PDB Situation Report | February 22, 2025: Is A Shooting War Coming In Mexico? & Peace Talks Over Ukraine Begin

Summary

The President's Daily Brief: February 22, 2025

Host: Mike Baker
Guests:

• Todd Bensman: Senior National Security Fellow, Center for Immigration Studies
• Steve Yates: Senior Research Fellow for China and National Security Policy, Heritage Foundation

---

1. Mexico's Escalating Conflict with Drug Cartels

Mexico is undergoing a significant policy shift in its ongoing battle against powerful drug cartels. Historically adhering to a "hugs not bullets" approach, the Mexican government, under President Claudia Sheinbaum, has been compelled to adopt a more aggressive stance due to mounting pressure from the United States, particularly from President Trump.

• Deployment of Troops: Mexico has deployed 10,000 troops to cartel-controlled territories along the northern border, shifting focus from merely curbing illegal immigration to directly combating transnational criminal organizations and halting fentanyl production.

  Steve Yates [08:47]: "Claudia Sheinbaum's, you know, the business elite of Mexico. So she had to do something to comply first, stop all the illegal immigration and next, her mission, her agreement is that they are going to kinetically attack the cartels and they're going to stop the fentanyl, they're going to dismantle the cartels."

• Implications of the Shift: This move marks a departure from previous strategies and raises concerns about the potential for escalating violence.

  Steve Yates [10:53]: "Doing it, let's just say their heart is not in it. But you know, Trump's out there saying, well, that's a nice economy you got there. Mexico would be a shame if anything bad happened to it."

2. US Designation of Cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations

The United States is considering designating Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), a move that would unlock a range of punitive measures against these groups.

• Enhanced Authority: This designation would allow the US Treasury Department to freeze assets, block access to global financial systems, and charge individuals and entities with material support for terrorism.

  Steve Yates [18:52]: "This really allows the United States to go in and the Treasury Department and really muck things up for them and isolate their ability, isolate them from the groups and other people and institutions that they use to do business around the world."

• Potential Consequences: The move aims to disrupt the cartels' financial operations and limit their capacity to sustain their illicit activities.

  Steve Yates [20:17]: "They have signed the arrows in the quiver for that at least."

3. US-Russia Negotiations in Riyadh to End the Ukraine War

Delegations from the US and Russia met in Riyadh to discuss potential pathways to end the protracted conflict in Ukraine. Notably, Ukraine was excluded from these talks, raising questions about the legitimacy and future of any agreements reached.

• Exclusion of Ukraine: The absence of Ukrainian representatives has sparked concerns about the inclusivity and fairness of the negotiations.

  Todd Bensman [29:20]: "Ukraine was missing, obviously, Ukraine wasn't present, but Keith Kellogg has been in Ukraine a lot and he has a lot of experience having been in Ukraine before."

• Trump's Stance on Zelensky: President Trump openly criticized Ukrainian President Zelensky, labeling him a "dictator without elections" and attributing much of the blame for the war to Zelensky.

  Todd Bensman [29:20]: "President Trump had some sharp words for the Ukrainian leader, labeling Zelensky as a, quote, dictator without elections, end quote."

• Outcome and Future Prospects: The discussions in Riyadh are seen as an initial attempt to set the groundwork for future negotiations, but without Ukraine's involvement, the path to a durable peace remains uncertain.

  Steve Yates [37:31]: "So this might just be a different way of inchworming toward where this sit down might ultimately get."

4. China's Strategic Position Amid US Distractions

While the US grapples with internal and external challenges, China continues to advance its strategic interests, potentially capitalizing on US distractions to strengthen its global standing.

• Economic Challenges: China's domestic economy faces significant hurdles, including a looming property bubble and a declining birth rate, which could impede its long-term growth and stability.

  Mike Baker [44:58]: "They have a property bubble that's awful. You can see videos of huge multiplexes of high rises getting demolitioned."

• Supply Chain Realignment: The US is actively seeking to reduce its dependency on China by investing in joint manufacturing ventures with allies like Japan and India, aiming to bolster its defense and technological sectors.

  Mike Baker [48:10]: "There was a lot under the umbrella of this AI infrastructure initiative that's up to a trillion dollars... ways to fill some of these gaps on a nearer timeline and they're open to that."

• Technological and Military Preparedness: Efforts to enhance US manufacturing capabilities domestically and with allied nations are seen as crucial steps to counterbalance China's growing influence.

  Mike Baker [50:27]: "Our main advantage is that our technology is better and our fighting force is proven, trained, combat experienced and ready."

5. Taiwan's Ongoing Challenges and US Policies

Taiwan remains a critical flashpoint in US-China relations, with ongoing tensions exacerbated by tariffs and strategic maneuvers from both sides.

• Tariff Implications: The US administration is considering imposing tariffs on the middle segments of Taiwan’s technological supply chain, which could disrupt the broader industry and economic relations.

  Mike Baker [54:48]: "They have this tariff challenge coming on the other end."

• US Policies Towards Taiwan: There is a shift towards fostering a deeper economic and strategic partnership with Taiwan, emphasizing co-manufacturing and reducing reliance on Chinese supply chains.

  Mike Baker [55:27]: "They're going to be looking to accentuate to sort of follow the Japan and India models of how are they investing more in the United States."

• China's Coercion Campaign: Taiwan continues to face relentless efforts from China to assert dominance, including cyber attacks and gray zone operations, which remain the most targeted geography per capita globally.

  Mike Baker [52:36]: "Cyber attacks are constant. It's probably the most attacked geography on the planet per capita."

---

Conclusion

The episode of The President's Daily Brief delves into the escalating tensions along Mexico's border with the aggressive stance against drug cartels, the complex and somewhat exclusionary US-Russia negotiations to end the Ukraine war, and the broader strategic maneuvers by China amidst US internal and external distractions. Additionally, Taiwan's precarious position continues to be a focal point in US-China relations, underscoring the multifaceted challenges faced by the United States in maintaining global stability and security.

