 As we record this, Russia has invaded Ukraine and everyone's asking us, what are we seeing in the body language of Putin during his speech? So, Greg's found some great video for us to analyze. Why don't you tell us about that video, Greg? Yeah, so these videos come from two separate occasions. There were two separate videos that we took the clips from. One was in June or July of 2021, an NBC interview with Putin and it's really good face-to-face. And then the other is his last speech before the invasion began and we'll get to see some very different Putin. But this is a great spotlight on what his body language is. This is a response to two things. We constantly are asked for a foreign language video where we can't understand the language. So we'll have one that has text and one that has an actual interpreter and you'll see the difference and we've been asked a lot for Putin. What should Americans worry? What might happen next if there's no agreement on cyber? You know, this is the same as space militarization. This is a very dangerous area. At some point in the past, in order to achieve something in the nuclear area, in terms of confrontation in the area of nuclear weapons, the USSR and the United States did agree to contain this particular arms race. Cyberspace is a very sensitive area. As of today, a great deal of human endeavors rely upon digital technologies, including the functioning of government. And of course interference in these processes can cause a lot of damage and a lot of losses and everybody understands that. And I'm repeating for the third time, let's sit down together and agree on joint work and how to achieve security in this area, that is all. What is bad about it? I don't even understand. I'm not asking you, I'm not trying to put you on the spot but for me as an ordinary citizen it would not be clear and understandable. Why is it that your government refuses to do it? All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, let's start off by talking about the intelligence part of this. This guy is a, he was a case officer. He's been in the business forever. I think he was a colonel. Notice his lack of a pause as he responds through the interpreter. That probably indicates he has pretty good passive English but there are lots of reasons and Mark can talk to those why you would use an interpreter. Number one, it gives you time to think. As an interrogator who speaks Arabic, I've actually had many times I used an interpreter so I'd get time to think of my next question. So there's number one. Number two, he does this eye block and then he does a mini explosive breath and catches it with a stop. That indicates frustration with a question. He does a wrinkle brow and he emphasizes frustration and irritation intentionally probably as he drives home his point. As he emphasizes most things that he's positive about or that fulfill what his needs, he uses his left hand. You'll watch when he raises his right hand, it's usually a negative thing or some other reason. He'll drive his brow down to make his point and then he is, he does the concern piece and my favorite is the one shoulder. When he says everybody knows, I'm not trying to beat you up. I love both of those. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so he actually was an Eastern Germany as an interpreter. I mean, obviously he wasn't actually interpreting. He was an asset there for the KGB. So my guess is he has actually some good language skills across a bunch of different languages. He is buying time with having this interpretation going on here. Where else has he trained? Well, we know as well who he trained in body language with. Alan P's in 1991 when he was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. Alan went over there to get him and others in the Kremlin to be a little kind of lighter, a little less aggressive, a little less like the kind of the shoe hammering Russian autocrat. So Alan helped Putin be more likable. And so I think we're getting some of that work coming across as well. What do we see here? So he leans to one side. It's pretty casual, isn't it? Or the idea of him being casual. He shifts positions to where he's talking about dangerous area and this idea of militarization. We have some looks for approval on let's sit down together. Those looks of approval are totally out of character for somebody who has been KBG trained. You imagine you're walking through Eastern Europe. You don't want to be raising your eyebrows, people you know. You want to suppress all of that because you don't want to give away who you're getting approval from, who you know, who you don't know. So I would say that look of approval is put on at that point. What else is put on? I think his look up as well. Around I don't understand. I don't really understand this. And this is a faint. He's trying to pretend he doesn't understand. There's not a lot here that is really honest that's going on. Lots of playing for pauses. Lots of playing for time. There, I'll leave it at that. Scott, what do you got on this one? All right. We blows that little puff at the beginning. That's almost a dismissal when he goes like that. So he's showing this is not a big deal to him. However, when he closes his eyes, this lets us know this is rehearsed and he's lining up. He's getting ready to go and talk about what he's rehearsed so far for that situation. When he leans on his left, that's sort of his baseline for letting go of the stuff that's really important. The things that he's made up his mind about and that he's serious about. The things on his right hand, like Greg was saying, those are the more not negative in this case as negative as, because I'm saying from his point of view, to us, things are negative. But for him, it's negative on that side, but the other ones are positive for him on his left side lane. In other words, we see that posture shift and he's getting ready to get into the deeper details at that point. Usually when you see that somebody, they're taking a little bit of time to think and they're getting ready to give you that new information or get into the details of something. We see that foot raise going up and down in his chairs. He goes back and forth. That's part of his baseline. He's done that for years. We've seen that forever. He's got those legs spread out in his hands like this and those feet are going back and forth. I believe we talked about him once before and the same thing came up there. I talked about his right hand illustrating for it really open when he's talking about those things. Then we see the shoulder shrug and a smile. I think he's a little bit stressed there at that point. I think we're seeing some stress come on because I think he's talking a little bit too long for this. Then the hand swap, that's more of a dismissive thing for that subject as he's dismissing the dismissal of that part of the subject there. Then if you look really closely, you see that quick right eyebrow keeps going down. There's a lot of stuff. I think he's got a lot of Botox going on. That's why it looks so glassy and glossy in there. I think there'd be a lot more going on in the glabella and the forehead and the eyebrows if he wasn't so Botoxed. I'm not sure how much emotion's coming through there, but we see that right eyebrow just popping a lot. Be sure to watch that on the next time we're out. Chase, what do you got? I agree with you guys. That was wonderful to see that there's a positive and negative. That helps us to see how he might view something in a future video. We see an incredible rise in blink rate here. Blink rate means how often we're blinking and high blink rate means stress, low blink rate is usually focus. A person gets either focused on something good or bad like a target. It's the same thing. We typically see blink rate go up when someone's being deceptive or when someone's stressed out. The average is around 15 per minute, and his shoots up to around 70 per minute during his mention about cyber being a dangerous area. We also see some digital flexion. His fingers are curling in towards the chair right when he's talking about cybersecurity being a sensitive area. His foot here, this movement is a baseline, but it doesn't occur all the time. It's not constant throughout the whole interview. I think it's a valid just to look at when it starts and when it stops. I think it's just a valid data point, but I think what we're seeing here is his foot's moving for a few different ways. I think he's defaulted to this swivel movement that you're going to see first because the soles of his shoes are brand new. He's wearing brand new shoes. They're probably smooth. He's probably been doing that before the interview, but this anti-gravity upward movement of the shoe is a technique taught in many spy schools from CIA to MI6. One of the reasons is the