Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple Coarclay, and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple Coarclay, and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.

Joe Wisenthal is in town. I'm pretty sure this has never happened, at least in the nation's capital since I've been to Bloomber the Stalwart. He's with me at the table. Of course, the host co host of the Odd Lots podcast even put a tie on.

Joe Wisenthal is in town. I'm pretty sure this has never happened, at least in the nation's capital since I've been to Bloomber the Stalwart. He's with me at the table. Of course, the host co host of the Odd Lots podcast even put a tie on.

This is Can you believe this? They put a tie on? I put it, I put you put the tie, I put the tie.

This is Can you believe this? They put a tie on? I put it, I put you put the tie, I put the tie.

Cleaned up a little bit, jo Is that? Are you feeling the capital it?

Cleaned up a little bit, jo Is that? Are you feeling the capital it?

Because I'm feeling the capital vibes. I'm like, okay, I'm.

Because I'm feeling the capital vibes. I'm like, okay, I'm.

Very serious, surrounded by marble.

Very serious, surrounded by marble.

Things going on. Yeah, it's like, all right, I better put on it. Okay, meet the moment.

Things going on. Yeah, it's like, all right, I better put on it. Okay, meet the moment.

I want to hear about what you have planned for tonight.

I want to hear about what you have planned for tonight.

Yeah. I know.

Yeah. I know.

Hundreds of people are lined up to watch the taping of what I believe is Bloomberg's biggest podcast.

Hundreds of people are lined up to watch the taping of what I believe is Bloomberg's biggest podcast.

I think that's right. Yeah, that is right.

I think that's right. Yeah, that is right.

I've heard about that from people. But I want to ask you about what the hell's going on in the market here, because it's not coming easy. And now even an attempt at recovery yesterday when the President pulled back on some of the that that fizzled, and you've got people, you know, the charts are broken talking about the beginning of something maybe a lot worse.

I've heard about that from people. But I want to ask you about what the hell's going on in the market here, because it's not coming easy. And now even an attempt at recovery yesterday when the President pulled back on some of the that that fizzled, and you've got people, you know, the charts are broken talking about the beginning of something maybe a lot worse.

Yeah, it's really weird. It's time. I mean, it's great in our business.

Yeah, it's really weird. It's time. I mean, it's great in our business.

Let's be honest.

Let's be honest.

There's plenty to talk about.

There's plenty to talk about.

There isn't Let's just be real. Let's just be a real security.

There isn't Let's just be real. Let's just be a real security.

For a second. There's plenty to talk about.

For a second. There's plenty to talk about.

But it feels like we're in an uncharted territory because, you know, even with the expectation that the new administration would be, you know, take a much more terror friendly approach than the prior administration, we didn't expect from day one that the key targets would be Canada and Mexico.

But it feels like we're in an uncharted territory because, you know, even with the expectation that the new administration would be, you know, take a much more terror friendly approach than the prior administration, we didn't expect from day one that the key targets would be Canada and Mexico.

And the fundamental thing is, we don't know why.

And the fundamental thing is, we don't know why.

We don't know what the ask is, we don't know what the purpose is, and we don't know what it's gonna look like.

We don't know what the ask is, we don't know what the purpose is, and we don't know what it's gonna look like.

And it seems to change by the day. And you hear this thing.

And it seems to change by the day. And you hear this thing.

You know, businesses always say it, they see, oh, we want certainty, we just want to know the rules. We just want to know, you know, and they usually appli as to regulation. You know, if we have like permanent, substantial tariffs against all goods coming from Canada and Mexico, then that's a serious long term planning project to adjust for that. Well, what does it still make economic sense to buy from Canada or in Mexico? What do we have to commit the billions of dollars to domestic supply change. I think these are huge decisions that you don't make overnight, et cetera. But in the meantime, you know, we don't you know, they seem to change by the day, So you certainly can't plan anything long term until like, okay, this is the new fixed relationship and it doesn't seem like run anywhere.

You know, businesses always say it, they see, oh, we want certainty, we just want to know the rules. We just want to know, you know, and they usually appli as to regulation. You know, if we have like permanent, substantial tariffs against all goods coming from Canada and Mexico, then that's a serious long term planning project to adjust for that. Well, what does it still make economic sense to buy from Canada or in Mexico? What do we have to commit the billions of dollars to domestic supply change. I think these are huge decisions that you don't make overnight, et cetera. But in the meantime, you know, we don't you know, they seem to change by the day, So you certainly can't plan anything long term until like, okay, this is the new fixed relationship and it doesn't seem like run anywhere.

If somebody make out a lot of money trading volatility, I mean, I'm.

If somebody make out a lot of money trading volatility, I mean, I'm.

Sure there are I'm sure that ball sellers of various flavors trading desks who sort of basically benefit from sheer volume have done really well. But by and large, you know, this is sort of the classic thing that investors don't like to see. And then there's another interesting dynamic, which is an even prior to the tariffs, there are reasonable arguments to say that the economy was already slowing down, that the labor market was softening, that there are conditions in place that otherwise would necessitate Okay, let's begin those FED cuts again. Except the FED doesn't really know the impact of the tariffs, and so even under all things equal, the FED can't sort of look at this and sort of have its normal reaction function where it's like, Okay, there's this slowdown, we're going to signal more rate cuts that balance things out, because it really doesn't know what the inflationary effect on the tariffs are in the first order because of the impact on prices, and then the second order, what is going to be the economic effect of the sort of investment activity that would have to take to replace international supply chain.

Sure there are I'm sure that ball sellers of various flavors trading desks who sort of basically benefit from sheer volume have done really well. But by and large, you know, this is sort of the classic thing that investors don't like to see. And then there's another interesting dynamic, which is an even prior to the tariffs, there are reasonable arguments to say that the economy was already slowing down, that the labor market was softening, that there are conditions in place that otherwise would necessitate Okay, let's begin those FED cuts again. Except the FED doesn't really know the impact of the tariffs, and so even under all things equal, the FED can't sort of look at this and sort of have its normal reaction function where it's like, Okay, there's this slowdown, we're going to signal more rate cuts that balance things out, because it really doesn't know what the inflationary effect on the tariffs are in the first order because of the impact on prices, and then the second order, what is going to be the economic effect of the sort of investment activity that would have to take to replace international supply chain.

So very confusing time.

So very confusing time.

Very confusing. Yet everyone seems to be feeling good or trying to make themselves feel good about this CPI today. Does that then turn tomorrow when the first tariffs show up with the PPI.

Very confusing. Yet everyone seems to be feeling good or trying to make themselves feel good about this CPI today. Does that then turn tomorrow when the first tariffs show up with the PPI.

