Jovanni and returning guest Matthew Ho, a former US Marine officer and associate director of the Eisenhower Media Network, discusses the recent UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which sets forth a new US-led plan for the governance, security, and reconstruction of Gaza. The resolution, which involves the establishment of an international transitional authority called the Board of Peace chaired by Donald Trump, aims to demilitarize Gaza and shifts humanitarian coordination away from the United Nations. They delve into the resolution's implications for Gaza's future, drawing parallels to historical colonial patterns and external control over the region. They also explore the broader geopolitical context, including the attitudes of major global players like Russia and China, and the potential erosion of international law and institutions like the United Nations.

Main website: https://www.fortressonahill.com

Let me guess. You’re enjoying the show so much, you’d like to leave us a review?! https://lovethepodcast.com/fortressonahill

Email us at fortressonahill@protonmail.com

Check out our online store on Spreadshirt.com. T-shirts, cell phone covers, mugs, etc.: https://bit.ly/3qD63MW

Not a contributor on Patreon? Sign up to be one of our patrons today! – https://www.patreon.com/fortressonahill

A special thanks to our Patreon honorary producers – Fahim’s Everyone Dream, Eric Phillips, Paul Appel, Julie Dupree, Thomas Benson, Janet Hanson, Ren jacob, and Helge Berg. You all are the engine that helps us power the podcast. Thank you so much!!!

Not up for something recurring like Patreon, but want to give a couple bucks?! Visit https://paypal.me/fortressonahill to contribute!!

Fortress On A Hill is hosted, written, and produced by Chris ‘Henri’ Henrikson, Danny Sjursen, Keagan Miller, Jovanni Reyes, Shiloh Emelein, Monisha Rios, and MIke James. https://bit.ly/3yeBaB9

Intro / outro music “Fortress on a hill” written and performed by Clifton Hicks. Click here for Clifton’s Patreon page: https://bit.ly/3h7Ni0Z

Cover and website art designed by Brian K. Wyatt Jr. of B-EZ Graphix Multimedia Marketing Agency in Tallehassee, FL: https://bit.ly/2U8qMfn

Note: The views expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts alone, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

this is Fortress On A Hill, with Henri, Danny, Kaygan, Jo

vonni, Shiloh, Monisha , and Mike

welcome to Fortress On A Hill, a podcast about US foreign

policy, anti imperialism skepticism, and the American way of war.

I'm Giovanni, your host.

Thank you for being with us today.

On Monday, November 17th, 2025, the UN Security Council cast a vote on

a Trump peace plan for Gaza Security council members voted in favor

and abstain Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council.

Resolution 28 0 3 sets out a new US LED plan for governance, security,

and reconstruction in Gaza.

This resolution establishes an international transitional authority

called the Board of Peace, chaired by Donald Trump, tasked with overseeing

Gaza's administration through a technocratic non-political body.

Alongside this, it authorizes a multinational international stabilization

force to demilitarize Gaza comprehensively operating closely with Israel and Egypt.

The resolution mandates disarmament of Palestinian armed groups imposing

a security perimeter controlled by Israeli forces until the ISEF certified

stability and shift humanitarian coordination away from the United

Nations to the new foreign body.

This resolution carries old school colonial vibes, reminiscent of the

British mandate Over Palestine After World War I. It imposes an international

trusteeship that detaches Gaza from Palestinian self-determination,

echoing a historic pattern of external control over the region.

Despite strong support from many Arab states, Russia, and China abstained.

While Palestinian factions condemn the move as an imposed foreign trusteeship,

undermining gaza's autonomy, this setss a critical and controversial stage for

Gaza's future security and governance.

In this episode, we'll explore what this resolution means on the ground

for Gaza and the broader region as we welcome our guests to discuss

the implication and controversies.

Now let's welcome our returning guest Matthew Ho.

Matthew Ho is an associate director of the Eisenhower Media Network

and a former US Marine officer with nearly 12 years of military service.

He resigned from his State Department position in Afghanistan in 2 0 9

in against the war's escalation.

Paul served in Iraq as part of the State Department reconstruction team

and the Marine Corps company commander.

He has.

Work on war policy at the Pentagon and the State Department from 2002 to 2008.

His writings can be found in various publications, including

The Guardian and USA Today.

Paul received several awards for his advocacy including Prize for

Telling in 2010 is also involved with multiple organizations advocating

for peace and veterans issue.

