This is interrupted by Matt Jones on news radio.

Wait forty WITJS Now, here's Matt Jones.

Welcome to episode twenty seven of Interrupted by Matt Jones.

We, of course, if you've been following the news, there have been a ton of you know, national and international news stories.

And one of the things we try to do on here bring people on who know a lot more about it than I do.

And so Phil Stewart is a national security reporter for Reuters.

He has covered sixty plus countries over the years, and he is covering the situation in Venezuela now with the capture of Maduro by the United States Military slash Justice Department.

And Phil, I appreciate you doing this.

Nice to meet you through this.

We've never talked before, but I followed your work on social media and I appreciate you taking the time.

Well, I appreciate it.

Thanks for having me.

All Right, I'm going to assume most people know what has happened, but let's take a step back, Phil, For people, Maduro kind of comes on the radar, probably for the average American during this, but let's go back to him seizing power taking over from Hugoshabez.

What what are some of the reasons why America would have, if it was would have felt the need to go in.

And give us a little background on Maduro as the as the leader of Venezuela.

Well, you know, he he had been a very controversial leader for some time.

I was on a trip to South America with the last Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, not the one that that's there now, and during that trip, the head of Southern Command had actually called him, you know, a dictator back then in Chile, which had a very left leaning government, and he was seen as a dictator there too, And so Maduro had been quite controversial even among the left in latinumme Erica because of the fact that, you know, his last election victory was widely condemned by international organizations as being fraudulent, and so, you know, although there's a lot of you know, questions about the legality of the operation, there aren't so many questions really about how the international community viewed Maduro.

Do you think the actual decision to go in was made back in October November or do you think it was made much more recently.

Much more recently.

Yeah, they said that the decision had been made just in recent days and that you know, I think the president himself said that they were going to go in four days before they did, but the circumstances didn't work out, and they rescheduled Christmas day, right right, so and so it was.

It was one of those situations where the president, as its traditional, retains the ability to kind of decide, you know, at the very last moment whether it really go forward or not, because you want to have all the information available to you.

You don't want to predecide a military operation, and then maybe some other opportunity to resolve it appears so he did.

But the but the but the military option, from what we understand was was given enough support that you saw Delta Force soldiers training on a mock version of this compound, and.

Really, Jackie, where we are actually.

Yeah and so and so there they are training hard on an operation that's extraordinarily dangerous.

I mean, the.

Ability of anyone to go into a well guarded compound like that and come out, you know, with no casualties, no no debt anyway, is really just incredible.

What do we know about the operation?

I mean a lot of my listeners probably have seen or read about Zero Dark thirty about the bin laden the bin laden takeover.

What do we know about what actually went down?

And just from Afar, I mean when I hear they went into the president, took him and had no American casualties?

What do we know about how that actually occurred?

Well, I mean, it was it was a very it was a massive operation.

I mean I've heard someone describe it as an operation that was even more complicated than the bin laden operation, partly due to the weather, you know, and the fact that you're coming off the sea and there's a lot of unstable air so you're coming in with with heilos off the sea, you know.

You know, around one hundred and.

Fifty aircraft were involved in this thing.

Because they didn't just come in.

They used all kinds of effects beforehand to black out part of the city and kill coms and knock out air defenses and knock out all the kind of threats that they could, you know, preemptively deal with, so that when they got in the ground, they had to deal with Maduro's personal security, you know, the security of the compound, and that was quite deadly.

You know, when they when they landed, they flew in, you know, at about one hundred feet off the off the water, uh, in the darkness of night, with the city blacked out, and they landed, and they and they piled out of the of the of the helicopters.

Uh, you know, talking about a team of you know, less than two hundred probably, and.

And they and they came in.

And from what we understand, I think the Cubans have said they were thirty two Cuban nationals who are protecting Maduro who are killed, and I think at least a couple dozen more, if not more than that of Venezuelans who are who are killed in an operation.

So so they black out the city.

So, first of all, where where were they were these helicopters et cetera stationed on some of those chips that we had heard were being surrounding the country.

I mean where, what do we know where they came from?

They haven't said that's that's a safe that's a safe assumption.

But they haven't said.

So they black out part of the city.

There's I've seen a couple of videos where people are like filming themselves.

When the city goes black, they go in and so they recreated a mock up of his residence.

Do you know, like how big are we talking about the place being?

Is it a palace?

Is it a house?

I mean, do you know.

I couldn't tell you, you know, I wouldn't want to venture a guest about the size and scope of the compound itself and is not knowing it well enough?

Okay, So Venezuela is a country.

How much do you as a reporter or do Western journalists know about like what happened during like on a day to day basis there were people from the West allowed in to sort of see what was going on?

