The Lawfare Podcast – Rational Security: The “Living La Vida Off Camera” Edition

Date: December 3, 2025
Host: Scott R. Andersen
Guests: Benjamin Wittes, Eric Charmela, Natalie Orbit

Episode Overview

This episode, recorded "old school" (audio-only, not for YouTube), brings together members of the Lawfare team for an energetic, candid discussion on major national security developments from the previous two weeks. The conversation centers on (1) the Trump administration’s zigzagging efforts at Ukraine-Russia peace negotiation, (2) the "war crime on drugs" controversy involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. strikes in the Caribbean, and (3) the administration’s escalating attacks on the so-called “Seditious Six”—current or former service members in Congress speaking about the obligation to disobey unlawful orders. The team also dives into legal, political, institutional, and international implications throughout.

Podcast Format & Tone
Main Discussion Points
Notable Quotes
Key Segment Timestamps
Object Lessons
Summary Takeaways and Themes

Podcast Format & Tone

Casual, humorous, and at times self-deprecating "off-camera" banter (including references to home recording setups as “murder basements”).
Candid, sometimes somber analysis of serious legal and ethical questions.
Distinct voices: Scott as host and facilitator, Ben's dry wit, Eric's Ukraine/Russia expertise, Natalie's legal precision.
Maintains Lawfare’s balance of insider expertise and accessibility for the informed listener.

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Administration’s Chaotic Ukraine Diplomacy

[Starts ~07:00]

Background: Attempts at a Ukraine-Russia peace process via a controversial 28-point plan (seen as parroting Russian demands), then a revised 19-point plan after backlash. Russians ultimately reject even the revised version.
Process Issues:
- Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Moscow, engaging in backchannel talks; process described as chaotic, poorly coordinated, and driven by competing internal factions within the Trump administration.
- Administration lacks clear internal policy on Ukraine, with Trump mainly interested in "ending the war", not specific outcomes.
- Major policy actors: J.D. Vance faction (Euroskeptic, reduce commitment to Ukraine), “China hawks” (prioritize Asia), and a minority of traditional conservatives who still consider Ukraine a security priority.
- Dynamic process with policy constantly shifting (“the third bout of weird shuttle diplomacy”).
EU and European Response:
- Europeans feel excluded, repeatedly have to “mitigate damage” after U.S. proposals.
- Macron and other European leaders try to re-assert a role, highlight lack of a “viable plan,” and advocate for a stronger independent European security stance (but struggle to move on key issues like frozen Russian assets, concrete security guarantees).
War of Attrition Framing:
- Both Russia and Ukraine are “waiting until it’s too painful for the other side to continue.”
- Putin remains intransigent, focused on outlasting Western support, while Ukraine’s analysis remains more resilient than U.S. assessments but struggles with dwindling resources.

Eric Charmela [12:01]: “We have these really key issues that I have not yet seen any evidence that the sides are moving any closer. ... Putin has really dug in. ... The Ukrainians are still resolute that they don’t want to be forced to capitulate. So I still don’t see how this gets us anywhere else than where we’ve been, which is just round and round and no real progress towards a deal.”

Benjamin Wittes [20:24]: “The administration is being repeatedly saved by Vladimir Putin. ... The Ukrainians engage just enough ... so that the Russians then can’t take yes for an answer.”

Key challenges:

U.S. primarily pressures Ukraine, not Russia.
Congressional dynamics (including a potential new sanctions package) may be shifting, opening space for more robust opposition to administration policy.
European action is reactive, hampered by lack of unity and strategic vision.

2. “War Crime on Drugs”: Caribbean Strikes and Legal Controversy

[Starts ~38:04]

Inciting Incident: Media reports evidence that a September 2nd U.S. strike on a suspected narcotics boat involved a second attack, killing survivors who were helpless in the water—people considered "hors de combat" and explicitly protected under the law of armed conflict.
Key Issues:
- Legal and moral outrage because these facts “are the textbook example” of prohibited conduct in the Law of War manual.
- The U.S. government’s convoluted legal rationalization: Is this a war? The administration claims a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels. Most lawyers, and international community, see this as extrajudicial killing/murder, not a “war crime”—because no armed conflict exists.
- Natalie Orbit [41:54]: “Even this discussion is actually not the right discussion... We just are not here in a law of armed conflict world... This is just straight up murder.”
- Broader problem of blurred legal lines: Definitions of “combatant,” “armed group,” and circumstances justifying use of military force (legacy of expanded counterterrorism frameworks post-9/11).
- Long-term risks: Setting dangerous international precedent for who can be lawfully targeted with lethal force.
- Accountability prospects: Unlikely domestically (pardons, lack of prosecution appetite), and limited prospects for international justice (ICC, universal jurisdiction) due to U.S. legal and political protections for officials.

