We're sunsetting PodQuest on 2025-07-28. Thank you for your support!
Export Podcast Subscriptions
cover of episode 6/29/24: Dave Smith VS Vaush: Did NATO Expansion Push Ukraine Invasion?

6/29/24: Dave Smith VS Vaush: Did NATO Expansion Push Ukraine Invasion?

2024/6/29
logo of podcast Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

AI Deep Dive AI Chapters Transcript
People
D
Dave Smith
V
Vaush
节目主持人
Topics
节目主持人:应该寻求乌克兰战争的和平解决方案,西方国家一直在阻止和平谈判。美国应该利用其影响力促使和平解决乌克兰战争,例如,可以考虑让美国退出北约。 Vaush:不应该奖励俄罗斯入侵邻国的行为,支持阻止此类行为的体系很重要。美国声称不允许其他国家侵略较小国家是虚伪的,因为美国自身也做过类似的事情。如果俄罗斯占领基辅,将会对世界和平造成灾难性的后果。乌克兰战争的现状很复杂,没有简单的解决方案,美国在2022年入侵后的应对策略存在误导性。需要追求一个能够真正阻止未来冲突的和平协议,而不是一个容易破裂的协议。需要在西方和俄罗斯之间实现真正的和解,而不是仅仅关注乌克兰和俄罗斯之间的关系。 Dave Smith:美国不应资助乌克兰战争,并且最初就不应该资助这场战争,因为这增加了美俄战争的风险。美国不应将自己定位为全球和平缔造者,因为美国自身是暴力行为的主要实施者。北约扩张是不公正和具有挑衅性的行为,加剧了与俄罗斯的冲突。美国对乌克兰的政策的动机是增加美国帝国的力量,而不是阻止侵略。乌克兰加入北约是俄罗斯的底线,西方本可以避免战争。所有政府本质上都是犯罪组织,但美国在冷战后拥有不对称的权力,其行为与其他国家不同。俄罗斯入侵乌克兰是不可否认的事实,这场战争是由俄罗斯点燃的。俄罗斯对乌克兰的担忧不仅仅是北约是否会入侵,还包括军事装备靠近俄罗斯边境。乌克兰加入北约的支持率并不高,美国采取了干预措施来提高支持率。美国对乌克兰的援助造成了道德风险,使得乌克兰更加大胆。最大的风险是核战争的可能性,而防止核战争的关键在于私下谈判和相互保证毁灭。将普京描绘成对美国的生存威胁是错误的,美国需要对普京的观点进行战略性理解。在以色列-巴勒斯坦辩论中,支持以色列的人更关注当前事件,而批评以色列的人更关注历史背景。北约的存在不再有理由,美国应该退出北约。

Deep Dive

Chapters

Shownotes Transcript

Translations:
中文

Hi, I'm Katie Lowe's and I'm Guillermo Diaz. And we're the hosts of Unpacking the Toolbox, the Scandal Rewatch podcast where we're talking about all the best moments of the show. Mesmerizing. But also we get to hang out with all of our old scandal friends like Bellamy Young, Scott Foley, Tony Goldwyn, Debbie Allen, Kerry Washington. Well, suit up, gladiators. Grab your big old glass of wine and prepare yourselves for even more behind the scenes stories with Unpacking the Toolbox podcast.

Listen to Unpacking the Toolbox on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Meet the real woman behind the tabloid headlines in a personal podcast that delves into the life of the notorious Tori Spelling as she takes us through the ups and downs of her sometimes glamorous, sometimes chaotic life in marriage. I just filed for divorce. Whoa. I said the words that I've said like in my head for like 16 years.

Listen to Misspelling on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Angie Martinez, and on my podcast, I like to talk to everyone from Hall of Fame athletes to iconic musicians about getting real on some of the complications and challenges of real life.

I had the best dad and I had the best memories and the greatest experience. And that's all I want for my kids as long as they can have that. Listen to Angie Martinez IRL on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Get emotional with me, Radhi Devlukia, in my new podcast, A Really Good Cry. We're going to be talking with some of my best friends. I didn't know we were going to go there. People that I admire. When we say listen to your body, really tune in to what's going on. Authors of books that have changed my life. Now you're talking about sympathy.

Which is different than empathy, right? Never forget, it's okay to cry as long as you make it a really good one. Listen to A Really Good Cry with Raleigh Dablukia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Criminalia. I'm Maria Tremarcki.

And I'm Holly Frey. Together, we invite you into the dark corridors of history and true crime. For each season, we explore a new theme, from poisoners to stalkers, art thieves to snake oil salesmen. And tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in cocktails and mocktails inspired by each story. Listen to Criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show.

Ukraine is losing this war. They're not going to drive Russia out of Crimea. They're not going to drive Russia out of many of the territories that they've taken right now. We should be working toward a deal, a peaceful solution, which has been on the table several times throughout this war. And it's been the West who has been trying to squash it. Ukraine hasn't been losing. Both countries have been stalling. I don't want this conflict to end in a way that's going to guarantee the conflict reemerges in two years. If the line just freezes where it is right now,

Are we not guaranteeing another conflict in a few years? The United States of America holds all of the chips. We could offer Vladimir Putin something that would probably get him to do whatever we wanted him to do. And you know what that is, the ultimate crowning jewel for him. How about we leave NATO?

All right, welcome to CounterPoint. Today, we're going to be talking about the Ukraine-Russia war. Emily, who are we going to have? Yeah, well, we have two great guests joining us. We're joined by YouTuber, live streamer Vash, and we are joined by comedian, podcast host Dave Smith. Vash, Dave, welcome. Thanks for joining us. My pleasure. Thanks for having us.

Well, Ukraine is a timely subject to debate right now. Obviously, we're two plus years into the war, but there have been recent escalations and that makes it important, I think, to sort of go through some of those recent developments. For example, the U.S. recently greenlit, as many people know, strikes with U.S. weapons inside of Russia. There was the strike that Russia is blaming the U.S. for in Crimea just over the last couple of days. So I think

probably a good way to begin is to give you both kind of an opening statement here. And I'll start with you, Vosch. Should the U.S. continue funding this war? And then we'll go to Dave on the same question. But go ahead first, Vosch.

Yeah, I mean, I don't like the idea on a systemic level of rewarding Russia for invading a neighbor. I just think generally speaking, that's bad for global relations, very destabilizing. I think it's important that we support any system that prevents that from happening and not exactly a novel position.

With regards to the recent development and strikes inside Russian territory, I actually think that this is, in the long run, going to be a good move for peace, just because the previous U.S. doctrine, which seemed to provide just enough weapons to stall the war but not decisively conclude it, I think that was actually the worst possible decision. If Russia did...

sort of like early conquest or if Ukraine decisively held its territory, those both end the war relatively quickly. But just impermanently stalling it right at the river, you know, I don't think that would have been good in the long run. Hopefully these increased attacks inside Russian territory, mostly of course the refineries that they're using to sort of gin up their war economy, hopefully that serves as an effective long-term deterrent. I don't want this conflict to continue. I don't want civilians to die.

Yeah, I mean, obviously we'll have to see how things play out. Dave, go ahead.

Well, of course, we should stop funding this. We never should have been funding this war to begin with. I think that in the original Cold War, which I still regard as one of the worst U.S. policies in modern American history that did so much to ruin our country, and not to mention things like the Vietnam War and the millions of people who died in it. But at least in the original Cold War, I think there was always a healthy respect for

for the risks involved. And that all of us should, all sane people should recognize that the greatest priority in human history is that the United States of America and Russia do not go to war. And this was something that people in the old Cold War were very respectful of and aware of.

The difference in this new Cold War environment is that no one in the upper echelons of power in America seems to have any respect for this threat. And any respect for, you know, you could think to yourself, well, maybe this will work out in a positive way that the U.S. is greenlighting attacks inside of Russia. Or perhaps...

It could be an absolute disaster. And we're playing with, when I say we're playing with fire, it's an understatement. We're flirting with potentially the most disastrous thing that could happen to the human species. If America is to have any role in this conflict, it should be working toward a peaceful negotiation. And in fact, the American role and the Western role has...

than to kill peaceful negotiations from the beginning of this war and to prolong the fighting. I think that as John Mearsheimer said back in 2014, the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path has turned out to be the most accurate prediction on this entire conflict. And essentially, I think since the fall of the Soviet Union,

American foreign policy, and just keep in mind, American foreign policy in the Clinton administration, in the W. Bush administration, in Obama's administration, these are the same people who are in charge of the Middle East. And in fact, the neoconservatives were very focused on NATO expansion back in the 90s. You can go read the Project for a New American Century documents.

And the same people who totally blundered foreign policy in the Middle East have totally blundered foreign policy in Europe, provoking Vladimir Putin and the Russians at every turn, leading to this awful place that we're in. That is certainly, if you care about the Ukrainians at all, has been more of a disaster for the Ukrainian people than anyone else. And Dave, Vosch made a point that I think you hear a lot from defenders of Ukraine.

U.S. support for the Ukrainian war, and that is you can't allow other countries, you know, you can't reward other countries for invading other countries. You just can't do that. We can't have that. What's the response to that? We can't have that argument.

Well, I mean, first, I would just point out how absurd it is that after the last 20 years of terror wars, somehow the United States of America still gets to put itself in the position of global peacemaker, as if our major concern is that bigger nations can bully smaller nations. I mean,

Over the last 20 years, there's been no greater purveyor of violence than the United States of America, who has imposed its will on tiny, helpless nations across the world.

