Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Is Trump going to guarantee
Speaker 1: Ukraine's security after a deal with Russia is reached by
Speaker 1: putting US troops into Ukraine. This is the single biggest
Speaker 1: question that came out of today's meeting at the White House.
Speaker 1: President Trump has said, quote, he's going to give a
Speaker 1: lot of help, a lot of help to Ukraine when
Speaker 1: he had this meeting with Zelensky. A very different tone
Speaker 1: from the President as he sat down this time with
Speaker 1: Zelenski the last time, six months ago, these two had
Speaker 1: a meeting. And I think what it shows is one
Speaker 1: how much President Trump is dedicated to the idea of
Speaker 1: getting a deal done. I mean, this is an absolute
Speaker 1: focus of his administration. He could not have more input
Speaker 1: and more drive into this process. And beyond that, he's
Speaker 1: willing to take some pretty severe or serious steps depending
Speaker 1: on who you ask. We don't know if it means
Speaker 1: they'll be troops US troops as part of this guarantee.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem, though, If this guarantee is going to
Speaker 1: be worthy of the name, it can't just be economic
Speaker 1: if Russia and Ukraine put down their weapons, divvy up
Speaker 1: the land, and then there's a an agreed upon DMZ
Speaker 1: if you will, something like a demilitarized zone, some kind
Speaker 1: of a buffer zone between the countries, which won't be
Speaker 1: very substantial, but it'll be very heavily armed and mined
Speaker 1: and built up. If that's where this is all heading,
Speaker 1: there has to be a reasonable belief on the side
Speaker 1: of the Ukrainians that Russia's not just going to rearm,
Speaker 1: re equip and then just punch through again in a
Speaker 1: few years, probably when you don't have Donald Trump as
Speaker 1: president in this country, waiting for some wimpy Democrat administration
Speaker 1: to come along who won't do anything. But the possibility
Speaker 1: even of US troops as part of the guarantee has
Speaker 1: a lot of people in MAGA asking questions because certainly
Speaker 1: at this stage of the game we've all seen there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people who are really pro Trump
Speaker 1: and want the Ukraine war to end, but they're single
Speaker 1: guiding their single issue vote if you will, on this
Speaker 1: that they're guiding principle on. This is no US troops involved,
Speaker 1: This is not our fight. Now, we wouldn't be getting
Speaker 1: into the fight in the short term. But if we're
Speaker 1: going to put ourselves in a place where the United States,
Speaker 1: let's say, has a military base in Ukraine, that would
Speaker 1: be the most straightforward way of doing this. It would
Speaker 1: be something like what we have in South Korea and
Speaker 1: what we have in Germany. Now, a lot of MAGA
Speaker 1: is going to say absolutely not, this is what we
Speaker 1: don't want. Perhaps it doesn't go to this. I'm just
Speaker 1: working through what the possibilities are, what a security guarantee
Speaker 1: could really look like, because the Ukrainians are smart enough
Speaker 1: to know that a security quote guarantee that only involve
Speaker 1: sanctions is not worth the paper it's printed on. I
Speaker 1: mean the Russians, we can't hit them hard enough economically
Speaker 1: to get them to stop doing this. We can't get
Speaker 1: putin to turn the tanks around because the ruble is
Speaker 1: getting hit too hard. It's not it hasn't happened in years.
Speaker 1: It's not going to happen, not while they're a fossil
Speaker 1: fuel superpower, which, unfortunately, because of their natural resources, they
Speaker 1: still are oil and gas. They got a lot of it,
Speaker 1: a lot of fertilizer too, So that means that we
Speaker 1: have to see this through beyond just the economic implications.
Speaker 1: And this is where Trump is saying, there's going to
Speaker 1: be a lot of help. Now there's the US base,
Speaker 1: US basing rights, or a basing situation in Ukraine. That's
Speaker 1: one way this could go. We could have something like
Speaker 1: US promises of military support direct military intervention if Russia invades.