Notable Quotes:

• Steve Yates [08:47]: "Claudia Sheinbaum... are going to kinetically attack the cartels and they're going to stop the fentanyl, they're going to dismantle the cartels."

• Steve Yates [18:52]: "This really allows the United States... isolate their ability, isolate them from the groups and other people and institutions that they use to do business around the world."

• Todd Bensman [29:20]: "President Trump had some sharp words for the Ukrainian leader, labeling Zelensky as a... dictator without elections."

• Mike Baker [44:58]: "They have a property bubble that's awful. You can see videos of huge multiplexes of high rises getting demolitioned."

• Mike Baker [50:27]: "Our main advantage is that our technology is better and our fighting force is proven, trained, combat experienced and ready."

---

For more insights and detailed analyses, listen to the full episode of The President's Daily Brief hosted by Mike Baker.

Transcript

[Mike Baker]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

[Todd Bensman]

Welcome to the PDB Situation report. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right, let's get briefed. We'll start things off today with the latest in the fight against Mexico's drug cartels. Now, as Mexico's government sends thousands of troops into cartel territory, could it be on the brink of an all out shooting war with these powerful criminal organizations? Senior national security fellow for the center for Immigration Studies, Todd Bensman. Well, he helps us answer that question later in the show. Delegations from the US And Russia were in Saudi Arabia this week working toward ending the war in Ukraine. We'll be joined by Steve Yates of the Heritage foundation will give us his insights on the negotiations. But first, today's SITUATION report. Spotlight Mexico's decades old hugs, not bullets policy toward drug cartels is rapidly being challenged as President Claudius Shinebaum faces pressure from President Trump to take more aggressive action. In a dramatic shift, Sheinbaum has been forced to deploy 10,000 troops to cartel territory along Mexico's northern border with a focus at least ostensibly on taking on transnational criminal organizations and halting fentanyl production. Now this marks a significant departure from previous efforts that focused primarily on stemming illegal immigration. But with cartels already ramping up violent responses, could Mexico be on the verge of a full blown war? Todd Bensman, senior national security fellow for the center for Immigration Studies, joins us to break down the implications of this escalating situation. Todd, thanks very much for joining us here on THE SITUATION report.

[Steve Yates]

Great to be here. Thank you.

[Todd Bensman]

There's so much to talk about here both from the Mexican perspective and from the US Perspective in terms of taking on the cartels and what that could mean. But you, you've written recently some, some very interesting articles and you touched on, on something that I think is very emotive. I suspect a lot of people are landing on the fainting couch over this, but you've written a recent piece talking about the, the way in which currently we're dealing with deportees. Talk to me about that.

[Steve Yates]

Sure. This, this all started when the deportation by air began. You may remember that we sent a couple of military flights, I think they were C17s, to Columbia, and that president turned the planes around and Kind of got into a kerfuffle with Trump over that. Trump said, oh, it's going to be 50% tariffs, it looks like, on you if you don't take them. But the main complaint by the Colombians was, was that, you know, you've got them cuffed and shackled like, like, you know, they're animals or something. And, you know, that's humiliating and we just can't have that. And then, you know, just a couple days ago, chief Border Patrol agent Mike Banks put a couple of videos out showing Indian deportees being flown back to New Delhi chained and cuffed. And I mean, the whole country of India just lit up on fire over this thing. And they're still mad about it, going on and on and on about like, how dare they cough and chain people. And all of liberal America has now picked up on it. And everybody's like, you just, this is cruel and terrible that you're doing this. And so I thought that we needed to just address this and remind Americans that why we do that, why we, that there's a very good reason for that. It was just a few years ago, you may recall the Del Rio migrant camp crisis. Del Rio, Texas. 15,000 Haitians under the bridge there. Just ahead of the midterm campaign season. It had to go. You couldn't have Democrats running in the midterms with that thing raging under the bridge. So they decided to do good old fashioned Trumpian tactics and bring the Haitians back to Port au Prince on aircraft. So they didn't restrain them. And those Haitians rioted at 30,000ft, tore the planes up, completely destroyed the planes on the interior while the pilots were at the control behind a very thin locked door, you know, those pilot cabinets, cabins. They landed and wouldn't get off. They had to be dragged off. Then they boarded another flight and tried to hijack it. And this went on several more flights back in Texas. As they were on the Runway, they got the message on their cell phones and just rioted on the flights. Then they mutinied on the buses that were on the way to the Laughlin airfield, seized the drivers and threw them off, took the bus, took control of the buses. Three, four, five of them escaped. I mean, it was a. They didn't restrain them is the problem. And they learned under the Biden administration, you got to restrain people who do not desperately do not want to be on these flights. And there's only two or three ICE officers and a couple of pilots hiding in the cabin. And that's why we do it. You, you do it for that reason, even if they're not criminal aliens.

[Todd Bensman]

Were the deportees after those incidents during the Biden administration? I mean, did the Biden administration restrain using cuffs or shackles as we want, as you're calling them, for subsequent flights?

[Steve Yates]

Of course they smartened up. That's, that's what you do.

[Todd Bensman]

And, and was there any coverage? Was, was there any coverage from the media at the time? Was there any outrage expressed when the Biden administration started doing that?

[Steve Yates]

Nobody even knew. The only reason I remembered it is because I wrote a book called Overrun, and I have a whole chapter dedicated to that camp crisis. And I put it all together, and, you know, I actually found one of the pilots on the first flight who showed me his cell phone photos of what happened in the interior of his cabin while he was hiding on, on the, in the, at the controls.

[Mike Baker]

And there were.

[Steve Yates]

The Washington examiner did a couple of stories about the mutinies on the buses, et cetera. So, you know, I was able to kind of put this whole thing together. That's why they do this. It's for officer safety.

[Todd Bensman]

You know, if, if a Democrat administration did it, now a Republican administration did it, but now there's outrage. Well, Todd, it almost sounds like you're saying there's a double standard here.