further a body part is from the head, the harder it is to control during anxiety or excitement. That's my rule of thumb. They teach spies and stuff to burn off excess energy or excess adrenaline by wiggling the feet, curling up the toes, all that kind of stuff. It's also what you learn in how to beat a polygraph. He's got a pretty good strategy. I'm going to illustrate a strategy that's going to apply to almost just about every video that you're going to see here and anywhere else. Here's the exact Putin strategy that make a statement that nobody can disagree with that's generalized and high altitude, kind of looking over a big, general vast thing, then make two more statements that are equally known to everybody, but gradually focusing more on the topic at hand. Then socialize the consequences or the issue, let everybody understands that or everyone will understand during this little shrug that he has here, and Putin's more likely to do these little shrugs for agreement to show that people agree with this. So Putin's next step is discussing simple actions and make the criticism of those simple actions laughable. And finally, he wants to show how he's been victimized or Russia has been victimized. And then question, he always uses questions and he doesn't use questions to make you answer them. He uses questions to drive your focus. Asking any human being questions will drive focus. Questions always drive focus. So he gets you agreeing with him in the beginning, then starting to narrow down, then making the opponents laughable and then drives where you focus on after that by using very targeted questions. And you're gonna see that a whole lot here coming up. So there's some other stuff with psychology that we're gonna be talking about in just a few minutes that I think is fascinating, but that's all I got on this one. Hey, a couple of points to make guys, culture matters. So in some cases, we're gonna see some things that are cultural, but he's keenly aware of the Western culture and knows what he's doing. Choice of words matter and we can't tell his choice of words. So we're working off of what we can see. We're working off of body language and we may miss something cultural. For example, when you pronounce a certain word, your mouth may move a certain way. But what we do know is the mechanics of the trade he came from. So we can see a lot of that in here as well. What should Americans worry? What might happen next if there's no agreement on cyber? You know, this is the same as space militarization. This is a very dangerous area. At some point in the past, in order to achieve something in the nuclear area, in terms of confrontation in the area of nuclear weapons, the USSR and the United States did agree to contain this particular arms race. Cyber space is a very sensitive area. As of today, a great deal of human endeavors rely upon digital technologies, including the functioning of government. And of course, interference in these processes can cause a lot of damage and a lot of losses. And everybody understands that. And I'm repeating for the third time, let's sit down together and agree on joint work on how to achieve security in this area. That is all. What is bad about it? I don't even understand. I'm not asking you. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. But for me, as an ordinary citizen, it would not be clear and understandable. Why is it that your government refuses to do it? Cool. Let me ask you another direct question that you can answer. And it's an allegation that has been made, an accusation that has been made again and again now in the United States. The late John McCain in Congress called you a killer. When President Trump was asked, was told that you are a killer, he didn't deny it. When President Biden was asked whether he believes you are a killer, he said, I do. Mr. President, are you a killer? Look, over my tenure, I've gotten used to attacks from all kinds of angles and from all kinds of directions under all kinds of pretexts and reasons and of different caliber and fierceness. And none of it surprises me. People with whom I work and with whom I argue on the international arena, we're not bride and groom. We don't swear everlasting love and friendship. We are partners. And in some areas, we are rivals. As far as harsh rhetoric, I think that this is an expression of overall US culture. Of course, in Hollywood, because we did mention Hollywood at the beginning of our conversation, there are some deep things that undoubtedly can be referred to as works of cinematic art. But more often than not, it's macho behavior and that is also part of US culture, including political culture, and it is considered normal. By the way, not here. It is not considered normal here. If this rhetoric is followed by a suggestion to meet and discuss bilateral issues and matters of international policies, I see it as desire to engage in joint work. If this desire is serious, we are prepared to support it. I don't think I heard you answer the question, the direct question, Mr. President. I did answer. I did. I will add, if you let me, I have heard dozens of such accusations, especially during the period of some grave events during our counter-terrorism efforts in North Caucasus. And when it happens, I'm always guided by the interests of the Russian people and the Russian state. And sentiments in terms of who calls somebody what, what kind of labels, this is not something I worry about in the least. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so it is a direct question, potentially not as direct as it could be, because really, I think the question is about war crimes, I think. I think the real question is not here, you know, have you knocked off the odd person? It's really, have you indulged in war crime? And so the question, to an extent, is actually not that direct. It's a little bit soft. And so he manages to steer past it in all kinds of ways, into Hollywood, into the ideas of being macho. But look, he does open up, but then you see him shift. He laughs and then breaks away with his eyes. I think there's something quite aggressive about that laugh. It is a demeaning laugh in many, many ways, but I think it might have another purpose, which is to brush aside as well, give the body and mind something else to do at the same time. The big indicator for me, around some veracity to this idea of him being a killer, is he's hanging onto that chair and he's just got a little bit of self soothing going on on the edge of the chair there. That, you know, given his baseline, I think when he is supremely confident about an answer, it's outside of that. Greg, what have you got on this one? Yeah, this is one of those I'm always talking about, a person looking like a swan, fluidly moving over the water and you look under the water and their feet are paddling like hell. This is him right now. And he is an, my note says, Intel Pro vs. Reporter. Big difference in the two. One of them asks questions, the other drives behaviors. And if you watch him, he starts to nod before the guy's question is even out of his mouth. He understands what he's saying. Pretty simple to get there. That laugh mark is the equivalent of when people today say something like, yeah, think, trying to be sarcastic. That laugh is, he's just excusing you as an idiot is what he's doing. And then he doesn't answer. His hands are moving illustrators. He understands exactly what's going. His face shows amusement. His face lightens up. You can see all through here, he's amused. And then he drops his chin and pulls taffy with his eyes. He's playing coy. That, a little kid doing that, you know they're playing coy from a distance. He's doing that. And he touches his chin at rhetoric. Just as he's thinking about which word maybe to use. I don't know exactly. This is not just chaff and redirect. This is masterful chaff and redirect. He's redirecting and taking an accusation, a criticism. Anything you want to call it back toward the U.S. when he does a provocative statement to say is just not in our culture. He's wanting the guy to defend. And when the guy defends, he'll go in a different direction. So the guy says then, well, I don't think you answered. And then my note says, I did answer and I'll do it again. Just give me the floor. He just is masterful in controlling conversation. