Speaker 1: Russian troops on the move again. Ukrainian officials tonight expressing
Speaker 1: a new concern about further big deployments and neighboring Belarus
Speaker 1: of Russian soldiers along with tanks, artillery and other hardware,
Speaker 1: just some of over one hundred and twenty five thousand
Speaker 1: troops threatening a possible full scale invasion of the country.
Speaker 1: And the story broke in the last seventy two hours
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden had a change of heart for some
Speaker 1: reason on the whole idea of US sending troops anywhere,
Speaker 1: and we now have eight troops on heightened alert as
Speaker 1: of today, and the idea of sending them to somewhere
Speaker 1: in the region, not Ukraine, but somewhere in the region,
Speaker 1: and definitely more you know, armament stuff, you know, support.
Speaker 1: Military analyst Mike Lyons joins US. Mike served with various
Speaker 1: military organizations for the United States of America throughout his career.
Speaker 1: Was awarded the Bronze Starfer's Actions in Combat, among other recognition. Mike,
Speaker 1: how are you, sir, hey when you guys good to
Speaker 1: be back to do? First of all, and I asked
Speaker 1: this because a lot of our listeners are emailing talking
Speaker 1: about guys, we can't go to war war with Russia.
Speaker 1: We're gonna go wagging the dog getting in a war.
Speaker 1: Where are the troops and our armaments being sent and
Speaker 1: what's the significance of it? I say, Yeah, First of all,
Speaker 1: this is not a waged dog. This is a very
Speaker 1: serious military build up on the side of Russia, who's
Speaker 1: acting more like the Soviet Union right now from more
Speaker 1: analysis that I've been doing in the past few days
Speaker 1: here and they're they're bringing troops from Siberia way the
Speaker 1: east of Moscow. They are have a very very serious
Speaker 1: military build up here, sending troops into Belarus. UM Navy
Speaker 1: for example, is going to go to do an exercise
Speaker 1: in the Irish Sea. And the only thing I can
Speaker 1: see from there that perspective is, you know, a technology
Speaker 1: that trans first from Europe the United States and underground
Speaker 1: cables and things. So they're doing a many things right
Speaker 1: now that are seemed to be very aggressive with regard
Speaker 1: their military. So number one, this is not a waged dog.
Speaker 1: So it comes back to this issue of what's this
Speaker 1: level of the terns that we're going to do to
Speaker 1: keep them from a really doing something. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: we were sending eighty five twops where we put them
Speaker 1: on heightened alert, that's like double secret probation frankly, because
Speaker 1: with the amount of troops that they have there right now, Um,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't get anybody there on time. If we were
Speaker 1: going to put them in Ukraine. We might be able
Speaker 1: to help in a NATO country that's surrounding them, But
Speaker 1: for all practical purposes right now, we've got to look
Speaker 1: at this through the eyes of Russia and say they're
Speaker 1: going to definitely do something. And that's just the question
Speaker 1: is a matter of When I saw one analyst talking
Speaker 1: about Russia having in place what it needs for a
Speaker 1: blitzkrieg like operation, just a super fast, overwhelming they've got
Speaker 1: the country before you know what happened sort of maneuver.
Speaker 1: Is that possible? Yeah, I think it's true. And they're
Speaker 1: gonna avoid built up areas and likely go for their
Speaker 1: military and so Russia will win this by destroying the
Speaker 1: Ukraine military. Now, we could send all the ammunition and
Speaker 1: javelins and and surface air missiles we want and they
Speaker 1: get to Kiev and you know they can send on
Speaker 1: the docks in place. But but the bottom line is, um,
Speaker 1: if we if if they've destroyed any of users of
Speaker 1: that equipment, it's not going to matter. And they know
Speaker 1: where it all is, they know how they're going to
Speaker 1: target it, they know what they're gonna do. They're gonna
Speaker 1: bypass certain areas. I think that the fact that they
Speaker 1: put so many troops down in the in the northern part,
Speaker 1: you know, in that Belarus area, shows they're going to
Speaker 1: do this pincer movement where they're likely come from the north.
Speaker 1: They're likely looked to surround the capitol, um and and
Speaker 1: and and and not just take control of of the country,
Speaker 1: but you know, really destroy the military and just put
Speaker 1: it set it back thirty to fifty years when it
Speaker 1: comes to being a country. And if they just had
Speaker 1: to leave, then then so what they've destroyed. So Russia's
Speaker 1: perspective of Ukraine is there an enemy. Um, they've been
Speaker 1: they've been fighting for them for the past seven years. Um.