[Steve Yates]

There's a little bit of a hint of hypocrisy in all of this, or, you know, nobody even really remarked much on the fact that the Biden administration, of all administrations, was doing air deportations of Haitians. They didn't really talk about that. Nobody. Because it was the Democrats doing it.

[Todd Bensman]

Yeah. No. Well, let's, let's move from, from that. I wanted to touch on that because it is fascinating. I think it's, again, not that we need, you know, more examples of, of, you know, the, how coverage occurs between different administrations. And certainly when we're talking about Trump, you know, we kind of know what's coming down the pike in terms of media coverage and sort of the sense of outrage that you may get from, from, from the progressive side. But let's look at the battle against cartel. I mean, let's start with on the Mexican side of the border. Now, President Sheinbaum, Claudia Sheinbaum, in reaction to, in part, in reaction to pressure, you know, from the Trump administration over tariffs, agreed to send some 10,000 troops or deploy 10,000 troops in addition to those that are already there to the border on the, on the Mexican side. But from your perspective, is the Mexican government serious about this, or is that just a Bit of theater to try to appease the Trump administration.

[Steve Yates]

Well, you have to remember that the shine bomb administration and the AMLO administration before her for six years had a, an official policy, I'm not making this up. This is their term called hug stop bull toward the cartels. It's the beauty of that term, of that phrase is that it's so self explanatory. They just did not want to confront the cartels militarily. So now here comes Trump and he's like, we're going to wipe them out. And he's using terminology like that, hyperbolic kind of Trumpian terminology. We're going to wipe them out, we're going to destroy them completely. It's all out war. So, you know, how are you going to do that? Well, you're not going to use U. S. Troops, you're going to use Mexican troops to do that. And the way you get them to do to, to change from hugs not bullets to bullets not hugs is to put a 25% trade tariff on all Mexican exports, which would send the Mexican economy very quickly into recession and really hurt a lot of her patrons. Claudia Sheinbaum's, you know, the business elite of Mexico. So she had to do something to comply first, stop all the illegal immigration and next, her mission, her agreement is that they are going to, to kinetically attack the cartels and they're going to stop the fentanyl, they're going to dismantle the cartels, quote, unquote. That's the official readout in the State Department and White House documents about what Mexico is supposed to do. They totally don't want to do that, but you know, they've got to show a few scalps here pretty soon just to keep those trade tariffs off.

[Todd Bensman]

John, it sounds like what you're saying is, is they'll take, you know, some steps, but really the only reason they're.

[Steve Yates]

Doing it, let's just say their heart is not in it. But you know, Trump's out there saying, well, that's a nice economy you got there. Mexico would be a shame if anything bad happened to it. And so they're, they're going to play ball to a certain extent. I do expect there to be some kind of fireworks in Mexico. They did deploy the 10,000 troops. They've got them in, starting to roll out, fan out in between the cartels and their money on our side, drug trafficking. And you have to remember that the cartels were making billions and billions of dollars for the last four years on human smuggling, bringing people in that's dried up completely now. That's gone. That spigot's off, that fire hose is clamped shut. So they've got only one thing and that's the drug trafficking, the fentanyl trafficking to keep going. And so they're going to fight. I expect they'll fight.

[Todd Bensman]

Yeah. No, you're raising a really important point here, which you said, look, it's all about the money, right? And they have various revenue streams. And now one of their key revenue streams, certainly over the past handful of years, as you noted, is, is going away, right, with the crackdown on, on migrants moving across the border, which was, was a big part of the cartel's business. So, yeah, I believe you're absolutely right. They're going to do whatever it takes to prevent losing another revenue stream. And that would be the narcotics trafficking. Todd, I'd love to pick up on this when we come back. And what we have to do now is we have to take a short break, so I'll ask you not to go anywhere and then we'll be right back with the PDB situation report. We've all been there, right? Tossing, turning, struggling to get quality sleep. I get it. When you don't sleep well, it's not just about feeling tired the next day. It makes you foggy at work, short tempered with people you actually like and it kills your energy. I've been there and I needed something that actually worked. That's where Beam's Dream Powder comes in. Now this isn't some gimmick. This is a science backed, healthy cocoa that actually helps you sleep better. I've tried it and it made the real difference. It comes in great flavors like sea salt, caramel brownie batter, vanilla chai, and my personal favorite, which would be cinnamon cocoa. It's only 15 calories per serving and zero sugar, which is important, so you can you get better sleep and without the guilt. Dream Powder is packed with natural ingredients. Reishi, magnesium, melatonin. All designed to help you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer without waking up groggy. We know what that feels like and you don't want it. Just mix it with hot water or milk before going to bed and you're good to go. Bob's your uncle. Look, if you want to try Beam's best selling Dream Powder, get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shop beam.com/Mike, that's M I K E just like you might imagine and use code mike at checkout. That's shop Beam b e a m.com and use code MIKE for up to 40% off. Ryan Seacrest here. When you have a busy schedule, it's important to maximize your downtime. One of the best ways to do that is by going to chumbacasino.com Chumba Casino has all your favorite social casino games like spin slots, bingo and solitaire that you can play for free for a chance to redeem some serious prizes. So hop on to chumbacasino.com now and live the Chumba Life. Sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Mike Baker]

No purchase necessary.

[Steve Yates]

VGW group Void where prohibited by law 21 + terms and conditions apply.

[Todd Bensman]

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me again is Todd Bensman, Senior National Security Fellow for the center for Immigration Studies. Todd, very much, thank you for sticking around. Let's move our perspective now to the US Side of the border with the designation of cartels as a foreign terrorist organization. I mean, I think we're already seeing increased involvement from the US military. And we recently on the PDB talked about involvement from the CIA use of Mk9 Reaper drones for, for surveillance. What, from your perspective, is the likelihood that the US I'm not talking about liaison relationship with Mexico. I'm talking about unilateral action. Based on your experience, the US under the Trump administration could start taking unilateral action against the cartel.

