Speaker 1: The Ukrainians are struggling to make the big breakthrough. It
Speaker 1: could take more time. They're still hopeful, and they are
Speaker 1: still pressing the United States and their allies for more
Speaker 1: military aid, more support to try and get through those minefields.
Speaker 1: And official telling me they have a fraction of the
Speaker 1: d mining equipment they need.
Speaker 2: That's a problem. This headline was troubling yesterday from the
Speaker 2: New York Times. US intelligence assessment says Ukraine's counter offensive
Speaker 2: will fail to achieve key objective. That's what our intelligence says.
Speaker 2: It's troubling that it's true. I think it's also troubling
Speaker 2: that they're telling us this. Why is that coming out?
Speaker 2: Is there a reason for that?
Speaker 3: Let's discuss that and several other matters of note with
Speaker 3: Mike Lyons, military analyst, a major in the United States
Speaker 3: Armed Forces serving the country all over the world, and
Speaker 3: respected military analyst on CNN among other places. Mike, how
Speaker 3: are you, sir, guy?
Speaker 4: It's great to be back with you.
Speaker 2: Last time you're on you were more optimistic than usual
Speaker 2: about Ukrainian's chances with this counter offensive. Where are we now?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I was because they were at least able to
Speaker 4: get to the first line of defenses there they got
Speaker 4: into a town Rovertine, but in two short weeks it
Speaker 4: looks like they pushed back towards Zaparizia and this Melitopo,
Speaker 4: which is their key objective. It's only seventy five miles
Speaker 4: from where they're sitting right now. It just seems unreachable
Speaker 4: for them. And that's because you lay two to three
Speaker 4: defensive layers of minefields together with built up areas that
Speaker 4: they can't avoid without the equipment, without the mind clearing equipment.
Speaker 4: You know, it's really what it comes down to, and
Speaker 4: how they've deployed these mines. They've been stacking them two
Speaker 4: and three underneath into the ground at the time. So
Speaker 4: even if the mind clearing equipment gets the first two,
Speaker 4: there's still one to go and it blows the tracks
Speaker 4: off the tanks and then you just overall add no
Speaker 4: air superiority at whatsoever. You just don't get any kind
Speaker 4: of recipe for success. You know. Counter offensives are about bold,
Speaker 4: audacious moves, the shock and awe, you know, all those
Speaker 4: things that you look in history and shock effect and stuff.
Speaker 4: None of that's here, and that's that's just why they're
Speaker 4: not been successful.
Speaker 3: And on the topic of airpower. Do I understand correctly
Speaker 3: that the F sixteens won't be available and piloted perhaps
Speaker 3: until early twenty five.
Speaker 4: That's probably right, and based on the pilots, and the
Speaker 4: next F sixteens that are going to show up are
Speaker 4: going to be twenty years old, they're not going to
Speaker 4: be the F sixteens that they need to take out
Speaker 4: Russian counter electronic warfare measures and not just provide close
Speaker 4: air support for troops, but to do things from a
Speaker 4: deep strike perspective. They're not going to have that capability,
Speaker 4: and they're not getting the top shelf F sixteens. They're getting.
Speaker 4: What these NATO countries are doing very smartly right now
Speaker 4: is all their kind of lousy natal equipment for in
Speaker 4: the past twenty five years. They're shipping it to Ukraine.
Speaker 4: They willing to get rid of it because they want
Speaker 4: to basically rearm themselves over the next ten years with
Speaker 4: new stuff. And that's what's happening with these Suppose it's
Speaker 4: not like thirty of them too again, they need one
Speaker 4: hundred and twenty of them. They need squadrons of them
Speaker 4: in order to be effective in the fight.
Speaker 2: So Ukraine is in the unfortunate situation of not winning
Speaker 2: is losing for them, but for Russia, not winning is
Speaker 2: not losing for them. They can just hold ground and
Speaker 2: wait right.
Speaker 4: Right, and we're seeing now what's come out of Russian
Speaker 4: intelligence sources that they want to freeze in place and
Speaker 4: they want to stay and kind of hold the line.
Speaker 4: Right now, they were going on some counter offensive operations
Speaker 4: in the north in back Moot, still trying to take
Speaker 4: that you know town that has no significant strategic value.
Speaker 4: You know, the line's still eight hundred kilometers long, and
Speaker 4: in order for them to try to do something, but
Speaker 4: they recognize that they don't have the firepower, the shock
Speaker 4: effect in order to do the same thing to go
Speaker 4: in any kind of counter offensive. So they're coming to
Speaker 4: the conclusion that they're just going to continue to dig in.
Speaker 4: You know, that's kind of the you know, talking about
Speaker 4: it with other analysts, you know, Russian tactics right now
Speaker 4: is you know, go in, take over a place and
Speaker 4: mind yourself in, you know, get ready for the long run.
Speaker 4: You're not leaving, and when you do leave, you know
Speaker 4: the way out and the enemy trying to come in
Speaker 4: is not going to be very successful without the mind
Speaker 4: clearing equipment. So I'm just going to see a stalemate there.
Speaker 2: I'm just curious. So if we were faced with that,
Speaker 2: the United States, the best military in the world, how
Speaker 2: how well would we be able to get through you know,
Speaker 2: these mind laden fields or how long would it take?
