Speaker 1: Hey everyone, If you're listening to this, you are not
a supporter of the Team House. If you'd like to
get ad free episodes, both video and audio, please go
to our patreon Patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse. You
get them. You get the episodes early and add free.
You can also ask the guys questions, and if you're
a Teamhouse fan, you can also watch our Team House
episodes as we record them live. So it really helps
the show. We couldn't be anywhere without our Patreon supporters,
so we'd love for you to consider subscribing. It's patreon
dot com slash the Teamhouse, and that link is in
the description of the show notes down below. Thanks guys. Enjoy.
Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics.
We're here with the whole crew, Mick Moulroy, Andy Milburn,
Jonathan Hackett, and Mark Polymereopolis. Happy forth to everybody who
just passed July fifth. I hope everybody had a safe holiday.
Ate some hot dogs, didn't blow your hands off with fireworks.
It was fun. It was very hot here in New York,
but it was still a good time, all right, boys,
A lot happening as usual. I think we should kick
off today with talking about Ukraine. We have seen over
the last probably a couple of months now, Ukraine hitting
deep inside Russia, Russia's fuel supply being severely limited, where
it is that they're buying fuel from India to try
and keep up with the man. I did see a
couple of things where like we really won't see a
big difference until like it hits like their lubricitts and stuff,
and like their war machine gets hit a little bit more.
Russia also did come out the other day and claim
that they took over a town in uh, you know,
Dombas area, which then Ukraine sent down in a salt
force and basically took it back. So it's interesting what's
going on they see Russia seems to be flailing. Yeah,
what are you guys tracking here? Let's go with Mark
poly Moreopolis first. Greeks first, Greeks he first.
Speaker 2: Oh, I like that Greeks first. This is like a
Mick Molroy is but throwing in the Greeks. By the way,
I just have to one shout out to Mick. I've
been I don't have it with me. I've been reading
that all the Stoicism books, very inspiring and I started
giving them to all my friends and I have just
on a serious note, I have a friend who's going
to not government related, is going through some really tough times,
and I gave him that book. You know, the obstacle
is the way it really helped them. So good stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah, most of the stoics know me. So this is
a book by a friend of mine. Two friend of
mine just came out, one that runs the earliest foundation
justin Seed and another one who's a professor at Oxford. Yeah,
we need these, we need them.
Speaker 2: No, I like it. I gave it Look for the
Stoics Ukraine so interesting in a couple of different ways.
And I'm gonna throw a little curveball in this because
the thing that I've been mokes focused on, which is
really weird. So first of all, there's certainly events on
the ground, and I think maybe you guys can cover
them in great more greater detail. What is interesting to
me is politically how things have changed in the United States.
Laura Lumer just put out a post where she said
I am now pro Ukraine. She loves Zelensky and she's
railing against others in the MAGA world who are who
She is obviously claiming to be perhaps correctly pro prutent
pro Russia. This is the Tucker Carlson's of the world,
Megan Kelly and others, And it's really interesting to see
and I think this actually does, this actually does have
some effects here in the United States because these individuals
on the right, whether they're podcasters or influencers, certainly kind
of move the way the MAGA movement in the Republican
Party goes sometimes. And Laura Lumer has the ear of
the President of the United States, there's no doubt on that.
So she now is a huge supporter of Ukraine. Now
you can kind of, you know, throw it in your
mouth and kind of because she's kind of she has
her own issues, massive ones. But it's really interesting and
so you know, how does this now translate when to
get to the next part. There are serious, you know,
issues ahead in terms of what the US willer will
not provide. I think the Ukrainians just asked us if
they can co produce patriots. So there's some things coming
down the pike, you know, in which there will be
some US policy decisions. But the thing I'm really looking
at d is is this really strange divide in the
MAGA movement over Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Did she give any kind of reasoning why now she's
a pro Ukrainian or no. It was just like I
will come up.
Speaker 3: Today because it looks like they're going to potentially turn
the tides. Winning tends to win over people more than
even logic. Sometimes I don't know who you're talking about necessarily,
but you know, if we get more people on board,
even if it's for the right wrong in different reasons,
I'm all for let's actually help with Ukraine witness.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the Maga wright have done a flip, not just
on Ukraine but on Israel.
Speaker 5: You know, Israel could do no wrong.
Speaker 4: And now Israel is the country I'm paraphrasing magaworld right here,
is the country that is leading us down into the
dark abyss and has been feeding the president lies. And
it's it's interesting once the once that critical momentum starts,
you know, it's difficult to identify the turning point in
the Ukraine or in Israel, but it goes strongly the
other way suddenly, doesn't it.
Speaker 3: So you I mean Ukraine Senator McCain used to say,
was a Ukraine. Russia was a gas station with an army,
and I think Ukraine said, great, take out the army
and the gas nation, right, So that's what's happening right now.
These long range strikes by Ukraine into areas, whether they're
logistical hubs, refinery, storage facilities, are now more deeper and
more effective than they were before. Ukraine's mass producing drones
every month, they produce more, every year, they'll produce more.
They're seriously challenging. In Crimea, there was fourteen significant strikes
in the last forty eight hours.
Speaker 5: There.
Speaker 3: We're not seeing an eminent fall in Ukraine. We're not
seeing an imminent, you know, or anywhere close to animinent
withdrawal of Russia. But Ukraine has gone from the back
foot to the front foot, and I think people recognize
it all of a sudden. There's people going, oh, maybe
we should support It's like, you can't support them when
they're you know, teetering on the brink, but you can
now Again. I would have hoped that the U, asked
the leader of the free world, would have been leading
discharge the whole time. But you know, if it takes
some people coming at the end, fine, But that needs
to be translated into direct support the US basically now
just allows them to purchase things through NATO. I think
NATO countries, European countries, countries around the world that are
that want to promote democracy and stability and counter you know,
naked aggression like Russia need to throw in with Ukraine
like now, not when they're on the Virgin winning now,
and this could push President Putin, who's under an incredible
amount of pressure internally. I mean, right now they've got
I think I saw the stat if you're recruited, and
by recruited, I mean basically conscripted into the Russian army,
you got about three week lifespan. Amazing includes includes going
through training, right Apparently on the battlefield now it was
like forty minutes. Yeah, you step foot on a battle
for you're dead for you. So the whole generation of
Russian males are being annihilated. And now it's become almost untenable,
you know, because the fuel shortages. Everything that's going on
in Russia is really putting pressure on Putin. He's gonna do,
of course, what Putin usually does, which is launch at civilians. Right.
We saw in Kiev last week, I think it was
like five hundred drones and almost seventy five missiles Senate
keep but and Andy can tell you spent a lot
of time there. I think that just makes them more resilient,
like there's no way you're going to kill more kids
and they're gonna quit. Like it's the opposite. They're never
gonna quit. And this is only going to firm up
their resolve to ensure that they save their country. So
it's now is the time for the West. And the
supporters of Ukraine include the United States, but more security
assistants direct security assistance into Ukraine with the idea that
it'll force I think putin to the negotiation table on
terms that are more are actually completely aligned with what
the Ukrainians want to see.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean the war.
