PDB Situation Report | May 2nd, 2026: EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT: Inside the DC Security Breach & Russia’s Economic Strain

Summary

The President's Daily Brief (PDB) Situation Report – May 2, 2026

Episode Title: Eyewitness Account: Inside the DC Security Breach & Russia’s Economic Strain
Host: Mike Baker (Former CIA Operations Officer)
Guests:

• Steve Yates (Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation; former Deputy National Security Adviser to the Vice President)
• Reuben Johnson (Director, Asia Research Center, Casimir Pulaski Foundation; Defense Reporter)

---

Overview

This episode of The President’s Daily Brief delivers an in-depth analysis of two pressing issues:

1. An eyewitness account of the recent security breach at the White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington, D.C., with firsthand insight from attendee Steve Yates.
2. New developments in Russia’s deepening economic crisis and the growing internal dissent faced by Vladimir Putin, with expert commentary from defense reporter Reuben Johnson.

Mike Baker guides listeners through detailed, on-the-ground perspectives, thoughtful security assessments, and strategic geopolitical context.

---

I. Security Breach at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

[00:12 – 23:15]

Key Points

A. Setting the Scene

• Incident: Gunshots fired outside the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where the President, Vice President, Cabinet members, and other VIPs were present.
• Rising Questions: Security measures are under heavy scrutiny, especially given prior concerns about vulnerabilities with so many officials in attendance.

B. Firsthand Account – Steve Yates

• Arrival & Security Layers
  • Security presence started with a “perimeter” on Connecticut Ave—ticket checks but not stringent ID verification.

    “They had people out there who would ask if you had a ticket… There was no checking of does this name and ID match with a ticket or anything like that.” (Steve Yates, [04:10])

  • Entry through the hotel was mostly unguarded until descending by escalator to reach a single main checkpoint with magnetometers.
  • Security screening less intense than TSA PreCheck:

    “Even that I found to be less than what you would go through at TSA PreCheck… you just sort of emptied your pockets and someone looked at it and said, yep, that’s a phone. Yep, those are keys.” (Yates, [05:13])

  • No visible Secret Service until deeper inside; security seeming a mix of uniformed police and private personnel.
• Inside the Ballroom
  • Standard pre-event mingling, little focus on security awareness:

    “You’re not thinking security at that point… it’s sort of what gets you into the warm bath. You’re not, you’re not thinking about anything happening.” (Yates, [09:02])

  • Event began ~8:30 pm; crowd settling in when the incident occurred.
• The Incident Unfolds
  • “Pop, pop, pop” sounds outside—Yates (and many guests) did not immediately realize it was gunfire.

    “At least sitting there in real time, I did not recognize that sound as gunfire. The sound that people, I think, were reacting to was the thump, thump, thump of heavily laden security.” (Yates, [03:15])

  • Security agents swept into action, moving directly to protect VIPs and urging guests to get down:

    “There were 20 to 30 of them… telling people to get down and get out of the way, which is their job. Once a gun has gone off, the only thing they’re there to do is protect the protectees.” (Yates, [11:30])

  • General confusion, with some freezing, ducking under tables, others moving away from security teams—typical “fight, flight, or freeze” reactions.
  • Notable social media moment: “Salad Guy” calmly eating while chaos unfolds:

    “He’s sitting there, calmly eating. Behind him… people cowering under the table. It’s fantastic. I have rarely seen anything on social media that I’ve enjoyed that much.” (Mike Baker, [02:40])

C. Analysis and Commentary

• Security Layers and Responsibility

  • Baker notes much of security is meant to be “layered” and out-of-sight, but suggests a need for more visible hotel policing and perhaps stronger guest vetting up to several days before such high-profile events.

    “You have an obligation… you lock that place down for the two days before the event. You do your thorough due diligence on everybody.” (Baker, [19:15])

  • Yates questions the balance between civil liberties and surveillance technology at such events, noting stricter monitoring in some countries (e.g., UAE).

    “In the United Arab Emirates, this guy would have been identified by a number of different factors… It’s a different civil liberties environment.” (Yates, [18:08])

• Conspiracy Theories Post-Incident

  • Immediate internet speculation about inside collaborators or use of social media was largely misplaced.

    “Even at the outset… people were convinced he had somebody inside... and I’m thinking, what are you talking about?” (Baker, [14:22])

  • Yates points out that poor cell and WiFi signals inside the venue limited real-time reporting, leaving room for rumors to spread.

• Reflections on Protection vs. Public Life

  • Both agree that while total risk elimination is impossible, expectations for security rise with the importance of attendees—and public patience for lockdown-style protections is limited.

---

II. Iran Situation Update

[24:31 – 37:25]

Key Points

A. Overview of US Strategy Toward Iran

• Yates compares US approach to jiu jitsu—applying pressure for submission, not seeking a knockout:

  “Surprisingly, in some sense, President Trump has gone for more jiu jitsu and he’s trying to hold them for a submission.” (Yates, [25:02])

• Key US tactics: blocking Iran’s finances and export revenue, especially via control of Carg Island; degrading the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps).
• President Trump reportedly pushing a more patient approach, letting economic pressures work.

B. Iran’s Nuclear Program

• Claims that Iran’s nuclear capability is “obliterated” are overstated; Yates urges more nuance:

  “When someone says obliterated, it might be that the entryway and the first hundred feet… have been obliterated. But… I think the right way to say is ‘degraded.’” (Yates, [28:51])

• True elimination would require ongoing “constant gardening” and international monitoring.

C. Outlook

• Yates forecasts continued internal pressure on the IRGC from economic constraints, but uncertainty about what post-conflict governance might look like.

  “Ultimately [the IRGC] are a corrupt mafia that needs… lucre to keep people’s loyalty. If this pressure… has done what it should do, that institution should begin to degrade further.” (Yates, [32:57])

• Baker and Yates express skepticism that the Iranian regime recognizes its own fragility—leaders may believe mere survival equals success.

---

III. Russia’s Economic Crisis & Rising Dissent

[38:26 – 70:14]

Key Points

A. Russia’s Economic & Political Challenges

• Russia’s economy is stagnating: GDP slowing, inflation stubborn, sanctions biting.
• Unprecedented public dissent—including from previously loyal insiders—is surfacing:

  “For the first time since the war began more than four years ago… more notable is a shift in the political mood… Some allies are openly questioning economic management and… the war effort.” (Baker, [39:24])

• Social media and even parliamentary voices hint at a sense of crisis:

  “You’ve got people who are members of the State Duma… saying that we’re headed for a 1917 situation. There’s a tipping point… This is not the same place it was a month ago.” (Johnson, [41:45])

B. Ukraine’s Successful Targeting of Energy Infrastructure

• Ukraine is conducting exceptionally deep and precise strikes—with drones now hitting oil infrastructure up to 1,000 miles into Russian territory, targeting refineries and terminals:

  “They’re hitting the oil industry infrastructure at almost every critical point. So it’s not getting sold, it’s not getting turned into products... It’s causing all kinds of devastation.” (Johnson, [43:18])

• Damage is both economic and environmental:

  “This refinery in Tuapse, people were openly saying this is like Hiroshima without the radiation, talking about the black rain from oil.” (Johnson, [42:18])

C. Shifting Risks and Putin’s Security Posture

• Putin’s personal security is intensifying—his private palace now has nearly three times more air defenses than a few months ago:

  “Earlier in the year it was surrounded by 10 air defense batteries. It’s now surrounded by 27. To put that… there’s only 77 [of these] around all of Moscow.” (Johnson, [47:34])

• Open discussion on Russian social media about regime weaknesses:

  “If you start scrolling through Instagram and you can understand Russian, you’ll be listening for two hours for people who are raging against this guy.” (Johnson, [48:02])

D. Putin’s Political Calculus

• Putin reportedly called Trump requesting a Ukraine ceasefire tied to the Victory Day parade (9 May—a vanity project for Putin). This highlights both his desperation and attempts to bypass Ukrainian President Zelensky, hoping US pressure could secure a pause in hostilities.