Welcome back to the show How are you doing today?

I'm well, Giovanni.

Thanks for having me back on.

I'm sorry, everyone had sit through that bio.

I should have given you something shorter.

Yeah, man.

that morning, I went to bed, hoping something was gonna happen

because we did an episode before about this whole 20 point plan.

that Trump was, proposing, the whole thing wasn't even a peace plan at all.

And that morning, you know, waking up to the news that Trump so-called

peace plan for Gaza had sailed through the security concert, left

me distraught and disbelief, right?

I was just so upset.

I just messed me up the whole day, right?

I gone to bed hoping Russia would at least, veto it because they had

introduced their own plan before,

'cause they had reservations, including China and I believe France as well.

They had reservations of what the Trump, peace plan had.

Pretty much, they have nothing tangible for the Palestinians.

everything was the onus of, to do anything was put on the Palestinian,

but nothing was put on the Israelis, to do anything different.

so there was really no peace plan at all, right?

Instead, both Russia and China just abstain paving the way for what.

Council surrender plan.

I mean, that's where it is.

It's surrender plan.

Mm-hmm.

to pass, you know, with overwhelming support in the UN Security Council.

just a reminder that there are 15, security council members in the un.

Five of them are permanent members.

The other 10 are rotating members.

those five members are the United States, uk France, Russia and China.

They have beetle power.

They're the only one who have beetle power in the un.

And, yeah, they could use their vile power, but they didn't.

Your thoughts, Matt?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Giovanni, like the disappointment as we were talking about on last

Friday I remember doing an interview and we were talking about this, and

then I saw the news that Russia may be introducing its own resolution.

you know, particularly the Russias were concerned that this, resolution

would essentially give authority in Gaza to the United States.

the Russians wanted it to, fall under the authority of the United Nations.

And which would, still terrible situation for the Palestinians, but not as

bad potentially as being essentially a colony of the United States.

And, yeah, Monday came and the vote, as you said, 13 oh, and

Russia and China abstained.

And then to make the suffering of the Palestinians even more to kick

them when they're down, if you will.

This week, the United Agents General Assembly with, the exception of seven

countries, the United States, Israel, and primarily small Pacific Island nations

that always vote with the us voted for statehood for Palestine, you know, so

they had the annual vote on Palestinian statehood, and everybody except the US

Israel and a couple of clients states, all voted for statehood for the Palestinians.

A couple days after the Security Council resolution made

statehood almost impossible.

if we wanna talk about that specifically the Security Council

resolution, is essentially just the Trump plan that's fleshed out a bit.

It.

Supposedly provides for a pathway to statehood for the Palestinians.

But the terms are so vague, It's all pinned upon criteria that this Board

of Peace will introduce in the future as well as reforms required of the

Palestinian Authority, essentially, another iteration of surrender, there's no

way that a Palestinian state will arise.

And the other aspect of it that makes statehood near

impossible, is this reality that.

What we've seen here is a split, a divorcing of Gaza from the West

Bank in East Jerusalem, by putting Gaza underneath, the United States

underneath this Board of Peace, making it a protectorate, or

giving United States a mandate, or essentially creating a American colony.

And Gaza, you've had, a split from, the West Bank of East Jerusalem that

tears apart the unity of Palestine.

it's already been torn apart, as we all know, but this really confirms that,

an aspect that hasn't been spoken about enough, is that this UN Security Council

resolution makes Gaza a separate place.

under international law, essentially from the rest of Palestine.

so the idea of a unified Palestinian state, is even farther away now,

than it was, last week this time.

Yeah.

Another thing is that, Gaza is about the size of Las Vegas, right.

And before this genocide started, it had about 2.3 million people in it.

it was very populated, very condensed population.

And from what I understand is that the northern part of Gaza

pretty much has been cleared out.

And the population has been pushed down to the south, close

to the, border with Egypt.

But even with this resolution, they're not allowed to go back.

So before it was densely populated, it's gonna be even more densely populated,

the area that they're gonna occupy because they're not giving them anything,

what happened is that during the genocide, the Israelis

pushed the Palestinians south, below what was called a net supreme corridor.

right before this peace plan the Israelis were cleansing Gaza City.

the Israeli plan was to divide Gaza, north and south.

this plan has divided Gaza, east and west, with the Israelis occupying

the eastern part, which is about 55%.