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, you hit it right on the head. He is a master at controlling human behavior and driving focus and what people are actually focusing on. His usual eye accessing. And when we say what I accessing, when we use these terms, this is where a person, you know, we look around to access some of our memories. His usual place that he goes is around our nine o'clock. As you're looking at this video when it comes back on, that's his typical place. But he immediately begins with calling attention to his own victim hood over the Russian people instead of the Russian people. And I think it's very telling that he was reluctant to mention Hollywood without mentioning that someone else brought it up, that it was already in the conversation. He wanted that to be known. And he, the translator says, look at the beginning of the video. That is not what he says. He says, listen to me. Those are his exact words. So there's a very different sensory organ that if a person is talking about listening versus looking, and he's not a very visual person. He speaks in auditory words most of the time. And there's some, there's a contempt micro expression that right towards the end when he said the words, who called someone what? And I think that's pretty telling about how he sees the West and how he sees leaders in the West. And you can go look up how he speaks about those people. But what we're really doing here is form, trying to form a psychological profile, not just a reaction to one little clip. We're trying to give you an insight into the person. And one of the first things that I do as a profiler is ask a question like what behavior do they repeat that they ensure is seen by other people? What is a repeated behavior that they want other people to see? And he launched a campaign of photo shoots like a teenager with a brand new Instagram account when he started down this, down this road, but they were all extreme projections of masculinity and virility and strength and power. And then so step two of this profile is to understand that this is likely a source of deep seated insecurities and fears. So the next, there's two more steps. Next is this behavior is likely a way to conceal what is usually the opposite of that behavior. So if it's extreme on one end, it's probably concealing something that it's the opposite of. And I think this alone is a really powerful profile by itself, just understanding this about anyone you work with, anyone you're talking to. And we're going to dig into this as we move forward, but it's especially true when it comes to public figures. Scott, what do you got? All right. Well, when he opens up with these, he's got his eyes closed that head down. And when he does his head forward, that's an affirmation of okay, let's get started. And he understands what's coming. So he knows what's happening. See the arms open and his open smile. That happens pretty quick. And that's, and when he does that, it's almost like, I don't know. I don't know, man, because he's asking me if he's a killer or not. So he's like, I don't know. I'm not aware of that. Or I don't know. So like it's almost like a little badge. He's giving him there. He's approaching it that way. And he says, after you are a killer, or after he says, are you a killer? See lots of brow movement in there, even surprise going up. I think that's all fake. See a lot of faking here, like Mark was talking about earlier. And see that, that little wave and then his thumb comes up and touches his mouth at that point. That's another fake thing, showing he's trying to go into this depth of thought that he's getting ready to start talking about something he's really thought a lot about and it has a lot of meaning for him. I think that's fake as well. Then his gaze goes away from the interviewer. He's looking over here talking a lot because he doesn't want to be interrupted. He's letting this thing go. So he doesn't have that connection where the guy can go like this to stop him. That's what it looks like to me anyway. See that the large hand illustrator was talking about the differences in the culture there. He talks about culture. This whole thing is everything he talks about in all these videos, just about everyone, he's posing the US against Russia every time. Everything is just bad, how the US is doing this, but they're just trying to do this and the US is being aggressive, but they're just trying to do that. So it's really something to pay attention to here because it's really setting up what we're going to see in the second group of videos. Again, the foot tapping, that's another part of his baseline. He does that all the time. He's just helping him keep, like Jason was saying earlier, I'm sure it's helping him stay relaxed and he just does that quite often. When he says you didn't answer the question, his cadence speeds up. It's a lot quicker, but he gets a lot quieter. Now when he's doing that, that's when he backs up just a little bit. He's trying to escape from this, but there's no way out because he's trying to think of what the answer he needs to give so it sounds like an answer, a correct answer to his question, which he really doesn't give. We see a lot of movement in that left eyebrow. With his head tucked like Greg was talking about and these are, in this case, those are sort of defensive cues because at that point, he's sort of in the corner and he has to come out swinging with this supposedly correct answer to the question that he was given. Let me ask you another direct question that you can answer and it's an allegation that has been made, an accusation that has been made again and again now in the United States. The late John McCain in Congress called you a killer. When President Trump was asked, was told that you are a killer, he didn't deny it. When President Biden was asked whether he believes you are a killer, he said, I do. Mr. President, are you a killer? Look, over my tenure, I've gotten used to texts from all kinds of angles and from all kinds of directions under all kinds of pretexts and reasons and of different calibre and fierceness and none of it surprises me. People with whom I work and with whom I argue on the international arena, we're not bride and groom. We don't swear everlasting love and friendship. And in some areas, we are rivals. As far as harsh rhetoric, I think that this is an expression of overall U.S. culture. Of course, in Hollywood, because we did mention Hollywood at the beginning of our conversation, there are some deep things that undoubtedly can be referred to as works of cinematic art, but more often than not, it's macho behavior and that is also part of U.S. culture, including political culture, and it is considered normal. By the way, not here. It is not considered normal here. If this rhetoric is followed by a suggestion to meet and discuss bilateral issues and matters of international policies, I see it as desire to engage in joint work. If this desire is serious, we are prepared to support it. I don't think I heard you answer the question, the direct question, Mr. President. I did answer, I did. I will add, if you let me, I have heard dozens of such accusations, especially during the period of some grave events during our counter-terrorism efforts in North Caucasus. And when it happens, I'm always guided by the interests of the Russian people and the Russian state and sentiments in terms of who calls somebody what, what kind of labels. This is not something I worry about in the least. Ha, we good? All right. In the case of neighboring Ukraine, earlier this year the European Union said you had more than 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border. Was that an attempt to get Washington's attention? Listen. Look, first, Ukraine itself constantly, and I think is still doing that, it kept bringing personnel and military equipment to the conflict area in the southeast of Ukraine, Donbas. That's one. Two is that we conducted exercises in our territory, and not just in the south of the Russian Federation, but also in the far east and in the north and in the Arctic. Simultaneously military exercises were being held in parts of the Russian Federation. At the very same time, the U.S. was conducting military exercises in Alaska. Do you know anything about it? Probably not, but I'll tell you that I do know, and that is indirect proximity to our borders. But that's in your territory, on your land. We didn't even pay attention to it. What is happening now? Now, at our southern borders, there is a war game Defender Europe. 