As far as that, yeah, it's not good that Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. And yes, certainly that's something we don't want to see. My argument would be that America and the West more broadly had many opportunities, many off ramps to put this fire out or at least calm it down. And at every single turn poured more gasoline on this fire that ultimately resulted in the invasion in 2022.

Yeah, so Vosch, how can the U.S. say with a straight face that it's not okay for other countries to invade smaller countries? Well, I think it's kind of a cowardly non-argument because I'm not arguing in favor of the moral superiority of the United States. That'd be a ridiculous position for me to take. It's not football. We're not taking sides like, you know, waving banners. There are two levels to this when it comes to agency. We're concerned about the broader socioeconomic and geopolitical

context that led to where we are now. And that goes back to the Cold War and even earlier. If we listen to Putin's justifications for the invasion, it goes back to the borders of the Russian Empire. And then there's like the immediate decision making. We mustn't remove agency from the equation. Russia invaded, by Putin's own words, in a sort of territorial land grab. The idea that it was entirely because of a response to Western aggression or NATO posturing is ridiculous and ahistorical.

But that doesn't mean the West isn't responsible for helping to create the situation we're in now. We have to balance these two justifications. Our arrogance after the end of the Cold War, the fact that rather than reaching out to Russia as a potential future ally, we ostracized, you know, with the shock therapy, the sort of economic devastation of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states. These contributed to an environment in which future conflict was inevitable.

It was reprehensible on the part of the Western governments to participate in this. Look today at the divide between former West and Eastern Germany. I mean, the reason that East Germany is voting so heavily for the AFD is in large part because they see it as a rejection of the doctrine of the West that left them behind after reunification. These should all be taken into account. And...

We must acknowledge that Putin is a fascist who did a territorial land grab. Those two facts don't contradict each other. They work together to create a complete narrative. With regards to the invasion now, I agree we have to take the threat from Russia seriously. And by that, I mean, we don't want this to scale out infinitely. We don't want this to turn into a global war. That's something we have to take seriously. At the same time, we have to acknowledge Russia does too. And their constant...

threats of nuclear war, the fact that they started this invasion, the fact that they have been posturing and acting aggressive towards Finland, towards the Baltic states, even like ramping up aggression towards the rest of Western Europe, we must consider again their agency. Now, I think that in the long run, there is a very deleterious consequence to creating an incentive structure where Putin gets to boost his...

national rep, his prestige with a successful land grab in Ukraine. I think it would have been disastrous if he could have just marched west and taken the territory because it would have reaffirmed and rewarded all the worst possible behaviors from him. That doesn't mean I think that we should sort of do a victory lap around Russia. Cold War II, let's win, let's trounce them in Ukraine. I do think that we're in a tough situation because we can't just like

magically make Russia, I guess, a democracy or a country less incentivized to invade its neighbors or reclaim historical territory? It's a difficult question, which is why I don't like simple answers. So Dave, actually, here's an interesting point that Vaus just raised about the beginning of the war. And, you know, if we may all agree, correct me if I'm wrong, that we all think it would have been bad if Putin had indeed marched into Kiev and took...

all of Ukraine, etc. But that leads us to the question, Dave, of how much U.S. involvement, if any, was just if we agreed that it was good for the U.S. to perhaps prevent the Russian capture of Kyiv, etc. At what point did it become too much? At what point is the support no longer just or moral? How do you respond to that, Dave?

I think that the point that it... I mean, you could start at a lot of different points. I think the first round of NATO expansion was unjust and was unnecessarily provocative of the Russians. Let me just...

I'm not exactly sure what Vash is referring to as like a cowardly non-argument. I simply was directly responding to Ryan's point. If you have a serial killer who's killed far more people than another serial killer, and they claim that they're trying to stop a serial killer because they're so against killing...

It's reasonable to point out that no, this is in fact not what's motivating US foreign policy. That no, the butcherers of Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Somalia and Libya and Yemen are not actually motivated by some sense of we can't let big guys pick on little guys. Let's have an honest conversation about what's really motivating this policy. And it has been

since the collapse of the Soviet Union to increase the power of the American empire. And Russia has always been seen as a force that's outside of the American empire. That's what's been motivating American foreign policy. This is what we're living through here is largely the neoconservative doctrine. It was the worst thing that ever happened in the history of our country is that after we became

probably the first ever true global superpower. About 10 years later, the neoconservatives got control of our foreign policy. And this was their plan from the very beginning. So no, I don't think America should have been involved in Ukraine at all. And I certainly don't think that anything we've done

has done anything except make this situation much worse and much, much more dangerous because now you are experiencing a proxy war with the two biggest nuclear superpowers. I don't think saying any of that is reducing things down to simplistic worldview. And of course, you kind of snuck a straw man in there. I wouldn't say that this conflict is entirely because of NATO expansion.

But to pretend like that's not a major driving factor in this conflict is to not be dealing with reality. And this has been admitted by all of the top people on both sides. This was why so many people within the national security apparatus in the 90s opposed the first round of NATO expansion.

Explicitly, because this will provoke a reaction from the Russians. Through the years, the Russians have been crystal clear that Ukraine was their red line. Thanks to the greatest journalist of the 21st century, the hero Julian Assange, who is thankfully now a free man, we know that the current head of the CIA, Burns,

told Condoleezza Rice this explicitly, that this was a red line and not a red line in the way that America makes up red lines. Like Obama will say if Assad uses a certain type of weapon on his people, that's a red line for us. It's all just ridiculous. This is a red line

In a true sense, in the sense that Jack Kennedy said, putting nuclear missiles in Cuba is a red line for us. We will blow up the world if you try to do that. Vladimir Putin, and as Burns pointed out, not just Vladimir Putin, the entire Russian establishment has been unanimous on this, that they will.

will not tolerate Ukrainian entry to NATO. And look, it's not justified or reasonable for Vladimir Putin to have launched this war. But on the scale of geopolitical demands, the demand that Ukraine cannot be a part of the American Empire's military alliance was a fairly reasonable one. And we could have avoided this whole war by just committing to that.

I have a quick follow up on that, Dave. So all things, you know, dealing in the reality that we did push for the NATO expansion in 2014 and all of that considered, is your position that there should have been like basically zero aid, military, whatever else, government aid to Ukraine after the invasion a couple of years back, like basically just none?

Absolutely. If there was any role for the Americans to play, it would have been trying to negotiate an end to the war. Unfortunately, you know, if you're putting me in the hypothetical of like, you can't change anything before this, but you're already here, we had probably blown all of that goodwill and there were better parties who would have been more suited for that. You know, for example, going back to

even the Bucharest summit in 2008 into the beginning of the Maidan revolution. Germany was much more hesitant to

to go down this path. There were other European countries who were kind of like, hey, let's not provoke the Russians. It's part of the reason why Ukraine didn't get a full map invitation in 2008 is the objection of the Germans. So probably someone else would have been better at it. Yes, essentially what I'm saying is that the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, the most war-hungry country in the world, the United States of America, shouldn't have been the ones at the table at all. And there might have been some goodwill from other parties who had more of an interest to

avoid this catastrophe. If I may, there are elements of this that I guess don't make sense to me. First of all, the claim that America's decision-making is based on it trying to expand its own geopolitical power rather than any altruistic interest, that's true, but that's also the case for all countries. That's basic IR theory. So the idea of like, well, this neocon theory of America expanding its interest, that's just nation-states.

Russia's doing that right now, India's doing that, China's doing that, everyone's doing that. We're better at it because we're a superpower, of course, but that's like a fundamental rule of national exchange. I don't think that it's really a moral question. It's a matter of material conditions in a basic Marxist sense. Who's motivated by what and where they are. In the modern world, the imperial sphere of influence extends to the entire planet. American jets can reach any part of the world in 24 hours. Everyone's can.

if they have jets, there's no, we get the nation next to us, which makes me think the idea that like Ukraine is more innately in the Russian sphere of influence is,

I think it's a little bit old hat. At the end of the day, the people in Ukraine were interested in closer relations with the EU. And that is ultimately what triggered everything from Euromaidan, Yanukovych fleeing the annexation of Crimea, the invasion of the Donbass, following the invasion of Ukraine broadly. This is, again, a complicated situation. I don't mean to detract from the influence that Western arrogance had. I would never, never try to do that. But I do think that like your...

roadmap for how things should have progressed from an American perspective following the 2022 invasion is misguided because I don't think the world would be any farther from annihilation if Russia had simply marched westward, taken Kyiv, and we had a bunch of ginned up Russian soldiers right up against the border of Poland.

you know, having just successfully annexed former Soviet slash Russian imperial territory. You can imagine the propaganda coming out of the Kremlin about how they're reuniting their people. They're sort of like expanding the Russian interest in like a Duginist ethnic sense, you know, reclaiming the empire. I think that like the incentive structure behind that would be really bad. Like that you're basically getting, you're like, you're throwing chum into the water for sharks. You know, Putin is expansionist. He's been

sort of like preempting this for a long time with Georgia, you know, his behavior with the Chechens. I don't think that that would bring us any closer to peace. Now, is the current path we're on right now the best possible road? Obviously not. Nothing we ever do is the best possible road, but I think it's closer to

threading that line than just letting them march westward with them. What I'm interested in, I guess, is practical solutions now outside of just letting Ukraine get annexed, which I really don't think would have been good for world peace in the long run, even if it would have quickly ended the conflict. How do we incentivize Ukraine and Russia to come to the table and bring an end to this war? Can Ukraine regain its lost territory? I think morally it should be able to because I don't like

nations being rewarded for annexing adjacent territory, but logistically, can they? Would it be possible to end things where they are now? Would Russia keep Crimea and that just be seen as a kind of like dull historical injustice to fade away over time? And a hundred years from now, people would be like, did you know Crimea used to be Ukraine?