Of Gaza, and, it includes the best arable agricultural lands.

It includes, significant water resources.

This is the territory that the Israeli settlers have wanted, in

terms of coming in with their trailers and setting up their farms this

is what they've been looking at.

that's 55% of the Gaza Strip.

more than 2 million Palestinians are now within this smaller 45% of Gaza.

so essentially what the Israelis have done and they've managed to do.

Is to clear out 55% of Gaza get the best agricultural land and push the 2 million

remaining Palestinians into a smaller cage or concentration camp than before.

so you see a success here for the Israelis.

this is all backed by the Americans and it falls on the American plan.

The Americans have already said that they will start reconstruction

in the Israeli controlled zone.

There are almost no Palestinians in the Israeli control zone.

And the Israelis are continuing their destruction of everything in that zone.

in the span of four weeks, Israelis destroyed 1500 buildings in Gaza.

Right.

They haven't stopped killing, even though this cease

they haven't stopped killing.

What's funny is that, what Israel has not been able to do militarily 'cause

they had not been able to defeat.

Neither, the Palestinian factions, right?

They haven't been able to defeat militarily.

the Hamas organiz, the, Hezbollah organization in Lebanon, right.

in both of those cases, if you want, actual add, in Yemen, they haven't

been able to defeat the Yemenese.

They haven't been able to defeat the militias in Iraq.

They haven't been able to defeat the Iranians.

You know, they started a war against the Irania 12 year war, and they had

to get bailout by the United States.

Mm-hmm.

In all these situations, the United States had to bail them out, what

they couldn't get on the battlefield.

They have to get through diplomatic deals.

Right.

Or, in position bought from the United States, they

couldn't do it on their own.

I mean, I'll give the That's a lot

about the military.

Yeah.

and it was always an impossibility.

the idea that you're militarily gonna defeat a resistance it's not possible.

as long as you occupy a people, there will be resistance.

the Palestinian resistance has not been defeated.

It's been degraded.

they've taken some very serious losses.

their ability to operate right now is limited compared to what It

was, but they've not been defeated.

and it's just a matter of time until they rebuild themselves.

the Israelis have increased their dominance.

So their actions against Lebanon, Syria, Iran they have put themselves in the

position right now where they are the dominant force in the region, they

were able to effectively neutralize Hezbollah, did not defeat Hezbollah,

but they were able to neutralize them.

Essentially the, doctrine of deaths of civilians for the

sake of deaths of civilians.

You know, the mass bombings in Lebanon has an effect.

And the same occurs in other countries.

so you see in Iraqi, even the Iraqi militias backing off and not

fighting with the Israelis, not attacking Israel in Iran as well.

I mean, I think that both deterred each other to a degree here the

amenities are the only ones.

Who have continued fighting the Israelis.

he is of course, honoring the ceasefire deal and not attacking

shipping or attacking Israel directly.

if you look at the larger region, my estimation is Israel has done

well in terms of reducing, its enemies, not defeating them, but

substantially degrading them to give themselves more breathing room.

Now, this all, of course, I think is folly, right?

Because.

they're overextending themselves, the Israelis, at some point I

think that overextension could be very dangerous for them.

But in terms of getting what they want, you look at the situation in

Gaza, you look at the way they've been able to shape the region in

terms of Southern Lebanon, Southern Syria, they got Asad out of power.

they're aligned now with the boss Damascus.

it certainly is, a position where they have the upper hand in Syria, the

Israelis, and they have the ability to come to some agreement with Shirah and the

Al-Qaeda government there in a way that they never could with the predecessor.

And this all leads to, their goal of annexing the West Bank.

right but my point is that they haven't been able to do it on their own.

Like when No.

Yeah.

when the Palestinians fight, the Israelis, they don't fight the Israeli, they fight

the Israeli and the Americans and the British the French and the Germans.

And you know, when Hezbollah fights the Israeli, they don't just fight

the Israeli, they fight the Americans, the British the Germans, the French,

you

know, so they don't do it on their own.

They can't do it on their own, so they rely on the West to do their expansion.

Essentially, what Israel is, is not, you know, you probably heard this before.

It's not a country, it's, a fob.

it's the four operating base for, for the west, masquerading as a state, because

the operations, they can't do operations.

You know, remember when, what was it, cast lead or whatnot and under Obama, I think.

Yeah.