Benjamin Wittes [52:25]: “My view is sort of a series of even ifs — Even if you believe this, it doesn’t follow that, that. ... And you have to go through a lot of them before you can get to where Pete Hegseth is, which is ... ‘boy, it’s badass to blow up people after you’ve blown them up once.’ And that’s where I think the administration is... and I do think it is important to say, no way, no how is this legal or appropriate.”

3. The "Seditious Six": Legal and Political Dynamics of Civil-Military Relations

[Starts ~74:20]

Six legislators (ex- or current service members) accused by the Trump administration of sedition for reminders that service members must only follow lawful orders.
Administration threatens Senator Mark Kelly and others with possible prosecution or court-martial (legally possible, but highly controversial if based solely on protected speech).
Expert consensus: There's essentially no legal basis for prosecution—this is intimidation and retaliation for dissent.
Military law basics: Service members are obliged to disobey manifestly illegal orders (UCMJ, Article 90; case law: U.S. v. Calley). Real challenges are institutional: Service members rarely have the support or protection needed to resist in practice, especially with oversight and legal expertise in the Pentagon eroded.
Distinction: Intelligence community's rules are even less transparent or accessible than the military's.
Host reflection: Real solution is not placing all burden on service members, but restoring congressional oversight and institutional accountability.

Benjamin Wittes [76:22]: “I just think it’s mostly just intimidation and very little else. ... I don’t think there’s any serious prospect of prosecution of any of these people. ... but if you’re willing to bring frivolous litigation, you can do that. So I think you have to take it seriously as part of a broad campaign to intimidate.”

Scott R. Andersen [83:50]: “The only way we can reasonably expect [service members] to do that regularly is if they have institutionalized support. ... The real solution ... has to be to put pressure on Congress, on the administration, to go back and say, no, it is actually okay to second guess these orders.”

Notable Quotes & Moments

Natalie Orbit [45:03]: “The administration has been claiming we know that these people, our combatants, we know exactly who they are. ... but even again taking the Law of War Manual at its face ... there was a 2023 revision ... commanders have to presume the object is a civilian. ... and if you’re not in a law of armed conflict world, you’re not looking for combatants.”
Eric Charmela [28:51]: “[The] Europeans ... have not been proactive ... hoping for the United States to suddenly wake up and realize that Russia is the main threat and Ukraine is a partner ... is very unlikely. … Europeans are going to have to start taking steps to assert themselves.”
Scott R. Andersen [86:09]: “... it's not hard for me to envision why it is so hard for service members who may really have reason to think ... they're being told to do something unlawful ... to say, ‘yeah, but if I say no, what’s going to happen to me and my family?’ That’s a horrible position…”

Key Segment Timestamps

| Topic | Timestamp | |----------------------------------------|------------------| | Opening banter & podcast introductions | 00:59 – 04:23 | | Ukraine Diplomacy: Background/setup | 04:23 – 17:35 | | Putin, European angle, ‘cycle’ analysis| 17:35 – 31:39 | | War of attrition dynamics, US politics | 31:39 – 38:04 | | "War crime on drugs" controversy | 38:04 – 68:06 | | Laws of armed conflict debate | 41:34 – 63:44 | | Counterterrorism comparisons, ICC | 54:17 – 66:01 | | “Seditious Six”/civil-military | 74:20 – 90:52 | | Object Lessons (book, music, tracker) | 91:07 – 95:50 |

Object Lessons

Ben: “My object lesson is a mulligan.” (Didn’t prepare one, invoked a rare host’s privilege!)
Eric: Recommends "Chokepoints" by Eddie Fishman, a readable history of U.S. sanctions, with personal stories and analysis of how the U.S. weaponized the international financial system [91:44].
Scott: “A Holiday Soul Party” by Sharon Jones & the Dap-Kings; recommends soul holiday music for festive gatherings [92:41].
Natalie: Points to Lawfare’s new tracker on National Guard deployments—a crucial resource for understanding the growing use of the military on U.S. soil. Also, lighter note: offers her favorite olive stuffing recipe [94:14].

