Untitled Document

[00:00:00] Something serious is reportedly being [00:00:02] prepared. The United States may carry [00:00:04] out strikes against Iran as early as [00:00:06] this weekend and how Trump has ordered [00:00:08] the declassification of government [00:00:11] documents on UFOs and extraterrestrial [00:00:14] life. We'll talk about this with Andre [00:00:16] Dansky from the Center for Yes Ukrainian [00:00:19] Relations. Andre, glad to see you and [00:00:20] thank you for joining us. [00:00:22] >> Thank you so much. Uh it's always a [00:00:24] pleasure to speak with you. Andre, [00:00:26] Ukraine and Russia are closer to [00:00:27] concluding negotiations on the military [00:00:30] track than on the political one. This [00:00:32] was stated on Telegram by President [00:00:34] Vulmer Zalinski. In the United States, [00:00:36] officials believe that progress was [00:00:38] achieved during the third round of [00:00:39] negotiations between Ukraine and Russia [00:00:42] in Geneva. White House press secretary [00:00:44] Caroline Levit said during a briefing [00:00:46] that the talks had moved forward. What [00:00:49] specific issues remain unresolved on the [00:00:51] political track compared to the military [00:00:53] track in your opinion? and how might [00:00:55] progress on the military track influence [00:00:57] the broader political settlement [00:00:59] process. [00:01:00] >> We've seen this throughout this entire [00:01:02] war uh and I'm not just talking about [00:01:04] 2022 but even back to 2014 that uh [00:01:08] seemingly the uh simplest lines of [00:01:10] communication have always been military [00:01:11] to military including the transfer of PS [00:01:15] from one side to the next. Uh and that [00:01:17] has always been the case. What what res [00:01:20] remains unresolved are the concrete [00:01:22] issues that Russia seeks to acquire [00:01:24] territory by military force. Something [00:01:27] that is banned by international law that [00:01:29] no country uh is obligated to recognize. [00:01:32] And seemingly Russia wants to have the [00:01:35] United States blessing to have this uh [00:01:38] be uh recognized by other countries, [00:01:40] specifically by the United States. And [00:01:42] uh I think within the trilateral talks [00:01:44] that are happening, Ukraine is simply [00:01:46] doing its best to explain to both [00:01:48] parties, well especially to the United [00:01:49] States, that there there simply are laws [00:01:51] against this under Ukraine's [00:01:53] recognition, as well as by the United [00:01:55] States, which specifically has laws [00:01:57] banning it from recognizing territory [00:02:00] occupied by Russia in Ukraine, as well [00:02:02] as obligating the United States to help [00:02:04] Ukraine retake its territory. So, um, in [00:02:07] this long discussion that's now been [00:02:09] dragging on throughout the entire Trump [00:02:10] administration, uh, we've seen Russia [00:02:13] show an unwillingness to stop its war, [00:02:15] which is going to be a very important [00:02:16] component to end this war. You need a [00:02:18] ceasefire to have international monitors [00:02:20] see exactly where we're freezing the [00:02:22] line, as well as if there's any [00:02:24] referendum, having those international [00:02:26] monitors there. Uh and then uh from the [00:02:28] Ukrainian side, Ukraine is seeking to [00:02:30] have concrete security guarantees that [00:02:32] aren't just going to be something that [00:02:33] the United States promises in the form [00:02:36] of Donald Trump, but something that is [00:02:38] ratified by its United States Senate. [00:02:40] >> Andre, despite intensified cisfire [00:02:43] negotiations, a hold to the fighting in [00:02:45] Ukraine remains unlikely in the near [00:02:47] term. European senior officials predict [00:02:50] that hostilities could continue for [00:02:52] another one to three years. What do you [00:02:56] think about these? What factors could [00:02:57] accelerate or prolong the war over the [00:02:59] next one to three years? [00:03:01] >> Well, uh I'm speaking to United States [00:03:03] military commanders when the war began. [00:03:06] Uh they had an estimate those that [00:03:08] believed that Russia was going to [00:03:10] invade. Remember there were political [00:03:11] leaders who didn't believe that Russia [00:03:13] was going to invade. Um at the very [00:03:15] beginning of the conflict, many United [00:03:17] States military leaders saw this [00:03:18] conflict as being a five-year conflict [00:03:20] to begin with. And you know, we're just [00:03:22] beginning the fifth year now. Um