Speaker 4: It's it's flipped into a strange dual reality, right, So
Russia's grinding out its symbolic prize in the dombas and
the town you're talking about the is constantin I'm mispronouncing it.
Speaker 1: I tried. I don't want to pronounce it.
Speaker 4: We used to call it constantinivkas so as Constantinople with
Nivka on the end, but that's totally wrong. But anyway,
it's a ship home of the place. But nevertheless, I mean,
I've said that about puck Ross, but the similarity. The
point is, the Russians are grinding it out as they're
taking this territory at at just incredible cost. CSIS estimated
that they're advancing fifty meters a day. They're taking eight
times the casualties said the Ukrainians are, and those figures
come from Russi, you know, so this isn't stuff that
we're making up right, eight times casualties and they've seize this,
you know, after years of trying. They never got pop Ross,
but they've they they may have got Constantinika. The Ukrainians
are challenging that. And some of the videos you've seen
online of Russians waving flags there apparently are AI generated.
So they may not even have taken shithole town, right,
but if they have, it's that great costs they just
can't sustain it. And so they're grinding this out, but
simultaneously they're losing the strategic initiative Ukrainian Ukraine's running. I mean,
it's the most effective deep strike campaign of the war,
you know, to mixed point, I mean, going after cohesively,
going after Russian energy sources, reducing production by estimates of
twenty percent, which is huge, right. Not only that, but
look what they're doing in the Crimea and Crimea has
a tremendous symbolic value to both sides. Although it's probably
a bridge too far for the Ukrainians to win back,
but they've made it untenable. They've dropped the Kerse Bridge,
they've dropped the bridge that I forget the name, that
goes from Crimea to occupied Ukrainian territory, you know, towards
Kerson and they keep dropping them, so the Russians there
are trapped. And then systematically they've taken out the air
defense systems and so now what they're doing you can see,
they've just they're doing these mass drone raids on Russian
infrastructure across Crimera and apparently it's, you know, nothing can
move there. I mean you're looking at they're hitting, they
destroying the roads. So Russia has Crimea, yes, but it's
it's it's kind of a hollow price and it's becoming
a death trap for them, and of course it's you know,
the Ukraine is very clever at this. They know that
Putin will continue to pour forces into Crimea in a
vain attempt to defend it, but they're being attacked asymmetrically
from the air.
Speaker 2: And what's the what's the pr value of them actually
dropping the Kirk Bridge, of actually doing it, finally destroying
it if they can. I mean, there's you see a
lot of talk of that. You hear even in town
here in d C. Ukrainian officials saying that this is inevitable,
it's coming, and you could see that that, you know,
the public relations value in doing so would be rather massive.
And then on top of that question for you is
and then what about the kind of the strategic yes
as well, and what would the Russian reprize will be? Sorry,
go ahead, yes.
Speaker 4: So on your first part and Putin, uh, I've Putin
has kind of staked his reputation at times on the
Kersh Bridge. He keeps going on and on about it's
the umbilical cord and paraphrasing him that links Crimea to Russia,
et cetera, et cetera. And so, yes, the Ukrainiu has
gone after it. They've made it on and off untenable.
But it's strategically what they've done is they've just isolated
Crimea I mean totally. It's Crimea is now pretty much useless.
I mean, it was used for for a number of reasons.
It was a port. But the Ukrainians have decimated the
Black Sea Fleet through their kind of mosquito fleet navy,
which is ironic that Ukrainians don't have a navy, but
they've done. They've done to the Russians what the Uranians
are doing. The Straits of hor moves, right, only they're
using unmanned they're using missiles, drones, and they're using unmanned
sea vessels.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: So they've they've negated Crimea to the Black Sea fleet.
They've decimated the Black Sea Fleet, and now they prevented
it from being a logistics hub for the Southern Front.
They've prevented it being anything but just a giant missile
and drone and bomb sump. And it's infuriating Putin because
I remember, I mean from twenty fourteen he's banged on
and on about Crimea and now and now it's just
it's a it's this black hole, right, and.
Speaker 3: This decision could actually lose in Crimea to do the
full invasion of Ukraine, which likely he would have kept Crimea.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, that as a viable and the Black Sea
Fleet and everything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're right, Ye, a.
Speaker 2: Worry of reprisals because this means so much to putin Well, yeah,
they dropped the bridge. Is he going to actually go
even crazier than he had has done so in terms
of the tax on civilian targets, et cetera.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, but I think to your point, Mark,
I think Russia is doing all it can right now.
And we're always talking about, well he's going to escalate,
What the hell more can you do? You know, he's already,
he's already hitting Kiev. He's you know, I think the
consensus is despite him always threatening to go to in Ucas,
he's unlikely to do that.
Speaker 5: And and you know what I mean, what's that said?
Speaker 4: Go on?
Speaker 3: Nuclear would be like throwing a grade at somebody in
an elevator. Ok, you're right next door, man, literally right
next door. So if you start to use the nuclear weapons, yeah.
Speaker 4: And and you know one thing I forgot to mention.
So they've destroyed a railroad bridge over this is all,
you know, everything that links Crimea to the mainland Russia
or Ukraine. That destroyed the bridges, They destroyed a railroad
bridge of the North Crimean Canal. They're even hitting and
now they're hitting ferries that the Russians are using to
to move military equipment, and Defense Minister feder Off says
Crimea is being isolated by drones and effectively is being
turned into an island. They've declared a state of emergency.
You know, it's gonna be interesting. And Moscow is the
one that's cut the Kosh Bridge rail traffic just because
of the risk to traffic going across the bridge. So
so Crimea has been isolated, it's been negated as being
any any sort of asset to Russia. And then you've
got this deep strike campaign that's gone up a gear.
And so in just the last few days, trying the
last weeks, since the beginning of July, the Ukrainians have
hit twelve Russian substations. The Belograd was the Belograd thermal
power plant knocked out, which caused a huge total blackout auto.
Speaker 5: Disruption across the city.
Speaker 4: The main airfield in Crimea Siki I think it's called
s A k Y destroying Russian aircraft there and Saint Petersburg.
I don't know if you saw that. You know, the
film of this massive black cloud coming out of the
oil terminal in Saint Petersburg, struck by drones.
Speaker 5: So it's it's.
Speaker 4: A really yeah, you know that it's come to the
point where and I agree with you, Mick, I mean
we should have been piling on, of course, the support
Ukraine years ago, but Ukrainians are turning the type by themselves.
Of course, you've still got to win back territory and
that is the long pole for the Ukrainian state. They're
running out of manpower and that that is certainly an
issue for them. But strategically, yeah, they you know, they
they have turned the type.
Speaker 3: Russian is the mass. You're gonna hear more and more
about this, this junction of seventeen gas pipelines. It's in
northwestern Siberia. Once they can hit that, that could have
a major major impact in general Russia. So I think
we should be obviously providing a lot more security assistance,
but we should also be doing we don't have to
be public about it, we don't need to know about
it and talk about it, but we should be doing
a lot more to push push the ah the tides toward.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a uh, I mean, it's a fascinating topic
and Iran's kind of the cliffs that. But what has
been going on in the last three months is it
has been extraordinary. And you know, even when Russia, i
mean his operational insight, even when Russia wins right in Dombas,
it wins nothing. And I'm not just being facetious because
Constantinivka and pop rosca shithole town, So I mean they
are important to sites, especially Pokrovski it's a rail terminal.