Speaker 1: But now either one of these situations that would seem
Speaker 1: to be a little bit of a lesser one. Ukrainians
Speaker 1: wouldn't want that. I'm sure they want to base a
Speaker 1: US base there, although there's some sovereignty issues for them
Speaker 1: too with that, but I think they would want it nonetheless.
Speaker 1: But the issue then becomes is this just a backdoor
Speaker 1: Article five NATO situation? Does this then just turn into
Speaker 1: the perhaps biggest redline that Putin has in all of
Speaker 1: this is Ukraine cannot be a staging ground. This isn't
Speaker 1: his thinking. I know, people say, oh, that's a Russian
Speaker 1: talking point. Yeah, well this is what he says, and
Speaker 1: I think we can all agree this is what he thinks,
Speaker 1: or at least he says out loud. If it's going
Speaker 1: to be any attack on Ukraine is triggering a US
Speaker 1: military a direct military response like our planes in the sky,
Speaker 1: our troops on the ground, even if it's solely defensive
Speaker 1: a nature, meaning we're not going to go into Russian territory,
Speaker 1: but we're going to try to support Ukraine. That looks
Speaker 1: like Article five NATO, doesn't it. So how could Putin
Speaker 1: sign off on his side of the deal if he
Speaker 1: is giving away what would be the biggest stumbling block
Speaker 1: I would assume for the Russians in this whole thing,
Speaker 1: which is, No, you can't have a Ford operating base
Speaker 1: of NATO, a de facto Ford operating base of NATO
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, which is he says, the whole reason for
Speaker 1: this war. I think the real reason for this war
Speaker 1: is a resource grab. It is Russian expansionism, irridentism, Russian imperialism, Yes,
Speaker 1: all of that, but certainly the ostensible reason, or the
Speaker 1: you could say the fig leaf, the pretextual reason, is
Speaker 1: to prevent the encroachment of NATO right onto Russia's Russia's
Speaker 1: borders with Ukraine. And that's where this thing gets really
Speaker 1: really messy. We'll come back to it. You know, our
Speaker 1: sponsor is Birch Gold, and Birch Gold is a fantastic
Speaker 1: company that can help you get actual physical gold, which
Speaker 1: I've been buying for years. In fact, I buy my
Speaker 1: gold from Birch Gold, and Birch Gold makes owning physical
Speaker 1: gold very easy. You're like, why should I buy gold?
Speaker 1: Look at gold over the past year, forty percent increase
Speaker 1: gold over the past ten years. Look at what it's
Speaker 1: been doing. Just look at the trend. The trend is
Speaker 1: your friend, right, Look at the trend with gold. Gold
Speaker 1: keeps increasing in value because Fiat currencies keep being printed,
Speaker 1: not just here in America but all over the world.
Speaker 1: That's why a lot of national banks and sovereign wealth
Speaker 1: funds are eyeing up gold at record prices. Birch Gold
Speaker 1: Group makes owning physical gold very easy. They can also
Speaker 1: convert an existing IRA or four one k into a
Speaker 1: tax sheltered IRA in physical gold. Check out Birch Gold
Speaker 1: Group today text buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight.
Speaker 1: Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold.