on the [00:03:25] other hand uh there there are Ukrainian [00:03:27] commanders who thought this war would go [00:03:28] on till 2028 or 20 20 2029. [00:03:32] Um so there's a certain lifespan of a [00:03:34] conflict uh that uh the United States is [00:03:37] seeking to truncate have it conclude [00:03:40] sooner than that. specifically uh [00:03:42] looking at uh something more of a model [00:03:45] that was done by the international [00:03:46] community in 2015 uh when a frozen [00:03:50] conflict was declared then uh and no [00:03:52] real uh uh issues were solved uh and [00:03:55] that's the reason that we had the [00:03:57] invasion in 2022. I think Ukraine is [00:03:59] wisely looking not repeating the [00:04:02] mistakes of the past whether it's 2015 [00:04:04] or 1994 with the Budapest memorandum. [00:04:07] Ukraine wants something that is going to [00:04:09] be not just uh um ratified by the United [00:04:12] States Senate, but something that's held [00:04:13] up by the entire world. This is why [00:04:16] President Zilinski was uh organizing [00:04:18] peace summits beginning in 2022. Uh [00:04:20] peace summits with the rest of the world [00:04:22] to understand, listen, if we decide that [00:04:25] international borders are viable, all of [00:04:27] your countries are at risk. So, we need [00:04:29] to make sure that this instance right [00:04:31] here is never repeated ever again. And [00:04:33] so we need to have a peace deal that all [00:04:35] the entire international community is [00:04:36] happy with. [00:04:38] >> Andre, um I saw that allies of Putin are [00:04:42] reportedly attempting to provoke US [00:04:45] President Donald Trump into lifting [00:04:46] sanctions on Russia by promising [00:04:48] projects for trillions of dollars. A [00:04:51] Kremlin special in Wakil Mitri stated [00:04:54] that lifting sanctions against Russia [00:04:56] would serve um US interests and that [00:05:00] fashion would ultimately remove them as [00:05:03] the restrictions were detrimental to [00:05:06] American business. How credible are [00:05:08] claims that lifting sanctions would [00:05:10] primarily benefit American businesses? [00:05:14] >> In terms of benefiting American [00:05:16] businesses, that's an outright lie and a [00:05:17] fantasy. uh what was spread by Dimitriv [00:05:20] to the Americans was a fantastic number [00:05:22] of $12 trillion. Uh the entire Russian [00:05:26] GDP for 10 years will never equal $12 [00:05:28] trillion. Um and we know that since the [00:05:31] war began, Russia has decimated its [00:05:33] economy. It has nothing to export. Uh [00:05:36] its main uh manufacturing now is all [00:05:38] dedicated to the war. All munitions that [00:05:40] the United States would not be [00:05:41] interested at all. Um, we know also that [00:05:44] its oil producing cap capability has [00:05:46] been diminished and therefore it won't [00:05:48] be exporting even more. Neither does the [00:05:51] United States want Russian oil on the [00:05:53] market because that devalues American [00:05:55] oil. Uh, so there are many reasons that [00:05:57] uh this is a ridiculous statement from [00:06:00] Russia, but it is a fantastic statement [00:06:02] given to President Trump. So that any [00:06:05] normal number coming from the European [00:06:07] Union or Ukraine saying that if you stay [00:06:10] with your allies this this is the kind [00:06:11] of benefit to America's economy uh you [00:06:14] can get uh that will look smaller by [00:06:16] comparison. Now at the same time uh [00:06:18] there is a real question about what [00:06:20] sanctions enforcement against Russia is [00:06:22] like. We just heard uh um earlier in the [00:06:26] week that the international Olympic [00:06:28] committee is looking at allowing Barusen [00:06:30] and Russian athletes again in the [00:06:32] parolympics. We also know that there are [00:06:34] American businessmen who are beginning [00:06:36] to sign deals. Notably, a close friend [00:06:38] of Donald Trump Jr. signed a uh very [00:06:42] rich deal with a Russian energy producer [00:06:45] back in the fall. So, there are there [00:06:47] are already signs that uh the Donald [00:06:50] Trump administration is looking at [00:06:51] allowing people to make business deal [00:06:53] with Russia. It's just a question of uh [00:06:56] how the international community reacts [00:06:57] to that. Does Europe stand strong and [00:07:00] make sure that those sanctions that they [00:07:01] put on aren't lessened uh at the level [00:07:03] that the United States has lessened [00:07:05] them? [00:07:06] >> Andre, under the predecessors of the [00:07:08] current