Mark Hertling: Aiding and Abetting a War Criminal

Hey everybody, before we get to general hurtling, I got a few news items and programming notes for you. For next level fans, JBL Sarah and I will be together on Thursday, so we're taping a little late this week.
It'll be out probably Thursday evening, Friday morning. Keep an eye on your podcast feeds.
Also a reminder to download our Bulwark Takes podcast feed on your podcast player of choice for bonus content, breaking news, hot takes, etc. Because there's no next level, I wanted to pop off quickly on a couple news items for you.
The House passed a budget to keep the government open. It was a continuing resolution with support from one Democrat, Jared Golden of Maine.
Now it goes to the Senate, where it will need seven votes to pass. This is a little bit of a sticky wicket for Senate Dems.
And while I think they should hold the line in opposition, I've already seen Chris Coons out saying that this morning. There's going to be some legitimate counter views.
So I'm going to explore that more tomorrow with Sam Stein, etc. But I think that will be an interesting strategic battle coming this week.
One wrinkle in this budget for our DC listeners, one fucking enraging wrinkle really, is the bill includes $1.1 billion in cuts to the DC budget that could affect policing. I thought these guys were tough on crime.
It is going to affect access to healthcare services and other public services for people that live in DC. And here's the crazy thing about this.
It doesn't actually even save a single cent. It is just the cruelty is the point all the way down.
It is just, you know, revenge and resentment and going after these big city liberals and the DC swamp and whatever. This money is DC.
It's in the DC budget. So it will just sit around in the DC treasury rather than be used as, you and the city council had determined.
So I expect there'll be a big fight over that in the Senate and a couple of other items as well. We'll have more on all that tomorrow.
There's a new CNN pull out today I wanted to flag. It shows Trump with his lowest marks on the economy ever for good reason.
It looks like the economy's in shambles right now it's lower even than it was

during covid as far as his personal approval ratings on the economy 56 oppose i think there's room to grow there and um there's already a politico story out this am where some internally are trying to blame howard lutnik for all this that's right the secretary of commerce is responsible for Donald Trump's impulsive, ridiculous, harmful trade wars and all of the other instability that is resulting in the market crash. It's resulting in the cuts to jobs, particularly in the federal workforce.
But as my colleague Andrew Egger reported this morning, even in some private sector companies are starting to see announcements that there are going to be layoffs related

directly to trump's policies so i don't know let nick maybe the fall guy for this we'll see

but it's telling that even inside the administration they're recognizing the trouble they're in on

economic matters so all right up ahead we got a deep dive on foreign policy our Our good friend, excited to welcome back to the podcast, Mark Hurtling. Stick around for that.
Hello and welcome to the Borg Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller.
Delighted to welcome back a retired Lieutenant General and the former Commanding General of the U.S. Army in Europe and the pride of Christian Brothers College High School in St.
Louis. It's General Mark Hurtland coming at us from Florida.
How you doing, sir? Hey, Tim. How you doing today? I'm doing all right.
We're both just living here, recovering from the flu and the red states, trying to hold the line. Yeah, just thankful it's not measles or COVID.
That's the way I feel about it, you know? No measles yet, no mumps, no rubella. I wanted to give people an update on the state of play regarding Ukraine, and then we've got a bunch of other kind of related issues.
There was, I guess, the outlines of a deal, at least a deal between us and our adversary Zelensky in Riyadh. The U.S.
put out a statement that was kind of weird and overly fawning towards the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who hosted us, but they announced that Zelensky had agreed, if Russia agrees, to a 30-day pause in fighting. U.S.
intel sharing has continued now. That's already happened.
U.S. weapons shipment are back on.
That's already happened. The polls confirmed that this morning.
Meanwhile, the Russians didn't really change their operations any. There were reports of explosions in Kyiv last night, 14 killed across the day, across Ukraine.
And so Russia, I guess the other thing I should mention is that there's a Reuters report out this morning saying that they may not agree to a temporary truce. There's a Peskov statement saying you're getting a little ahead of yourselves.
We don't want to do that to reporters asking about the truce. So that's, I think, my summary of the state of play.
What did I miss? What do you want to add to where we're at? Yeah, I'll just say from the very beginning, I'm very, you know, I was skeptical of the Hamas-Israel ceasefire. This one, I'm very pessimistic because I agree with Peskov.
The administration is getting out in front of their, way out in front of their skis, thinking they're going to drive this deal through Russia the same way they did with Ukraine because they don't have any tools to extort Russia that I know of. And what's going to happen is this could very easily follow the paths of other frozen conflicts, which Russia has instigated inside of Europe.
And I think there are all kinds of challenges with what Secretary Rubio and National Security Advisor Walsh agreed to even with Ukraine yesterday. It was a horrible negotiation.
I wasn't in the room, obviously, but you can tell that Ukraine went into this with their hands tied behind their back. They couldn't do much else because they had to get that intelligence sharing back and they had to restart the flow of arms and ammunitions to just survive on the battlefield today because they were taking some pretty good, they were taking as many good hits on the battlefield as we were taking in the stock market yesterday that's a good point let's actually roll back the clock a little bit um before we go forward because it does seem pretty clear at this point that the ending of intelligence sharing was aimed at forcing ukraine to the table and that the United States, the President, vice president, Rubio Waltz, had decided that it was okay to sacrifice the Ukrainian deaths and the injuries and the destruction that we saw over the course of last week because that served the longer term goal of, I guess, bullying Zelensky into coming to the table on this sort of deal.
That was pretty clear at the time, but with the view of hindsight, that seems like that's what happened, right? Yeah, absolutely. And I think, too, we can't ignore the fact that there were moral implications to this.
I mean, it's one thing to cut off intelligence when someone's on the battlefield and fighting. But what Russia has been doing is not just attempting to retake ground, which is typical of any kind of war fight, but they were continuing to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure, kill Ukrainian citizens.
Those are all war crimes. So I would even go to the point, Tim, where we were complicit and maybe even an accessory to war crimes over those couple of days where we just kind of unplugged the intelligence servers within Kiev and in the front lines, not just for the tactical fight, but for the defense of Ukraine infrastructure and citizens.
I thought I was really negative and outraged over what happened to it. That's really just settling in with me right now, the accessories to war crimes element of it.
Because it is true. I mean, it's a great point.
Because that's really what they were doing. I mean, they were attacking Kiev, attacking cities, attacking first aid workers.
Which they've been doing since the very beginning, by the way. Right.
But they had a lot more success. Because without the intel sharing, a lot more of the drones and bombs were getting through, essentially.
That's basically what happened. Yeah, absolutely.
And when you think about the Russian way of war, where they do area fire as opposed to precision fire, where they really don't do the targeting process the way most modern militaries do, where you're attempting to destroy the enemy's military and their enemy's capability, they were really focused primarily, as they have been from the start of the war, on causing pain to Ukrainian citizens and their government. And that's the part that just kind of continuously, I mean, the Hague has said Putin is a war criminal, and all the people who are executing his operations, the special military operations, are war criminals.
And if that's the fact, if we're giving them an advantage, then we do become complicit in their war crimes and maybe even accessories to the act. did you know that the skin around your eyes can be 20 to 30 years biologically older than the

