Speaker 1: But the fact of the matter is, in the last
Speaker 1: couple of months there really hasn't been very much in
Speaker 1: the way of territorial gains on the part of the
Speaker 1: Russian military, And one of the reasons for that seems
Speaker 1: to be that they've mobilized a lot of people, but
Speaker 1: they can't really get that many weapons to people. It's
Speaker 1: under clear whether or not that's because their industry symbody
Speaker 1: isn't efficient enough, or whether or not sanctions or taking
Speaker 1: a toll on some of that. But right now you
Speaker 1: have a case where people keep talking about an offensive
Speaker 1: that's about to happen, but so far very little in
Speaker 1: the way of gains. If that offensive is indeed already underway,
Speaker 1: If the Russian offensive is underway, it's not impressive so far.
Speaker 1: A couple of things on the war in Ukraine and
Speaker 1: the one year anniversary of this whole awful thing starting.
Speaker 1: I'm into this story for geopolitical reasons, for student history reasons,
Speaker 1: for personal reasons of just the humanity, I mean, just awful.
Speaker 1: But if you're not into this story, you should be
Speaker 1: into it, at least as a taxpayers. We've now spent
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirteen billion dollars, and it looks like,
Speaker 1: you know, we're going to continue down that road for
Speaker 1: some time to come. Two big developments today, on the
Speaker 1: one year anniversary, the Biden administration puts out a list
Speaker 1: of two hundred entities they're going to sanction harshly for
Speaker 1: continuing to do business with Russia when they're not supposed to.
Speaker 1: And China put out a peace plan for a ceasefire
Speaker 1: between Russia and Ukraine. And blah blah blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: speaking of entities that have been getting around the sanctions,
Speaker 1: Excuse me for not acting like a kid on Christmas
Speaker 1: morning receiving the gift of the Chinese plan. Let's discuss
Speaker 1: the past year and what's likely to come. With military analysts,
Speaker 1: my clients, Mike served with various military organizations both the
Speaker 1: US and Europe throughout his career. You know them from
Speaker 1: a number of publications and networks. Mike, how are you, sir?
Speaker 1: Take away, guys, great to be back. A year ago,
Speaker 1: our own government was saying Kiev could fall in ninety
Speaker 1: six hours. What were you thinking a year ago? And
Speaker 1: looking back on what you thought, how do you respond? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Probably the same Russia had tremendous capability capacity with their military.
Speaker 1: They had maneuver space, they had all the things going.
Speaker 1: They wound up their military machine, put about one hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty thousand troops surrounded Ukraine. Came in from Belarus,
Speaker 1: came in from eastern Russia. It should have been over
Speaker 1: in three or four days. It should have been a
Speaker 1: desert storm had they fought a combined arms fight. But
Speaker 1: they instead did what Russia does best, and when a
Speaker 1: military perspective comes, they just kind of slug it through,
Speaker 1: and they did not use their combined arms advantage, and
Speaker 1: Ukraine was able to hold off and hold out for
Speaker 1: what was the first few months, and then equipment starts
Speaker 1: pouring in, and now we're left with a year later,
Speaker 1: with a true stalemate, a war of attrician taking place
Speaker 1: on both sides. Well As not only an analyst, but
Speaker 1: a man who commanded troops in combat, how would you
Speaker 1: describe to the layman the level of underperformance of the
Speaker 1: Russian military in this so far? Oh my gosh, it's
Speaker 1: hard to think about anything less than what they've done.
Speaker 1: I mean, I you know, they had they outnumbered them
Speaker 1: the Ukraine military six to one in some areas, to
Speaker 1: go on the offense with artillery rounds with combined arms forces.