Well, what I would say is the slow right now, any snapshot in time obviously has no TERRFF effect, And what it does is sort of confirm this notion that prior to right now and prior to all of this confusion, the economy is on track for softening. And again this gets back to the idea that okay, like the FED can look at softening jobs data, it can look at softening price data and say, yeah, this is the playbook as we cut rates, and the market likes that except for that tariff wild card, and so that normal relationship may not apply quite to the same degree as what I normally expect to see it.

Well, what I would say is the slow right now, any snapshot in time obviously has no TERRFF effect, And what it does is sort of confirm this notion that prior to right now and prior to all of this confusion, the economy is on track for softening. And again this gets back to the idea that okay, like the FED can look at softening jobs data, it can look at softening price data and say, yeah, this is the playbook as we cut rates, and the market likes that except for that tariff wild card, and so that normal relationship may not apply quite to the same degree as what I normally expect to see it.

Yeah, well, this is an awfully difficult moment when we know more could still be coming. Yeah, so there's talk of capitulation, right what do you look at? What does that look like this time? Is it? Is it the VIX it one hundred, is it the S and P five hundred and four thousand? Or do these metrics not matter right now? Well?

Yeah, well, this is an awfully difficult moment when we know more could still be coming. Yeah, so there's talk of capitulation, right what do you look at? What does that look like this time? Is it? Is it the VIX it one hundred, is it the S and P five hundred and four thousand? Or do these metrics not matter right now? Well?

I mean I think in the short term.

I mean I think in the short term.

You know, when you see a huge spike of the VIX you could say, okay, maybe that means that we're in some sort of near term selling point. Yes, you know, that's what history usually says in the medium term, the direction of the market will be determined by the direction of the economy. Ultimately, when we have like real sustained bear markets, they happen because of recessions. And so in the short term, yay, a little panic, a little unwind. You have momentum trades that were really popular and suddenly they're not popular, and so entities that are short term in nature have to sell, and maybe they're selling gets exhausted. But the end, like the market is determined by earnings, and earnings are determined by the real economy, and so you know, any sort of for any actual like capital I investor listening to this, the only thing that really matters for the stock market is what happens with the trajectory of the economy and earnings.

You know, when you see a huge spike of the VIX you could say, okay, maybe that means that we're in some sort of near term selling point. Yes, you know, that's what history usually says in the medium term, the direction of the market will be determined by the direction of the economy. Ultimately, when we have like real sustained bear markets, they happen because of recessions. And so in the short term, yay, a little panic, a little unwind. You have momentum trades that were really popular and suddenly they're not popular, and so entities that are short term in nature have to sell, and maybe they're selling gets exhausted. But the end, like the market is determined by earnings, and earnings are determined by the real economy, and so you know, any sort of for any actual like capital I investor listening to this, the only thing that really matters for the stock market is what happens with the trajectory of the economy and earnings.

Yet, what just happened since the inauguration is a I guess even the election has been My god, we just took the most incredible round trip.

Yet, what just happened since the inauguration is a I guess even the election has been My god, we just took the most incredible round trip.

Yeah, that's right of our lives.

Yeah, that's right of our lives.

I don't know what we thought we were doing there for a minute.

I don't know what we thought we were doing there for a minute.

Well, it's interesting because if you think back to when Trump one in twenty sixteen, there was a lot of perception that he would be bad for the market, the uncertainty candidate, right, and then famously that night of the election stock futures planning. Yeah, and then he was, from the market's perspective of a great president. You know, lines just kept going up when he passed tax cuts. And I would say his administration was what I would say, sort of like a normal or Republican administration. They did tax cuts and not really a whole lot else. Probably some deregulation, et cetera, but not a whole lot else. And so I think when he won this time around, people remember the twenty twenty, the twenty sixteen playbook plays, he was great. And so it's like, oh, we're going to clear this big merger paglog backlog that we have, and we're going to get deregulation, we're going to get tax cuts, all things that investors really like, and all this stuff about tariffs and the sort of America First agenda was like, he'll forget about that. It turns out that that's the priority from de Oni.

Well, it's interesting because if you think back to when Trump one in twenty sixteen, there was a lot of perception that he would be bad for the market, the uncertainty candidate, right, and then famously that night of the election stock futures planning. Yeah, and then he was, from the market's perspective of a great president. You know, lines just kept going up when he passed tax cuts. And I would say his administration was what I would say, sort of like a normal or Republican administration. They did tax cuts and not really a whole lot else. Probably some deregulation, et cetera, but not a whole lot else. And so I think when he won this time around, people remember the twenty twenty, the twenty sixteen playbook plays, he was great. And so it's like, oh, we're going to clear this big merger paglog backlog that we have, and we're going to get deregulation, we're going to get tax cuts, all things that investors really like, and all this stuff about tariffs and the sort of America First agenda was like, he'll forget about that. It turns out that that's the priority from de Oni.

Yeah, you're putting your finger on it here, and so that turned out to be the priority.

Yeah, you're putting your finger on it here, and so that turned out to be the priority.

And yeah, like and even on the merger, the funny thing is, so are you even on the merger front, which was supposed to be this big boon to Wall Street because all the deals were being held up. Even it doesn't even seem like there's been that much of a turn from the last administration on that in terms of green lighting and mergers. So it's basically the exact opposite of what investors were thinking about all from early November to sort of late December.

And yeah, like and even on the merger, the funny thing is, so are you even on the merger front, which was supposed to be this big boon to Wall Street because all the deals were being held up. Even it doesn't even seem like there's been that much of a turn from the last administration on that in terms of green lighting and mergers. So it's basically the exact opposite of what investors were thinking about all from early November to sort of late December.

So you're glad you didn't buy Animal Spirits dot Com because everybody was just looking at it.

So you're glad you didn't buy Animal Spirits dot Com because everybody was just looking at it.

Anything that was sort of speculative and nature. Yeah, we're talking Tesla, Crypto, right, whatever, just in video.

Anything that was sort of speculative and nature. Yeah, we're talking Tesla, Crypto, right, whatever, just in video.

All of it went to the launchpad. So let me ask you then about creative destruction. Yes, because that's kind of what we're hearing about, right, short term pain, guys, But we're resetting the dial here. This is going to result in long term growth. Don't obsess over the next six months. Yeah, but of course the stock market's looking beyond six months in many occasions. See what we're talking about. What do you see?

All of it went to the launchpad. So let me ask you then about creative destruction. Yes, because that's kind of what we're hearing about, right, short term pain, guys, But we're resetting the dial here. This is going to result in long term growth. Don't obsess over the next six months. Yeah, but of course the stock market's looking beyond six months in many occasions. See what we're talking about. What do you see?