US leader, Joe Biden and Barack [00:07:10] Obama, [00:07:12] Washington imposed financial [00:07:13] restrictions on Russia regularly and [00:07:15] systematically. Under Trump, sanctions [00:07:18] against Russia were introduced more [00:07:20] cautiously. For example, the White House [00:07:22] currently claims that additional [00:07:24] sanctions are prepared but are not [00:07:26] intended to be activated at this time. [00:07:29] How did the strategic objectives behind [00:07:32] sanctions policy differ under the [00:07:34] administration of Joe Biden, Barack [00:07:36] Obama, and Donald Trump? What measurable [00:07:38] impact did the more systematic sanctions [00:07:40] under Biden and Obama have on Russia's [00:07:43] economic and geopolitical behavior? [00:07:45] >> I would also offer that there was a [00:07:47] difference between the first Trump [00:07:48] administration and this one. Uh and the [00:07:51] main difference between this [00:07:52] administration and all the other ones [00:07:54] you mentioned including the first Trump [00:07:55] administration is the fact that we had [00:07:57] an independent and separate Congress. Uh [00:07:59] in this administration, Donald Trump has [00:08:01] demonstrated his uh desire and uh [00:08:05] definitely the the result of having an [00:08:07] entire vertical control over the United [00:08:09] States Congress. No laws are going to be [00:08:11] introduced or passed that Donald Trump [00:08:13] does not want to have introduced or [00:08:15] passed. That is radically different than [00:08:17] the Biden administration, than the first [00:08:19] Trump administration and the Obama [00:08:20] administration in which senators and [00:08:23] congressmen stood against the uh White [00:08:25] House when they decided to do things [00:08:27] that were too favorable to Russia. [00:08:29] Notably, we had many hearings with [00:08:31] former Senator McCain in the first [00:08:34] during the Obama administration where he [00:08:36] was questioning where are the supplies [00:08:39] that we uh acquired by Congress and want [00:08:42] the United States to send to Ukraine. [00:08:44] Why hasn't the Obama administration sent [00:08:46] this? And they constantly pressured the [00:08:48] administration to do more. Similarly, in [00:08:50] the first Trump administration, we had a [00:08:53] robust series of resolutions and [00:08:56] appropriations for Ukraine happening [00:08:58] under the Trump administration uh [00:09:01] between 2016 and 2020. And then again [00:09:04] during the uh uh during the Biden [00:09:06] administration, we had a historic level [00:09:09] of support uh done by uh Congress for [00:09:12] Ukraine. This has all stopped as of the [00:09:14] Trump administration. Not so much [00:09:16] because Donald Trump is supposed to have [00:09:18] total control, but because the Congress [00:09:20] has decided to seed its entire control [00:09:23] and not vote on, let's say, the Lindsey [00:09:25] Graham sanctions bill, not vote on [00:09:27] recognizing Russia as a state sponsor of [00:09:30] terror. All because Donald Trump is [00:09:32] saying that we do not allow this to [00:09:33] happen. And there are very much signs [00:09:36] right now that the kind of procedures [00:09:38] that were used in the fall of 2025 to [00:09:41] overturn Donald Trump's decision on the [00:09:43] Epstein files, overturn uh even in the [00:09:46] last couple of weeks overturn Donald [00:09:47] Trump's decision to block any [00:09:49] condemnation of uh of of his use of [00:09:52] tariffs against other countries. this [00:09:54] Congress can this year begin to act [00:09:57] against uh Donald Trump and act [00:10:00] independently which is something we [00:10:01] haven't seen and which was a key period [00:10:04] uh key uh factor during those periods [00:10:06] that you mentioned about the Obama, the [00:10:08] Biden and even the first Trump [00:10:10] administration. [00:10:11] >> Andre, you mentioned security [00:10:13] guarantees. Um the president of Ukraine [00:10:15] stated that Ukraine has done everything [00:10:17] possible to join NATO and that the final [00:10:19] decision now rests solely with its [00:10:22] partners. At the same time, any [00:10:24] decisions by the United States and [00:10:26] Russia regarding Ukrainian's membership [00:10:27] in the alliance cannot be discussed [00:10:29] without Kiev's participation. [00:10:32] Um, what are the prospects um for [00:10:36] Ukrainian's future [00:10:38] assession accession to NATO and not only [00:10:41] NATO but also the European Union? Um, [00:10:43] how might NATO expansion impact regional [00:10:45] security dynamics in your opinion? [00:10:48] Um I I I had a round table with several [00:10:51] um parliamentarians from Europe who came [00:10:53] to the United States and they are under [00:10:56] the firm belief that Ukraine needs to be [00:10:58] on an accelerated path to the EU uh and [00:11:01] their their assession needs to happen by [00:11:03] the end of 2027 and only after then uh [00:11:07] would uh would the conversation for NATO [00:11:10] uh increase. Uh we already see with the [00:11:13] kind of exercises that Ukraine is doing [00:11:15] with NATO, which they have been doing [00:11:16] for over two and a half decades, nearly [00:11:19] 30 years now. Um and I keep underscoring [00:11:22] to American congressmen that 44,000 [00:11:24] Ukrainian troops served alongside NATO [00:11:26] deployments throughout the world, [00:11:27] whether it was Europe and the Balkans, [00:11:29] whether it was Iraq or Afghanistan. Even [00:11:32] after Ukraine was invaded and its [00:11:33] territory conquered in 2015, 2014, 2015, [00:11:37] Ukraine sent one of its coast guard uh [00:11:39] one of its naval cutters to the [00:11:41] Mediterranean in support of anti-terror [00:11:43] operations uh interdicting uh migrants [00:11:47] in the in the Mediterranean. Ukraine has [00:11:50] always been a viable partner for NATO, [00:11:52] but that was then. Now, Ukraine is vital [00:11:56] for NATO survival. And we just saw that [00:11:58] demonstrated in the war games, the mock [00:12:00] games that were demonstrated, how [00:12:01] Ukraine's uh drone forces are able to [00:12:04] take out, decimate really uh NATO's [00:12:07] front lines, demonstrating that NATO is [00:12:10] lacking the uh the uh 21st century [00:12:14] military innovations and and [00:12:16] understanding of war that Ukraine can [00:12:19] really help it out. So I really feel [00:12:21] that 2027 is a viable uh timeline for EU [00:12:25] assession. Uh NATO assession which would [00:12:28] happen definitely before 2030 if if all [00:12:31] the countries got on board really [00:12:32] depends on a unanimous uh decision by [00:12:35] all countries and we need to see what [00:12:37] the political futures of all these [00:12:39] countries are. We obviously know for [00:12:41] Ukrainians and the world that Hungary [00:12:43] has had a veto over this for a long [00:12:45] time. It'll be interesting to see what [00:12:47] their political future is after their [00:12:49] elections this year. We also know that [00:12:51] there are elections in store in Germany [00:12:52] and France and other countries. Um the [00:12:55] UK as well uh will probably have an [00:12:57] election by the end of the year. Uh we [00:12:59] need to know what the political stance [00:13:01] of all those countries are before we [00:13:03] enter into a conversation about NATO [00:13:05] because that decision has to be [00:13:06] unanimous by all member states. Andre, [00:13:09] we saw that the United States has [00:13:10] opposed the participation of Ukraine and [00:13:13] four Indopacific NATO partners in this [00:13:15] year's alliance summit to be held in [00:13:17] Ankara. According to Politico, according [00:13:19] to foreign diplomats, the US is [00:13:22] pressuring allies not to invite Ukraine [00:13:24] and the alliances for official Indacic [00:13:27] partners um Australia, New Zealand, [00:13:30] Japan and South Korea to the official [00:13:32] meetings of the July NATO summit in [00:13:34] Ankara. What strategic considerations [00:13:37] may underline US reluctance to extend [00:13:40] invitations? [00:13:42] >> I think this is simply a part of uh the [00:13:45] Trump administration, specifically Steve [00:13:46] Wickov and Jared Kushner's um thoughts [00:13:49] on how the uh talks are going. They [00:13:51] don't they don't want to u anger or they [00:13:54] would they would actually rather listen [00:13:56] to their Russian counterparts in not [00:13:59] inviting uh Ukraine to future uh [00:14:01] meetings. I think unfortunately for the [00:14:03] Donald Trump administration uh the fact [00:14:05] that uh the Biden administration pushed [00:14:08] back a lot on its NATO partners in 2024 [00:14:11] for the big anniversary year but also [00:14:13] especially in 2023 the year before the [00:14:15] four the year before the anniversary [00:14:17] year of NATO. Um they really in Bilus uh [00:14:20] pushed back against Poland against the [00:14:23] Baltic countries and other allies of [00:14:26] Ukraine who are complaining why are we [00:14:28] not voting for Ukraine in 2023. So, um, [00:14:31] that history of the United States [00:14:33] telling the NATO