PDB Situation Report | July 19th, 2025:

Summary

The President's Daily Brief Episode: PDB Situation Report | July 19th, 2025 Release Date: July 19, 2025 Host: Mike Baker, Former CIA Operations Officer

---

1. Overview

In this episode of The President's Daily Brief, hosted by Mike Baker, the focus is on two critical international issues:

1. Gaza Ceasefire Negotiations
2. U.S. Strategy Toward the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Former National Security Adviser John Hanna and Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute provide in-depth analysis and insights into these pressing matters.

---

2. Gaza Ceasefire Negotiations

Key Points:

• Ceasefire Prospects: Senior Israeli officials indicate a probable Gaza ceasefire in the coming days. However, significant gaps remain unresolved, raising questions about the durability and sincerity of this breakthrough.

• Hamas's Position: Hamas appears willing to soften its stance on an immediate permanent ceasefire, contingent upon President Trump's guarantee that the temporary truce remains intact.

• Sticking Points: Core issues such as the release of hostages and control over aid distribution continue to impede a comprehensive agreement. Israeli military leaders warn of escalating operations in Gaza if a deal isn't reached promptly.

Notable Quotes:

• Mike Baker [01:11]: "While the tone may be changing, the obstacles haven't. And again, we've been burned by optimism before, repeatedly."

• John Hanna [03:12]: "Israeli society is exhausted... They want out of this war. They want those hostages back on the American side."

Discussion Highlights: Mike Baker expresses skepticism about the ceasefire's sustainability, given past instances of broken negotiations. John Hanna emphasizes the internal pressures within Israeli society and leadership to reach a truce, especially with upcoming political cycles and the Knesset going out of session soon.

Fred Kagan probes the possibility of a 60-day ceasefire, considering the stark demands from both Israel and Hamas. John Hanna remains cautiously optimistic, citing the transformation in the regional balance of power due to significant setbacks faced by Iranian-backed entities like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Key Insight: The potential ceasefire is seen as a strategic maneuver by both Israeli leadership seeking to end prolonged conflicts and Hamas aiming to preserve its power amidst mounting pressures. However, the underlying issues remain deeply entrenched, necessitating creative diplomacy and international support to achieve lasting peace.

---

3. U.S. Strategy Toward the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Key Points:

• New Weapons Package: President Trump announces a $10 billion weapons package directed to NATO allies, who will, in turn, supply Ukraine. This includes long-range missiles, air defense systems, and artillery.

• 50-Day Deadline for Russia: Trump sets a 50-day ultimatum for Russia to change its course or face sweeping sanctions targeting countries like China and India that continue buying Russian oil.

• Skepticism about Effectiveness: Experts express doubt about Vladimir Putin's willingness to concede within the stipulated timeframe, questioning the potential impact of the new strategy.

Notable Quotes:

• Fred Kagan [32:48]: "President Trump is ramping up pressure on Moscow... It's a bold shift from Trump, though, who once balked at arming Ukraine."

• Ryan Reynolds [36:55]: "Putin is looking at winning. Putin's not thinking about off ramps. And Putin thinks that he will win."

Discussion Highlights: Fred Kagan introduces the new U.S. approach, highlighting its multifaceted objectives: supporting Ukraine, relieving the U.S. taxpayer burden, and bolstering the American defense industrial base through European investments.

Ryan Reynolds discusses the immediate and long-term battlefield implications, emphasizing that while sanctions are vital, the priority should remain on equipping Ukraine to resist effectively. He underscores that Putin's determination to win the war is unwavering, making the proposed 50-day deadline unlikely to sway his stance.

Further, the conversation delves into China's role in supporting Russia, with Reynolds pointing out China's cautious approach to avoid jeopardizing its economic ties with Europe and the U.S. He advocates for a combination of military support to Ukraine and strategic sanctions to pressure Russia into reconsidering its actions.

Key Insight: The U.S. strategy represents a shift towards empowering NATO allies and European nations to take a more active role in supporting Ukraine, thereby distributing the responsibility and resources required. However, the effectiveness of this approach is contingent upon the unwavering resolve of both the U.S. and its allies, as well as the geopolitical maneuvering around China’s stance on the conflict.

---

4. Conclusion

Mike Baker wraps up the episode by reiterating the complexities surrounding both the Gaza ceasefire and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The discussions underscore the delicate balance of optimism and realism required in navigating these international challenges. The potential for diplomatic breakthroughs exists but is fraught with deep-seated obstacles that demand sustained international cooperation and strategic foresight.

---

For more detailed insights and updates, listeners are encouraged to subscribe to The President's Daily Brief available on major podcast platforms.

Transcript

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything.

[Mike Baker]

Going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in.

[John Hanna]

A reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a.

[Mike Baker]

Thing Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium wireless.

[Fred Kagan]

Better get 30, 30.

[Mike Baker]

Better get 30.

[Fred Kagan]

Better get 20, 20, 20. Better get 20, 20. Everybody get 15, 15, 15, 15. Just 15 bucks a month. Sold.

[Mike Baker]

Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[John Hanna]

Of $45 or three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of network's busy. Taxes and fees extra.

[Ryan Reynolds]

See mintmobile.com this episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

[Mike Baker]

Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

[Ryan Reynolds]

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.

[Mike Baker]

Not available in all states or situations.