Oh 8 0 0 8 0 9.

They rent,

they ran out munition and Obama was rushing emissions over there.

Yeah.

rushing munitions because they ran out they cannot sustain

without the backing of the west.

Yeah, to your point over the last two years there's been an

American cargo plane or cargo ship arriving in Israel every 15 hours.

So every 15 hours a C 17 or a 7 47 or a cargo ship.

And people know how big those things are have been arriving in Israel, supplying

the Israelis, We provided over $20 billion to Israel in the last two years.

the Israelis themselves have said exactly what you said.

we couldn't have waged this war for more than a few months without the Americans.

on the other side who stood up for the Palestinians, The Yenis did.

Hezbollah did and the Iranians did as well.

But like the rest of the world, it is heartbreaking if people read Hamas'

statement the day before the security council voted on this resolution

and Hamas' appeal to Algeria.

to not abandon your revolutionary roots.

To not abandon, the principles that come from your own

story, from your own history.

and Algeria voted in favor of it.

That did.

Right.

I mean, like, I spoke at the Security Council March of 2024, and

Algeria was on the council then.

I remember speaking with the Algerian afterwards, and I was so impressed

by what they were saying to me, and what they said in the council session,

so to see this, it wouldn't have mattered which way Algeria voted.

They don't have a veto, but at least it would've been.

a show, right?

It would've been a symbol.

It would've been some type of recognition by someone that what is occurring

here is the colonization of Gaza.

It was bad enough when it was Israeli occupation, that was bad enough.

But now this is an international colonization, you know, straight out.

You can't look at this.

I think as we said to each other, a few days ago, it's like, we've

gone back in time 110 years.

Exactly.

We just got back to, 19, 19, 18,

essentially, yeah,

But, you know, you mentioned, Algeria, I mean also, Turkey makes

strong statements and make a show what they collaborate with the,

with the, with the Israelis, right?

Qaim Tower is supposed to be, and they have their, their.

Arm, you know, Al Jazeera, their, their information arm wing and whatnot, and

know a lot of, a lot of Americans, young Americans, you know, activists, you know,

they, they, they follow, you know, Al Jazeera, Al Talks, put on a show, put

up, the Palestinian cause and whatnot.

But at the end of the day, they support as well.

And, and they, you know, and they have a, they have a, an American military

base on their country, you know, and, and the end of day, you know, they,

they betray the Palestinian, they're the worst betweening, the Palestinian

because they, they voice out like their support, like they're so heavily support

Documentaries about Palestinians but they go along with the Arab League

and normalize relations, et cetera,

Right.

the Chinese, which was interesting to me because they should

know that this whole thing that's happening with the iMac, the corridor,

the Israeli meese economic corridor.

Oh, yeah,

Trying to do in Gaza, right.

you know, have this corridor economic, that's pretty much the challenge.

Bricks, or not bricks.

The BRI, that's a challenge.

And they should know the challenge that's a way to challenge the BRI.

Right?

Yeah.

So they know that they're being pushed out of the

region, and they go along with it.

when this genocide was happening, they were specifically saying, what was true

that the Palestinians have the right.

to liberate themselves by any means available to them.

Under international law, they have that right to fight the Israelis,

everybody's calling them terrorists and blah blah, this and that.

But an international law, they have the right to fight the Israelis

because Israelis, you know, are, are, are the arch cappis, you know,

are the torment and stuff like that.

But they went along, and they should know both China and Russia are being encircled

by the west, by the us they were being pushed out of, you know, Russia kind of

being pushed outta Syria or, you know, attempted being pushed outta Syria.

They know that all this is targeting them.

So why would they not challenge it?

Yeah.

I think, the reason is why the Russians and the Chinese went along with it.

And that's essentially what the abstention is.

when you have veto power, there's no such thing as an abstention,

you're going along with it.

And, for the Russians and the Chinese, there's a bit of the

attitude that we wanna see the United States get mired down in this.

I had a friend who went to China 15 years ago, 14 years ago, and he met with the

Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs folks.

And, you know, he said, what would you like to see the

American foreign policy be?

And again, this is like 2011 or so, and they said, we wanna see the

United States continue to be stuck.

In never ending wars in the middle East.

if you're a competitor, an adversary, whatever you want to call it, to

the United States, why wouldn't you wanna see the United States get

bogged down in Gaza, bogged down in Palestine, bogged down Israel, bogged

down in the greater Middle East?

