-
Unknown A
The Europeans are panicking over President Trump's approach to Ukraine. And again, I think that we need to separate off some President Trump's rhetoric here, his sort of tirades against Volodymyr Zelensky, many of which I find ill founded, as I talked about it on yesterday's show, from the actual policy. The actual policy that President Trump is pursuing is, in fact the only rational policy and everyone knows it. Security guarantees that are durable enough to ensure that Vladimir Putin does not reinvade Ukraine to Ukraine, and an acknowledgement of that, without a massive expenditure of resources that no one is willing to undertake, the Donbass and Crimea are going to remain in Russian hands for the foreseeable future. Okay? That is just a reality, and everyone acknowledges that that is the reality. It's been true for years at this point. Again, one of the very weird things that's been happening on the right is that if I agree totally with President Trump's agenda, but I disagree with some of his rhetoric surrounding the agenda, apparently that is some sort of heresy.
-
Unknown A
I don't quite understand why. I don't quite understand why, in order to agree and actually in order to propose an alternative that I have been proposing for years and that the Trump administration actually mirrors why, in order to do that, I also have to believe that Volodymyr Zelensky is a CIA asset or some such nonsense. How about both these things? How about Russia is the aggressor in this war. Vladimir Putin is an evil dictator. Vladimir Zelensky is not, in fact, a dictator. He may be venal, he may be a problematic personality on the international stage in terms of how he approaches various countries, including the United States. All those things can be true. And also the end sort of lines of the deal are exactly the same. Why is it that there has to be some sort of loyalty test about mirroring sort of the excesses?
-
Unknown A
It seems to me a foolish proposition. But in any case, the Europeans are adjusting to the new vision of the world proposed by President Trump. He's basically saying, listen, you guys want a different deal? Why don't you pony up and get in here? Pony up. Show us the money. This is in Europe. It's not in the United States. According to the Wall Street Journal, American and European supporters of NATO said that by siding with Europe's long standing adversary, Trump has done serious damage to its greatest asset, the deterrence that comes from the alliance's ironclad commitment to collective defense. But of course, President Trump has not suggested that NATO ought to be abolished. President Trump has suggested that the war in Ukraine ought to come to an end. It would be a mistake to abolish NATO because again, withdrawing forces from, say, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia will lead to further Russian predations in those areas.
-
Unknown A
If they believe they can get away with it, they'll do it in the same way that removing the American trigger force in South Korea would presumably lead to North Korean predations in South Korea. It's a rather cheap deal to keep some military bases in Eastern Europe to prevent a Russian invasion of those areas, pushing deeper and deeper into continental Europe. However, I've not seen any proposal, a serious proposal that is like that. But if it causes the Europeans to step up, that's not a bad thing. The United States, Pete Hegseth said that NATO will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency. Rather, our relationship will prioritize empowering Europe to own responsibility for its own security. Now, I don't understand why that's a bad thing. That all seems perfectly reasonable to me. And some of the messaging that's coming out of the Trump administration, in fact, is not the sort of radical Russia is right messaging that is being mirrored on X.
-
Unknown A
So, for example, Scott Besant, the Treasury secretary, was asked about sanctions on Russia. He said, listen, we can ratchet them up, we can ratchet them down. We haven't decided yet.
-
Unknown B
You mentioned sanctions. So do you have both on the table ready to go as sanctions ramp up or wind down on Russia, depending how these talks go?
-
Unknown A
I think that'd be a very good characterization. It's more on that in a moment. First, the IRS is ramping up their enforcement efforts in 2025. With April 15 approaching, time is now running out. If you're facing back taxes or unfiled returns, delaying action only compounds the problem. Every day you wait makes your tax situation more difficult to resolve. Do not let another tax deadline pass you by. While taking immediate action is crucial, attempting to deal with the IRS alone could be a costly mistake. And this is where Tax Network USA's expertise becomes totally invaluable. What sets them apart? Well, unlike those other tax resolution firms, Tax Network USA maintains privileged access to the IRS through their preferred direct channels. This means they know exactly which agents can help resolve your case effectively. Whether you owe ten grand or ten million bucks, their team of attorneys and negotiators brings proven strategies to settle your tax issues favorably.