But for the Russians having ground, you know, Constinivka is
it's a ruins of a small city, that's and it's
cost them tens of thousands of lives. And they the
Russians are exhausted. I mean they're not They're moving fifty
meters a day, which is slower than the British move
than the song and they're staring at tens of kilometers
of mind fortified drone patrol terrain between them and the
next objective, which is Krematrusk, which is basically Ukraine's last line.
Speaker 5: Of defense internets.
Speaker 4: So you know, even on the ground, the Russians are
their prospects don't look they don't look good.
Speaker 6: Well, you know just the most recent development, which is
the ninety minute phone call that Trump had with Putin
yesterday during the Fourth of July celebrations, which is a
very interesting development, and as far as I know so
far what I've seen, the US didn't announce the details
of that call, but the Russian Foreign Ministry did, which
I think is also a little bit interesting because that's
similar to what was going on between the US and Iran,
where the US was not announcing any of the points
from the deal, but Iran was. And it seems that
Russia's doing the exact same thing right now, which means
the US doesn't have control over the narrative about what's
being said in those calls. So that's an opportunity for
the US policymakers to seize control the narrative and actually
say what needs to be said publicly. And I believe
Zelenski was also called yesterday as well. So my hunch
is that these calls were made ahead of the NATO
summit to get some things ironed out, so that way
those things can be discussed in person at the summit
with other NATO leaders, of course, and that's why the
Secretary General visited last week as well to get those
things kind of evened out in person before they're discussed
in Turkey coming up in the next few days.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, Gloria victory is right now, it's purely
political because they can't win militarily at fifty meters a
day and half a million dead. So what it's doing
is buying negotiating chips, right, but just by trying to
seize a little more ground in don Esk and betting
that Western patients runs out before Russian manpower does.
Speaker 3: And it's backbar and miserably right. I mean, his whole
purpose was he was concerned about the expansion of NATO
and the threat of NATO, even though NATO's never been
a threat to Russia unless Russia is a threat to it.
It's a defensive alliance, defensive alliance, right, So because of
his invasion of Ukraine, it's now expanded in two countries
it managed not to join for the entirety of the
Cold War, and now they have. And now although they
should have been doing it the whole time, but now
they are. All the countries are spending more money on
their national security and defense. There's I mean, look at
what Germany's doing right now increasing the size of its
its army, poland all across Europe. Right now, they are
becoming a stronger ally to the United States. I think
the United sty should recognize that we could take credit.
I guess we want to. I think it's largely because
of Russians of Asia Ukraine, but what have you. We
now have a more substantial military alliance than we did
before Russia invaded Ukraine, and Ukraine is going to be
the strongest military in Europe by far proper, but it is,
especially with Finland joining.
Speaker 2: I agree with all that. The problem, of course, is
we don't know what the US administration wants to do
because it seems so divided. You know, there's there's the
there's all these reports that came out that Hegseth was
about to announce some very significant troop cuts. Uh, you know,
Rubio and others kind of preempted him on this. I mean,
there's this divide between kind of the Rubio Rancliffe Wing
Dan Kane versus versus heg Seth and JD.
Speaker 5: Vance.
Speaker 2: But I think that you know the problem is, I
mean you talk to European officials, you know, nobody really
knows what Trump's going to do, uh when he when
he gets to Turkey. Now he's going there because Radiwan
is his buddy, fellow autocrat, and so you know, he's
doing that as a reward. But you know, you just
don't know. At the end of the day, is the
US to announce significant true cuts in Europe? What kind
of tone is Trump going to send? You know, is
it going to be this kind of humiliation?
Speaker 5: Will it be more?
Speaker 2: And on the one hand, there is a notion, and
I don't know if I subscribe to this, that because
the Ukrainians are doing better, Trump wants to back a winner,
and that the Laura Loomers of the world and Ratcliffe
and others who kind of have kind of been feeding
Trump the notion that Ukraine is doing really well. Well,
then Trump's going to just side with Ukraine because he's
just transactional and he believes in nothing. I don't know,
you know. One of the other things too, to kind
of think about is we have pressed Europe correctly to
spend more our NATO partners. The US still only spends
about two pointy eight percent of GDP on defense, not
five percent, not what we're asking the Europeans to do.
And now we have a huge issue coming up politically
in the United States and in terms of rebuilding a
military which has been which has you know, significant shortfalls
right now after the war in Iran. I know they
want to do a trollion. Plus I don't know if
there's political support and on either side for this to occur.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, lots of lots of interesting things
coming up. But this, this, and and of course D
you know, D and I are going to have heart
palpitations over Trump's turn towards Turkey. The idea of giving
them the F thirty five while Turkey has an S
four hundred Russia air defense system I think is preposterous.
But that's because my greekness comes through, and Mick, you're
an honorary Greek as well. I mean, the Greek defense
establishment is probably going crazy at this point. That's a
lot of reason for their turn to the Israelis, of course,
but but that that issue of the F thirty five
is going to be really significant in this UH, in
this summer coming up, we'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: What's interesting about the F thirty five though, is like
we're still having supply change issues with it, like there's
supposed to be a new radar coming out for like
the Block forty, and we're being we're getting delivered F
thirty five's that don't have radars in them, and we're
going to wait until they're ready. So adding another country
I know they were in it initially Turkey, h doesn't
exactly make a lot of sense, especially like when we
are in need of getting our F thirty five fleet
up to snuff. It doesn't make sense, frankly, and also
fuck Turkey, you know, I.
Speaker 3: Do think there's a Putin realizes that there is a
split in the Republican party, like like Mark said, but
he has two more years of the Trump administration. Right,
So if you look at Secretary of Rubio, I would
call him more of a traditionalist when it when it
comes to the US foreign policy and a lot of
the traditional Republicans or Reagan Republicans, I would say, maybe
more pro Ukraine then President Biden was. It's a possibility,
and it depends on what comes next, right, So Putin's
got to realize that the chances of it being a
new administration that more pro Ukraine or high. So he's
got two years and then if if it's a Democrat,
or if it's more of a Republican or Reagan Republican
like I would call uh Rubio, he's going to be
in a bad position, which is great, I think. So
he's got to keep that in mind. And he's got
a refurbished NATO who's focused on him like a laser beam.
So this is not going his way at all. Huge
strategic miscalculation.
Speaker 4: It's really so someone mentioned in here that no one's
really sure what the US policy is, and I think
that's what's really unnerving the Europeans. I mean, they can,
I think generally they can live with a diminished or
a reduced US presence, but they need to know how
much it's reduced and what that means. And there's a
lot of focus on, you know, the withdrawal of a brigade,
which actually isn't that many people. It's five thousand troops, right,
and I'm trying to remember someone can probably look it up,
but the NDAA, right, the NDA stipulates that there has
to be I think it's a floor of about seventy's
seventy or seventy five thousand troops in Europe, and that
five thousand withdrawal takes that level, maybe a thousand guys
below that, so it's not a it's not a huge deal,
but legally the United States has to maintain that troop
level unless the more changes, so I think, but I
think the real iss I'm not sure it's covered so
much by the media, but it's covered in it.