  “He called Trump… to ask for a ceasefire during the [Victory Day] parade. …He doesn’t consider Zelensky his equal.” (Johnson, [56:15])

• Ceasefires proposed by Putin are seen as tactical smoke screens, not genuine peace offers:

  “Putin’s ceasefires are usually nothing more than smoke screens. They’re not real. …he doesn’t want this thing to slow down for a minute because suddenly he’s got the biggest problem back home.” (Johnson, [58:31])

E. Drone Warfare: Ukraine vs. Russia

• Ukraine’s drone program is “growing exponentially” in both technology and effectiveness, with creative incentive systems for target destruction.

  “They have a points system… the more important targets you hit, the better equipment you’re able to buy. And this is a huge motivating factor.” (Johnson, [52:06])

• Russian systems less innovative—top-down hierarchy stifles the agility seen on the Ukrainian side.

F. The Future of Putin & Russia

• Scenarios:
  1. Putin backs down and negotiates (unlikely due to maximalist demands and personality).
  2. Regime change (potentially violent, no clear successor):

     “If someone takes over, it’ll be someone close to the big military-industrial complex… but that person will not… have the same level of authority and power that Putin does. …That type of consolidation will take a long time.” (Johnson, [64:18])

  3. Russia’s territorial integrity is at risk—China has its eyes set on eastern regions:

     “There are maps published today in China… openly have [Vladivostok] written as Aishanwei, [the] Chinese name… The Chinese openly say, we’re going to take it back.” (Johnson, [60:05])

• The most likely future: violence and upheaval, given the regime’s foundations in force:

  “Whatever happens [in Russia] is going to be violent because Putin has turned that country into something that—I've lived in Russia for 10 years—but I don’t even recognize the place anymore.” (Johnson, [68:39])

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “The sound that people, I think were reacting to was the thump, thump, thump of heavily laden security. People going tabletop to tabletop…”
  —Steve Yates ([03:15])
• “At what point do you give [up privacy] in order to have the privilege of staying in someone’s hotel?... In the United Arab Emirates, this guy would have been identified… It’s a different civil liberties environment.”
  —Steve Yates ([18:08])
• “Surprisingly, in some sense, President Trump has gone for more jiu jitsu and he's trying to hold them [Iran] for a submission.”
  —Steve Yates ([25:02])
• “We’re headed for a 1917 situation. There's a tipping point… This is not the same place it was a month ago.”
  —Reuben Johnson ([41:45])
• “They’re hitting the oil industry infrastructure at almost every critical point… It’s causing all kinds of devastation.”
  —Reuben Johnson ([43:18])
• “Putin’s ceasefires are usually nothing more than smoke screens. They’re not real… He doesn’t want this thing to slow down for a minute.”
  —Reuben Johnson ([58:31])
• “Ukraine’s [drone program] is just growing exponentially in both size and sophistication… I’ve never seen anything like the innovation I’ve seen in the Ukrainians.”
  —Reuben Johnson ([52:06])
• “Whatever happens [to the Putin regime] is going to be violent because Putin has turned that country into something that… I don't even recognize the place anymore.”
  —Reuben Johnson ([68:39])

---

Segment Timestamps

• [00:12–23:15] DC Security Breach: Eyewitness Account (Steve Yates)
• [23:17–37:25] Iran Situation: Geopolitical Analysis (Steve Yates)
• [38:26–70:14] Russia’s Economic Crisis & Internal Dissent (Reuben Johnson)

---

Tone & Style

The conversation is irreverent yet insightful, with moments of humor (“Salad Guy”), wry skepticism toward armchair speculation, and an underlying seriousness about national security and geopolitical risk. Baker’s and Yates’ experience in intelligence and policy work shines through, while Johnson delivers sharp, data-packed analysis with occasional dark humor.

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers an unvarnished, insider perspective on an unprecedented DC security breach and rapidly evolving crises in Iran and Russia. Listeners are left with critical insight into the complexities of VIP security, the limits of modern state protection, and the volatile nature of autocratic regimes under internal and external stress.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to the PDP Situation report. I'm Mike Baker and your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right, let's get briefed, shall we? First up, a stunning security breach at one of Washington's most high profile events is now under intense scrutiny. We'll get firsthand insight from good friend of the show, Steve Yates, who attended the dinner last weekend. Isn't he posh? Later in the show. Russia's economy is stalling and now even Putin's allies are beginning to speak out. We'll break it down with Ruben Johnson, director of the Asia Research center at the Casimir Pulaski Foundation. But first, today's Situation Report. Spotlight. New questions are emerging about security at last week's White House Correspondents Dinner following the shocking shooting that unfolded just outside a room packed with the president, the vice president and most of his cabinet. What's raising eyebrows is that concerns about security were already circulating before the incident, specifically whether the level of protection matched the concentration of VIPs inside that ballroom. It was wall to wall VIPs. Now, in the aftermath, those concerns are front and center as officials face scrutiny over how such a breach could happen in one of the most tightly controlled environments in the country. For more on this, let me bring in Steve Yates. He's the former deputy national security adviser to the vice president and senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He was also at last week's White House Correspondents Dinner and witnessed things firsthand. Steve, as always, it's great to see you, man. Thank you for making time for the Situation report.

[B]

Certainly, Mike. Great to be back.

[A]

Okay, first, let's squash a rumor that's going around town there in D.C. you were not there at the correspondence dinner parking cars. Right. You were actually in attendance.

[B]

That's true. I did have the tuxedo on. So either I'm there to accept tips or there to accept my posh dinner that never arrived on the table.

[A]

Really? They didn't give you something to take away afterwards like in a Styrofoam box? So here.

[B]

Yeah, there was no takeout.

[A]

Absolutely not.

[B]

You got your, you got your salad with some cheese in the middle of it and a roll. That's what they sor had going. And then just as they were winding up the event, they, you know, they're saying that the entrees were about to arrive. I do think there was at least one guy in the audience who got his entree because he looked like he was in the middle of a movie eating while everything else was going apart.

[A]

I. Yeah, salad guy. I Think the kids say this. He's gone viral, right? He's the guy. He's just. I love this guy. He's. He's sitting there, he's calmly eating. He's biting his roll, he's looking around. And behind him in the picture, you can see these people cowering under the table. It's fantastic. I have rarely seen anything on social media that I've enjoyed that much.

[B]

Well, it's kind of a good encapsulation of the way things were unfolding. The pop, pop, pop of the gunfire was outside of the ballroom.

[A]

And.

[B]

And so I don't know what people did or didn't hear. At least sitting there in real time, I did not recognize that sound as gunfire. The sound that people, I think were reacting to was the thump, thump, thump of heavily laden security. People going tabletop to tabletop, going from the back of the room to the front of the room to go get to the protectees themselves. The place was jammed so tight, you couldn't run between tables and chairs to get to those spots.

[A]

And I want to. I want to start from the very top. So let's take this in chronological order. Now, people are amazed that I know the word chronological. Start from when you got to the Washington Hilton Hotel. Tell me what it was like as you walked in, as you moved through the crowd, and obviously with a focus on security, you know, when was the first time that you encountered security? How did that proceed all the way into the ballroom before the incident?