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, we'd absolutely destroy them from the
Speaker 4: air before we even move soldiers into them. We have
Speaker 4: over pressurized bombs that blow the minds up in place,
Speaker 4: you know, you know, we still obviously have the risk casualties.
Speaker 4: We have better mind clearing equipment, but we just have
Speaker 4: it in scale that none of these other countries have
Speaker 4: it in so and you know we would we would
Speaker 4: be coming at them from naval power, from the air.
Speaker 4: It's you know, it would be no match, and we
Speaker 4: would not risk our soldiers until we were positive that
Speaker 4: we were going to succeed. So it's just it's all
Speaker 4: the difference in modern warfare, and we're watching a early
Speaker 4: you know, twentieth century war take place with we really
Speaker 4: have the only twenty first century Army.
Speaker 3: Military analyst Mike lyons on the line, Mike, let's shift
Speaker 3: to the Pacific theater. It is notable any student of
Speaker 3: history understands this that Japan and South Korea are arm
Speaker 3: in arm virtually meeting with the president and Camp David
Speaker 3: talking about military cooperation. What are your thoughts on that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think it's good. I think, you know, that's becoming.
Speaker 4: That's we're going to look to hear twenty years from
Speaker 4: now and see if something does happen there, You're going
Speaker 4: to see all these little indications of what had taken
Speaker 4: place there. The Japanese, unlike the Germans, are trying to
Speaker 4: at least reset their military historically, and you know, the
Speaker 4: Japanese are warriors. They you know, saw that in World
Speaker 4: War Two, and you know, so I think from you know,
Speaker 4: their surviability perspective, they recognize the threat to China is
Speaker 4: they threat on the seas in the South China Sea
Speaker 4: as well, and Australia as a key ally for US there.
Speaker 4: We've got other sides, other militaries there that we have
Speaker 4: so so that that alliance there is kind of like
Speaker 4: you know, natal Light Pacific is what's taking place, not formalized,
Speaker 4: but the implied missions that are going on there, and
Speaker 4: I think those are all good things.
Speaker 3: Well, I agree completely. I think we both agree it's
Speaker 3: a very good thing. Given the threat of China. But
Speaker 3: it's notable since Japan committed just horrifying atrocities in South
Speaker 3: Korea through the years. I mean that the wounds are
Speaker 3: still very painful between those two peoples, but they are
Speaker 3: so intent on countering China. They've gotten together again, which
Speaker 3: I think is a good thing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, and and those right, clearly generations go back
Speaker 4: with regard to that in what Japan did during the
Speaker 4: Second World War. But they both look at each other,
Speaker 4: and they look at China as exontential threat to both
Speaker 4: of them, and so they're they're gonna they're going to
Speaker 4: work together, both of them, with the support of the
Speaker 4: United States as long as you know, we're in the
Speaker 4: room at the same time. And you know, I'm sure
Speaker 4: there's emotions that get get in play every once in
Speaker 4: a while, but fundamentally they recognize where the enemy is.
Speaker 2: Finally, the Taliban has been celebrating this week their two
Speaker 2: year anniversary of having taken back over Afghanistan after our withdrawal.
Speaker 2: Any thoughts on this two year anniversary, Yeah, I'll.
Speaker 4: Tell you it's still through the military community. There's been
Speaker 4: no real after action report this because the administration is
Speaker 4: basically kept it under wraps. They recognize how bad it is.
Speaker 4: We saw the parents testify in front of Congress. We
Speaker 4: didn't see any the military was not punished that Sentcom commander.
Speaker 4: I hold him responsible for the depths of those marines there.
Speaker 4: They never should have been anywhere near civilians in the
Speaker 4: last few days. There's no difference between Afghanistan between what
Speaker 4: happened there and what happened in Vietnam from a historical perspective,
Speaker 4: with the only difference is fifty eight thousand body bags
Speaker 4: that came home in the sixties and seventies. And if
Speaker 4: we didn't learn the lesson, and hopefully we'll learn it
Speaker 4: in the future, it.
Speaker 3: Is remarkable and disgusting that mountability is so vital. It's
Speaker 3: it's irreplaceable on the battlefield and in maneuvers, and as
Speaker 3: you get further up the chain, there's less and less accountability.
Speaker 3: It's just it's it's angering.
Speaker 4: We had it during the World Wars, but really since
Speaker 4: then we haven't seen it. And you know, we didn't
Speaker 4: assign a general officer, for example, in Afghanistan, to say
Speaker 4: go win this war. Instead, we rotated them out. It
Speaker 4: was kind of like a you know, a human resources
Speaker 4: you know they got this guy got the experience. Let
Speaker 4: this guy get the experience. I mean, we fought all
Speaker 4: these different wars. Every time we got a new commander there,
Speaker 4: and that didn't happen in World War One, World War two,
Speaker 4: we put a person in place, we put a general
Speaker 4: officer in places to go win that war. And when
Speaker 4: they didn't, they got fired and we put somebody out
Speaker 4: there that can do the job.
Speaker 3: Mike Lyons on the line, Mike always enlightening. Thanks a
Speaker 3: million for the time. Good to talk to you, great.
Speaker 4: Guys, Thanks for having me. See soon. Armstrong and Getty