Is like what is how much is known about sort of the day to day life of people in Caracas and in Venezuela.

International organizations for press freedom have said that there needs to be less restrictions on foreign access to reporting inside Venezuela.

That said, you see foreign journalists who are on the ground there and take risks to report on what's going on, even in these recent days.

And that includes reporters who are who are you know, going to the aftermath of these strikes, interviewing survivors, going to hospitals, speaking to soldiers who survived, who were wounded, and so there is you know, very vibrant reporting, but not you know, as as you might see in neighboring countries like Columbia.

So the day, the day the decision is to go ahead and go in, there's obviously a lot of danger there.

Donald Trump said a New York Times interview yesterday that he was worried it could be his own Jimmy Carter Iran situation.

What is it that made what is it you think that made it to where the administration or from what you've heard as with your reporting, finally decide Okay, yes we're going to do this.

You know, that is a that is a that is a great question.

I'm glad you asked that.

We are trying to understand the risk appetite of this administration because you've seen now since the summer, you know, two major operations that are hard to you know, imagine have happened.

You know, really when you sit back.

One is the bombing of Iran's nuclear program.

People have talked about that for years and years and years, and the risks of carrying out that operation and the blowback afterwards were you know, enough to to make a lot of people quite nervous.

And then an operation like this, as we've discussed you know, there are enormous risks.

I mean, let's say hypothetically only like you know, one of the helicopters had gone down, one of the helicopters was shot was shot at and took fire, and people aboard were injured at least at least one and you know, had there been casualties, you know, what are the what the medium seen it.

As a debacle or hostages?

Right?

Or if you had have you had a black Hawk down, you know, moment kind of like you know the US saw and Somalia.

What would that have been like?

And so I think, you know, we're trying to you know, understand the risk appetite, what it was that got you know, the president to decide that this was a this was an operation worth worth pursuing.

But but I would say the success of both his operations probably would would would will you know lead the lead the president?

I think these are these this is a valid way of accomplishing foreign policy goals.

Well, I want I want to get to that because I think that is obviously the next question is is does it embolden them?

But if you uh, okay, so now as of this moment, who is in charge?

I know the vice president is in charge.

But we've also seen the president say something like, we're running the country.

So how would you describe to the average person listening to here the status of who is running what is happening on the ground in Venezuela today.

So today, you know, you've seen the extraction of.

President Nicholas Maduro from Venezuela, but mad Rose government is still very much intact and and it is you know, according to the President Trump is very responsive to to Washington and its interests and it's and its plans.

But this is a this is a government that has been fiercely UH anti American for for many years, fiercely concerned about uh, the United States, and a lot of its supporters are very skeptical of the United States.

So it really remains to be seen, you know, how long, uh the cooperation will last, if there will be a breaking point, if there'll be a request that that it just goes too far from them, and and then also this sort of you know, there are a lot of private discussions we we understand between you know, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the acting in the interim president uh UH.

And you know, it remains to be seen whether the kind of you know, goodwill it's been described to the media, uh, the goodwill and in private will become something of an op you know, something public that the Venezuelan government would would talk about.

But you would say, would you say that Venezuela as a country still runs their country and still has like I mean again, part of it is the president uses language that sometimes we don't know what the meaning is.

But would you still say at this moment, Venezuela runs the country even if you would say that America has a strong impact on their decisions.

I would say that the Venezuelan government would certainly say that.

And I would say that the Venezuelan government, would you know, is very concerned about being seen as you know, a US colony or anything like that.

You know, sorry, go ahead, well, no, I was going to.

Ask you when you say the Venezuelan government would be concerned.

I mean, I know there are questions about whether the election last time was was legitimate.

Is there any sense beyond I guess those election results, how Pope are like, what the stance of Venezuelan's in Venezuela is.

I know a lot of the Venezuela's in America are for it, but a lot of those people left, probably for a reason.

So what do we know about the people there now?

Well, I mean there was another I mean, if the if the international organizations that that judge the last election are correct, there there are a lot of people that do not, you know, support the government and when we're voted a different way.

And so I would I would say that based on the elections.

Do we know because I know, I'm not sure I've ever read.

Yeah, yeah, they're they're their death their public you know, and uh and the international organizations had you know, what they thought were the correct vote tallies, and and they did not correspond with the official tallies, and they were very public about that at the time of the election.

And so the question is today, you know, you know, there is no real dissent in the streets.

The Maduro government still is very much in charge.

And as we discussed, you know, according to local media reports, they're there, they've arrested people who have social media criticized Maduro celebrated his capture.

And so I would say that the Madua governments still very much in charge.