[Fred Kagan]

Welcome to the PDB Situation Report. Is it that time of week again? I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right, let's get briefed. First up, senior Israeli officials are claiming a Gaza ceasefire deal is likely in the coming days. But with gaps still unresolved and past talks falling apart at the finish line, I think it is fair to ask, how real is this latest breakthrough? Well, we'll break it down with John Hanna is former national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Later in the show, President Trump greenlights a new flow of missiles to Ukraine, but not directly. Instead, he's using NATO allies as middlemen and warning Russia also that they've got just 50 days to change course or they'll face a wave of sanctions. We'll be joined by Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute for more on that. But first, today's situation Report. Spotlight. A senior Israeli official now says that a Gaza ceasefire deal is more likely than not. The shift comes after Israel reportedly dropped demands to keep troops in key areas of Gaza during a proposed 60 day truce. Now, Hamas, for its part, is said to be softening its call for an immediate permanent ceasefire if President Trump guarantees the temporary truce holds. But despite the optimistic tone, you know this. We've heard all this before. Major sticking points do remain, like the release of hostages and prisoners. Yeah, you can call that a major sticking point and control over aid distribution. And Israeli military leaders say that if no deal is reached soon, operations in Gaza will. Will escalate. Look, I, I think you can color me pessimistic on all this. So while the tone may be changing, the obstacles haven't. And again, we've been burned by optimism before, repeatedly. Joining us now is John Hanna. He's the former national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. John, thank you very much for taking the time to join us here on THE SITUATION report.

[Mike Baker]

Great to be with you, Mike. I'm a big fan of the show, so thanks for the invitation.

[Fred Kagan]

Let me start with something that's it's Fairly, you know, 30,000 foot level, but from your perspective and all your experience, do you feel there's any reason, when we're talking about, you know, potential cease fires, do you feel there's any reason for optimism at this point other than.

[Mike Baker]

The fact that, you know, Israeli society is exhausted? These reservists, some of them have been serving for close to two years. People want out of this war. They want those hostages back on the American side. Obviously, President Trump coming off this great victory in Iran realizes, I think that ending this war in Gaza is the key to the big, grand, beautiful deal that he foresees for transforming the Middle east peace deals between Israel and Saudi and Israel and other Muslim and Arab society. He's got to get through Gaza in order to get there and to get that Nobel Prize. And then you've got Hamas, who is battered, bloodied, rapidly losing its grip potentially on that society, wanting to figure out how do they live and survive another day. They as well may need some kind of rest and respite from, from this war and being pounded by the, by the Israelis to try and gain their strength and see where they go from here. So it's possible that the stars may be aligning. But we've been saying positive things for the last couple of weeks. The President Trump keeps telling us that, you know, I think it's going to be this week or next week. But here we are several weeks later and apparently a new proposal was sent off last night by the three mediators, Egypt, Qatar and the United States to the parties. I think they've shrunk a couple of the major sticking points. The Israeli Knesset is about to go out of session for three months at the end of July, which will give Netanyahu even additional breathing space if he needs it to do a deal that makes some of his right wing very unhappy. So I'm, I'm still, I guess, very cautiously optimistic that the stars may be aligning to at least get us that, that 60 day deal that we've been looking For.

[Fred Kagan]

Yeah, I mean, I guess that's, yeah. Cautiously optimistic. That's a, that's a good way to, to put it. I guess you never want to completely bury a sense of some optimism that something could go right. From your perspective, can you get a ceasefire done? A 60 day ceasefire, given that, obviously the sticking points with a longer term end to the war seem insurmountable right now. With Israel saying Hamas has to disarm the know they've, they've got to give up their ability to govern. They've got to, you know, they've got to dismantle their military wing. And with Hamas then, you know, coming back to Israel saying you've got to fully withdraw and we've got to have a complete end, it seems like there's too much space in between those two sets of demands. But from your perspective, you think a 60 day ceasefire is a possibility?

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, like I said, I think I can imagine all of these parties figuring out why this may be in their interest to get to 60 days and then begin a negotiation about, you know, the possible ending of this war. I do continue to think that a lot of this depends on President Trump. He has enormous popularity and power inside of Israel. It was great before he joined the Iran war. It's even greater afterwards. The Prime Minister, I think, feels like he owes the President quite a bit on this. Like I say, the Knesset is going out of session. The Prime Minister is going to have about three months in which he can do some deals and if he decides it's in his interest to do it and then set himself up for going into an electoral season, we're heading into one in Israel anyway. If he can do that from a position of strength, having brought those hostages home and having the full and unqualified backing from the President of the United States, again, it's maybe optimism winning out over harsh experience that we've suffered over the last 21 months. But I'm, I'm still hopeful that creative diplomacy and a lot of American interest and resolve to see this done in order to get to that grander, transformative vision of the region that I think the President has and has a deep stake in, that we can still make some significant progress here.

[Fred Kagan]