[Steve Yates]

So that is a big point of discussion and debate about whether that could happen or will happen. The way the administration talks about it is that they seem to be, like, aching for a fight, really spoiling for a direct fight. But I don't think they're going to do it. I think they're going to try to avoid it. That is a very tricky challenge to bilateral relations between the two countries. There's a lot at stake on our side with doing that, too. But I do, I do think that there is an elevated risk, though, that if the cartels feel cornered enough that they would attack people, personnel targets on our side of the border in frustration or anger or lashing out or whatever, because they are very cornered right now. We are setting the table to corner them and hurt them every possible way we can, short of direct kinetic activity. Now we are moving into place. You'll see, like in the Washington Post and New York Times right now, stories about, like, oh, well, with so few people crossing the border illegally, you know, why do we have all these troops down there? They're just not thinking about this the right way. The reason why we have, I think, troops down there, including moving the 10th Mountain Division into Fort Huachuca Arizona light infantry, famed light infantry force not far from, you know, the Mexican border is. Because they are incredible. They present a credible retaliatory threat should the cartels start to get interested in that sort of thing in the coming months. We also have moved in what's called littoral combat ships from the US Navy into the Gulf of America. Now I gotta get used to that. I mean, it's, it's the Interior Department need an official change, name change, so whatever, who am I to disagree? And also, we're putting spy planes, a lot of spy flights. We're clearly setting the table for something. We're repositioning CIA assets in Mexico to dramatically ramp up counter narcotics, counter cartel operations, meaning infiltration, possibly kinetic action down there, but certainly a whole lot of intelligence providing to the Mexicans. We also have the Green Berets down there now just moved in to start training Mexican naval infantry forces in what they called non conventional combat. So why wouldn't the Mexican cartels lash out at us? We're the ones causing all this trouble. So now we have a way, we have the means to strike back at them if necessary. And I don't think that they would hesitate if we lost a couple of border patrol agents. I mean, you think Trump's going to not go in?

[Todd Bensman]

Talk to me about the logistics. I mean, what, when we talk about naming a cartel as a foreign terrorist organization, what does that allow for the US Government to do?

[Steve Yates]

Well, it really emphasizes the full range of, of powers and authority, disciplinary power that we would put against like ISIS and Al Qaeda. Anybody that does business with them, we can charge them with material support for terrorism. A bank, a bank executive, Crips and Bloods on the streets of, you know, Chicago or Oakland or something. Potentially you can really mess up and foul up their operations, their drug moving operations. If you throw some terrorism charges at, at people there and here, you can also freeze their assets, block their, their access to banking systems and financial institutions all over the world. The cartels are everywhere. They're in 40, 50 different countries operating. And so this really allows the United States to go in and the Treasury Department and really muck things up for them and isolate their ability, isolate them from the groups and other people and institutions that are, that they use to do business around the world. So we'll see to what extent they were able to do those things. But they have the arrows in the quiver for that at least.

[Todd Bensman]

Okay. So it really expands the playing field and terms of what resources they can bring against the cartels at any Given time. I, I think it's, it's, it's fascinating because I think when people hear that, oh, it's a foreign terrorist organization designation. Right. And they, and there's always that comparison. Well, it could be like ISIS or Al Qaeda doing battle. The problem is we're talking about significantly different beasts in a way, from an operational perspective. So the cartels already have significant resources and personnel on the ground inside the US Right. As a result of years and years of developing their businesses or criminal organizations. And on the Mexican side, they operate much like a paramilitary operation as opposed to a criminal, you know, organization. Right. I mean, they're extremely well resourced and, and staffed. So I, I think it's, it's interesting because I'm hearing out there, I'm hearing, you know, a lot of people, not a lot, but I'm hearing people talking about how, yes, we should just take out the cartel. I don't think it's as easy as people are imagining.

[Steve Yates]

No, it's not. And we, we have fairly recent case study of this with the presidency of Philippe Calderon of Mexico, who went to war, called it, said we are. We declare war on the cartels militarily. And for six years, they, they did full combat operations all over Mexico and barely put a dent in the drug trafficking. And we were. The US they had us helping them with intelligence just kind of like now, like they're preparing to do now. So I kind of see a little bit of a replay. They're going to have to do something different. I think the designation is different. The will of the president, of the US President to really isolate them is something that's different as well. And we could actually suppress fentanyl. And so, I mean, this is really, a lot of, A lot of this is about fentanyl. And honestly, if I were the cartels, I would be like, you know, what? If their big issue is fentanyl, we'll just stop doing fentanyl and, you know, we'll keep on with heroin and all the other good stuff, but just not fentanyl and let them claim a win. But who knows how this is going to turn out? It is a wicked Homeland Security problem. Those cartels are brilliant at morphing and surviving like cockroaches and rats in a nuclear winter. Winter. We saw that with Calderon from 2006 to 2012. And by the way, I covered that war for four years on the ground in Mexico. So I know what I'm talking about with that.

[Todd Bensman]

Yeah, no, I was down there for part of that in and out during those, those years of his administration. And, and it was horrific. The violence was on a completely another level. And eventually the public just said that we've had enough.

[Mike Baker]

Right.

[Todd Bensman]

I think, you know, part of the change in approach to the cartels, going back to managing, which most administrations in Mexico over the years have done, they just, well, we just manage the problem, try to, try to get the violence down to almost an acceptable level and just allow them to do their business because they knew taking them on, head on, well, you know, you got what you got during the. They called their own administration. If you could get Shein Bomb's cooperation, I would argue the most effective way to go about this is in a liaison relationship, right. Is, is to use the Mexican Marines, which are probably the most trusted institution in Mexico at this stage of the game, given how endemic some of the corruption is. But, you know, I worry that, you know, it's, it's more of a, of a show, as we talked about earlier, on the part of the Mexican government to basically to try to keep Trump from pushing the tariffs, you know, and so I agree with you. They'll have to get a couple of scalps here to show that we're making some progress. But I think your phrasing is absolutely right. Their heart's not in it because they grew up and watched what happened during the Calderon administration.

