This is CBSI on the world.

I'm with my good colleague Gregory Hopley of Defense and Foreign Affairs.

New York Times reporting these last hours.

President Trump's harsh words in recent days about President Putin marked a sharp break from the strikingly positive posture President Trump

has taken for years toward the Russian leader.

In addition to this summary, we have remarks in these last hours about the President

inquiring of Mr. Zelensky of Putin, of Ukraine, if he's capable of striking Moscow, if he's given the

tools to do it, which would be an attack him with an extended range and or other weapon systems.

And in addition to that, there was something that the newspapers called an ultimatum settled this in 50 days or else. Gregory, Mr. Trump is

skillful at negotiating tactics where you ask for too much, you stick to it and see what you get

out of it. However, asking about, asking Mrs. Zelensky, is he capable of attacking Moscow?

It seems dangerous ground. How do you hear that language?

Well, certainly dangerous ground, and it's not to be taken at face value.

Let's face it, if Ukraine had the capability to use U.S. missiles to attack Moscow, and it's certainly, this is all

certainly feasible. So what? Does that win you the war? Quite the contrary. We saw Bonaparte

occupy Moscow, destroy it. Well, the fleeing Muscovites destroyed it in the face of the French advance.

But the reality was that that just drives the Russians to a much stronger detentive position.

And they have the strategic depth to withstand something like that. So all of that is just getting

very annoying to the Russians. But it was largely

designed to show the Europeans, particularly before the NATO summit, and Zelensky himself,

that yes, the US is prepared to, quote, get tough on Moscow, but essentially, it wasn't really a unilateral threat on Moscow

other than the promise to add more sanctions to Russia, US sanctions.

...