rest of your face i'm just reading this ad script here for the first time and i gotta

tell you one skin people, yeah, I know. All you got to look at is that these bags under my eyes from this podcast grind I've been on.
I know that I've been working on it. But, you know, 20 to 30 years older.
It's a fun fact. I didn't quite know, but I understood the sentiment.
Well, here's the other thing that the OneSkin ad script writers are telling me. It's up to five times thinner too, which it makes it more vulnerable to things like wrinkles, sagging, and cellular damage.
That's why OneSkin's founding team of scientists created OS1i. Designed specifically for this ultra-delicate area, OS1i has the highest concentration of OneSkin's proprietary OS1 peptide, the first ingredient scientifically proven to reverse skin's biological age.
It works by switching off the senescent cells. I love saying the word senescent that accumulate here and make your skin look older than it needs to.
I've been lathering on that one skin eye. Don't judge the sponsor based on how I've looked on the last two YouTubes, okay? One skin can only do so much.
You know, when I haven't shaved and I've been coughing and hacking up a lung and had a fever and then chills and then a fever again, you can't judge one skin based on that because otherwise, I was looking fresh at Mardi Gras. You had a great under Mardi Gras curve, but my face was looking fresh.
My eyes were looking fresh, given the work plus alcohol intake that I was doing. OneSkin is keeping me going over here, people.
So take my advice. Go get some OneSkin, especially if you're a straight guy.
Founded and led by an all-woman team of skin longevity scientists, OneSkin is redefining the aging process with their proprietary OS1 peptide, the first ingredient proven to help skin look, feel, and behave like its younger self. Get 15% off with code BULWARK at oneskin.co.
That's 15% off, oneskin.co with code BULWARK. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them.
Please support support our show and tell them we sent you invest in the health and longevity of your skin with one skin your future self will thank you all right so i want to look at where we go from here you wrote for us a really i think compelling piece about what a frozen conflict could look like and how it could benefit russia if do. And we don't know at this point, but if they do decide to agree to a ceasefire, that could be in their benefit.
And you lean on your experience in Europe and having to monitor some of these other frozen conflicts. So just talk about that and how you think the situation could benefit Russia if we do end up in a frozen conflict.
Yeah, well, I left the military in 2013. And at the time, Russia had not yet invaded Ukraine the first time in 2014.
But prior to that, on a daily basis, when I'd go into the office, I'd get something called the Black Book, which showed intelligence capabilities of the U.S. force and what we were collecting on and how we were collecting it.
At the time, there were three major frozen conflicts in Europe. And it was interesting, Tim, the other night I was with a group of Americans and I said, has anyone heard the term Transnistria or Norgano-Karabakh or Kaliningrad or South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
I'm three for five on that, so that's not too bad.

