Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn interviews Ted Nugent

January 30, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Conservative activist and musician Ted Nugent called into the radio program this morning, where he and Glenn discussed the ongoing gun control debate, the bias in the media, and leftist hypocrisy. Read a transcript of the interview below.

GLENN: Ted Nugent's on the line. Hey, Ted, how are you, man?

NUGENT: Hey, greetings. A peaceful revolution morning to you, Glenn.

GLENN: It's it's insane what's going on. It's insane.

NUGENT: It really is, yeah. And thank you for exposing that. I love when you spotlight cockroaches so we can stomp on them. I appreciate it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. No, why are you getting violent with cockroaches now? What is that with all the violence, Ted? Cockroaches, you're stomping on them now.

NUGENT: That makes the environment cleaner when I do.

GLENN: You were you were on CNN and they were trying to bait you into violent revolution.

NUGENT: Well, you know, there's a great gal at CNN, Deb Feyerick who did a wonderful, positive, honest piece about guns and I stood there stunned watching it last month. So when they offered to come to my ranch to do an extensive interview, I spent seven hours with them yesterday

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait.

NUGENT: And I

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. With her?

NUGENT: Yes.

GLENN: All right.

NUGENT: With Deb Feyerick and her crew. And you know how they are. They are very gushy and positive throughout the day.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

NUGENT: But they also tried to weave in questions about an armed revolution building steam across the interland and I squinted and said, I don't know what you're talking about. I know there might be someone talking about that, but I hang out with some pretty wild eyed guys and I've never heard a hint of any reference to an armed revolution. We're going to have a revolution at the voting booth.

GLENN: So where did they get that? Did you ask her? Because you should report anybody that's having an armed that's reporting to you about an armed revolution? Jeez, CNN, you should report those people.

NUGENT: Yeah. Well, you know, up there in New York what Cuomo and Bloomberg are doing are so extraordinary, so anti Constitution, so anti common sense that there are probably some people very frustrated and angry that may have expressed something that hinted at that. And I said I've never heard it and I'm engaged with working hard, playing hard America in every state in this country and no one has ever mentioned anything like that. We're getting more involved and more engaged and we're going to vote the bad guys out of office as soon as possible.

GLENN: So what did they react how did they react to that?

NUGENT: Well, they kept bringing it back up, but I I kept straight and narrow and I denied any such reference or any such indicators. And they were you know, 99% of the interview, Glenn, I think is going to be very positive. I nailed it was about hunting and gun rights and the role of Second Amendment with certain semiautomatic firearms technology. And you know me. I mean, I slammed the door shut on it. But she had to play devil's advocate, and I made sure I mentioned that if you argue with me, you would be taking the side of the devil. So go for I.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: So it's only by the way, it's only the 1% that anybody cares. I mean, 99% of it was good. The 1% will be the one that they focus on.

NUGENT: And I believe, Glenn, that they will edit it with honesty. That's what they did with the gun issue in New York.

GLENN: (Laughing.)

NUGENT: I really do. That's why I allowed Deb Feyerick. She seemed to be honest and genuine in her pursuit and

GLENN: Hang on.

NUGENT: I know I'm terminally hopeful.

GLENN: I almost believe you. I mean, come on, man. You're not that dumb. Really? You really believe they will edit it honestly?

NUGENT: I really do. I saw the piece they did on guns previously.

GLENN: Uh huh.

NUGENT: And it was 180 degrees, 180 degrees opposite of these, the basic CNN stance. So I knew that they were countering the CNN mantra, and I believe this will this piece will do the same thing.

GLENN: Well, that's great. I mean, at least it wasn't NBC because they edit everything.

NUGENT: Oh, boy, do they ever. I really

GLENN: They edit everything.

NUGENT: By the way, I filmed the whole thing as it's taking place. And it's just like the CBS interview a few months back where I did snap because I was passing a kidney stone live on the air.

GLENN: They make CBS makes me do that too.

NUGENT: Yeah. And it was a 2 1/2 hour interview. And I've got to tell you I would be 100% proud for you and my children and my friends and honest Americans to witness the 2 1/2 hour interview I did with CBS, but they took out the one minute where I snapped. And that's typical of those networks. But I really believe that what Deborah did on the gun piece recently on CNN that she will approach it the same way with my interview. And I gave them seven hours. So they're planning on multiple series.

GLENN: Hey, let me ask you something, Ted. I have officially given up on the Republican Party. I don't I don't care for them at all anymore. I they won't get a dime. I will campaign against people giving them any money.

NUGENT: Isn't that a shame, Glenn? I agree but it's a shame. We have to work to fix that, yeah.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't think it's fixable. I think that everybody needs to start walking for the exits and if they decide they are going to change, great. You know, I don't know if I'll even trust them if they come running after and saying, okay, okay, okay, we get it. But these guys in Washington, they don't get it, they don't care to get it. I mean, I don't even know who these guys I don't know who these guys are anymore and I'm just done with it. I think it's time that we, you know, we flush everybody in the media says, you know, the Republicans are dead and it's because they won't compromise. No, the Republicans are dead because they don't have any values. They don't have any principles. They don't even though who they are. All they are is about winning and that's why they're losing every time.