The notion of short term pain for long term gain is certainly a legitimate idea, but I think the problem is we don't know what that long term gain looks like right now, because you know, first of all, there's just the straight up ambiguity of like how much our company is going to have to reshore supply chains and how good will that be and will that really be good for profitability or are they just going to be less efficient supply chains. But also when you think about you know, countries that undergo some sort of major economic restructuring cut in some areas, but then you like try to create incentives for investment in other areas. So in this case, you know, what kind of investments are there going to be for domestic technology, domestic manufacturing and so forth.

The notion of short term pain for long term gain is certainly a legitimate idea, but I think the problem is we don't know what that long term gain looks like right now, because you know, first of all, there's just the straight up ambiguity of like how much our company is going to have to reshore supply chains and how good will that be and will that really be good for profitability or are they just going to be less efficient supply chains. But also when you think about you know, countries that undergo some sort of major economic restructuring cut in some areas, but then you like try to create incentives for investment in other areas. So in this case, you know, what kind of investments are there going to be for domestic technology, domestic manufacturing and so forth.

We haven't really seen the positive vision, do you know the negative aspect?

We haven't really seen the positive vision, do you know the negative aspect?

You know, I think back to you know, China actually several years ago when they purposely pricked their own real estate bubble. I wanted to cause several years of market pain, but it was accompanied by this very long term, sort of deep strategy of like Okay, we want to race ahead, and AI we want to race ahead, and chips I want to race ahead, and biotech, etc. So there was the positive vision that sort of went along with like the short term pain. Right now, we're getting the short term pain, but we don't really know what that sort of like positive vision where those engines of growth are going to be. Once we've reoriented the economy, there's.

You know, I think back to you know, China actually several years ago when they purposely pricked their own real estate bubble. I wanted to cause several years of market pain, but it was accompanied by this very long term, sort of deep strategy of like Okay, we want to race ahead, and AI we want to race ahead, and chips I want to race ahead, and biotech, etc. So there was the positive vision that sort of went along with like the short term pain. Right now, we're getting the short term pain, but we don't really know what that sort of like positive vision where those engines of growth are going to be. Once we've reoriented the economy, there's.

Going to be a little more conversation about short term pain coming from the President Donald Trump and the t shock. The Irish Prime Minister just wrapping up their meeting in the Oval Office. So we'll get our hands on that conversation free in a moment, you break it out the telly tonight.

Going to be a little more conversation about short term pain coming from the President Donald Trump and the t shock. The Irish Prime Minister just wrapping up their meeting in the Oval Office. So we'll get our hands on that conversation free in a moment, you break it out the telly tonight.

I'm not breaking out the telly.

I'm not breaking out the telly.

So we're doing as you alluded to, we're doing a live taping of our podcast. There are still some balcony tickets. We've sold out the floor.

So we're doing as you alluded to, we're doing a live taping of our podcast. There are still some balcony tickets. We've sold out the floor.

Look at the mirror standing room here in Washington, d C. Everyone should everyone should come to that. There are still some tickets available.

Look at the mirror standing room here in Washington, d C. Everyone should everyone should come to that. There are still some tickets available.

We speaking of mergers, we're gonna we have the new FTC chief, Andrew Ferguson excellent. Uh So we're gonna talk about the new merger guidelines we're gonna have. We're gonna speaking of tech and Ai Blair Levin used to be at the FCC under Clinton and then.

We speaking of mergers, we're gonna we have the new FTC chief, Andrew Ferguson excellent. Uh So we're gonna talk about the new merger guidelines we're gonna have. We're gonna speaking of tech and Ai Blair Levin used to be at the FCC under Clinton and then.

On Wall Street.

On Wall Street.

We're gonna relive war stories from the telecom bubble, which was I think the last time investors were in thrall to this a sort of a tech infrastructure build out. Are there some parallels to AI? And then we're gonna have a debate on the Jones Act. We should be really fun. It's the law that restricts domestic shipping to US built carriers.

We're gonna relive war stories from the telecom bubble, which was I think the last time investors were in thrall to this a sort of a tech infrastructure build out. Are there some parallels to AI? And then we're gonna have a debate on the Jones Act. We should be really fun. It's the law that restricts domestic shipping to US built carriers.

We have someone from the pro side, someone from the anti side. That should be fun. I'm gonna play a few songs on guitar so I have I'm like, I had a cough. I'm a little worried about that.

We have someone from the pro side, someone from the anti side. That should be fun. I'm gonna play a few songs on guitar so I have I'm like, I had a cough. I'm a little worried about that.

So you'll say great to me, man, this are you kidding? So seven o'clock doors.

So you'll say great to me, man, this are you kidding? So seven o'clock doors.

Seven o'clock doors.

Seven o'clock doors.

It's the Miracle Theater in Southeast Washington.

It's the Miracle Theater in Southeast Washington.

For people there's nothing better to do in Washington tonight than.

For people there's nothing better to do in Washington tonight than.

I can attest to that. For people not in the Capitol tonight, they'll hear the podcast.

I can attest to that. For people not in the Capitol tonight, they'll hear the podcast.

Well, yeah, the episode.

Well, yeah, the episode.

So we're gonna get a few episodes out of the live take it super and they'll be out on all the feeds, Apple, Spotify, elsewhere, odd lots, wherever you get your.

So we're gonna get a few episodes out of the live take it super and they'll be out on all the feeds, Apple, Spotify, elsewhere, odd lots, wherever you get your.

Podcast next week.

Podcast next week.

This is the best. You gotta do this more often.

This is the best. You gotta do this more often.

I know.

I know.

I love coming down.

I love coming down.

It's great to see it. Congratulations having me absolutely on all your success. If you're not subscribed to the Odd Lots podcast, you're the only one. You can find it on Apple or Spotify and your life will improve.

It's great to see it. Congratulations having me absolutely on all your success. If you're not subscribed to the Odd Lots podcast, you're the only one. You can find it on Apple or Spotify and your life will improve.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay, and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay, and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.

The headline today Putin likely to drag out Ukraine truce talks to seek terms. You might have heard the head line earlier that he was eventually set to agree to a truce. I'm still scratching my head on this a little bit, as Ukraine, the country that was invaded, surely would agree to a truce in that invasion. So yes, the ball is in Russia's court. Emily Dominich is an expert on this conversation, and I'm glad to say with us here in the studio as we wait to hear from the President and the Prime Minister's senior vice president. Boundary Stone Partners and a veteran of Washington and the Speaker's Office. Senior policy advisor to both Speakers of the House, Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson. Wonderful to see you, Thanks for coming.

