Friday Lightning Round: Russian tanks cross into Ukraine

Panel sums up this week's hot topics


BAIER BAIER, ANCHOR: We're back with our panel for the Friday Lightning Round. First up, Russian bombers in the Gulf of Mexico, Russian tanks on the move in Ukraine. Russia, what's happening, Steve?

STEVE HAYES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Well, it's funny. Earlier this week, you had the White House and Ben Rhodes saying in effect Russia is isolated because of its behavior. We now see Russia moving more troops and equipment into Ukraine. You have got Ben Rhodes.

You have got the White House saying this from APEC where Vladimir Putin is a full participant on the heels of a major Iran-Russia nuclear deal. And, as Vladimir Putin arrives at the G20, the White House's claim is that Russia is isolated, it's not true.

BAIER: Chuck?

CHARLES LANE, WASHINGTON POST: Well, they might be isolated, but they don't care because they believe this hard power the old passion fashioned kind, military power and acting unilaterally. And that's what they are doing all over the world. These flights in the Caribbean are of a piece with the flights they have been doing in the NATO area.

The submarine that the Swedes have now acknowledged was sneaking around in their waters and of course, the gobbling up of the territory of Ukraine. Apparently, there is nothing going to be done to stop him.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Certainly not the United States, certainly not President Obama. Putin understands that is he not going to let go of Eastern Ukraine until he controls it whether a de jure or de facto but he will control it.

The fact the president of Ukraine said yesterday, that the most important task for the country is to build an army that can Russians and we still persist in denying that the Ukrainian army defensive weaponry. It is absolutely inconceivable.

BAIER: OK, let's talk about that Iran deal. The deadline is November 24th, to get some kind of a deal. It looks like they are moving forward, but is that a good thing and can it get through Congress?

KRAUTHAMMER: We were supposed to have a deal four months ago. The promise of the administration at the beginning of these negotiations almost a year ago was if the deal isn't done in six months we're going to put on hard sanctions. So what we got is an extension. We will likely get a second extension. The administration needs more time to work out the details of the surrender.

BAIER: Chuck?

LANE: Well, I would never prejudge this deal, because I think there are ways in which it could be in the United States' interest. But, I will say that what we are learning, as Steve alluded to with the Russian exchange this proposed Russian involvement in it, is that the more we have signaled, or the president has signaled his intense interest in having the deal, the more other people come in and try to exploit that and use that as leverage to get things they want from the United States that may or may not be wise for us.

HAYES: I think there will be an extension. I think there will be a deal. The president thinks this deal will salvage his legacy. I think it will be part of his legacy but not the way that he thinks.

BAIER: Winners and losers?

KRAUTHAMMER: Loser, Harry Reid, he sat on the Mary Landrieu amendment, which would allow Keystone for at least six months actually a total of several years, and then all of a sudden discovered this week the virtues of Keystone and allowed a vote because obviously he is trying to help her in her runoff election.

The winner of the week is Prime Minister Abbot of Australia, a former amateur boxer who said a month ago that if Putin did not cooperate on the shooting of the Malaysian airliner where 28 Australians were killed, he would physically knock him over.

BAIER: Chuck?

LANES: Well, my loser of the week is pretty obvious it's gotta be John Gruber of MIT, who is somebody I respect as economist. I've use him as a source on economics many times. But by his own admission said something inappropriate, very inappropriate that set back a cause he purports to believe in very deeply.

So he is obviously the loser. The winner is Elizabeth Warren who got herself elevated in the Democratic Senate leadership and is now being talked about as the alternative to Hillary in 2016.

HAYES: My loser is Nancy Pelosi only because you took Jonathan Gruber, who got a diminishing minority, pretending phony attacks about sexism and pretending that she doesn't know Jonathan Gruber when plainly she does.

My winner is the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. People might have noticed that Kim Kardashian as far as I could tell is famous largely for the size and shape of her posterior posted a picture of that posterior on her Instagram earlier this [inaudible]. It was said that doing this would break the internet and "break the internet" became something of a meme, so the Metropolitan Museum of Art posted the picture that you just saw hoping to capitalize on the buzz and posted this picture of one of Kardashian's ancestors. We don't actually know that it was an ancestor, but we do know the resemblance between the Kardashian photo and what they call the steatopygous female figure and the resemblance was uncanny.

LANE: Not the Packers?

BAIER: So, that's how we're going to end the show? Fantastic, it's been a good week. That's it with the panel, but stay tuned for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on the defensive.