NUGENT: I think they

GLENN: So why don't we form a party that has actual principles that I'll bet you 80% of this country could actually because the problems are so big, the solutions are basic. Basic principles that all thinking people can get around.

NUGENT: I concur.

GLENN: Why wouldn't we do that.

NUGENT: Well, I concur the time has never been more obvious than right now and I think the glowing violations of the GOP is that they are not holding Eric Holder accountable for Fast and Furious, they are not holding Hillary Clinton accountable for the deaths of four Americans that were totally unnecessary.

GLENN: Crazy.

NUGENT: And there's so many examples but those are the two most heartbreaking examples.

GLENN: Let me give you hang on. Let me give you another one. How about, we have John Kerry now, a guy who trashed our troops, lied about our troops in Vietnam, he's now our Secretary of State.

NUGENT: Agreed.

GLENN: How about this one, how about this one: Let me give you this story. I don't even know if you even know this. An 11 year old boy is recovering from surgery following a vicious incident last Sunday in which he was mauled by three unleashed pit bulls. This is in the District of Columbia. Suffering wounds to his legs, arms and stomach and chest before the dogs were shot and kill. Now this is right in the heart of the District of Columbia and here's what happened. Kid got a new bike for Christmas, he's riding it down the street. Three unleashed pit bulls attack this kid on the bike, throw him off the bike. They're biting him, chewing apart. This kid is screaming. A guy in his house grabs his gun, shoots the pit bulls, saves the kid. You ready? D.C., the shots alerted a D.C. police officer around the corner. They've now arrested the guy who shot and killed the kids and they are looking into it. The rescue may have been illegal.

STU: Shot and killed the dogs?

GLENN: Shot and killed the dogs.

NUGENT: A perfect example of doing the universally known right thing and being punished. Remember the Navy hero in New York City who shot with his Navy M 9 a multiple paroled felon he caught at 4:00 a.m. in his young son's bedroom. Instead of arresting the paroled felon, they arrested the Navy hero for saving his son's life, Glenn. And I could go on and on for are 100 hours with examples of this government and this system doing the absolute wrong thing against people who do the absolute right thing. It is absolutely insane.

GLENN: Ted Nugent, you know what I think the best thing that you can help me with and help America with is gathering together a bunch of attorneys that will help defend people on their right to bear arms.

NUGENT: You're absolutely right.

GLENN: And know who these guys are. The biggest names in attorneys that will help people because this government is going to do basically what they did in Ruby Ridge where they get you basically on a technicality and there's going to be a standoff. And people have to know don't stand off. Do not do that. You call this number and somebody in an attorney firm will come and represent you because you want your day in court. You want your day in court.

NUGENT: I think you're absolutely correct. And that positive sense, that common sense is alive and well in hundreds of sheriffs and sheriff departments in this country that are standing up to this government and the federal government with their constitutional violating Second Amendment infringement. So I think there is a growing pulse. But you're right about that. If you attempt to stand up to what's right, you will be shot and killed.

GLENN: I will tell you this. You know, I've said make friends with your deputy. I would like to go out on parole with the deputies. I'd like to be deputized. I'd like to go out with the sheriffs and help in any way I possibly can. Whatever you need, sheriffs, whatever you need. Sheriffs are your best friends.

You know Waco, the sheriff at Waco actually liked the Branch Davidians. Said, "I didn't agree with them, I thought they were nuts, but they were really nice guys." If the federal government would have gone to the sheriff, the sheriff probably could have gotten that all done without killing all of the families.

NUGENT: I believe that.

GLENN: Ted, thanks so much, man.

NUGENT: God speed, Glenn.

GLENN: Hey, when's that story going to be on CNN?

NUGENT: They say the first segment will air tomorrow night, Thursday night. I don't know exactly what time but as soon as I find out, I'll

PAT: We'll call you back and find out how pissed off you are when you find out that they betrayed you.

NUGENT: No, I'm eternally hopeful.

GLENN: All right.

NUGENT: I think the I think I'm pretty good at this. And like I did on Piers Morgan, I handed him his guts on his own show. So they did

GLENN: You know the only problem with that is, is that was just such a silent death, nobody watched it. Nobody saw it. Nobody's watching Piers.

NUGENT: Did you notice that?

GLENN: Nobody's watching it. Thanks a lot, man. I appreciate it.

NUGENT: All right. Live it up, man.

GLENN: By the way, an extended interview in the March issue of TheBlaze magazine, extended interview with Ted Nugent. He's the cover story, TheBlaze magazine. You can find out all about it at TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.