[Steve Yates]

Everybody remembers that. And I'll also just add that I don't think the American electorate is going to tolerate American soldiers coming home in body bags from Mexico.

[Todd Bensman]

Yeah, that's a definite right. There is a striking, a striking image. But again, it's you, you raise a really good point. I hadn't thought about that. But from a business perspective, you're right. If you're, if you're a cartel and you're, you know, your revenue stream is being threatened, then you adapt and you say, fine, we'll just, we'll just, you know, what, frankly, stop the Fentanyl because they're going to come up with another new synthetic drug. They always do. To your point, they, they adapt very quickly. How do you, from, from your perspective, take on the, the cartels in a meaningful way to try to accomplish the objectives of, of the Trump administration?

[Steve Yates]

Well, I just remember George W. Bush, you know, making a decision in Iraq when the chips were down. You, you might remember in about 2005, 2006, we were loot, taking a lot of casualties, and George W. Bush came under tremendous pressure to pull the troops out and just wave the white flag and go home. And instead he put 30,000 more in. So it's, I do believe that all organizations can be wiped out militarily. Maybe that's, you know, that may be the solution that, you know, you got to put those 30,000 more in instead of waving the flag and retreating like Calderon did. You know, Hamas over in Israel is kind of similar. They were very good at morphing and surviving down in the tunnels and all the rest of this. And all they have to do to win is survive. That's it. They win the war. If they come out as a governing force of, of Gaza, they, they then, and the Israelis didn't, didn't wipe them out. So you have to be either fully committed to take this, the losses or not. And maybe, I mean, I'm not optimistic honestly. I think maybe the best outcome is, you know, we'll, we'll stop the fireworks if you just quit fentanyl, go ahead and send us your heroin and meth, just not the fentanyl. So it's maybe good for business, for cartel business with Trump in office to just shut that one drug off and let the Trump administration call a victory.

[Todd Bensman]

I take your point. I, you know, and, and I agree with you in terms of being pessimistic. You know, the problem if, if they go that route again, it's all about money making. And so they will move into, to a different synthetic drug. They will find a new, you know, bit of gear that they can move across the border. And, but I, I agree with your sort of that pessimistic stance and in part because, you know, look, we've, we're both old enough to have watched whatever you want to call it, the war on drugs, and how, unfortunately, how ineffective it's been through a number of administrations.

[Steve Yates]

We'll be able to tell somewhat if it's working, if the prices go up for everything. So, I mean, but, you know, all during The Calderon War, 2006 on, you know, we didn't really see much fluctuation in the, in the, in the cost, meaning the supply was still pretty steady all the way along. A lot of people died, but the money still and drugs kept rolling both ways. I mean, it's really a, a wicked problem to, to, to, to do. And again, let me just repeat, you know, as gratifying as a lot of Americans would feel if we sent the Navy seals in to just waste everybody, you know, I wait till the body bags start coming back. People are going to be like, wait, what? You know, we're having all these funerals, military funerals in Mexico. So it's going to happen. Mexicans. And the Mexicans, their heart's not really in it.

[Todd Bensman]

Well, Todd, I'd love to have you back on. We've got a lot more we could, we could look at and talk about. And, and I'd love to kind of dig into more issues related to immigration policies as well. So I hope next time we give you a call, you'll pick up the phone and you'll, you'll join us again on THE SITUATION report. But Todd Bensman of the center for Immigration Studies, listen, thanks very much, man, for joining us. Coming up, delegations from the U. S and Russia were in Saudi Arabia this week. Perhaps you read about it, pushing for an end to the war in Ukraine. What's at stake in these high stakes negotiations? Well, a lot. And we'll be joined by Steve Yates of the Heritage Foundation. He'll help us break it all down. Stay with us. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report.

[Mike Baker]

U.

[Todd Bensman]

S and Russian delegations were in Saudi Arabia this week. Perhaps you read about it. For talks aimed at ending the ongoing war or in Ukraine. Now, the discussions come as both sides push for a resolution to the conflict. But the process, well, has raised eyebrows, particularly with Ukrainians being excluded from the talks. So they did not get an invite. Meanwhile, President Trump had some sharp words for the Ukrainian leader, labeling Zelensky as a, quote, dictator without elections, end quote, and placing much of the blame for the war squarely on Zelensky's shoulders. Now, is this a sign of shifting US Priorities in the conflict or is it just the latest salvo in political rhetoric? Well, let's answer that question. Steve Yates from the Heritage foundation is joining us now to provide insight. Steve, thank you very much for coming back on THE SITUATION report. You're a real trooper, I'd say.

[Mike Baker]

Well, I'm happy to be back. We'll see whether I can help.

[Todd Bensman]

Well, if you can't, then we're going to have a very, very, very short interview here. All right. Let's see. Let's start with I'm fascinated by this, this situation, right. I, I have never and I don't know that anybody else has ever seen such important, significant negotiations kick off in this manner. But talk to me about the discussions in Riyadh that just took place between the US And Russia from your perspective. You know, obviously Ukraine was missing, obviously NATO allies were missing. But you know, give me your view from the 30,000 foot level.