I don't know. I just, there's so much dogmatism. And whenever you bring up like modern solutions, people go back to, I don't know, the end of the Cold War. I know. I mean, I understand NATO is not exactly a global force for good, but what can we do now? I mean, I so rarely hear answers that are contextualized in the current moment.

Hi, I'm Katie Lowe's and I'm Guillermo Diaz. And now we're back with another season of our podcast, unpacking the toolbox where Guillermo and I will be rewatching the show to officially unpack season three of scandal. Unpredictable. You don't see it coming. It's a wild, wild ride. The twists and turns in season three mesmerizing, but

Also, we get to hang out with all of our old scandal friends like Bellamy Young, Scott Foley, Tony Goldwyn, Debbie Allen, Kerry Washington. So many people. Even more shocking assassinations from Papa and Mama Pope. And yes, Katie and I's famous teeth-pulling scene that kicks off a romance.

And it was Peak TV. This is new scandal content for your eyes, for your ears, for your hearts, for your minds. Well, suit up, gladiators. Grab your big old glass of wine and prepare yourselves for even more behind the scenes. Listen to Unpacking the Toolbox on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Meet the real woman behind the tabloid headlines in a personal podcast that delves into the life of the notorious Tori Spelling, as she takes us through the ups and downs of her sometimes glamorous, sometimes chaotic life and marriage. I don't think he knew how big it would be, how big the life I was given and live is.

I think he was like, oh, yeah, things come and go. But with me, it never came and went. Is she Donna Martin or a down-and-out divorcee? Is she living in Beverly Hills or a trailer park? In a town where the lines are blurred, Tori is finally going to clear the air in the podcast Misspelling. When a woman has nothing to lose, she has everything to gain. I just filed for divorce. Whoa, I said the words. Yeah.

that I've said like in my head for like 16 years. Wild. Listen to Misspelling on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I'm Angie Martinez. Check out my podcast where I talk to some of the biggest athletes, musicians, actors in the world. We go beyond the headlines and the soundbites to have real conversations about real life, death, love, and everything in between. This life right here, just finding myself, just relaxation, just not feeling stressed, just not feeling pressed. This is what I'm most proud of. I'm proud of Mary because I've been through hell and some horrible things.

That feeling that I had of inadequacy is gone. You're going to die being you. So you got to constantly work on who you are to make sure that the stars align correctly.

Life ain't easy and it's getting harder and harder. So if you have a story to tell, if you've come through some trials, you need to share it because you're going to inspire someone. You're going to give somebody the motivation to not give up, to not quit. Listen to Angie Martinez IRL on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome to Cheaters and Backstabbers. I'm Shadi Diaz. And I'm Kate Robards. And we are New York City stand-up comedians and best friends. And we love a good cheating and backstabbing story. So this is a series where our guests reveal their most shocking cheating stories. Join us as we learn how to avoid getting our hearts broken or our backs slashed. Listen to Cheaters and Backstabbers on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome to Criminalia. I'm Maria Tremarcki. And I'm Holly Frey. Together, we invite you into the dark corridors of history and true crime. For each season, we explore a new theme. From poisoners to stalkers, art thieves to snake oil salesmen. We uncover the secrets of history's most interesting figures, such as Walter Minx, the man who built his own submarine hoping to escape with his blackmail payout under Lake Michigan. It sounds made up.

but it's 100% true. We'll explore the crimes as well as societal forces at play, from unfair sentencing to jaw-dissolving health risks. And tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in cocktails and mocktails inspired by each story. Listen to Criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I want to answer your question at the end there, but just like a few things I want to point out. Number one, I think this is almost like bigger than just any political debate. There's kind of, it's a broader theme in life in general. I think anybody who's married, who's on the show or listening to the show knows this is true in personal relationships. There's a tendency of,

if you're in an argument with your wife or your husband or something like that, to focus on what they did and what they did that's bothering you. But a much more healthy posture, if you're in a successful relationship, is that you also add in like, okay, well, what am I doing? How am I participating in this? What have I done that's kind of led to this situation? Generally speaking, I think that if you look at the corporate media, you're going to hear all of this talk about what Putin's done,

And I don't think, I think a lot of times in these debates, people can kind of claim to be like, well, I'm adding, I have a more nuanced position. I'm not simplifying things. I think the point of saying that like, well, all governments are expansionist by nature. So there's no difference between the neoconservatives and say other groups of people. It's, I don't know, it's,

I'm not saying they're the same, but like a logical analogy. It's like, oh, well, all governments kill people. So like what Adolf Hitler is doing is just kind of the same as other governments. It's not exactly true. It's kind of different in scale and in kind. To sit here and say, and look, if we have time, we could go through the history of Chechnya and Georgia and all this stuff. But to zoom out a little bit, during the Cold War, we drew the line at the Elbe River.

Halfway through Germany, on one side was the Soviet Union, on the other side was NATO. And we're now talking about Ukraine. And you could sit here with a straight face and say, Putin is expansionist.

Okay. I mean, if that's how you want to look at it, it's like, let's just look at the actual reality of what's happening here. It's not that Putin has been this expansionist force. Putin has been almost at every turn reacting to the expansion of the American empire. You got to give him agency, man. And Ukraine, that's not...

Listen, that's just not true. It's not denying someone agency to say that they're responding to something. That doesn't make any sense at all. Everyone's responding to everything. That's all life. No one just acts without... You didn't fall out of a coconut tree. That's just a cop-out. That doesn't mean anything. You're the one providing the cop-out. You're saying that it's not possible for Putin to have a distinctly expansionist element to his rule because everyone's just responding to...

So do you believe Putin has a distinctly expansionist element to his role? Okay, no, that's not a binary. One is it's not possible for this to be... Wait, do you think he does or doesn't? Hold on, instead of just interrupting me, let me make the point. You just laid out a binary between is it possible he has expansionist intentions and does he have expansionist intentions? That's not a binary. There are some expansionist desires that he has. No, in fact, if you actually like...

educate yourself on this topic. It was our CIA director who said in the Nyet Means Nyet memo leaked by Julian Assange that verbatim, this was a choice that Vladimir Putin did not want to have to make. This was a choice that Russia did not want to get involved in this war. And yet he made the choice.

He made the choice to invade, to bring troops down to the Ukrainian border, to commit to multiple years of like, come on, you know, this is again, this is the thing I ask you for. Like, what can we do now? And immediately it's it's back to the Iron Curtain. Well, hold on. Hold on. Here's what happens. I'm sorry. I just want to know in the modern. I get I get it.

Actually, what happened was you made a long statement and ended with that question. And I said, let me answer that question. But first, let me deal with what you said at the beginning of your statement. And then you started interrupting me. So no, it's not that I'm not willing to answer that question. It's that I had to point out, I think, a lot of the errors that you're making. Now, if you want just to say, what could we do right now? Well, look, we're going to have to be realists about this situation and admit that we're

That Ukraine is losing this war and that they're not going to drive Russia out of Crimea. That's a joke. They're not going to drive Russia out of many of the territories that they've taken right now. We should be working toward a deal, a peaceful solution, which has been on the table several times throughout this war. And it's been the West who has been trying to squash it. Well, that's not true at all, though.

You've seen, I assume you've read the deals that Putin has put through. Zelensky hasn't been particularly amenable to them himself. The narrative that the West is squashing the peace deals, which is blown up largely because of what? That one Boris Johnson visit early on in the conflict. Don't get me wrong, okay? The West has its own interests. There are plenty of Western leaders who would like to see the Russian armories depleted. But that doesn't mean that Ukraine would have been jumping in the bit for any of the deals Putin's been offering since the war began. And Ukraine hasn't been losing.

Both countries have been stalling. This has been like a slog, and it has been since the first, or after the first three months of the war. I don't like the narrative that Ukraine's losing because the fact that they exist at all at this point, considering the Russian armaments aligned against them, is pretty impressive. I mean, they're pulling guys off the streets to fight. Oh, yeah, but like, and Russia has like their penal colony forces with the Wagner Group, like pulling from their multiple rounds of like,

really unpopular conscriptions, waves of immigration out of Russia. But we're not funding that. No, no, no, of course not. I'm not arguing that it's a matter of our investment or whether or not it's moral. War makes, unfortunately, unethical decision-making of every side, including the good ones. The Allies did plenty of bad stuff during World War II. I'm only saying that it's been a slog for both sides.

I don't want to see this out in like, I don't want this conflict to end in a way that's going to guarantee the conflict reemerges in two years. If you end up just setting the border right where the fighting lines are right now, we're going to be exactly where we were back in 2014. We're going to have a combination of like paid separatists and Russian soldiers like moving around in the Donbass. There's going to be constant exchanges of fire across the border. This needs like a real international situation.

solution I don't know whether that means like a proper DMZ I don't know whether that means like genuine reconciliation ideally for me it would be some kind of like Hail Mary where Ukraine gets its borders back and there's like a massive like coming together between Russia and the West and we like reopen trade and negotiations but that's a little bit a little bit of a pipe dream I just we we do agree that at least let's agree on this if the line just freezes where it is right now are we not guaranteeing another conflict in a few years

I don't know that that's possible to say, to be honest. People would be pretty mad. It's not guaranteeing it. I don't know.