You know, I mean, I give you a lot of credit, John. I guess I've just become a very cynical bastard over the years when it comes to developments in the Middle East. Talk to me about the, the change in the landscape out there. Because, you know, if I'm being really cynical, I would say someone in your position who's had a great deal of international national security issues, you know, thrown on your plate over the years. It could feel like Groundhog Day. When you're dealing with the Middle East. Right. Nothing really ever changes. The instability never goes away. We're still dealing with the same old problems that seem to have been around for a long time. But talk to me about how the landscape has changed, if you can, in a positive way, from when you were working and advising the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney to where it stands today. I guess what I'm looking for is I'm looking for reasons to be optimistic.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, sure. No, I think, listen, you're right, Mike. This is an incredibly difficult and hard and frustrating region. Huge amounts of heartbreak that you and I both have probably experience trying to make progress on any of the major issues in this region. The thing that I obviously take heart from, given how dire and dark things looked on October 7th of 2023 after that attack and then Hezbollah piling in the next day, a true moment in which this great country, Israel, had its deterrence posture laid as low as it's ever been in the country's entire existence. To think that 21 months later, this rising Iranian hegemon that people have been so worried about these last couple of decades on the verge of acquiring maybe a military nuclear capability, having built this unbelievable proxy network, this ring of fire around Israel, around some of our most important Arab partners in the Middle east, to see what Israel and Israeli military and intelligence power have done almost single handedly, although with a lot of American support and admirable support, both from a Democratic administration and now, obviously from President Trump. But what they've done to dismantle huge elements, the most important elements of that ring, and fire, a ring of fire, particularly obviously on Israel's northern border, the A team of Iranian proxies, Hezbollah, and then to lose the Assad regime, that was the land bridge between Iran and Israel's northern border, and then to deliver this kind of blow over the course of 12 days to all the Iranian pillars of Iranian deterrence, from its strategic air defense's nuclear program, missile program, to have lost its ring of fire and the kind of immunity that it and the lack of accountability that it was able to enjoy over the course of most of the last couple of decades, that it could use these proxies to attack American interests, attack our Arab partners, attack it Israel. And yet the Iranian homeland remained largely immune because of concerns about triggering World War three. All of that, that Iranian ascendance, that sense that they were on the march in the region has now all gone away. That huge strategic problem that has bedeviled American foreign policy for the last 45 years. We're in a far, far different and I would say far more positive and advantageous situation to American interest. Doesn't mean we still got huge amounts of problems, including this problem of the Palestinian issue that has been with us more or less forever. But the balance of power in the region has been transformed over the last, I would say year, Mike. And if we can now have some really smart diplomacy and power politics to get the region into a position where it's actually strategically, through diplomacy and deals and normalization, consolidating this transformation in the balance of power, I think in a year, two years, three years, we could be looking at a much different region in which maybe for the first time, as America brings together our best partners in Israel, in the Arab world, for the first time, in some kind of genuine coalition and even some kind of strategic alliance that maybe America can finally think about, how do we begin to devote those resources and energies and attention to some of these other challenges that we face in Europe, but most importantly in the Indo Pacific?

[Fred Kagan]

Look, there's, there's no doubt that the damage done to the Iranian proxies has created a unique moment now, in time. But what I want to do is. We're going to need to take a quick break, but when we come back, John, what I'd like to do is talk about what happens if we get to the end of this road with the current conflict, Israeli Hamas conflict, and Hamas is, is left intact or still exists. So. But first we have to take a quick break. So if you'll stick around. We'll be back with more from John Hanna. He's a former national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. Stick around. We'll be back with the situation report. Hey, Mike Baker here. I want to take just a few minutes of your time to talk about your online security that is critically important. Look, right now the headlines are chock full of data breaches and regulatory rollbacks, and frankly, all that makes us more vulnerable. But here's the thing. You can do something about it. Let me tell you about a great business called Deleteme. Deleteme is here to make it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online. Deleteme constantly monitors and removes your personal info from data broker sites, sending regular reports so you know exactly what's been found and what's been deleted. Look take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our PDB listeners. You can get 20 off your delete me plan when you go to joindeleteme.combrief that's B R I E F and use Promo code brief at checkout again. The only way to get that 20 off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com brief and enter code brief at checkout again. Join join DeleteMe.com brief code brief warning the following ZipRecruiter radio spot you are about to hear is going to be filled with F words when you're hiring.

[John Hanna]

We at ZipRecruiter know you can feel frustrated, forlorn even, like your efforts are futile. And you can spend a fortune trying to find fabulous people, only to get flooded with candidates who are just fine. Fortunately, ZipRecruiter figured out how to fix all that and right now you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com Zip with ZipRecruiter you can forget your frustrations because we find the right people for your roles fast, which is our absolute favorite F word. In fact, four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.

[Fred Kagan]

Fantastic.

[John Hanna]

So whether you need to hire four, 40 or 400 people, get ready to meet first rate talent. Just go to ZipRecruiter.com Zip to get to try ZipRecruiter for free. Don't forget that's ZipRecruiter.com Zip finally, that's ZipRecruiter.Com Zip Hey, I'm Caitlin Becker, the host of the New York Post cast, and I've got exactly what you need to start your weekdays. Every morning I'll bring you the stories that matter, plus the news. People actually talk about the juicy details in the worlds of politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between. It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show. Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast, listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Fred Kagan]

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is John Hanna of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. John, we were talking about the the significant damage that's been done to the Iranian proxies over the past year and a half, and what I want to do is is take that and start looking at this question of of where are we going to be, say, three, four, five, six months from now if Hamas is left intact. So we get a, imagine we get a 60 day ceasefire. Hamas, obviously their only concern is staying in power, having some remnants of power that they can then rebuild. Right? Because, you know, at the end of the day, they don't want to give up their revenue streams or their control or their leverage, whatever it may be. So I guess let's, let's examine that, if you don't mind, and perhaps start with the question, if we do get a 60 day ceasefire and it holds, and it becomes more and more clear to the Israeli population that Hamas is sticking around, they're not going anywhere. They're obviously damaged goods, but they're still there. Is that something that Netanyahu can survive politically?

[Mike Baker]