[B]

Right. Well, first arrived sort of on premises. The Washington Hilton is a famous location, famous for the horrible thing that John Hinckley did to Ronald Reagan many years ago. But it's one of the few locations in the District of Columbia that you can have an event with 2 to 3,000 people in attendance. It might shock people that our nation's capital doesn't have big ballroom space like that and ample supply. But there you go. It was a rainy day, so sort of misty arriving. The extended perimeter was on Connecticut Avenue and around some other parts of the property. They had people out there who would ask if you had a ticket. And people would either flash their phone or flash a paper ticket, and then they walk past that. There was no checking of does this name and ID match with a ticket or anything like that? But it was just at least sort of your incidental contact that there was an extended perimeter that had the protesters at bay on the other side of the street.

[A]

Were those uniformed police or just private security uniform personnel there, but they seem

[B]

to be more traffic control there Were other people wearing sort of a poncho to guard against the rain, sort of taking a look at things and waving it to, to go into the building. The building itself wasn't really secured in any visible way. You went into sort of the main entrance. There's a lot of pre game gatherings that some of the big media companies were having and others. You go to a bar, go to a room that they had rented that you basically went straight from the street into those kinds of venues. And it wasn't until you took an escalator ride down from the main lobby where you met with the familiar image of magnetometers and people checking the contents of your pockets and things like that. Even that I found to be less than what you would go through at TSA PreCheck. At least there you empty everything and things get X rayed this, you just sort of emptied your pockets and someone looked at it and said, yep, that's a phone. Yep, those are keys. Yep, that's your wallet. And off you'd go if you didn't set the magnetometer off. You know, it's probably enough to deter most people most of the time, but it wasn't what I would consider to be heavy security. And that's the checkpoint that was run eventually by the perpetual. But you went through that and you went down maybe even another level to get to the entrance of the ballroom and then you kind of made your way to your seat.

[A]

Let me ask you this for the people who haven't been to the Washington Hilton, was there, were there more than one set of escalators leading down to where the magnetometers were and where they walk through, or were they wanding people? And were those individuals running that security point, were they uniform police or did they look like private hotel security perhaps, or security contractors?

[B]

Yeah, so my, my recollection is we went down at least two levels to get to the ballroom. I thought went down a level and you went through the security screening and then you went down another level to get down to where the ballroom itself was. Somewhere along the way there was a coat check that I was not allowed to get my super duper coat on my way out when I was, you know, do not pass go, get the heck out of here. But fun times on that part. But basically going down, I think two levels to get from main entry way down to the ballroom and the security checkpoint was in the middle. And to be honest, when I went through, I didn't pay too much attention. I've gone through a lot of these kinds of Events, national conventions, other kinds of things. And you sort of notice there are some uniformed people. Then there's people you don't recognize, whether uniform is sort of the commercial security or some, some form of police. They didn't seem like Secret Service, but there were definitely were Secret Service agents present. And you'd go through the magnetometer. If you set it off, you'd get wanted. If you didn't set it off, they'd say, thank you, get your things. And you kept walking.

[A]

Okay. Okay. So then you finish that. And that was the last point of security prior to entering the ballroom itself. Okay, okay. And then, I mean, look, that's a, it's fascinating, but I think people, you know, understand or should understand that there's a lot of the security happens that you don't see. Right. So.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

When people talk about, well, it didn't seem like there was much. That's because it's, you know, as they say, layered. And the vast majority of security is not right up in your face at these events. There is some. And perhaps they'll do a hot washing, decide that there should have been more particularly patrolling the, the hotel, given its size. Right. So, so you got into the ballroom and how long were you in there before the incident kicked off?

[B]

So I remember things kind of getting around, Getting underway around 7ish, where people, where they were opening up the, the entryway and having people fill in. You know, when you have overly educated people, it takes them a long time to get in and stop talking and find their seats. And so you gotta give the cattle a long time to herd their way. And so I don't think the program was getting underway any earlier than like 8:30 or so. But I wasn't watching my clock. I was trying to, hey, you know, I heard there was a dinner here and it's past my bedtime and I'd like to have some food. Plus I was really anxious to hear what the president had to say since I figured he's gonna be in his element. But I really remember it being in the 8:30 onward time before things really got settled. But we're in the room a good ways before that. People are mixing and mingling and get their pictures taken and settling in and all that stuff. All that sort of seemed kind of the normal fare. It's sort of what gets you into the warm bath. You're not, you're not thinking security at that point. You're not thinking about anything happening. That's kind of what was jarring for a lot of normal folks when they're all of a sudden. It is decidedly not what you signed up for that evening.

[A]

Yeah. You raised a very important point, which is, look, most people don't walk around their daily lives or at activities or events and think to themselves, well, what if. Right, right. And, but as we say all the time in terms of, you know, operational awareness, just for, for the average citizen, you do need to ask yourself, what if when you go to events like this, right. Where. Or when you walk into the subway. Right. Or you go to the super bowl or any big public event, and certainly where there are senior administration officials and the president and vice president, you need to have that, that thought process, which is difficult for people who aren't security minded or haven't had experience in that world. So it's perfectly understandable. And the reaction of most folks, at least from what you could see, seemed exactly what you would expect. So it happens at what point the, the, the shots were fired outside the ballroom as an estimate, how long before the shots were fired and then people started to react, whether ducking under the tables or looking for an exit?

[B]

Yeah, well, it's impossible for me to say because one of the problems with human brains is after the fact, trying to recreate what you picked up in your sensory nodes is almost always inaccurate. And so in retrospect, there was an unusual sound. Everyone seemed to have that kind of a memory. But then there was all this other collateral activity that happened that I think is what really was causing the reaction. And these guys there, I would say 20 to 30 of them maybe coming in and they're making noise and they're telling people to get down and get out of the way, which is their job. Once the one a gun has gone off, the only thing they're there to do is to protect the protectees and get everyone else out of the way. So the best way to do that is for all of the chickens to get under the table and, and then they can scoot to where they need to go. And so I think a lot of the panic was there's all this commotion. There's very well trained, well armed guys saying get down. And they're hearing maybe shots fired. And so a lot of people were just flowing away almost like a boat going through a lake. And you have the layers of the ripples going off to the side. And so people either got under their tables or, or they were running sort of aimlessly toward another part of the room to get away from where the big guys were, which is kind of what instinct does in times like this. But I have to say, you know, I was evacuated out of the White

[A]

House on 9 11.

[B]

I've been through a few different security scenarios. And, you know, you still have kind of these natural reactions, but I think really when it comes down to you feel like you're in a movie and you don't realize you're a part of the movie until it stops and it's just. And that's, that's part of whatever the. Whether it's the amygdala. Amygdala and fight or flight. And maybe if you've got muscle memory for training of what to look for, of, you know, where are my places of egress. But mainly I just, I don't like being in crowded places for a lot of reasons. And I don't want people to crowd my personal space. And so it violated both of those for me.

[A]

So, yeah, I tell you who wasn't. I tell you who wasn't worried was Salad Guy. He's like, oh, hell no.

[B]

I love that.

[A]

I'm loving this Salad Man. I've got to meet this guy. So, yeah, look, it's, it's, it's fight or flight. It's also Freeze. Right? I mean, people, you know, fall into certain categories and, you know, we've seen a lot of, a lot of incidents over the years where people just lock up. And that's also not unexpected, right? In a sense. Right. So that all made good sense. It's interesting to me how quickly, because of the world we live in, just all sorts of theories came out. Right. Even at the outset of this, when they'd obviously caught the shooter and there was very little information, but suddenly people were convinced, well, yeah, you know what? He had somebody inside the ballro who was tipping him off as to the President's movements. And I'm thinking, what. What are you talking about?

[B]

But, you know, Secrets of President was coming to this. I mean, my goodness.

