Rational Security, "The Living La Vida Off Camera" Edition
December 3, 2025
Hosted by Scott R. Anderson, with Quinta Jurecic, Alan Rozenshtein, Benjamin Wittes, Eric Charmela, and Natalie Orpet

Episode Overview

This episode covers a lively, in-depth discussion of three major national security issues facing the United States: the tumultuous state of Trump administration diplomacy on Ukraine, the controversy surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “kill everybody” order in a Caribbean counternarcotics operation, and the legal and institutional battles over military compliance with potentially unlawful executive orders—notably as it plays out with the so-called "Seditious Six" legislators. The conversation is candid, insightful, and at times grimly humorous, blending policy analysis with legal critique and personal perspectives.

Main Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Trump Administration’s Ukraine “Peace Plans”

Timestamps: 04:00–37:35

Fumbled Diplomatic Initiatives

• The Trump administration has floated multiple “peace plans”—first a widely criticized, Russia-friendly 28-point plan, shifted after backlash to a more Ukraine-engaged 19-point version, which was nevertheless rejected by Russia. ((04:00–12:13))
• Eric Charmela describes the scene:
  • “It’s been a very confusing few weeks. I wouldn’t even say with confidence that we still know whether there is a plan written down anywhere.” (08:22, Eric)
  • “There are absolutely no indications that any of the sides are moving closer on the essential, sensitive issues—territory, Ukraine’s security arrangements, and frozen Russian central bank assets.” (11:33, Eric)
• The administration is sharply divided internally, with pro-Ukraine, Euroskeptic, and Asia-first factions in “a wrestling match” for influence.
  • “It’s highly unstructured… There’s no real internal process. You’ve got personalities vying for influence… all trying to deliver [Trump] a deal. It’s not very well coordinated.” (15:34, Eric)
  • “I don’t know who is really ascendant and who’s in charge here.” (15:37, Eric)
• Ben Wittes notes that, paradoxically, the cycle keeps repeating because “the administration is being repeatedly saved by Vladimir Putin,” who is unwilling to compromise even on deals highly favorable to Russia. (18:39, Ben)

European Reactions and the Bigger Stake

• Natalie Orpet draws attention to France and Europe’s role as “counterweight,” with Macron and others publicly asserting that “there isn’t a viable plan on the table” and that Europe is prepared to act more independently from the US. (23:02, Natalie)
• Eric argues European leaders remain reactive, not proactive, and “lack a strategic vision.” They must stop “hoping for the United States to suddenly wake up and realize Russia is the main threat” and instead act as independent actors in negotiations. (27:17, Eric)
• A key unresolved issue: whether Europe will unfreeze Russian assets for Ukraine or muster independent, sustainable aid.

The War of Attrition and Sanctions

• Scott and Eric characterize the conflict as a war of attrition, with both Moscow and Kyiv waiting for the other to falter. (31:10, Scott)
• There is discussion of the Congressional sanctions package, with real prospects for a bipartisan discharge petition and potential for “veto-proof majorities” in favor. (36:36, Eric)
• Eric: “Unless we deploy the leverage that we have, there’s no realistic expectation Putin would change his view of confidence in ultimate victory.” (35:11, Eric)

2. Defense Secretary Hegseth & Alleged War Crimes in Caribbean Operations

Timestamps: 37:35–66:42

The "Kill Everybody" Order and Legal Fallout

• Media revelations emerged about a September strike on a narcotrafficking boat; a second attack targeted survivors clinging to wreckage—“a protected class” under the law of armed conflict, raising the specter of war crimes. (37:35, Scott)
• Natalie Orpet gives an incisive legal breakdown:
  • “If you’re conducting military operations and someone is completely helpless in the water clinging to wreckage, it seems, gut instinct, like it shouldn’t be legal to just kill them. And it’s not.” (41:05, Natalie)
  • She emphasizes that, legally, “we are not here in a law of armed conflict world… This is just straight-up murder.” (43:09, Natalie)
  • The Trump administration’s justification—treating drug traffickers as an “armed group” with whom the US is at war—lacks credibility and international legal support. (45:52, Scott/Natalie)
• Ben Wittes’ “even if” argument:
  • “Even if you think it’s a plausible, lawful use of force... surely it is a crime to kill people once they are hors de combat.” (50:56, Ben)
  • “No way, no how is this legal or appropriate.” (52:38, Ben)
• There’s consensus this is both illegal and a signal of “pernicious” legal logic leaking from counterterrorism operations, dangerously broadening who can be targeted. (60:14, Scott)