Yeah, and none of them had heard of any of those places. Well, these were places where the Russians

had invaded or had stoked conflict within Moldova, Georgia, between Armenia and Azerbaijan,

and then most recently in the Donbass and Crimea. And in every single one of them,

they have continued to stoke that over the years and the decades to disrupt governments. I'll use the case of, well, both Moldova and Georgia.
They have prevented from attempting to join NATO because they can't right now. The member action plan says you can't have a conflict on your territory.
And both of them have, in fact, irrendentist or a minor civil war in Transnistria, in Moldova, and in the two provinces in Georgia. So you can see not only those kind of active conflicts, the so-called asymmetric warfare of Russia, but then you include things like electronic attacks in Estonia, or little green men going into different places or assassination attempts in Great Britain and Germany.
So all of those things contribute to the kinds of turmoil that Russia creates. When we now go into Ukraine and we're talking about a ceasefire, which includes, first of all, a 700-mile front in the four occupied territories, and it takes away 20% of Ukraine's territorial integrity, which includes the oblasts or the provinces of Donetsk, Lohansk, Zaporizhia, and Kursan, as well as Crimea since 2014, I think it might be best even to compare it to the United States.
If we were to have 20% of our territory taken away, it would be like occupying all of California plus South Carolina or all of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama together. And when you do that, when you occupy those territories or draw a line, a fence line or a pausation line between a no man's zone, if you will, you're talking about taking away grain production from Ukraine.
It's most of the sunflower oil, which Ukraine produces, which is indicated by their yellow over blue flag is in the region, which was taken over their coal mining and metal. I mean, I could go on and on, but you can see the disadvantage it puts Ukraine at if Russia continues to occupy these territories and how it gives Russia a foot forward in controlling the country.
Don't give MAGA any ideas about giving away California and Oregon. That might sound like a nice idea.
I know the other one. So what is your sense? You don't have a crystal ball, but if you were gaming this out, war gaming this, are you expecting that Russia will accept this ceasefire? Absolutely not.
Absolutely not. They will not.
There will be boundary disputes, additional requirements placed on each side. You know, the big thing Ukraine is looking for is some type of security agreement.
And I think Rubio and Walsh wished that away. They said the Europeans will put up a peacekeeping force.
Really? How do they control that? And what does it look like? Because the UN is the one that normally establishes a peacekeeping force, and the UN has not been involved in this at all. There is the continued asymmetric possibilities that Russia could do.
And, you know, I'm a Cold War kind of guy. I was a young lieutenant when the Cold War was still going on, all the way up through the rank of majors.
And I actually, as a tanker, did border patrol between the old Czechoslovakia and West Germany and West Germany and East Germany. And you know, for the guys on those front lines, even in a cold war, that there are activities taking place that have to do with kinetic events, you know, people shooting at each other.
This is a hot war. This is not a cold war.
This is going to continue on along that 700-mile front, and Russia will take advantage of it because I know that's what Russia does. Yeah, I saw one military expert when I was reading this morning about the various possibilities suggested something that seemed interesting to me, which was that this could be Putin at his most devious, or maybe decide to kind of play along with this for a little while, and then trump up some, pun not intended there, some idea that the CSAR is broken by Zelensky.
Because his goal in the end is to continue to not have the U.S. be involved more and more.
And so you don't want to anger Trump. I don I don't even know what you could do that wouldn't have Trump and Vance change their tune on giving more weapons to Ukraine, but maybe something.
But I don't know. What do you think about that notion? Yeah, I don't think we're going to see that.
I mean, Trump has already in his first administration has said he wants to get out of NATO. And he's already made comments about getting all of our forces out of Germany, and maybe putting them in Poland.
But now there's a fight between Poland and the United States. I mean, that's going on.
So when you take a look at the European continent, and who would be supportive of US forces over there, everyone would be, except Mr. Trump.
You know, he is doing the shift or the pivot toward Asia, which is, you know, it's a strategy. I'm good with it.
But I was there when Obama said he wanted to do a pivot toward Asia. And it caused huge disruption on the continent in terms of how people were interacting.
I spent a good part of my career in Europe and understand how NATO works, how the U.S. forces in Europe work and what they do for a relatively small amount of people.
They fight above their weight class in terms of pulling people together. But you make that combination with the fact that the Trump administration continues to demonize Zelensky and Ukraine.
And I can't figure out how they're getting away with that with the American people and even with members of Congress, because there were so many people in Congress and the American people that understood that all of these things were transgressions against Ukraine, and they were supporting them from the very beginning. And now almost half of that is turned around.
