← The President's Daily Brief
The President's Daily Brief
PDB Situation Report | May 31st, 2025: 50,000 Russian Troops Amass On Ukraine’s Border & No End in Sight for Gaza
01:02:35
Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:00]
Mike Baker
Hi, this is Joe from Vanta. In today's digital world, compliance regulations are changing constantly and earning customer trust has never mattered more. Vanta helps companies get compliant fast and stay secure with the most advanced AI, automation and continuous monitoring out there.
- [00:15]
Bill Rogio
So whether you're a startup going for.
- [00:17]
Mike Baker
Your first SoC2 or ISO 27001 or a growing enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta.
- [00:22]
Bill Rogio
Makes it quick, easy and scalable. And I'm not just saying that because I work here.
- [00:27]
Mike Slater
Get started@vanta.com my name is Mike Slater. I have a podcast called Politics by Faith. I was just talking to a friend of mine who said he hasn't been able to follow the news lately. It's been too much, it's too crazy. It's driving him crazy and he's just checked out. If you feel that way sometimes too, I think you'll really like our podcast Politics by Faith. We take the main story of the day and we run it through the Bible. What does the Bible say about this? It's amazing, but it's all there. And then God tells us what to do. We don't even have to figure it out. The answers are right there. He gives us the answers. Politics by Faith. Please join us over there. You can listen to it wherever you're listening to this podcast right now. Politics by Faith.
- [01:20]
Mike Baker
Welcome to the PDB Situation Report. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right, let's get briefed. We begin tonight with a warning from President zelensky. Ukraine says 50,000 Russian troops are now masked near the border, sparking fears, of course, of a new offensive. Former commanding general of U.S. army Europe, retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges joins us with insight later in the show. This week marks 600 days since the war between Israel and Hamas began, when Hamas kicked off this conflict with those brutal 7th October 2023 attacks. For the families of the hostages still held in Gaza, each one of these days has been a living nightmare. We'll bring you an update on the latest with Bill Rogio of the foundation for the Defense of Democracies. But first, our situation report Spotlight. Tonight, Ukraine's President Zelensky is sounding the alarm. According to the latest intelligence from Kyiv, more than 50,000 Russian troops are now massed near Ukraine's northeastern border. Now, this isn't just a show of force. It may be the prelude, of course, to a new Russian offensive likely targeting the Sumy region. At the same time, Western allies have reportedly lifted range restrictions on Ukraine's use of long range missiles, meaning that Kiev can now strike deeper into Russian territory. Joining us to break it all down is retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former Commanding General of U.S. army Europe. Sir, thank you very much for joining us here on THE SITUATION report.
- [02:50]
Ben Hodges
Well, thanks for the privilege, Mike.
- [02:53]
Mike Baker
The reports that that Putin is massing troops on the border of Ukraine in the Sumi region in particular, what do you make of that?
- [03:04]
Ben Hodges
Well, I have to say I'm skeptical. There may be a lot of troops there and certainly the Russians would like to try and get momentum somehow. But as General Cavoli said a month ago in his testimony to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee, Russia is losing on the battlefield. They have demonstrated they do not have the ability to knock Ukraine out of the war. They can only kill innocent people with their attacks at nighttime on cities. But they don't have the land power and certainly they're not integrated with air power supporting land operations the way we would. So while they may have a bunch of troops, I don't think they have a lot of equipment. So I'm skeptical that this is going to be some breakthrough kind of point in the war.
- [03:55]
Mike Baker
Is it a complete stalemate at this point or is it your impression and based on what you've seen, that there is slow but some progress by the Russian military in terms of taking territory as small as the gains may be?
- [04:09]
Ben Hodges
Well, I mean, you could imagine that there are villages or places where the Russians may gain a thousand meters or two kilometers or something like that. But when you go back to where they were, I mean, frankly t today the situation on the ground is not one bit better for the Russians than It was before 22 February or by the time that they launched their large scale invasion. And yet since that time, they've lost close to 900,000 casualties. They are using museum pieces for armored vehicles. They've got soldiers attacking in golf carts and e scooters. So I think that they can still put lots of troops on the ground, but these are not going to be well trained and they're not going to be part of a mobile armored formation that can penetrate Ukrainian defenses. Now, I don't want to overstate this for the Ukrainians, obviously on the on the receiving end of these attacks, they're getting pounded with drones and artillery and rockets. And it's still a very, very difficult, close fight. But I try to think more broadly about what's going on. And here we are after 11 years with Russia having every advantage, they still cannot knock Ukraine out of the war. The air Force has still not gotten air Superiority, the Black Sea Fleet. Nobody even talks about it anymore.
- [05:41]
Mike Baker
The question that I'm trying to get to is, and part of this is a, is a speculation, obviously, but do you think that in, in Putin's mind, what little progress they may be making? Again, assuming it's just not a stalemate at this point where nobody's moving in, in either direction, do you think that he views that as sufficient reason to continue the effort? I mean, there's, there's must be some reason for massing some 50,000 troops up there on the border with, with the Sumi region. So I'm, I'm wondering, and, and again, I realize that, you know, I'm asking you to speculate a little bit here and get inside Putin's mindset, but is the scenario that we're looking at where Putin thinks, okay, I've got enough progress, I believe it looks like the US May be backing away from, from Ukraine perhaps. And so why would I sit down at the negotiating table?