Potentially here if this thing goes poorly, which I think most

of us think it's gonna go, you have the potential for this to be

another Iraq, another Afghanistan.

You have the potential, maybe it won't cost as much.

Because Gaza is so much smaller than Iraq, but it's still gonna

cost billions and billions.

We've spent, up to maybe as much as $35 billion in the last two years on this.

that's, the commitment, but also the issues it could cause

politically in the United States.

Gaza, the Palestinian cause will not stop being an issue,

And it's only gonna cause more fracture and more division in American politics.

So if you're the Russians and the Chinese, this might be a smart

geopolitical thing to do, is to let the Americans do something so foolish

as get involved in this, in the way that they may be getting involved.

there's talk of building a large base on the border of Gaza.

Who would fill that?

We don't know.

you also see the United States potentially building a base south of Damascus.

So for the Chinese and the Russians, okay.

The Americans wanna remain tied down involved in the Middle East like this.

For what benefit, you know, that is spent, the Iraq and Afghan

wars are gonna cost them what?

Seven, $8 trillion.

Yeah, let's Continue to see the American empire destroy itself by

engaging in 20th century behavior.

You know, not even 20th century behavior.

Almost like 19th century behavior.

Yeah, for sure.

that's a rationale that you speculate the Chinese and Russian has.

What do you think is the rationale for the Arab League, for example?

Why would they go along with it?

why are they behaving so lackness, if that's the word,

you know, lacky, you know, why?

Well, in the last 50 years since the 73 war the peace accords

between Egypt and Israel and the way Jordan has transformed its relationship

with Israel the Arab states have found it easier to go along with the

Americans, there's greater benefit.

In being a friend or an ally of the United States than there is to being antagonist,

you know, as much as it shapes them to not stand up for the Palestinians,

to have to kind of keep quiet about Israel, not doing anything meaningful.

It's better for them in the long run than it is to antagonize the Americans

And we have to look at who's running these countries, right?

Who's in charge of these countries?

These are countries that are run by corrupt despots.

why would we expect Abdullah to do anything differently

than what they've done?

you brought up Turkey before.

Erdogan loves to speak about these types of things.

Does anyone really expect Erdogan's gonna extend himself and jeopardize

anything for the sake of the Palestinians?

The same for the Gulf monarchies.

Why would we expect any of them to do anything for the Palestinians?

I think it's useful to them the Palestinian cause when they need to

stand on a balcony and address the.

People in the street, right.

And make it seem like they actually care about their fellow

Arabs, their fellow Muslims.

if they wanna try and play to the sympathies of their

public, then it's useful.

But other than that, the Palestinians serve no use.

and so I think what you've seen for many in the world, why did

no one stand up against this?

Why did everyone go along with this?

Because it's easier and because I think they want to get this behind

them, and I think they want to move on and get back to business as usual.

I really do think it, it's no more complicated than that.

That at the end of the day, let's get back to business.

and the Palestinians are abandoned.

The Palestinians are all left behind, you know?

Yeah.

the Arab states that did.

Support materially Their leadership is not there anymore.

Libya, Sudan, Iraq, and Syria for example.

these Arab countries gave material support to the Palestinian cause,

and they were viciously attacked.

Right.

were viciously attacked and destroyed,

Any Arab leader that promoted any type of pan Arab nationalism, if you

will, they were destroyed as you said.

I mean, this is key goal of American foreign policy in the

region was to remove anybody who could threaten American hegemony.

And that in the Middle East is carried out through Israel.

Richard Nixon described Israel as America's sheriff in the middle.

Right, which is, the point you were making earlier when

you described Israel as a fob.

these Arab states, and the Palestinians once again are abandoned.

even the lip service that came from the rest of the world, all these nations

that said they were gonna do something, no one really ever did anything.

you look, at the Irish, and I was in Ireland a year ago, and, the Irish

were so upset about this because their leaders would make statements and the

Israeli embassy got upset and Israel pulled its embassy out of Ireland

But the end of the day in the eu, you know who the biggest

trading partner with Israel is.

It's Ireland.

I mean, like same thing.

South Africa goes to the brings it.

International Court Justice brings the genocide case forward.

God bless them for doing that.

But Israel gets about 20 or 25% of its power from coal plants.

And South Africa is one of the biggest exporters of coal to Israel.