I don't think you do either. Especially at the front, are not positively disposed to each other. I feel like we need to give them something solid, a solid piece. Not just like, oh, we've decided now the slog has gone on for too long. They'd be throwing rocks at each other across the border, you know? You could get a five-mile-wide DMZ and they'd still be like sending drones over with bricks to drop at each other's heads. Maybe. This is all... It'd be rough. With the case of...

in general, with all of the war hawks, everybody who's supported every single war over the last 20 years, it always kind of relies on this unfalsifiable counterfactual, like, oh, if we didn't do this, then Vladimir Putin would be invading Poland right now. Or if the lines were drawn where they are, they'd be throwing rocks at each other or something. It's very hard to say. I think the one thing that, like, I think it's,

again, just to rely on a counterfactual if that's what we're doing, I think the truth is that there were a lot of much better options. There were off-ramps all throughout the path to get here. And the truth is that if you want to go back to 2014, the West should not have gotten involved the way that it did. That it was...

such a provocation to back the overthrow of a democratically elected government. I mean, all you have to do is think to yourself and just be honest here. We're in the past again. Hold on, let me just finish my point. If Russia or China had...

backed the overthrow of the government in Mexico or Canada because they opted to sign a trade deal with us rather than the one that they wanted them to sign, what do you think D.C. would do? And we all know the answer to that. They'd overthrow that government in a second. And we have a Monroe Doctrine for a reason. And you can say that it's like...

some relic of the past that faraway superpowers ought not intervene in the region of other large nations. But we certainly wouldn't feel that way. We wouldn't think it was a relic of the past if anybody tried to come over here and set up a military alliance with Mexico or with Canada. Tell me how much DC would go, oh yes, the Monroe Doctrine is just a relic of the past. Do you think the Bay of Pigs invasion was justified? No. No.

Because the Soviets invested economically and militarily into a country that is just off our coast during a time of heightened international conflict. They knew that it would antagonize us. We already had strained relationship with Castro, even though we didn't initially, of course, because we recognized that he was a much better leader for the Cuban people than the man he replaced.

do you not think the Soviets antagonized us in a way much comparable to what we have done with NATO and Ukraine? Yes, they did. Oh, they did? Okay. So do you think then following the Bay of Pigs... Well, this isn't a gotcha. I think it's an interesting question because I do think the Soviets were a little bit wacky with how they handled Cuba. But I feel like in retrospect, we don't talk about the Bay of Pigs invasion as...

an inevitable consequence of expansionist Soviet investment in spite of our national interest. I think we think about it as like Kennedy's mistake, you know? - Right, okay, but see, a lot of the reason why we think of it as Kennedy's mistake is the logistics of it. By the way, if you really wanna get into it, it wasn't Kennedy's mistake as much as it was the CIA's. - Was it Rafe's fault or the previous administration, yeah. - But regardless of any of that, see, what you asked me is if I thought the Bay of Pigs was justified. And I would also say that no, I don't think Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine was justified.

Do I think that the Soviets and the Cubans were taking a provocative stance against the United States of America? Of course. Did those provocations lead to the Bay of Pigs? I think that's undeniable. And the truth is that Vladimir Putin's got a much stronger case about the provocations of the United States of America because it's not just one little island or one economic deal. It's been a steady push eastward since the late 90s. But

Now that we are where we are. Oh, no, go right ahead. Before we go too far, I just want to stand up for the dignity of the Cuban Revolution for just a moment. Please, please. Least surprising development. I mean, it was not a Soviet project. This was an organic Cuban project against the corrupt elites in Cuba.

Fidel Castro in the beginning thought he could maintain some decent relations with the United States. - That's right. - It was Che Guevara who witnessed in 1954, he was in Guatemala when the US overthrew Arbenz and he was the one always saying to Fidel Castro,

you're not gonna be able to work with the yankees like it's not possible castro wanted to like he was like look no these guys are corrupt you know we're i'm just i'm george washington here uh it was only when it became impossible uh for the cubans to work for the cuban revolutionaries to work with the us that they went they went in the soviet direction

And in fact, Ryan... Doesn't make a judge, but go ahead, Dave. I wish they'd been our allies. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I also believe that Castro had been rejecting communism up to the point that the U.S. started putting embargoes on him before he then said, oh yeah, I'm a communist. And so you could certainly argue that we drove him into the hands of the Soviets. Right, and I...

I think it plays further into the broader dynamic where basically everybody acts as a reaction to previous acts. Very rarely does something come up whole cloth. You almost always, even for the United States, with all of our power, we are still responding to the actions and decision making of agents that are of themselves responding to others.

In the world today, where we are now, because there are a million places that I could have turned the clocks back and changed history and brought us to a different point. For me personally, the big line wasn't with NATO. It was with economic investment in Russia and the shock therapy. I think that was the real line where we like,

lost the post-Cold War world, where we arrogantly decided that, you know, having like won over the Soviets, we would do a victory lap by annihilating their economies, you know, arrogantly like pillaging them and leaving them to the oligarchs who had worked with us in like a business relations sense. If there was anything I could go back and change, it would be that, you know. I'm not really particularly fussed about NATO in particular. Military alliances are always going to carry with them

let's say problematic elements. NATO is just the Western military alliance, everything that insinuates and carries. If we got along with Russia properly, maybe all of this could have been avoided. I mean, hell, it could have extended far enough east. We could be on better relations with China. We wouldn't have people like Trump trying to constantly push for a second Cold War with like the tariff. And well, Biden did that too recently with the electric vehicle. So I guess everybody wants a Cold War with China. Things could have been better. That really started with Obama. Yeah, no, it's we all, because we need a foreign threat.

We need a foreign threat. Exactly. Russia wasn't doing it for us, and they're certainly not going to be doing it now. So let me just say, because I think there's something almost being lost here where, look, technically speaking, you are right that everybody is reacting. And you are right that every nation is, you know, like I'm a radical libertarian. I think basically essentially all governments are criminal organizations. So you don't have to, like, convince me on that.

The thing here that separates things is that after 1991, America became the first global superpower. The level of power, it's funny, I have to explain this to a leftist, but the level of power that America had was totally asymmetrical to anything else. I'm just hearing this for the first time.

And so, yes, it is true that there are all of these different nations that are reacting to different things. However, if you actually look at the role that the United States of America played, and then think about it from, say, the Russian perspective,

that this is not something that you and you may say to from your perspective that um you know the nato military alliance isn't your biggest concern okay but it is the russians and you have to see from their perspective that they would see this as a threat that they cannot live with and that and the fact is that the

idea of Ukrainian entry into NATO was something that was floated out for years. And not just in 2008 at the Bucharest summit, where they announced that Ukraine and Georgia would be joining NATO, but for years after that. And then more and more involvement, especially after the coup in 2014, joint military exercises with NATO and the Ukrainian military, which is

part of the reason why Vladimir Putin did not have such a quick, decisive victory right away as he probably would have before that time period. But that from the Russian perspective, you have the global empire, the most war hungry country in the world,

very clearly committed to encirclement. Obviously, this is going to be a recipe for disaster. And yet Ukraine's desire to be protected by NATO has been validated by Russia's expansionism. Well, okay, can I just a couple of quick questions? Yeah, go ahead, Dave, go ahead.

I just want to finish that point, if I may. Again, you say Russia's greatest fear is NATO. Ukraine's greatest fear was Russia. Who ended up being more just about their fear? NATO hasn't invaded Russia. Russia did invade Ukraine. There's no getting away from it. At the end of the day, this powder keg was ignited by Russia. And here we are now today,

with the gunpowder having already left ablaze, where do we move forward? Because I keep asking, I feel like we're always, it's always like, I said before we started the show, you may recall, whenever I debate Israel, you say, it's wrong to genocide these 30,000 such and such Palestinians. And then the people you argue with, the Zionists, they'll go, oh, but what about Camp David? What about the Accords? They draw back into history because they want to avoid the question today.

They want to avoid and turn their eyes away from... But I'm certainly not avoiding that question. And as I just said a couple minutes ago, it was wrong for Vladimir Putin to invade and it's wrong for him to be killing people. Right, right. I also answered that. But look, this idea that, first of all, the concern from Vladimir Putin was never...

and not even Vladimir Putin, the Russians in general, the concern was never as simple as is NATO going to invade us? The concern was moving military hardware closer and closer to Russia's borders. Okay, so the concern is more akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not that we were ever worried Cuba was going to invade us,

Removing military hardware that close to our borders was a legitimate concern and one that Jack Kennedy said he would blow up the world over. Most Americans, however they feel about the Bay of Pigs, look at that as fairly justified, that that was a threat we couldn't live with a knife to our neck. Now, to your point,

that Ukraine's biggest fear was Russia and that they just wanted to join NATO because they had this fear of Russia. That's not exactly true. Like, if you know the history of this situation, it was in 2000... Oh, man, I think it's 2008. So...