Speaker 1: They perceived them as a threat. They perceived them as
Speaker 1: trying to align with the West. And from their perspective,
Speaker 1: they don't think the terrence has worked. And they've tried
Speaker 1: to ternce on Ukraine and from their perspective, it hasn't worked,
Speaker 1: which is why they're doing what they're doing. Let's rewind
Speaker 1: a little bit, and I realized this could be a
Speaker 1: book length answer. But what are the American interests in Ukraine?
Speaker 1: In Russia's aggressions in Ukraine? Why do we care? Well, Um,
Speaker 1: at fifty feet, it's supporting, you know, a sovereign nation,
Speaker 1: that's democracy. So if it's more ideological than it is economic,
Speaker 1: let's say, um, from that perspective, and is you know
Speaker 1: we can cavalist well or not that's a good idea
Speaker 1: to go to war over. Probably not in today's world. Um.
Speaker 1: Number two, it also serves as potentially this lynch pin
Speaker 1: that would drive NATO apart. You've got already the Germans
Speaker 1: not playing. They're not really participating in what's going on
Speaker 1: because they rely on about their energy comes from Russia,
Speaker 1: so they're not looking to get into any kind of
Speaker 1: conflict with Russia. UM. But other than that, it's you know,
Speaker 1: us trying to prop up um. You know, these Eastern
Speaker 1: European countries who mistakenly we allowed in NATO following thousand
Speaker 1: and four under the Bush administration. You know. So, so
Speaker 1: this could end up turning out to be a war
Speaker 1: of former Soviet bloc countries against against Russia. What happens then?
Speaker 1: What happens if Romania decides to cross the border that
Speaker 1: they share with Ukraine and help the Ukraine military. Russia
Speaker 1: attacks them and does something into Ukraine, It launches missiles
Speaker 1: into into Rope And then what happens. Then that's a
Speaker 1: NATO country. Here we go Article five And now the
Speaker 1: US has dragged into this. This was the problem of
Speaker 1: putting these countries in. I've said this before. We can't
Speaker 1: have membership to NATO to be everybody but Russia. Same
Speaker 1: mistake we're making that we made it started World War One. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you brought that up, that whole NATO Article
Speaker 1: five things. So that's the danger of the United States
Speaker 1: actually getting involved. Right if if any NATO plane or
Speaker 1: ship or soldier or anybody, um somehow on purpose or
Speaker 1: inadvertently gets attacked, then then things change. Yeah, and theory.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of things going on in the med
Speaker 1: right now. We've got a carrier group there, the Russians
Speaker 1: have got UM naval forces there, They've got them in
Speaker 1: the Atlantic in the Black Sea. Of course, anything that
Speaker 1: we just don't know what that trigger could be, and
Speaker 1: that could lead to a further escalation, and and then
Speaker 1: what does that look like. I mean, from from our perspective,
Speaker 1: it's only strategic weapons, because, like I said, we we
Speaker 1: don't have any cap ability to get troops there on time.
Speaker 1: I just don't think troops on high alert is the
Speaker 1: is a kind of deterrence that we need to be doing.
Speaker 1: I also don't agree with US implementing sanctions right now.
Speaker 1: Anything we do right now is going to be considered preemptive.
Speaker 1: It's going to be considered an act of war on
Speaker 1: the Russian side. So I think that'll just further down
Speaker 1: the road his capability of of wanting to to do
Speaker 1: this even more. I mean, he's got to look at
Speaker 1: right now the cost of not acting that that Talleyrand
Speaker 1: expression about, you know, you can do a lot of
Speaker 1: things that bayonets but can't sit on him. He's gonna
Speaker 1: lose a lot of face here if nothing, if nothing
Speaker 1: does happen, if he doesn't do anything. Um with his
Speaker 1: own people, I think, UM, and we've got to figure
Speaker 1: out diplomatically if there's if there's an off ramp to
Speaker 1: that or not or else. Right now, from the way
Speaker 1: I look at it, UM, the Ukraine military is about
Speaker 1: to be destroyed. Well boy there, Well, there's been some
Speaker 1: reporting that the Ukraine military's plan is to kill as
Speaker 1: many Russian soldiers as fast as they can and have
Speaker 1: the Russian public turn against this. Of course, if it's
Speaker 1: a to day operation for Russian to roll through the
Speaker 1: whole country and take it over, there wouldn't be time
Speaker 1: to uh public opinion. There's a crazy op in the
Speaker 1: worst of insurance say that says a hundred thousand troops
Speaker 1: is not enough. And I sit there and go, how
Speaker 1: do you know that? I mean, we look at we
Speaker 1: look at the situation in the past of what's what's happened.