It would seem from the outside, so.

Let's talk about the arrest from the American standpoint.

What is specifically Maduro charged with.

So he's charged with with with different kinds of of of.

Of crimes related to narcotics trafficking.

Uh, mostly cocaine trafficking.

Yeah, okay, so the fitinel that's not part of the charging my.

Career, Well, we don't.

It wasn't.

I didn't see it in the charges, But we don't know the entirety of the case, and we have to you know.

Uh uh.

There was an interesting interview.

By a former CIA station chief that I that I watched recently where he was saying that, you know, the US public needs to be a little patient here because soon they'll they'll have a lot of evidence introduced into court that will detail the US case against Maduro.

And and people who like like this person, who say that they know what's in that case file are quite confident.

There's a lot there, but love to see And is.

The connection to America that those drugs ended up here?

I mean, is that ultimately what gets the connection to America?

Yeah.

I can't speak to the ins and outs of the case I have, you know, I haven't read the whole the whole case yet what's been submitted to the courts.

But I would tell you that, you know, the argument politically has been exactly that that you know that the that the United States has suffered as a result of what Maduro has done, and they're drawing parallels to to uh to Noriega, the Pandomanian president who was also extra died at the United States and died here, and Jays.

Going to ask as a former lawyer, I'm just curious as to jurisdictional arguments.

And that's why I wondered if they if they had said that, Uh okay, So the millet, as I understated, it's been described the militar Harry helped aid in a bet a do o j arrest.

Is that kind of the official explanation.

Oh, that the DJ was with the military and well, but clear this.

Was not a military regime.

I mean, normally, you can't just go into a foreign country and arrest somebody just because you have an arrest warrant.

In America, they did this talk about the inter national law aspect of that because I I mean, there are there are criminals America has rest wants with all around the world.

We don't just go into those countries and take the person.

So explain to me the international law component of this.

Well, you know, I think that that that the administration has been seeking to, you know, create a legal framework by having d o J folks you know, on the mission reading them is rights, bring them to a courthouse immediately after his.

His seizure in in uh In, Venezuela.

That is right.

I didn't really I didn't read that.

Okay, that's what they said.

That's what they said.

Interesting.

I didn't see that though, but that's what they said.

Interesting I did.

I hadn't read that.

But so that that is the that's I guess the framework now internationally, generally speaking, have the rest of the countries in the world acknowledged this arrest as valid or not.

It's been mixed a lot of countries.

Even in Latin America there was it's actually really interesting in Latin America, there was a meeting of South.

American leaders the day after the operation.

In Latin America has a long history of of of concern about US military intervention, getting back many decades.

Grenada.

You could go on and on.

I mean, there's you know, the US occupied in Nicaragua for a period.

Yeah, you know, I mean this, there's a long history of US military activity in Latin America, and so this meeting happens, and there was some expectation they might come to a consensus, but there is no consensus on whether to condemn the operation.

And internationally, you know, you saw the same thing play out of the UN where there wasn't a consensus there either.

So you know, there are countries that are that are that are condemning it, and there are countries, you know, including US adversaries like China and Russia clearly, and there are countries that are trying to you know, not get involved and not take aside.

And there are some countries that support it.

So it is a real mixed bag there.

You you mentioned, I am curious about the sort of thought in the rest of the world.

Obviously, the President has brought up, well, we could go into Columbia, we could go into Cuba, we could He's even mentioned the raign okay, Colombia and Cuba.

Columbia and Cuba strike at least me as the two in our hemisphere to most like I'm not I know, you don't give opinion in the sense of this is why I think will happen.

But in Colombia, in Cuba, do you think there is a real concern that that's next.

Well, listen, I am actually you know, I'm a former Latin American correspondent, right, so I used to be based in Columbia, and you know, I'm one of the I'm one of the people that I actually spoke to Fidel Castro at once.

Really yeah, and so like I'm I'm very interested in you know, Cuba, and very interested in Colombia.

And and I watched it was funny.

I was watching a rally last night in Colombia.

Where their president, who President President Trump does not like, Gustabo Petro.

He was about to give this big rally and he was late and it looks like he was late because he was speaking to President Trump because.

He talked during the New York Times interview right right.

Right, the journalists were in the room, which is that's just crazy, that which.

Is a stunning it is a stunning, stunning thing.

So so he.

Gets out in front of this crowd of thousands and thousands of people in Bogatah for what was expected to be a very anti US rally, and he says, and you know, I'm summarizing here, but he says something along the lines of, you know, I had one speech prepared, but now I have to give another speech.

And and he's like, let me tell you, the first speech was really tough.

