oups in Yemen are the Houthis. All right, well, somebody's fighting over there anyway. So that might be good. We'll see.

But the other thing that Peter Zeihan said is that — I hadn't heard this before — that the primary reason for Russia's, let's say, aggressiveness against his neighbors, and I'd never heard this before. Now you'd always heard that it was maybe defensive, and maybe he was building up his empire to get it back to where it was. But everything that you hear in the United States through the regular news about Russia and Russia's intentions and Putin's intentions, that's all fake. You know that, right? Like anything about Putin's intentions, that's all fake propaganda, right?

So Peter's Zeihan's take, and I don't know if I believe it, so I feel like there's probably a lot more to it. Yeah, you've heard it's about warm water ports. Here's his take. That the topography of Russia and the surrounding countries that are between it and Europe proper, the topography is really disadvantageous for defense. Meaning that if somebody were to attack Russia prior to Russia being aggressive and taking Crimea and Georgia and all those things, there were some easy attack points that the homeland of Russia would be vulnerable to. But in the old days under the Soviet Union, they had controlled enough territory that they could control choke points. So there are some choke points that if you control them militarily, it would be very difficult for an army to attack Russia. If you don't, apparently it's kind of easy on the ground.

Now, so the thinking is that even if Putin left tomorrow, the other senior people who were his people would have exactly the same policy because they all see us as an existential risk to Russia, whether soon or in the next thousand years. In other words, they're looking for a permanent security situation for Russia.

Now, have you ever seen that reported in regular news? I read a lot of news about Ukraine. I've never seen that before. Have you? How many of you have never heard that before other than from Peter Zeihan? So some of you have. A lot of you have. Interesting. All right. Well, good for you.

You know, I've said this a lot. This is, I think, the most informed and smartest audience in politics because you actually are engaged in trying to figure out how to figure out, which is way more important than figuring out what the news said. This is a group of people who are very actively trying to figure out how are they lying to us, and if they are lying, how can we figure it out, and what are they trying to tell us or lying and stuff. So I'm impressed. I'm impressed that that's such a basic thing that you should need to know about the Ukraine war.

Now here's the part that I'm going to disagree with Peter Zeihan. He says that the war can't end unless one of them just has a convincing victory, and that that's unlikely. So that if Ukraine doesn't have a right win and pretty much demolish Russia as a major power, or Putin somehow magically wins, if that doesn't happen, the war will just go on forever. But what I hear is the opposite. What I hear, if it's true that their primary interest is the choke points, how could you not have a way to negotiate that? That feels like the easiest thing to negotiate.

Now that doesn't mean you necessarily say these choke points can belong to you, but it definitely tells you that if you've got something called NATO, don't expect them to give up on the choke points. I mean, you'd have to look at the whole situation, right? Like how about the whole trade economic situation? How about the entire Russia-China connection? You'd want to loosen that and maybe get Russia into the European or American domain a little bit more.

So to me, the fact that we understand what the Russians want, or at least I do, maybe for the first time I understand that element, that usually gives you something to negotiate. The times when you can't negotiate is when two sides want the same thing and there's only one of the same thing. This is a situation where Russia wants something unique to Russia, and other people want their own things like their own security, etc. But they're different things. And I would say as a general negotiation fact that when people want the same one thing, you've got a problem. You know that statue? I own that. No, I own it. Where are you going to go with that, right? You can't have half a statue.

But if you've got a situation where what the Russians need is a specific geographic or defensive power, there's probably a number of ways to get to that. And it's unique to them. So in other words, you don't have to give up something of your own too much necessarily to give them what they want. And that usually suggests a deal could be made. So I still think he could.

All right. RFK Jr. said two of the most surprising things you'll ever hear from a Democrat. Number one, Trump was right. He was wrong. The wall is needed. Boom. Now when he says it, carefully, I don't mean physically a wall the whole way, but also Trump didn't really mean that either. He means whatever it takes to close the border. He calls the border completely open. And he tells a story that's associated with his documentary he did. He spent a lot of time interviewing people there.

And I heard a story from him — this was on Tucker's interview — I heard a story from RFK Jr. that I'd never heard. Apparently we always knew the cartels are managing the illegal flow of immigration. We didn't know — well, I didn't know. So again this might be something you already knew. I didn't know that their operation, the cartel operation, had spread globally to the point where almost all of the immigrants are not from Central America or Mexico. Almost all of them are from Africa, everywhere else, China. And he pointed out that the vast majority of them are military-age men. But he's not saying it