Well, I think it all depends. What's the, what's the ultimate context in which which that is done? Listen, I need my own personal view. And I thought for a very long time, and I tried to come up with strategies to ensure Israel would have the time and space to do what it said it wanted to do, which is to smash Hamas's military formations, end its existence as a genuine terror arm, Iranian backed terror army, right on Israel's doorstep, and then to take away its ability to govern inside of Gaza. I think we've reached that point now, Mike. I think we are reaching the point of diminishing returns in which Hamas no longer poses a serious threat to Israel and probably will not be able to pose a serious military threat to those Israeli communities on the border for a very long time to come. Just see what happened in this latest round with Iran. What Hamas would do in response to an Israeli attack on Iran, as was the case with Hezbollah, was almost a strategic irrelevancy for Israel and American calculations. They weren't factors in trying to figure because they've been so badly degraded as military organization. So I think the only threat that Hamas poses right now is obviously to other Gazans. But in terms of Israel, if it does the things that the Israeli military and intelligence services should have been doing on October 6th of 2023 that they absolutely failed to do in terms of securing that entire perimeter of Gaza, having a real serious solution to the smuggling in the Philadelphia corridor along that border with Egypt, if the Shin Bet really had invested in ensuring that it had real, live, human assets inside of Gaza, inside of Hamas, the way they were able to do with Hezbollah and the kind of penetrations they had with Iran, I think Israel's in very, very good shape. Then the question is, can you Move to a politics. Can you enlist serious Arab partners, the United States, a few European countries that support Israel and come up with a serious governing alternative and a plan, a DDR plan, to demobilize and disarm Hamas through politics, through diplomacy, through the strength of a deal in which the Arabs come in finally, at last, after decades, actually take some responsibility for the future of the Palestinian national movement. Hamas has already told the Egyptians that we don't have any more interest in governing Gaza. You want to bring in a non Hamas technical government, that's fine. The real question is on that disarmament. And what do you do with those Hamas people still carrying weapons that want to be behind the scenes and yet still controlling the situation in hopes that someday they can make a comeback and reconstitute and rebuild again? If I think Israel does what it needs to do in shutting down the smuggling, making sure it knows what's happening, having the freedom of action to move in and out of Gaza to smash any efforts by Hamas to reconstitute, as it currently does in the west bank, obviously, and as it's currently doing in Lebanon, still, even during a ceasefire, Israel's conducted over 500 lethal operations into Lebanon when it sees any effort by Hezbollah to reconstitute. So I think we've got to have to move from a purely military solution in which Israel, I don't know, is trying to kill every last Hamas fighter or to kill the idea of Hamas, which it strikes me is never, ever going to happen, that we need to begin bringing in some, some international factors, some diplomatic factors into this to see if we can't actually do what General Petraeus told us you need to do in one of these insurgency wars is not only declare and hold, but to actually build some kind of credible alternative that local Gazans, Palestinians, can, can move toward that has real serious backing and international legitimacy.

[Fred Kagan]

Yeah, I want to look at that here in just a minute. In terms of what fills the gap. There is a concern here. There's a problem. Yes. Hamas is, is, is decimated in a sense. Right. There's still an ability there, but you've now got a fertile recruitment environment, meaning for new fighters. Right. They, because of the, just how difficult this past year and a half has been and the damage done within Gaza. So I think that setting that aside, that that is a concern. Right. Because I've dealt with a lot of terrorist groups over the years and, and you're always looking at the issue of what's their, what's their talent pool look like, what's their recruitment capability look like and you know, has the environment turned such that it's an easy job for them to recruit new fighters? But setting that aside, I want to ask you this, and this may sound like a strange question, but from your perspective, what does Israel look like? What do Israeli politics look like? What is it the, the, the unity of Israel look like if they don't have this existential threat right now? Let's, let's play the optimism game. Everything works out. You know, there's, there's peace advancing. Perhaps Syria joins the Abraham Accords if that place doesn't fall apart. You know, the Iranian threat has dissipated. The, the, their axis of resistance is gone. So this is again, it's a strange question, but talk to me about what they country looks like because you could argue that part of the problem prior to the 7th of October was they took their eye off the ball. They became complacent, they became comfortable with the idea that Hamas just wanted to, you know, focus on improving lives of, you know, the residents of Gaza, which of course was nonsense, but you know, and so they took their eye off the ball. That gave them time and suddenly you saw disunity within the government. There was a lot more infighting because they had that ability, they thought, to focus on other things other than this threat. So if you see what I'm saying, I know there's some speculation in there, but talk to me about that.

[Mike Baker]

Obviously, I mean, this Palestinian issue is going to go beyond Gaza, obviously, then you've got the west bank to deal with and whether or not you can get yourself on a pathway to some kind of resolution there. But listen, if you're able to essentially get some level of peace and quiet and security on Israel's national borders, get Israel building open relationships with countries all along its borders, not to mention the wealthiest Arab Muslim countries in the world, in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf, transit movements of pipelines and people and rail networks. I mean, the sky's the limit. Israeli high tech, obviously the Emiratis, the Saudis going into AI in a big way. Space will become the next frontier for cooperation if you can get a degree of serious regional integration, not only in the defense and security space in which these fairly powerful resource rich countries with Israeli military technological intelligence help are actually doing more to carry more of the burden to take care of and police their own neighborhood together with the potential for a very high degree of economic dynamism as the Middle east really serves its purpose between Europe and Asia. I can imagine some very, very good things happening and certainly extremely positive to the extent that the United States is the only capable global power of trying to broker that that kind of genuine regional integration between our strongest allies on, on both sides in Israel and the and the Arab world. I think for most of that, the Russians and Chinese, as we saw during this Iran war, they've got nothing at all to say about the diplomacy of reaching an end to those wars, much less anything serious to say while those wars are being conducted. So I think the future is bright. But again, right now, so much of it goes through this really serious thorny problem of Gaza and how do we get through that and then on to some kind of broader pathway to a better future for, for the Palestinian Israeli question. And in general, this is going to.

[Fred Kagan]

Be a tough one. But inside of one minute because I'm mindful of our time, what if you are a betting man, what does the governance of Gaza look like if it's not Hamas at the top of that food chain?

[Mike Baker]

Yeah. My guess is that you're going to have some kind of fig leaf of and the Israelis are going to have to qualify this, this right wing Israeli government of pen, Palestinian Authority blessing for some kind of technocratic non Hamas Gazan government to begin forming a new administration. But under the authority, the sponsorship, the backing of probably up to five key Arab states that want to see Hamas defeated, that want to move on with economic and political and security integration with Israel, the Saudis, the Emiratis, obviously Egyptians, Jordanians, perhaps the Moroccans. That's probably the best case scenario, that they take real responsibility not only for the rebuilding of Gaza and establishment of a new civil administration that sees Hamas over time disarmed, but also major reforms in the west bank with the Palestinian Authority that might allow you over the next five to 10 years to get back on a pathway toward some kind of separation between Israelis and and Palestinians.