All right. Well, I'm going to read you the spin then from the ostensibly pro-Ukraine, the old traditional pro-military wing of the Republican Party.
And you tell me what you make of this. Here's Dan Crenshaw.
He wrote this yesterday following the deal. Great work by Team America.
Let's examine what happened. One, Trump means what he says and his intent on making good and his campaign promise to end the war two ending the war and ensuring putin obliges and never takes kiev is in america's interest our strategic deterrence remains established three trump isn't abandoning ukraine the pause on aid was very short but zelensky had to be brought back to reality trump Trump did that effectively.
Four, the minerals deal is a great idea. Five, now the ball's in Putin's court.
He'd be a fool to continue his maximalist policy. Six, Trump still has plenty of leverage over Putin, even without additional military support.
There are still many economic screws that can be tightened on Russia. What do you make of the Dan Crenshaw spin on the state of play? Well, we'd take about an hour to go through all those things.
But he is, I think, as we sometimes say in the army, talking through his ass. You know, he would like all those things to be true, but none of them are.
Trump has not put Putin under his thumb. He created a huge problem by interfering with the supply chain to Ukraine and basically negating their intelligence feed for even a short period of time.
The ball isn't in Putin's court. He knows exactly what he's doing and he will play it the way he wants to play.
I read a piece by Ann Applebaum this morning about the ball being in Putin's court. And she said, yeah, he can hide the ball, take the ball away and go home, deflate the ball, throw it over the fence.
And she basically said all the things that this so-called ball being in Putin court could create that would go wrong. She's a great writer, by the way, and she knows Russia more than anybody in the United States.
So she knows exactly what's going to happen. And I'm always in agreement with her.
Yeah. I think the interesting thing of both the Crenshaw comment there, a number five on the ball on the court there, he said to be full to continue his maximalist policy of fully conquering Ukraine and eventually moving on to other Baltic states in Moldovaova marco rubio in the aforementioned spat with the polls that you talked about earlier he said something similar which is like the polish they need to thank us because russia would be on their border if it wasn't for the effort here and to me that just shows there's this massive disconnect between like the old neocon wing who's who are kind of quasi acknowledging that putin does have aspirations beyond ukraine and like the jd vance trump argument which is essentially like this was you know this was about nato and encroachment and you know it was ukraine started it i don't know how you square those those two points of view.
Well, it's interesting because Vance was at the Munich Security Conference. And whenever I used to get with a group of Europeans, they would all tell me how much they hated Russia.
In fact, Georgia makes a joke out of toasting. When you toast with beer as opposed to with wine, you're supposed to say something you don't mean.
And I had one Georgian toast with a beer and he said to Putin's health, you know, they hate this guy because the majority of them have been under Putin's thumb. And I'll bring up the point too, it just shocked the bejesus out of me yesterday, Tim, when I saw all of the European force chiefs, all of the military chiefs from the European countries coming together with Macron.
Because back in the day when I was the commander of U.S. Army Europe, we used to have something called the Conference of European Armies, where we would have all the European defense chiefs in Heidelberg, and we would talk about commonalities and things we were going to do and exercises.
And by the way, Hegseth has eliminated exercises from the European force. So we can't work and play well with others next year.
All of those things are detrimental to our security. And I can't see what level of earth these guys are living in right now to think any of this is good.
This time of year, a good hoodie is essential, but it can be tough to find one that will last through the season. And if you're somebody like me who caught the Mardi Gras flu or a spring cold and you need to sit around in something nice and cozy, well, there's nothing better than an American Giant hoodie.
As I've told you guys before, I've been long a fan of American Giant. Well, actually, my husband's been long a fan talking about how his American Giant hoodie was his favorite.
I never got to borrow it and I never really got to just enjoy the comfort and coziness of it until they joined as a sponsor. And now we're an American Giant Hoodie family.
And boy, were we bundled up in our American Giant Hoodies. Well, you know, at least during the chills part of the flu.
Then during the fever part, we take it off and then the chills part, you put it back on. You know how it works.
Let me tell you why this is such an incredible hoodie. The iconic classic full zip is the jacket that started it all.
It's custom heavyweight fleece with side panels for mobility. That's why they're calling it the best hoodie ever.
It's body skimming fit with a double lined hood and reinforced elbow patches. I mean, it's a hoodie that'll last and I can vouch for that.
My husband's had this hoodie for a fucking decade. It feels like American giant makes staples, other staples besides the hoodies that are anything but basic.
I got a long