Speaker 5: I know, what's it. The Spiegel did a story on this.
It's not so much the troops.
Speaker 4: It's the fact that the that the US has told
NATO officials they planned to significantly cut other assets fighters,
strategic bombers, destroyers, submarines, tankers, drones, and most importantly missiles
and and so that and not having clarity on what
exactly the numbers are I think is causing the problems.
I mean, yeah, the good news story idgree one hundred percent.
I mean is the fact that NATO has up spending
across the board. So I mean that's one that's one
benefit when advantage perhaps partly of US pressure, but mostly of.
Speaker 5: Just the threat from Russia that's caused them to do that.
Speaker 2: I mean, let me just put one one quick thing
in there. I just just came to mind because I
know you focus on this too. I met with the
senior European intelligence official recently got to keep it at
that and they said, literally they they every the first
thing that that country's embassy does every morning is check
true social That's how they determine US policy. That insane
and so you know, to me that was just, first
of all, it's embarrassing because that's that's our policy making.
But that's the level of uncertainty in Europe. Their first
thing they do track what Trump is fifty five tweets
that you know the night before.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I do think there's substantial security assistance for Ukraine that's
coming out of the Senate and the House right now,
like close to a billion. So we'll have to see
how it's implemented, right, but I think there's it's a
bipartisan issue in the in Congress.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but is he going to sign it?
Speaker 3: I think it's at least part of it's in the NBA, Okay,
which is where it should be.
Speaker 2: Because but the Ukrainians, I mean, I think Europe and
Ukrainians have to just there's a way to do this,
and you know, you plan for the worst. If this
comes through, it's great. They cannot plan to receive anything
from US, period end of story. And if they so,
they're stupid.
Speaker 1: I think they've they've seen the riding on the wall
ever since. Yeah, ever since it happens.
Speaker 2: That's great, and that's that would be a significant boon.
But there's no European that you speak with who thinks
who actually can plan for the US to come. The
cavalry is not coming. If it does, wonderful, you can't
plan for that.
Speaker 1: And Andy, if you think this administration is worried about
being in contempt of Congress, you're wrong with having like
one thousand less troops in the European theory.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, I agree with you.
Speaker 4: My point wasn't that the NDAA is I mean it is.
It is a benchmark. I mean it is, you know,
a significant reduction below that would be problematic. What my
point is that there are other assets that we're pulling
out of Europe that are arguably more important than troop strength,
that are more of a deterrent. And then of course we're.
Speaker 1: Pulling them out. Are we pulling them out because of
what's going on in the RAN we need to shift
assets there or is it just like an overall like
we're looking to tighten our belt because we're asking for
eighty billion dollars from Congress. Where are in.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean the perception in Europe.
Speaker 4: I think the thing it's fair to say is that
it's it's it's retribution for them not stepping up to
the plate in the in the war with Iran. I mean,
but there are you know, I mean the positive aspect
of this across the board, self defense and also defense
of Ukraine. European nations stepping up to the board, stepping
up to the plate. And there's a program and I
forget what it's called, but it's been running since last
year where the NATO's providing it's like five four to
five billion worth of a billion dollars worth of equipment
to Ukraine, but it's bought by European countries in Canada
from the United States and program.
Speaker 3: I do think it was a mistake by NATO countries
to prevent us from using their the bases to carry
out the Yaron. And I'm not saying that they should
have to agree with the Iran war, but they cut
our argument in half when they when we say, well,
we were there for our own benefit. It gives us
a platform to launch and then they say except for
when they don't agree with us, and then we can't, right,
and then then you're like, okay, well there is that.
So I'm not saying that they have to politically or
militarily support every thing that we get involved in, like
the Iran war. But when they politically prevent us from using,
you know, the bases that we're at in Europe, then
you start shooting yourself in the foot when it comes
to the people who believe that we are in Europe
in their bases primarily for our own benefit, it does
benefit them, and it benefits NATO with.
Speaker 2: Part there's there's but nick I pushed back just on
that in a way, these are European democracies. Yeah, and
you're in the European public was with vehemently ninety ten
ninety five to five opposed to the US actions that
are on and so a prime minister in any European
country they want to, you know, maintain power and get
elected again, and so they are responding to their constituency.
And so I hear what you're saying. I think that
the way to have done this would have been to
sell this better. So this is where the Trump administration
deserves a lot of contempt is that they made no
effort to sell it to the American people, nor to
our European allies. And frankly also the golf or to
the golf and so. But but again, if you're if
you're the prime minister of the UK or France or
anywhere else, look, their public is against this. So by
allowing that's it.
Speaker 1: I get it. I get it.
Speaker 3: But then from a national security perspective, I'd moved to
a country that didn't block me whenever they disagreed with
my the decisions that I made. You see what I mean, Yeah,
they could block us, but then why why are we
considering that a major hub for us rejection of power
if they block us because they're populations against it. Our
population is against it.
Speaker 2: I think though that when the country you know, hosts
in the United States base, they do have a say
on what we do with that base.
Speaker 3: And then I'd go to another country that didn't block
us when we're in the middle.
Speaker 4: Of a war.
Speaker 3: It's from it's looking at it from our perspective, they
can do it, and it's like both countries get a choice.
They can stop us and we can move. If you
supported this war or not, you specifically, But if you
were a supporter of this war, I think you would agree.
I think you'd say, look, if they're going to block
us from using our base when we need it, we're
at war, whether we agree with them or not, then
we need to be in another location. So when you
do that and then you arrive because the United States
moved to a more friendly.
Speaker 2: Country, I don't know where that country would be.
Speaker 3: There's other countries I think in Europe that are would
love to host a major your hub for the United States.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 4: I mean, whichever way you look at it, Iran, Iran
more exposed, right, something that not even Ukraine had, And
that's that the US and Europe they no longer assume
that fighting the same fights, right, So I mean, from
from the US government's perspective, Europeans wouldn't escort tankers through Homouse.
From their perspective, it's because it was for a war
they weren't consulted on. And from US government's perspective, Trump's perspective,
he won't guarantee troops for a continent Europe that he
thinks is a free rider. So I mean, you know,
if you're in Magaland, or whether you're on the side
of the Europeans. The arguments seem internally rational, and.
Speaker 2: I guess, I guess the ghost in the notion we
should have sold this better. There should have been better
consultation with al and that's the way. And because you
can't make a case for this, and and and and
because the European prime ministers and presidents will have to
do so to their publics. But when it's just you know,
just thrown upon them, then they you know, that's when
there's the there's the backlash. So I certainly get that.
I mean, but you look at I mean, there's all
these you know, there's stories came out of the last
week or two or two about the Saudis and how
the Saudis UH did not want any part of renewed
strikes against Iran again. And you do see and I
think and of you you did raise it. Uh. There
is a huge backlash in the Gulf. And you're going
to see a lot of golf countries, maybe not the UAE,
but even maybe them, but but but others cutting side
deals with the your onions now and so you know there,
So we talked about the US bases. There US bases
in the Middle East are certainly exposed right now. Uh,
in terms at first they're you know, the the degree
in which we can protect them, but also in terms
of countries not wanting any further strikes. I mean the
Saudis said, no, is that right? Yeah, Jonathan, maybe you
want to comment on that. Sorry, sorry, make sorry, No,
I was just.