And then he said something along the lines of President Trump not being not being dumb and he isn't you know, he is the word bobo.

He's not he's not He's not dumb.

And the crowd kind of hissed or boot or didn't react positively to that.

And it's this amazing thing.

And then he posts something on social media afterwards where he has a Colombian jaguar and a and a US bald eagle and they're kind of like, you know, nuzzling up together.

Yeah, and this is a guy.

I mean, there's been like a war of words on social media between Trump and Gustavo Petro for you know, many weeks now, uh, and so to see this kind of turnaround in the last you know, and it's just it's just incredible.

So I don't know exactly how to phrase this, but I'm a critic of President Trump on the vast majority of things.

But we had someone on here when we were talking about Israel and Palestine who said I said something like, give me the best argument for Trump's foreign policy theory or capability, And he said something to the effect of, because Trump is such a wild card and people have no idea what he's going to do, it leads to an unease that can often make him able to accomplish things maybe other people can't because people are like, well, he might actually do this stuff people have always said they would do but wouldn't.

So with Colombia and Cuba, I mean, we've been threatening to do stuff there for years.

Could there be a little bit of those leaders actually believe, oh, this can happen.

And that may be to explain a little bit of what you saw with the Colombian president.

With Columbia, Uh, you know, I would first take an issue that.

For years there's been this kind of animosity, you know, to the point of military intervention.

Gustavo Petro has never been, you know, uh a super fan of the United States.

I think that's that's a fair way to put it.

You know, he's a former rebel himself and so U he he has not been a fan.

But the US military and the Colombian military have a very very strong relationship and the US has been a partner for many, many decades now in Colombia's war against drugs for for you know, since since I was based there in you know, the in the very early two thousands and so, you know, the US counted Columbia as is perhaps the strongest military ally in Latin America period, full stop.

And so it's a little bit of a different thing there because it's their objection really is to the president, not not so much even you know, the broader situation, and there's a lot of Trump specifically Trump Trump, Trump and the Columbian president just do not have not gotten along until the last hours, you know, basically good so, which is a remarkable turnaround.

And I realized it's difficult.

I don't when you're airing this.

But anyway, so Aton.

It airs to.

Clayton and Croum was founded on a simple idea all leather goods should last a lifetime.

They make everything from bags, belts, wallets, and much more.

And the best part, they're doing it right here in Kentucky.

You can check them out at Claytonankroom dot com, c r u M dot com, or visit one of their retail stores in Louisville, Charleston and now opening Nashville, Clayton and Krome.

Quality goods built to last.

Okay, so all right, let's go to Cuba.

First of all, I got to ask you.

You said you met Fidel Castro.

I did tell me about.

Him, So I didn't.

I never I've never actually stepped what on the island of Cuba.

But I did talk to him when he was in Brazil and I used to be based in Brazil.

Uh.

And it was a long time ago.

It was during the Clinton administration, and it was a really bizarre interview where he I asked him about the Monica Lewinsky scandal that was what was going on.

And he defended Bill Clinton.

And it was this stunning moment where he was like, you know, He's like telling me, I got to respect Bill Clinton.

And anyway, it was this real, surreal moment for me.

Because I was a Latin American studies major in college and I had studied Fidel Castro and there he is in his camouflage and talking about Bill Clinton and telling me that I should respect him.

So yeah, so the Cuba, you know, I mean, I grew up sort of always hearing that Cuba was, if not and intermediate, least something to worry about, and then it seemed like relations thawed.

Mari Marco Ruba Rubio is also has Cube, obviously has Cuban heritage.

How would you best describe how the American government looks at Cuba today?

Well, I think I think a Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has put it pretty pretty bluntly.

I mean, he's basically saying that the Cubans should take notice of what happens in Venezuela, and so the you know, it's it's if anyone in the region should be, you know, really watching this, it's it's certainly the Cubans, because also they depended so much on the relationship with Venezuela, which the United States almost certainly seems it seems to be moving to sever right.

So if the Venezuelans can no longer provide any kind of oil, aid, support, cash, anything to the Cubans, that's going to have a real impact on island that's already struggling economically.

But what is I guess this is a basic question, but I actually think it's it matters what is the goal of all this at the end of the day, At the end of the day, I mean, they're bad people that run lots of countries, or at least people we think are bad in all these places.

We don't seek to take them all over.

At the end of the day, if you were to try to describe what the American interest is in who the venezuel leader is, who the Cuban leader is, who the Colombian leader is, what is that interest?

So I think that what what what?

What we're you know, as journalists, what we're trying to do is we're trying to make sense of this too, because you know, nobody's seen anything quite like this, right and so you know, the closest thing is Noriega, and that's actually a different situation for a lot of reasons that we don't have to get into.

