whether it ends soon or later. what i m hearing from sources in both washington and moscow is that this is going to go on for a long time. one source said months, if not years. but again, nobody knows. what i m worried about is what we re seeing out of moscow is a kind of retrenchment, and even those people in the elites who were really upset by the invasion, who were stunned by the sanctions, who were really unhappy with how things are going are now rallying around putin. the population seems to be rallying around putin in a closed dictatorship. and the country is kind of coming together and wanting vladimir putin to pursue this to the end. some of my sources in moscow are saying we hope the negotiations don t work. we hope they fail. we don t want a negotiated solution. we want to achieve our aims. we want to taip take kyiv.
important, and they were singing the national anthem and waving american flags on the streets of hong kong, and he warned china not to use violence against the people of hong kong, one of the reasons they haven t cracked down. yes, i agree with you from his rhetoric was shaky at times, but he doing the right thing on hong kong. ed: a treaty, not something that people normally get excited about. the treaty that ronald reagan signed in 1987 with mikhail gorbachev. that s nothing to do with russia. it s a play against north korea and china, because about 90% of china s missiles would violate the inf treaty, but they were not bound by it. we have the capability to start testing new missiles that can deter china and also deter north korea. if the negotiations don t work, to keep them in our crosshairs. ed: untying our hands. victory for the president, iran. inflation is spiraling, the economy going down the tank. there are no closer to negotiations with the united states, but these
unilaterally? if spoken to correctly, they will play ball. look on another front what happened where clinton has asked our so-called trade partners to come to renegotiate fairness into trade. they say we re not coming. why would germany come, japan, france? that was almost two decades ago. president trump or then donald truad an initial point that he was right on. the longer you let international issues fester, the longer you let proliferation issues, nuclear proliferation issues go on, the harder they get to deal with down the road. the problem is, in his own words he is saying, when you get to a point like we re at now, you have a choice of negotiating or dealing with them. it sounded like he was saying, toughly, militarily. if these negotiations don t work most negotiators don t think we re going to get denuclearization out of the talks does that mean he will follow his own advice from 1999
senator is saying that if negotiations don t work, i.e. if we don t get cvid, then he wants to have a war. i think that is the worst possible outcome. we don t need to do that. cvid is what would be our preferred outcome but are required outcome is to prevent war and if we use that military card it will cause us far more damage than anything that we can have without that. ed: lieutenant colonel, pardon me but then what is the third option? you said senator graham laid out stark terms either there s a peace deal or likely war and you re saying that s not a good idea. what is the paragraph if there s not a peace deal? if it is just a photo op what is president trump do next? here s the situation but president trump remains in the absolute dominant negotiating position because, as he said many times, that s why he said i can walk if this does not work out well because he is right. we don t have to have a deal. kim jong-un does. all these sanctions are still in
moves through the nomination process. the probable here there s no confirmation hearings scheduled for pompeo. i mean, this instability, not knowing who s going to be running the state department, could that cause trouble for this administration, specifically when there are so many big foreign policy issues at stake right now? this is part of a larger story we ve seen in the trump presidency. the state department has been secondary even with tillerson at the helm. he wasn t very aggressive in filling positions in the state department it s been an institution that has been greatly weakened. there is no strong diplomatic voice. in the oval office we don t have diplomats doing the work necessary to counter act are the the the more militaristic voices in the white house. there will be a problem with negotiations with north korea. you need the expertise and sense ibltd or these kinds of negotiations don t work. the white house saying at one