-
Unknown A
With over $1 billion in tax debt already resolved, they have the experience and expertise to handle your situation. Talk with one of their strategists today. It's free. Stop the threatening letters. Stop looking over your shoulder. Protect yourself from property seizures and bank levies. Do not let the IRS control your future. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com Shapiro April 15th is just around the corner. Act now before the IRS acts first. That's 1-800-958-10000 or visit tnusa.com shapiro okay, so again, a lot of options are still on the table, but the foreign policy freakout is happening. There's a piece in the Wall Street Journal that kind of is fascinating about this because it talks up a failed foreign policy while talking down Trump's foreign policy. Quote since the end of World War II, the American led system of alliances has bolstered US power, most foreign policy experts say, by vowing to defend allies in Europe, the Middle east and Asia.
-
Unknown A
The United States more than any other country, took on the role of global guarantor of free trade instability, a mission that included countering first the Soviet Union and more recently China. Trump has a different take. Allies take more than they give. Instead of relying on the US Military and its nuclear umbrella for their security, other countries should spend more on their militaries while providing economic incentives to stay in America's good graces. Trump's is a far more transactional, win lose vision of foreign policy. Well, I mean, I don't see why that is cutting out the best parts of the prior foreign policy. Meaning if our allies contribute to their own security and strengthen their own war making capacity, that means we have to pay less and we achieve the same end. Trump is not saying that China should overrun the Far East. He's saying Taiwan should arm itself and we should help them arm themselves.
-
Unknown A
He's not saying that Europe should surrender to Vladimir Putin. He's saying Europe should stop free riding on our coattails. That all makes perfect sense to me. Victoria Coates, vice president for national security and foreign policy at the Heritage foundation, said, quote, it's not that President Trump is abandoning the post World War II orders. I said we're no longer in the post World War II era. We have to accept the geopolitical landscape has shifted. So, I mean, that's, that's clearly true. Why can't Europe afford to spend more of its own money on defense? Why are we paying for all of its defense? In the face of a reality which is that Europe as a combined entity is significantly more powerful than, for example, Russia, the Russian GDP last year was about $2 trillion. The the EU's GDP in 2024 was about $17 trillion. So I'm confused as to why precisely the EU and NATO countries can't pony up more in order to defend their own collective security.
-
Unknown A
Like why do we have to pay bill? That is Trump's actual proposal here. Now, as far as the Vladimir Zelensky of it and President Trump's statements about about Zelensky, and some of this is personal, some of this is that Zelensky has made an awful lot of boo boos when it comes to offending President Trump preemptively. This is a point that Mike Walz, the National Security Adviser, was making yesterday.
-
Unknown B
With President Zelensky, is that you've heard is multifold. One, there needs to be a deep appreciation for what the American people, what the American taxpayer, what President Trump did in his first term and what we've done since. So some of the rhetoric coming out of Kyiv, frankly, and insults to President Trump were unacceptable, number one. Number two, our own Secretary of Treasury personally made the trip to offer the Ukrainians what is can only be described as a historic opportunity, that is for America to co invest with Ukraine in their minerals, in their resources, to truly grow the pie.
-
Unknown A
So again, the Trump administration is trying to actually cut a deal with Ukraine in which the United States invests in Ukraine. Now, Ukraine might not like the terms of those deal, but if that's the case and they should make a deal with Europe, nothing Trump is doing here is actually crazy in terms of actual policy. And so all of the rhetorical flourishes and excesses aside, the actual policy being pursued is significantly more real world than anything Joe Biden was pursuing in in the first place, which was this sort of bizarre wish casting in which there was no end of the war and we were going to eternally fund it, which again, made no sense on any level whatsoever. Are you tired of the lies and the twist of the mainstream media talking points? Yeah, me too. Join me in my newest series, Fact, where I dismantle and bring truth to this tiring mainstream agenda.