Summary Takeaways and Themes

Strategic Dysfunction: The Trump administration’s Ukraine policy reveals a pattern of “chaotic shuttle diplomacy”—disjointed decision-making, power struggles, lack of coherent strategy, and a reactive rather than proactive approach from Europe.
Legal Red Lines Transgressed: The use of military force against alleged drug traffickers, and the apparent normalization of dubious counterterrorism legal rationalizations, exposes dangerous evisceration of U.S. and international legal norms regarding the use of force and protection of civilians.
Civil-Military Relations—A Dangerous Precipice: The open threat to legislators for speaking about the obligation to disobey unlawful orders is unprecedented intimidation—shining a bright light on broader institutional failures and the urgent need for robust oversight, legal clarity, and protection for those who uphold rule of law.
Accountability Gaps: Both international (ICC, universal jurisdiction) and U.S. domestic accountability for these violations are more hypothetical than real—pardons, legal loopholes, and lack of political will predominate.
Call for Institutional Reform: Real solutions to civil-military and use-of-force crises start not with burdening individual service members but with restoring congressional will, institutional legal infrastructure, and a culture of lawful accountability.

For further discussion and past episodes:
Visit lawfareblog.com and check their written work, podcasts, and resources.

This summary omits advertisement sections, focusing solely on substantive content.

The Lawfare Podcast – Rational Security: The “Living La Vida Off Camera” Edition

Date: December 3, 2025
Host: Scott R. Andersen
Guests: Benjamin Wittes, Eric Charmela, Natalie Orbit

Podcast Format & Tone

Casual, humorous, and at times self-deprecating "off-camera" banter (including references to home recording setups as “murder basements”).
Candid, sometimes somber analysis of serious legal and ethical questions.
Distinct voices: Scott as host and facilitator, Ben's dry wit, Eric's Ukraine/Russia expertise, Natalie's legal precision.
Maintains Lawfare’s balance of insider expertise and accessibility for the informed listener.

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Administration’s Chaotic Ukraine Diplomacy

[Starts ~07:00]

Background: Attempts at a Ukraine-Russia peace process via a controversial 28-point plan (seen as parroting Russian demands), then a revised 19-point plan after backlash. Russians ultimately reject even the revised version.
Process Issues:
- Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Moscow, engaging in backchannel talks; process described as chaotic, poorly coordinated, and driven by competing internal factions within the Trump administration.
- Administration lacks clear internal policy on Ukraine, with Trump mainly interested in "ending the war", not specific outcomes.
- Major policy actors: J.D. Vance faction (Euroskeptic, reduce commitment to Ukraine), “China hawks” (prioritize Asia), and a minority of traditional conservatives who still consider Ukraine a security priority.
- Dynamic process with policy constantly shifting (“the third bout of weird shuttle diplomacy”).
EU and European Response:
- Europeans feel excluded, repeatedly have to “mitigate damage” after U.S. proposals.
- Macron and other European leaders try to re-assert a role, highlight lack of a “viable plan,” and advocate for a stronger independent European security stance (but struggle to move on key issues like frozen Russian assets, concrete security guarantees).
War of Attrition Framing:
- Both Russia and Ukraine are “waiting until it’s too painful for the other side to continue.”
- Putin remains intransigent, focused on outlasting Western support, while Ukraine’s analysis remains more resilient than U.S. assessments but struggles with dwindling resources.

Eric Charmela [12:01]: “We have these really key issues that I have not yet seen any evidence that the sides are moving any closer. ... Putin has really dug in. ... The Ukrainians are still resolute that they don’t want to be forced to capitulate. So I still don’t see how this gets us anywhere else than where we’ve been, which is just round and round and no real progress towards a deal.”

Benjamin Wittes [20:24]: “The administration is being repeatedly saved by Vladimir Putin. ... The Ukrainians engage just enough ... so that the Russians then can’t take yes for an answer.”

Key challenges:

U.S. primarily pressures Ukraine, not Russia.
Congressional dynamics (including a potential new sanctions package) may be shifting, opening space for more robust opposition to administration policy.
European action is reactive, hampered by lack of unity and strategic vision.