40,000 personnel, 15,000 units of military equipment. Part of them have been airlifted from the U.S. continent directly to our borders. Did we airlift any of our military technology to the U.S. borders? No. All right, Chase, what do you got? So, again, in this video, we're not hearing him actually say, look, he says, listen, right at the beginning, my Russian is decent enough to pick that up. And he also starts saying, we have conducted training operations. He starts talking about themselves first, but that is against his narrative. So he switches back to talking about Ukraine first, then makes Russia number two. He wants to say someone else did it. Why can't I do it? Jimmy got the toy. I need to get a toy. And that's the way he typically does this, but he accidentally started talking about Russia first. There's more three o'clock eye-accessing for his three o'clock. For his eye-home, right at the start, there's hand slapping down. Right when he's mentioning Ukraine, he does it twice, this hand coming down. I think that is really interesting because I've never seen him. I've analyzed a lot of his speeches. I've never seen him do that when talking about the Ukraine, or I think anything. But as he describes the exercises, Ukraine is doing in Donbas, his blink rate triples. And this is a really powerful indication of stress from, I think, the issue. I don't think it's stress about Ukraine, but stress about the fact that another country can encroach on his territory, and he gets to feel slighted. And even more than that, he gets to feel slighted in public. When he was a kid, this is on record. Even a teacher reprimanding him in front of his friends, he would go into this wild outrage and outbursts of anger and almost vengeance. So he's known for this. But everything that we're hearing here is fact, fact, fact, and fact. What he's saying is a collection of facts, but that doesn't make this 100% truthful. He's still framing how those facts are shown to you in order to paint Russia and himself as a victim. And he's earned the title in some intelligence circles as the Wound Collector. And we'll expose a little more about that here in the future. Greg, what do you think? Let's first start by talking about propaganda. All propaganda is holding up a mirror that you can see what you want to see, not what the truth is. And half truths are masterfully used in propaganda. It's been a lot of my life tied up in Cold War era, so I know that masterful kind of propaganda that the Soviet Union used and he grew up in that world. Very different from today. All you have to do is stop short of facts. And when people are amused with themselves that they are getting you and they have you on the ropes, it shows in their face, look in his face. So he starts off by either this language was more complex than he expected, or he's delaying, because we know he picks up on passive English pretty well. Here he delays and he does a little facial expression and then he answers. To your point, Chase, regardless of whether the interpreter, if the interpreter always says look instead of listen, it could be agreed upon with Putin to say, hey, here's the message I want you to say is look, or it could be that that guy's very visual and he's just saying I'm putting him on notice. Same thing. It's why, Scott, you talked about when you interrogated through an interpreter, I always say exactly what that guy says. I want to hear exactly what he says, because you lose something otherwise. So he comes out of there with that amused smile, but it's not genuine. There's no eye engagement. So this is kind of the prey smile. I got you now. He telegraphs in patience. He's got a sarcastic smile where part of his face rises and the other part doesn't. And then he puts them on notice. Watch him fold his hands slowly into this. That isn't steepling. That's a power move. And we call that steepling a power move, but this is a power move. When you're doing that, I'm holding back is what that's signaling to the guy. And he's keenly aware he's signaling that. And then anytime again, he's doing that strong messaging. His left hand is doing, especially when it's positive, and his weak right hand does the other. He goes straight into a lecture and he starts delivering those facts. And guys, I'm going to also tell you, I've pissed off many collection guys by saying, you have to be able to think like the guy to be able to get the information. If you start now to pay attention to what we're seeing, we're starting to see a guy who has this vision of being crushed in by NATO to where NATO is, should be called the Anti-Russia Association. That's what he's drawing the picture here. Now, if he perceives that, then it becomes reality. And Chase, I'll leave with this. I'll take the category world leaders who are also narcissists for $10,000, because there are plenty of them. Scott, what do you got? All right. Yeah, at the top there, that laughing part is totally to make it look like it's just dismissive and it's amusing him. And then his eyebrows up and his forehead, and his head forward like that. One time I'd been talking to, or I'd sent Greg a video of a fella who was being interviewed for a financial situation. And he had this really odd look on his face. The same one Putin had right there. I said, what are you seeing here? What is this? What am I missing? And Greg said, that's his teaching face. He's teaching these guys something. He's telling them, this is the way that's done and this is how you do that. I've seen it a thousand times, but I wasn't able to put words to what I was seeing at that point. So Greg nailed that and that's what Putin's teaching face looks like. Now the fist to the side of his face, that's when he's claiming that. He's claiming the ownership of what he's talking about there. And then that hand up and push away, that's illustrating that this is big and that the U.S. is far away and these places are far away. They're not there. They're at a distance during all this. And then he throws his hands out but to show he sees the interviewer as the same as the U.S. On the same side as the U.S. you're against me. Everybody's against us. Everybody's against what we're doing. So he puts him in the same picture in other words as they do things like that as the U.S. Showing that he's on the U.S.'s side as well and then everybody's against him. All right, Mark what do you got? Yeah, so Chase, to your point of the hand slap that is Khrushchev, that is old Russian autocratic. It's the tradition of Russian leadership that he's going back to. And that suggests to me at this point he's starting to lose some elements of his training because I know Alan Pease was born in to soften those elements. So for example, more open hand gestures, more steepling rather than these crushing gestures. That we start to get. We start to get this crushing gesture around holding on to your borders, holding on to the things that are yours and in what we'd expect to be the not so dominant hand. So it's interesting that his left hand seems to be the dominant one. He is right-handed yet he does wear his watch on the right hand. There's all kinds of reasons he gives for that but if you see him walk you'll see his left hand swinging and you'll see his right hand very, very still. There's theories around weapons training around that that he's going to keep the hand near his weapon ready for that and the other hand will become dominant. I don't know whether that's accurate or not but certainly it is quite interesting how we don't see him as a predominantly dominant hand gesture. It's his subdominant hand that seems to gesture more. Point of interest there. I like the bat-off gestures that he's given there. Like you're saying there's got the distance but also it allows him to shove this question off and on to somewhere else and just kind of bat it away somewhere else a bit like he uses again that laugh that we saw before and the breaking of eye contact to just bat things away. Very diminishing of everything that's going on here. There, that's all I got on that one. All right, one thing let me add some to that arm swing and stuff Mark. The studies now show that if you don't have the even arm swing back and forth that's a key to a lot of those people end up getting into dementia later on in life. So he's older now and that maybe I'm not saying he has dementia at all I'm just pointing out that's one study that we know about that whether it has anything to do with what you're talking about or not, I don't know, I'm not going to lean into it pretend it does when it doesn't. What do you say Greg? Usually military guys always move their arms the same because we hold our hands a certain way all that stuff is so wired in our brains nine to front six to the rear we all know how that works, right? And that's how you can spot those guys you all Greg at a distance at the airport, at the mall walking around downtown when you see that that gate like that. So anyway just throwing that in. In the case of neighboring Ukraine earlier this year the European Union said you had more than a hundred thousand troops on the Ukrainian border was that an attempt to get Washington's attention? Look, first Ukraine itself constantly and I think is still doing that it kept bringing personnel and military equipment to the conflict area in the southeast of Ukraine Donbas, that's one two is that we conducted exercises in our territory and not just in the south of the Russian Federation but also in the far east and in the north and in the Arctic simultaneously military exercises were being held in different parts