Speaker 1: Text buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight. Tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of happy customers with Birch Gold check them
Speaker 1: out today. Okay, so US security guarantee for Russia, you know,
Speaker 1: or for Ukraine rather against Russian aggression. This is all
Speaker 1: feeling a lot like it is tied into at least
Speaker 1: an analogous to what we've seen in World War One
Speaker 1: with the style of warfare. It is largely trench warfare
Speaker 1: with drones. That's the best way to describe what the
Speaker 1: front in Ukraine is based on all the reports you
Speaker 1: can read, and it's pretty stunning how deep the fortifications,
Speaker 1: the ground fortifications are. They've referred to it well. They
Speaker 1: want to avoid calling an imagine no line for Ukraine
Speaker 1: because of what happened to the French Magino line, but
Speaker 1: that is probably the closest historical analogy, and when you
Speaker 1: see what the plan is here, it's going to be
Speaker 1: to make it impossible for Russia to advance further in
Speaker 1: its territorial ambitions and to strengthen the defensive perimeter of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: But there's no future in which anyone sees Ukraine punching
Speaker 1: across that no man's land, if you will, and taking
Speaker 1: the fight to the Russians in territory they currently truly
Speaker 1: control and expelling them all from Ukraine. So that means
Speaker 1: you're going to have territorial concessions. That part of it,
Speaker 1: I think is unavoidable. And that part of it is
Speaker 1: I think where you're going to see a lot of
Speaker 1: pushback from our press because they're going to say Trump,
Speaker 1: if we do get to a deal, first of all,
Speaker 1: no matter what the deal is, there are going to
Speaker 1: be the Trump haters out there who say the deal
Speaker 1: is not good enough. He pushed them into this, he
Speaker 1: sold out Ukraine, because the one thing they cannot accept,
Speaker 1: they will not accept, is that Trump has done anything
Speaker 1: good here, that Trump has done something perhaps even worthy
Speaker 1: of a Nobel prize if we get there right now.
Speaker 1: That's not the case right now, it's a best effort,
Speaker 1: but we have to be very honest about what the
Speaker 1: implications are here. If he gets this through, and it
Speaker 1: will be the most impressive win on the world stage
Speaker 1: by a president I really think since Reagan and the
Speaker 1: fall of the Berlin Wall. I don't know what else
Speaker 1: could be equivalent to this, because Trump will have brought
Speaker 1: together this negotiation and ended a massive conflict between advanced
Speaker 1: military's advanced economies. This isn't, you know, some third world
Speaker 1: counterinsurgency campaign somewhere. This is Russia with a lot of nukes.
Speaker 1: This is a big deal, and up is doing everything
Speaker 1: he can to bring this thing to a conclusion. It's
Speaker 1: so bloody and it's such a horrific loss of life
Speaker 1: on both sides. So on a humanitarian front, you would
Speaker 1: just want this to end as quickly as possible because
Speaker 1: of the horrendous casualties that are mounting and a generation
Speaker 1: of Russians, a generation of Ukrainians lost. And I understand
Speaker 1: we're to think that the Russians are the bad guys,
Speaker 1: and certainly Putin is the aggressor here. I'm very clear
Speaker 1: on that. I understand, and we've been able to see
Speaker 1: this all along. Putin is not a good person. He's
Speaker 1: not an ethical person the way we think of ethics.
Speaker 1: But a lot of these Russian conscripts, you know, they
Speaker 1: just think they're fighting for their country. They're fighting because
Speaker 1: they have no choice. They don't want to go to
Speaker 1: prison or they don't want to be you know, beaten
Speaker 1: by the FSB and conscripted anyway. So they're in a
Speaker 1: tough situation. You know, the average Russian who's being thrown
Speaker 1: onto the front lines here doesn't really have a choice,
Speaker 1: and a lot of Ukrainians are also in that situation
Speaker 1: where they don't have much of a choice, if at all.
Speaker 1: And I know there's been very aggressive conscription on the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian side of things too, So I feel bad. These
Speaker 1: are human beings. These are human beings who are living
Speaker 1: in trenches, who are hoping that they don't have a
Speaker 1: drone flown right at them, that explodes right next to them,
Speaker 1: and if it doesn't just kill them outright, horrifically maims them,
Speaker 1: you know, takes their arm, maybe half their face. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's awful, awful stuff that's going on here, and so
Speaker 1: we can know who's in charge of pieces of territory
Speaker 1: that most Americans honestly still and this isn't a knock
Speaker 1: on Americans who can't but most Americans still can't find
Speaker 1: this stuff on a map. And why should they. It's
Speaker 1: very far away. It's not you know, it's not their thing.