2. “War Crime on Drugs”: Caribbean Strikes and Legal Controversy

[Starts ~38:04]

Inciting Incident: Media reports evidence that a September 2nd U.S. strike on a suspected narcotics boat involved a second attack, killing survivors who were helpless in the water—people considered "hors de combat" and explicitly protected under the law of armed conflict.
Key Issues:
- Legal and moral outrage because these facts “are the textbook example” of prohibited conduct in the Law of War manual.
- The U.S. government’s convoluted legal rationalization: Is this a war? The administration claims a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels. Most lawyers, and international community, see this as extrajudicial killing/murder, not a “war crime”—because no armed conflict exists.
- Natalie Orbit [41:54]: “Even this discussion is actually not the right discussion... We just are not here in a law of armed conflict world... This is just straight up murder.”
- Broader problem of blurred legal lines: Definitions of “combatant,” “armed group,” and circumstances justifying use of military force (legacy of expanded counterterrorism frameworks post-9/11).
- Long-term risks: Setting dangerous international precedent for who can be lawfully targeted with lethal force.
- Accountability prospects: Unlikely domestically (pardons, lack of prosecution appetite), and limited prospects for international justice (ICC, universal jurisdiction) due to U.S. legal and political protections for officials.

Benjamin Wittes [52:25]: “My view is sort of a series of even ifs — Even if you believe this, it doesn’t follow that, that. ... And you have to go through a lot of them before you can get to where Pete Hegseth is, which is ... ‘boy, it’s badass to blow up people after you’ve blown them up once.’ And that’s where I think the administration is... and I do think it is important to say, no way, no how is this legal or appropriate.”

3. The "Seditious Six": Legal and Political Dynamics of Civil-Military Relations

[Starts ~74:20]

Six legislators (ex- or current service members) accused by the Trump administration of sedition for reminders that service members must only follow lawful orders.
Administration threatens Senator Mark Kelly and others with possible prosecution or court-martial (legally possible, but highly controversial if based solely on protected speech).
Expert consensus: There's essentially no legal basis for prosecution—this is intimidation and retaliation for dissent.
Military law basics: Service members are obliged to disobey manifestly illegal orders (UCMJ, Article 90; case law: U.S. v. Calley). Real challenges are institutional: Service members rarely have the support or protection needed to resist in practice, especially with oversight and legal expertise in the Pentagon eroded.
Distinction: Intelligence community's rules are even less transparent or accessible than the military's.
Host reflection: Real solution is not placing all burden on service members, but restoring congressional oversight and institutional accountability.

Benjamin Wittes [76:22]: “I just think it’s mostly just intimidation and very little else. ... I don’t think there’s any serious prospect of prosecution of any of these people. ... but if you’re willing to bring frivolous litigation, you can do that. So I think you have to take it seriously as part of a broad campaign to intimidate.”

Scott R. Andersen [83:50]: “The only way we can reasonably expect [service members] to do that regularly is if they have institutionalized support. ... The real solution ... has to be to put pressure on Congress, on the administration, to go back and say, no, it is actually okay to second guess these orders.”

Notable Quotes & Moments

Natalie Orbit [45:03]: “The administration has been claiming we know that these people, our combatants, we know exactly who they are. ... but even again taking the Law of War Manual at its face ... there was a 2023 revision ... commanders have to presume the object is a civilian. ... and if you’re not in a law of armed conflict world, you’re not looking for combatants.”
Eric Charmela [28:51]: “[The] Europeans ... have not been proactive ... hoping for the United States to suddenly wake up and realize that Russia is the main threat and Ukraine is a partner ... is very unlikely. … Europeans are going to have to start taking steps to assert themselves.”
Scott R. Andersen [86:09]: “... it's not hard for me to envision why it is so hard for service members who may really have reason to think ... they're being told to do something unlawful ... to say, ‘yeah, but if I say no, what’s going to happen to me and my family?’ That’s a horrible position…”

Key Segment Timestamps

Object Lessons

Ben: “My object lesson is a mulligan.” (Didn’t prepare one, invoked a rare host’s privilege!)
Eric: Recommends "Chokepoints" by Eddie Fishman, a readable history of U.S. sanctions, with personal stories and analysis of how the U.S. weaponized the international financial system [91:44].
Scott: “A Holiday Soul Party” by Sharon Jones & the Dap-Kings; recommends soul holiday music for festive gatherings [92:41].
Natalie: Points to Lawfare’s new tracker on National Guard deployments—a crucial resource for understanding the growing use of the military on U.S. soil. Also, lighter note: offers her favorite olive stuffing recipe [94:14].