sleeve crew tee

that I really like. They've also got

some high-rise pants and slim roughneck

pants you can check out as well.

So this season, go snag the

hoodie that will bring you comfort for life.

The American Giant Classic

Full Zip and save 20% off your first order

at American-Giant.com

when you use code BULWARK at checkout. That's 20% off your first order at American-Giant.com when you use code BULWARK at checkout.
That's 20% off your first order at American-Giant.com, code BULWARK. Let's talk about the Europe side of it from your expertise.
So I had Michael Weiss on, I don't know, last week or the week before, time's moving in very strange ways in Trump 2.0. And we're talking about this question of, okay, so what if Europe has to go it alone? It doesn't look quite as bleak on that front as it did the morning we were talking after the Oval Office meeting, because we have continued to send the material and the weapons as of today.
So our weapon shipments are going back to Ukraine. So it looks a little bit better.
But if we get to a point where Europe has to go to Rome with Ukraine and where, and to your point where Macron or whomever needs to take a leadership role in this, you know, these armies better than anybody, you know, their preparedness better than anybody. I mean, is that even, is that even possible? Yeah.
I mean, it would be possible. I think when you're talking about the overall strength of NATO, they are very good and they outweigh Russia and their military force.
But that's really not what I'm worried about. It's if they are together as a NATO, they can withstand any kind of Russian aggression.
But what we're seeing is it gets to one of Putin's strategic objectives when he started this war in 2022. He truly believed that NATO was very divided and the U.S.
was very divided. And he didn't think anyone would take action.
Well, he was surprised over the last three years. Well, now the question would become, will NATO pull together without a US input? I think they will, but you now even have competing governments saying, no, we're the lead.
No, we're the lead. I mean, the dynamic between France, Poland, and Germany right now is very interesting to see who is building armies, who's going to be in charge.
You know, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe has always been an American because they tried to pull all the nations together. And the question is going to be there truthfully is, as Rundfeld once said, an old Europe and a new Europe.
And the new Europe has experienced the threat of Putin during the Cold War. The old Europe is kind of good in their economic standards and they're feeling good about themselves.
The question is, can those 32 countries of Europe, 31 if you discount the United States, pull together under one real main body? And if Poland gets attacked or let's put it in a different way, and I'm sure

Michael Weitz is concerned about this because he's got a lot of friends in the Baltics. If Estonia gets attacked or Lithuania gets attacked, is Brussels and is Poland, well, Poland will, but will Spain, will Norway, will they come to their aid? That's the big question.
Will Article 5 drive these 31 other countries to pull together and defend against Russia that, quite frankly, is a third of the size of the Californian GDP and their military is three quarters of what it used to be, or one quarter of what it used to be? So I don't know. I can't tell you.
But just like on the equipment. Oh, yeah.
Yeah. Like as far as that's concerned, like Europe could do it.
I mean, obviously there'd be a massive. Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, but we made that mistake when we said, well, Russia's got the equipment. Yeah, right.
The key is, do they have the will to come together and fight? And we found out in Russia is no, they did not. The French have been pretty impressive.
Speaking of old Europe, though, what we've been seeing from, you know macron and really across the board i mean hell even le pen is kind of saying is le pen sounds better than marco rubio sometimes when she's talking about the war which is interesting yeah it doesn't take much yeah that's true um one more thing on europe because there's some news this morning on the other kind of economic element of this which is certainly going to impact our relations in addition to the military. Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum coming from the EU.
Just before we started taping this morning, the EU announced they're retaliating. The measure would cover about 28 billion worth of goods, not just steel and aluminum, but also home appliances, agricultural goods, motorcycles, bourbon, peanut

butter, jeans, all the, you know, American apple pie will also be hit. You know, again, having dealt with like the sensitivities of these on the military side, obviously, this sort of trade war is going to exacerbate the tensions and the issues as well, right? Sure.
I mean, you couldn't do more things to disrupt the norm than what is going on right now. And that's the other thing.
You read Crenshaw's statements. There just seems to be an apologist approach and in fact, a praising approach to all the things that the administration is doing without the recognition that it really is, first of all, driving our economy.
But for me as a military guy, more importantly, driving our national security toward the base, toward the bottom. And I just don't understand why.
When things are in pretty good shape, you can comment on trying to get the NATO countries to live up to their GDP, which percentage of their GDP spent on defense, which is happening.

Or you can say, hey, we really need to take a look at our economic relationships with different countries unilaterally.

But to throw something directly at the entire European Union, it represents a big hand, little map approach to national security. And not every country in Europe is Germany.
There are differences of the 49 countries that make up the European footprint. I guess it doesn't really matter what the motivations are behind this.
But really, if you just assess that, there are only really two options. One is just Trump pettiness.
He thinks everybody else has been idiots and he wants to prove that everyone else is an idiot and he's the right one and so we've got to go it his way. And the other is that he actively actually prefers the autocratic world order and would like Putin to gain strength and is fine with our democratic,

liberal democracies weakening. I mean, it's one of those two things and there's no other

possible explanation, right? And it's got to be the latter based on the attempts at damaging

various institutions that contribute to what we are as a democratic nation, all the way from the

three elements of government to the institution of the courts, the military, all of the different

I'm not sure. to what we are as a democratic nation, all the way from the three elements of government to the institution of the courts, the military, all of the different bureaus.
I mean, it's one thing to say, as we've talked ad nauseum, it's one thing to say, hey, let's take a scalpel and eliminate waste. It's another thing to just chop half-heartedly in terms of what you know people do and how you're going to destroy institutions.
Let's talk about those chops.