So, you know, what we're what we're doing is we're looking at like the National.

Security Strategy that the White House issued.

Which says, you know, which says basically that the Monroe Doctrine, you know, this idea that that the that the hemisphere is kind of America's backyard and that the US will you know, look after it as such, you know, and protect its interest, you know, really is the best way I think to understand.

Well, I think that in the case of Venezuela, you're going to see a real a lot of pressure on them to to to cut ties with with with with countries the U S.

Caesars adversaries, okay in Russia and I and.

I actually I was on a trip with Secretary Defense or Secretary of War.

I guess that's what he calls it, uh Pete Hegsath.

The name isn't official.

Yet, so I can't use a Secretary of War but uh in Panama.

When you get to use one or the other.

Congress but the but the but the name has beneficially the name has been changed on the building itself.

So it's a tricky one for reporters where we still say what do you do?

Anyway?

So I was with Secretary Hegsath in Panama in April, and and he was basically, you know, really focusing on on China and trying to keep you know, the Chinese UH government and the Chinese economy has really become more interested in Panama in recent decades, and that canal is quite important for US commerce but also for the US military where there are contingency in Asia.

So I think if you look at the broader If you look at the broader US policy, it seems to be more about rolling back the inroads of US adversaries in the hemisphere.

And then I guess the drugs too, because that's still a priority for him.

But I don't remember him running on I don't remember him running on cocaine though, So it's a trick.

Yeah, you don't.

I mean, you don't have to comment on this, because I don't want you to feel like you have to.

But it.

Almost makes it's odd to me the way this case is made by the administration, because I actually think Americans would oddly be more likely to support or understand an argument of we need to control this because we're worried or concerned about security in America long term, China, Russia, etc.

Then let's keep the cocaine out, which or even he's a bad guy.

Well, I don't know that those arguments work as well today even as they did maybe forty years ago.

But I don't hear that argument being made.

Matter of fact, the only time I've heard it Billy and I talked about was a scene from Jack Ryan, the television show where there's the two and a half minute scene that's gone viral of the guy from the office making the cases to why Venezuela was so important.

Why do you think they or maybe you don't want to give yourn opinion, but his administration has not talked a lot about that publicly, Am I right?

Well, no, I think that they've been I mean, the rationale for a lot of the actions they have taken, like the boat strikes in the Caribbean and on the Pacific side, have been squarely based on the drug trade.

But then you know, the intervention in Venezuela has this kind of dual nature to it.

So it's it's, you know, on the one hand that they've you know, they're they're.

Serving you know, uh, they've extracted Maduro based on his indictment on drug trafficking charges, right or as involvement in drug trafficking.

And then they're also talking about the oil industry, right, and they're saying that the nationalization of the So then it becomes a little bit different, right, and so's journalist.

I think their drug argument plays not as well as some of the as the other one, but yet they always focus on that one.

You know, there is one thing I would say that I think you know, as as reporters covering the strikes in particular, we were we were really interested in, which was that, you know, the preponderance of US military firepower that was assembled in in the Caribbean didn't match up with the majority of the drug trade, right, and so if you look at the main trafficking route actually is not through the Caribbean, it's it's through the Pacific.

And so you know, there isn't a big flotilla of ships Mexico.

You know, they're they're in the Caribbean.

So it always it was it was something that we've sort of scratched our heads about a little bit.

You know, there have been strikes on the Pacific side, but the military firepower and everything else was really aimed at at the in the crib was really in the Caribbean, and the policies really aimed at Venezuela.

And so you know, this seems to be a policy as much about Venezuela as it is about about drugs.

Not to say that it hasn't been about drugs.

Let's talk about Venezuela now real quick.

So we always hear about oil has the most oil reserves.

To what extent is oil something that Venezuela can produce in mass in the near future.

How long does it take?

Trump initially said We're going to have all this oil.

Then he said the New York Times yesterday, now this is actually going to take years.

What is actually the truth about that?

So, you know, Reuters has a lot of really great reporters that are working on this exact issue right now, and the reporting that that they're producing, you know, really does indicate that it's going to take years to recover for Venezuela.

And and the years and some good luck, you know, really for Venezuela to recover anything close to the industry he once had.

You know, the Venezuelans I think used to produce about seven percent of the world's crude and I think now it's down to like one percent.

And as a comparison, just for contexts, you know, people talk about Venezuela's this massive, you know, the world's largest oil reserves, blah blah blah.

But but the truth is, uh, they produce about the same amount as the US state of North Dakota.

So they actually produced the almost the same as just North Dakota.

Just North Dakota.