Speaker 1: I just don't think that that's you know, a feasible
Speaker 1: way of deterrence and making sure that that that that uh,
Speaker 1: that's going to keep them from doing anything. Mike, have
Speaker 1: you actually let loose the dogs of war? We can
Speaker 1: hear the dogs of war in the background. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: had him, had him rocked up, but he gets that
Speaker 1: you worry about it. We just thought that was a
Speaker 1: funny joke. That's all there was to that. Bans. Military
Speaker 1: analysts on the line always great to talk to, Mike James.
Speaker 1: So is the most likely thing that happens. Then Russia
Speaker 1: moves in. It only takes a couple of days, they
Speaker 1: destroy the Ukrainian they take over Ukraine and the world
Speaker 1: says in what are you gonna do? Is that what's
Speaker 1: gonna happen? Yeah? I think so. I think that the
Speaker 1: question is how much damage does Russia cause? Do they
Speaker 1: feel they have to go overboard? And um, it could
Speaker 1: lead to those crippling sanctions that we say that that
Speaker 1: are going to happen again, the Germans are not going
Speaker 1: to go with them, and the Chinese will still you know,
Speaker 1: back to support them as well. Um. I just think
Speaker 1: that the question is how much will be destroyed of
Speaker 1: the Ukraine military, because that's really it would be no
Speaker 1: match they have. They don't have the same capabilities over
Speaker 1: some fifty thous and they've got all those other troops
Speaker 1: that are there as well. They just don't have any
Speaker 1: kind of capability. And again, these anti tank missiles and
Speaker 1: the things we're sending is not gonna be enough to
Speaker 1: stop them. They're they're the Russians are going to do
Speaker 1: this by indirect fire. They're gonna fire missiles and artillery
Speaker 1: into these built up is Flattenum, level them for a
Speaker 1: few days and then a side role and I to
Speaker 1: destroy anything that's left over. So just another book length question,
Speaker 1: you know, condensed down into a minute or two. Um,
Speaker 1: to what extent, in your opinion, is Vladimir Putin trying
Speaker 1: to recapture the not only the ground but the glory
Speaker 1: of the Soviet Empire? And to what extent is he
Speaker 1: like Russian rulers through history, you know, fairly paranoid about
Speaker 1: attacks from the west and the south, and he's just
Speaker 1: trying to establish a buffer. I think he's not acting
Speaker 1: like a Russian ruler. He's acting like a Soviet ruler.
Speaker 1: He's not. It's and there's a difference. I mean, um,
Speaker 1: you know, Russia potentially would have been part of the
Speaker 1: international community. Look at me Boris Yeltson and look at
Speaker 1: the things that that they they've tried to do at
Speaker 1: the end there with Glasnostin and Gorbacheff, and that was
Speaker 1: more of a Russian ruler. He's much more ruthless. He's
Speaker 1: more of a Soviet union leader that wants to bring
Speaker 1: um as much damage down and fear as a tactic
Speaker 1: in order to get things going. There's no karent and
Speaker 1: stick with Vladimir Putin. I think the question is, um,
Speaker 1: he wants America out of Europe, that's for sure, and
Speaker 1: a little secret as we are. I mean, we took
Speaker 1: three hundred thousand troops out in the nineties, but he
Speaker 1: doesn't want any more influence in those NATO countries that
Speaker 1: we have there, and I think I think that's um.
Speaker 1: The question of whether he can get there with this
Speaker 1: or not it remains to be seen. I saw a
Speaker 1: good article from Fiona Hill that said, you know, he's
Speaker 1: got us right where he wants us, and there's there's
Speaker 1: some ways that's true. The question is again, he goes
Speaker 1: in there with this destructive force, kills a lot of people,
Speaker 1: destroys the Ukraine military, and then turns the United States
Speaker 1: and say, now, what are you gonna do about it? Yeah.