Summary Takeaways and Themes

Strategic Dysfunction: The Trump administration’s Ukraine policy reveals a pattern of “chaotic shuttle diplomacy”—disjointed decision-making, power struggles, lack of coherent strategy, and a reactive rather than proactive approach from Europe.
Legal Red Lines Transgressed: The use of military force against alleged drug traffickers, and the apparent normalization of dubious counterterrorism legal rationalizations, exposes dangerous evisceration of U.S. and international legal norms regarding the use of force and protection of civilians.
Civil-Military Relations—A Dangerous Precipice: The open threat to legislators for speaking about the obligation to disobey unlawful orders is unprecedented intimidation—shining a bright light on broader institutional failures and the urgent need for robust oversight, legal clarity, and protection for those who uphold rule of law.
Accountability Gaps: Both international (ICC, universal jurisdiction) and U.S. domestic accountability for these violations are more hypothetical than real—pardons, legal loopholes, and lack of political will predominate.
Call for Institutional Reform: Real solutions to civil-military and use-of-force crises start not with burdening individual service members but with restoring congressional will, institutional legal infrastructure, and a culture of lawful accountability.

For further discussion and past episodes:
Visit lawfareblog.com and check their written work, podcasts, and resources.

This summary omits advertisement sections, focusing solely on substantive content.

wavePod

Rational Security: The “Living La Vida Off Camera” Edition

Powered by Wave AI

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast – Rational Security: The “Living La Vida Off Camera” Edition

Date: December 3, 2025
Host: Scott R. Andersen
Guests: Benjamin Wittes, Eric Charmela, Natalie Orbit

Episode Overview

Table of Contents

Podcast Format & Tone

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Administration’s Chaotic Ukraine Diplomacy

2. “War Crime on Drugs”: Caribbean Strikes and Legal Controversy

3. The "Seditious Six": Legal and Political Dynamics of Civil-Military Relations

Notable Quotes & Moments

Key Segment Timestamps

Object Lessons

Summary Takeaways and Themes

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast – Rational Security: The “Living La Vida Off Camera” Edition

Date: December 3, 2025
Host: Scott R. Andersen
Guests: Benjamin Wittes, Eric Charmela, Natalie Orbit

Episode Overview

Table of Contents

Podcast Format & Tone

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Administration’s Chaotic Ukraine Diplomacy

2. “War Crime on Drugs”: Caribbean Strikes and Legal Controversy

3. The "Seditious Six": Legal and Political Dynamics of Civil-Military Relations

Notable Quotes & Moments

Key Segment Timestamps

Object Lessons

Summary Takeaways and Themes

Rational Security: The “Living La Vida Off Camera” Edition

Powered by Wave AI

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast – Rational Security: The “Living La Vida Off Camera” Edition

Date: December 3, 2025 Host: Scott R. Andersen Guests: Benjamin Wittes, Eric Charmela, Natalie Orbit

Episode Overview

Table of Contents

Podcast Format & Tone

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Administration’s Chaotic Ukraine Diplomacy

2. “War Crime on Drugs”: Caribbean Strikes and Legal Controversy

3. The "Seditious Six": Legal and Political Dynamics of Civil-Military Relations

Notable Quotes & Moments

Key Segment Timestamps

Object Lessons

Summary Takeaways and Themes

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast – Rational Security: The “Living La Vida Off Camera” Edition

Date: December 3, 2025 Host: Scott R. Andersen Guests: Benjamin Wittes, Eric Charmela, Natalie Orbit

Episode Overview

Table of Contents

Podcast Format & Tone

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Administration’s Chaotic Ukraine Diplomacy

2. “War Crime on Drugs”: Caribbean Strikes and Legal Controversy

3. The "Seditious Six": Legal and Political Dynamics of Civil-Military Relations

Notable Quotes & Moments

Key Segment Timestamps

Object Lessons

Summary Takeaways and Themes

Date: December 3, 2025
Host: Scott R. Andersen
Guests: Benjamin Wittes, Eric Charmela, Natalie Orbit

Date: December 3, 2025
Host: Scott R. Andersen
Guests: Benjamin Wittes, Eric Charmela, Natalie Orbit