of the Russian Federation at the very same time the US was conducting military exercises in Alaska Do you know anything about it? Probably not but I'll tell you that I do know and that is indirect proximity to our borders but that's in your territory, on your land we didn't even pay attention to it What is happening now? Now at our southern borders there is a war game Defender Europe 40,000 personnel 15,000 units of military equipment part of them have been airlifted from the US continent directly to our borders Did we airlift any of our military technology to the US borders? No Do you worry that your opposition to NATO has actually strengthened it for six years? NATO has spent more on defence That's some defence some defence during the USSR era Gorbachev, who is still thank God with us you can ask him got a promise, a verbal promise however it was a promise that there would be NATO expansion to the east Where are those promises? Two waves of expansion Where is that written down? Where is that promise written down? Right, right, right Well done Correct, you've got a point Nya, nya, nya, got you good Well, congratulations Of course, everything should be sealed but what was the point of expanding NATO to the east and bringing this infrastructure to our borders and all of this before saying that we're the ones who have been acting aggressively Why? On what basis? Did Russia, after the USSR collapsed present any threat to the United States or European countries? We voluntarily withdrew our troops from Eastern Europe leaving them just on empty land Our people there, military personnel for decades in what was not normal conditions including their children we went to tremendous expenses and what did we get in response We got in response infrastructure next to our borders and now you're saying that we're threatening to somebody We're conducting war games on a regular basis including sometimes surprise military exercises Why should worry the NATO partners? I just don't understand this All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so you'll have to bear with me as I geek out a little bit on interrogator talk here this guy is an intel pro and you can't miss it he goes to ridicule and criticism he does pride and ego down which is when I start to attack you personally and then he goes to love of country on this guy trying to get him to feed back and then he reframes the argument to get to where he wants in the very beginning of this interchange you can see he needs a minute or a moment to think watch him drift his eyes down left and touch his mouth when a person is doing that now could he be signaling that? sure, but I don't think he is I think this is he's preparing what he's going to do and then he comes right out right out of that after that down left gaze and starts this approach he ridicules him, he does the equivalent of har har har you know ha ha ha like when I was a young soldier we'd make fun of people who would do something really stupid we'd just laugh out loud at them to be funny but also to make them change the behavior when we didn't make sense we would go at them that way so he starts down that way he runs those approaches and then when he actually gets to the point and he ridicules him with the clap that's something child like but powerful when a leader of a nation does it to you so he pushes him but we're starting to see something that bothers me a lot more he starts to illustrate with his eyebrows when he's hitting the key points that matter to him and I'm starting to see something I see personal extinction or I see fear of extinction in what he's saying the message is clear now could he be just saying that sure he could be just saying that but it sure doesn't appear to be that it looks genuine his punctuation is at those same moments and his face is making the point that you put us in a place where we are in danger even though we gave you everything Mark what do you got yeah so my biggest note here is here he is because this interviewer to give credit to the interviewer has knocked him out of some of his newer training into his older training which is that KGB training he's back to some of his first professional training there so really interesting so he's flippant at the start now flippant is not glib he is dis disrespectful ultimately rather than shallow and insincere he is disrespectful of this moment and just as Greg is saying that disrespect is designed to lower the status of that other person I maybe don't think that he quite understands this might be where the interviewer is trying to get him to bring him down to some of his earlier persona understand put it is a complex human being who has got proficient at a number of jobs and a number of professions along the way so different elements of the persona start shining forward here we get after got you good we do get I think the eyes targeting we get anger and we get disgust so again I say here he is here's something more of the real Putin anger disgust and then we get his gambit which is an innocent gambit I don't understand I don't really understand this the playing of innocence but we do see disgust shine through as well in a micro gesture during that chase what do you got on this one yeah I agree with you guys completely and on top of the innocence we also see a victim narrative being displayed there so it might look like there's some hesitation going on in the beginning of this but keep in mind that he's the interpreter in his ear is finishing up translating the question so that might be I just don't want to get in and dated with comments there then I'll have to tell a victim story there's no hesitation there there's so many quite this reporters using worrying and so if you watch the whole video he uses the word worry so much I have no idea why I could not figure it out but when he's saying NATO spent more on defense while that is being translated and while he's processing this question before it's answered at all we see eye avoidance blink rate increase in eye flutter and mouth covering that Greg you were you pointed out right away and when he's saying where is it written down he's shaking his head the whole time he's showing contempt on his face which we know it contempt looks like that one sided smile which means we're speaking with disdain or feeling disdain about another person and there's some narrowing of eyes and that's interesting because provoking this man to this level of focus is pretty hard to do from all the interviews I've seen him do and there's also anger you actually stay flash of anger on his face for one moment well there's two moments but one where it's really powerful is when he's talking about leaving these military families alone that made him angry and I think he's feeling maybe for his people but we go back to the original Putin strategy where there's fact fact fact fact there's four facts in a row then there's questions to drive your focus what did we get in response and why should it worry NATO and finally with the arms swing there are two open source intelligence agency reports written by a government I'll just say a government that suggests that there is an onset or early stages of the onset of Parkinson's disease that is at play and they've been able to kind of confirm this with a bunch of doctors that I'm not a doctor but these doctors believe that they're witnessing on video the slow progression into the early stages of Parkinson's so that might explain the arms swing I'm not an expert Scott what do you got all right we see the most direct and solid eye contact we've seen up to this point because this is important because it gets busted there which we'll get to in just a second he touches his mouth like Greg was saying people do that he's actually thinking at that point he's thinking through what's going to come up his cadence is strong and steady and his tone is solid his volume is solid everything's good on that end and then when he says where that where is that written down that's when he's busted these see him stick his tongue out what usually happens is you'll see when somebody gets busted they'll go and put their tongue in their teeth like that but he does it with his lips because he's contained he's really at this he's not really contained but he's trying to contain those outbursts like Mark was talking about earlier he's been trained to do that so when he's busted he's trying to move on like nothing's happened at all but then he realizes he can't get past that so he has to admit to it he has to call for what it was say yeah that's what it was so hopefully it'll go away and won't look like it means much at that point because what's it going to do then he pushes back in his chair and has his chin down and this shows that he's that suggests he feels embarrassed about what happened but he's still trying to make a