You know, I mean, so the, yeah, it's sickening.

And you mentioned earlier about all these countries making the

UN recognizing Palestine state, right?

So when you recognized by the United Nations.

As a state and as a United Nation member, they have some

type of observatory membership.

I think they have if I'm not mistaken the Palestinians, right?

They have rights to the state.

I'm gonna make that comparison with Kosovo.

'cause I was deployed to the, Balkins.

and when the US law stayed, imploded, pretty much in that area.

Serbia was attacked.

And, you know, they had the Civil War and everything.

Serbia had no say whatsoever of the recognition of those countries by

the West So to this day, Serbia's not recognized Kosovo as a state,

right?

Kosovo was a province of Serbia.

NATO did.

to this day, Serbia does not recognize they were just told what to do, and

they have state privileges, In the case of Palestine, you said earlier,

the majority of the countries in the world recognizes Palestine.

Just a handful of states don't.

United States, Israel, and, some Pacific Island states don't recognize it yet,

Although the United Nations have the 1967 resolution where it declared a

Palestinian state, and that, Israel need to withdraw to those borders

Israel never recognized those borders,

What's, the double standard here,

And it was such a big deal back in September where these

countries were recognizing major European countries, France, and others were

recognizing the Palestinian state the point you're making is so, important.

how can you be a state but then be colonized?

By a security council resolution.

why are they letting this happen?

I think they just want it to be over with.

most of the leaders of these countries, have no affection or

kinship with, the Palestinians.

They don't believe in the principles of self sovereignty, of freedom

from occupation, et cetera.

for the most part, these leaders around the world are interested in themselves,

the best way to better themselves is to go along with the Americans

as much as the American Empire is in decline, and we are in a multipolar

world now, this isn't a hill to die on.

The Palestinians are not the cross to die on for these leaders.

it's much easier to go along with it.

you can explain in a way.

To your, your citizenry as you did everything you could.

But you know, as well as the cover that the security council

resolution gives nations around the world a reason to look away.

This gives nations around the world a reason to say, look, this is happening

under a security council resolution.

This is the way the international order is supposed to work.

This is exactly what they intended to have happen in 1945 when they created the

United Nations, for a process like this.

So we have to let the process work itself out.

this ceasefire, this Trump peace plan was, getting very testing Europe over,

the many Europeans, not wanting the Israelis to participate in soccer

matches there in football matches there.

this was the way to get that issue off the table was when the

ceasefire deal was announced the European football association

said it's not an issue anymore.

The war's over.

We don't have to worry about this anymore.

this gives relief to so many leaders and institutions around the world.

It's an excuse to get back to business as usual.

Let me ask you something.

what happened in Gaza was clearly a genocide, right?

according to international law, the convention, against genocide.

1948, which specifically detailed what constituted genocide.

Right.

You know, one of 'em is erasure.

One of them is, you know, cleansing of a population, destruction of

a culture, et cetera, this was a textbook example of what a genocide is.

Most of the west, and granted, it was written by the western countries, right.

Led by United States in 1948.

but.

They acted dumb and stupid and blind saying that, well,

this, I don't see a genocide.

Right.

You know,

right.

Inside happening.

They ignore international law, the Palestinians have a right to resist.

They have a right to liberate themselves Yet they're called

terrorists for doing so.

like you mentioned earlier, South Africa put a, to take Israel to

the ICJ and they were ignored.

some of the judges were sanctioned.

the UN repertoire, I forgot her name.

was bringing it up.

She was sanctioned.

So in your mind, does international law still relevant?

Does the UN still relevant?

You know, if you can just pick and choose what to follow, not to follow

it's unfortunately losing its relevancy.

this is what's really dangerous as we're in this multipolar world now,

because the precedents being set for nations to ignore the international

order to ignore the United Nations, to ignore international law.

United States does it?

The Europeans do it.

the Russians do it.

The Chinese will do it, none of it will matter.

and you know, the danger of that means that you're back to where we were prior

to World War ii, prior to World War I, essentially where we're gonna have

a multi power world and it is here already, where there are nations that.

Are effectively peers, I think you're gonna see more with, nations that

are aligned or blocks of nations or these organizations or agreements,

it'll be very flexible or fungible.

But essentially there will be no governing structure.

And I think Donald Trump understands that.

he is doing his very best to destroy the international order that exists.