It might have been 2006, but there was the State Department admitted that one of the big problems they had is that Ukrainian entry into NATO was just not popular in Ukraine. They estimated that it was about 30%. And so they embarked on a campaign. They literally said, we need the NED and we need the USAID to intervene more to get this support up for NATO membership amongst the Ukrainians. It's not...

Yanukovych was elected in 2010 and these elections were verified by the EU because we're all, you know, neoconservatives are such believers in democracy, but only in the places where we feel like we need to import democracy to. I don't think people invalidate the legitimacy of those results. Well, okay, but I'm saying it's not as simple as saying that overwhelmingly the Ukrainian people just wanted to join NATO and D.C. was just, you know, respecting...

the wishes of the Ukrainian people. That's not what's happening. I'm never saying that the West is acting out of altruism. I would never be that silly. And I'm not- No, but that's not the- I'm saying that your point that Ukraine just wanted to join NATO because they feared Russia. Wanted, but let's turn the clock forward, right?

The Russian economy was stalling. The EU's economy was booming. The Ukrainian people were more interested in economic ties with the EU than they were with Russia. Yanukovych against the will of the people. And yes, he was democratically elected. Democratically elected leaders can do unpopular things. That's life. He then turned towards Russia and said, because Yanukovych was, and we don't have to get into it, let's say, compromised.

by Russian interest. The people revolted. America supported the Euromaidan revolt because we were interested, of course, in Ukraine having closer ties to us. But nonetheless, and you can take a look at polling from the time, the Ukrainian disgust with Yanukovych's decision was authentic and widely reflected. Yanukovych fled, of course, fearing for his life and well-being. They took his little wealthy boy palace.

And then after that, of course, you have the annexation of Crimea and the separatist movement in the Donbass, which was, of course, heavily supported by Russia. And then, of course, after that, they want to join NATO because they realize that the moment they do anything that Russia doesn't like, Russia is just going to turn the military on them. You have to keep moving the clock forward.

Hi, I'm Katie Lowes. And I'm Guillermo Diaz. And now we're back with another season of our podcast, Unpacking the Toolbox, where Guillermo and I will be rewatching the show. To officially unpack season three of Scandal. Unpredictable. You don't see it coming. It's a wild, wild ride. The twists and turns in season three. Mesmerizing. But also,

Also, we get to hang out with all of our old scandal friends like Bellamy Young, Scott Foley, Tony Goldwyn, Debbie Allen, Kerry Washington. So many people. Even more shocking assassinations from Papa and Mama Pope. And yes, Katie and I's famous teeth pulling scene that kicks off a romance.

And it was Peak TV. This is new scandal content for your eyes, for your ears, for your hearts, for your minds. Well, suit up, gladiators. Grab your big old glass of wine and prepare yourselves for even more behind the scenes. Listen to Unpacking the Toolbox on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Meet the real woman behind the tabloid headlines in a personal podcast that delves into the life of the notorious Tori Spelling as she takes us through the ups and downs of her sometimes glamorous, sometimes chaotic life and marriage. I don't think he knew how big it would be, how big the life I was given and live is.

I think he was like, oh, yeah, things come and go. But with me, it never came and went. Is she Donna Martin or a down-and-out divorcee? Is she living in Beverly Hills or a trailer park? In a town where the lines are blurred, Tori is finally going to clear the air in the podcast Misspelling. When a woman has nothing to lose, she has everything to gain. I just filed for divorce. Whoa, I said the words.

that I've said like in my head for like 16 years. Wild. Listen to Misspelling on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I'm Angie Martinez. Check out my podcast where I talk to some of the biggest athletes, musicians, actors in the world. We go beyond the headlines and the soundbites to have real conversations about real life, death, love, and everything in between. This life right here, just finding myself, just relaxation, just not feeling stressed, just not feeling pressed. This is what I'm most proud of. I'm proud of Mary because I've been through hell and some horrible things.

That feeling that I had of inadequacy is gone. You're going to die being you. So you got to constantly work on who you are to make sure that the stars align correctly.

Life ain't easy and it's getting harder and harder. So if you have a story to tell, if you've come through some trials, you need to share it because you're going to inspire someone. You're going to give somebody the motivation to not give up, to not quit. Listen to Angie Martinez IRL on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome to Cheaters and Backstabbers. I'm Shadi Diaz. And I'm Kate Robards. And we are New York City stand-up comedians and best friends. And we love a good cheating and backstabbing story. So this is a series where our guests reveal their most shocking cheating stories. Join us as we learn how to avoid getting our hearts broken or our backs slashed. Listen to Cheaters and Backstabbers on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome to the CINO Show. I'm your host, CINO McFarlane. I'm an addiction specialist. I'm a coach. I'm a translator. And I'm God's middleman. My job is to crack hearts and let the light in and help everyone shift the narrative. Whether you get down to sex, drugs, alcohol, love addiction, self-hate, codependency, or anything else for that matter...

I want to help you wake up and I want to help you get free. I want to help you unleash your potential, overcome obstacles, and achieve your goals. Most importantly, I don't want you to feel alone. So join me on The Cino Show, where each week we'll feature a compelling individual with an even more noteworthy story that will be sure to inspire and educate. Listen to The Cino Show every Wednesday on iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Let me just interject there and ask. So we're $175 billion into this as the United States. The Ukrainian death toll is at least 31,000 people. It's probably much, much higher than that. Both sides, minimum around 100,000, but again, probably according to a lot of analysts, much, much higher than that. So to what extent is

Can the United States, this is like higher than the NASA budget last year, the amount of foreign aid we're sending to Ukraine. Is that just the United States spending that much U.S. taxpayer money to protect every inch of the Donbass with no plan perceived as of right now, ostensibly no serious plan as to what a peace process would look like going forward? Is that a just outcome for the American taxpayer?

Oh, look, every dollar we give to Ukraine, we don't give to Israel. OK, so it's like it's like convincing your friends. That's the best argument I've heard. Yeah, right. It's like convincing your friend to spend money on cigarettes, not fentanyl. But I agree that Washington should have a more decisive plan. The lack of a plan, which is a common pattern, by the way, with both the United States and also Netanyahu. So not a problem.

fan of that tendency on all sides is problematic to me. Like I said, now, if we just froze the war where it is, because of course, Putin's peace deals are basically just like forfeit the territory you've lost up until this point. They're not like real conciliatory deals, right? Which of course, Putin wants to keep the territory that he's gained. I think that if we just took that, if we pressured Ukraine into taking that, a war would break out again within a year, two years maybe. Because you would have like

The military buildup on either side of the DMZ would be like the greatest. - Vosch, you started the conversation talking about not wanting this to be a stalemate that goes on forever. So last year we had this much vaunted counter offensive. At the time there were tens of thousands of younger Ukrainian troops who were alive and were well-trained. They were well-equipped.

They launched this massive, much-anticipated counteroffensive. It was a complete disaster, led to an enormous loss of life and a loss of equipment. And so...

To your question of what do we do next, why is it the case that a new counteroffensive with older, less well-trained Ukrainian troops and less well-equipped troops would be able to succeed against a more fortified Russian military while the previous one failed? In other words,

Like, what is this Hail Mary that you're talking about that could change the calculation on the ground to such an extent that it's worth it to continue throwing Ukrainian men and women into the maw of this war?

Well, I don't like the term throwing only because they are, of course, engaged in it, right? They're not just being... No, they're being grabbed in many cases and literally thrown. 45-year-old men. Literally thrown. Yes, yes. Ukrainian morale, or at least interest in continuing the war, is still high, but that

sort of nitpick aside I would only say I look the Hail Mary is something that I hope for it's not something that I think is guaranteed with the introduction of attackums and other relatively long-ranged you know munitions we have the ability to sort of provide Ukraine the option to strike at depots refineries and like uh facilities that are closer to the um

sort of back lines of the conflict. And that has had like a massive effect in the past four or five months since that was introduced. I don't know whether that's going to be a game changer in the war in the long run. I hope that it is because ultimately I do think that a conciliatory position from Russia would be a better way of ending this conflict than one in which things just freeze as they are now. The DMZ buildup along the line that people settled on right now would be catastrophic and I think it would just guarantee further war. My hope, and this is, I'm not

perhaps a little naive of me, but I still have a little bit in me that hopes for this. My hope is that eventually following the expansion of Ukraine's ability to strike at further back targets, this becomes increasingly economically untenable for Russia. There's pressure from both sides. Hey, this has gone on long enough. We literally can't keep this going anymore. We're both on fumes. And like two exhausted boxers on the 14th round, they both collapse into each other's arms. And, you know, they...

they have a Christmas day in World War I. You know, there's a moment where for a second, things get rough enough, long enough that they collapse and they just can't do it anymore. And maybe the world like breathes a sigh of peace as they finally do settle on whatever line they're at at that point. It's quite a dangerous game to play, man. I mean, I know it was the neocons. It's all dangerous, right? Well, sure. But I'm just saying, you know, it was the neocons' hope that if you overthrew Saddam Hussein, democracy would sweep the region. And, you know, that would have been nice, I guess. But

you know, the hope that, oh, if they strike inside of Russia, that will make Russia realize that, you know, this war just has cost us a little bit too much and we sure should knock off this war business. That's quite a risky game to play. There's a couple of things that I want to... Well, let me just respond to a couple of things you said there because things that I think are pretty interesting. So, number one...

just a couple points of correction. I mean, I know I said it was a good point in jest, but no, it's not true that, you know, every dollar that goes to Ukraine is a dollar that doesn't go to Israel. I mean, as you know, we print money out of thin air and the U.S. government is quite fine to spend well beyond its means. So no, they can deficit finance through fiat currency both of these wars at the same time. Now, what they're going to do to our dollar... We're mostly just giving Ukraine equipment too, not just

money. Sure, sure. Yeah, no, mostly we're just bribing the military industrial complex and sending old weapons over there. However, you know, there is, as you brought up the talk of agency before, it is true that individuals have agency. It's also true that there's such a thing as moral hazard. So if I were to just say, I'll start giving, hey, Ryan, I'm going to start giving you a million dollars a month. And then you quit your job and you sit at home and I go, look, he doesn't want to work.