And and so you know, right now, like their industry is not you know this this Titan and Powerhouse, it's it's kind of it's kind of you know, not doing so well.

And and from folks that Writers has talked to, you know, for the Venezuelan industry has really been plagued by you know, option and mismanagement, and it will take it will take a long time to fix all that.

If you can bring an American company and they're going to want to rebuild everything, you know, that takes that takes a lot of time.

So that leads me to two questions.

When the US administration says the Venezuelan government took our oil or took our equipment, explain to people at least what they mean by that.

So you know, Reuters doesn't know, uh, I personally don't know exactly what that means, but we assume that that means they're talking about the nationalization of the oil industry that you know, US companies used to be operating there.

And during the Hugoshaves years, particularly you know between you know, prior prior in the early two thousands, he really did take a lot of uh, he made a lot of efforts to bring the Oale industry under state control and and really make US companies either leave or become you know, very they take.

When they took what did they take?

Well, they canceled you know, contracts that that the US companies had told the companies that they either had to become you know, uh, I think essentially contractors or or leave.

And I think a lot of the companies left.

So that was that's the history there.

So it's just canceled contracts, Okay, I mean that just seems like an I actually thought they might have even stolen to quips.

You know, I don't know.

I mean, you'd have to I mean, I have to go and talk to the folks at Excellent to see whether, you know, their equipment is still there and whether they were compensated for anything, because so what do we know?

I keep hearing the President say the oil companies are ready to go in and they want to go and rebuild Venezuela.

Is that crew?

Are we hearing that oil companies do want to do that?

Or do we know?

I think that the companies are about to meet, They're going to have a meeting at the White House, and they're gonna they're gonna they're gonna talk about it.

I think that right now there's there's a there's some interest potentially, but there would have to be a lot of probably what Reuters is reporting, there would have to be some guarantees for them because of the you know, the kind of crue that Venezuela produces.

Isn't you know the kind of crue that frankly even North Dakota Group produces, which can VENTI a higher price.

It's it's you know, it needs it needs a lot more work to be to.

Be used, and and and so I don't know, I don't know whether they're going to, you know, go running into Venezuela or not without quite a lot of US government guarantees support.

You know, there used to be a time, phil even when you were when you probably started your career, where the American government was seen worldwide.

Is like, regardless who the president was, the American government was like a unified thing that acted.

How much do you think in countries like Columbia, Venezuela, Cuba when they're thinking about these things, or even the oil companies.

You know, now, if some somebody besides Donald Trumps president in three years, a lot of these policies might completely change, especially if, as you said with Columbia, a lot of it's just personally these two leaders don't like each other when they're making these calculations.

Do these countries in Latin America look at America as the American government or is there is it like Donald Trump and then we have to wait and see what happens three years after that?

Does that make sense what I'm asking?

Yeah, I mean I don't know really how to respond to that.

I mean I would say that, you know, like US, you know, debt ratings agencies and look at American debt.

You know, sometimes speak about you know, political volatility as a risk to to to the US, to the United States financially economically.

So political volatility plays out in different different areas.

It's easier to see when it comes to you know, bond prices than it is you know, maybe in relations with other countries.

But I think you know, if you were if you were in Columbia and there's right now, there's an election coming up in the spring.

You know, you know that there is volatility there.

I mean, the government won't be might not be you know, a left leaning government in four months, it might be a very pro Trump government.

In four months.

And so this.

Kind of era of political volatility, I would say, is, you know, is global.

You know, we're seeing a lot of political volatility around the world and and and swings between you know, different ideologies and in different countries.

I will start to wrap up and by me asking me this question.

I I was listening to what I call bro podcasters discussing this and I like to sometimes listen to them last for their insight, which I find to be little, but to see like, how do people like that think about all this?

Because these were Trump supporting people and I heard them ask a question that I do think a lot of I've heard a lot of my conservative listeners wonder, which is okay?

I followed all this was impressive that we pulled it off, had no casualties.

But how does this affect me?

Kind of like the average Americans life?

How does this affect you?

See, you've dealt with these issues for a long time.

The bigger picture.

If you're the average American listening beyond just being curious about world affairs, do you think what is happening in Venezuela, what could happen in Cuba, Columbia?

Well, gas prices go down.

Are there things that you actually think would have impact on the average, everyday Americans life based on these events.

I mean, it's it's really hard to say right now, you know, it's really really hard to say.

You would need a crystal ball to know whether or not this is going to devolve into some sort of quagmire that's going to drain US resources or not.

You know that you'd have to have to have a crystal ball to know whether or not the the the impact, whether there will be an impact to America's standing internationally as a result of this or any other follow on actions that could that could happen.