The headline today Putin likely to drag out Ukraine truce talks to seek terms. You might have heard the head line earlier that he was eventually set to agree to a truce. I'm still scratching my head on this a little bit, as Ukraine, the country that was invaded, surely would agree to a truce in that invasion. So yes, the ball is in Russia's court. Emily Dominich is an expert on this conversation, and I'm glad to say with us here in the studio as we wait to hear from the President and the Prime Minister's senior vice president. Boundary Stone Partners and a veteran of Washington and the Speaker's Office. Senior policy advisor to both Speakers of the House, Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson. Wonderful to see you, Thanks for coming.

In, Thanks for having me.

In, Thanks for having me.

You've got a background, of course, in the area that we're talking about here, and there are a lot of questions about whether this mineral deal will be signed imminently, as this apparently what unlock talks. But when you hear this kind of language from Vladimir Putin, can we take this seriously this process.

You've got a background, of course, in the area that we're talking about here, and there are a lot of questions about whether this mineral deal will be signed imminently, as this apparently what unlock talks. But when you hear this kind of language from Vladimir Putin, can we take this seriously this process.

I think we've heard Secretary Rubio say this over and over again, that will know whether or not Putin is serious based on what are willing to agree to at the negotiating table. There's no way to find out whether or not they're serious about peace unless we have those conversations. I also think you've seen really incredible work from Secretary Rubio, from Mike Waltz, from the National Security team in the White House to really sort of get these talks back on track following that disastrous White House meeting with Selensky a few weeks ago.

I think we've heard Secretary Rubio say this over and over again, that will know whether or not Putin is serious based on what are willing to agree to at the negotiating table. There's no way to find out whether or not they're serious about peace unless we have those conversations. I also think you've seen really incredible work from Secretary Rubio, from Mike Waltz, from the National Security team in the White House to really sort of get these talks back on track following that disastrous White House meeting with Selensky a few weeks ago.

We've really seen them get people to the table.

We've really seen them get people to the table.

They've had serious meetings, they're having discussions about getting the mineral deals signed and moving forward. And we have Ukraine now talking about being willing to accept a ceasefire while they continue to negotiate. So I think we're seeing progress here, and again we kind of won't know whether or not Putin is serious until they come to the table.

They've had serious meetings, they're having discussions about getting the mineral deals signed and moving forward. And we have Ukraine now talking about being willing to accept a ceasefire while they continue to negotiate. So I think we're seeing progress here, and again we kind of won't know whether or not Putin is serious until they come to the table.

Progress after the setback in that meeting, as you describe, are we back to where we were before that happened?

Progress after the setback in that meeting, as you describe, are we back to where we were before that happened?

I believe so, And I think again that's really a testament to President Trump's team getting them back to the table and being serious here. But you know, it would have been better to avoid that and sign the deal two weeks ago, because we'd be two weeks closer to a peace deal that Ukraine desperately needs.

I believe so, And I think again that's really a testament to President Trump's team getting them back to the table and being serious here. But you know, it would have been better to avoid that and sign the deal two weeks ago, because we'd be two weeks closer to a peace deal that Ukraine desperately needs.

Yeah, well, so let's talk about off ramps here for a minute. You would think that it would be a foregone conclusion that Ukraine would want a ceasefire or a truce. Maybe I shouldn't assume that. I also would assume that Russia might as well, considering the loss financially, the human toll of following three years of war, isn't everyone looking for an offerant.

Yeah, well, so let's talk about off ramps here for a minute. You would think that it would be a foregone conclusion that Ukraine would want a ceasefire or a truce. Maybe I shouldn't assume that. I also would assume that Russia might as well, considering the loss financially, the human toll of following three years of war, isn't everyone looking for an offerant.

One would certainly hope. I think that's what you've heard from President Trump over and over again. Is the loss of life, the catastrophic damage to this country, the catastrophic damage to other parts of Europe as their economy struggle because of this war. I think he's very in tune to the damage that's come of this three year conflict and wants to end it as quickly as possible. I think the challenge here is there have to be some you know, Putin wants to save face with his supporters, Ukraine wants to save territory. And I truly believe that the Mineral deal, frankly, is one of the best ways to resolve this conflict because it makes the United States an economic partner of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in a way that we haven't seen in other peace deals. So I think that puts the United States with a direct interest in the prosperity of that country in a way that frankly, you know, one off aid packages don't do.

One would certainly hope. I think that's what you've heard from President Trump over and over again. Is the loss of life, the catastrophic damage to this country, the catastrophic damage to other parts of Europe as their economy struggle because of this war. I think he's very in tune to the damage that's come of this three year conflict and wants to end it as quickly as possible. I think the challenge here is there have to be some you know, Putin wants to save face with his supporters, Ukraine wants to save territory. And I truly believe that the Mineral deal, frankly, is one of the best ways to resolve this conflict because it makes the United States an economic partner of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in a way that we haven't seen in other peace deals. So I think that puts the United States with a direct interest in the prosperity of that country in a way that frankly, you know, one off aid packages don't do.

Now I'm supposed to ask you about security guaranties right at this point of the conversation, and our audience should know that you actually serve in the Navy, You're a warrior, You've worked at the Pentagon. That might color your perception of this whole idea. But this is a White House that seems very reluctant to offer at least military security guarantees. They say, this investment is the equivalent of that. Do you believe that?

Now I'm supposed to ask you about security guaranties right at this point of the conversation, and our audience should know that you actually serve in the Navy, You're a warrior, You've worked at the Pentagon. That might color your perception of this whole idea. But this is a White House that seems very reluctant to offer at least military security guarantees. They say, this investment is the equivalent of that. Do you believe that?

I really do, And I would say I think we often find ourselves, you know, where we were providing military services, either in the form of weapons or weapons aid, or in you know, training exercises and things along those lines. But the economic partnership that could come here again provides the United States with a real interest in the prosperity of Ukraine in a way that we never would if we were just simply providing military aid. Again, any sort of one off packages that we've seen go through Congress, you always are left with, well, what comes next? What happens when this money runs out? What happens when this funding runs out? Instead, we'd have this long term partnership. We're looking to develop these really really critical minerals, for high tech materials, for nuclear power, for all the kinds of things we need to be able to see a more prosperous global community. So I think, frankly, like again, that economic partnership model is a really unique way to think about foreign aid, and I think it serves us well going forward.

I really do, And I would say I think we often find ourselves, you know, where we were providing military services, either in the form of weapons or weapons aid, or in you know, training exercises and things along those lines. But the economic partnership that could come here again provides the United States with a real interest in the prosperity of Ukraine in a way that we never would if we were just simply providing military aid. Again, any sort of one off packages that we've seen go through Congress, you always are left with, well, what comes next? What happens when this money runs out? What happens when this funding runs out? Instead, we'd have this long term partnership. We're looking to develop these really really critical minerals, for high tech materials, for nuclear power, for all the kinds of things we need to be able to see a more prosperous global community. So I think, frankly, like again, that economic partnership model is a really unique way to think about foreign aid, and I think it serves us well going forward.