Speaker 1: It's not our problem. You know, this isn't a territorial
Speaker 1: dispute between Mexico and Arizona. This isn't really our problem
Speaker 1: in that sense. But because where America, I guess anything
Speaker 1: becomes our problem if it's big enough anywhere in the world,
Speaker 1: and this is certainly big enough. So I'm very hopeful
Speaker 1: that Trump will be able to move this to a
Speaker 1: better place and get the bloodshed to stop, and it
Speaker 1: will be remarkable if that is in fact the case.
Speaker 1: We're also seeing here a preview I think of what
Speaker 1: warfare in the future is going to look like, particularly
Speaker 1: with the drones, but also increasingly with a combination of
Speaker 1: technology and manufacturing. It's not just going to be who
Speaker 1: has the most advanced stuff. It's going to be who
Speaker 1: can make this stuff at scale? That and a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of different things, different kinds of drone, different kinds
Speaker 1: of munitions. So the the industrial backbone, you know, the US,
Speaker 1: once it got going in World War Two, the US
Speaker 1: industrial and economic might was just so incredible that we
Speaker 1: were able to eventually just steamroll the bad guys, particularly
Speaker 1: in the Pacific theater. We just could make more planes,
Speaker 1: better planes, more, you know, we had more and better everything,
Speaker 1: and we yeah, it was our brave on the front lines,
Speaker 1: but it was also the machinery back home that was
Speaker 1: making all this stuff. And that's what warfare in the
Speaker 1: future is gonna We're gonna it's gonna look like we're
Speaker 1: gonna get away from the continued Third World counterinsurgency operations
Speaker 1: of the anti g hottest GWAT campaigns and move toward
Speaker 1: what kind of drones can you fly that can take
Speaker 1: out a tank? What kind of drones do you have
Speaker 1: or missiles do you have that can take out major
Speaker 1: naval surface ships? I mean this is these are the
Speaker 1: calculations going forward. I think they're going to be dominating
Speaker 1: warfare and our focus of it. So there's gonna there's
Speaker 1: a lot that's being learned because there's no laboratory of
Speaker 1: warfare quite like a war. As all history shows us.
Speaker 1: There's a lot that's being learned on the front lines
Speaker 1: in Ukraine that will be applicable for our own defense
Speaker 1: as well as other countries, other allies of ours defense
Speaker 1: going forward. I'm thinking about Taiwan and China obviously in
Speaker 1: a big way. Uh you know, the time ease. I'm
Speaker 1: sure I have a lot that they are learning from
Speaker 1: being able to stop a power that is superior in
Speaker 1: materiel and manpower overall. But with the right techno, with
Speaker 1: the right technology and the right interlocking fields of fire
Speaker 1: if you will, from the whether it's anti aircraft, anti
Speaker 1: personnel trenches, all these things brought together a much smaller
Speaker 1: but technologically advanced power can be formidable on the defensive.
Speaker 1: So that may be very good news for Taiwan. But
Speaker 1: it's something that we're seeing play out now. You know.
Speaker 1: Our sponsor here is Paradigm Press. Our federal government has
Speaker 1: some funding problems, and one of them being our social
Speaker 1: security system. Most of us don't get to see the spending,
Speaker 1: mistakes and fraud that goes on with Social Security, but
Speaker 1: there's so much of it and it's just making our
Speaker 1: funding problems worse. But as a country, there's a solution
Speaker 1: to our overall funding problem. Jim Rickords a fifty year
Speaker 1: government inside and he thinks that there's a solution here.
Speaker 1: And President Trump is on the verge of the breakthrough.
Speaker 1: He says America is anything but broke, and investors who
Speaker 1: understand why could make a fortune. Jim Rickards believes if
Speaker 1: you're over fifty, this is your last chance to create wealth,
Speaker 1: lasting wealth, regardless of your politics. For the full story,
Speaker 1: go visit this website Birthright twenty twenty five dot com.
Speaker 1: That's Birthright twenty twenty five dot com. Here what Jim
Speaker 1: Rickords has to say about this opportunity paid for by
Speaker 1: Paradigm Press. That's the show today, Friends, shields, high