Speaker 3: Going to agree with you on the on the we
should have done a way better jump sell on the war,
not only to Europe but to the United States population,
and we should probably stop beating up on our longest
standing allies. If you look at the National Defense strategy,
for some reason, it goes after Europe, right, you know,
in a way that it never has and and then
leaves countries like Russia off the criticism list. There's a
lot of things that we should do better, but that's
somebody who's been in the Pentagon. It's it's also our
ability to project power once we're given an order, right,
Whether we don't need to agree with the that's the
that's my point. So we have to have platforms that
we can use. They can't just be at the whim
of well, we don't like the war, so you can't
use it, because then From a military perspective, you've just
taken out that capability because your job is to carry
out oars. It's not to debate the efficacy of the policy.
Speaker 6: We need access basing and overflight. That's the keyn like
from the Pentagon perspective, that's what we need. That's those
security cooperation is supposed to provide us those things, especially
in the Gulf. That's why we have AFCENT Air Force
Central Commanding Qatar, when we have fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
This is access basing and overflight. And if we want
to do strikes in Iran, we have to be able
to fly over those partner nations countries with their permission.
Sure we could do it without the permission, but that
would be destructive to that relationship. So we need to
have those deep ties there. And like you were mentioning
mark with Saudi Arabia, before the war started, Saudi Arabia
was inching closer toward a warming of relations between Iran
and Saudi Arabia. They had sent, you know, their highest
level delegation in years. If you remember back a few
years ago, nim Or Nimmer was executed, which is a
Shia leader in Saudi Arabia. Was beheaded along with a
bunch of other folks that caused Iran to cut relations
with Saudi Arabia. So like this was getting repaired very
slowly and was getting back toward what the Saudi government wanted,
which was a more pragmatic approach to Gulf relations with Iran.
And of course they're also secretly negotiating with Israel as
well for a future recognition of Israel. So Saudi Arabia
is trying to you know, grow up in the region
with MBS in particular at the Helm and this kind
of muddy, that delicate negotiation going on behind the scenes
between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel, and now Saudi Arabia
has to wait for that to settle before they can
get back there again because they're trying to modernize. They're
trying to change the state from what it was, you know,
in the previous monarchy, and now that's on hold, which
their government does not want. The same thing with the Emirates.
The Emirates are trying to do things as well to
change not just be an oil or you know, an
oil and gas dependent country for their economy, and that
has also been destroy I feel like what's going on
with Dubia's tourism industry. It's wrecked, and it's about risk
and do people want to go there and spend their
money there? Some will, but not the ones, not everybody
that was before. It's going to take a very long
time to build that trust again. And as you mentioned,
if we could sell this war in a better way
from the very beginning, we wouldn't have this discussion now
because those countries would have participated. Just like nineteen ninety
one when the US went to the Middle East and
asked Saudi Arabia and even Syria to join forces with
the United States against Saddam Hussein, and the Syrians sent
forces to fight against Saddam Hussein to kick them out Kuwait.
Speaker 2: That was because we sold war else then in policy making, right, so.
Speaker 6: We sold it to them because you couldn't just show
up to Damascus and be like, hey, come with us. Instead,
you had to have made a case that it's in
your interest, even though we're not great friends, it's in
your interest to come to this conflict with us.
Speaker 1: And in that case Iraq and Iraq invaded a sovereign country.
Speaker 2: But making your peverst position, your previous position. You know,
conceivably you would have been involved in the policy making
process saying, Okay, there's a run up to the war
in Iran, we have to do X, Y and Z
to get our allies on board. I'm going to take
a trip. It's the das D and I'm going to
do it. I'm going to do multiple stops in the region.
We're going to say that we're going to prep them
for this. We're going they're going to be fully involved
in this instead of just kind of, you know, kind
of we were winging it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree, and I don't necessarily hold it against
the politician who has to respond to their public I'm
not even criticizing the decision from their point, but from
our point, from the Pentagon's point, then we have to
adjust because it is access basing an overflight, and if
we can't actually carry out an order that we're given
because we put all our assets in a country they
won't let them use this, then that's that's unacceptable. Doesn't
You can just take off whether you agree with the
war or not, But from the US military's ability to
carry out orders, they have to. So yeah, we should
have definitely sold it much better and.
Speaker 2: That would have been a policy process. There would have
been NSC meetings, and then you know, the action items
coming from this would be the you know, the civilians
the side of the Pentagon, and the State Department would
start prepping our allies months in advance for this. Oh yeah, yeah,
and you know there's a way to.
Speaker 3: Do this with the embassy and everything.
Speaker 1: Yep. I don't think actually selling this war would have worked,
to be frank, I don't think the United States would
be Are the people of the United States to be
interested in that? Maybe they could have just broadcast Bbe's
power point in the situation room a month before we
struck our in maybe that.
Speaker 6: I think there's always a way, because we invaded Iraq
in two thousand and three on a completely false pretense
that we sold very well and we were able to
get people to join us, So I mean it's possible.
So hey, if we do it, maybe they'll come.
Speaker 1: I think the information environment is completely different now.
Speaker 4: I think it's a different world than the fevered atmosphere
of post nine eleven. I mean, yes, it was, it
was eighteen months, but it was a different country, right,
and everyone was still nine eleven focused. Everyone suddenly on
foreign policy. That focus has gone, that interest has gone.
Speaker 2: Mick, Mick, do you remember we were watching in the
team house up in the Northern Rock Colin Palace speech
and we're all like, We're all like, what the hell
is he talking about?
Speaker 3: We must not be read into this line of you know,
it was love coming out of the two places we
were at.
Speaker 1: Wild talking about if you guys are in northern Iraq
and he's shaking the anthrax file thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, team leader. He used to get called by the
White House all the time.
Speaker 2: But it was a quick deviation because we did have
actually I don't know if we had, I think the
other the other guys did. We could get Turkish porn.
Oh yeah, I just got it like this, So we
had to just a little diversion from Turkish porn to
watch Colin Palace speech.
Speaker 4: I don't even that's an image I just can't shake loose.
We didn't watch Turkish and porn two words that don't
belong together a good old days.
Speaker 3: But we had a lot of as Yeah. But yeah,
I remember when our team later I don't know if
we name him, but used to get called by the
White House on these topics. Yeah, and he used to
stand there at attention, which you should.
Speaker 2: I but but there was definitely a lot of what
the healthy talking got.
Speaker 3: Is there another c I A.
Speaker 2: Yeah, got some good ship going on, not us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fucking crazy, guys.
Speaker 3: That's why I well, when it fell, they took us
to a lot of places where they said the chemical
weapons were. There was signs all over the place, and
there was nothing there. So I think, you know, not
to re litigate this, but you know, from our perspective,
we were collecting information that from people who should know,
who were telling us no, it's right there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, and it wasn't.
Speaker 3: So it's more complicated than the US, you know, was deceptive.
It's it truly is more complicated.
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we got it wrong, but it wasn't.
