk everything for a nuclear tear-up with an equally well-armed opposition. But he might, he might, if he thinks America, which is a huge factor in all this, if America is moving to Russia's way, then God help us. - So you think he's going. The only places he can expand are into NATO countries. All right, Ukraine, he's already fighting in. He's nice, he's friends with Belarus. Every other country on his flank is a NATO country. So if he moves west at all, he brings the big dog off the porch. Because there's many beefs as we have. - Does he, though, right? - Does he, though, what would Trump do? What would President Trump do? Okay, so say he attacks one of the bulls, say he attacks one of the Baltic countries, or Poland, or whatever it may be, say he does that. Say he really used the next Hitler, and he wants to invade Poland, right? 'Cause he's got his gander up, because we forced Ukraine to surrender. Say he does all that. Do you have any confidence that President Trump in that eventuality would do what you're suggesting? Of course he would. - Why? - Because the point is that NATO is designed to be a trip wire that brings us into something that stops Russia from turning it back into the Neo-Soviet Union. All right, we will not tolerate that. And he knows that. And that's why Putin will not roll tanks going west. He hit Ukraine because it's not a NATO country, and because he wanted Don Bass and his land bridge and to solidify Crimea. That's a done deal. Now the question is, what's the US strategic interest? Our strategic interest is in stopping the war from expanding and turning into World War III, because Putin won't take a loss. And it's from ensuring that the rest of the world doesn't suffer for a war that can't be won. Our blood and treasure, the energy, implications, and the rest of it. That war needs to end, and that requires Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to understand. There is not going to be a continuous flow of material and treasure to go ahead and continue a war that we do not believe they can do. - Okay, Scott, you know, what's interesting to me is that the American people remain supportive of Ukraine. So they're against what their president and current administration are believing. So Trump's administration do not represent the majority in America about Ukraine. And they definitely don't represent the majority with the war on Iran. - So you've got a very unusual situation here, where you have an American president who is involved in various machinations around the world, where he doesn't have the support of his people. That's unusual. - Well, no, I mean, American foreign policy has nothing to do with the wishes of the American public at large. It's all just a faction fight over control of the empire. And so-- - But America's never gone to war before, like it did with Iran, where from the start, the American people and all the polling were opposed to it, and have got increasingly opposed to it. We've never seen that before. - Yeah, well, it's unfortunate, you know, there was not public support for the war when Bill Clinton and General Clark started an aggressive war against Serbia without a UN resolution. And in order to break off Kosovo, a president which Vladimir Putin, of course, invoked in his declaration of war against Ukraine just as he invoked Bush's threat about WMD and Obama's pretension of protecting life in Libya to say that this is why he gets to cross these borders. Is America gets to rewrite the international law whenever we want. And so as a matter of high principle, it's only high when it's the other guys who are violating it. But look, the fact of the matter is, there's been a potential proposal. - You will open your name in a moment when he's finished. - Kushner and them have been talking about this right now, and there have been leaks like this. I think we discussed this on your show before Pierce. There have been leaks about a potential for Russia to settle for the current line of contact. And so that would be essentially, as Jim just said, the land bridge to Crimea from Donbass, the Azov coast there. They control virtually all of Donetsk. So it's almost a done deal at that point. And then, but they would be forsaking or foregoing trying to take Zeproja city and the last like third or more of Zeproja, as well as forgetting about the part of Kurson, the third of Kurson that is on the western side of the Nipar river, and essentially just calling it, time out where they have it now. That is the best case scenario for peace, stability, loss of life, and whatever, and for any potential to turn this thing around. It just makes no sense to say that because of principle and valor and honor that this thing should go the other way, therefore it will. And by the way, I really wish that you had asked him because this is a serious thing. I wish that you had asked Zelensky, what about Demetri Yorosh from right sector who helped overthrow the government in 2014, who threatened to hang Zelensky from a tree on Kramatursk street, the main drag in Kiev. I'm sure I'm pronouncing that wrong, forgive me. If he would dare to negotiate a peace with Russia, and is he afraid of the radical right inside his military, such as Andrew Beletsky, the leader of the Third Army Corps, who's leading the Vivaldi