- [06:42]
Ben Hodges
Well, you put your finger on it. The decisive part of this war now is what's going on inside Putin's head. He obviously doesn't care about casualties. That's, that's not his concern. And this war is not going to be won because the Ukrainians finally killed a million or a million plus Russians killed or wounded them, and, and they'll probably hit that million number by the end of the summer. It's, as long as Putin thinks that he can win, which means as long as he believes that the west is not going to actually give Ukraine what's needed, support Ukraine with what's needed, both in terms of real support, but also the west using its economic power to wreck Russia's oil and gas industry. And especially if he sees or believes that the United States under this administration is not going to help, then I think he keeps on going because he has never backed away from any of his stated objectives. He still doesn't recognize Zelensky or refuses to recognize President Zelensky as a legitimate leader. The Russians have zero interest in actually coming to a negotiated settlement. So as long as he thinks he can win, he'll keep doing this.
- [08:00]
Mike Baker
So do you interpret their latest, whatever you'd want to call it, it's not an olive branch in any way. But their suggestion of a meeting in Istanbul on, on Monday, on 2 June, to discuss terms of a ceasefire or a piece of some sort, do you interpret that as, as just a stalling tactic or, or just stringing along the, the US and the West?
- [08:28]
Ben Hodges
Now, this is just More nonsensical noise from the, from the Kremlin. They're not interested in actually having a conversation. And you see what they're doing. And so far, our president has been completely reluctant to do anything that causes pain or problems for the Russians. And so by tossing out a bone here that, hey, we really want to have negotiations that they believe, I believe that the Russians believe that that would be all the President Trump needs. This, as I see the Russians really doing a talk. So, no sanctions, and so this, this is part of them continuing to play the administration.
- [09:11]
Mike Baker
Yeah, it's a bit bizarre if you think about it. Well, the whole thing is bizarre. But if you, if you look at comments from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who just the other day came out and said, well, you know, now is not the time to, you know, increase the pressure because we wouldn't want to force them away from the negotiating table. And yet Putin sees no problem in, in increasing airstrikes on Ukraine, you know, as if somehow, you know, there's. We're not on the same logic train here. And so I, I'm not quite sure, you know, why at this stage of the game, the White House isn't thinking to themselves, okay, you know, nothing else has worked. How about we ratchet up the sanctions pressure?
- [09:58]
Ben Hodges
Well, I think you're right that the White House is not on the same project train as the Russians. And that's been the problem from the beginning. The administration's approach, I think, was doomed to failure from the very start because they never really understood or appreciated the history, the culture, the geography, why Ukraine is fighting, what the Russians actually want. And you'll remember back in the beginning of the administration where Secretary Rubio said, well, obviously Ukraine's going to have to give up something that's before any negotiation. I mean, that doesn't quite sound like art of the deal to me. When you start by giving up something and, you know, the president, the couple of rare times where he was critical of Putin, he also would. Would badmouth President Zelensky also. And so the Russians can see this, and the fact is, I mean, they're mocking the president. You know, two days ago or three days ago, when the president said, putin's gone crazy, I don't know what happened. You know, then Peskov, the spokesman of the Kremlin, says, well, obviously, the president is under great emotional stress, or, I mean, they're, they're taunting this administration. And I kept hoping for the last few months that the president would finally be so angry and irritated with what the how the Russians are making us look foolish and frankly, making him look foolish and weak, that he would say, okay, I'm, I'm sick of this. And he would use all the enormous leverage that the president of the United States has, whether it's to provide Ukraine everything they need or to help European countries stop these illegal shadow fleet vessels that are taking oil and gas out of the Baltic Sea and Black Sea or do something in the markets that would lower the price of oil and gas so much that it would wreck Russia. He's, he's done none of those things, and I don't think he ever will.
- [11:54]
Mike Baker
The General Hodges. I want to pick up on that point when we come back, but if you could stay right where you are. We do have to take a quick break, and then we'll be right back with more from General Hodges, talking about Ukraine here on the situation report. Stick around. Welcome back to the situation report. Joining me once again is retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges. He's the former commanding general of U.S. army Europe. Sir, we were just talking about the reluctance of the White House, or however we want to describe it, to impose more pressure, more sanctions on the Kremlin. And I guess once again, I seem to be asking you a lot of questions that require you to speculate, but why do you think that the White House hasn't moved at this stage? Why do they seem so reluctant to push the Kremlin harder?