[Mike Baker]

Well, it's definitely different, but we are in unprecedented times and circumstances in any number of different ways. I have kind of noted the Riyadh location as being interesting also in a number of ways. Obviously, Secretary Rubio arrived there and was talking with various folks about things that were not just Russia, Ukraine related. And having that sort of great power conversation there couldn't have gone unnoticed by Tehran. And so it's also a signal of where things may be going with regard to the broader Middle east revival of notions of Abraham accords elements, maximum pressure towards Iran, etc. Etc. We shall see. But that's sort of some of the preamble to the main course that was sitting across the table with Russia in Saudi Arabia. It's definitely true that Ukraine wasn't present, but Keith Kellogg has been in Ukraine a lot and he has a lot of experience having been in Ukraine before, going back to the White House as a special envoy this time. And Vice President Vance, Secretary Rubio, Secretary Hegseth, all have been through Europe. And so it's not as if they haven't been a part of conversations. They were not in this room. But it's also be really fair to say that the bases have not been touched. Now we do have the conversation in Riyadh. It's kind of hard to tell what exactly was transacted. It sure seemed to me to be kind of a temperature taker, a scene setter seemed like the President asked Secretary Rubio, give me a sense of are the Russians really willing to deal on some of the terms that we've talked about? Is there kind of a stable landing place here to reduce tensions and pick up where we are and just acknowledging that we aren't where we were in 21 and 22, that there's been three years of a war of attrition that's been grinding along. And so we're not really looking at optimal outcomes. We're looking at the outcomes we might work with now kind of set. And it seems like Secretary Rubio told the President that we've got something to work with. We shall see. At least that's the impression the President has hinted at.

[Todd Bensman]

Well, you know, look, I would argue I'm. I'm going to take a sort of a, you know, devil's advocate position here. We can get a peace deal any day of the week as long as we're okay with giving Russia what they want. And, and that seems to be, at least for now, Putin, I mean, through his mouthpiece, Sergey Lavrov, the foreign minister who was present in Riyadh, seems to be. Their position is that they, they're talking as if they believe that they have completely all the cards in the deck. So they're saying, look, first of all, you know, having any discussion about Ukraine being in NATO is off the table. Second, you have to renounce, you know, the 2008 NATO summit agreement or promise that, you know, Ukraine and Georgia could eventually be in NATO, and you can't have peacekeeping troops from other nations in Ukraine, you know, at the end of any, you know, peace deal, they just keep layering on, you know, their demands as if, you know, that's the starting point. And so I'm. I'm a little concerned. I think a lot of people are concerned that, you know, we may be so keen, so eager to get a peace deal that we're willing to. To go along with this. And I'm not sure that that's really a good idea. I also don't know, and I know that I take your point. Rubio has said that, well, of course, Ukraine will be part of the discussions down the road. Right. As will our NATO allies. But typically, if you've got an invaded country and you're going to sit down at the negotiating table to talk about the future of that invaded country, you might have somebody from the invaded country involved, you know, from the outset. And again, I'm sure there's some discussion going on in the background. Doesn't seem that way after the past day or so of. Of back and forth between Trump and Zelensky. I'm not. I'm not putting as. As much of a sugar coating on this as I think we got from, certainly from Witkoff and Mike Waltz, who were there in Riyadh.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, I think there's. There's pieces of this that I think are worth kicking around. Obviously, the relationship between Trump and Zelensky is. Was never good, and I don't think it's going to end up good. There is this substantive issue of we are fighting for democracy, but right now, Ukraine is not entering into an election cycle. And so there's going to be some bumps and bruises there, for sure. I also just don't take the first round. I see this as sort of like a heavyweight match where we're going to have multiple rounds. And so there's been jousting and floating of ideas and things that happened in the course of the campaign of things getting tossed out. There's been exploring of where things might go through the transition. So I think there's a lot of kicking the tires in multiple directions going on. So I don't take the Riyadh meeting as the beginning of even the really much more than just the first stage of where are we after three years of Joe Biden not talking with Putin at all? And we can argue whether you should or you shouldn't. But it's sort of to your point, to a degree. If you're going to get a durable peace deal, how are you going to get it if you don't have any talk directly with the Russian side? So this might just be a different way of inchworming toward where this sit down might ultimately get. But I think they would have been foolish to imagine that you're going to go to Riyadh, sit down and come out with a victory that's durable. This is at best a temperature take for how to, oh, yeah, no, I.

[Todd Bensman]

Don'T think there was any, any thought that this was anything other than, you know, okay, let's, you know, let's at least open the door and let's start having these conversations. I agree with that 100. Right. And I also agree that, look, I mean, I, I appreciate the speed with which they, they start the process because I think it creates, you know, potential for movement in a variety of areas. I think it creates opportunities for ideas that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Look, if in a previous administration, under the Biden administration, a, there was no variety conversation, right. It was just all, it was sort of that unrealistic world that said, you know, well, you know, Ukraine has to get all their territory back, including all the way back to 2014. Right. Nobody, nobody cared a crap back in that day that Russia took Crimea.

[Steve Yates]

Right.

[Todd Bensman]

You didn't see a bunch of people walking around the streets of America, you know, waving Ukrainian flags and saying they stood with Ukraine. And you do, and you do have to have these conversations. But I guess my point being is, and I think again, that speed with which you do this, right. Typically in government, it would have taken a year just for them to sort out who was going to sit at the table and in what seat, you know, and where the conference room would be, you know, located. So that's all good. There has to be the recognition perhaps that, you know, there, there, there is compromise on both sides. Right. I just, I've said this for several years now. I see no scenario where we get a deal that includes Crimea going back to Ukraine. It does strike me as if Putin is at that negotiating table right now thinking I got what I want. Plus now I got an open feud between Zelensky and Trump.

[Mike Baker]

Well, I don't disagree on that front either. I mean, it just is definitely when there's rifts on your opposition side, you probably have net advantage. We'll see how all that rolls forward. But there's also this issue of the NATO versus not NATO issue. I mean, really, before the first Trump term was over, Trump and his team were not advocates for Ukraine joining NATO. And there was a debate about is this provocative. Now, I'm not a super fan of blaming the victim if the victim is provocative to an aggressive neighbor. But there is a certain logic to what's the net gain and what's the net risk in doing so, especially if you have Europe that's not ready, willing and able to step up the way they should. And so I think that was part of the calculus on NATO. I do think that there's going to have to be security assurances for Ukraine and they're going to have to be better than what the early Nunn Luger promise was. If you give up your nukes, well, protect your territory. That didn't happen. It's going to have to be, it's, it can't be what Putin says, that no European forces, no NATO forces can be there. And so he's free to say what he thinks he's gotten at this stage. I think this is, this is verbal jousting. I, look, I don't think that they're going to get to a conclusion under the shortened timeline.