He doesn't want to work. He wants to stay home. He doesn't want to. It's like, well, yeah, OK, there is some truth to that. But might that have, you know, the Ukrainians just want to fight. OK, but might that have something to do with the blank check that they've received from the world? So the whole point here, right, is that and this is true with Israel and with Ukraine. What happens is that when the biggest bully in the history of the world, the U.S. empire, says we got your back.

people get a lot braver than they otherwise would. If Israel didn't have unconditional support from the United States of America, they'd be forced to make a deal with some of their neighbors. And same with Ukraine. You know, you say like, oh, if the war ended, Ukraine would just be ready to fight Russia again in a few years without our backing, without us arming them, without all of Europe behind them. No, they wouldn't because they know it's a fight they couldn't possibly win. Dave, what's a riskier game to play? I mean, I think I know what your answer is.

would be to this, but what's a riskier game to play? Is it, you know, allowing Putin to expand unchecked just to go back to the argument that Vash made earlier? Or is it, you know, escalating the war? It seems as though there are risks in both scenarios. And why is one riskier than the other at this point? Well, look, I mean, okay, so

The biggest risk that, again, as I mentioned at the beginning, we should all be concerned about is the potential of nuclear war. And what's prevented the nuclear war in the past has been

private negotiations, handshake agreements, and mutually assured destruction. The fact that, you know, nobody really wants to get into a nuclear exchange because we all lose. The only time, especially now, because the current administration isn't doing handshake deals or even having conversations behind the scenes with the Russians, the only thing that could lead to a nuclear exchange, so in other words, the worst case scenario, is that Vladimir Putin actually thinks he's going to die.

He thinks he's going to end up like Muammar Gaddafi. And that's the scenario where you might end up launching nukes because, you know, screw it, bring everybody down with you. In terms of the risk of Russian expansion, I do think that Vash made a somewhat fair point where, look, between the mix of, this is my point, not yours, but resulting in yours, between the mix of

NATO joint military exercises with the Ukrainian government, the massive amounts of foreign aid, the weapons shipments that Ukraine has got, going back to before the invasion of 2022, but certainly since 2022, it has made Ukraine a tougher adversary than they otherwise would have been. Vladimir Putin famously said back in 2008 when he was warning Burns, who was the ambassador to Russia at the time, that I could be in Kiev in two weeks. Mm-hmm.

Well, I don't think that's true anymore. I think it's a tougher battle for him than that. But then also, you think because he ends up getting the eastern part of Ukraine, that what, he's moving on Poland after that? I just think there's absolutely no reason to think that that's the situation. I don't think. The bottom line is that- Although if he's right next to Poland, it seems like given the history of NATO and everything else, that's pretty dangerous too.

Well, I don't know. I mean, the whole argument that all of the people who wanted to bring Ukraine into NATO made was that, well, he won't attack them if they're a NATO country. Now he's going to go after Poland. I just don't see it as being very likely. I don't think the guy's on a suicide mission. I think, as Burns told Condoleezza Rice, that it was never a suicide mission. It was a choice they didn't want to have to make. That's what our intelligence was saying at the time. And so, no, I don't think that there is to pretend that...

look, I think American expansionism has been more of a threat to the American Republic than anything else. The idea that Putin is somehow some type of existential threat to America, I think is aside from the nuclear question, just not true. I think that there has been an effort for many years now, um,

by the entire political class and the entire corporate media to demonize Vladimir Putin in oftentimes the most cartoonish, ridiculous ways. He stole the election in 2016. He's got bounties on US soldiers' heads in Afghanistan. Now, from our perspective here, right, people like in say this alternative media space like Breaking Points is in,

We all kind of laugh and mock this stuff. Like, oh, it's so ridiculous. Look at how the CIA is lying to everybody and they actually fell for it. And look how it's been exposed. But from Vladimir Putin's perspective, all of the most powerful people in the most war-hungry, powerful country in the world have essentially been saying over and over again that he declared war on us. I mean, you guys, you tell me, because I know you guys have covered this stuff a lot. How many people in the corporate media and in the intelligence apparatus say,

said that the fake overthrowing of the elections in 2016 was worse than Pearl Harbor. They were saying out loud for years that he's declared war on us. Now, if you're Vladimir Putin, you can't just laugh at that.

You have to take that seriously. It was William Perry, Bill Clinton's defense secretary, who said that Vladimir Putin believes that the US policy is to overthrow Vladimir Putin. I don't know for sure whether he's right about that or wrong.

It wouldn't surprise me if he was right. That does sound a lot like my government. But that's the perspective that he's got to come to this from. And I think all it takes is, as I believe it was John Mearsheimer who coined the term, strategic empathy.

And that's all you kind of need in this scenario. It's not empathy for its own sake. It's strategic empathy. The same thing that you need to understand the Palestinians, the same thing you need to understand Al Qaeda, is that these, I'm not saying they're good groups. Some of them are, you know, some of the Palestinians are good people, but some of them are terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Vladimir Putin is a despot. But they also can have legitimate grievances.

And we ought to, if we want to ignore those, then okay, but we ignore those at our own peril. I just want to say, if I may, like, respectfully, again, no talking about the present or what to do now. And this is my frustration with this conversation. I promise I'll be very, very quick on this. But the other point that I just did want to make to you as you bring that up again, it's actually not the case that when I have all of these Israel-Palestine debates,

that I want to talk about what's going on right now, and they want to talk about all of the history that led to this point. It's actually quite the opposite. Sagar made this point when he moderated a debate recently for me on breaking points when he was recapping it the next day. The truth is that all of the pro-Israel supporters want to just talk about October 7th to today. And everybody who's critical of Israel actually wants to go back through the history and talk about all of it because, yeah, it's important to understand the history to understand what position we're in now.

Hi, I'm Katie Lowe's and I'm Guillermo Diaz. And now we're back with another season of our podcast, unpacking the toolbox where Guillermo and I will be rewatching the show to officially unpack season three of scandal. Unpredictable. You don't see it coming. It's a wild, wild ride. The twists and turns in season three mesmerizing, but

Also, we get to hang out with all of our old scandal friends like Bellamy Young, Scott Foley, Tony Goldwyn, Debbie Allen, Kerry Washington. So many people. Even more shocking assassinations from Papa and Mama Pope. And yes, Katie and I's famous teeth-pulling scene that kicks off a romance.

And it was Peak TV. This is new scandal content for your eyes, for your ears, for your hearts, for your minds. Well, suit up, gladiators. Grab your big old glass of wine and prepare yourselves for even more behind the scenes. Listen to Unpacking the Toolbox on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Meet the real woman behind the tabloid headlines in a personal podcast that delves into the life of the notorious Tori Spelling as she takes us through the ups and downs of her sometimes glamorous, sometimes chaotic life and marriage. I don't think he knew how big it would be, how big the life I was given and live is.

I think he was like, oh, yeah, things come and go. But with me, it never came and went. Is she Donna Martin or a down-and-out divorcee? Is she living in Beverly Hills or a trailer park? In a town where the lines are blurred, Tori is finally going to clear the air in the podcast Misspelling. When a woman has nothing to lose, she has everything to gain. I just filed for divorce. Whoa, I said the words. Yeah.

That I've said like in my head for like 16 years. Wild. Listen to Misspelling on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Cheaters and Backstabbers. I'm Shadi Diaz. And I'm Kate Robards. And we are New York City stand-up comedians and best friends. And we love a good cheating and backstabbing story. Oops.

So this is a series where our guests reveal their most shocking cheating stories. Join us as we learn how to avoid getting our hearts broken or our backs slashed. Listen to Cheaters and Backstabbers on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

I'm Angie Martinez. Check out my podcast where I talk to some of the biggest athletes, musicians, actors in the world. We go beyond the headlines and the soundbites to have real conversations about real life, death, love, and everything in between. This life right here, just finding myself, just relaxation, just not feeling stressed, just not feeling pressed. This is what I'm most proud of. I'm proud of Mary because I've been through hell and some horrible things.

That feeling that I had of inadequacy is gone. You're going to die being you. So you got to constantly work on who you are to make sure that the stars align correctly.

Life ain't easy and it's getting harder and harder. So if you have a story to tell, if you've come through some trials, you need to share it because you're going to inspire someone. You're going to give somebody the motivation to not give up, to not quit. Listen to Angie Martinez IRL on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Criminalia. I'm Maria Tremarcki.

And I'm Holly Frey. Together, we invite you into the dark corridors of history and true crime. For each season, we explore a new theme. From poisoners to stalkers, art thieves to snake oil salesmen. We uncover the secrets of history's most interesting figures, such as Walter Minx, the man who built his own submarine hoping to escape with his blackmail payout under Lake Michigan. It sounds made up, but it's 100% true.