comeback from that and I agree Chase we see several times the anger expression in here we would see it more because if not if you chase if you pay more attention Chase not like that but if you look really closely you see a lot of play in the glabella and part of the eyebrows but again I believe Botox is playing a part in there so we're not seeing the subtleties we would usually we usually see in there because of that do you worry that your opposition to NATO has actually strengthened it NATO has spent more on defense that's some defense some defense during the USSR era Gorbachev who is still thank God with us you can ask him got a promise a verbal promise however it was a promise that there would be NATO expansion to the east where are those promises two waves of expansion where is that written down where is that promise written down right well done correct you've got a point got you good well congratulations of course everything should be sealed and written on paper but what was the point of expanding NATO to the east and bringing this infrastructure to our borders and all of this before saying that we are the ones who have been acting aggressively why on what basis did Russia after the USSR collapsed present any threat to the European states or European countries we voluntarily withdrew our troops from Eastern Europe leaving them just on empty land our people there, military personnel lived there for decades in what was not normal conditions including their children we went to tremendous expenses and what did we get in response we got in response infrastructure next to our borders and now you are saying that we are threatening to somebody we are conducting war games including sometimes surprise military exercises why should worry the NATO partners I just don't understand this all right we good yeah yeah smooth will you commit now not to send any further Russian troops into Ukrainian sovereign territory look did we say that we are planning to send our arm formations anywhere we conducted war games in our territory how can this not be clear I'm saying it again because I want your audience to hear it I want your listeners to hear it both on the screens of their television sets and on the internet we conducted military exercises in our territory imagine if we sent our troops into direct proximity to your borders what would have been your response we didn't do that we did it in our territory you conducted war games in Alaska God bless you but you had crossed an ocean brought thousands of personnel and thousands of units of military equipment close to our borders and yet you believe that we are acting aggressively and somehow you are not just look at that pot calling the kettle black all right Mark what do you got he really answers the question but he does invoke this idea of tit for tat which when people start taking up arms tit for tat I do one thing they do the other you ever seen the Laurel and Hardy film tit for tat very very funny this is not very very funny it's very very funny when Laurel and Hardy do it very very serious when armed forces start doing tit for tat so I don't like that that comes in at this point I just noticed when we were watching that replay when he talks about territory he shows disdain so again chase to your point that we saw it earlier on disdain isn't just disdain for an individual disdain is a whole society it's a whole group again worrying when you start to talk about armed forces because it's not going to war with an individual you are going to war with that whole group you don't have a problem with one person you've got a whole problem with a group of people so this is setting up for what is to come later on now he mocks with this kind of tight protective gesture I think around the idea of America's Alaskan borders with Russia it is mocking it is flippant again and disrespectful and then we have this tilt of the head at the end and the kind of movement of the mouth at the end again soft gestures that I think that I certainly know Alan Pease was responsible for helping him with to be just a little bit softer but that really is a regulator at the end to go you know what job done I've mocked you job done point scored on that one Greg what do you got on this don't be pretty short on this one this is how he lies when you are taught to resist interrogation you're taught not to outright lie because you'll get caught I mean we're good at catching lies what we're not good at is dealing with the person who avoids answering the question and that's what he does effectively he does what I would call parallel conversation so if you ask me a question about ask me a question about driving too fast Scott Greg do you drive too fast have you seen my old truck the one that I bought last year to drive down the farm I'm going to bring up something that's related so it sounds like we're talking about the same thing then I'm going to go down the thing and then I'm going to tell you that Georgia speed limits are unreasonable and if they would just change them I would never get another speeding ticket he just did parallel conversation which means he doesn't have to answer the question still sounds like he's in the ballpark and he's talking and I agree with you that's mocking I see disdain as well when he's talking about territory and he has a logical argument the logical argument is what makes him capable of redirecting the conversation this is a beautiful job of redirecting and still not answering chase what he got if everything is true that he said here which all those things are true and if that were the whole picture I would be in 100% agreement with Putin he frames this like a master and I think I'm going to go out on a limb here I think the interviewer is a good person interviewer is probably extremely sharp and intelligent but it's absolutely no match for this level of training and this level of polish that this person has imagine going from like Jason Bourne to being in the White House you'd have you'd outperform a lot of people and I think that's what we're seeing here the way he masterfully weaves this Putin this is even deeper levels of his methods here he gets us to agree with him that we're watching this on a screen and we're watching it on the internet he automatically gets us to say oh wow he's saying something that's happening to me right now so I'm starting to buy into what's going on just with this stupid little comment so I went back and watched several hours of past video today I downloaded it, watched it on the airplane and he is very consistent with these shoulder shrugs to get buy in from the other person and the right for positive things his left hand for negative or controversial things that he doesn't like or he views as negative but he can do some method here take a look at the video when it comes back up fact fact fact imaginary scenario and then using questions to drive your focus and I guarantee you even knowing this formula it's going to work and it will drive where you're focused on you can see it in the video coming up Scott? I'm going to touch on a little bit I think we're all seeing the same stuff here pretty much so I'll be just touching a different spot on what you guys have covered at the very beginning we see that quick little lip purse at the beginning that indicates that he's not he doesn't agree with this he sees this as a problem and we see his eyes darting around and when people's eyes dart around they're processing a threat or negative information when he lips his lips lips his lips he's preparing to speak at that point there's really not much there he's just prepping to speak and he's pretty aggressive at this point he gets his head going forward we're seeing a lot of aggressive facial expressions we're seeing anger you guys were saying disdain as well when it comes to the US we've seen so far up to this point the largest ones we've seen so far but he's really aggressive at this point will you commit now not to send any further Russian troops into Ukrainian sovereign territory look did we say that we were planning to send our armed formations anywhere we conducted war games in our territory how can this not be clear I'm saying it again because I want your audience to hear it I want your listeners to hear it both on the screens of their television sets and on the internet we conducted military exercises in our territory imagine if we sent our troops into direct proximity to your borders what would have been your response we didn't do that, we did it in our territory you conducted war games in Alaska God bless you we've been in the ocean brought thousands of personnel and thousands of units of military equipment close to our borders and yet you believe that we're acting aggressively and somehow you're not just look at that pot calling the kettle black yeah if the People's Liberation