The thing that's been particularly striking to me is the VA. That one's kind of hard for me to wrap my head around.
I mean, look, as we are recording this morning, it seems like there's going to be massive cuts to the Department of Education, maybe 50% or more in workforce. That's something that everybody saw coming, you know, whatever, going after EPA grants, any Republican administration would have done that for better or worse.
The indiscriminate cuts at the VA, I don't really understand the rationale behind that. And I'm curious, like what you've been hearing from other veterans and like the degree of impact we're going to see there.
Well, you know, Tim, I kind of compare this to what happened with USAID. Most people in the United States could not even spell USAID a couple of

months ago. They had no clue.
I mean, the letters are all right there. That's what I mean.
But they

had no idea what that organization did or does. And I would think, you know, when you say VA to most Americans, what do they think of? Well, they think of, you know, former retired military people going to hospitals and getting medical treatment.
But the VA is just a massive organization that does everything from taking care of cemeteries throughout the country, all the veteran cemeteries, the national cemeteries, all the way to suicide helplines for a generation of veterans who have experienced post-traumatic stress. To have somebody like an Elon Musk who has never served go in and just start chopping away at it and eliminating

programs without even knowing what they do. It's not as dangerous as eliminating the nuclear guys that he eliminated that monitored our nuclear programs.
But it is pretty frigging dangerous on an individual level for something that Abraham Lincoln created to say, let's take care of those who fight our wars. It just is mind boggling to me.
You can't predict the repercussions of the slices to people who work in the VA facilities, but it's everything from doctors and nurses who get paid a whole lot less working at the VA hospitals than they do working at a major healthcare organization because they have a sense of patriotism, all the way up to the people who run the cemeteries, which there are hundreds of across the country. And even the people that answer the phones on the VA crisis hotlines for people who are thinking about committing suicide, which the military has the largest suicide rate percentage of any organization other than railroad workers in the country.
What's the chatter like about this? I'm sure you're on either text chains or email chains or hearing from people that it's not my world as somebody that hasn't served. I'm just kind of wondering what you've been hearing from folks.
Well, it's tough because the veterans can comment like I'm commenting right now, but the active duty force can't. You know, they, according to civil military semi requirements, you don't talk about the administration if it's elected by the people.
You work for them. So there's this restraint by the military in that regard to even talk about it.
And even guys like me as retired generals, they say, hey, you've got to stay in that zone too, where you can't really show disrespect to the administration that's been dutifully elected by the majority, or in this case, the plurality of the population. But I will tell you, there is unbelievable amounts of talk from what I'm hearing, not just at the senior leader level, but from soldiers I used to work with.
And they're scared. They are very concerned.
You know, we could go into the Department of Defense and what they're doing to denigrate women or transgender. But I mean, even that is, I think, going to cause challenges with recruiting and retention.
Because why would you want to stay in an organization that doesn't seem to care for you while you're there, and then also doesn't treat you well after you leave? You said one thing there that piqued my interest, talking about how it's a semi-requirement for active duty. Military did not comment on politics.

It does raise this time the pun is intended the issue the new nominee for the joint chiefs chairman dan raisin kane i'm just curious what your thoughts are on that i mean obviously you're not going to spare somebody personally but there is the situation with him where he put on the maga hat and said he'd kill for Trump. Some stuff that was a little eyebrow raising to those of us who are outside of the military.
I'm just wondering what you made of his pick. Yeah, well, that's been reported by a lot.
I mean, I don't think we have a whole lot of proof of any of that happening other than what Trump said happened. Right.
It was Trump that said that he did that. Yeah.
That's right. But it seems to be a very strange pick.

You know, I met Dan Kane one time in a very short office call with him in one of his assignments. And he was a National Guard, Air National Guard guy who rose to three stars and then left the military.
I'm sure he's a very competent guy. but I do worry about the continued politicalization of the military by the current Department of Defense secretary and others.
President Trump meets somebody and says, hey, they look the part, they're the movie role model of a general, they say the right things in a three or four minute interaction. And then as

Mr. Trump has found out with Mattis and Kelly and others, and Milley, by the way, I mean,

I keep going back to the fact that he chose Milley to be the chairman, and he chose C.Q.