Trump's thing as crazy as all his terrorist stuff is, there is some

method in that madness, right?

he wants bilateral relations with countries.

He does not want any mechanisms agreements or treaties to define what

he can do, I think that's the model for the United States going forward, to

have direct relationships with nations.

bilateral relations not under any agreement or treaties.

And I think you're gonna find many nations reacting to that.

the United Nations will be ineffective because of the American veto.

and the Americans, I think, are gonna pull a lot of money out

of the United Nations as well.

And, and so nations will be forced to find ways to work amongst themselves.

right.

And so I think Bricks and the, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, I think those

are the models of the future, Right.

And so I think that's where that's going.

But I do, think the United Nations order, the aspirations of it are,

it's going through our hands like, sand falling through our fingers

Keith Te is secretary of Department of War he said clearly,

that United States military would not be, constrained by any laws.

pretty much would not be, they will not recognize international

law when operations, that pretty much blanked what he just said.

It will not be constrained.

Right.

even with this Jovanni, right.

with the, security Council resolution with regards to Gaza.

it doesn't put the powers under the United Nations.

The international stabilization force, is not Blue helmets.

It's not U peacekeepers.

if it actually happens.

these countries are gonna build a proxy military for Donald Trump to

use to subjugate the Palestinians.

the United Security Council gave that authority directly to the Americans.

you see that the UN is just Deconstructing itself.

you mentioned multipolarity, a lot of small states, a lot of like,

you know, weaker poor states in the global South states are looking at,

Russia, China Iran and India, you know, in a certain extent as, as you know,

as people multi, countries leading this multi polarity world, right.

So they could have.

Options, other than just the west, so they can get away from being

under the thumb of the west, and, have more options, more diversity

and, you know, it's getting away.

So, you see a lot of these countries, joining the bricks

trying to, get away from, western domination through multi polarity.

And they're looking at these countries, China, Russia, Iran, et cetera as some

type of leadership or, moving them away.

But can these countries, can, they actually, and they're

risking the net by doing so,

right?

they're risking violence, by trying to get away from the dollar,

trying to get away from the Western orbit if these countries, with the

exception of Iran don't, stick out for them, when they're in trouble.

can this process actually work?

You know, and these countries will say, well, you know, I'm not gonna risk it.

They're not gonna stick up for me.

Somebody's gonna go back to what we had, you know, go back to IMF and,

and the, you know, and et cetera.

Yeah.

I mean, this is, what the United Nations was created to try and avoid,

a world where there is no order go back, 3000 years to Acidities, right?

And, the strong do as they want, and a weak suffer as they must.

and that's been the history of nations for thousands of years.

this attempt following the second World War, to create a structure or

a system that got away from that.

Was short-lived.

It was very short-lived.

what you're describing were these smaller weaker nations.

What are they gonna have to do to survive, what will they have to do to stay on

the good side of the powerful nations?

And, the idea of that they will have to fall into the spheres

of influence of these powerful nations or these groups or blocks.

independence as a truly independent state, becomes doubtful, it'd be very difficult

for a state to be truly independent, with the pressures from these dominant

powers to be aligned with them or to at least be, you know, have a good re

and maybe some will be able to do it.

But can you imagine a state that has, resources that's not going to

be forced to decide who it's with?

if you fall within someone's sphere of influence, which is how the Trump

administration and how, like if we get a Vance administration after that,

I think that's how they view things.

You'll have this type of action like we're seeing possibly

against Venezuela including the world's largest oil reserves.

But, you know, one of those reasons is the affront.

Is the temerity, is the insulate of Venezuela.

The fact that Chavez and Maduro have refused to bend the knee, and kiss

the ring of the emperor, for decades now, Cuba is the best example of that.

the idea that it just can't be allowed, such an offense or such arrogance

the empire cannot allow such a thing, particularly in their sphere of influence.

So I think that's one thing, especially for the Americas, for Central and

South America, is, under a Trump and then a successful administration,

this idea of clear dominance.

Of our sphere of influence, this idea that Venezuela would be the

only country affected by this policy, by this Trump policy is insane.

Venezuela's the first one, and they've said it themselves, the Machado, the

Nobel Peace Prize winner down there, who is, the era apparent to Maduro,

She said after they liberate us here in Venezuela, the Americans

are gonna liberate Nicaragua, and then they're gonna liberate Cuba.

And you could just, see this whole idea, become reality.