- [12:47]
Ben Hodges
Well, of course, you're right. I'd be speculating. I don't know. It's been a mystery to me. Never in my life did I imagine that a Republican president would be so unwilling to use our great leverage in power, economic as well as industrial power, against Russia. It's difficult to understand. Now, I know there are a lot of people that speculate about what the president's motivation is. Is it there some personal thing? Is there some. Does he envision himself as one of the three great leaders, along with Putin and Xi, to divide up the world? Is it one of those kind of. Or is it. Honestly, I think the president has zero interest in Ukraine. You know, these issues about sovereignty and freedom of navigation don't, don't mean anything to him. It's not a big moral decision for him. I think this is about can I get a good deal here with Ukraine or can we get to business with Russia? It feels like that's what's motivating this. The problem is, of course, the Chinese are watching all this. The Chinese are watching to see the US Seems to be kind of flexible when it comes to sovereignty, that's bad news for Taiwan in the Philippines or that the US Is not so keen on, you know, this international law or freedom of navigation, not such a big deal. I think that has, that tells the Chinese kind of where our limits are. I just, but my hope is that the Congress, you know, it looks like Senator Graham has got at least 80 other senators, Republicans and Democrats, that are prepared to put forward a big sanctions package. I think the Republican senators, the particular, the ones have been there for a long time and have always been pro NATO, pro transatlantic. They're very uneasy with how the White House is handling things right now. And so we could see a case soon where the Senate puts forward a sanctions package maybe in the next couple of weeks, with or without the President's endorsement. They could override it if the President tried to stop. But I think they would much rather do it in support of the President. So we'll see where that goes. But that's, that's my hope is at least the Congress will, will take some action.
- [15:13]
Mike Baker
I would think that if we, if we have the talks in Istanbul on Monday on the 2nd of June and nothing is accomplished, and it looks like it's going to be, relatively speaking, low level negotiating teams that are going to be sitting at the table. It's not going to be some summit between Zelensky and Putin. And if nothing happens, then you would, you would imagine that at that point perhaps Trump will, will maybe alter the calculus here a little bit and think that, okay, now we're getting absolutely nowhere in this regard. Even if he starts to back away from the provision of military support of hardware, that the sanctions, the economic pressure would be the next move, the next option. But again, you know, we will just have to wait and see at this stage. I think you're absolutely right. All of this hinges on what's in, Putin said. And frankly, what's in, what's in President Trump said. What do you make of the recent moves by the eu? They, they seem to be looking to, to backfill any potential gaps if the US Backs off of providing military resources. And then the German had said, Friedrich Mertz indicated that, well, on one day they were going to provide the Taurus cruise missile systems and then the next day said that's not the case. But what do you make of EU moves lately?
- [16:42]
Ben Hodges
Well, I think European countries realize that if Ukraine fails that they're next. I mean that Putin has been very open about, you know, he has aspirations beyond Ukraine. And they also know that if Ukraine fails, millions more Ukrainian refugees will be heading west into Poland, Germany, Romania and other parts of Europe. So there is a economic problem as well as the security problem. So I think they're recognizing, I think they've come to the conclusion frankly that this administrator, our administration is not going to actually do anything of substance and therefore this has been put completely in their lap. And that's why you've got UK and France and now Germany much more forward leaning on support to Ukraine. Now they should have been doing this all along, but the fact is they are stepping up to do it now. The new Bundes counselor, Mr. Mertz, indicated that he's not going to talk publicly about what they provide and don't provide anymore, which I think is probably smart. We should quit advertising. Okay, we just set 10 more, whatever. And they are going to invest a lot of money in Ukrainian defense industry, particularly on helping Ukrainians develop their own long range precision strike capability. So whatever this aid looks like, this is a positive thing that I think Europeans know they have to do it for their own security is this is not charity for Ukraine.
- [18:20]
Mike Baker
Yeah, Mertz, yeah, you made a really good point there. He did say after there was a bit of a kerfuffle over, you know, will they, won't they provide the Taurus then he, he commented that Germany is going to do everything possible to help Ukraine develop their own capabilities internally to, to, to produce long range missile systems. What's the timeline on something like that? That, that would seem to imply that, that there is no ceasefire in the works, there is no truce down the road. That at least the, the EU is looking at this and thinking this is a longer term, even though it's been three years already.
- [18:53]
Ben Hodges
Well, once again you put your finger on an important point. The Ukrainians, by the way, I don't think any serious people will show up in Istanbul from Ukraine on Monday. They, they, they, they know Russia better than we ever will and they know that the Russians actually have zero interest in a real set of negotiations. And of course Ukrainians also know that the Russians cannot be trusted, would never live up to any agreement. That's why they've insisted there has to be a ceasefire before you can get to real negotiations. So all the talking, everything that's been going on so far, that's just to try and get to a ceasefire of some sort. And the Russians have made it clear they will not do a ceasefire until they get some kind of deal in place. Well, that's the exact opposite side of this. And so I think people are realizing this is going to go on a lot longer. I do anticipate, at least what I read today, that what the German government is planning on doing, that there will be output, let's say before the end of this year, some new capabilities that are perhaps already in the works, but this economic boost from Germany and maybe even some technology boosts. And of course, that's why the Russians immediately threatened Germany said, well, obviously the Ukrainians can't do this without Germany. So if they do, they will have to strike Berlin. That's a big jump. Fat, Empty, empty threat. But it has worked in the past, these kinds of threats.