[Fred Kagan]

Well, John, I've got a series of additional questions that I'd love to throw your way, but we are out of time at this point. So all I can say is I hope you'll you'll come back on THE SITUATION report. Thank you very much. And John, John Hanna of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, former security advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney. Really appreciate your insight. Thank you so much. Well, all right. Coming up next, hey, look, optimism is a good thing. I'm just saying that sometimes the track record, you know, makes you less than optimistic. All right. Coming up next, President Trump lays down the gauntlet warning Russia it has 50 days to change course Yes, I can see Vladimir Putin changing his stripes in 50 days, can't you? While selling billions in weapons to Europe to keep Ukraine in the fight. All right, stay with us. Hey, Mike Baker here. Now here's an important fact that you might have missed. July. And we're in the middle of July is National Grilling Month. That's right, it's true. And Trails Beef is helping you celebrate the American way over a fire with real beef raised by real ranchers. Look, Tri Tails is a fifth generation family run ranch in Texas delivering pasture raised grain, finished beef with zero shortcuts. It's simple, great beef delivered straight from their ranch to your front door. What could be simpler? And right now you can get $10 off their 20 pound ground beef bundle plus two free flat iron steaks. Just head to tribebeef.com PDB look, stock up before the 22nd of July and fill your freezer in celebration of National Grilling Month. Be a patriot. Do it. Go to tribe.com PDB today, power, politics.

[John Hanna]

And the people behind the headlines. I'm Miranda Devine, New York Post columnist and the host of the brand new podcast Pod Force One. Every week I'll sit down for candid conversations with Washington's most powerful disruptors, lawmakers, newsmakers and even the President of the United States. These are the leaders shaping the future of America and the world.

[Mike Baker]

Listen to Podforce One with me, Miranda.

[John Hanna]

Devine every week on Apple Podcasts, Spotify.

[Mike Baker]

Or wherever you get your your podcast.

[John Hanna]

You don't want to miss an episode.

[Mike Baker]

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here, host of the no spin News corporate media programs. They're often lazy and dishonest.

[Ryan Reynolds]

You know that the podcast world filled.

[Mike Baker]

With misleading bomb throwers masking important issues.

[Ryan Reynolds]

That directly impact you. The no spin News is here to counteract that we are a fact based, honest and unaffiliated broadcast. Our purpose is to inform you and give the best assessment of the situation.

[Mike Baker]

Whether it's political or cultural. Please listen to the no spin News.

[Ryan Reynolds]

With me, Bill O'Reilly on Apple Podcasts.

[Mike Baker]

Spotify or wherever podcasts are found. Remember, trust is earned.

[Fred Kagan]

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Now President Trump is ramping up pressure on Moscow announcing a 10 billion with a B weapons package that will go to NATO allies who will then pass that firepower to Ukraine. The plan includes long range missiles, air defense systems and artillery. Trump's also set a 50 day, 50 a 50 day deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire or face sweeping tariffs and including on countries like China and India. That keep buying Russian oil. Now, hands up, who thinks Vladimir Putin's going to change his stripes in a 50 day time frame? No one. No one. No show of hands. It's a bold shift from Trump, though, who once balked at arming Ukraine. But whether this indirect workaround and economic threat actually changes Putin's mind or simply allows Ukraine to keep its head above water, well, that remains to be seen. To break it down, we're joined now by Fred Kagan. He's a senior fellow and the director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. Fred, thank you very much for joining us here on THE SITUATION report.

[Ryan Reynolds]

So great to be with you.

[Fred Kagan]

Let's see if we can't solve this whole Putin invasion of Ukraine thing in the next 20 minutes or so. I think that should be easy. What do you make of this new, this new business model, this, this US To NATO to Ukraine concept that President Trump has outlined and that now some of our NATO allies are currently looking at and discussing? In terms of the specifics, what do you make of that?

[Ryan Reynolds]

Well, I think it's a very good model. I think it accomplishes a bunch of objectives that are very important. First, it gets Ukraine the resources that Ukraine needs to continue to resist the Russian invasion and try to force Putin to rethink his undertaking here and come to the table with reasonable proposals. Second, it relieves the burden of that support from the US Taxpayer, which I know has been one of Trump's major objectives and I understand and sympathize with it. And in addition to that, it has Europeans paying with European money to expand and invest in the American defense industrial base, which is something we badly need. So I think it's a, it's a win, win, win situation here.

[Fred Kagan]

I think if you were a pessimistic individual, you could, you could argue that the big winner is the military industrial complex. If I don't know if they still use that term or not. But I agree with you. I think it's, I think it's a, it's a clever idea. What do you think about in terms of the, the sort of the short term impact it will have? Because part of this is it's looking down the road, right? It's okay, fine, we're going to be, they'll be purchasing weapons from us, we'll be manufacturing those weapons. So but in terms of actually getting the goods into the hands of the Ukrainian military, what's your perspective?

[Ryan Reynolds]

The NATO Secretary General Ruto was what's actually very clear about what he expected to have happen Here. And it's, it's, it's quite shrewd. What he was talking about in the meeting in the Oval Office meeting with President Trump was the Europeans would hand over material and equipment that they now have and that the US Would backfill them. So this is not just about the Europeans buying stuff. Then we build it, then we give it to the Europeans, and they give it to the Ukrainians. This was about the Europeans getting the contracts in place so that they know that they'll be able to replace the equipment that they give to Ukraine right now. And so this should have some actually rather rapid battlefield effects. Beyond that, if I could, it's also very important. We shouldn't downplay the importance of Ukraine knowing that it will receive material to fight this war down the line in the future. One of the things that has happened in the past with suspensions of aid to Ukraine is that it creates uncertainty in Ukraine and it causes the Ukrainian military to husband resources and hold them back in ways that actually compromise frontline fighting. So knowing that they're going to have the stuff is also important.