[A]

Exactly. Yeah. And I've heard people complain about social media saying, well, he was able to, you know, track it on social media. Well, he could have sat in his hotel room, which he checked into the day before and watched it on TV and would have understood what. But it doesn't matter. That's. Look, this has been going on for a long time. You know, it's, it's, it's, it's not a, it's not something new. Right. If someone's going to go to that length, that's what they do. There's some element of casing, some element of reconnaissance or whatever. It may be the technology has changed. Now you can look at your phone, but in the old days, mlk, you know, Shooter just watched on tv, he read the newspaper clippings. He knew that MLK was at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. So he checks himself into a boarding house across the way, right. And he didn't need social media or a phone to understand that that's just the way it was, you know, that the assassin for James Garfield, you know, he knew where he was going to move, right? So it just happens. So I am fascinated though, at how quickly conspiracies pop up in today's world.

[B]

Well, I mean, there's a couple elements of technology in this that were a little bit different. You know, at a lot of big events, sometimes there may or may not be a government agency that gets in the way of the signals that you can send or receive from a particular venue. And sometimes when you go a couple of layers underground in a hotel room, your cell signal isn't any good. But they didn't make the WI fi terribly accessible in that spot. And so it was, it was really like one out of three people actually were able to get information or report out information. Now you had a lot of high strung journalists who wanted to be reporting live from the scene of whatever they think was happening. And some of them were able to get some things recorded and transmitted out, but you didn't have good signal there. So a lot of the eyewitnesses were not actually getting their version of things out. And people that were sitting at home on the couch might have had more real time information. But what it made was people between those two points could make almost anything up and it would fill the void until things could actually be reported and acted upon. But the other part of it is I think there's legitimate questions about what a big modern hotel or venue ought to have by way of their security. Much more so than what did the Secret Service do or not do in this particular instance. Because whether we like it or not, the Secret Service's job is pretty narrowly focused on protecting the protectees. The rest of us. That's just the harsh reality. When I, when I got evacuated out of the White House on 9 11, you learned really quickly whether you were in the fry zone or in the. No, whether you were as senior as you thought you were and you got to go down into the PIAC or you got to walk home, good luck, we might see you. And I was definitely in the fry zone. But if you're at one of these events, that's what you are. But there's real questions about privacy and civil liberties. At what point do you give them up in order to have the privilege of staying in someone's hotel? And with AI and cameras that should be in stairways and hallways, you can observe abhorrent behavior and whether someone looks like they have weapons long before they enter an area where they would have to challenge a security checkpoint. And that I think is a question that you have to ask if you're going to have this level of an event or similar kind of security challenge. Event. What is sort of the private layering that's in the facility and then there's the whole Secret Service. How do you create a cleared bubble around where the protectees are going but that you can. People, some people aren't going to like the fact that you're getting monitored. But you go to a lot of other countries and there's no way in the United Arab Emirates this guy would have made it anywhere near where he wanted to go because he would have been identified by a number of different factors entering and moving around in the facility. It's different civil liberties, environment and, but,

[A]

well, look, it's, you can, I'm sorry, Steve, you can, you can lock things down and you know, you're never going to get the risk down to zero, but you can lock things down and seriously minimize potential for risk and take the threat out of the equation for the most part. But people aren't going to want to live like that. And so you're absolutely right. You've got a thousand room hotel, the Washington Hilton that has to conduct its business. Now having said that, there is an obligation if you know you're having one of the highest profile events of the year featuring the President. And this is another question why they had so many senior officials there. I would love to, yeah, that, that made no sense whatsoever in today's world, in today's environment. But you have an obligation. So at a minimum, honestly, you lock that place down for the two days before the event. You do your thorough due diligence on everybody who comes in as a registered guest during a certain timeframe before the event. And yes, you, you check all the bags coming in, you, you put up the magnetometers and you, you get that squared away, you pick a time frame, right? Maybe you're going to be wrong on that time frame. Maybe somebody comes in and checks in a week ahead of time and you say, okay, we're going to go three days before the event. But you've got to, you've got to take extra measures when you're doing that in the world like we have today. So I think there are certain things that they, they could have done and that would have been in concert with the Washington Hilton. I'm not saying that, you know, I think the Secret Service in the moment acted very, very professionally, as they always do. But I am, I'm a little concerned about the, the lack of due diligence on guests coming in prior to the event, checking in at the hotel and, and also perhaps a less uniform police because under the theory that someone may check in. Look, your threat is sometimes all on the outside, right? And you, so you' you're watching the outside when you're doing executive protection. But this is a hotel. So now you've got people inside the fence and, you know, so maybe more uniform police patrolling the hotel during that period when he was casing for a few hours before the event, you know, when he checked in, maybe that might have changed things a little bit, maybe changed his calculus, maybe. We said not, not today. Thanks. But that's again, admittedly armchair quarterbacking. But, Steve, we have to take a quick break now that I've, now that I've just banged on for all that time. We're going to be back with, with more from Steve Yates, very good friend of the show. I hope to God that he was able to retrieve his coat from that night at the Washington Correspondence Dinner. We're going to get to that in the next segment, so stick around. Hey, Mike Baker here with some exciting news, or at least I hope you think it's exciting. Podcasts are now streaming on Fox 1 because as you know, sometimes just the headlines are not enough. Look, FOX one brings you on demand video podcasts that dive deeper into what's happening, getting you closer to the voices shaping the conversation across news, politics and even culture. And here's the best part. The PDB is Now streaming on Fox 1. That's right. You can watch my show alongside other podcasts like Hang Out With Sean Hannity, the Riley Gaines show and Will Kane country all in one place, from the stories leading the day to hot takes. I think that's what the kids say nowadays. Hot takes to exclusive interviews. You will hear perspectives from the boldest voices around. And of course, mine. The best part. Well, you can watch or listen on your schedule whenever it works for you. Stream podcasts on FOX one anywhere, anytime on your favorite devices. Sign up [e-mail] you're welcome, America. Hey, Bill O'Reilly here. Please check out my new interview series we'll do it live. Each Thursday, I sit down with the most influential people in America. We're a no spin chat, no script.

[C]

Anything could happen.

[A]

You can find. We'll do it live on Billorilly.com, youTube or wherever you download your podcast. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Yeah, you know him, you love him, Steve Yates. Hey, thanks for joining us, Steve, and sticking around for in between segments, we asked a very important question going into break. Have you been able to retrieve your coat from that evening?

[B]

Well, that was a vital mission. I was successful in going back on the day after.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And went back back. I, you know, I was very fastidious. I kept my claim check. So if you, you know, if you're a normal person and you don't keep little pieces of paper in your pocket overnight and keep track of that stuff, then who knows that, that, that coat could have been gone forever. But I was able to rescue that. And now I can be mistaken for a Secret Service officer walking around town in D.C. because of my bald head

[C]

and a black coat.

[A]

See, this is the sort of information that people turn to. The Situation Report.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

I want to do a complete directional change here going from the evening of the White House Correspondents Dinner. And I want to kind of turn our attention to what's been grabbing our attention for quite some time now, obviously, and that is the conflict with Iran. And I'd love first of all to get your and take it wherever you want to, to get your kind of top line assessment, where are we right now? And go in any direction you want to.

[B]

Well, the simplest way I would put it is basically a sports analogy. And I think a lot of us instinctively think of this as boxing, where we're looking for the knockout blow. And I think surprisingly, in some sense, President Trump has gone for more jiu jitsu and he's trying to hold them for a submission. And you have Scott Besant with some pretty powerful economic tools to cut off finances. You have our blockade of their blockade that is denying them revenue, Carg island filling up, which will cause enduring difficulty for them to be able to sustain the regime. You have the IRGC remaining as somewhat the tallest dwarf after being diminished by some substantial operations by the United States and Israel. But it's still radicalized. It's where the home of protection of the revolution is and it's been defanged in some ways, but it's not gone. And I think that the president is letting the Pressure do its thing, which is a more patient approach to the use of power than I think people might have expected. Does it solve all the problems and meet all the objectives? I think we've largely checked the boxes the president identified going in and throughout of nuclear program launch capabilities and the tentacles out of the region. All of those I think by reasonable measures have been degraded but not eliminated. But if the finances hold in this way, then the Iran and the IRGC don't have much to hold up a Hezbollah or anyone else. And so you might have a shot of that. Israel, Lebanon, peace. But all of this stuff is tenuous work in progress. If you're going to avoid the nation build, go in, occupy and run a country, then you try to come up with what are our defined bowling lane bumpers that we've set up. And I think that whether it's accidental or on purpose, we have arrived at more or less where some of those are talks. Yes. But do you expect them to result in much maybe not degraded capabilities, Maybe some allies will step in now that things maybe are not in major military operations, but the president has resupplied and could strike hard and that threat is real if the regime doesn't either crumble or relent to a deal.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. There is up to date reporting saying that they've just delivered some additional military options to the president at the White House's request from the Pentagon. And those options kind of range over some of the areas we've talked about in the past.