Speaker 2: The Bush administration knew that Rock didn't have WMD. It wasn't.
It wasn't a lie. We just got the intelligence thing
completely wrong.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's what I'm getting.
Speaker 2: But there was there was no manipulating, you know, it's
I mean, it was just it was just wrong. Now,
some of the some of the reporting streams were bullshit,
and we should have been done better on that. The
analyst maybe I'm putting too much on on them. But yeah,
this wasn't like Wolf of Wits and Bush were like,
let's let's deceive the American people. They actually thought very
much that when we were there, we just didn't.
Speaker 1: But people were telling us that, guys, are we living
in the same fucking world right now? But like they
pushed it from the minute almost a minute nine to
eleven happened that we were going into Iraq, and they
basically molded the CIA to tell them what they wanted
to hear. You had analysts that were, you know, fighting
up against the what were the the tubes, the circular
tubes thing, what do you call it doesn't matter, the
stuff that actually enriches uranium, like interfusions. I don't know
how Yes, thank you, John. I don't know how you
can really say with a straight face that the Bush
administration didn't deceive the American people.
Speaker 2: Think you can. Every every Iraqi senior regime official I
talked to thought they had w m D.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm saying, that's where we collect information from.
Speaker 5: We didn't.
Speaker 1: We didn't.
Speaker 3: We didn't have Saddam on the books.
Speaker 2: Some really high level folks, and they thought they had it,
and that's it's an incredible deception campaign by Saddam himself.
But this is a separate issue. Yeah, and the CEE
I failed in this, Like analytically we failed. You know,
there were certain streams that you put too much weight on,
and there's I mean, but it's a it's a it's
a little more complicated story.
Speaker 1: Frankly, I don't want to give enough. I don't want
to give that much guff the CIA, because you guys
are doing your job and you're supposed to get the
information I try to. I guess I'm giving more guff
to the administration because they cherry picked fucking evidence and
intel that wasn't confirmed and put it in a state
union speech about yellow cake in Niger, like what you
know they received the fucking American people. Let's let's just
make sure that's that's I'm putting that on record at least.
Speaker 5: Noted.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mick.
Speaker 4: It's an interesting topic though, I mean, the because there's
a parallel now right, I mean, if you have the
most anodyne approach to this, it's if you have a
political stance, and the political stance was he you know,
Saddam's a bad guy. He's disruptive to the region and
he needs to go all right, not necessarily in the
farious objective, right, And then you have that, and then
there's a dual bias. Right, you are asking the questions
that confirm that bias from your intelligence agency and intelligence community,
and they they're finding that information because it is there,
but they're focusing the collection assets on that.
Speaker 2: So there's that.
Speaker 4: And then the feedback loop is such that as the
information comes forward, it's also given that political filter because
it fits you know, it fits their agenda without there
being conscious deception in that process. And it's kind of
the same thing that led to seven October. Right, you
see a lot of conspiracy theories. Now, oh, hey Netnya,
who sacrificed the border communities, they knew it was coming,
they wanted it to happen. I don't for a moment
believe that's true. But that same bias was taking place. Hey,
we don't we want Hamas to remain in place because
the alternative is the Palestinian authority. If it's Palestinian authority,
then now we've got to start talking about a two
state solution. Harmas psycho But on the other hand, they're
contained right they are. They're firmly contained. That contained both
militarily and that contained because we're.
Speaker 5: Giving them economic scentives.
Speaker 4: Right, That was the political stance, and the military, as
shouldn't bet is the well, either told to stand down
on collection or the collection they produced was filtered to
confirm that bias. Without anyone saying, Hey, this attack's going
to happen, but let's just shut the fuck up and
let it happen.
Speaker 5: You know, I wouldn't.
Speaker 4: I don't believe for a moment anyone said that. But
the information coming up, if it had been filtered correctly,
was clearly indicating exactly what.
Speaker 5: Was going to happen, right for eighteen months private the attack.
Speaker 6: It's the same with any intelligence failure, even the nine
to eleven situation. I mean, when I was training to
be a kind of intelligence station, that was one of
the cases we studied, was like the nineteen ninety three
bombing of World Trade Center and then from that leading
up to nine to eleven, and just the volume of
intelligence that did exist that did indicate like this was
being planned. It was the resources of being accumulated, people
were being positioned, That all existed, but it was just
the way that we collected it in that moment didn't
work in the way that it should have worked, and
it led to an intelligence failure. And I think a
lot of intelligence failures are like that, where we look
back and we're like, oh, there was a that's a
data point right there, but in the moment, you just
you can't see it like that because you don't you
can't predict every possible outcome and direction that the intelligence
is going to lead.
Speaker 4: You. Yeah, that that's a different that's I mean, absolutely correct,
that's a different coolest tho. And that's one of the
big challenges, right, is that indications in trying to trying
to and you guys, no far out of eno to pose,
but interpreting indications right that afterwards seem unambiguous, but at
the time where anything but unambiguous.
Speaker 5: How's that for a double negative?
Speaker 6: It's true, when you get these walking sources to the embassy,
for example, you're gonna get a thousand of these guys
saying wild things. One of them might be telling you
something totally true, but it sounds also wild, just like
the other nine hundred ninety nine wild reports, and it's
very difficult to figure out, like which of these was
actually credible, especially for walkin that you have no previous vetting,
no previous knowledge of this person. What they what are
they there for? Are they a double? Are they a dangle?
And it's so hard to figure that out, especially if
it's like a short term like hey, this is going
to happen in forty eight hours kind of thing. It's
it's very, very difficult to actually figure out the credibility
of that individual.
Speaker 1: In the moment, guys want to touch on the NATO
summit that's coming up a little bit, like what to expect.
I always spoke about it a little bit, but what
do you guys expect to be coming out of.
Speaker 3: This, Well, there's going to be a lot to talk about.
What we just talked about. Is the US going to
redeployed forces from certain countries either back home or to
other countries that they're more favorable to at least at
the time. If anything, the US should be plus enough
our capacity in Europe to send a strong message to Putin.
But also because the world's an unstable place. Part of
what we caused, and I don't mean that necessarily in
a negative thing, but we're at war and Iran and
right now. I mean, we haven't touched on Iran too
much on this one, but there's a lot of people
who believe this MoU is simply a means to replenish
the global energy supply to get past the mid term
elections and then it's kicking back. And I know a
lot of friends who hope that's actually the case, because
they really don't like the MoU, and I think they
have good reason to believe to not like it. So
this isn't over, is my point, right. I wish it
was in the sense that Iran would agree with a
new nuclear agreement and then that's that. But it doesn't
look like they're coming anywhere close to that, and it
doesn't look like they're coming anywhere close to relinquishing control
of the straight upromos. I think we're at about lower
than sixty ships a day, it's normally around one hundred
and twenty. And Iran is making a lot of money
selling its energy. So I'm attaching the two because we
need to if you look at our conversation, we need
to send a clear message to Russia and we can
do that by presence in Europe and NATO. We need
to be prepared for this thing to kick back off
in Iran. Obviously we hope it doesn't, but I don't
see an indication that this is headed toward a resolution
that's acceptable to the United States.