[Todd Bensman]

I, I agree with that. And I also think that, you know, maybe Putin is drawing some, some, some lines there and, and he probably thinks, look, I can get that concession that they won't be part of NATO. But, and I'll give up the, the, the demand that there be no peacekeeping troops in Ukraine because I, I don't see how, how we get forward without that at least being an aspect of a peace deal. If you'll stay with us, Steve, I apologize for having to take a quick break, but stick around. And we'll be right back with more of Steve Yates from the Heritage Foundation. Welcome back to the BBB Situation report. Joining me again is Steve Yates, senior research fellow for China and national Security Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Steve, thanks again for sticking around and for being here on the Situation report. Let's shift our focus slightly. We've been talking about Ukraine and, and Russia and the dialogue that just took place in Riyadh. And I think your points are spot on. Right. This is an opening salvo. People are testing the waters. I think, you know, Rubio has talked now about let's get our diplomatic situation back to normal. Let's staff the embassies in Moscow and Washington and, and go from there. Let's try to move this thing forward, but let's, let's shift from that part of the world because it's interesting. I think sometimes it almost appears like we can't multitask, Right. And so we always have to focus on one thing. Meanwhile, China, Xi Jinping, the Communist Party of China, are sitting over there probably immensely enjoying all the chaos that's going on around the world, in a sense, while they, you know, continue to march forward and what they view as their eventual, you know, arrival at the top of the, of the, the, you know, food chain. So you give me a quick rundown, if you could. What's the latest from the region, from.

[Mike Baker]

The sort of Indo Pacific or Asia theater, looking back in the direction of what's going on with Russia and Ukraine and also the Gaza and broader Middle east situation, Certainly China thinks at some level there is advantage when America is distracted or spread thinly. We also have a lot going on domestically. And so they, they might feel like these are times of opportunity to maybe seek some advantage with President Trump and the new team. However, I think that they're a little bit concerned about the new administration because it's not necessarily as predictable as they might have had with previous administrations. And they aren't completely sure that if they poke the bear, the bear might not swat back in certain ways. So they know that there is an initial wave of tariffs. Maybe they can negotiate away or act in ways that get round two of that conversation, but maybe the tariffs go up or target other areas. They also see this Doge effort, which is a real distraction in the United States. But if the Doge stuff is serious about making our Pentagon manufacturing supply chains more timely, more productive at lower cost, it means we have more lethality. As Secretary Hegseth likes to focus on going out there, and we've got things we can sell to our allies and partners that would challenge the stuff that China's got coming down the line. It doesn't affect today, but it certainly affects the horizon. So it's a mixed bag for them. They do like us bogged down and distracted, but I don't know that they're sitting as pretty as we might imagine. They've got pressure at home on their economy. Their periphery is a little bit wise to what they've been up to on encroachments. Prime Minister of Japan and Prime Minister of India came and had amazingly positive meetings in Washington in terms of the optics and the sort of issue briefs that came out of there. So this, there's a little bit for Beijing to sit back and think, what exactly is the lay of the land here or this new team?

[Todd Bensman]

What's from your perspective, what's the, the weakest aspect of the, the Chinese regime at the current time?

[Mike Baker]

Well, I think it's their domestic economy. We have a lot of people who are great experts that have partial visions in, but it's like people in the dark being able to describe a different part of an elephant. No one's got clear, transparent, verifiable visibility into what the nuts and bolts of the Chinese economy really are. There's a property bubble that's awful. You can see videos of huge multiplexes of high rises getting demolitioned. They've got a changing population curve where they're not having kids, not marrying, going later in life. How do you have this mass manufacturing economy if you don't have humans to go in at low wages to do that stuff? And then there's sort of the political tension. Xi Jinping as leader of China has opted for control and stability rather than growth and openness, which was the old ethos of reform and opening under Deng Xiaoping, famously. And I think that some elements of the Chinese populace are getting sore by that and don't really want this picking a fight all, all around the world. They want to take care of schools and bridges and jobs for the future at home.

[Todd Bensman]

You know, that that'd be a strange calculus if he, if he says, okay, I'm opting for stability but not growth. Talk to me about it. The US efforts to, to bring back manufacturing or, you know, other supply chain concerns, logistics at least find options instead of being so reliant on China. And in part I'm asking that question because I had a very interesting conversation not too long ago about the US dependency on China and, and India for key pharmaceuticals.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, that pharmaceutical question is front and center. It's really, really big and important and urgent and India is definitely a part of that. That is not bringing things back to the American, sure, but it's certainly better than being overly dependent on the People's Republic of China and quality control issues there. But there's a couple of big, big umbrellas.

[Todd Bensman]

Now.

[Mike Baker]

Both of those state visits that I mentioned of the, I guess they weren't full state visits in the protocol sense, but both of those prime ministerial visits from Japan and India talked about investment in the United States joint manufacturing. There was a lot under the umbrella of this AI infrastructure initiative that's up to a trillion dollars that was rolled out before these visits. Happened and you've got Japanese, Indian and other allied equities that might be able to do more in the United States. Or we recognize especially like on our defense supply chain, that's an area where India has a lot of growth potential that we could do some things where we're not ready to accelerate the manufacturing lines the United States where we can manufacturing some things out of Korea, Japan, India, other places to fill some of these gaps on a nearer timeline and they're open to that.

[Todd Bensman]

The.

[Mike Baker]

And then there's a lot of training that we can do for their militaries here in continental United States and areas where we collaborate in technology, software and hardware. So I see that manufacturing at home as a serious initiative. It's one of those things. It's an aircraft carrier turning slowly. The Japanese investment to save U.S. steel in Pennsylvania is a down payment. Maybe that can be replicated in other areas where the Japanese investor profits some, a community is saved and an industry is saved in different parts of the US if you replicate that among good, reliable, willing partners, we've got a bit of an American revival and it changes the political correlation behind it. So some of the elements are there. I think the energy piece is, is absolutely central to this. And so having Doug Burgum push that we're going to be extracting on federal lands and maybe tribal lands, looking again at Alaska as being really a state of the United States where we're going to fuel America and fuel our allies so they don't have to rely on the Straits of Malacca and Southeast Asia to, to have sort of resilient supply chains for energy. These are the building blocks that I see coming together. But we're at the front end. It's going to take years of investment and co development.