[C]

Right.

[A]

Putting some boots on the ground to perhaps try to secure Carg island or some of the straight islands. Also there was some talk about perhaps deployment of hypersonic weapon. I'm sure that's made China and Russia sit up and take notice. But the nuclear program, let's, let's talk about that for a moment because in the recent hearing on the Hill, which was ostensibly to talk about the Pentagon's budget and then it kind of devolved into as it always does, everything devolves up on Capitol Hill during these series

[B]

is a one way street.

[A]

Yeah. And so but during that, in talking about the nuclear program, the defense secretary once again use this word that I think just needs to be taken out of the vocabulary for the time being. And that was obliterated. So said we obliterated their nuclear program. What is your assessment?

[B]

Well, there definitely are some targets that have been obliterated. When you're talking about a nuclear program, though, we're talking about things that are deeply underground. When someone says obliterated, it might be that the entryway and the first hundred feet getting there have been obliterated. It could be that the personnel that were the intellectual capital that knew how to operate the place have been eliminated or obliterated. But I think on any reasonable measure, I think the right way to say is degraded. And there's no circumstance where you would go and hit a place like that and you just say, okay, it's done. We can just sort of dust off and walk away. You would have to have monitoring of a number of different things. There's sort of the, the chemical fallout that you'd have to watch out for who's coming back after a place has been hit. You know, sort of like when you, you stomp on an anthill, is. Is it really obliterated or done, or did they go somewhere else and are they coming back to dig back out? And there's gonna. So I've. All I've thought through this entire operation, whether it's a nuclear program, the missiles, or just all, all together, there's major operations and those have been really, really effective. And most of the world has nothing they can do about them. And then there's the need for maintenance, which I would just call constant gardening after the fact. And that doesn't have to be overwhelmingly the U.S. and U.S. personnel that should be coalitions and maybe other institutions that take up the lead on some of these things. But there's no circumstance where I think you can just sort of declare, yep, we hit it with the mother of all bombs or whatever it was that we used. And so problem solved.

[A]

Yeah, I think, I think a little nuance is not a bad thing. And I like the way that you put it. We could say fine, and probably a little more, honestly, a little more transparency because look, they're upside down on the numbers in terms of the support for this conflict. So I think that's more of a messaging issue than anything else in terms of how they've explained why this was important. There was this sort of, you know, general thought that it was a, you know, an imminent threat. Okay. I don't think they did a good job of messaging that I, you know, personally, look, I couldn't be happier that the Iranian regime, as brutal as it is, as repressive as it's been all these damn years, is getting their backside handed to them like this. Right. And I would love to see the people have a better opportunity for life, and I would love to see them be able to create a government that doesn't include the IRGC and all these people that, you know, just, let's not forget just recently they slaughtered thousands of their own citizens and were in negotiations with some of those people who were in those leadership positions at the time that the, that repression was taking place. Right. So we're not dealing with moderates or reasonable people. We're not dealing with people who have changed their stripes. That's just me standing on my soapbox. But I will say that we need to be better at how we message all of this. And so when talking about the nuclear program, fine, but let's, let's say, look, we have obliterated or destroyed certain targets, we have degraded others. We have this issue of the enriched uranium. We always still kind of working on that. Vladimir Putin has offered to mediate that issue, which I love because he's a man of peace anyway. But if you were to, you know, ask the question of the Magic 8 Ball and say, where do you think we will be? I know people hate these sort of questions, but I love asking them, where will we be in, let's say, the same time period? So another two months from now? Yeah. What's your best assessment?

[B]

Yeah, I'll say what I hope and what I think. But yeah, there's still some shoes that could drop that we just don't see at the moment. But I'd like to believe that in two months time, basically the economic pressure has compelled whatever is remaining of the IRGC to start to fragment because ultimately they're a corrupt mafia that needs to have filthy lucre to keep people's loyalty. And even evil people want to eat food and be able to go home to, to do different things in their lives. And if, if this pressure and denial of a huge part of their GDP it has, has done what it should do, that institution should begin to degrade further over the, over coming weeks. And I'm hoping that there is some way. There was talk of weapons going to the Kurds and maybe the Kurds kept the weapons, I don't know. But somehow there's going to have to be a point at which the rest of the people feel like it's safe for them to go about their business and maybe safe for them to organize in a way that starts to give some definition to what the alternative is. Post conflict. We don't have any read on that at the moment. We know that there are exile communities that have been active for decades and have plans to come back and they no doubt have some supporters inside Iran. The elected, I put in air quotes. Parts of Iran are closer to the people than The IRGC is, but they're not kind and gentle, they're not de radicalized. And so we don't have any sense of what the tapestry is of what the critical mass of post conflict leadership would be. And could it sustain management and marginalization of the irgc. Sort of like the questions people had asked about the Palestinian areas over recent decades and the role that Hamas had played within Lebanon. I mean, this would not be the first polity that has a cancer living within it that needs to be contained.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And so. But we don't have the contours of what's the balance of power in the country to keep it contained or are we just going to take Venezuela? Like enough of the remnants that have been bloodied and bruised enough that they don't want to pick a fight with Bubba. And so we've moderated their behavior without changing the regime.

[A]

Yeah, I think, I don't know that we'd be moderating the behavior and the. I do worry that perhaps the White House was, you know, eager to lay that Venezuela template on top of Iran. And I don't think that you can't compare the two, so. But I do think the problem we're facing is that the regime as it exists now, which is primarily led by the generals within the irgc, I think most of Al Khamenei is pretty much just a rubber stamp at this point for decisions making and then pushing in front of them. Yeah. So I think, But I think what you're looking at is, is a regime that actually believes as, as strange and as illogical as it sounds that they're, that they've won. Right. That they've got the upper hand because they're still around. And so I think they looking at it as, you know, what we, we look at life in terms of dog years rather than the immediate future. We'll just reconstitute at some point. You know, President Trump will be around for another two and a half, three years. Yeah, that's. I really think that's where they're going with this, which is, you know, which is the problem that they're facing right now. And so anyway, look, I don't, I don't know that we solved. Well, yes, we did solve one thing. We know that you got your coat back. But I don't think we saw the

[B]

Iran was a high priority mission.

[A]

That really was. That was almost like going in and getting the enriched uranium from Iran. Stevie ain't going into the Hilton getting his coat. Listen, dude, I, I always love our conversations, man. And I can't. I'm looking forward to the next one. But I want to say. Steve Yates, senior research fellow, Heritage foundation as always, man, thank you for being here on THE SITUATION report.

[B]

Thank you, Mike. Always a pleasure.