Brown to be the chief of the Air Force. So, you know, that those initial impressions sometimes

are not long lasting. And what I'm very concerned about is there seems to be a tug toward

I'm very concerned about is there seems to be a tug toward doing everything that the president wants, whether it's illegal, immoral or unethical. And I think that's what he's trying to set up in a bunch of different organizations.
And that concerns me. Yeah.
That takes us back to heck Seth. I mean, it's like equal parts farcical and scary, like this idea that we're going to scrub the websites, we're doing a control F for the word gay, so we're going to get rid of the Enola gay.
We're doing a control F for transition, and so we're losing biographies where it mentioned that somebody transitioned from one job to the next. The whole thing is absurd.
But I'm wondering what you make of it and whether there's any serious ramifications beyond just how offensive and ridiculous it is. Well, it gets to the requirements of the various cabinet secretaries.
And if we want to use Secretary Hegseth as one of them, do they have the competencies of running the large organization that they've been put in charge of? Do they even know what those organizations do? Do they have the savvy to listen to the experts, the people who have been there for 40 years and say, here's why we do the things we do? I mean, I had one assignment to the Pentagon. It was on the joint staff and I had a lot of interaction with Secretary Rumsfeld.
And that was tough in and of itself because he was smarter than everybody in the room. And whenever you have someone that's smarter than everybody in the room, you tend to make mistakes because they don't understand they're not the smartest one.
Secretary Hegseth just recently said that over the last weekend, and I wrote an article today about his comments regarding climate change. And that seems to be one of those things that there are elements of society that says, why are we even doing this? It's a hoax.
It's a fake. Well, the Department of Defense have been studying this and they have data that says it's going to be really critical to understand what climate change does to bases and to combat operations and to the force.
And yet they're throwing that all away, as Secretary Hegsack says, because it's all a bunch of crap. Well, it's not a bunch of crap.
And when you dismiss something as important as that, it may not be your top priority of lethality and warrior spirit at the platoon level, but it is pretty important for a large organization. The question comes back to, what would you do to a CEO of a major corporation that was doing some of the things that they're doing to disrupt the efficiency and effectiveness of the various organizations some of these people run? The answer would be the board would fire immediately.
A couple of the other cabinet or quasi-cabinet in the case of Musk on on tulsi we've had this mixed bag right on the one hand uh you know she has done some things that would assuage people's concerns about you know intelligence sharing etc you know she did not go fully down the crazy pipeline right out the gate on a few of her decisions that said there were some reports out of the UK that now they're concerned that our allies in the UK are saying we're concerned about sharing intel with our allies in the US. I guess my question for you is if you had an old counterpart in the UK call you just to talk this over, how would you even think about this if you're in their shoes? It's not just the UK too.
I've talked to a lot of European guys, especially Australia and New Zealand are saying the same thing. But of course, if I were having in the old days a conversation with the chief of the German intelligence, and I knew anything I might say would be broadcast by their chancellor, I wouldn't say it.
And I wouldn't share intelligence. And those are the kinds of partnerships that are created and alliances where, you know, what you do is you don't, you know, I've said this many times before, you don't win hearts and minds, Tim.
You win trust and confidence and you don't deploy trust. It doesn't just come up in a heartbeat.
It's something that's built over years. And when you suddenly become distrustful of another military leader's government, which, by the way, I had to on a couple of occasions in Europe when I was commanding there.
I mean, we were distrustful for a while of the Italian government because of Berlusconi. We couldn't give anything to our Italian counterpart because we were afraid of where it would go.
And that was minor compared to some of the things we're doing right now. Well, I could cite all kinds of examples, but when you have the kinds of release of information or the kind of terrorizing of the intelligence community and what they produce and the knocking of their capabilities, it does everything to eliminate trust between nations.
And then in addition to that, we have our shadow cabinet member or maybe a supra cabinet member, whatever you want to call him, Elon Musk. I wanted to get your take on Senator Mark Kelly.
We had an interview with him on our YouTube page. Folks, go check out Andrew Egger did that.
And he's been really really stalwart on this. He was over in Ukraine right after we stopped sharing intelligence, basically to get a sense for what was happening on the ground, to do what he could to reassure partners there, meet with counterparties.
He posted a picture of this, of himself being in Ukraine. Elon Musk replies, you you are a traitor that's pretty ominous stuff yeah it's pretty damning i when i saw that it was like because i know mark and and scott kelly by the way both of the twin brothers both are great guys they are true patriots unlike some of the patriot that's term that's used by others who aren't quite Patriots.
And they are trying to do the right things for the right reasons in every situation. And to have someone with the visibility of Elon Musk say something like that about another individual, first of all, it's uncivil.
And that's the best you can say about it. But secondly, it's, and I'll say this, it's idiotic.
Here's a South African saying someone that has rode a rocket, rode a piece of dynamite into the sky a couple of times and has conducted combat operations and really is trying to help a nation that's had its sovereignty and territorial integrity invaded. And he's being called a traitor.
It just, it's mind-blowing in terms of the ridiculousness of it. You have to refrain from becoming furious so many times every single day to just not react to this kind of craziness.
I struggle with that. Well, and right after he calls him a traitor, he's ethically proclaiming all of the quality of his Tesla products on the lawn of the White House, which tells me that's tratorious toward how we look at the separation of the state and the citizens.
Yeah, on the anger part, the thing that got me angry, and it was rare for me, General, so maybe I'm growing, but I drafted a tweet that that i deleted because i was so mad because i felt like it was in some ways it might be read by senator kelly or his folks as being a slight to them and i wasn't i didn't intend it that way so i want to explain my view longer but uh he said on cnn i think with caitlin collins that like several of his republican colleagues have called him in private to just say that they were, they were offended on his behalf and sorry and blah,

blah,

blah.