- [20:18]
Mike Baker
What do you think about former Russian President Medvedev's comments talking about World War Three the other day?
- [20:26]
Ben Hodges
Well, another drunken stupor by Medvedev who they try out about every two weeks to threaten nuclear war and all that because he knows that frankly, during the Biden administration, the Biden administration was very susceptible to these threats of nuclear war, as were several European countries, particularly Germany. Now you've got new leadership in Germany that is not shaken by this. And I, I imagine that the Trump White House also is not moved by the nuclear threats.
- [21:04]
Mike Baker
Yeah, you're right. Nobody, nobody loves to rattle the nuclear saber more than Dmitry Medvedev. He's, he kind of does it on a regular basis. And it is interesting because now they, you know, again, if you're thinking about, okay, well, if, if we had really solid intel sources, we could understand the plans and intentions and motivations of, of Putin and his increasingly shrinking inner circle. But you would have to assume that they made that realization, that they said, okay, look, these, these, this type of talk isn't impacting the U, this current US Administration. It doesn't seem to be impacting the EU the way that it did in the past with the US and others saying, yes, we've given a green light to using our systems to strike further into Russia and the Germans obviously on board with that. Now in some fashion, at some point, you know, you have to ask yourself, what would it take? And I guess once again we started with asking you to speculate. I guess I'm kind of wrapping up with asking you to speculate. But a two part question. What would it take to get Putin to actually sit down at the table in your opinion? And what do you think this conflict looks like by the time the end of the year rolls around?
- [22:27]
Ben Hodges
So I think he will only sit down when he realized what he's forced to, when he realizes they are either going to lose or there's no way that they can win. You know, his economy is being propped up right now. It's on a, somebody called it a sugar high of defense investment, which is not a sustainable way to do it. And then so if we would go after their oil and gas industry in such a way so that they could not export to India and China, then they would not be able to pay for what they're doing. So the economic pressure would be enormous. And I think that that kind of pressure is what it's really going to take. Using our economic power, that's us working with Europe, working with the Saudis and others, so you can manipulate the market and severely damage the Russian side. I think it's only going to be that or with a commitment by the United States and European countries, we're going to help Ukraine win. Not this, we're with you for as long as it takes BS but we're going to help them win. And here you go. We're putting as many attack on the Javelins, artillery, everything you could possibly use. It's coming. Then I think Putin would realize, the people around him would realize, okay, this, we're never going to, we got to get out of here somehow. That's, I think that's the only way. What does it look like a year from now? Obviously, it depends on what the US does and what Europe does. I think if nothing changes, I think we'll be about where we are right now come December.
- [24:09]
Mike Baker
That's a, there's a cheery thought. And to your point about China, with China watching, what's happening, everything, right. The world is constantly shrinking. It's very interconnected. And so we also have to take into account, look, they've been able to keep their war machine humming in part because of Chinese support from Xi Jinping and the Communist Party there. So, you know, increasing those sanctions, there has to be, you know, we've got to be very strategic about then also thinking about how, you know, do we deal with China to ensure that they don't then continue this level of support or increase the support to keep Putin's war machine humming along. General, as always, very, very much appreciate your insight, your experience, and you taking the time to join us here on the Situation report. I can't thank you enough and I hope you'll pick up the phone the next time we call you. Thank you, sir. Well, 600 days into the war in Gaza. Can you believe that? 600 days into the war in Gaza, Israeli forces are preparing to launch a major new ground offensive against Hamas. Now, the IDF says it aims to seize most of the territory in the strip within two months. We'll get the latest with Bill Rogio from the foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Stick around. Welcome Back to the BDB Situation Report. This week marks 600 days. Can you believe that? 600 days since the war between Israel and Hamas began. 600 days of conflict, destruction, and for the families of the hostages still held In Gaza, well, 600 days of anguish. Now Israel is launching a major new ground campaign. It's dubbed Operation Gideon's Chariots. And the offensive aims to occupy some 75% of Gaza's territory within the next two months. The Israel Defense Forces, the IDF, have deployed five full divisions, tens of thousands of troops into the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, Israel confirmed the death of Muhammad Sinwar, Hamas's Gaza chief and the younger brother of the group's slain top leader. He was reportedly killed in an Israeli strike targeting a hospital in southern Gaza. Joining me now is Bill Rozio. He's a senior fellow at the foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the editor of FDD's Long War Journal. Bill, thank you again for joining us here on THE Situation report. I believe at this stage, perhaps you may have the title of, you know, the most frequent guest on the Situation report. I did. But don't get excited. There's no prizes that come with that.
- [26:42]
Bill Rogio
Well, it's an honor regardless, prize or no, it certainly is an honor.
- [26:46]
Mike Baker
There's so much to talk about here. But let's talk about the, this, this offensive that the IDF is, is currently preparing for, engaged in. I mean, they've already moved their, their personnel. What do you make of it? They're talking about occupying up to 75% of the Gaza Strip.