[A]

What a great guy. All right. Coming up next, warning signs out of Moscow as economic stagnation and rare internal criticisms start to mount. When we come back, we'll unpack it all with award winning defense reporter Ruben Johnson. Stick around. Hey, Mike Baker here. Now here's a question. Do you ever wonder what happens to those, quote, natural brands when they go corporate, right, when they get scooped up by big business? Well, often they get swallowed by private equity and suddenly, well, those simple natural ingredients aren't so simple or natural anymore. But let me tell you, the Van Man Company is doing things differently. They're heading back to basics. That's a good place to go. Their signature tallow balm, for example, is built on a powerful truth. Look, your skin should be fed what it actually understands, right? Here's the thing. Because the fatty acids in tallow closely match your skin's natural oils, it absorbs effortlessly, leaving you soft and smooth from day one. And who doesn't want to be soft and smooth?

[B]

Come on.

[A]

It's the ultimate multi tool for your cabinet. People use it in place of lotion or night cream or wrinkle cream or even as a soothing balm for irritated skin. So if you're ready to ditch the corporate chemicals, go to Vanman Shop PDB and use code PDB for 15 off your first order. Again, that's Vanman Shop PDB and use Code PDB for 15 off your first Order. Van man, real ingredients, absolutely no exceptions. Welcome back to the PDB Situation report. There are new signs of strain inside Russia as the country's economic picture continues to darken and pressure builds around Vladimir Putin. Growth has slowed, inflation remains stubborn and sanctions are continuing to bite deeper into key sectors. But what's arguably more notable is a shift in the political mood for the first time since the war began more than four years ago. Can you believe it? More than four years ago, Putin's approval ratings are slipping and we're seeing an unusual level of public criticism, not just from opposition figures, but from voices inside his own orbit. Well, that's not going to make him happy. Some allies are openly questioning economic management and the long term direction of the war effort. It's a rare moment of visible friction inside a system that's built and based on control. For more on this, I want to bring in Reuben Johnson. He's the director of the Asia Research center at the Casimir Pulaski foundation and, and an award winning defense reporter. Ruben, welcome back to the Situation Report.

[C]

Thank you for having me.

[A]

Mike, you were just at a major defense show. I know we want to talk about Russia and cover a lot of ground there, but I know you were just at a very significant defense show in Asia. Can you give us a top line? What, what did you hear? What was the mood? You know, was there a focus on Iran or was the focus on Ukraine? What do you, what's your assessment?

[C]

There was no focus on Iran really. The Iranians actually do participate in this event usually, but they called out at the last minute. There were a lot of European companies. They're very, very pro, very upbeat, very much. You know, we're doing everything we can for Ukraine right now and a lot of really interesting tech that is just revolutionary in terms of the air defense in the air defense world. And then there was a Russian presence. But whereas in the past they've had an awful lot of exhibition space, their exhibit this year was very small. It's a testimony to the fact that their industry is just shrinking because what's happening as a result of the war effort.

[A]

That's very interesting. Well, now, now that you've mentioned Russia, let's, let's get to our main focus here, the reporting. The talk of, of discontent or pushback against Putin over the Ukraine conflict, over the economy, the, the problems that they're facing. How do you assess that? Is it credible or is it more of sort of a Western hoped for thing?

[C]

Well, there's a lot of us out there keep hoping that, that there will be, you know, suddenly one day we'll wake up and there'll be crowds of people on the streets with, with, with firearms and torches and so on. That's not likely to happen anytime soon, if ever. But what we are seeing is that there's a definite increase in people's discontent. This, this up to now this has been a, a high discontent, but low descent war. The descent bar is rising partly because of these strikes that had hit these refinery cities and causing all kinds of devastation. This refinery in Tuapse, people were openly saying this is like Hiroshima without the radiation, talking about the black rain from oil raining down from the sky. And there's some horrendous footage everywhere. And the footage is getting out despite the fact that Russian state keeps trying to suppress it and won't allow its own EV and Internet channels to show it. But there's definitely unhappiness You've got people who are members of the State Duma, the parliament, saying that we're headed for a 1917 situation. There's a tipping point. You can just feel it. This is not the same place it was a month ago.

[A]

Talk about, if you could talk about the sort of the extent of the damage that Kyiv is causing through their targeting of Russia's energy infrastructure.

[C]

They've been doing an amazing job of hitting. I mean, in the beginning, they were simply hitting refineries. Now they're hitting production nodes, they're hitting targets at sea. But most importantly, they're hitting these oil terminals. These are the loading facilities where a tanker pulls up and you load up oil into the tanker. Well, they're hitting these port facilities so that no oil can be loaded anywhere. So they're hitting the oil industry infrastructure at almost every critical point. So it's not getting sold, it's not getting turned into products that the Russian military can use. And in the cities where these terminals and these refineries are located, it's causing all kinds of devastation and huge economic, ecological damage as well.

[A]

Now, how, I mean, just to give people a sense of how deep into Russian territory, you know, how far from the front lines are we talking about for some of these attacks?

[C]

Well, they're around a thousand miles or more now. The city of Perm was hit just in the last couple days. Been hit twice now. And it's almost, it is almost exactly a thousand miles from the border of Ukraine. That's a very, very long distance to be flying a drone, to be evading air defense, and to be hitting target. And that's the point. They're hitting precise targets. I mean, the Russians just launched drones and send them into a city and they just crash into somebody's apartment building. But this is very precision strike stuff, and it keeps going on and it keeps getting better. And the actual size of the warheads, the amount of explosives these drones are carrying, gets larger as well. This is assuming the character, not the volume, but it's assuming the character of the Allied strategic bombing campaign during the Second World War.

[A]

As far as impact on. It appears to be the only person that matters here with, with Russia's Putin. I mean, obviously there's, there's talk of, of discontent. There's talk of some comments coming out in public. And, but with Putin, are we seeing anything that looks like a, A mind shift, a change in, in, in thinking about this in terms of maybe getting him to sit down and negotiate in some fashion?

[C]

I guess I could say the one thing which, which did happen was which would show to me that he has, that he's getting desperate and that he's got no one around him to advise him in terms of timing. But he called Trump in the middle of this visit by King Charles and Queen Camilla. And Trump really highly values his relationship with the royals. He made this 90 minute phone call with Trump, probably on a day when Trump had many other things he would have rather been doing. And at one point, Putin asks for a ceasefire and he's asking for this ceasefire during the period of this, the 9th of May Victory Day Parade in Moscow. And for those who don't know, that's the most important piece of pageantry in the entire year. It's their celebration of victory in World War II. The parade is Putin's personal vanity project. He's always had a hands on approach to planning it. It's always been his. And he places the entirety of the legitimacy of the regime by saying that we are in Ukraine, we are defending Russia, just like it was defended against the Germans in the Second World War. And he has had to scale the event back tremendously to the point where it's almost a joke this year. So it's definitely changing the way that he looks at, the way that he looks at the progress of the war if he realizes it's not going his way. And he's also very scared. And one of the.

[A]

What do you mean by that?

[C]

Really?

[A]

What do you mean by that?

[C]

Well, one of the key indicators is that he has this massive palatial palace, or this palatial complex, sorry, up on the Baldai, which is north of St. Petersburg. And this is just a palace which is set up for him and his family. It is surrounded. Now, earlier in the year it was surrounded by 10 air defense batteries. It's now surrounded by 27. They've tripled the numbers almost. And to put that into perspective, he's got 27 of these air defense units in two rings around his palace. There's only 77,0 of these around all of Moscow. That's a city, a metropolitan area of 20 million people. And people are talking about it openly when you start. I mean, if you start scrolling through Instagram and you can understand Russian, you'll be listening for two hours for people who are raging against this guy. And they're talking about the fact that, oh, you have all the air distance in the world around your palace, that here we are in this city and we're getting bombarded to pieces and it's raining oil and things are going to hell in a hand basket. There's an awful lot of unhappiness.

[A]

What does that. I mean, I guess, what does that mean? I know that's a stupid question on my part, but where does that go? You know, okay, fine. The people are getting increasingly upset,

[C]

but

[A]

Putin has shown a remarkable ability to not care in the past. So where do you think this goes?