And I don't even know if he said the word,

sorry.

And I saw that.

And that was the thing that made my blood boil.

I was like,

if I was Mark Kelly,

Mark Kelly's a bigger man than me.

Cause if I was Mark Kelly and these guys called me and said that I would tell

them to kiss my fucking ass.

And to like,

Dan,

you can,

you can go on Fox and say it and then call me, but I'm not really interested in your private entreaties. But it is, I think, pretty telling about the nature of these guys.
Yeah. That like they know.
There's at least some of them left, fewer maybe than in 2016 that know better, that know this is wrong. And I don't know what their calculus is here.
So I don't know if you got anything to add on that, but I felt like I needed to get it off my chest.

I'll go back to my army days, Tim, and say there are seven army values and one of them is personal courage. And all our new soldiers think about, well, that means you attack and throw yourself on a grenade when your other.
No, it also means standing up for what's right and doing the ethical and moral thing. And what we've seen is a deterioration of that in some of our elected representatives who seem to have forgotten the phrase representative in their name.
They represent other people. And yeah, they may be voted on by a majority or a plurality, but there's a great line in the play 1776 where the congressman from Georgia, and I can't remember off the top of my head the name, stands up and says he's going to vote for independence, even though most of his constituents don't want to.
And he was the remaining vote for the declaration. And he says, sometimes your morals have to override what the people tell you to do.
And we're not seeing the personal courage or the morality of some of our members of Congress, which is the most disturbing part of all of what Trump has done to co-opt. I mean, there was a, I won't name his name, but I know him very well.
There was a congressman all over CNN and MSNBC yesterday, a Republican congressman, proclaiming how we had to stand with Ukraine. And bigger than Dallas, he voted for the CR last night, which basically shows he continues to support Trump when he knows that that was not a good CR.
So anyway, that's my thought on it. And I don't know what we do about that.
Me neither. I think it's going to have to get worse before these guys get smoked out.
All right, well, some ominous topics today. Can we end with a laugh? Can we end with a laugh for folks? Please.
All right, well, we'll see. Bill Burr, he's a comedian, you know that guy? Yeah.
He was on Fresh Air with Terry Gross earlier this week. I don't know that Terry knew what she was signing up for, and somehow he got on to Elon Musk.
I just thought it'd be a nice way to end the episode to listen to Bill Burr talking about Elon Musk. Elon Musk? That guy, like, who evidently is a Nazi? Like, I just refuse to believe that it was an accidental two-time Sieg Heil.
And he does it at a presidential inauguration. This is why I hate liberals.
It's like liberals have no teeth whatsoever. They just go, oh my oh my god can you believe i'm getting out of the country i'm just like you're gonna leave the country because of one guy with dyed hair plugs and a laminated face makes a bad car and has has an obsolete uh social media platform you're gonna leave this why doesn't he leave why isn't he stopped what are we so afraid of this guy who can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag general got any anything to add to that no i i think he pretty much covers it i think he pretty much covered it too thank you so much as always for coming back on the pod uh i think that uh we will need your expertise a bunch in the months ahead.
So I look forward to talking to be a rage And then you change, and then, and then, and then, and then, and then you Oh, how you changed Oh, you changed Oh, how've changed I give you a hard time I don't wanna stay You got out of jail, just burn that day I burned, you see My birthday brand is a Nazi It was a Nazi, yeah, yeah I hooked on crack just the other day

Now I'm down with the CIA

We got covert operations in Vietnam

We had a hit metal sassin' like a knockdown arm

We went down, people take this country

Eat Mexican food and take lots of money

Come back a car, drive a big white car

You take a silver paint, now the dick around Why would it feel like I'm an only one to blame? The Bulldog Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown. Six months from now, you could be running a 5K, booking that dream trip, or seeing thicker, fuller hair every time you look in the mirror.
Through HERS, you can get dermatologists-trusted, clinically proven prescriptions with ingredients that go beyond what over-the-counter products offer. Whether you prefer oral or topical treatments, hers has you covered.
Getting started is simple. Just fill out an intake form online, and a licensed provider will recommend a customized plan just for you.
The best part? Everything is 100% online. If prescribed, your treatment ships right to your door.
No pharmacy trips, no waiting rooms, and no

insurance headaches. Plus, treatments start at just $35 a month.
Start your initial free online

visit today at Forhers.com slash talk. That's F-O-R-H-E-R-S dot com slash talk.
Compounded

products are not FDA approved or verified for safety, effectiveness, or quality. Prescription

required. Price varies based on product and subscription plan.
See website for full details,

restrictions, and important safety information.