- [27:07]
Bill Rogio
Yeah. So right now the, the main focus of the operation is in Rafa and communist or in southern Gaza, the Israeli military for them to occupy. You know, look, 2 million people in Gaza, it's a large area in. The Israeli military isn't built for this. They're built to fight quick, fast strike, high technology type wars, something like an occupation. They don't, the Israeli doesn't have that kind of manpower in their military. So you know how many, I think we've heard the Israelis say time and time again since this war began that its objective is to defeat Hamas. And yet here we are, well over a year and a half since the October 7, 2023 attack and Hamas is still in the fight. I think it's going to be difficult. The Israelis have to be smart about this. The only thing I could think here is that I do see some evidence that the Gaza, the people in Gaza are starting to grow tired of Hamas. We've seen a couple of instances of protest. Now Hamas has responded to that by going out and beating and executing the ringleaders of these protests, which shows that they still have staying power and that they still can wield the stick, particularly amongst their own people. For the Israelis to completely, you know, to occupy 75% of Gaza, well then what about that other 25%? Is this where Hamas slips into in order to slip away from the Israeli Defense Force and bide their time? We've seen this in, you know, the insurgencies that we fought, particularly in Afghanistan and in Iraq over time. So I call me skeptical that it can be successful, that the Israelis can succeed here. But maybe, but maybe they can. They certainly have to try because raids and airstrikes that they've been doing over the last year and a half, of course they have inserted ground forces. That just hasn't worked. I do think they need to try here. But I do have a lot of questions as to whether the Israeli military and Israeli society, because their military is primarily made up of reservist. So of all of these call up reservists that are going to have to be focusing on occupying Gaza are unable to go to their jobs and contribute to the Israeli economy. So there, there's a lot of difficulties. It's, it's fraught with problems both militarily and within the, you know, politically and within the civilian population for the Israelis to maintain the type of occupation that I think they, they would need to maintain in order to, to truly defeat Hamas and Gaza.
- [29:58]
Mike Baker
Yeah, and then you could argue, we've talked about that on the PDB in the past, is the idea that it's, it's not feasible when, and, and look, Netanyahu said this at the very outset, right on 7, October, the day after the 7th of October, he said we will destroy Hamas. And I would argue and have argued that, you know, it's, it's, it's understandable to say that, you know, you can understand the emotion in it, you can understand the concept, but in reality, you know, the idea that you're going to completely destroy this organization is I think, just not feasible. So what they're talking about, it appears to be, Bill, is it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is they're talking about essentially moving from the south, Rafa, in that area up north, and then kind of squeezing Hamas operations up into the northern section of Gaza in that whatever remaining 25% and then conduct operations at that point to take out the remainder of Hamas. But as you pointed out, and as you know, the US Military knows full well from, you know, urban warfare in Afghanistan in particular and, and in Iraq, that is, that is a, probably the toughest type of, of, of combat operation.
- [31:28]
Bill Rogio
Yeah, absolutely. And you have to remember. So look, support for Hamas has certainly dipped, but by all accounts it's somewhere amongst 50% of the population. Now could that be because the people are afraid? You know, the pollsters, maybe it's 30%, but you know the numbers, there's multiple studies on this and who knows what the real percentage is? You know, there's lies, damn lies and statistics, but they say anywhere from 2 to 5% of the population is what a successful insurgency needs to, to maintain itself. So let's say that number is 25% or 20% or 30%. Who knows what the truly the support is. The reality is, is that the support amongst the people in Gaza for Hamas is still high. The people have been indoctrinated for decades by Hamas. This was the real danger. You know, it's, it's interesting, right, Like I'm going to make it Afghanistan, the comparison here, the Israelis withdrew from Gaza in what it was 2005 or 2006 and the thought was they could isolate it and you know, just let, let them be and they won't have any reason. And here we are two decades later and the problem is as metastasizing and Hamas still remains in control of Gaza even if it's tenuous. U. S invaded Afghanistan to, to eject the Taliban from power. And here we are two decades later, the Taliban is back in power. Maybe we need to learn something about how we engage with terrorist organizations that are more than terrorist organizations that are and that have outside support. Maybe that like, maybe that's where the Israelis and the, the west that the problem is is much of the west is in support of Hamas. Now look at Europe and their attitudes towards Israel. The Israelis have a real long term problem when it comes to Hamas. Hamas just needs to figure out how to bide their time, how to wait out the Israeli offensive and just move back in when the Israelis tire.