What kind of military aid should Ukraine count on in a world where there is in fact a deal that is signed here. We've talked a lot about this, certainly in the Biden years, where so many Republican members said not another dollar. There is still some unspent money, but there are also questions about the programs we invested in. Should we have sent M one abrams, tanks and F sixteen's when we might have been better off sending long range missiles and interceptors. How do you see that?

What kind of military aid should Ukraine count on in a world where there is in fact a deal that is signed here. We've talked a lot about this, certainly in the Biden years, where so many Republican members said not another dollar. There is still some unspent money, but there are also questions about the programs we invested in. Should we have sent M one abrams, tanks and F sixteen's when we might have been better off sending long range missiles and interceptors. How do you see that?

I think we want to be able to see us develop long term partnerships with the countries that we support. That means that we shouldn't be doing knee jerk policymaking, even when it comes to providing aid on the military side, Developing the ability for Ukraine and frankly the rest of Europe to make more investments in their own security is something that the United States can support by being a good trading partner. So I think we'll see more stuff in the economic space, and perhaps less on the military side, where we can have those shared goals and interests.

I think we want to be able to see us develop long term partnerships with the countries that we support. That means that we shouldn't be doing knee jerk policymaking, even when it comes to providing aid on the military side, Developing the ability for Ukraine and frankly the rest of Europe to make more investments in their own security is something that the United States can support by being a good trading partner. So I think we'll see more stuff in the economic space, and perhaps less on the military side, where we can have those shared goals and interests.

Yes, do tariffs impact procurement of military equipment. You talk about all of the things that we need, from chips to metals to rare earths that are actually part of our military hardware. This is something that defense contractors are going to have to face.

Yes, do tariffs impact procurement of military equipment. You talk about all of the things that we need, from chips to metals to rare earths that are actually part of our military hardware. This is something that defense contractors are going to have to face.

Aren't they absolutely?

Aren't they absolutely?

And I think again this is part of where those trade negotiations become so important. I think about the discussions with Canada, for example, which is a place you know, they provide many of our critical minerals and have some of that materials processing capability that we don't have in the United States. But I also think it comes back to what's your domestic policy. How do you reshure some of these industries that we've allowed to be really outsourced to a place where perhaps our national security is threatened. I think you saw that with the investments in you know, through the Chips Act, in other places where we're trying to work to bring these partners back home. The problem here, though, is that oftentimes when we make investments in the United States, we don't stop folks from continuing to produce those same materials in China, and that means we're not spending our money in a smart way. So I think what you'll see from President Trump is an effort to say, hey, look, we want you to come do business here in the United States. We're going to try to provide a tax code and a regulatory environment that makes that the best place to do business. You're the best place to do business. But if you're going to do business in the United States, we don't want to see you continue to do business in China.

And I think again this is part of where those trade negotiations become so important. I think about the discussions with Canada, for example, which is a place you know, they provide many of our critical minerals and have some of that materials processing capability that we don't have in the United States. But I also think it comes back to what's your domestic policy. How do you reshure some of these industries that we've allowed to be really outsourced to a place where perhaps our national security is threatened. I think you saw that with the investments in you know, through the Chips Act, in other places where we're trying to work to bring these partners back home. The problem here, though, is that oftentimes when we make investments in the United States, we don't stop folks from continuing to produce those same materials in China, and that means we're not spending our money in a smart way. So I think what you'll see from President Trump is an effort to say, hey, look, we want you to come do business here in the United States. We're going to try to provide a tax code and a regulatory environment that makes that the best place to do business. You're the best place to do business. But if you're going to do business in the United States, we don't want to see you continue to do business in China.

Yeah, well, that's right, And that does seem to be a bipartisan absolutely angle here in Washington right now. I want to ask you, speaking of bipartisan, we didn't see a lot of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill yesterday when the stop gap to prevent a government shutdown came to the House floor. And that's not a big surprise. Maybe it was a surprise that a single Democrat voted for it, actually, but there's a real concern about crs, as we call them, continuing resolutions that basically extend the baseline kick the can I think we saw a six billion dollar increase in pentagon spending that was at it at the last minute here, but pentagon hawks, defense hawks are outraged about this budgeting by cry upon year because it acts as a budget cut. Can you explain that.

Yeah, well, that's right, And that does seem to be a bipartisan absolutely angle here in Washington right now. I want to ask you, speaking of bipartisan, we didn't see a lot of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill yesterday when the stop gap to prevent a government shutdown came to the House floor. And that's not a big surprise. Maybe it was a surprise that a single Democrat voted for it, actually, but there's a real concern about crs, as we call them, continuing resolutions that basically extend the baseline kick the can I think we saw a six billion dollar increase in pentagon spending that was at it at the last minute here, but pentagon hawks, defense hawks are outraged about this budgeting by cry upon year because it acts as a budget cut. Can you explain that.

Yeah, so if you don't adjust for inflation, then you're essionally inflation. That's certainly part of it, But it also means you can't manage the Pentagon in an effective way. You can't end programs that should be ended, and you can't start new ones that need to be begun. Frankly, I think it's the kind of thing that can make it more difficult to identify fraud, waste and abuse across the across the Pentagon complex and to provide the cost savings that we need in order to pay for the new weapon systems that we need into the future. So it is a clumsy way to do business, to operate under crs. Unfortunately, we live in an environment where getting the appropriations work done in a timely manner has been a real challenge. I think you know, in this case, the CR was the best option to make sure we can get onto doing the tax reform work that's really necessary under reconciliation and sort of clear the decks here. But it would have been better to work through this last year and get to a place where we had good appropriations going through the year. And I'm hopeful that we'll see that sort of return to regular order in the summer when we get through the reconciliar process. I fully expect that from Tom Cole, who runs the Appropriations Committee on the outside, and I think their Senate counterparts will want to move just as well.

Yeah, so if you don't adjust for inflation, then you're essionally inflation. That's certainly part of it, But it also means you can't manage the Pentagon in an effective way. You can't end programs that should be ended, and you can't start new ones that need to be begun. Frankly, I think it's the kind of thing that can make it more difficult to identify fraud, waste and abuse across the across the Pentagon complex and to provide the cost savings that we need in order to pay for the new weapon systems that we need into the future. So it is a clumsy way to do business, to operate under crs. Unfortunately, we live in an environment where getting the appropriations work done in a timely manner has been a real challenge. I think you know, in this case, the CR was the best option to make sure we can get onto doing the tax reform work that's really necessary under reconciliation and sort of clear the decks here. But it would have been better to work through this last year and get to a place where we had good appropriations going through the year. And I'm hopeful that we'll see that sort of return to regular order in the summer when we get through the reconciliar process. I fully expect that from Tom Cole, who runs the Appropriations Committee on the outside, and I think their Senate counterparts will want to move just as well.