Speaker 1: The fact that you're later the Russians don't control the
Speaker 1: airspace is amazing. There was there was no real coordinated
Speaker 1: plan on how they were going to take Ukraine down.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's talking brass tacks here. But the first
Speaker 1: thing the United States hasn't any of these kind of
Speaker 1: wars is we go off to all their air defense
Speaker 1: platforms and make sure that we own the sky. Now
Speaker 1: we have air superiority. Now we roll in the troops
Speaker 1: from behind. And they didn't do any of that thing.
Speaker 1: They just literally thought that the Ukraine military was just
Speaker 1: going to roll through and got punched in the nose
Speaker 1: and then and then in the fight when the fight
Speaker 1: started happening. Unfortunately, Russian soldiers you know, didn't didn't answer
Speaker 1: the bell. I was looking at your Twitter feed. That
Speaker 1: picture you put out, is that a young U in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety know of the two privates in my Celcu
Speaker 1: lefting well and two privates from my company. We fired.
Speaker 1: Everybody claims they fired the first round of the war, right,
Speaker 1: so that we fired. We were one of those units
Speaker 1: that did. That was a day before the ground war.
Speaker 1: Started at Desert Storm. We fired copperhead rounds on targets,
Speaker 1: so we were already two miles inside of Iraq before
Speaker 1: the war actually started. I remember listening to the VBC saying, Oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: the war's going to start here for your son. I'm like, nah, Actually,
Speaker 1: the war is already on. We're getting up tomorrow morning,
Speaker 1: we're rolling, we're rolling north. So that those are the
Speaker 1: two of my good privates there that let's shut that round.
Speaker 1: And Russia thought they were going to pull off that
Speaker 1: sort of thing where you just you roll in and
Speaker 1: take over in a couple of days, and it's a
Speaker 1: it's a yeah, it's at the Allures Battle. And this
Speaker 1: is where Desert Storm gave this impression that other countries
Speaker 1: and other militaries can do this. And the thing about
Speaker 1: it is the United States literally practiced for that battle
Speaker 1: for the for ten years. They sent units to the
Speaker 1: National Training Center. Anyone who's listening knows what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: You go to the National Training Center, you fight that
Speaker 1: fight there, you practice. We've practiced that for about ten years.
Speaker 1: We showed up from Journey. We showed up with five
Speaker 1: hundred thousand troops and that's why that went that way.
Speaker 1: Ussia thought that the same thing was going to happen.
Speaker 1: They didn't put the same number of troops. They're about
Speaker 1: one hundred and eighty thousand or so. They thought the
Speaker 1: same thing was going to happen. Didn't recognize you have
Speaker 1: to practice that and you have to plan on on
Speaker 1: things going that way. So my clients, where are we
Speaker 1: now and what's likely to take shape in the next
Speaker 1: six months or so. So the history gets to this
Speaker 1: spot where both sides are at a stalemate in this
Speaker 1: war of attrition. Now, in the past, either side starts
Speaker 1: attacking the other side's capability to wage war. Now Ukraine
Speaker 1: doesn't have that capability. They can't go on the offense
Speaker 1: into Russia. They can't attack you know, tank factories and
Speaker 1: ammunition depots inside of Russia where their story where they're made.
Speaker 1: Now Russia can. Russia is trying to do that to Ukraine,
Speaker 1: but Western supplies keep pouring in. So classic war by
Speaker 1: proxy on our side and the West is supplying Ukraine
Speaker 1: propping them up. Without this happening, that Ukraine would be
Speaker 1: in real big trouble. I think you're going to see
Speaker 1: also a six hundred mile front. Just talk about the
Speaker 1: offense and about I'm listening to analysts say, oh, Ukraine's
Speaker 1: getting ready to go on the offense. I sit there
Speaker 1: and say with what they have to have? One hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty thousand troops themselves, plus six hundred plus artillery
Speaker 1: and turanks and mechanized infantry vehicles, bulldozers. There's so many
Speaker 1: things that are still lacking from their kit in order
Speaker 1: for them to expect the success or. We have the
Speaker 1: same thing on the other side. We have this hamburger
Speaker 1: machine where we don't want to see Ukraine soldiers getting
Speaker 1: thrown into the Russian hamburger machine because the Russians can
Speaker 1: defend just as well as anybody. So I think we're
Speaker 1: going to see to kind of nt it out here
Speaker 1: a North and South Korea. I'm going to see a
Speaker 1: DMZ between occupied land. Russia is going to take some
Speaker 1: of this Ukraine land. The question is what they take
Speaker 1: Crimea or not. That's how this ends. But it's not
Speaker 1: ending anytime soon because Russia is going to continue to
Speaker 1: fight for at least I think at least for another year.