- [33:23]
Mike Baker
Well, I think that's exactly their mindset, which is why, you know, they, they're constantly changing. The, you know, the, the, the strategy of the potential ceasefire discussions is that they feel that they can just, they wait this out. They've always found in the past that, you know, they can get the international community on their side, you know, whether they're actually supporting Hamas or the, you know, the international community is just upset with Israel over the level of response in Gaza. But I think Hamas's calculation really hasn't changed that much, despite the fact that their leadership is, has been fairly well degraded. But again, if we're talking about the impact of all of this on Hamas as a future organization, you could argue, yes, I think you're, I think you're right, that some of the population of Gaza is, is or has turned against Hamas. Right. They, they rightly understand that Hamas brought this suffering and this pain and all of this destruction on to them. But I think then you've also got others, I would argue you've got a, a well of new recruits for Hamas or, you know, radicalism, particularly sort of the younger male population who's been suffering through the, the fighting since October 7th. And instead of blaming Hamas, they're blaming Israel. And if Israel does intend to occupy for any period of time, you know, the, the Strip, then I think they're creating a new generation of potential fighters here.
- [35:00]
Bill Rogio
No, I agree. I mean that new generation, the young male, the military age male or even younger than that. I mean, when you look at the destruction in Gaza, what do they have to lose? On one hand, I don't blame the Israelis. One hand, the Israelis have been far too kind for what the people of Gaza did to. It's not just Hamas, right. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the PLFP and the Alphabet soup of terrorist organizations that emanate from Gaza and as well as the west bank celebrating that attack on Israel. On one hand, you know, have the, what would our response be if the cartels did, on the, the scale of what to the United States, to American citizens. What the, what Hamas and company did to the Israelis, I can only imagine. I mean, I think me and my friends would certainly be rounding up and going to Texas to exact some revenge for, for what? You know, for 20,000 plus American dead in an attack, a horrific attack like that. But as you know, there's consequences to that. Does it create another generation? Is it is the destruction that Israel has leveled upon the people of Gaza? Has it just given them no other opportunity but to fight? You know, I'm torn on this issue, but ultimately I don't, you know, I kind of come down on the side here that the Israelis have tried to play nice for decades. They, they left Gaza, they ended the occupation in, in the mid-2000s to leave Gaza and the Palestinians to govern on their own. And they were repaid by multiple attacks via rockets, missiles, balloons, the incendiary balloons, terrorists coming across the border to kill people in rammings and shootings and ultimately the, the, the pogrom that occurred on, on October 7, 2023. You know, what other option did the Israelis have? I mean, how, how, how much longer could they turn the other Jeep?
- [37:02]
Mike Slater
Yeah.
- [37:03]
Mike Baker
And I think they did. They knew going into it, I think that they would lose the international community after that brief sympathetic moment after the seven October attacks. I think they were probably also surprised at how quickly the international community turned on them as a result of their response inside Gaza. But look, Bill, a lot more to talk about, but if you could stay right there, we do have to take a quick break and then we'll be right back with more from Bill Ro on THE SITUATION report. Stick around. Welcome back to THE SITUATION report. Joining me once again is Bill Ro, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Bill, thank you for, for being here. And let me ask you this. There's roughly 2.3 million residents in Gaza. How about that plan to relocate them to other countries?
- [37:54]
Bill Rogio
Yeah, that one seems to have gone by the wayside. The Trump administration, if they were serious about this, I think this was something that would have been better, better handled behind closed doors. Although part of me wonders if this is the Trump negotiating style of going and, you know, going, you know, taking a swing for the grand slam and then possibly hoping to get, you know, a single or a double here. I, you know, far be it for me to understand the mind of Trump and his foreign policy team. I look at what happened in Syria and I'm perplexed that the president, even if he wanted to re engage with Syria and lift sanctions, why you would sit down with a person who's still on the list of specially designated global terrorists. So I, you know, I've given up on trying to figure out what the Trump administration's, what their end game is and how they handle negotiations. But to me, if I was to do this, I think this is something that would have been better handled, at least at the outset, to be on behind closed doors. It certainly is a threat. The reality is, look, I've learned this in my travels to the Middle east in the early, I'm sorry, the mid-2000s. You know, while people, Middle Easterners profess to support the people in the Palestinian people, they don't like them. The Iraqis didn't like that the Palestinians sided with Saddam Hussein. And while they don't like Israel, they also have a distaste for the Palestinians who they believe to be entitled to suck up a lot of the oxygen in the room, that, to receive all of the international aid and all of those things. So a lot of countries, they just don't want that problem. I mean, where are they going to go to Jordan where they have their own Palestinian problem? The Jordanian regime is terrified of their Palestinian population. The Egyptians, you know, the only reason they tolerate the Palestinians is as a foil against the Israelis. They're just, you know, I've realized I'm generalizing here, but there just isn't a lot alike for the Palestinians. And, and that's why I think ultimately, you know, why would these countries, why would Egypt, why would the Saudis, why, you know, I heard like Somalia was, was a landing ground. That's a, a country with its own problems. They want Palestinian troublemakers when they're dealing with an altite insurgency that controls 40% of the country. A lot of this just doesn't lib.