Speaker 1: The frustrating thing to me is I watched this is
Speaker 1: there's no well, not no. There are a few strong
Speaker 1: intrinsic reasons why we are rivals with Vladimir Putin and
Speaker 1: his his kleptocracy. I mean, it's not like China exactly.
Speaker 1: He's not exactly a communist, a sort of one. But
Speaker 1: why in the world there are we these huge adversaries
Speaker 1: with Putin. Well, it's because Putin's a megalomaniac, I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: And he's got new crispins and they they he does
Speaker 1: fancy himself as being, you know, a global leer. He
Speaker 1: wants to exert global influence, especially in the region. It's
Speaker 1: the same reason why the Chinese want us out of Asia, um,
Speaker 1: Russia wants us out of Europe, and he wants to
Speaker 1: have that sphere of influence over it. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: I do think that at the end of the day, though,
Speaker 1: if we get too bogged down in this and we
Speaker 1: keep don't keep on the ball, that China still presents
Speaker 1: the bigger problem because of their economy and because of
Speaker 1: where their military capability is. And we couldn't make a
Speaker 1: bullet to kill all the people. So you know, there's
Speaker 1: just not you know that it's still a pretty large
Speaker 1: distraction here, and I'm not sure we're gonna be able
Speaker 1: to thread the needle on this in a way. Um
Speaker 1: that's gonna that's gonna either say faced on our side,
Speaker 1: on the Native side, doesn't. Some's put the alliance up
Speaker 1: on some level. But I do think again that it's
Speaker 1: going to be connectic and I think that that a
Speaker 1: large part of that Ukraine military is going to get
Speaker 1: destroyed because he's got the capability to do that. Well,
Speaker 1: almost use up all our time before I ask my
Speaker 1: big stupid question, which is is there any chance Russian
Speaker 1: and China is working together that that Russia is gonna
Speaker 1: move on Ukraine and China is gonna move on Taiwan.
Speaker 1: I think the only way that happens is if it's
Speaker 1: uh after the Olympics. The Chinese have got so much
Speaker 1: focus there. He we Russia did that at the end
Speaker 1: of the Socio Olympics. Literally the last day Olympics, he
Speaker 1: moved on Crimea. I think that he's gonna least give
Speaker 1: the Chinese that amount of time. It's gonna give two
Speaker 1: or three more weeks for the ground to freeze so
Speaker 1: the tanks don't sink and in the mud as they
Speaker 1: roll across the country. But I got I think quick
Speaker 1: incursion go in a lot of fires, a lot of
Speaker 1: death and destruction. I'm not sure they're going to occupy,
Speaker 1: but I don't think it's still gonna happen for a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks because of the Olympics. So that's where
Speaker 1: they're gonna work together, well, getting back here charming saying
Speaker 1: about Bayonets. Something is going to happen. I hope we
Speaker 1: can stay in touch. Military analysts, my clients always enlightening Mike,
Speaker 1: thanks a million, Hey guys, good thanks for having me. Yeah.
Speaker 1: If you want to follow the story, follow him on
Speaker 1: Twitter because he he often has the very latest best
Speaker 1: stuff going on there. I think they're just gonna roll
Speaker 1: in take over Ukraine. The world's gonna say, damn it.
Speaker 1: Can you believe that? That's s sanctions? Strong statements? Strong statements.
Speaker 1: So Putin has a mass to half a trillion dollars
Speaker 1: of reserve money according to report out today. To be
Speaker 1: able to weather sanctions half a trillion, he needs oil
Speaker 1: to be forty dollars a barrel. To be able to
Speaker 1: make a profit. It's twice that, and that's where they
Speaker 1: get most of their revenue. So financially, a lot of
Speaker 1: fakers think the sanctions just he's not scared of him
Speaker 1: at all. Between oil and has saved up money. So
Speaker 1: he's gonna roll and he's gonna take Ukraine in the
Speaker 1: world's gonna go. God, can you believe he did that?
Speaker 1: Damn it? Because he care? What a mean guy? Anyway,
Speaker 1: have you seen have you seen the new season of
Speaker 1: squid Game? And then we go back to other, you know,
Speaker 1: whatever stuff we talk about. I think he nailed it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there you go.