[Fred Kagan]

Yeah, that, you know what, that's a, that's a really interesting assessment of the situation. And I think you're right. It gives them that, you know, it's like a company that they can forecast because they, whether the capital base is sufficient. They can forecast out five to seven years. Right. And they can make smarter strategic decisions theoretically with Putin. Let's, let's look at this cat for a second. My position on Putin is that he has no interest in peace. He currently feels like he still has the upper hand. There's been all this talk, oh, my God, the Russian economy is crumbling. And, you know, he's, he's not going to be able to survive that. And he's, you know, he's losing some support and, you know, there's instability within his key leadership and all. You know, if modern history has taught us anything, it's, it's that, you know, the Russian ability to suffer is pretty impressive. And it strikes me that we've been misreading Putin and certainly the Trump administration. Look, God bless. I appreciate President Trump wanting to pursue the diplomatic route as much as possible and to provide an off ramp for Putin. I don't think Putin cares about an off ramp at this point. What's your thoughts on that right now?

[Ryan Reynolds]

You're right. Putin is looking at winning. Putin's not thinking about off ramps. And Putin thinks that he will win. And he thinks that he will win because he thinks that Western resolve US And European resolve to continue to support Ukraine will break fast enough so that he won't have to confront the fundamental problems that he actually does have. Look, I also agree with you. I don't think the Russian economy is crumbling rapidly. I don't think that just that kind of pressure is going to force him to change his calculation. I don't think the inner circle is crumbling. I think, on the contrary, I think he's strengthening his domestic controls, but he does have difficult trade offs that he needs to make. Now, Russia actually, believe it or not, has a major manpower crisis. And the Russians have a problem finding enough people to fight in this war and simultaneously actually having people to run their economy. That's a huge problem. Russia also has a liquidity problem. And Putin is spending a huge amount of money on his war.

[Fred Kagan]

Now.

[Ryan Reynolds]

He has a lot of money, but in the current circumstances, when he's not sure about whether there will be sanctions relief or any of that sort of stuff, he also has to husband his resources. So there are levers here. There is pressure that could be brought to bear. But the most important way to do that is to help the Ukrainians demonstrate to him that he cannot, in fact, achieve his objectives on the battlefield and that, in fact, the US or the Europeans and other partners are prepared to step up and help the Ukrainians start inflicting battlefield defeats on him. That's the way that we get his attention and force him to rethink this endeavor.

[Fred Kagan]

Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. He's got to feel the pain, and that's the only thing that will change his mind. But what do you say to. Because I hear this all the time. I get this constantly when you talk about what Ukraine needs to actually stay in the fight and to eventually get Putin to the table again, making him feel the pain. But I get this all the time from folks who say, well, why should we even care? Why are we. Why are we doing that? Right. It's a lot of. It is sort of this idea that we have no business over there. It's not important to us. Right. Why, why is this whole thing been important to the U.S. could you address that? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Well, it's a good time to ask that question, because I think President Trump just answered it in the context of the Oval Office meeting with Secretary General Ruta. He said, Europe is very important to the United States and Ukraine is very important to Europe. Those are two true facts. The President also reaffirmed America's commitment to Article 5, the Collective Defense provision of the NATO treaty. And that means that what happens in Ukraine really does matter. Look, it is not inevitable that Ukraine will survive. All of the outcomes that are possible in this war, in theory, are still possible. And we could see a circumstance in which Ukraine loses, in which the Russians actually do push all the way to the West. I think it's unlikely. I think it certainly will not happen if we continue support. But it could happen. If that did happen, then the cost of adhering to America's obligation under Article 5 that President Trump just reaffirmed, rightly, in my opinion, would become astronomically higher. And the risk of an actual war in which the United States would have to engage directly would also be higher. So from that standpoint, the US has quite a lot of interest in this. And at the end of the day, we have reached a position where no one is asking the American taxpayer to spend money on this. And we need to keep sight of that fact, because it's not like people are asking Americans to make sacrifices for this war at this point.

[Fred Kagan]

I mean, I think it's interesting, right, because a lot of times when you have a conversation with someone who perhaps is on, on the side of the, the argument that says we shouldn't be there, this is not in our interest, why do we care? Who cares if Ukraine loses? They've got this finite view. It occurs to me, right, they feel as if, you know, things just stop. Everything happens, you know, like in this, this bubble. So if Putin takes Ukraine, then that's it. That's all that happens. There's nothing, there's nothing else. There's no, you know, knock on effect. There's no other concerns that Putin might have about how else do I expand the, you know, in some fashion, the former Soviet Union? It's a, it's an interesting mindset. I get it. People are fatigued, right? Everyone's fatigued from the global war on terror. That makes sense, I understand it, but it doesn't make problems go away, right? It's. You can't, you can't live on hopes and dreams, necessarily.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Well, you're absolutely right about that. Problems don't go away when we close our eyes to them. We have every reason to assess that Putin, in fact, does have designs on NATO. He says it in various different ways and he indicates it in various different ways all the time. We do need to be very concerned about what happens if he wins in Ukraine, by the way. We need to be concerned about what conclusion Xi Jinping draws if we withdraw our support and allow Putin to win in Ukraine. This is not Vegas. What happens in Ukraine doesn't stay in Ukraine. And as you say, things don't just stop. But beyond that, look, I understand Americans getting tired of the war on terror. Americans were fighting and dying throughout that entire conflict. America was spending a lot of money on that conflict. That's not going on here. The Ukrainians have never asked us to fight for them and they're not asking us to fight for them. And now they're not even asking us to give them anything. They're asking to buy stuff but, or have the Europeans buy it for them. So there's really not a reason for Americans to be weary of this.