campaign right now. He's the author of the book, the word of the white leader and the author of the speech, Ukrainian racial social nationalism. And he's the guy who said he's leading the white race against the Semedic-led Unter mention and is the third or fourth most popular political figure in Ukraine right now and has made his political ambitions absolutely clear. And Zelensky afraid, and I think he is afraid, that these Hitlerian Nazis, these avowed Hitlerian supremacists, would shoot him in the head to death if he would dare compromise and how much of a disincentive is that to him to compromise in this war. - Okay, General Clark, just the point that Scott made about Serbia and what NATO did there. What's your response first to that? - Bill Clinton put it best, I think. He said, "When you can make a difference, you should." So in 1994, in the African country of Rwanda, we stood by and watched 800,000 or 900,000 people hack to death. Children thrown down wells, heads cut off with machetes. We could have intervened, we could have made a difference. Maybe we didn't understand it fully at the time. I was in the joint staff when I finally understood it, not as it was going on. We didn't really have good enough intelligence. We saw some pictures, we heard some stories, but it really took months afterwards before reporters came in on the ground and really talked to people and we saw what had been done. It was horrendous. And I think all of us at that time recognized, we're not gonna let this happen again. So the United Nations tried to stop the slaughter and it began in Bosnia in 1992. And they weren't very effective. And so when it picked up momentum in 1995, we started a negotiation process. We backed it with NATO troops. And then again, in 1998, it started again in a part of Serbia known as Kosovo. I went down, talked to Malosvitch three times. I asked him not to do this. I talked to the Serb generals. He said, "You're not gonna, "these people are just fighting for their rights." They're not terrorists. They just wanna have a school with their own language. They wanna have people from their community in the police force. All that's been taken away from them. They're being enslaved in this province of Kosovo. And the Russians came in and said, "Don't pay any attention to it. "If you wanna wipe 'em out, just wipe 'em out." And so that's what started it. So we had warned Malosvitch not to do this. We saw the experience from Rwanda. We saw it in Bosnia. And the global opinion and the opinion of NATO was, you can't permit another such slaughter. Now, I have a problem right now, Scott. No, just gonna have a time on this show. Give me a chance to talk. I have a problem with the Biden administration, because although they certainly warned the Europeans that this attack was coming, they didn't provoke it, except by being weak. And so as it started, the Biden administration and NATO made perfectly clear that they wouldn't intervene to stop Putin. They set up an equation in which Ukraine was more or less, let more or less left by itself. I went to the White House by phone. I talked to people there. I said, "Look, you say you believe in the international rules-based order?" Well, if that's the case, this is Ukraine. This is air space that if Ukraine says, "Bring in aircraft that we have the right to do it." Ukraine has the right to ask for it. Instead, NATO stood back. The Biden administration, of course, was behind this and said, "Oh, no, no, no. We don't want to do anything with the Russians." The time to have stopped it was then, but we didn't have the courage. We had a different group of people in leadership. They didn't have the same experience that those of us in the 1990s went through. And so, the argument of using Ukraine in air space became all, like, no flies on. And then you're going to have to bomb Russia or something. It was a deliberate effort, not to face up to the reality of what Vladimir Putin stood for. We learned in the 1990s, in a Chancellor, NATO Secretary General recognized for a vote. If NATO wants to be safe and secure, it cannot hide behind its borders. It has to reach out of area. And we failed to do that effectively. Immediately in Ukraine, we perverricated, we delayed, we postponed, we tried to dodge the issue. Because of fear of Vladimir Putin. And we built him up. He was a mouse when he started this by going into Georgia. Instead of saying to Vladimir Putin, "Get out of Georgia. How dare you invade another country?" We sent the French President in, Sarkozy, who said, "Well, okay, you can keep a quarter of Georgia. And we won't check on you anymore." And every year they move the bar bar and take it all more Georgia. Exactly. And then they learned from that. And they took it back. And now they take him a dollar back. It's still supposed to think he won't take it. He won't, of course he will. This will be enough for all of you. Let me bring. In that Russia just started that war against Georgia in August 2008, Georgia attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, trying to retake South Ossetia. And then Russia responded. And actually. It actually happened that way, Scott. What actually happened is it was a false flag. It was a provocation by Russia looking for trouble. Vladimir Putin saw the power