Speaker 2: One thing that I heard in Jonathan and the Curious
if you agree with this, is that there's more than
likely for the rest there is a possibility for the
rest of the Trump administration that this is the status
quo right now and it's just you know, plus sixty
plus sixty plus sixty whatever, just kicking the can down
the road. And so there's the argument that Okay, after
the mid terms the Republicans take a shellaking, Trump won't
give a shit anymore, and so he'll he'll go at
it again. I'm not sure that's actually true.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: It could also be that it's just going to stay
this way, which is enormously unstable, and in some ways
that is because I think Trump has lost interest in
this totally. One other quick point on the NATO summit,
I think d that ultimately Europe is holding its breath
and if you know, it's just it's just, you know,
how bad can this be? Is Trump going to make
you know? It is going to be so disruptive let's
just you know, it's a it's holding your breath to
get get this, get past this. You know, he there
was not even an expectation that he would attend, but
of course Airdwan he's doing it for his fellow auto
pratic buddy. But it's just it's holding your breath and
you know, good God, what's going to happen? How bad
can it be? Is there anything embarrassing coming out of this?
Because at the end of the day, I do think that,
you know, when I was just in Sweden, I saw
the head of Swedish military. I mean, there's a notion
that again it's the idea hope America helps. Can't count
on them. You know, we're going at it as a
as a as europe only, so you know, we'll kind
of see where that goes. I mean, even as an American,
as a patriot like these, when Trump travels overseas, you
have no idea what's going to happen. You just you
just pray that it's not going to be embarrassing to us.
At least that's my view. And if something good happens,
that's just unusual. But that's what you hope for.
Speaker 6: And also the enemy gets a vote. And that's the
thing with Iran right now and with Russia that we
could sit here and say, you know, in the next
six to eighteen months, we can do all these things
to prevent or do something to either of these actors.
But in the time that we're waiting and planning, they're
also waiting and planning, and in particular Iran, if they
get financial infusions during this period of time that we're
kicking the can down the road, that money is not
going to some static account and just collecting interest for them.
It's going to be spent on things to rebuild what
was damaged. And it's like Andy you've mentioned on previous
episode that you know and also you two maic if
we're giving them three hundred million dollars to reconstruct, well,
the things that were destroyed were not civilian infrastructure. They
were military infrastructure or dual use infrastructure that has a
military purpose. So that money is going to be going
back for them to reconstruct the things that we destroyed,
which are military structures, facilities, equipment, resources. They're going to
reposition those resources. Those resources are not for purely defensive purposes.
They are offensive weapons and structures and facilities and so on.
So they're going to be reconstituting the entire time. They're
also resilient in learning. They're learning from the mistakes that
they just suffered through in the last two months of
a meat grinder, teaching them new things, and they're going
to do them differently. They're going to rely more on
drones and so on and so forth, you know, as
far as strategy is concerned, and less on people the
next time this happens, because to them, there will be
a Part two. They're they're waiting for it. They're preparing
for it every day.
Speaker 2: God know this. So so this this time period now,
I would think that US and Israeli military planner should
be concerned that Iran is reconstituting. So absolutely, if it's
the theory that okay, well they're going to kick it
off again post elections, well actually Iran has had time
to recover. That's actually a bad thing.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's why hes Bola's number one on the list
of stuff to be negotiated to be you know, hands off,
because they're seeing like, well, we need to reinforce the
surrogate forces around us, because that's going to be a
major component of Part two and you can see what
the houthis. Just yesterday, fifteen government forces in Yemen were
killed by this massive Houthy attack that was that was
actually pretty interesting if you want to read about the
tactics of it. That was very successful. It opened up
with sniper fire all over the place, kind of like
a mini Dnben Poo from Vietnam era, where they surrounded
them ahead of time and got stuff in there very smartly,
which means they're probably practicing that technique to use on
larger scale later, which I wouldn't be surprised to see. So,
and the Houthis don't have their own economy, you know,
they rely on to pay for them to a large degree.
So if Iran gets more of that money, they're going
to go support the Houthis. They're gonna support Hasbola, and
they're going to support forces in Syria and Iraq for
part two. That's that's in their mind, like, hey, we
are still surviving.
Speaker 3: That's what's happening right now. And money is fungible. So
even if we released the three billion from Katar and
we get that's you know, food, then they don't have
to spend that much money on food, right, So it's
there's it's better that they're buying American goods, I suppose,
but it's not. It doesn't protect the money. It's still
they still can use the money that they're getting, for example,
selling in their oil to rebuild the realistic missile capability,
their suicide drone capability, and every other thing that they've
found to be most effective during Operation Epic period.
Speaker 2: This is which costs and Cushners like this is insane.
The idea, like the idea of selling it because they're
buying US goods. It's just mind bogglingly stupid. And it's
this because you have two estate guys who just think
in these ways. And that's why we're going down this rye.
I mean, I find this to be I mean, it's
it's it's an argument is so easily uh kind of
you know, dissected because exactly what you said, any kind
of relief for the Iranians means they can reconstitute their
military period, end of story. There's no US stipulations, there's
nothing we can do it just and but but this
is I mean, you see the President, you see Kushner
and Wikoff keep talking about this that this is great
American farmers are going to benefit from the Iran deal. Like,
my head wants to explode when I hear that.
Speaker 6: It's hilarius because they don't even eat corn. I mean,
this is just not part of the cuisine. It's like
we're gonna send American corn cob barrels over there, Like
what are we talking about?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think we can all agree that the decease
fu of the negotiations. It's just become a soup sandwich.
But I mean, he, you know, back to you a
question about the summit, which I think is a great topic.
When we started off with it, it was Mock's idea
and it hadn't occurred to me. But now I think
about it, it's really important.
Speaker 5: I think, you know that who knows what us goals are.
Speaker 4: But for Mark and I'm pretty mispronounced his named Rutter, right,
the Dutch guy.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 1: Head drops my daddy guy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So I mean he's gonna he's going to want
to emphasize the building on the five percent of GDP
pledge from the you know, from the Hague.
Speaker 2: But he's gonna also want to.
Speaker 4: Tell the US, say, look, the Europe's already embarking on
this goal.
Speaker 5: European nations.
Speaker 4: But he's going to want to secure a an agreement
from the US clarity on what exactly has been a
commitment to keep a number of these enablers in theater.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: You know, the troops says that I said, have taken
care of to a certain extent by US law. But
things like i SR long range strike, ballistic missile defense, EDAW,
air refueling, all those things, strategical left, command and control,
all of those things are key enablers that the US
provides to NATO. That you know, there's troops are easy
to count, so there's a lot of focus on that,
but there aren't. But again, those are the those are
the really significant capabilities that the United States is providing
most likely to be used in NATO short of actual
outer and out war and certainly in out in our war.
But I mean the troops are just there almost as a.
Speaker 5: Token presence, let's let's be honest.
Speaker 4: So the five percent, and he's going to be wanting
to to get an agreement, a firm agreement from the
US on those enablers. And he's going to want to
I mean, Zelenski's attending, right, so he's going to want
to Rutter is going to want to be able to say, hey,
his art commitment, his NATO's commitment, whether it's continuation of Pearl,
and then agreements outside that to keep both string Ukraine
against Russia. I mean, I imagine that those are his goals.