[Fred Kagan]

Particularly, I want to talk to you about the sanctions issue On Russia, this 50 day sort of deadline that President Trump has thrown out there. But first of all, we've got to take a quick break. So Fred, if you could stay right where you are. Don't go anywhere. We'll be back with Fred Kagan. He's a senior fellow and the director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. We'll be back with Fred and more on the Ukraine, Russia situation here on the PDB Situation Report. Stick around. Hey, Mike Baker here. Let's talk personal finances, shall we? Look, let me ask you an intriguing question. What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments? That's right. Look, imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room. It's possible. When you call American Financing today, if you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, groceries, gas bills, other various bills piling up. Look, you're not alone, right? A lot of Americans are putting these expenses on credit cards. And for many of them, well, there doesn't seem to be a way out. American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off that debt. You need to call American Financing today before you get to a point where you can't make those payments. Their salary based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners just like you restructure their loans and consolidate debt, all without upfront fees. And that's important. And their customers are saving an average of $800 a month. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but I think that's something like a $10,000 raise. It's fast, it's simple and it could save your budget. Call now 866-885-1881. That's 866-885-1881 or just visit American financing dot net.

[Mike Baker]

Hey, it's Sean Spicer. From the Sean Spicer show podcast, reminding you to tune into my show every day to get your daily dose inside the world of politics. President Trump and his team are shaking up Washington like never before, and we're here to cover it from all sides.

[Fred Kagan]

Especially on the topics the mainstream media won't. So if you're a political junkie on.

[Mike Baker]

A late lunch or getting ready for the drive home, new episodes of the Sean Spicer show podcasts drop at 2pm East coast every day. Make sure you tune in. You can find us at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.

[Fred Kagan]

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. Fred, thanks very much for sticking around. Let's, let's kind of switch gears a little bit. We're still in the, in the Ukraine theater of war, but President Trump appears to have run out of patience with Vladimir Putin. I mean, I think we've been watching that in real time over the past couple of weeks. I mean, it almost seemed personal. Right? He'd have a conversation, he said, I had a very nice conversation with Putin. And then a couple hours later, you know, Putin would launch another massive missile and drone barrage on, on Ukraine. Clearly, you know, basically given President Trump the high, hard one. Right. So I think his frustration is understandable, his patience. I, I had a harder time understanding because I, I don't think Putin's really that difficult to read. And again, maybe I'm just too much of a cynic. But over the years, you know, I've always felt that, that Putin is out there for Putin. He's not a peacemaker. He's not interested in peace. Doesn't, he could care less. Right. And so I was, I've been surprised over how much patience President Trump has exhibited in his dealings with Putin. But now he's, he's kind of, he's walking a fine line because that's it. I'm done. I don't think he's serious. I'm going to give him 50 days, you know, before we impose further sanctions. What do you make of that?

[Ryan Reynolds]

Well, look, a few things. I mean, on the one hand, I would have preferred to have him impose sanctions or support secondary tariffs, as he refers to it as immediately. And I would not have, I would not have advocated for the delay. On the other hand, I think the criticisms of the delay are, that I've been seeing in a lot of media are a bit excessive. People are saying he's giving Putin carte blanche. He's not giving Putin carte blanche. Putin has to fight a very hard fight on the battlefield every day. And in fact, what President Trump is doing is going to make that battle harder by allowing the Europeans to get Ukraine what it needs rapidly and establish contracts over the long term and so on. That's not carte blanche. And beyond that, I do think it's important to manage our expectations about what sanctions will do. As you pointed out earlier on, I think Putin is prepared to suffer quite a lot of economic consequence if he thinks that doing so will win the war for him. So I don't think that sanctions are the thing that's going to turn the trick here. I think they're very important. And don't get me wrong, I think they've played a very important role already in constraining the Russian war machine, and I think they will increase pressure on Russia, which has pretty serious macroeconomic and fiscal issues. But I personally think that the top priority here is getting Ukraine the weapons that it needs to fight effectively on the battlefield, even more effectively than it has, and force Putin to think about things in terms that he understands because he's focused on the battlefield.

[Fred Kagan]

Yeah, I mean, I, I agree with the, the urgency, the importance of, you know, particularly air defense systems. Right. And replenishing those for Ukraine, given just how aggressive the aerial attacks have been over even just the past couple of weeks. But at the same time, concurrently, you could do significant damage, I, I would think, to Putin's war machine if you could enact efficient secondary sanctions on China, for instance, on India, and try to stop that flow of, of revenue that, that has maintained itself to Russia because China and India in particular have been willing to circumvent sanctions and buy oil. Now, China has been making bank off of this, right? I mean, they've been purchasing oil, much like with Iran, at deep discounts to global market pricing. Talk to me about China. Talk to me about, from your perspective, how important they've been in maintaining Putin's ability to keep up with this invasion.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Well, look, first of all, please don't get me wrong here. I think sanctions are very important tool here, and I would have liked to have seen them imposed immediately, and I'd like to see them to be very serious and, as you say, efficient. And I hope that President Trump will do that because I'm confident Putin is not going to make peace in the next 50 days. China has played a critical role in this war. China has played an absolutely critical role in this war. But they watch very carefully to see what price they are going to pay. And so what they are concerned about is not they want to support Russia. They have been supporting Russia. They're buying Russian oil and funneling money into the Russian economy. They're providing Russia with a lot of dual use goods that are absolutely supporting the Russian war machine directly, even though they're not actually lethal assistance. And that's critical given Russia's manpower and industrial challenges. China's playing a big role here, but the Chinese are very alert to the danger of losing the European market. And they're very alert to the danger of triggering interactions with the US that are going to be very damaging to them. Because you put it well, Xi Jinping is acting a bit more like a scavenger here than an ally. He's doing what he thinks is best for China. And if it becomes clear to him that the cost to China of continuing to do this is going to be higher than he wants to pay, then he's going to rethink some of this.