We'll explore the crimes as well as societal forces at play, from unfair sentencing to jaw-dissolving health risks. And tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in cocktails and mocktails inspired by each story. Listen to Criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

- Let me bring you up to this week since you wanna talk about today. So this is from earlier this week from Zelensky's top advisor. You probably saw this quote, he's got a couple others out there publicly. He's saying this in English so we don't even have to hit the translate button.

After the attack on the beach in Crimea, he said, quote, there are not and cannot be any beaches, tourist zones, those are his quotes, and other fictitious signs of, quote, peaceful life in Crimea.

Crimea is definitely a foreign territory occupied by Russia where there are hostilities and a full-scale war, the very war that Russia unleashed for genocidal and invasive purposes only. Crimea is also a large military camp and warehouse with hundreds of direct military targets, which the Russians are cynically trying to hide and cover up with their own civilians, which in turn are considered to be civilian occupiers. So he said this after Ukraine killed

civilians on the beach uh so are we the baddies here i mean it's almost a perfect mirror of rhetoric employed in the hamas versus israel conflict actually where um uh you know when hamas killed civilians on october 7th the argument was that the civilians were settlers uh who were occupying stolen land and therefore you can't like reasonably argue they're civilians and then on the other hand of course you have like um

israelis who say that like hamas uses the palestinian people as human shields in the west bank you have the argument like it's it's remarkable actually how how um many parallels there are and how these are employed are we the baddies yes we're all the baddies nation states the baddies that sounds reductive but that is just the way the game is played you will never find the nation there are ways to play the game without explicitly justifying the slaughter of civilians on a beach

But in practice, if you go back to basically any military conflict where existential threat was on the line, which it certainly is for Ukraine or is in the Israel-Hamas conflict, you will see that this rhetoric and these standards are employed. This is not me arguing that it's justified. It's morally abhorrent because war...

demands abhorrence of the people who participate in it. You're not gonna find any large scale conflict where stuff like this doesn't happen, which is why to me, the interesting question is- - It's not even a large scale conflict in Crimea. Like why is the American public supposed to care all of a sudden that Russia controls Crimea? Like four years ago, you would have been laughed at if you suggested that Ukraine ought to go to war to kick Russia out of Ukraine.

Well, that's a separate question. The first one about the abhorrence of this rhetoric, which by the way, I agree with. I just want to be clear that this is a consequence of these heightened tensions, which is why I'm interested in what can be done to bring an end to this war, a permanent end, not some middling ceasefire that gets broken almost immediately. In terms of whether or not America should care, I don't know. The average American couldn't find Kabul on a map. The average American doesn't care about anything outside of their own tax breaks.

My interest in what the average American cares about is nil. The average American doesn't care about the homeless. Why should I care about what they care about? What I care about is what's good. Sometimes they do. I don't know. The average American with the state of our education, I care about what's good. Nuclear war is bad, by the way. That's where I land in that particular moral equivalence. I think that if we settle with an unjust, tense society,

with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, we guarantee future conflicts. If you look back at the history of expansionist empires, if you take a look at what Russia is doing now and compare it to the rhetoric employed by other nations that have annexed adjacent territory, you will find they tend not to quit while they're ahead. There's a pattern of overextension. Let me ask you, so,

So on this peace, you hoped that if there's enough fighting that eventually these two fighters will become exhausted and kind of peace will break out. But you've also said that if we get a peace deal, then war will eventually break out. So why would the peace from exhaustion not just lead to your fear that two years later, war would break out again?

It sounds like war is the only logical endpoint of your position here, either position. I think it needs to be a peace deal that the Russian and Ukrainian people are happy with. Right now, we haven't even gotten close to finding that point, which means the only real end to the conflict would be the complete annexation of Ukraine and the annihilation of all the militias and insurgency groups within it, which would be

very difficult considering the fact that Russia has logistical breakdowns 50 miles out of their border or Ukraine retaking all of its territory, which is at the moment basically unthinkable. It doesn't seem like there's any end to the conflict right now outside of something that could be imposed by a kind of international move to sort of

like solidify the line where it is now. And I do think that would just lead to more peace in the future. That's my question. And I don't come to this with a solution, by the way. If I had a solution or if anyone did, I think you'd be hearing them preaching it a lot more often. I don't like the idea of treating this like team sports or like, you know, well, in actuality, like we could have prevented this if we went back

20, 30, 40 years. I know there's a lot of other cool stuff we could have done. We could have invested in like Apple early too, you know? Let's say the U.S. tripled the NASA budget and sent it all to Ukraine. Do you think that would be too much U.S. support?

I mean, if we over support Ukraine, if we commit to it so hard that Ukraine starts pushing back further, my concern would be that the brass in Ukraine would get arrogant and start pushing into Russia. I don't think that's especially likely. Certainly, Ukraine doesn't have the same sort of legacy and cultural pretext of expansionist politics.

sentiment the way that like Putin does but it's possible I also disagree by the way with the strike they did on some of those early warning systems uh you showed an article with that headline a little bit ago um I think that's dangerous territory I don't think that Ukraine has been particularly irresponsible in this conflict as military conflicts go and that's a pretty low bar I do think that there's a risk the more we gin them up the more gung-ho they get and I think that risk increases the longer this goes on too so again we either

let Ukraine get washed entirely. I don't even know if Russia could do that at this point, even if we divested from Ukraine. We sort of pressure Ukraine to accept the Russian peace deal as it is now, or we overinvest to the point where they can reclaim their borders, which given enough time and enough money, you know, we unleash Area 51 on the Russians. Sure, maybe Ukraine could do it.

Of these three options, which is the most likely to bring about the fewest deaths, the lowest likelihood of long-term nuclear conflict? In my opinion, the path will get clearer the more time goes on because we will increasingly test the willingness of the Russian people to support this ongoing engagement. That sounds horrible. I think

this is a horrible situation. That's not me blaming anyone involved, the Pentagon, the Kremlin, whatever else. It's a horrible humanitarian nightmare, but it's also a pretty difficult one to manage. You know, you look back at history and there are empires that were clashing with each other for centuries over and over again, borders barely changing with each successive war. I don't want that to happen here, not just because we've got nuclear powers involved, but because like it is a collective drain on these spiritual bodies.

financial and military collective of humanity. I just don't want to come at it from a dogmatic position because I don't want to blind myself to avenues of peace that might be unintuitive. - And we're running up against our time limit here, but Dave, any kind of final thoughts you'd wanna have on like how this ought to end? Like from your perspective to Vosha's question, what do we do now?

Sure. Okay, well, first of all, I would just say that I don't think Ukraine has been very responsible throughout this whole thing. And certainly when their missiles hit Poland and Zelensky immediately called for preemptive attacks on Russia by the West, either lying through his teeth and claiming it was Russia who attacked Poland or being so clueless that he hadn't even done any investigation to figure out whether it was them or not. Either way, it seems pretty irresponsible to me.

But look, without even going back into ancient history, like just going back to very recent history, it was Jens Stoltenberg. I apologize to the Norwegians. I know I'm butchering that. That was offensive.

He gave the whole game away last year. He admitted that Vladimir Putin actually sent them a draft treaty and said, if you just promise to not bring Ukraine into NATO, I won't invade. And he brags that they said no.

We won't sign that. Ha ha, you didn't want NATO expansion and look at you now, you're getting more NATO expansion. It's like, yeah, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians dead. Like, could we at least all agree that we should have just signed that treaty? Why is it a vital strategic interest to the United States of America that we have a war guarantee with Ukraine? Like, how many people in America? It's like George Kennan said back in the first round of NATO expansion. We have neither NATO

the political will nor the resources to actually defend these countries. How many people in America actually would be willing to sacrifice themselves or their children to make sure that the Donbass region is ruled by Kiev? Would you guys be willing to sacrifice your

kids for that? Anyone here? This is ridiculous. The average American wouldn't sacrifice their lives to protect East Germany or Poland either. Do you think the average American would fight for Warsaw? This rhetoric sounds convincing, but it's empty rhetoric. Likewise, you're still not talking about what you want. Explain to me what you want today.

I'm going to finish my point. I keep talking about today and then you keep talking about NATO, NATO, NATO. We know I addressed and acknowledged and agreed with Western Americans. You're interrupting me and then claiming I'm not addressing something. So first, I was just saying, could we at least all agree that a couple years ago we should have just signed that deal and committed to not bringing Ukraine into NATO and avoided this war? Couldn't Russia have just invaded anyway?

Huh? Couldn't Russia have just invaded anyway? Sure. I guess in the worst case scenario, it would be as bad as... I think maybe. That's not... You're laughing, but there's no point to that. Yes, in the worst case scenario, we could have still ended... Let's talk about what we can do now. Please...

Okay, okay, Fash, let me just make my point. Instead of this constant interrupting, listen, yes, in the worst case scenario, I suppose it could have gone as bad as it did in this scenario. But obviously, the overwhelming odds are that it wouldn't have come to this. Now, in terms of your point of saying like, well, the average American isn't willing to go die for Germany or Poland. Okay, but so why are we adding more of these countries, especially when our own individual

intelligence community is telling us that the risk of adding this other nation that Americans care about even less, the risk of it could result in this war. Very explicitly, blatantly saying that. Now look, again, I do think I actually answered this question pretty clearly pretty early on in this. But right now, what we should do, being educated by what's happened in the very recent past,

is to go, hey, America is going to announce that we will pull all of our support for Ukraine in this war under the condition that Vladimir Putin accepts some type of peace proposal. That's going to look like not quite as good as Ukraine would have gotten if they had taken the deal that Boris Johnson broke up, but it's going to look like Vladimir Putin obviously keeping Crimea under

obviously keeping some of the territories that he already has control of. And in exchange for him ending the war, we promise that Ukraine will not be admitted into NATO. I believe that deal is still possible. Let me just add one final point to this, and then you can respond however you want. Understand something here. The United States of America holds all of the chips.

