Dan Caldwell

I can never see the Russians agreeing to something that is, in effect, de facto NATO membership.

They have a vote here.

And the president has pointed this out.

And I think that they will continue to fight if that is a big part of the deal.

Now, there's a million different ways to do security guarantees that doesn't involve necessarily committing US or NATO troops.

They may accept something that is along the lines of we'll agree to provide the Ukrainians defensive weapon systems or certain types of support or things like that.

But again, I think the Russians have made clear this is their primary issue.

It's the issue of Ukrainian alignment.

It's more important than territory to them.

It's whether or not Ukraine is going to be part of an alliance that they view as a security threat.

So I can never see them agreeing to something that would in effect make Ukraine a de facto member of NATO.

As Ben Hardwell points out, actually could be a more powerful security guarantee than NATO if some of the reporting is correct.

Sure.

So yesterday, the Washington Post had a story.

And I think War Room audience members will know and see that this was a strategic leak by people likely opposed to these reforms.

So that's important to keep in mind.

No decision has been made.

And this is likely being pushed out by people who don't want to see them.

So essentially what is being proposed is a consolidation of these combatant commands which exist around the world.

You have six geographic commands that were set up in the 1980s as part of Goldwater-Nichols in response to some of the military failures in Lebanon and Grenada, some of the command and control issues.