And so right now now we're at the precipice of you know, potentially quite a lot of impact.

You know, that could explain to me what that like, what that would look like if there was a.

Lot well, i mean, on the negative side, you could see, you know, if there is a situation where the US government becomes frustrated with the government in Venezuela, it might require further action, you know, and that action could become a military action, or it could become something that would would would drain US resources.

If if if the United States has to create you know, a subsidized Venezuelan oil industry.

You know, the questions then become about return on investment.

You know, how long would that be?

You know, for how many billions of dollars or millions of dollars would the US.

Need to put up in the short run, and and and and would there be a payoff?

You know on the on the positive side, you know, would what does it mean?

You know, what what is the advantage to to US citizens of having you know, countries you know close to close to the United States that have less contact with you know, US adversaries like Russia, China, uh Aron, uh you know, and and so is there a security upside there is there?

You know, is there less of a need to have I don't know there there There are so many variables when you when you start talking about future.

Effects that it's one of the things that kind of paralyzed a lot of policymakers even you know, from doing a lot overseas in the short run, because they just don't know, because they don't know what's next.

And so, you know, as journalists, we're we're all asking that very question, is you know, what what is the benefit?

What what what what could be the repercussions in the United States for this, and and and that's the that's the big question we all have.

Let me finish with this.

A lot of reports that the administration is going to meet with the folks in Greenland and Denmark about whatever happens with Greenland.

I understand, at least me, I feel like I understand why that matters to them.

But it seems like it matters like we have military bases there, phil like we get along with Greenland pretty well, pretty well.

What do you think motivates Trump's fascination with Greenland?

That's a great question.

I I don't know that there is an easy answer for that.

There is, you know a lot of potential security uh uh implications for Greenland, you know, falling under uh you know the.

Let me let me start again.

I mean, I guess a lot of journalists are kind of trying to understand what the United States would gain militarily, diplomatically, economically by acquiring uh, you know, Greenland, given you know, the treaty arrangements in the US military relationship with Denmark, which is a close to NATO ally, I.

Mean, what else do we need from them?

We already are there.

We already use it as a military back.

I mean, what what have you heard that we want?

Right?

Well, I think I think that the answer to the administration.

Gives is that you know that the Denmark simply can't you know, defend the island by itself.

Denmark just doesn't isn't the US and doesn't have the reach of the US military.

And if you really want to make sure that that Greenland is secure and that it's assets in you know, the Arctic are are you know, available to Americans, then you need to have it be American.

And and that's the argument.

They're pretty forward.

Someone's coming after Greenland, Like am I missing something?

Like is there are there?

Is there someone ready to take it over?

I mean again, like I think that you know, Denmark would would tell you that that they have Greenland you know, under under control, and that the US is a is a NATO ally, and that the US is you know, basing access and and all kinds of military access should they need it, and that they're a NATO ally and so like so the so the the you know, for Denmark, it's a it's a it's a it's a problematic situation.

But you know, there there are non military ways that the US could go about doing this.

So do you think.

There's any chance, Well, obviously there's a chance, but what like, do you think it is likely that the fifty thousand people that live in Greenland become Americans at some point in the next three years.

I mean, they've they've done a lot to indicate that that's not their intent.

The writers had a story out today saying that the US is mullying payments to potentially, you know, lure them into becoming Americans, you know, and you could imagine a scenario where the US basically you know, gives them, gives them some money.

But I don't know, you know, it's a it's a it's a wildcard issue for a lot of folks.

And I don't know, you know, whether it's it's something that's you know, a front burner issue or a back burner issue or sort of just you know.

But but the President said, you know, it's something that he would he would like to resolve within this tournament office.

So we have like to give one hundred thousand dollars a person to Greenland to become Americans, and a lot of Americans it would say, where is my hundred thousand dollars if that were to happen.

No, absolutely not.

I do think Billy has just so you know, fill my average person that doesn't care about politics.

I cannot see Americans being excited that we would give every person from Greenland one hundred thousand dollars to be an American.

But stranger things have happened.

I'll finish with this.

Donald Trump.

Every day when I wake up, I look at my phone before I do my sports show, and I go, what in the world now?

What right?

Like, what's the next thing?

From other countries in the world, how do they handle in general, a president that, on any given day you have no idea what he's going.

To do.

He's talking about, you know, from a policy perspective.

You've talked I'm sure to leaders or any these like, how do you It's got to be there's so much volatility in terms of a day to day thing.

You mentioned the Columbian president was given one speech, then he has to give another one like.

It has to be.

Is it unique in that in dealing with him?

Is it just different than dealing with other presidents or other world leaders?