Turkey is going to be pushing for the F thirty fives.
By the way, I thought they weren't allowed F thirty
fives because they have the S four hundred.
Speaker 2: I thought that, but Trump said it that's small. I mean,
it doesn't matter, and he keep.
Speaker 1: Talking about US law like this administration gives a funk
about that.
Speaker 4: But that's going to cause problems A for the Israelis.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, I know we care about that a
lot D D does, But no.
Speaker 4: I meant the Israelis is going to be pissed off
about that. But not just the Israelis, UAE and Saudi
Arabia who have run into issues.
Speaker 5: On the F thirty five for you know, some for
similar reasons.
Speaker 2: And there's there's there's something to be said for goals,
and so again, the whole bunch of folks here have
been involved in policy making before, whether tip of the
spear or whether back or both back in Washington. But
ordinarily you go into a you go into meetings like
this with a set of hopes, expectations, objectives. Trump changes.
If you you know, I've been reading Regime Change, this
is the book by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman. It's
fascinating because Trump literally just goes on a whim. He
changes course, changes directions, and it throws everyone into it,
you know, completely for a loop. And that is what
can happen here. That's why everyone is nervous on these things.
We don't know and there might be something, you know,
on the plane they're gonna fly over Cutty. Actually they
won't take the Cuttery Force one, which flew over my
house the other day, by the way, twice, really the
new Cutvery plane. I was sitting on my deck and
I say, this giant seven forty seven flying over me.
But but you know, we just don't know what what
Trump's going to do. That's that's just and that to
me is incredible.
Speaker 4: I mean, Mick, you were.
Speaker 2: Sating up a policy. Can you imagine me at the
Pentagon right now in a policy position and you don't
know what true social posts or what what's going to
be from a little oval office, you know, session on
an app and and you're going to get ship rolling
downhill to you, and you have to now implement which
can be one hundred and eighty degrees different what you
were doing literally two hours ago.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's I mean, it's a challenge. We've talked about
the need for the NSC policy process, coordination process to restart.
It's never too late, right, let's do it now maybe
and and get some of the career professionals back there.
But I just don't see, that's not appen. That's not
gonna happen. I think Secretary of Rubio would want it
to happen. I mean, he's technically the National Security Advisor
if because he doesn't well, I think General Keane would
be great if they're looking for a national security advisor.
I don't know.
Speaker 4: So we go to what's that buddy, they're going to
clear up the reflecting pool?
Speaker 5: First?
Speaker 2: Did you see did you guys send it to me?
Someone else send me? So there's there was people who
made was it in our chat? Jellow shot?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the jealous shot.
Speaker 2: That was amazing, green yellow shot.
Speaker 3: Friend of mine said that to me it was a
Trump supporter by the way, it's just funny. It's funny.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, boys, anything else we did it. We did
a lot. I never feel good after these conversations, but
we did do a lot.
Speaker 2: I went. I was on DC yesterday. I went to
the Nats game and started eleven am. It was about
one hundred and fifteen by the time we left it, too.
Speaker 5: It was hot.
Speaker 3: It was hot seventy five degrees out here.
Speaker 1: In Jealous it's been a it's been really hot in
New York too, it's been one hundred degrees and disgusting.
I was looking at like Copenhagen in places like that
where it's like sixty five degrees. I'm like, fuck, why
can't it be like this here? Sorry? We again, by
the way, us playing Belgium. Yeah all right, yeah, So
I want everyone to go and check out Mix. You
guys talked about stoicism. He's got a stoicism podcast called
The Pub and the Porch Applied Stoicism. Those links are
in the description. Andy Milvern's got a great book that's
coming out soon. Very excited. He sent me the the
uh cover and the back cover, like, uh, you know, summary,
it's going to be a really good one. You've worked
very very diligently on it, I would say, Andy, and
I'm extremely extremely excited for it. Can we say what
it's called or no? Yeah, yeah, I don't want to
overstep Warren Gaza Warren Gaza seven October and it's aftermath
and account from both sides. What do you think I
just spaced out just now a little prizes, No, I
got my phone.
Speaker 4: Yeah, first first installments on first chapter one is on substack.
Now it's about the lead up to the attacks.
Speaker 1: It's very good. It's that first chapter is really good,
incredible because you see what's going on on the ground
and the confusion and like, you know, people that want
to bring it up to higher but the mid levels
are like no, you know, it's it's an interesting look
at it. I'm very excited about it. I'm sure it'll
get a lot of people upset, Andy, which is fine.
They'll get over it.
Speaker 4: Made made a huge effort to make it a very
I uh.
Speaker 1: Already call it crazy.
Speaker 6: Yeah, is that BB calling to ask about it?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: When it when? When it is? When is this going
to be out?
Speaker 4: It's not going to be out until the end of
the year, early next early next year.
Speaker 2: That's the problem.
Speaker 4: With using Hey make by the way, I'm going to
get back to you on self published a different you know,
the after action from Gaza because the gazet book separate
the one I've written. I'm committed to a publisher. I'm
going to say good things about the publisher.
Speaker 5: They've been great.
Speaker 4: But the problem is that when you that, when you
submit a minute script, there's a delay and for the
editing process. It's not just the editing process, but it's
lining up to get a slot. I guess unless you're
a really big name, and I'm not a really big
name obviously, so yeah, it's a leista. It's gonna be
about a six month wait, all right.
Speaker 1: So keep an eye out for that. Of course, your
autobiography When of the Tempets gathers great book. Check that out.
All the links for Andy Supstack and the book down
in the description. Jonathan Hackett, he's got two great books
as well. I ran Shadow Weapons and The Theory of
a Regular Warfare, very good books. Jonathan, of course is
our resident smart guy. And Mark p. You have a book,
Clarity and Crisis that came out a while ago. Though
five years when are you doing another one? Not nice? Okay?
So if you want to watch, check out Mark's links.
He's earning the description as well. He's also on MS.
Now you know, MS not as any fucking plugs from us.
They should plug us.
Speaker 2: I'm on tomorrow morning talking about this straight. I just
got a note.
Speaker 1: And if you want to support the show, Patreon dot com,
slash the Teamhouse and of course the white Fish Security.
So I'm to check it out. That link is in
a description as well. Guys, A pleasure as Allly.
Speaker 7: Hey, guys, I want to take a moment to tell
you about the Team House Podcast Newsletter. If you go
and subscribe, it's totally free, and what it will do
is aggregate all of our data, all of our content
that we put out, the things that are on the Teamhouse,
on our geopolitics podcast, Eyes On, things that I write
journalistically with Sean Naylor on the high Side, anything else
that we have going on books, we recommend upcoming guests
that we have coming on the show, and also you know,
filtering in some fun stuff in there as well. If
you go and check it out, we send it out
just once a week. We don't want to spam you, guys.
It's just a kind of roll up of all of
our content on a weekly basis. You can find our
newsletter at teamhouse podcast dot kit dot com slash join again.
The website for that is teamhouse podcast, dot kit dot
com slash join uh so we hope to see you there.
Speaker 2: The link will be down the description
Speaker 5: Assass