Well.

Well.

I'd love to hear a little bit more about what that would look like. Give us a peak. If the imagine a world in which there's regular order, there's a defense authorization and an actual military budget that's debated in a committee in pasted. This is revolutionary. I know what I'm talking about here, But what would it mean for weapons systems, for the investments that we're making As we keep hearing that we're preparing for the wrong war, that we need to be buying more drones unmanned vehicles, not more aircraft carriers. What do you think?

I'd love to hear a little bit more about what that would look like. Give us a peak. If the imagine a world in which there's regular order, there's a defense authorization and an actual military budget that's debated in a committee in pasted. This is revolutionary. I know what I'm talking about here, But what would it mean for weapons systems, for the investments that we're making As we keep hearing that we're preparing for the wrong war, that we need to be buying more drones unmanned vehicles, not more aircraft carriers. What do you think?

So I'll push back a little bit on the more aircraft carriers because I do think that shipbuilding is a critical part of certainly our power project ultimate.

So I'll push back a little bit on the more aircraft carriers because I do think that shipbuilding is a critical part of certainly our power project ultimate.

Projection of power that has that's a job, and what goes on those aircraft carriers.

Projection of power that has that's a job, and what goes on those aircraft carriers.

I think this is a great example of where you need to be able to have that flexibility to start new programs and make investments in the kind of innovative work that we've seen the Pentagon do over and over on Frankly, they've gotten really good at operating and c are they still do it. We still pass that Defense Authorization build every year.

I think this is a great example of where you need to be able to have that flexibility to start new programs and make investments in the kind of innovative work that we've seen the Pentagon do over and over on Frankly, they've gotten really good at operating and c are they still do it. We still pass that Defense Authorization build every year.

It's the only bill that we can close this time.

It's the only bill that we can close this time.

We've done every single year.

We've done every single year.

It gets closer every time, and we often get defense appropriations done even when we're operating in a cr because it's something that, as you said, those sort of Republican defense hawks really insist on.

It gets closer every time, and we often get defense appropriations done even when we're operating in a cr because it's something that, as you said, those sort of Republican defense hawks really insist on.

But I think in this case, one of the things we need to do to make.

But I think in this case, one of the things we need to do to make.

Sure we're better providing for the warfighter is actually go through and get the Pentagon to a place where it can pass an audit and we can tell where all of our money is going, because right now it's an agency that has never passed an audit. We do not know where our dollars are going in the most important part of the federal government. So I think that's a huge task for Secretary Headset and something they're trying to prioritize here because everyone like myself, I worked in the Pentagon as a civilian. Everyone who worked there as a civilian or in the military knows there is a catastrophic amount of waste there that prevents us from giving the warfighter what they need to succeed both in today's wars.

Sure we're better providing for the warfighter is actually go through and get the Pentagon to a place where it can pass an audit and we can tell where all of our money is going, because right now it's an agency that has never passed an audit. We do not know where our dollars are going in the most important part of the federal government. So I think that's a huge task for Secretary Headset and something they're trying to prioritize here because everyone like myself, I worked in the Pentagon as a civilian. Everyone who worked there as a civilian or in the military knows there is a catastrophic amount of waste there that prevents us from giving the warfighter what they need to succeed both in today's wars.

In your wildest dreams, can you imagine what an audit, a Pentagon audit would show.

In your wildest dreams, can you imagine what an audit, a Pentagon audit would show.

Oh, I mean massive amounts of waste, certainly, and again everybody has a personal experience with it if they've served in the military. We all roll our eyes about systems that are slow, that force you to buy plane to take that costs more money than they should, or stay somewhere that's more expensive because it is truly a giant bureaucracy. And again, I think you know, we've seen a lot from Secretary Hegseeth about wanting.

Oh, I mean massive amounts of waste, certainly, and again everybody has a personal experience with it if they've served in the military. We all roll our eyes about systems that are slow, that force you to buy plane to take that costs more money than they should, or stay somewhere that's more expensive because it is truly a giant bureaucracy. And again, I think you know, we've seen a lot from Secretary Hegseeth about wanting.

To change the culture at the Pentagon.

To change the culture at the Pentagon.

It's my hope that this focus on fiscal responsibility and being able to actually say we're spending our money in the best way possible to man, train and equip our warfighter. I hope that we're able to answer those questions at the end of this term.

It's my hope that this focus on fiscal responsibility and being able to actually say we're spending our money in the best way possible to man, train and equip our warfighter. I hope that we're able to answer those questions at the end of this term.

As we spend time with Emily dominant Boundary Stone partners, give me a sense of the culture in the Pentagon right now, with massive layoffs at hand, a massive culture shift, just in the approach of management and style. With Secretary heg Seth, what's it like when you walk in the halls?

As we spend time with Emily dominant Boundary Stone partners, give me a sense of the culture in the Pentagon right now, with massive layoffs at hand, a massive culture shift, just in the approach of management and style. With Secretary heg Seth, what's it like when you walk in the halls?

I mean, I would say in the force.

I mean, I would say in the force.

I can't speak for the Pentagon because I'm not there on a daily basis, but I would say what you hear often is a sort of refocus on readiness and what does readiness mean. It doesn't mean getting all of your paperwork done for your cybersecurity training or your annual training that you're checking a box on.

I can't speak for the Pentagon because I'm not there on a daily basis, but I would say what you hear often is a sort of refocus on readiness and what does readiness mean. It doesn't mean getting all of your paperwork done for your cybersecurity training or your annual training that you're checking a box on.

It means making sure that we're physically fit.

It means making sure that we're physically fit.

It means making sure that we're capable and staffing and in my case, I work, I'm in the reserves being able to provide quantifiable skills to the active duty as they look to fight our future wars. I think it's a more of an investment in military culture and saying that we need to be able to be honest about where we fall short and where we need to do better. And we've seen the retention numbers. Frankly, to back that up, we're seeing recruitment numbers go up because Secretary Hegseth's persona is frankly bringing a new sense of pride in service that I think is something that has been neglected about the past.

It means making sure that we're capable and staffing and in my case, I work, I'm in the reserves being able to provide quantifiable skills to the active duty as they look to fight our future wars. I think it's a more of an investment in military culture and saying that we need to be able to be honest about where we fall short and where we need to do better. And we've seen the retention numbers. Frankly, to back that up, we're seeing recruitment numbers go up because Secretary Hegseth's persona is frankly bringing a new sense of pride in service that I think is something that has been neglected about the past.