[Todd Bensman]

Yeah. Interesting though, the way that Washington works, as you know, is that we don't have years, right? We have, yeah. I mean there's two years till the midterm elections. And if history tells us anything, it's likely that we could lose, you know, Republicans lose the House, which could change the dynamic in, in, in terms of what can be accomplished. You mentioned, you know, the aircraft carrier turning slowly, the Pentagon, which you also mentioned in terms of realigning defense spending. You know, there's a big push right now by Doge and, and others to shift the focus so that we are spending more on hypersonics and cyber capabilities and also ship building. Right. Yes. Are we, are, I mean how, how much are we behind the curve when it comes to sort of our naval capabilities as it compares to China.

[Mike Baker]

Well, unfortunately, we're wildly behind the curve. Our main advantage is that our technology is better and our fighting force is proven, trained, combat experienced and ready. And for every one of our quality platforms and divisions, China is going to lose 10 times that amount in crap when they go into conflict because they are untested, don't have quality control, etc. But they have quantity. And that quantity is definitely getting out there. But America has stood in its own way on everything from submarines to surface vessels to aircraft. And that's where, you know, I think we have this unique moment where I might hope for the impossible, that Doge and Hegseth with a new mandate can really do what people my entire lifetime have talked about but never succeeded in doing, which is shortening these timelines for manufacturer hold things under budget, actually put things out into the world on time for us and for our allies that, yeah, we've stopped processing, we stopped building terminals, even, even just the shipbuilding facilities themselves have atrophied into oblivion as we've allowed a lot of that to go overseas. And so that, that's where, you know, politics in the United States, misaligned priorities. A belief that you can globalize these things and not have consequences for our defense supply chains is wrong on all counts. And now we have to play catch up.

[Todd Bensman]

Okay, and then, and then, of course, and I'm being mindful of time, but I'd like to shift for our last conversation because we haven't even touched on Taiwan, which is interesting because it wasn't that long ago when Taiwan was. Was prominently in the headlines. Right? You couldn't swing a dead cat without hidden another, you know, article or headline about Taiwan and the threat from China. But again, you know, we're all raccoons chasing the next shiny tinfoil ball, so we can't focus on more than one thing. Where are we with Taiwan?

[Mike Baker]

Well, in some ways, we are where we've always been. It's just people dive in and out of the movie. The movie's still going when everyone has stepped out to get their popcorn and come back into the theater. So there's still coercion campaigns underway by China where they're doing what people call gray zone operations. Whether it's by sea or air. Cyber attacks are constant. It's probably the most attacked geography on the planet per capita. And so that just persists. There has been some marginal progress in that. Those two visits I talked about, there were joint statements with Japan and India that they said the usual about wanting differences across the Taiwan Strait to be settled peacefully. But also they said free of coercion. So that free of coercion is a nice little twist. It's just rhetoric, but it does hit the bullseye on what China has gotten away with without even getting a rhetorical knuckle rap. And so there's at least been a little bit more acknowledgment that China's crossed a line a bit with its coercive campaign. It's done it against Japan and the Philippines too. And that the major powers of the world are starting to talk in ways that are making this more than just the politics of is Taiwan a part of China, which is the way the CCP likes to keep it. And Taiwan itself is facing what everyone else is. I mean, when Prime Minister Modi's in DC that was tariff day. Cross the port tariffs were coming out, right? Well, he had to smile and accentuate the positive in the US India relationship. Well, Taiwan's got a bit of that too. They're in a really important part of our technological supply chain. A lot of our R and D gets actually manufactured there, then comes back into big name brand industries in the United States. And the Trump administration is talking about tariffing the middle of that supply chain. Now I understand why. I hope it's just negotiating stuff because I just don't think tactically it's a great move to tariff the middle of a supply chain when we have equities on both other ends of it. So hopefully that picture is more fulsomely conveyed. But Taiwan's get sort of on its good days. They have a little less threat from China, but they got this tariff challenge coming on the other end.

[Todd Bensman]

Besides the tariffs and trade, do you see any significant changes between the Biden administration, the Trump administration as far as the US Policies towards Taiwan?

[Mike Baker]

I think just more broadly, they're going to be looking to accentuate to sort of follow the Japan and India models of how are they investing more in the United States, how are they co manufacturing more in the United States? How are we making this beyond just imports, exports and trade lawyers talking, but a broader economic strategic relationship. And if they're doing that, that's a little bit more than happened during the Biden years. And frankly, I think it would be for the good of the order if they do that.

[Todd Bensman]

Okay, well, Steve, listen, we're, we're out of time, but I want to thank you very much for your insight. Look, I look forward to the next time we have a genius the chat. Steve Yates, senior research fellow for China and National Security policy at the Heritage Foundation. Thanks again, man, for joining us here on THE SITUATION report. All right. Well, that is, as I mentioned, all the time we have for this week's PDB Situation Report. Look, if you have any questions or comments or you have humorous anecdotes, even a limerick or two. Do people still do limericks? I don't think so. Please reach out to me at pdb@the first tv.com look, the highlight of every week at PDB Headquarters Secret Compound, which is of course located under a dormant volcano, is when Carl the mailman drops by with another sack filled with your postcards and your emails and your faxes and your telegrams. And every month, our incredible team, including our interns, they all gather together and they select a bunch of your questions and produce one of our critically acclaimed Ask Me Anything episodes. Finally, to listen to the podcast of the show ad free, which you could do, become a premium member of the President's Daily Brief simply by visiting PDB Premium. I told you it was simple. I'm Mike Baker. Until next time, stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.