We could offer Vladimir Putin something that would probably get him to do whatever we wanted him to do. And you know what that is, the ultimate crowning jewel for him. How about we leave NATO? If you end this war right now, America will withdraw from NATO. Why not? This is like silly internet rhetoric that we can laugh at at any political conference. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we're going to leave NATO. No, this is like for Twitter lives, you know? Yeah, let's do it.

Yeah, literally the former president asked the question. What if we left the key military alliance on the planet to incentivize a desperate on the other side of the world to not invade the country they unjustly invaded? It's such nonsense. No, no, no. It's good for Twitter likes. It's great for like the ultra libertarians.

who are all keenly interested in Yanukovych's electoral legitimacy. It's not reality. You suggested that we offer to pull support from Ukraine in exchange for a peace deal. Okay, fine. So let's finally talk about that then. What happens then?

If that divestment occurs, naturally there's a DMZ. Of course there would be, right? And then you have a buildup of the remaining Ukrainian troops and Russia's troops on both sides. Don't you think it's likely that given a peace deal that takes place under those circumstances, eventually the conflict would spark again? And this time, what are we going to do? Provide aid to Ukraine again when Russia invades again? But is the alternate just rolling conflict, like the ongoing slog for another couple of years? I mean...

They need to find the path through that allows the peace deal to take place in a way that doesn't guarantee an immediate future conflict. If we pursue an unjust peace that is immediately broken, it will have been for nothing and we'll be in a worse position than we were before because nobody's going to want to stop the second version of the conflict five days after it starts. We need to be careful with this. So first of all, let me just say that Vash is- So Dave, respond and then Vash will close with a response from you. Okay.

Okay, so I think that Vaush's response of like, oh, this is just what internet libertarians care about or something like that. I just think there was a lot of words without you actually saying anything there. NATO was created after World War II because we had the Soviet Union controlling half of Europe and Western Europe had been destroyed. It was in utter ruins. And so we felt like we had to subsidize the defense of

of Western Europe to make sure that this very clearly expansionist power, the Soviet Union, didn't expand into Western Europe. At this point today, Western Europe is rich and we are $34 trillion in debt. It makes absolutely no sense. And by the way, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. There is no reason

There's no reason for NATO to exist. There's no reason for the US to be a part of it. The former president of the United States of America and the current front runner to be president of the United States of America again has made this point many, many times. This is not just something for internet libertarians to be interested in. This is something that should be a serious conversation

amongst the American people. And by the way, during the fall, when the Soviet Union collapsed, there were many of the wisest graybeards in the American security establishment who felt the same way, who felt that, okay, the mission of NATO is over. Anyway, to your next point, again, this is just an empty argument. You could say this about any peace deal. Well, what if war breaks out again? Well, okay, but if your worst case scenario is war breaks out,

Your solution is to continue supporting the war? We want to continue the war because we're afraid of war? Listen, if we actually, as I just mentioned, which is a serious proposal, we have the ultimate chip here. We have the chip that could allow Vladimir Putin to claim control

hey, I won, which is what you want in these situations. You want to let everyone save face. You want to allow the Ukrainians to say, hey, we fought and we kept this part of our territory. You want to allow the Russians to say, hey, we were pushed into this, but we were victorious. You want to let everybody save face and come up with some type of deal. And yes, Vash, you can make the point that

it's never 1 million percent guaranteed that it'll hold and another war won't break out. But it's a hell of a lot more likely than continuing the war. So the point is, you want to come up with a deal that's realistic, that could maybe hold. And I do think that America has all the leverage in the world to make that happen. And

If I may, I'll just say that, like, no, the idea of holding out for a good piece, one that actually incentivizes both parties to keep their hands off rather than just the first piece that comes up, that is a good instinct. The idea that there is no difference between a peace deal that immediately breaks down and, like...

you know, a war that continues until a good peace is found. There is a massive difference between these, you know, look at the multiple attempts at securing peace between the Ukrainians and the Russians over the 2014 invasion of the Donbass, right? You know, terms are set, conditions are then not met.

by either side, and then nothing changes, cementing a course of action that continued down eight years until the proper invasion by Russia began. You need to find a good peace. I don't know where that path lies, which means that I don't have the convenient, simple answer of saying, what if we just divested, left NATO, and hope that Putin never invaded the remains of Ukraine again? I think that's a very easy thing to say. I think that it's good for ginning up populist fervor. I think it sounds compelling. I think it would do nothing. I think it's a virtue signal.

After all, America is in NATO as a formality. Like, many nations that are in NATO don't even meet the required 2.5% GDP military expenditure that they need to be there. NATO is just a cementing of existing alliances. Do you think we still wouldn't go to war with the interests of, say, Britain or Germany or France? Of course we would, because we're still allies. NATO is just the...

framework built around it, the real, true underlying force, which is shared geopolitical interest, persists nonetheless. What would keep Putin from invading again? In my mind, it would be promises from the West, but not promises of divestment. We shouldn't just leave Ukraine weak and open to being invaded again, because again, if they just break the peace and conquer the rest of Ukraine after giving it a year or two to rearm on the Russian front, what do we get then? Well, obviously, the Ukrainian people are conquered and

they are subject to a great many, you know, violences and humiliations. But in addition to that, of course, we continue to sort of throw fuel into the fire of an expansionist empire. Putin's intentions on this are not subtle. He was invoking the borders of the Russian empire when he began the invasion of Ukraine. I do not think there's any reason to believe that he would be like

sated after he made his way all the way over to Poland. What I want is real reconciliation, not just between Ukraine and Russia, but the West and Russia.

Russia has been, let's be real here, a nuclear missile ridden backwater since the end of the Soviet Union. Prostitution skyrocketed. Child sex trafficking skyrocketed after the end of the Soviet Union. Their economy in shambles. Oligarchs effectively rule the country. There are many, many Russians who don't even have indoor plumbing. I think that a promise of shared investment, the thing we never did after the end of the Cold War, and not just business investment, not just Coca-Cola opening up a factory,

I mean, real, you don't want the American taxpayer spending money on Ukrainian weapons? Okay, I got a better idea for you. Three times as much money on Russian economic reinvestment.

Give it to them to work with. Build real economic bonds. One of the reasons Taiwan hasn't been invaded yet is because China and America are so integrated economically. We don't have that with Russia. That's one of the reasons they're able to persist in spite of all the sanctions on them, because they rely on a pretty primitive...

oil, coal, natural gas kind of extraction economy. I think that if we take Russia seriously as a foreign power and as a people, we invest in them and we care about them, in the long run, we could secure a better peace that both sides feel better about, and we could build a world where there is no longer any incentive for the West or for Russia to get angry at each other. And that's my hope, naive it may be. - There you go. And probably cheaper if we just reached a peace deal and lifted the sanctions and then kept dollar hegemony.

There's an idea. Well, this is a good place to leave it. And this has been super, super interesting. Thank you guys both for being game to talk some of this out. We really appreciate it. Vaush and Dave Smith, thanks so much for joining us on CounterPoints. Have a good week, guys. Thank you, Dave. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Vaush.

Hi, I'm Katie Lowes. And I'm Guillermo Diaz. And we're the hosts of Unpacking the Toolbox, the Scandal Rewatch podcast where we're talking about all the best moments of the show. Mesmerizing. But also, we get to hang out with all of our old Scandal friends like Bellamy Young, Scott Foley, Tony Goldwyn, Debbie Allen, Kerry Washington. Well, suit up, gladiators. Grab your big old glass of wine and prepare yourselves for an even more behind-the-scenes Scandal.

stories with Unpacking the Toolbox. Listen to Unpacking the Toolbox on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Meet the real woman behind the tabloid headlines in a personal podcast that delves into the life of the notorious Tori Spelling as she takes us through the ups and downs of her sometimes glamorous, sometimes chaotic life in marriage. I just filed for divorce. Whoa. I said the words that I've said like in my head for like 16 years.

Listen to Misspelling on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Angie Martinez, and on my podcast, I like to talk to everyone from Hall of Fame athletes to iconic musicians about getting real on some of the complications and challenges of real life.

I had the best dad and I had the best memories and the greatest experience. And that's all I want for my kids as long as they can have that. Listen to Angie Martinez IRL on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Criminalia. I'm Maria Tremarcki.

And I'm Holly Frey. Together, we invite you into the dark corridors of history and true crime. For each season, we explore a new theme, from poisoners to stalkers, art thieves to snake oil salesmen. And tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in cocktails and mocktails inspired by each story. Listen to Criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome to the CINO Show. I'm your host, Cino McFarlane. I'm an addiction specialist. I'm a coach. I'm a translator. And I'm God's middleman. My job is to crack hearts and let the light in and help everyone shift the narrative. I want to help you wake up and I want to help you get free. Most importantly, I don't want you to feel alone. Listen to the CINO Show every Wednesday on iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.