Speaker 1: So is that an argument for arming the Ukrainians more,
Speaker 1: giving them the F sixteens, giving them more so that
Speaker 1: they can not have it be a war of attrition,
Speaker 1: which seems like it's in Russia's favor, but they can
Speaker 1: launch it offensive. Well, I still don't think the F
Speaker 1: sixteens matter. They don't get there on time, they're they're
Speaker 1: not close air support, the kind of um you know,
Speaker 1: they need four hundred tanks and then the crews demand them.
Speaker 1: They need artillery, you know, five times more artillery. They
Speaker 1: need a whole lot more. They need divisions worth of
Speaker 1: equipment that we really can't give them. And the other
Speaker 1: side that is ammunition. They're already starting to run out.
Speaker 1: You heard the NATO commanders say that we're running out
Speaker 1: of ammunition, artillery, ammunition, and we'd have to now ramp
Speaker 1: that up on our side because we're taking stocks out
Speaker 1: of Israel, We've taken stocks out of South Korea, We've
Speaker 1: taken stocks out of different places. So we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to start making our own ammunition here pretty soon. So
Speaker 1: I think that what we're going to continue to do
Speaker 1: as best we can as long as Ukraine is holding
Speaker 1: the line. From their perspective, I think that's let's just
Speaker 1: be happy for Hey. I know, Jack, you want to
Speaker 1: ask your big question to Mike in a moment, but
Speaker 1: before we get there, just out of curiosity, Mike, because
Speaker 1: we have listeners who some not many, who are much
Speaker 1: more sympathetic to the Russians side. Then I think a
Speaker 1: lot of Americans are. Um, and and we'll say, what's
Speaker 1: the matter with you guys? Research it. There actually were
Speaker 1: Nazis in don Boss And then Putin's right there, d
Speaker 1: nazifying it. What's your take on twenty fourteen on in
Speaker 1: the so called Nazis in the situation that part of Ukraine. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that was a problem not solved in twenty fourteen
Speaker 1: those separatists that control those areas and the Donbass reason
Speaker 1: and then crimeas Russia takes it on again. Look at history,
Speaker 1: Wars start like this because problems they can get to
Speaker 1: kick down the road. And that's what happened here. Um,
Speaker 1: that's possible, that likely could have happened. There could have
Speaker 1: been pockets of those kinds of things. Um, it's hard
Speaker 1: to project again our culture on anybody else's culture. Eastern
Speaker 1: European you know, the Nazification or so and the impact
Speaker 1: that that had over eighty years ago withinside of Europe
Speaker 1: still trickles out there. It's still out there, and it's
Speaker 1: it gets accelerated with social media. But yeah, there's those
Speaker 1: two sides to every story, um and and there's those
Speaker 1: that want to believe Russia doesn't will come out losing here,
Speaker 1: and losing to them will mean likely they still keep Crimeia,
Speaker 1: they keep some of those areas in the East, but
Speaker 1: they've lost a tremendous face in the ground stage of
Speaker 1: the green world. How important is this conflict to the
Speaker 1: United States? If Ukraine lost, what would be the national
Speaker 1: interest at stake here? Well, we'd have to define losing
Speaker 1: for Ukraine. Right, So Ukraine's not going to win by
Speaker 1: vanquishing Russia, right, that's not happening. So as long as
Speaker 1: Ukraine wins by having some kind of semblance of an
Speaker 1: agreement of a new border for whatever that is, and
Speaker 1: then the rebuilding of Ukraine starts, it's going to start
Speaker 1: with them being part of the EU first and foremost,
Speaker 1: and then perhaps five or six years down the road,
Speaker 1: maybe they'll be now part of NATO. I think that's