[C]

Well, he's always had this ability to not care because he's always been able to mobilize more people, which he is increasingly unable to do, number one, because the money's not there to pay them the way it used to be. And secondly, because the losses have increased to the point where the numbers of people the Russians bring into the military every month are now less than the numbers of people that they're losing. So he's always had this ability not to care because he's always had all of this largesse to depend on. But that's disappearing. And you've got people there in Moscow now, but they're speaking to the Washington Post and mainline Western media. They're not giving their names, but they're government officials, and they're saying this has gone on too long. If this keeps going in this direction, it won't be pretty. And no one's been speaking like this before.

[A]

So these from, from, from, from an expert in your position as a defense reporter, the success of the drone attacks on the Russian energy infrastructure, what does that say about the Russia's air defense systems?

[C]

Well, one, they're, they're, they're heavily. I mean, they're just stretched way too thin. And, and what it says about them is that there's not enough of them to be able to defend every single

[A]

site in the, you know, yes, you

[C]

can defend important government facilities, air bases, you can defend the Fuhrer's bunker and so on, but you can't defend every single refinery, you know, every single. No, there's, they don't print enough money to be able to do that. And it also says that the Ukrainians have done a masterful job of mapping these air defense systems and figuring out how to evade them, how to get around them, how to, how to avoid them. And they're getting help, and Ukraine is getting help from the United States and France and other people with targeting data and satellite data and intelligence. And this makes their job easier. But in the end, it comes down to their extreme ingenuity. And I'm just, I'm predicting, I think within six months or so we're going to see these drones now become autonomous they won't have to be piloted. They won't necessarily need a great deal of programming. Between AI and the sophistication of the design, they're going to become almost self aware. And that has a lot to do with any ability to hit these targets at long ranges.

[A]

And how would you compare Ukraine's drone program capabilities to Russia's?

[C]

Ukraine's is just growing exponentially in both size and sophistication. And the Russian system makes progress, but it makes slow progress. They simply don't have a system that allows for creativity and innovation to flourish. It's too top down driven. I mean, one of the things the Ukrainians do, which is kind of ingenious, is they have a points system. So they're drone units. If you hit a really meaningful, important, strategic whatever target, you build up these points, it's kind of like your frequent flyer miles or something. And then the units with the most points are allowed to use those points to go and buy western military equipment that's available. But you have to have the points. So they set up a competition. And so the more important targets you hit, the better equipment you're able to buy. And this is a huge motivating factor. It's not the only one, of course. I mean, they're defending their own country, right? But I've never seen anything like the innovation I've seen in the Ukrainians with not just on drones, but in a whole host of defense technologies.

[A]

Reuben, if you'll stay right there, don't go anywhere. But we do have to take a quick break and then we'll be back with more from Reuben Johnson right here on the PDB Situation Report. So stick around. Hey, Mike Baker here with a solid household tip. Because, you know, I am kind of known for my household tips. Look, it's time for spring cleaning. And of course, spring cleaning means, to some degree taking stock of key household items. And here, when I talk key household items, I'm talking about pots and pans, staples of the household that often get neglected or overlooked. Now, if you haven't replaced your cookware since forever, right? If you're using pans that you've been toting around since college, honestly, it's time for an upgrade. And there is no better upgrade than Hexclad. Hexclad completely changed the game by combining the performance of stainless steel with the convenience of non stick all in one pan. Hexclad's patented laser etched hexagonal ridges. Say that three times fast. Well, they boost your searing power and all. Hexclad products come with a lifetime warranty. So these are the best and last pans you'll ever need to buy. Don't go through another spring using the same busted up pans that you should have thrown out, frankly, years ago. For a limited time only, our listeners get 10% off with our exclusive link. Just head on over to hexclad.com PDP check them out, hexclad.com PDB and if they ask how you heard about them, tell them the PDB sent you. Spring clean your kitchen the smart way with hexclad.

[C]

Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money because behind every headline is a bottom line, whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings. There's a money side to every story. And when you see the money side, you understand what others miss.

[A]

Get the money side of the story.

[C]

Subscribe [e-mail].

[A]

Welcome back to the PDB Situation report. Joining me once again is Reuben Johnson. He's the director of the Asia Research center at the Casimir Pulaski Foundation. Ruben, thank you very much for sticking with us. We were talking all things Russia. You mentioned the phone call that Putin made to Trump during the visit by the royals from the UK and that Putin asked for a ceasefire built around Victory Day. Now, it would seem, I suppose maybe this is simplistic, but of course that's in his best interest because if you're going to have a Victory Day parade, no matter how scaled down it may be this year, the last thing you want is Ukrainian drones overhead. So it seems like a fairly expected ask. And didn't this happen last year as well? And I think in previous years, yeah,

[C]

he's done this almost every year. But it says something to you. Okay, if Putin wants a ceasefire from the Ukrainians, why is he asking Donald Trump, why is he talking to Vladimir Zelensky? Well, he's not talking to Vladimir Zelensky because he doesn't consider Vladimir Zelensky be his equal. He has openly said that Zelensky is not a legitimate leader and he believes if he asks Donald Trump, Donald Trump will threaten to take away something or threaten not to provide something, and that Donald Trump has some kind of leverage with the Ukrainians. That's the first sort of non sequitur in this whole thing. But the second point is that no one will come out and say this on the Russian side, that he's very afraid of an attack during this parade. That's why there's no military, military equipment in the parade, because they're afraid that equipment will become a reason for the Ukrainians to strike, that it'll be a target.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. If you, if you end up, you know, rolling a bunch of your defense systems and your tanks and other hardware down the road and you're in the middle of a four year invasion of another country and that country's shown its ability to strike deeper into your territory, it seems like a pretty logical concern on Putin's part. And it's a very interesting point that you raised. And again, it kind of shows the strategy. Putin thinking, okay, if I called Trump and say, I want a ceasefire, right? And if he can get President Trump to say, well, yes, a ceasefire is a very good thing, and Putin really wants a ceasefire, then suddenly he's back at his old game. Putin is, I mean, by trying to drive his wedge between the US And Ukraine and perhaps getting, you know, Trump to, to kind of flip to that side again, he seems, he goes back and forth on his support for Ukraine, but, you know, maybe turn around and say, look, you, you know, Zelensky doesn't want to do a ceasefire. How terrible is that? And you think, well, you know, he is defending an invaded country. And so I, it is, it is interesting, but it just points to, you know, you can't just take the headline and say, oh, you know, Putin and Trump are talking about a ceasefire. Think, oh, well, that's good. I guess what I'm saying is obvious, but it's a little bit more complex than that.

[C]

Yeah, it sounds nice, but anyone who's been. You've been watching this ever since the beginning. I've been watching since the beginning. We all know that Putin's ceasefires are usually nothing more than smoke screens. They're not real. He doesn't have any interest in, he doesn't have any interest in this war slowing down, ending or anything. I mean, he's got. Does he really need a couple of hundred thousand or more angry, completely demoralized PTSD veterans coming back, coming back to their home cities? Tens of thousands of them are criminals who were paroled from prisons in exchange for serving in the military. If they lived six months on the front line, then their sentences were vacated. Most of them have picked up two or three trophy weapons off the battlefield. So they're heavily armed. There's virtually no police forces left in these Russian cities because the police that have all been drafted. So Putin doesn't want this thing to slow down for a minute because suddenly he's got the biggest problem he's ever had in his life back Home.

[A]

It's interesting, there was a comment just the other day from a senior supposed opposition leader. He's a party stalwart and basically runs the faux opposition. That kind of blocks and tackles for Putin. But he came out and said, look, the discontent could lead to a 1917 style revolution.