in the South Ossetia. And Vladimir Putin figured a way to draw him in so he could then make the military argument go after him. But I don't understand why a man like you who has fought for the United States and cares about the United States. And obviously you believe we're very, very powerful because you think that we should be determining the fate of other people who are fighting for their own country as though we have the moral authority to. Why do you then take Putin's side of everything? I don't understand it. I hear these people who are so-called "realists" in foreign policy and what they do is they look at the past and they say, "Well, a powerful country won." Yes, but that's not the future. The future is what kind of country, what kind of world do we want? Do we want a world in which the mighty step over others, do we want a world run by a couple of dictators? No, you don't want to live in that country. You fought for our country. I want to do, I want to give. Jimmy has been very patient here. I just want to ask you a direct question. I never said anything about America should force Ukraine to do this or that. He's the one saying that the government ought to tax me and all the rest of my fellow Texans and force us to participate in this war for a foreign nation. Which is an entirely separate question and is not what I was saying. And also, by the way, you know, all his talk about, "Oh, no, there's too much appeasement, too much weakness." Well, Zach Dorfman from Yahoo News had CIA officers before the war in January or February of '22. CIA officers in charge of receiving and distributing the arms in Ukraine told Zach Dorfman they're calibrating this wrong. They're not deterring the Russians, they're provoking them. And we're trying to tell the bosses to tell the White House to stop sending arms now. Now you're just making war more likely. Maybe you could imagine a situation where pouring in arms is going to deter them up to some certain ratio. I don't know, but the CIA officers on the ground at the time said this is backfire. Okay. We're going to cause the war. I guess they're just appeasers, too. The CIA officers are just taking the side of Vladimir Putin. Instead of just being wiser than people like you, Jenry Clarke, who would cause a million something people to be killed over an idiotic battle, over who controls the Donbass? Okay. I don't think it's. Well, I don't think it's an idiotic battle for Ukraine to want to keep Ukraine. Let me bring in Jim for the final word here. Jim, you'd be very patient. Thank you. Although it's been a fascinating debate, I have to say. If I can take you back, Jim, to just before President Trump won his second term in office. And I'll speak in term before, during an hour, I spoke to the morning, that he won. And he was full of, like, you know, we're going to do this, this, and this. Very positive. You hit the ground running with amazing array of executive orders, many of which were very popular. You shut the border pretty much to all illegal immigrants pouring in there. A lot of things were going well. But if I said to you, as we come up to the midterm elections, that he would end up waging a pretty disastrous war with Iran, which had an enormously negative impact on American cost of living for ordinary Americans, particularly at the gas pump and so on. And he'd end up siding with Vladimir Putin on a little dirty diesel deal, which made no sense, other than basically putting his hand up saying, "I'm with Vlad now against Ukraine, just how most people have perceived it to be." What would you have said to me if I had said to you? This is what he's actually going to do, because I've known Trump a long time. And I'm slightly flabbergasted about what I've watched. I didn't understand why he got talked into going to war in Iran by Netanyahu, which is what I think happened. I don't understand why he hasn't tried to get out of it. Now he can see the catastrophic effect on American cost of living. And I just was apopleptic when I heard about this diesel deal. So what are you doing, Donald Trump? Why would you want to be perceived as a guy getting with Putin right now? Well, look, you're looking at the actual acts, not the plan behind them. President Trump's entire foreign policy is based around the idea that America is not the world's policeman anymore. We are not going to intervene in every single place where there are bad things going on. So why are you attacking Iran? We can't. Because Iran was building nuclear weapons. But we were told this time, we were told last year that I don't believe we put back decades. Okay, but they started trying to bring it back in eight months. In eight months. We went from decades to eight months. And they hadn't given up. So what he did, he took the political risk, which is less than the strategic risk of allowing nuclear arms. So America is being a world policeman then. Exactly what you said he should be. If the case is stopping nations, stopping road nations run by tyrannicals. That's called being a world policeman. Or again, like it is, okay, okay. We'll be a world policeman if someone's going to join the nuclear club. I can't think of a more classic example of America being a global policeman. We're not going to do it in places where going to do it. Donald