International Accountability

• Realistically, international mechanisms (e.g., ICC) are unlikely to succeed, given US non-participation and domestic pardons—though future universal jurisdiction cases can apply personal consequences. (66:42, Scott)
• “A lot of accountability will have to come from within the US political system first and foremost.” (66:42, Scott)

3. Civil-Military Relations and The "Seditious Six"

Timestamps: 70:23–86:56

Congressional Outcry and Legal Realities

• The Trump administration (and some allies) labeled six Democratic legislators—current or former service members—the “Seditious Six” for stating that military personnel must only follow lawful orders, with specific legal threats against Senator Mark Kelly. (70:23, Scott)
• Ben Wittes: “I just think it’s mostly just intimidation and very little else… There is no prospect of doing any prosecution of anybody for sedition.” (72:18, Ben)
• Natalie Orpet reinforces that the obligation to disobey unlawful orders is crystal clear in US military law (Article 90, UCMJ, and case law like US v. Calley).
  • “The legal expertise within the Department of Defense has been completely gutted… They’ve really been marginalized from the decision-making process.” (76:47, Natalie)
• Intelligence community personnel are in a murkier situation—rules are classified and protections more ambiguous. (78:06, Natalie; 85:31, Eric)
• Service members face enormous institutional pressures not to resist even unlawful orders—hence the essential need for Congressional and public oversight.

Bigger Picture Warnings

• “It is not hard for me to envision why it is so hard for service members… for them to say ‘Yeah, but if I say no, what’s going to happen to me and my family?’ That’s a horrible position to put service members in.” (82:13, Scott)
• Scott: “The real solution… has to be to put pressure on Congress and on the administration…” (85:00, Scott)
• Eric (from CIA perspective): “The rules and procedures are quite difficult to understand… the Trump administration’s destruction of inspectors general and ombudsman and other forms of dissent means a lot of employees are probably asking, ‘what are my responsibilities? What can happen to me?’” (85:50, Eric)

Notable Quotes & Highlights (with Timestamps)

• “It’s highly unstructured… I don’t know who is really ascendant and who’s in charge here.” (15:34–15:37, Eric)
• “The administration is being repeatedly saved by Vladimir Putin.” (18:39, Ben)
• “There are absolutely no indications that any of the sides are moving closer on the essential, sensitive issues—territory, Ukraine’s security arrangements, and frozen Russian central bank assets.” (11:33, Eric)
• “No way, no how is this legal or appropriate.” (52:38, Ben)
• “If you’re conducting military operations and someone is completely helpless in the water clinging to wreckage… it’s not [legal].” (41:05, Natalie)
• “This is just straight-up murder.” (43:09, Natalie)
• “It is not hard for me to envision why it is so hard for service members… for them to say ‘Yeah, but if I say no, what’s going to happen to me and my family?’” (82:13, Scott)

Object Lessons (87:11-end)

The hosts close with their signature “object lessons”:

• Ben Wittes: Uses his “emeritus” status to take a mulligan—no object lesson. (87:26)
• Eric Charmela: Recommends Eddie Fishman’s book Choke Points on the history and mechanics of American sanctions. (87:48)
• Scott R. Anderson: Urges listeners to try Sharon Jones & The Dap-Kings’ holiday soul album Holiday Soul Party for festive gatherings. (89:39)
• Natalie Orpet: Shares an important Lawfare National Guard deployment tracker resource—and a favorite stuffing recipe for good measure. (90:17)

Overall Tone and Takeaway

The conversation took a skeptical, at times somber tone reflecting deep concern about the lack of policy coherence, abuse of legal rationales, and real dangers for “front-line” service members and the broader structure of American civil-military relations. There is, however, also dry humor and camaraderie, and a sincere hope for continued oversight and reform.

For those not listening: This episode is an unvarnished, deeply informed dive into current US national security dilemmas, mixing sharp legal analysis, institutional critique, and warnings about the direction of executive power and military policy. If you want a preview of the debates shaping Washington’s national security establishment—and anxieties about the future—this is required listening (or reading).