partners what they can [00:14:35] and cannot do, unfortunately, will, uh, [00:14:38] I believe this year, uh, react in having [00:14:41] countries like Poland and other [00:14:43] countries say absolutely not. We will [00:14:44] not listen to this blocking. We will [00:14:46] invite Ukraine personally to side [00:14:48] meetings if that's the case. [00:14:50] >> And the largest NATO exercises of the [00:14:52] year have begun on the Baltic Sea coast [00:14:54] in um, SL Holstein. Uh the operation [00:14:58] titled steadfast d 26 notably does not [00:15:02] include US participation. What [00:15:04] operational objectives does the aim to [00:15:06] achieve? How does the absence of US [00:15:09] forces affect the exercise's strategic [00:15:11] signal? [00:15:13] >> Well, I think it signals exactly what [00:15:15] we're seeing actually at NATO [00:15:16] headquarters. Uh we just had a [00:15:19] ministerial meeting uh right before the [00:15:21] Munich uh security cont conference, but [00:15:23] also earlier there there was an [00:15:25] announcement at the beginning of [00:15:26] February that several NATO command posts [00:15:29] throughout Europe will now have other [00:15:30] countries be in charge of those uh [00:15:32] bases. uh given the fact that the United [00:15:35] States would like to have a smaller and [00:15:36] smaller role within Europe and at some [00:15:39] point uh it has been hinted that uh uh [00:15:42] that the United States would like [00:15:44] another country to take control of the [00:15:46] uh NATO supreme ally commander. Uh this [00:15:49] has never been done in history. Um and [00:15:51] uh this war exercise now demonstrates [00:15:54] that the United States will be pulling [00:15:56] back from the Europe European area. Um [00:15:59] and we will see what happens in the [00:16:01] future if that's that's the case going [00:16:02] further that less and less uh US [00:16:04] military participation. It's kind of [00:16:07] similar to what's being discussed for UK [00:16:08] for the security guarantees for Ukraine [00:16:11] where the United States is more [00:16:12] interesting in supplying uh material [00:16:15] whether it's tomahawks or other systems [00:16:16] they haven't given Ukraine yet as a [00:16:18] security guarantee and then have [00:16:21] European allies do the on the ground [00:16:25] security verification and perhaps have [00:16:27] uh the United States simply as an [00:16:29] adviser from afar as overseeing the [00:16:32] security guarantees [00:16:33] >> andy according to yes media reports the [00:16:35] American military has declared readiness [00:16:37] for a potential strikes against Iran in [00:16:40] the coming days while the White House is [00:16:43] assessing the risks of escalation. Um [00:16:45] CBS News reports that President Donald [00:16:47] Trump held a meeting with national [00:16:50] security officials regarding a potential [00:16:52] military operation against Iran. How [00:16:54] would all in the Middle East likely [00:16:56] react? How might Iran respond [00:16:59] asymmetrically or through regional [00:17:01] proxies? for example, [00:17:04] >> the majority of allies have already been [00:17:06] spoken with. Uh we just had this uh [00:17:08] board of peace meeting in the United [00:17:10] States and uh coincidentally enough for [00:17:13] a board of peace. A lot of the [00:17:15] conversations that weren't in public [00:17:16] were about the uh eventual uh attacks on [00:17:20] Iran and the majority of those countries [00:17:22] understand the United States is [00:17:24] convinced that it must go forward that [00:17:26] it'll be an alliance of um US is Israel [00:17:30] as well as possibly UK and other [00:17:32] countries assisting in this attack. Uh [00:17:34] this will likely last a few weeks. Um [00:17:37] you know most military commanders say [00:17:39] that uh the bombing won't be a one-day [00:17:41] event but possibly up to three weeks. [00:17:43] And uh the main issue to discuss with [00:17:47] allies such as Qatar uh is does the [00:17:49] United States have the necessary defense [00:17:51] forces once Iran decides to [00:17:54] counterattack and that's the reason that [00:17:56] the United States did not do this kind [00:17:57] of operation back in January when it's [00:18:00] naval forces weren't at the level that [00:18:02] they are now off the coast of Iran. Now [00:18:05] we now the United States has have moved [00:18:07] in enough uh military support in the [00:18:09] area so that not just that they can [00:18:12] attack Iran but they have enough [00:18:13] defensive forces to protect their allies [00:18:15] as well