ars, much less 50. There's no such thing as a 50-year guarantee. So Zelensky can ask for it, but even if we wanted to give it, it's not possible because it doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a 50-year guarantee when people can just change their mind in the next 50 years.

So I would first of all say that even the 15-year guarantee is kind of meaningless, which means that Trump is giving up something of no value to get something of value, which would be a peace deal. That is so Trumpian.

So Trump is creating this psychological asset called his security guarantee for 15 years that can't exist because all it takes is one of the people to change their mind. There's not really anything that would prevent that from happening.

So what do you do? Well, I wonder if the 15 years is really designed to get past Putin's lifespan. So how old is Putin? 70ish. So if you add 15 years to Putin's lifespan, what are the odds he's still going to be here and still in charge?

So it might be that privately they could say all right, it's not really about Russia versus the US, it's about Putin versus the US and we don't know what follows Putin but if we could wait him out we have a whole different world.

Then on top of that point out that we've entered the AI age. So it used to be that if you made a 15-year prediction, well you really didn't have a chance of being accurate because nobody could do that. But in the age of AI, it is absurd to imagine you could say what's going to happen after 15 years.

Somebody said that if you put a 15-year timer on it, you're really just putting a deadline on it and then Russia will attack after the 15 years. You don't know what 15 years looks like. You have no way to know what the world looks like in five years. So to make a 15-year plan or to make your plan based on what might happen in 15 years is complete nonsense. It's nonsense.

So how in the world can they get to a security guarantee when you can't predict anything? And it would be absurd to even try.

Well, here's where the reframe comes in. And although this would be applying to the disputed zones, not the entire Ukraine. This looks to me like a Jared Kushner idea because I don't know if you know this but Jared Kushner has read my book *Win Bigly* which teaches persuasion and you know that he did the Abraham Accords which essentially reframed the Middle East into an economic opportunity.

And so we see him, I'm sure this is him more than Witkoff although Witkoff is very good. So Witkoff you may have easily agreed with this, but I'll bet you that Jared is behind the idea of reframing the situation and calling this, this is our proposal, well US proposal I guess, to designate the disputed areas on the border as free economic zones.

So again, you would reframe it from a war zone to a free economic zone. And then if you can get that reframe, you can make people think past the sale. The sale is stop fighting. But if you say it's going to be a free economic zone, then people start asking well but who's going to administer it? How would that work? Who would get what?

So that would make you think past the war and as long as people are putting their time, both sides, you would need Russia to at least engage in the conversation. If you can get them to engage in the conversation of what that would look like then the reframe starts working.

And I think Jared is the only one smart enough who would have that sensibility that that would be really the only way. It really is the only way that this could work.

So let's do that. Let's do a little speculation about what that would look like if they did it. So again, here I'm helping out by thinking past the sale, the sale being stop fighting and think about how you could both make money.

So I guess Zelensky said that Kiev, Ukraine would be the ones to administer those areas and forces would be withdrawn. So it'd be a non-military area, but that Ukraine would administer. Now what are the odds that Russia would agree that it would be administered by Ukraine? None. There's no chance of that. So let's call that a starting position.

So what would it look like if someone who's not Ukraine administered it? Well, I don't know that you'd want the United States to administer it, but that would start looking like a security guarantee if we did, right? Because the US would be counted on to protect its own interests more than it would be counted on to protect some other country's interests, even an ally.

So if we could say the US will administer this but we would also take a cut maybe of resources or something like that so that we'd have some reason to administer it and we'd have something to lose if things started going sideways.

I would also wonder if you could propose making it the first AI administered country or area. Suppose you went to Russia and you said we're going to get some independent entity to build us the first AI administered economic zone. Again, you're making people think past the sale of fighting to wait a minute, could AI do that? And I think it could.

So in other words, you want to take as many humans out of it because the humans are all the problem, right? And you say the United States will help you maybe with the help of I don't know Switzerland or United Nations or something. So you put together some kind of coalition of humans who primarily would make sure that the AI administered.

So the reframe here is we're not administering it. The AI is. You'd be lucky if you had an AI administering you because it gets rid of the fraud. Oh, what's the biggest problem in Ukraine? Fraud. What's the biggest problem in Russia? Fraud. What's the one thing that you might be able to clamp down with AI? Fraud.

So the way you get in is you say the biggest problem with a new economic zone is it'll just become a criminal organization but we will help you administer the AI. So we're not administering the zone, we would be managing the AI and then the AI would be continuously checking with citizens, doing audits. The AI would do the audits. The AI would keep everything organized. The AI would collect taxes. Or maybe it's a no tax zone.

It seems like it would be easy to get a referendum to do this with the people who live there. If you said how about no taxes? Maybe they have no taxes now. I don't know.

Who controls the AI? That is the right question. Control is not the word you want to use. You want to say that something like manage. So you would get the US and maybe a few other countries to manage and it would include Ukraine and it would include Russia. So you'd have the Russian blah blah blah and the US would manage the technology, but it would do it with open, it would have to have pretty open access technology so that anybody can audit it.

But if you're asking those questions, you're close to a deal. All right? So nothing normal is going to solve this.

So if you say we're going to have an AI administered free economic zone and we're going to do that to get rid of the fraud and we're going to use that as our security guarantee. So the security guarantee would be we would remove the reasons for war. We'd remove the reasons, but we'd have enough of an investment that we would try pretty hard to make sure that nothing went wrong.

And then the other weasel thing that would work is that you could let Russia say we won and we're getting everything we want because the people are protected. We'll call it part of Russia, but Ukraine say we won because it's not part of Russia, it's part of Ukraine. But it would really be something that's neither. There would be this sort of special economic zone.

Anyway, you could also offer to Russia that the success of the special economic zone is the only path toward normalizing relations with both Europe and the US. So if you said to Russia, here's the deal. The only way we're going to look at going back to buying your energy, Europe, and the only way we're going to go back to more of a normal relationship is if the special economic zone works. That would be a pretty good security guarantee because like I said you could never make a 15-year security guarantee is absurd.

All right. What do you think? Well, so the point is when Trump says they're getting close to a deal, I think it has everything to do with how they reframe it.

In other news, Iranian hackers allegedly got into Netanyahu's chief of staff's phone and dropped a video and they published a video from his phone of some kind of private meeting. And it mad