Speaker 1: going to be on the table as part of any
Speaker 1: of these negotiations, so that I don't see Ukraine losing
Speaker 1: at this point because they win by not losing in
Speaker 1: some level because Russia now doesn't really have the capability
Speaker 1: to vanquish Ukraine in the same side, but in the
Speaker 1: same token, neither does Ukraine in the same side. With Russia, well,
Speaker 1: is keeping the world order in place at stake or
Speaker 1: as you have said in the past, do you feel
Speaker 1: this is more of a regional conflict between Ukraine and Russia. No,
Speaker 1: it's a regional conflict still. I think that that's European
Speaker 1: regional conflict is still first and foremost, and we're fighting
Speaker 1: it by proxy. China is a big wild card. But
Speaker 1: you now see they want to negotiate a peace settlement.
Speaker 1: Why because they recognize their client state Russia doesn't look
Speaker 1: very favorable. It looks like they're losing, and now they
Speaker 1: don't want to be part of a losing team. But
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, it's in both China's
Speaker 1: interest in the United States is interest to have a
Speaker 1: very weak Russian military. So that's all part of this.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know the people are a Pentagon are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's go keep it up, keep smashing them, because the
Speaker 1: more of the Russian military gets destroyed, the lesser threat
Speaker 1: they become. Down the road. I think the Chinese feel
Speaker 1: the same way about Russia as well. Interesting, Yeah, we
Speaker 1: could talk for a day and a half about the
Speaker 1: China's relationship with Russia, not just the obvious day to
Speaker 1: day stuff, but the historical nature and their shared border
Speaker 1: and the rest of it. But perhaps another time military
Speaker 1: analyst to Mike Lyons, Mike, it's always enjoyable. Thanks a million,
Speaker 1: thanks guy, Thanks for me. Yeah, that's what you opened
Speaker 1: the show with. As people, countries and people do what's
Speaker 1: in their national interest and maybe the whole war of attrition,
Speaker 1: we're in this for the long haul. Our national interest
Speaker 1: is wearing down the Russian military and depleting them, spending
Speaker 1: them into oblivion. Oh yeah, absolutely, that's absolutely a part
Speaker 1: of it. But you know, if I was going to
Speaker 1: say one thing semi complimentary about China in its leadership
Speaker 1: is they do take the long view. They're often wildly wrong,
Speaker 1: but they have the discipline to think about their grandchildren
Speaker 1: in a way that American politics is just abysmal. At again,
Speaker 1: their system is unspeakably terrible communism and the way they
Speaker 1: see humanity, but at least they have some discipline to it.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it's entirely possible they're in bed with Russia
Speaker 1: to prop up Russia to get good and bled dry.
Speaker 1: China is clearly the hedgemon that means the hard ass
Speaker 1: in that part of the world. Yeah, one thing, and
Speaker 1: I didn't I didn't want to get off track on this.
Speaker 1: But the one thing I don't get is the argument.
Speaker 1: And this has been going on for a year now.
Speaker 1: Now if we give them this it takes training and
Speaker 1: it would take two months to get out. Well, a
Speaker 1: year has gone by and everybody thinks another year or
Speaker 1: two or five is going to go by. So I
Speaker 1: don't understand the argument of it take and take month.
Speaker 1: It'd be a six months before they'd be in the
Speaker 1: country and then you got a trink. But well it
Speaker 1: would seem that we have the time. Yeah, let's plant
Speaker 1: the oak tree today and see what happens. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: don't quite get that argument, but you hear it a
Speaker 1: lot