I mean, that's interesting because this is a very controversial pick. Of course, a lot of his moves have been controversial, his prior statements, lifestyle, everything has been part of this. There's been concerned about DEI and so forth. Maybe some people not being treated fairly, But you see optimism.

I mean, that's interesting because this is a very controversial pick. Of course, a lot of his moves have been controversial, his prior statements, lifestyle, everything has been part of this. There's been concerned about DEI and so forth. Maybe some people not being treated fairly, But you see optimism.

Certainly amongst the folks who are serving in the military. Yes, I'd also say, I think you mentioned DEI as sort of one of these examples of wasteful things we see in the Pentagon. Another thing is straying away from the core missions of the Pentagon. Again, as I said, the role of the Department of Defense is to man, train, and equip our war fighters. We want to prepare them for the future war and ensure they have the weapons and technology they need to fight that effectively. We've gotten distracted, frankly, with thinking about the diversity of the force, thinking about fighting climate change, thinking about the kinds of policies that are outside of that scope. It doesn't mean you can't care about diversity. It doesn't mean you can't have agencies in the federal government care about energy and being innovative in that space. But it's not the job of the Pentagon, and I think that's what we've seen from Secretary Hegxeth is let's refocus on that core mission.

Certainly amongst the folks who are serving in the military. Yes, I'd also say, I think you mentioned DEI as sort of one of these examples of wasteful things we see in the Pentagon. Another thing is straying away from the core missions of the Pentagon. Again, as I said, the role of the Department of Defense is to man, train, and equip our war fighters. We want to prepare them for the future war and ensure they have the weapons and technology they need to fight that effectively. We've gotten distracted, frankly, with thinking about the diversity of the force, thinking about fighting climate change, thinking about the kinds of policies that are outside of that scope. It doesn't mean you can't care about diversity. It doesn't mean you can't have agencies in the federal government care about energy and being innovative in that space. But it's not the job of the Pentagon, and I think that's what we've seen from Secretary Hegxeth is let's refocus on that core mission.

Still, there's so much more I want to talk to you about, because diversity has been an asset. I think we can agree the military is but ahead of the rest of society for a long time on this, and the hardening of military installations when it comes to climate is something that we've talked about a lot here as well. So I want you to come back. I hope that you'd love to. We could do a documentary with Emily Commis. What a great conversation. Thank you so much for being with us, Senior VP Boundary Stone Partners.

Still, there's so much more I want to talk to you about, because diversity has been an asset. I think we can agree the military is but ahead of the rest of society for a long time on this, and the hardening of military installations when it comes to climate is something that we've talked about a lot here as well. So I want you to come back. I hope that you'd love to. We could do a documentary with Emily Commis. What a great conversation. Thank you so much for being with us, Senior VP Boundary Stone Partners.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E's durn on apple Cocklay Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E's durn on apple Cocklay Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.

The Irish Prime Minister actually praising the President's efforts to reach a peace deal negotiation since of course active between the US and Ukraine and now they say the.

The Irish Prime Minister actually praising the President's efforts to reach a peace deal negotiation since of course active between the US and Ukraine and now they say the.

Ball is in Russia's court.

Ball is in Russia's court.

Yeah, you might have presumed the ball was already in Russia's court, which is interesting. I'm sort of compelled by this idea that it's a victory to get Ukraine to agree to a truce in a war that it did not start. But that is the rhetoric that we're hearing from the White House right now. We have yet to hear from Vladimir Putin, although indications based on Bloomberg's reporting earlier that he will eventually I think was the word Kayley sign off on this.

Yeah, you might have presumed the ball was already in Russia's court, which is interesting. I'm sort of compelled by this idea that it's a victory to get Ukraine to agree to a truce in a war that it did not start. But that is the rhetoric that we're hearing from the White House right now. We have yet to hear from Vladimir Putin, although indications based on Bloomberg's reporting earlier that he will eventually I think was the word Kayley sign off on this.

Eventually. I guess it's just a question of timing and what it's going to take to get one of the condition to that point. So on that note, we turn out to our next guest, I'm pleased to say joining us here on balance of power is General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe and the thirty four year veteran of the United States Army. General Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. If the ball is in Russia's court, what exactly do you think they'll do with it?

Eventually. I guess it's just a question of timing and what it's going to take to get one of the condition to that point. So on that note, we turn out to our next guest, I'm pleased to say joining us here on balance of power is General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe and the thirty four year veteran of the United States Army. General Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. If the ball is in Russia's court, what exactly do you think they'll do with it?

Well, they've got choices, I mean, they could immediately agree last night they didn't. As soon as they heard that Ukraine had accepted it, they launched a heavy bombardment, including a ballistic missiles track on the Ukrainian ported Odessa that killed some people in rectass ship. So that was one choice they didn't do that they could agree in the next few days. The question is what will their concessions will they require and what will the administration ask of them other than agreeing to halt the fighting temporarily. There have been ceasefires in the past. They're easy to break, no one's there to monitor it. If you want to take a little bit more ground, you take it. That's what Right has done in the past on this. So I think it's a good thing that we're moving forward on this. But we just have to count on the putting the right pressure on Russia to get a real ceasefire in place, then something that can be monitored, enforced and has some security guarantees behind it.

Well, they've got choices, I mean, they could immediately agree last night they didn't. As soon as they heard that Ukraine had accepted it, they launched a heavy bombardment, including a ballistic missiles track on the Ukrainian ported Odessa that killed some people in rectass ship. So that was one choice they didn't do that they could agree in the next few days. The question is what will their concessions will they require and what will the administration ask of them other than agreeing to halt the fighting temporarily. There have been ceasefires in the past. They're easy to break, no one's there to monitor it. If you want to take a little bit more ground, you take it. That's what Right has done in the past on this. So I think it's a good thing that we're moving forward on this. But we just have to count on the putting the right pressure on Russia to get a real ceasefire in place, then something that can be monitored, enforced and has some security guarantees behind it.

Well, General, it's great to see you again on Bloomberg. The conditions we're hearing that Putin wants include a long term settlement to the war, Ukraine becoming a neutral nation, reducing its armed forces, and ceding the territory that Russia has already taken. Does that sound like reality to you?

Well, General, it's great to see you again on Bloomberg. The conditions we're hearing that Putin wants include a long term settlement to the war, Ukraine becoming a neutral nation, reducing its armed forces, and ceding the territory that Russia has already taken. Does that sound like reality to you?

