putin staying relevant. it s not a big deal, is not going to change the course of anything, but he is preventing anything else having a narrative of positivity in regard to ukraine. positivity in regard to ukraine. ., ., positivity in regard to ukraine. ., . ~ ukraine. roger, what you think, is this about ukraine. roger, what you think, is this about the ukraine. roger, what you think, is this about the narrative i is this about the narrative here and putin taking control of that again? think it is an attempt break ukrainian morale and as mike pointed out, it s the opposite. i ve been to all of the towns that i ve been to all of the towns that were hit or nearly hit today, that were hit or nearly hit today, except for uman, and every today, except for uman, and every time there are such attacks every time there are such attacks and airwaves and ukrainians by an large have gotten ukrainians by an large have gotten in your do this by the way gotten in your do this by the w
passion that we should all have for our rights regardless of the politics. it s been so wild to see the same democrats who have, in the past, been concerned about civil liberties violations committed by law enforcement to suddenly side with an organization just because it s now acting against the guy they hate. it s not right. also not right to only care about the possible abuses because they re suddenly against the guy you love. imagine that playing out on the street. [horn beeping] give me money. give me your money. wait, hold on a second dude we ll save you. real quick where are you on defunding the police. that policy has draw backs. how do you feel about legalized marine wanna. unlike this that s usually a victimless crime. all right comey. where are you on nato expansion. that s an excellent question with serious geopolitical ramifications and unintended consequences, a applying military consequence toss the
security architecture to pre-1997 when so many formerly eastern bloc countries joined the european union, joined nato, and became part of that western democratic bloc. and it s that western democratic bloc i think that ultimately is the existential threat seen by vladimir putin and ultimately covertly, in a sense, his motivation for invading ukraine. it would also mean that the international rules-based order is ripped up by at least a former superpower, a nuclear power, would demonstrate that it is possible without a great deal of severe military consequence to invade a neighbor in an unprovoked, nondefensive action. something that would be catastrophic in terms of the signals it would send, the basis upon which certainly since the cold war but even during the cold war, international relations have been conducted. it would mean that china would take a look at what was going on
defeated. not the end of jihadism or the islamic ideology but the defeat of a cruel and dangerous element. arthel: i m getting a prees a s release here, saying the he coalition congratulates the forces, the elimination of the self proclaimed territorial caliphate in the river valley, syria as well. so to what ryan was reporting, does this mean that isis now will turn up the heat on their rhetoric and spreading their ideology? i think they ll certainly try and do that, since they are precluded from establishing a caliphate now. but there s a consequence to defeat. it s not just a military consequence, but an idea logical one. if you think to the time when there were a lot of jihadists, leaving to fight with isis in
approximate but maybe intentionally not crossing the line of an overt threat. well, it sounds a lot like what we have heard from the north korean regime over the years. i m not sure how different it is. the president in some ways kind of walked himself into a trap by suggesting that even a rhetoric althreat from the regime in north korea would be grounds for military action. ut know now, some of his aids later sort of cleared that up or cleaned it up a little bit, suggesting that, withel, it s the generals who are making the threats, not the leader himself. we re going to hear the kind of rhetoric that we ve heard from this regime for decades. they talk big, talk tough. it s a country the economy is the size of the state of vermont. you know, they happen to have an insurance policy in the form of this nuclear threat, but beyond that, they re of notice particular military consequence. what really has to be the focus is making sure that those nuclear weapons stay exactly where they are