- [40:16]
Mike Baker
Libya, Somalia. Yeah, no, I, look, I don't think you're generalizing. I think, you know, it's clear Jordan's got a very large Palestinian population already inside the country. Right. And Egypt has always been holding them at arm's length. Right. They built a wall down there and in part because, you know, they don't want, you know, incoming Palestinian refugees flooding into their country. And so look, I get it. I think even Netanyahu was surprised when President Trump first mentioned this idea. And I believe if I'm keeping my phrasing right, it was going to be the Riviera of the Middle East. But you know, if you step away from that, I mean, it did create conversation. You remember, shortly after that, you know, the Saudis held a summit to talk about, okay, what is going to be our plan? Because clearly that plan is not one we want to sign on to. You know, most of the surrounding countries were very quick to say no, but at least they got them talking. So you could argue sometimes that, that, you know, some of the policy statements that the White House comes out with, on the surface you may look at and go, what, you're going to relocate 2.3 million people. But you know, then there's a knock on effect that can create some dialogue or create some, somebody else throwing another idea on the table. So, you know, I guess I fall in the camp of, you know, at this stage of the game, all the past efforts and ideas haven't worked for the Palestinians. So yeah, let's, let's be as creative as possible.
- [41:55]
Bill Rogio
Syria, I'm going to agree with you. I think that that's exactly what the plan was. It was just sort of to, to, to kick the hornets nest and get discussions going. That's ultimately where I come down with this. I mean, you know, I, I was addressing it more in the terms like this was serious policy, probably be handled differently. And which, which is what leads me to believe that it wasn't really serious, that it had, there was an ulterior motive. And I do ultimately agree with your assessment of that.
- [42:21]
Mike Baker
Well, it was interesting because, you know, Netanyahu came out not that long ago and said that the relocation concept, you know, would need to be part of any long term solution, ceasefire solution. So, you know, again, whether he was throwing that out there as sort of a nod to President Trump or whether he was throwing it out there as just yet again another way to, you know, create further dialogue, who knows? But he had picked up on it recently and said that, that, yeah, that would be a condition for, you know, a future long term peace agreement of some sort with Syria. I would just, you know, it's interesting because, you know, now we've got incredible reporting that Israel and Syria have been holding direct conversations and look, again, maybe that goes nowhere. And, you know, we have to be very pragmatic about, you know, to what degree we trust Ahmed Al Shira and his new, you know, government there in Syria at this stage until, you know, they prove otherwise. But again, you know, hey, let's have some dialogue. I guess that's, it's, it's, it's not a bad idea as long as we don't approach it, you know, sort of like past administrations. I would argue the Obama administration, certainly the Biden administration, you know, they always acted as if hope was a good thing to, to base your policies on. You know, like we somehow live in a community of nations. So I guess what I'm saying is let's have the dialogue, but let's be very pragmatic about how the world actually works so that, you know, we're not surprised. What do you think is going to be the sort of the end result of what you're seeing in Syria? I mean, let's, let's stick there for just the moment.
- [44:08]
Bill Rogio
Yeah, Siri, I have a lot, and this is where I do fundamentally disagree with the Trump administration. This was a very bad decision. Ahmed Elshara, before he became, now look, he is a wolf in an Italian suit with a nice haircut. This guy is a specially designated global terrorist, at least for the moment. He led Al Qaeda's branch in Syria, probably still does, even when he disassociated from the group. He praised Osama bin Laden. I mean, Al Zawagiri, he essentially received permission to do what he's done. He has. He's really played the game. This is a guy who reported to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State. Why would you trust him? Look, I view jihadists like I view pedophiles. They don't change. You don't. All of a sudden we go, I'm not a pedophile anymore and I'm not a jihadist anymore. These are core beliefs or that it's, it's the core. It's who they are. One of the conditions that the Trump administration wanted the Shara and his people to adhere to was getting rid of the foreign jihadists. And those numerous groups have documented them at the Lower Journal. One of these groups is the Turkestan Islamic Party. Right. This is a terrorist organization. Its leader sits on Al Qaeda. Shura. It. It commands the Turkistan Islamic Party. He's based. His name is Abdul Hakal Tristani. He's based in Afghanistan. He issues orders to the, the, the fighters that are in Syria. He appointed their. The. The Syrian leader and they've been rolled into the military. The Syrian New Syrian military under Alara. Meanwhile, they were participated in the massacre just a couple of months ago in March that targeted the Alawites. I, why should we trust that? Would I trust a pedophile to run a daycare center or an axe murderer to give him the keys to a cutlery shop? But somehow I'm going to let a jihadist. I'll trust the jihadists to run a country and direct a military. Maybe I'm old school, maybe I don't understand. I think this was a massive mistake by the Trump administration.
- [46:14]
Ben Hodges
So what.
- [46:15]
Mike Baker
But what would you do differently then? How would you deal with Syria?