And anyone who's witnessed American warfare or understands American warfare in

the last decades, where have we invaded?

What have we occupied, right?

That hasn't spread.

look at Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Iraq and Syria and the greater Middle East region.

the idea that Venezuela would be confined to Venezuela.

that's not their plan.

And the reality of war tells us there's no way to confine it anyway.

Exactly.

another reason for the war for the example of Venezuela is, to push out China.

Absolutely.

out the other region, you know?

Right,

totally.

Yeah.

I think this is a good place to wrap up today.

Matt.

Thank you so much for coming to talk to me.

You know, I know you saw this, and thank you for coming in and talking to

me about this, you know, and breaking down these, different, although

they're in different regions, but all interconnected with each other and, you

know, it's part of an imperial system.

That is in his last tro, and he just trying to impose himself

violently to maintain his premises, you know, it's, primacy.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It was, you know.

Any, before we go,

I think there's, a method to the madness in what Trump's

doing and it wasn't articulated well in his first administration.

And I think you're seeing it being articulated well now.

This idea of we are in a multipolar world and no longer the sole superpower,

we are no longer the hegemon.

and you know, whereas, his predecessors would've kept the idea that the American

Empire is the only empire in the world.

Trump seems to understand that's not possible and that the

United States is overextended.

We are in a multipolar world where we'll be faced with, competitors,

adversaries that are our peers.

And so I think the Trump vision Is to consolidate the American

empire, to realign it, to do things like control what is ours, right?

So our sphere of influence, we have to control the Americas, right?

We can't have that Chinese presence you were just saying that we have to be able,

not just to compete in a multipolar world, but to dominate in a multipolar world.

And so, I think that is with all the other aspects of what makes

American foreign policy, including Trump's own ego and temper.

try and explain, other things with that vision of what an American

empire under Trump looks like compared to his predecessors.

I think that's what we're looking at here

Trumpian empire that is being shaped or attempted to be shaped to allow

for success in a changing world.

I know it sounds like I'm giving Trump credit and praising him for

having some kind of vision, but that's my estimation of what's occurring.

with all the craziness surrounding it, like Marco Rubio is still a

neoconservative and he has his reasons for wanting regime change in Venezuela.

That has nothing to do with that.

You know, all that said, right.

Hegseth is still, his belief is in having a white Christian

patriarchal crusader army.

You know?

'cause he has this crusader fetish.

You know what I mean?

All that stuff still exists, but I think there is this desire to

recreate or reshape the American empire for the 21st century.

And we're seeing it through things, such as disengaging with

Europe or focusing on central and southern America, things like that.

Yeah, man, this is, the saga, man.

So let's see what it all lead us, you know, different from the

first World War and Second War.

This time around, we have nukes.

Yeah, I know.

that's what get it back, this idea, the loss of the United Nations system.

What if we barely got through it with the United Nations, what

chance do we have without it?

Exactly.

Yeah,

Matt, what?

Can people find your word, man?

I'm on X or Twitter at Matthew.

POP as in Patrick, and then on Substack.

it's, Matthew Ho Substack or something like that.

And then with the Eisenhower Meeting Network.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Appreciate you coming on.

And alright everybody, thank you all for joining us and like us, subscribe

to our channel on YouTube Telegram.

Look for us anywhere when you listen to podcasts.

Please share with your friends, to help us grow.

stay tuned for our next episode.

Take care.

Money is tight these days for everyone, penny pinching to

make it through the month often doesn't give people the funds to

contribute to a creator they support.

So we consider it the highest honor that folks help us fund the podcast

in any dollar amount they're able.

Patreon is the main place to do that.

In addition, any support we receive makes sure we can continue to provide

our main episodes free for everyone.

And for supporters who can donate $10 a month or more, they will be listed

right here as an honorary producer.

Like these fine folks.

Fahim's Everyone Dream, Eric Phillips, Paul Appel, Julie Dupree, Thomas Benson,

Janet Hanson, Ren jacob, and Helge Berg.

However, if Patreon isn't your style, you can contribute directly through PayPal

at PayPal dot me forward slash Fortress on hill, or please check out our store on

Spreadshirt for some great Fortress merch.

We're on Twitter and @facebook.com at Fortress On A Hill.

You can find our full collection of episodes at www dot

Fortress On A Hill dot com.

Skepticism is one's best armor.

Never forget it.

We'll see you next time.