Army made a move on Taiwan how would Russia respond to that are you aware of China's plans to militarily solve the Taiwan problem I don't know anything about that as we frequently say politics do not require the subjunctive mood the subjunctive mood is inappropriate in politics there is no could be any would be in politics I cannot comment on anything that is not a current reality of the modern world please bear with me don't be upset with me but I think that this is a question about nothing this is not happening has China stated that it intends to solve the Taiwan problem militarily and so far for many years China has been developing its relationship with Taiwan there are different assessments China has its own assessment the US has a different assessment Taiwan may have its different assessment of the situation but fortunately it hasn't come to a military clash alright I'll go first on this one this is bad because he's familiar with this question and he's prepped for it he's ready for it as he gets into it he laughs and he sits up on the jacket these are adapters and barriers writ large when he says when he refers to Taiwan as a problem that's a big red flag because when he says are you aware of Taiwan being a problem that's a huge red flag there and then that hard lean left and as well it shows he knows that problem exists and he's already talked about it with China I think they've already been in cahoots and he already knows what's coming I think at that point he's got a pretty good idea of it I'll just say that that hard lean left he's bracing because this is the position he's always using when he's talking about something where he goes in and says this is the way things are this is my feeling on it this is my believing or what I believe in it and this is what's going to happen next that's always where he's leaning as long as left when he starts into that I was talking about that earlier when he says the subjunctive mood is inappropriate in politics to quote Dr. Phil it's all about that it's all about what's going to happen if this happens what will we do if they do this what will we do it's all it's all hypothetical when you get in there and start going through those things that's what he's trained in he's all about that that's probably why he's blown it off so hard yeah so I think he gives a tired sigh at the end there again as a brush off he is being thoroughly dismissive and playing power here and brushing off this fly of a question this gnat of a question tired of the ideas of even doing thought experiments with this interviewer here status plays there's some single shoulder shrugs but I don't know at this point whether they're congruent or incongruent with what he's saying it's tough to work out his feet do move into a more stable position towards the end of it so I would say towards the end of this I think he feels like he's stable he's scored a good point with this he has won over on this interviewer the interviewer had moved him to a balance just a few videos before and Putin's back again with this brush off this laughing some stability and he's not going to play the imaginative games that the interviewer wants him to play Chase what do you got? I agree with both of you guys and I think a lot of the behavior that we're seeing here does indicate that there is a potential that he does know and he has spoken he is aware of what's going to happen in Taiwan he shrugs his shoulders after some emotional eye processing which his eyes move down to where humans access emotion I know what's been said about the eye movement thing and you see it on TV most of that stuff is BS some of these things are extremely reliable very few but some and that's one of them his feet go crazy again higher than baseline and more than baseline there's a potential I think for some contempt and this is all while speaking about his not this not being a current reality in regards to that Taiwan invasion I want you to see when this clip comes back on this is how powerful GHT is which hand someone uses for positive which hand somebody uses for negative GHT is so powerful you can see it I think six times in this video go from negative to positive negative to positive you can see it perfectly the moment that he discusses the name of each one of these countries and whether he sees them as good or bad so watch out for this negative and positive hand movement the next time you see him start speaking now that this invasion has begun into Ukraine that's all I got there Scott, sorry great yeah so a couple things Scott I think when he says the problem I think it's common usage between them that I believe China calls it the Taiwan problem so maybe why he's using that word however I do believe he knows more than is going on my note for this is sarcastic foolish boy lecture is what this is when he comes right out of the gate that laugh is sure is dismissive he does some eye blocking and he's genuinely amused you can't miss it there's a of exasperation like I can't believe you're bringing this up he starts to lecture and as he starts talking about China's plans you see him lecture and they does kind of a lip grip now here's one caveat one red flag I know for a fact from Russian friends that there's some sound they make when they're talking and they go like that it's a tss sound and they draw their lips back so I'm always cautious when I'm talking about a Russian but I see a lip grip when he's talking about China's plans like he's doing some withheld information whether there's a motion or something else I also see him lecturing him with sarcasm in his face and telling him exactly how things are because he doesn't know and Chase I agree with you he's masterful at using his shoulders at the right time this to me feels like yeah he probably knows and when you see that eye movement down right down left down left we associate with internal voice or trying to figure out how things work down right we associate with emotion and when a person's talking about a relationship that may be developing may be complex you would expect them to be thinking about it from an emotional point of view and how to integrate that into what they're thinking and how to talk about it effectively so it doesn't surprise me by the way most common thing I see in complex business problems every day when I'm dealing with corporate America is you talk to a leader and they're trying to figure out how something will work it's how do I explain this how does it work I feel this way you can see it I see it all the time it's when I know that a leader is up against the wall and they don't know how to deal with the situation so it's powerful and in this case it might be a good indicator so what's this thing with the side of the mouth there's a sound they draw their mouth back when they're doing some kind of a sound they'll make it kind of a sound what does it mean? it's a letter remember all languages have sounds that others don't Arabic has a single sound called and no other language has it so some languages have odd sounds others don't I think Greek has that too so I see it when Tina says it I thought I was missing something at that point the People's Liberation Army made a move on Taiwan how would Russia respond to that? are you aware of China's plans to militarily solve the Taiwan problem? I don't know anything about that as we frequently say politics do not require the subjunctive mood the subjunctive mood is inappropriate in politics there is no could be and would be in politics I cannot comment on anything that is not a current reality of the modern world please bear with me don't be upset with me but I think that this is a question about nothing this is not happening has China stated that it intends to solve the problem militarily it hasn't happened so far for many years China has been developing its relationship with Taiwan there are different assessments China has its own assessment the US has a different assessment Taiwan may have its different assessment of the situation but fortunately it hasn't come to a military clash our people recognized new geopolitical realities that occurred after the fall of the USSR recognized new independent states and not only recognized Russia itself then in the most difficult situation helped by a partner in the CIS including Ukrainian colleagues from which right from the moment of the announcement of independence began to receive numerous requests for material support and our country provided such support with respect to the dignity and sovereignty of Ukraine according to the expert assessment which is confirmed by a simple calculation of the price of our energy carriers volumes of annual credits of economic and trade preferences which Russia provided for Ukraine total profit for the Ukrainian budget during the period from 1991 to 2013 about $250 billion but that's