Trump didn't want to do it. You're right. But he ends up becoming the global policeman on the biggest possible war in the Middle East. And thanks so much. As cool as my hand. Can I finish the point of what his plan is? We don't want to be the world's policeman. When forced, we will act in U.S. interests. It's in U.S. interests to not have a nuclear arms rock. Now let's go back to the Ukraine. It is not the Ukrainian borders are not a U.S. strategic interest. Not being in a war with Russia is a U.S. strategic interest. Making sure that NATO remains a deterrent to war. And trying to stop an escalation in America's national interests. Maybe if you can't get Zelensky to make peace, somebody has to. So this was not about sucking up to Putin. It was sending a message to Zelensky, which he made perfectly clear when he said that Ukraine needs a new president. If he's not going to make peace. What he means by making peace. We've got to wrap things up, fortunately. I'm making peace with the situation with Ukraine. Is he expects Zelensky to roll over and give Vladimir Putin what he's taken. And I'm afraid I am absolutely with Zelensky and Ukraine on this. And totally against what Donald Trump wants him to do. Why the hell should they give up? A fifth of their country to an invading. It's already gone. It's been taken. It hasn't already gone. History is littered with territory that was taken and then reclaimed. Well, then good luck. I wish Ukraine could do it. I did wish them good luck. You know what they need? They need a backup you want to resolve from America who is the global police for when it suits it. And thank God they are when it's the right thing to do. Anyway, we've got to leave it there. It's a war with the Russian Federation and hydrogen bombs. You know, the Nagasaki bomb. I was very familiar with it. Why would Russia get involved in a nuclear shooting match when it would lose immediately? Well, we would all lose immediately. Exactly. So why would they do it? Why would they do it? They're not nihilistic, fundamentalists who want to kill themselves. Show me the Russians, you've one of the kills themselves for the cause, they don't. Right? The same reason they want to invade NATO country, that the Russians lose the war, that could lead to a general war between NATO and the Russian Federation and you know it. But you know what? The day we stopped standing up to dictators because you know what, if, if, if we. We just got 7,000 H bombs in a border dispute over the domes. What would you have done? What would you have done with that offensive in '39? And then laid this out, Lynn and laid this out in the 1920s. He said, "Push until you meet resistance and then back off." Yeah. Until there's resistance, Putin is going to continue to push. And if you want to open Europe, that's what's going on. And I don't actually do that. I do think he's the nearest thing to a modern day Hitler and I think Zelensky was right to say that. That's another thing. You know what? Noriega's Hitler and Saddam is Hitler and Milosevic is Hitler and Putin is Hitler. It sounds to me like Adolf was just another Hitler. And apparently any country that America doesn't like. We can just start an aggressive war against them because they're all the same as that one guy that one time. What a bunch of crap. And I know you know better than that, Pierce. Vladimir Putin is a center right conservative. He is not a national socialist like Andrew Beletsky, the leader of the Third Army Corps in Ukraine. I think he's an absolutely despicable, evil dictator and I wish more people in America agreed with me. I'm not saying he's a good man, but I'm saying he's not all the way to the majority of people in America. I think they do. That's the weird position we're now in. You only have to look at the consequences of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the first invasion in 2022 in Butja where innocence of aid was captured for No reason. And, but it wasn't an accident actually there was a reason because the instructions given to the Russian soldiers were to do everything you can to destroy the civilian population. They're psyche. They're psyche. They're psyche. Until Ukrainians great credit, they've refused to have their will broken and when I interview Zalensky, which I do, I do quite regularly, when I interview my see a man whose resolve has not been broken by fighting nearly five years of war and I admire that in him. He's their Churchill in many ways and I think we owe him collectively a debt of gratitude for standing up to Putin. Otherwise, I dread to think what Putin would do, we just rolled over. Anyway, we're going to leave it there. Scott, you and I agree about most things we have in today, but that's the beauty of uncensored. We are a free spirited debate platform and we can agree to disagree and I always love having you guys on. Thank you all very much indeed. Thank you so much, Chris. Thank you. Peace Morgan on Sensor is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. We enjoy our show and also only one simple thing. It's subscribe on YouTube and follow Peace Morgan on Sensor on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain and we'll do it all for free. Independent uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you. [BLANK_AUDIO]