You know, I think that that's an interesting question.

I think that what I've seen in my conversations with diplomats, and I guess that's the best way I could I could answer this question is that in this administration, uh since since last year, there's sort of been an understanding that that Trump is is who he is, and that there's sort of an acceptance to the idea that he may you know, say something you know, quite prerogative.

One day and then and then and then have a.

Different position the next day, right And I think the Columbian president is a good example of that, right he was, he was he openly floated, you know, just a couple of days ago, the idea of of a military action inside Columbia, you know, and and and his and it's basically, you know, said that Maduro could face you know, some similar fate, all right, that Petro coup makes a similar be to Maduro.

And then now you know, he's going to come to Washington and they're going to welcome the foreign minister from Columbia, and it's a total turnaround.

So you know, I think that people have kind of accepted that that you know, this is this is this kind of uh uh, you know, volatility in the US foreign policy is probably by design.

But it's definitely, you know, something that they're they're they're dealing with and then and they seem to be, you know, very the diplomats that I talked to seem to kind of understand it.

Okay, well listen, Phil, thank you very much.

I enjoyed the conversation.

You know, I will give you a a comp I mean, I enjoyed it, but also a compliment.

It's I think it's rare today to hear someone talk about the issues or the news and distinctly not want to give their opinion, which is kind of what is supposed to happen but never happens.

And is that like, is that just on a personal level?

Is that like is that a Reuter's policy?

Is that a Phil Stewart policy?

It's very refreshing.

I don't I'm not sure I've ever interviewed someone less likely to want to say what he thinks?

What is that?

Just how the your news organization is?

I mean I've been at Reuter's.

Yeah, definitely, that's how Ruters is.

But I've been at Reuters since I was in college, basically, you know that.

Yeah, So so it's how I've always sort of carried myself and if I did, you know, if you think I expressed an opinion anywhere, then that was certainly that was yeah, that would have been That must have been an accident because I didn't.

I didn't.

That was because I really don't.

I try to keep myself out of it, you know.

I just think that's very refreshing, because the biggest thing I hear from my listeners, and they know I lean left, most of my listeners lean right, But the biggest thing I always hear from you is how do I know what's going on without hearing the tint of what people think while I'm hearing what's going on.

And even the people who lean right, they understand that there are news organizations that are trying to tell them what they want to hear, and they sort of go, how do I find what's actually happening without the tint of opinion?

And I just just on a journalistic level, I think that's harder and harder to find.

Do you agree?

I mean, our goal at Reuters is really to do just that, is that.

You should you shouldn't know, You shouldn't have any sense of any opinion about the journalist when you're reading an article.

And if you do you should write the ethics folks at Reuters to tell them that they made a mistake and continue to address it.

So that is definitely the policy that I've always kind of lived by at Routers.

All Right, shout out to Reuters.

Last question, give me you've been all over Latin Mary, you've been all over sixty you spend in the sixty sixty countries.

Give me the most scared you've ever been doing your job?

Roof, I'm scared, you know.

I don't know how to answer that question, because it's, uh, it's I've been a war correspondent for a lot of my career, so I don't want to get too personal on your show.

And I would feel I would feel like that might actually also get in the way of the Reuter's rules.

But I would say that, but I would say, but I would say, I will say this though, that you know, in the in the in the years, in the early years of my work in Columbia, there were moments where, you know, it was a Gorilla war, and uh, and I remember, you know what, we would travel in and out of what was then the bar Gorilla's demilitarized zone.

They had a they had a country inside Columbia that was all theirs about the size of Switzerland.

And as journalists, yeah.

And as journalists, it was our job to go in and out of that and and sometimes that would be you know, you just didn't know, you know, whether or not you might have some problems coming in and out of that area with the because these are teenagers with guns, you know, patrolling those the border of that zone.

And always worried about about folks and and I guess another time would be when I after there was a coup against Chavez, uh, and I remember our folks in Caracas needed uh you know, flag jackets and helmets and bulletproof vests because there was gunfire in the streets.

And and I got on a plane and I and I and I brought and I brought it over there.

And then in the wake of the coup, I landed with an American passport, and the folks at the airport and Caracas were wondering, you know, was I c I a you know, And and there was a moment there I was I thought to myself, I should have come with more documentation, you know, And but it was it was you know, I told you know, I had a good conversation with them.

You have great stories.

I mean, that would be maybe that's the next time we sties.

Seriously, and I do want to bring you on again because I found this very informed.

Thank you very much for your.

Time, My pleasure, My pleasure.

Thanks Phil Stewart, national security reporter for Reuters.

Uh and this has been interrupted by Matt Jones.