not all at the end of 1991 the debt obligations of the USSR before foreign states and international funds were about $100 billion and at first it was assumed that these credits will return to all republics of the former USSR solidary proportional to their economic potential but Russia took the entire Soviet debt on its own and finally ended this process in 2017 in return new independent states were to refuse from their part of the Soviet foreign assets and corresponding agreements in December 1994 were achieved with Ukraine but Kiev did not ratify these agreements like we said earlier Putin went crazy with these photo ops they were staged no judgment I've posed for a whole lot of stuff just to look cool on the internet before but these were way over the top they were almost the satirical illustration of masculinity strength and this vigor and we're seeing the same level of narcissistic behavior start to express itself and this is a crystal clear example of what I continually continually say that all of us all humans are an adult product of childhood suffering and childhood reward he had a rough upbringing and he learned a lot of this stuff so Putin used the rage and these overreactive responses to negative stimuli as a child and what some people call wound collecting and it worked for him if it worked like Greg always says as a subscriber to the show Greg always says the organism is going to do what makes it survive and it worked so we all find a little behavior pattern that works for us as kids in response to threats or anything that could hurt us and this was his and we're seeing that play out on now a global scale probably a behavior learned in childhood and we're seeing these narcissistic behaviors it's even worse because he is social he's very social he didn't lash out at his teachers if he was reprimanded in private when he was reprimanded in public is when the really bad stuff happened so this has happened publicly so it's triggering a lot of this stuff a lot of these psychology aspects a lot more than it usually would and I'll leave the body language because I'm going to be talking about a lot more in the future here so Mark what do you think so this for me this is where it starts getting worrying because this is the start of his justification for the offensive and we'll get there in one second but let's look at the body language here big out breath of tension there big out breath of CO2 so metabolism is up I would say at this point there's look he's got this relaxed position that he had before but he's no longer relaxing on the beach it's rather his tension is super high but he's still in this relaxed position he's trying to suggest that he's relaxed but we can see from the tension state in his muscles that his metabolism is right up at the moment we see disgust nothing different there he's shown us a lot of disgust but disgust with this tension level as well that's something different his hands are now partially hidden so he's not taking territory with his hands his left hand I think it's his right but one of his hands is spread out so he does do downward push gestures and he does have a little bit of confidence with that but it's not the same confident relaxed person that we saw before with these emphatic spread finger gestures interesting picture there with a very old display of power those phones lined up I have more communication power in my hand right now than he's displaying there but he's showing you the old Russia it's the Khristchev Russia again lots of phones image on the monitor there of the Kremlin so the old power structure is very different from his opposition right now which is Zelensky who is creating an online offensive against him very different KGB versus actor comedian very very different communication styles they're coming out okay so look here's the big story that he's pushing here which is important the Ukraine didn't pay its debts and he's going to offer us a big narrative here which I call the debt that must be paid you well know if I say to you they haven't paid their debts they haven't given over the money that they should give over or you haven't given over the money that you should something in your mind goes well that's kind of wrong and I'll probably have to pay for that eventually so we have a narrative in the human mind that says if you don't pay your debts you have to pay for it eventually and this is the start of his justification for invasion is it's just nature's way that if you don't pay your debts it will cost you and here comes the cost we'll see some more justifications coming up which are even more dramatic even more worrying to use the interviewer's choice of words there but this is the start of the worry that he's justified the invasion because debts must be paid and if you don't pay in cash you have to pay another way Scott what have you got on this one I was going to be fairly short on this one we see those deep breaths where he's breathing out hard the parts you're talking about there at the top mark this was a long speech and he does that quite often when he gets in there and at this point when he comes to the end of a thought or he comes to the end of the point he's making he's just been through it so many times he's over it at this point and when Greg and I were talking about this we both did new shows the other day on these video on a couple of these videos we've seen I think there were one or two of them were in here Greg and we both said the same thing Greg and I talked about before we were both seeing and it was that he was contained and is locked down the whole time this is completely different body language than we were seeing earlier completely different looks like a different person this is a man with a lot on his mind and this is somebody who's mad he's angry at this point so when he's letting that air out that's one point gone now he's moving on to the next point because he's got that built up stress and tension and he can't get rid of it he's really trying to be really locked down at this point all these indicate everything we're seeing here indicates that he's mad that he's angry that he's upset and he's worried at the same time too his cadence is fast and it's strong and his voice is loud and the tone is good and it's all right there his diction is almost impeccable when it comes to the way he's been talking up to this point he talked fine at this point he can understand him perfectly if you can understand Russian I'm sure you can understand him perfectly but right now if I knew a hint of Russian I could understand it because it's so clean and so clear and so so poppy he wants to make sure he gets this point across on this this is a really big deal to him there's nothing smooth or clean or easy about his he's just he's just sitting there like this and his hands like you were saying earlier Mark they're not taking up space they're just plop back here they're just plop down on the table like this and we see him move a little bit here and there and I believe he's trying to keep all that stuff contained Greg what do you got yeah you said a couple of things Mark when you're talking about his posture being the same but not the same there's no life to his limbs say when you look at people you can tell a lot about how much fluidity there is to their limbs comfort and happiness makes us more fluid and lighter and stress and anger makes us wooden rigid and locked down and he's holding the desk very tightly and he'll occasionally pick his hand up and he'll use that emphatic with his left hand when he has a point to score he's gone away from passion you don't hear passion here he looked fluid and passionate in the other thing he looks wooden here he's lecturing brow beating head down he's telling his posture now is about telling and he's going to tell you how it is he annunciates because this is a speech and he needs it to be clear what he's saying and he's starting down a path and Chase you're right I always say the organism does what made the organism successful he's not in this case which scares the hell out of me because what he's doing is he's not going we are Russia we have a right he's starting to play the blame game that we got cheated game it's clear he says look we cleared all that out his hands are very clear when he illustrates he's saying look Russia paid their dues Russia did all this his illustrators are clear but then he's using unlike Russians typically to your point Mark maybe it's Alan got through to them but at the same time that pounding the desk was we will bury you we have the right every Russian leader has said we are Russia we have the right all of them he's not he's starting to say we got cheated and we're going to do it because we got cheated that's new for him that scares me a little bit I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I