It sounds like exactly what Russia wanted when they started at the Iston Bullet agreements, and so they haven't changed their position. No, I don't think Ukraine can accept that. But I think it's important that any agreement be brought back to the people of Ukraine, not something that the president can Zelensky can simply sign and say, Okay, I've signed it, I'm done. You want me to leave, I'm leaving, and here's the agreement. So it's got to come back through the Ukrainian Parliament, the Rada. People have to really understand what it means and it has to be enforceable.

It sounds like exactly what Russia wanted when they started at the Iston Bullet agreements, and so they haven't changed their position. No, I don't think Ukraine can accept that. But I think it's important that any agreement be brought back to the people of Ukraine, not something that the president can Zelensky can simply sign and say, Okay, I've signed it, I'm done. You want me to leave, I'm leaving, and here's the agreement. So it's got to come back through the Ukrainian Parliament, the Rada. People have to really understand what it means and it has to be enforceable.

Well, and that gets me back to the point you were just making a moment ago general about monitoring, because we also understand that Russia has conditions around what a peacekeeping force could or should actually look like. In your mind, what kind of force is required to actually keep the peace with the UK and France trying to go it alone. In Russia, we're able to tolerate NATO aligned nations being present enough.

Well, and that gets me back to the point you were just making a moment ago general about monitoring, because we also understand that Russia has conditions around what a peacekeeping force could or should actually look like. In your mind, what kind of force is required to actually keep the peace with the UK and France trying to go it alone. In Russia, we're able to tolerate NATO aligned nations being present enough.

Well, I don't think that you can get a force in there that has any credibility unless it's a NATO force. It doesn't have to be under NATO can be a coalition of the willing. How many does it take. You're not going to get one hundred and fifty thousand, that's for sure, because Europe can't do it. But if you put thirty to forty thousand in, if you spread them out along the line, if you have the authorities to monitor what's going on on the Russian side, if you can do inspections for example, if necessary, and if you put penalties in, and if you only gradually release sanctions and calibrate the release of sanctions to Russia's compliance, and stretch out the release of sanctions over at least three years, that's how long the war has lasted. And if you haven't given up permanent ownership or legal occupation of these provinces in Crimea, because you can't allow borders to be changed by force under international law. So there's a lot of there's a lot of things that have to be done to make this workable. Uh, and it's going to be very tough to get Russia to agree to that.

Well, I don't think that you can get a force in there that has any credibility unless it's a NATO force. It doesn't have to be under NATO can be a coalition of the willing. How many does it take. You're not going to get one hundred and fifty thousand, that's for sure, because Europe can't do it. But if you put thirty to forty thousand in, if you spread them out along the line, if you have the authorities to monitor what's going on on the Russian side, if you can do inspections for example, if necessary, and if you put penalties in, and if you only gradually release sanctions and calibrate the release of sanctions to Russia's compliance, and stretch out the release of sanctions over at least three years, that's how long the war has lasted. And if you haven't given up permanent ownership or legal occupation of these provinces in Crimea, because you can't allow borders to be changed by force under international law. So there's a lot of there's a lot of things that have to be done to make this workable. Uh, and it's going to be very tough to get Russia to agree to that.

I think, well, of course, you have unique experience here as Supreme Alli Commander Europe of NATO. Your experience in Kosovo, you actually have a sense of what Europe is case here general. Can you describe that's us.

I think, well, of course, you have unique experience here as Supreme Alli Commander Europe of NATO. Your experience in Kosovo, you actually have a sense of what Europe is case here general. Can you describe that's us.

Well right now? At least as a When I was in Europe last week, they were hopping mad at the United States, and I don't think they're going to get over this right away. Their question is is the United States still a reliable ally? If you're a reliable ally, how could you not side with the victim of aggression and seem to be more friendly with the aggressor? And what does that mean for our security? Because in their view, Ukraine is fighting for Europe's security and it's got the strongest army in Europe excluding Turkey, So there's a lot of concern there. Can Europe do more? Yes, but not instantaneously. Could you put fifteen or twenty thousand soldiers? Sure, especially if Poland is willing to put some of its forces up there. But people in Europe are very wary of mister Putin. He's made his intentions very clear, and they're under Gray Zone assault with sabotage and bombings of aircraft and murders of former intelligence officers and cables cut. They have no illusions about what mister Putin's ultimate design might be. Maybe President Trump can can can change all that. But it's not just Putin. It's you know, three centuries of legacy of Russian imperialism reaching beyond its borders, intimidating, attempting to gain control of neighboring countries. And so everyone in Europe is wary about this. They've relied on the United States and and and now that reliance is been put in jeopardy.

Well right now? At least as a When I was in Europe last week, they were hopping mad at the United States, and I don't think they're going to get over this right away. Their question is is the United States still a reliable ally? If you're a reliable ally, how could you not side with the victim of aggression and seem to be more friendly with the aggressor? And what does that mean for our security? Because in their view, Ukraine is fighting for Europe's security and it's got the strongest army in Europe excluding Turkey, So there's a lot of concern there. Can Europe do more? Yes, but not instantaneously. Could you put fifteen or twenty thousand soldiers? Sure, especially if Poland is willing to put some of its forces up there. But people in Europe are very wary of mister Putin. He's made his intentions very clear, and they're under Gray Zone assault with sabotage and bombings of aircraft and murders of former intelligence officers and cables cut. They have no illusions about what mister Putin's ultimate design might be. Maybe President Trump can can can change all that. But it's not just Putin. It's you know, three centuries of legacy of Russian imperialism reaching beyond its borders, intimidating, attempting to gain control of neighboring countries. And so everyone in Europe is wary about this. They've relied on the United States and and and now that reliance is been put in jeopardy.

Just quickly, General, we only have a minute left here. But how important is it is that the US has once again started resharing intelligence with Ukraine and allowing aid flow to continue.

Just quickly, General, we only have a minute left here. But how important is it is that the US has once again started resharing intelligence with Ukraine and allowing aid flow to continue.

I think it's very important, but we don't know the detail the aid flow. I hope they'll just blush it and put it all in there. But I was told that even before this happened, it had been sort of choked down, so Ukraine wasn't getting much. I don't have the details on that, and I know Ukraine is working to sort of straighten us out. But yes, it's the intelligence is critical, and so is the US military assistance.

I think it's very important, but we don't know the detail the aid flow. I hope they'll just blush it and put it all in there. But I was told that even before this happened, it had been sort of choked down, so Ukraine wasn't getting much. I don't have the details on that, and I know Ukraine is working to sort of straighten us out. But yes, it's the intelligence is critical, and so is the US military assistance.

General, it's great to have you back. Thanks for the insights. As always that of course, it's Wesley Clark, former Supreme Ali Commander Europe. Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.

General, it's great to have you back. Thanks for the insights. As always that of course, it's Wesley Clark, former Supreme Ali Commander Europe. Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.