[Fred Kagan]

I think you're spot on. I think that's a very solid assessment. I think China, the regime has always been, not just under Xi Jinping, but in the past, it's always been a fair weather friend because of what you've just pointed out. They will always act in China's best interest, which I, to be fair, that's what most nations are supposed to do. Right. But, but so we sometimes make more of the alliance between Putin and Xi, you know, then I think we should, because I think you're right. I think China is always calculating just how far they want to go with that alliance. And I would imagine Putin's not an idiot. I think Putin's very much aware that he has to constantly be reading, you know, Chinese leadership comments and actions to understand what he can and can't get away with.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Yeah, look, I don't want to underestimate the strength of the, of the Entente between Russia and China. It is significant. They share a very important common aim. They both want to cut the United States down to size. And in their opinion, we should be an isolated continental power that has no involvement anywhere else in the world. And they should decide they should run their, their regions. And that's a very strong common interest. They both want that to happen. And Xi Jinping wants Putin to weaken the west and he wants to demonstrate that the west doesn't have the stomach to resist serious attack. And he wants to do that, of course, because he wants that to be true of Taiwan and he wants that to be true of Asia. So they do have a Lot of common interests, but you've absolutely nailed it. Like any leader, Xi Jinping is thinking first and foremost about his country, and in this case, China is so economically intertwined with Europe and with the United States that he has. It's a very complicated calculation for him to make, and there's a lot of leverage there, therefore, for us.

[Fred Kagan]

Yeah. There was an interesting comment that came out of the Chinese Foreign Ministry. It was just in the past week or so where they said they can't. I mean, it would reportedly said that they. They can't allow, or. I don't think it was the word allowed, a Russian loss in. In Ukraine. So it was almost saying we can't. We can't abide by, you know, the Russians losing this war. It's a strange thing for them to say, because you could see at some point them, as you pointed out, worrying about their position in the global economy and their relations more than whether Putin, you know, is successful in his military adventurism.

[Ryan Reynolds]

I mean, look, I think it tells you, it confirms what we've been assessing for a long time, which is that Xi Jinping also does see his fortunes as being tied to Putin. And one way of making it clear to Xi Jinping that attacking Taiwan or being aggressive in Asia is a bad idea is making clear that we will stand up and help our allies fight back against that kind of aggression. I don't think it's the case that the Chinese will intervene militarily on Russia's behalf in order to prevent a Russian defeat in this war. And I think you would need. When the Chinese speak, you need to be really attuned to nuance. What exactly do they mean by defeat here or loss or Russia loses? Do they mean that Putin doesn't get all of Ukraine, or do they mean something else? I think it's not obvious to me. And if I were Putin, I wouldn't go to the bank on that.

[Fred Kagan]

Yeah. Do you see. And in the time that we've got left, I apologize, but we are having to be mindful of time. But do you see a possibility for a settlement where Putin gives back anything? Or, you know, do you, if you were a betting man, do you see that where we're heading is a settlement where the lines are drawn?

[Ryan Reynolds]

Pretty much where they are currently neither. I think the lines are moving. The lines are moving, and the lines are going to move. I don't think that Putin is going to give any territory back, but I do. And here's. Here's a take that may surprise people. I actually am confident that the Ukrainians, properly resourced, could retake more land and land that actually matters. And that's one of the things that we need to show Putin that they can do in order to get him to the table at all. But no, he's, we're not going to, he's not going to give back territory that his forces are sitting on in any peace.

[Fred Kagan]

Now, do you see the likelihood or possibility of the US Providing long range offensive weapons and looking the other way as Ukraine targets deeper inside Russian territory?

[Ryan Reynolds]

I don't want to speculate about what President Trump might or might not decide to do. What I want to say is Ukraine already has long range offensive weapons. We have better ones. Ukraine could certainly be more effective in the strikes on it should be noted strictly military targets because the Ukrainians have been very careful, unlike the Russians, only to shoot military targets in Russia. But the Ukrainians, as everyone knows, just conducted a very effective strike on Russian bombers that have been shooting at them all the time and they used it with their own systems. So they're already doing those strikes. It's good. It would be good if we gave them more resources to do that. But I don't know what President Trump will decide to do.

[Fred Kagan]

Yeah, understood, understood. And finally, because I like nothing better than asking people to speculate a year from now, setting aside optimism, setting aside what we hope for, that sort of thing, based on your experiences and your insight, your analysis, a year from now, are we still talking about this? Are we still in essentially the same situation, just a grinding back and forth?

[Ryan Reynolds]

Probably. I think we're in a situation where the war is continuing. I actually would say that the general trajectory that I'm seeing in terms of Russian challenges and how Europe and, and now the Trump administration are, are interacting with Ukraine, I think that we, probably a year from now, I actually would expect to see things beginning to move in Ukraine's direction, possibly having moved some in Ukraine's direction, but I think we would. Things would have to happen rather dramatically more than I want to forecast that they would happen in a short time. Just to imagine that this would be over in a year could happen, but I think it's not likely.

[Fred Kagan]

Understood. Understood. Well, I've got more questions for you, Fred, but I have no more time. So what I would ask is next time you look at your phone and it's ringing and it's got the situation report on, on there, that you'll answer the phone and agree to come back and sit with us again. Fred Kagan, the American Enterprise Institute thank you for all your insight and expertise. Really appreciate it. Well, that's all the time that we have for this week's PDB Situation report. I know sad trombone. If you have any questions or comments or humorous anecdotes, just reach out to me at pdb@the first tv.com it's very simple. Every month our amazing team sits down at the conference table. It's a big conference table. It's rich mahogany and surrounded by bookcases. And we select a bunch of your questions and and we produce one of our. I say we. I don't really have much to do with that, but they produce one of our critically acclaimed Ask Me Anything episodes. Finally, to listen to the podcast of the show ad free, just become a premium member of the President's Daily brief by visiting PDB premium.com It could not be easier. I'm Mike Baker and you know the drill. Till next time, stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.