such as the large air bases in [00:18:18] Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other places. [00:18:21] >> And you see that the threat of war [00:18:22] between the United States and Iran has [00:18:24] driven oil prices to record highs. Uh [00:18:27] what do you know about this? [00:18:29] Well, I mean, frankly, the United States [00:18:31] and the international community has been [00:18:33] clamping down on uh international uh the [00:18:36] international shadow fleet. Um already [00:18:39] that shadow fleet has been uh kind of uh [00:18:42] lessened in terms of the fact that [00:18:44] Venezuelan oil is now not now not a part [00:18:46] of that. Um we know that Russia is in [00:18:48] charge of the international shadow [00:18:50] fleet. That is uh another word to say [00:18:53] black market oil sales throughout the [00:18:55] world. that can happen through the ocean [00:18:57] or directly from Iran to countries like [00:19:00] uh uh China and others. So we will see [00:19:03] uh what the international oil price is [00:19:05] but frankly the United States is [00:19:07] actually the United States oil industry [00:19:10] is actually looking for the price of oil [00:19:11] to come come up a little because they [00:19:13] have no reason to invest in new oil [00:19:16] wells off the shore of the United [00:19:17] States. They are looking for the price [00:19:19] of oil to rise. Even though politically [00:19:21] that might not be a good thing for [00:19:22] President Trump, he at the same time [00:19:24] they do want production to go up uh to [00:19:27] show that the American oil industry is [00:19:29] will continue to boom. So there are [00:19:31] pluses and minuses for the price of oil [00:19:33] to increase. [00:19:34] >> Andre, recently Trump came out with new [00:19:36] statements. Yes, President Donald Trump [00:19:39] has introduced Secretary of Defense [00:19:42] Peter to declassify government documents [00:19:45] related to extraterrestrial life and [00:19:48] UFOs. Previously, Trump um accused [00:19:51] former President um Barack Obama of [00:19:53] leaking classified information [00:19:54] concerning aliens. The US president [00:19:57] stated that Obama disclosed classified [00:20:00] information. He shouldn't have done [00:20:02] that. What are the potential national [00:20:04] security implications of declassifying [00:20:07] documents related to UFOs and [00:20:09] extraterrestrial life? Do you believe in [00:20:13] extraterrestrial life? [00:20:16] >> Absolutely. I am a Star Trek live or [00:20:18] die. However, [00:20:20] um, however, this is really a rather [00:20:22] silly instance of a White House [00:20:24] administration that's very focused on [00:20:26] podcasts and online culture. Uh, so [00:20:29] former President Obama was on a podcast [00:20:31] a few weeks ago where he was asked a [00:20:34] series of rapidfire questions. Uh, the [00:20:36] question about aliens, he said, [00:20:37] "Absolutely. I I agree they exist, but [00:20:39] they do but they are not here on uh on [00:20:42] planet Earth." Um so he was saying that [00:20:44] you know he believes that there's a [00:20:46] possibility of life on other planets [00:20:48] just because there are so many planets [00:20:49] in the universe. Uh and then President [00:20:51] Trump was asked about this on a plane. [00:20:53] He said what you said that that this was [00:20:55] pos possibly classified information but [00:20:57] he did not uh answer as directly as [00:21:00] President Obama did. And so online the [00:21:03] podcasts that used to support President [00:21:05] Trump were complaining how dare you not [00:21:08] show us all the alien information that [00:21:09] the United States government has. And so [00:21:11] after all of that online uh uh [00:21:14] arguments, uh President Trump put out a [00:21:16] truth social post that he will order to [00:21:18] have all the classified information [00:21:19] about aliens released to the public. We [00:21:21] will see if that happens. He often puts [00:21:23] things out on Truth Social that have no [00:21:25] meaning. Uh so we will see what happens [00:21:27] after the fact. [00:21:28] >> Dear viewers, uh do you believe in [00:21:30] extraterrestrial life? Share your [00:21:31] thoughts in the comments. Andre, uh [00:21:34] thank you so much for the conversation [00:21:35] and your insightful thoughts. Thank you [00:21:38] so much for supporting Ukraine. Of [00:21:40] course, today we were joined by Andre [00:21:41] Deansski from the center of for US [00:21:45] Ukrainian relations. See you and thank [00:21:48] you so much again. [00:21:49] >> Thank you.