- [46:19]
Bill Rogio
I would not grant them. Look, the Trump administration is lifting sanctions and people be like, well, it give the Syrian people aid and it'll give them. You keep them away from food insecurity and get on a chance with your life. Well, you still have a jihadist regime. That's, that has foreign terrorists within its military that serve at the highest level of its command, including its leader. And any, Every dime that we, you know, aid, like money is fungible. Every dollar that we provide or allow them to have access to is money that they could pay foreign fighters, that they could pay their military. If the world wants to recognize Syria, let the world recognize Syria. Why do we have to fund it? Why do we have to be part of it. If disengagement from the war on terror, for instance. I think that this was another criticism by Trump in his first term, the Doha agreement with the Taliban. If you wanted to disengage from Afghanistan, disengage. But you don't have to cut a deal with the Taliban and we don't have to recognize Ahmed al Shara as, you know, as a world leader. It's just an absolute mistake. We don't understand the individuals that we are dealing with. I understand this was, I don't know what you, what politics is this real politic? I have no idea. But I do know that I have principles. Part of my principles are not dealing with individuals who are, you know, sponsored suicide bombings who were, who led Al Qaeda's branch.
- [47:48]
Mike Baker
Yeah, no, I think you're, I think you're absolutely right in the, in the sense of, look, this is who they were, this is who they are. I think the mindset right now from the administration is that engagement, right? I mean, look, everybody was so happy to see, you know, the backside of Assad, right. He and his dad were butchers. And so I think people were so excited to see him leave that, you know, perhaps, you know, the mindset was very proactive, perhaps a little overly aggressive in saying, well now let's engage, you know, with what's coming in behind Assad. Again, you have to, you have to temper that with, let's see what their actions are. But I think the mindset is, you know, a better engagement than just stepping back and allowing whatever is going to allow there to fester without trying to temper their behavior or influence their behavior in some fashion. Look, that they just raised the U. S. Flag over the embassy there, the ambassador's residence in Damascus. I think that's the first time they've, they've done that since, well, at least a dozen years. So it is fascinating. And now Israel's having conversations of their own. You know, perhaps the calculus is changing, which may have again sort of this knock on effect that we can't predict. But I, I understand exactly what you're saying and I, I don't disagree. But maybe real politic is the best way to describe it. Right? We gotta, you live in the world that you've actually got rather than the one you hope for. And so sometimes you're dealing with people who are odious. I don't know.
- [49:31]
Bill Rogio
Yeah. You know, but I just wonder why we have to deal with them, you know, I do. Does American taxpayer dollars and does he. Do we have to Let the Europeans, if they want to sponsor a member of Al Qaeda, or if the Russians do that, let them deal with it. What does, what are we going to influence? You know, we're back to we, we tend to throw money at problems and ignore the nature of our enemies. Those are true our biggest problems and they're why we lost the war on terror. And I, I'm just of the mind that, you know, nothing we do. Alshara will not a seed, just like the Taliban, never acceded to one of our demands. He's not going to accede to any of our demands either. He allows foreign terrorists to remain in Syria. That it's the easiest thing that, that he could do, but he can't do it because he relies on them to keep him in power.
- [50:26]
Mike Baker
Why?
- [50:27]
Bill Rogio
You know, just two months ago, his people were behind the massacre in Latakia and he's like, well, we'll hold an investigation. And I mean, does that, is that what, what it takes to get recognition? Let me put it this another way. If he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, would the American people and the American government be so willing to accede to his demands, to recognize him, to, Would he be welcome at the, at the White House? Would he shake the hands the president?
- [50:58]
Mike Baker
I'm having a hard time understanding where you stand on this. I, because you, you compared Shira to the, to the kkk, to an ax murderer, to a pedophile.
- [51:09]
Ben Hodges
And.
- [51:10]
Mike Baker
Yeah, so I, it's, it's really hard to see where you fall down on this subject.
- [51:13]
Bill Rogio
Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of nuance in there, isn' I, I'm well known for my nuance.
- [51:18]
Mike Baker
There's a lot of you are, you are extremely nuanced. Bill, if there's, if there's one word that people use to describe you. Look, I, I, again, I think it's, it's, it's a very valid point. I can see, you know, look, again, it's kind of like the, the, the way the world operates. You know, I can see your point and I can see the idea anyway, the concept of, of having some engagement right at this early stage when you're trying to feel this new potential government out. But I can see problems with both, you know, both plans. And, and so typically, as is usual in this world, you end up choosing the, the least worst, I suppose. But Bill, I gotta tell you, as always, love having you on the show. At some point, you're, you're probably going to start demanding producer credits here, but foundation for the Defense of Democracies, editor of the Long War Journal. Bill, thank you so much, man. And I hope you'll pick up that phone the next time we call you because we'd love to have you back. Well, that is. What a great guy, Bill Rochio. Anyway, listen, that's all the time we have for this week's PDB Situation report. As always, if you have any questions or comments, please reach out to me at pdb@the first tv.com you know what we do with your comments and your questions, right? The mailbag shows up at our compound, and then oftentimes it's the interns. They get busy sifting through all the questions, and we compile the best ones into a monthly ask me anything episode. Right? So keep those cards and letters coming. Finally, to listen to the podcast ad free. Well, you can do that. Become a premium member of the President's Daily brief by visiting PDB premium.com. that's all you have to do. It's very simple. I'm Mike Baker. Until next time. Well, you know the drill. Stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.