[C]

Yeah, that's correct. There's been more than one person that has said that. And they, they can see this thing unraveling, they can see what's happening there. And they, everyone keeps saying, well, what's the end game out of, you know, if this goes on for how much longer? What happens? What do we do? We get anything out of this? They don't get anything out of this. Russia's, Russia's probably Russia's never going to be a, anything but a broken state in my lifetime. And I think it's, it's really questionable whether Russia survives as a single geopolitical entity after this is over. I mean, there are, there are maps published today in China, almost everywhere in China. And the city of Vladivostok on the Russian Pacific coast in the Far east, the one big port in the Russian Far East. The Chinese maps openly have that city's name written as Aishanwei, because that's what the Chinese name of it was before the Russians took it from them. The Chinese openly say, we're going to take it back. Probably every three or four months I see a document which is an article or a commentary written by someone in China that says, oh, well, Russia's burning up everything they have on this war in Ukraine and when this is all over, they'll be exhausted and we can just walk in. So Russia's future is about as bleak as I've ever seen it at this point.

[A]

Yeah, it is interesting when you think about Xi Jinping and China and sort of the way that the Communist Party, the Chinese Communist Party strategizes and looks at things and we always talk about, we worry about, and the US Administration is always like, ah, Russia, China, you know, they're this alliance and it's from, from the Chinese perspective, you know, they can watch that, they can watch the US in Iran and watching us go through our munition stockpiles and be distracted with that and, and spending the money and, and from their perspective, hey, great, you know, the chaos. And so I always, and, and I'd like your assessment of this, but I always look at the Chinese Russian relationship as very self serving on Xi Jinping's part, that he will only do for Russia what is in China's best interests. And will not extend himself in any way. That is not.

[C]

You're absolutely correct. I mean, I've spent a lot of time in China. It's a very transactional culture. No one does anything unless they think they can get something back in return. And this is reflected in the relationship that China has with Russia. Now these are two countries that do not act like allies. The Chinese are happy to provide some level of support for Russia in this war, which includes sending weaponry, it includes components that the Russians need to build weapon systems and so on. But the Chinese are getting plenty of things in return for it. But China shows absolutely zero interest in an engaged, long term, productive relationship with Russia. There's no major Chinese investments in Russia, almost none. There are no big joint Russia Chinese military programs or designing a fighter airplane together, or designing some kind of weapon system together. This is all about what can China get out of this relationship now. And when they have everything they need, they'll cut the Russians loose.

[A]

When we talk about the current state of Russia, what's the alternative to Putin? I mean, look, I guess we've got one option, which is that he does say, okay, the pressure is too much. I'm going to sit down and negotiate whatever I can get out of this.

[C]

Right.

[A]

I think that may be contrary to his abilities and his personality, but there's that option or something else happens. What's the alternative to Putin?

[C]

Well, that's just the problem. He's, he's, he's, everyone, everyone who ever spoke out against him, who might have been some kind of a leader is either dead, they've fallen out of a window, they've been poisoned, they're exiled. Yeah, they're not. I mean, it's, it's, it's a great way to make sure you don't have any competition. So there really isn't. I mean, different names have been floated at different times, but none of them were really credible. And this is not if there was ever a time. I mean, Russia's never been a country that's been famous for being, having a rule of law, but there's absolutely none now whatsoever. Everyone is simply there because of their own self interest. And so if I were to pick someone within the Russian leadership, I'd probably be guessing, but if someone takes over, it'll be someone close to the big military industrial complex or someone close to one of these very large, very big money making industries who's able to bring enough people along to be able to form some kind of a new regime. But remember this, Putin could die tomorrow and Somebody could take over. That person will not in any, but by no means will that person have the same level of authority and power that Putin does. Now that person sits down in Putin's chair, and the next thing that happens is, you know, there is a parade of people coming into the office saying, well, you know, we had a deal with Putin, but we don't have any deal with you, so what are you going to do for us? You know, what. What's the situation? That type of consolidation will take a long time. So whoever it is, it'll be a period of upheaval and confusion.

[A]

So I guess, because others might look at it and go, well, the ideal situation would be that somehow, you know, Putin is given a vote of no confidence. And so then, you know, they open up leadership to free and fair election. I know. I'm trying to say that with a straight face, but. So I. Yeah, I just think at the end of the day, you know, with everything else in life, there's not that many options on the old decision tree. Right. I mean, we sometimes get very worked up about, oh, I don't know where to go. I don't know which direction to turn. Usually. My thinking is always that this. You can always distill things down to some pretty simple options and choices. And with Russia, I think he either backs down, which, again, I don't think is in nature, or there is a. Whatever you want to call it, a regime change, a coup, a change in government, however that goes. And I think you're right, that could be enormously messy.

[C]

Putin, I don't see a scenario that he can back down or that he can. First of all, you're absolutely correct. It's not in his nature to compromise on anything. His maximalist demands about the war have not changed one iota since day one. No matter how bad things get for him, they don't ever change. But let's say, for sake of argument, he decides that he's going to come to make some kind of a deal with, with, you know, with. With Milinsky in the West. What is everybody around them going to say, well, anyway, we lost, you know, over a million people. You know, the country's devastated and we bankrupt in ourselves, and, and we've got a demographic hole, you know, in. In this, in this country's, you know, future in terms of what our population is going to look that holds the size of Nevada, and what do we get for it? Well, you know, I. I put. And I make sure that. That Ukraine would never get into NATO. Well, they probably weren't going to anyway, at least not for a long time. So that's, that's kind of not enough. Run down the list. What, what has he got this offer in terms of an accomplishment that would make people think it's worth all the blood and treasure they've given up? There isn't anything, there's nothing that's, that's political death. But I'll just say one thing, and I think this is a very important point. We had the Soviet collapse and the collapse of all their satellite nations in the 1990s time frame, late 80s, early 90s, and it was largely peaceful. I mean, you had the Velvet Revolution in the Czech Republic. You had a relatively, and even in Poland, it was a peaceful process. The one place where the change regime was violent was in Romania. And that's because the regime itself was based on violence. And I believe that's the scenario for Russia, that whatever happens is going to be violent because Putin has turned that country into something that, that, I mean, I've lived in Russia for 10 years, but I don't even recognize the place anymore. It's, it's, it's like something out of some, you know, I, the analogy I used many years ago when I wrote about Putin, I said what he, what had happened to the country of Russia under Putin was like that famous novel, the Picture of Dorian Gray. But that's what's happened. It's, the country's just turned into something that is just a, it's a nightmare.

[A]

Well, Ruben, as always, the conversation's fascinating and I hope that when we call you next time that you'll pick up the phone and say, yeah, sure, I'll come back on because we really enjoy your insight. That would be, that would be terrific. Listen, Ruben Johnson, thank you again for sharing your insight. Safe travels. And we'll see you back here again on THE Situation report.

[C]

Thank you, sir. Ask me anytime. Thank you.

[A]

All right, Ruben Johnson, again, thank you so much for joining us and sharing your insight here on THE Situation report. And that, unfortunately, is all the time that we have for this week's PDB Situation report. Now, if you have any questions or comments, please reach out to [e-mail] because you know that the highlight of every week at PDB headquarters, which by the way, is located under a dormant volcano in a secret compound, of course it's secret. Is when Carl the mailman, I'm not sure how he finds us at our secret compound, drops off another sack of your questions and comments. It's got your postcards, your emails, your faxes. Some of you even send telegrams. Remember Western Union? And every month, our amazing team, including the above average interns, where we gather around the conference table and we choose some of the questions and we put them into what we call one of our Ask me Anything episodes. And another one of those and just launched the other day. Finally, to listen to the podcast of this show ad free. You can do that. It's very simple. Become a premium member of the President's Daily brief by visiting pdbpremium.com I'm Mike Baker, and until next time, you know the drill. Stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.