Speaker 1: From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the George Washington
Speaker 1: Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Jetty Armstrong and Jetty Show.
Speaker 1: I think it deserves serious consideration. I think we need
Speaker 1: to look at the gamut of options that are out
Speaker 1: there for us. We need to calculate the risk and
Speaker 1: be smart about it. I think you have to at
Speaker 1: that point consider a note fly zone. I think is
Speaker 1: a pretty logical next step. But I'll give you a
Speaker 1: halfway house. That would be going back to the idea
Speaker 1: of getting fighters in the hands of the Ukrainians, and
Speaker 1: I get all the puts and takes of that. You
Speaker 1: want Ukraine to do the note they would basically be
Speaker 1: the ones to do it, not NATO. Is that is
Speaker 1: that the goal on this is so that's Admiral James
Speaker 1: Stravitis who is on WELSO with a former ambassador and
Speaker 1: they both were for a no fly zone and the
Speaker 1: admirals take I saw him on MSNBC today he said,
Speaker 1: might take from looking at the talk shows over the
Speaker 1: weekend and and statements out of the White Houses that
Speaker 1: everything is now on the table. So, as I was
Speaker 1: saying last week, I feel like at least the the mood,
Speaker 1: the weight of the conversation is moving toward a no
Speaker 1: fly zone. Mike Lions did tweet out yesterday it would
Speaker 1: invite even a small nuclear response, possibly on the homeland
Speaker 1: from Russia, which is a big deal. Hello. Well, speaking
Speaker 1: of Mike Clions, military analyst of my clients, West Point graduate,
Speaker 1: served with various American military here. He organizations both on
Speaker 1: the home front and in Europe and in uh Iraq
Speaker 1: through his career. Joins US. Now, Mike Lions, how are you,
Speaker 1: sir guys? It's to make amazing to me if you know.
Speaker 1: I don't want to go against the fourth star general obviously,
Speaker 1: but the fourth star making that kind of comment is
Speaker 1: almost irresponsible in terms of what all the nuance that
Speaker 1: has to go in. Did he kind of then say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's because the Ukraines are going to do the new
Speaker 1: flight zone. Do you think they would do that now
Speaker 1: if they could twenty nine nig airplanes and not changing
Speaker 1: the calculus on that. I'm just surprised that we're there
Speaker 1: that's being floated politically still on any level here, that
Speaker 1: is completely off the table unless we want to risk
Speaker 1: having an attack on our homeland, our attack in a
Speaker 1: European city or something, because that's really what it would
Speaker 1: lead to. Well, so I was a little concerned over
Speaker 1: the weekend. UM, modern journalism being what it is in
Speaker 1: the twenty four hour news cycle and everything like that.
Speaker 1: Is this a bad idea that we're nailing so many
Speaker 1: things down? Um? And maybe all this talk of the
Speaker 1: no flight his own is just to have it out there.
Speaker 1: So Putin thinks that it's possibly on the table because
Speaker 1: this constantly taking everything, a bunch of things off the
Speaker 1: table to satisfy Chuck tadd and meet the presser whoever,
Speaker 1: I'm not any good, right, And that's there's an argument
Speaker 1: to that, But I don't think he is of that ilk.
Speaker 1: He has his own agenda and doesn't necessarily look at
Speaker 1: what's he sees what's done and not what we're doing
Speaker 1: as opposed to what we're not doing. I understand how
Speaker 1: that you could dissuaded by that, But that's not the
Speaker 1: kind of enemy we're dealing with. That. That's again we're
Speaker 1: projecting our values on our own way and trying to
Speaker 1: psychoanalyze our behavior. You're right, the administration is putting all
Speaker 1: these things that are out there that we're not doing
Speaker 1: but the bottom line is we aren't doing them. We're
Speaker 1: not going to do them, and so so it's fine.
Speaker 1: And in some ways he knows that that he random
Speaker 1: and Putin does control this whole thing because he's the
Speaker 1: one who invaded. When I hear Mitt Romney say things
Speaker 1: like we've gotta, you know, turn the tide on him
Speaker 1: and we've gotta get back in control. No no, no, no,
Speaker 1: there's no us controlling. This is his war. This is
Speaker 1: this regional conflict that exists there. You want to insert
Speaker 1: yourself in it, you want to go to the war
Speaker 1: with the nuclear power, then then let's have that conversation
Speaker 1: and see what that leads us to. So again, this
Speaker 1: is not about trying to gain some kind of upper
Speaker 1: hand with him. We're not in this conflict. We really aren't.
Speaker 1: Other than supporting Ukraine, like we are pouring ammunition and
Speaker 1: pouring supplies and that's really all we can do. And
Speaker 1: you your tweet was, so you think Putin would actually
Speaker 1: strike the United States with a nuclear weapon, And I
Speaker 1: think it's possible. I think that we have to consider it.
Speaker 1: I mean, and it's not it's not going to be
Speaker 1: something that's going to come from the ural mountains, it's
Speaker 1: going to travel across space. You know, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: time to think about it. Where he's gonna take a submarine,
Speaker 1: he's gonna get it close to he's going to get
Speaker 1: close to our shores. He's gonna launch a weapon. He's
Speaker 1: gonna launch something that could hit our our homeland. I
Speaker 1: don't see. I don't see if if we decide to
Speaker 1: put in an off fly zone and take a Patriot
Speaker 1: missile and fire it from Poland, fire from a NATO
Speaker 1: country and it chases down a MiG SOVIETNIG plane over
Speaker 1: Russia and and kill the Russian pilot over Russia, I
Speaker 1: don't see how he's not responding. I don't see. I
Speaker 1: don't see what is what he's got to respond. I
Speaker 1: don't totally crap. This is a conversation. Well, indeed it is.
Speaker 1: And and you know, Mike, these are extremely difficult questions
Speaker 1: and only hindsight is in these matters. But if if
Speaker 1: we are to preclude, to eliminate any action that might
Speaker 1: provoke putin to do of things you've said, let's bring
Speaker 1: us a conversation, all right, what if there is an
Speaker 1: accidental strike in Poland? What if he uh you know, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there are, there are a number of what ifs. At
Speaker 1: some point, I think we need to be willing to
Speaker 1: do things that might provoke a horrific, cataclysmic reaction or
Speaker 1: we're paralyzed. I'm not sure where that is or what
Speaker 1: that is. I think he has to do that first. So,
Speaker 1: for example, what happened over the weekend, the Interdictions strike
Speaker 1: deep in western Ukraine. That was a huge risk for
Speaker 1: them because they had to do that with pilots. They
Speaker 1: don't have cruise missiles that have enough accuracy, believe it
Speaker 1: or not, that can hit a target that could be
Speaker 1: sixteen miles within a Polish border, within the NATO border.
Speaker 1: So he put min at risk in order to do
Speaker 1: that mission. Why he knew it was important, I'm suppose
Speaker 1: he didn't do it before, but he knew that he
Speaker 1: couldn't make a mistake on it either. He knew he
Speaker 1: couldn't just fire a bunch of cruise missiles at it
Speaker 1: and have him possibly miss and strike Poland, because then
Speaker 1: then possibly then we could respond and do something. Because
Speaker 1: because if we entered this battle conventionally, if we decided
Speaker 1: to come in and we have eight and lined up
Speaker 1: someplace and bet that convoy, for example, that forty mile
Speaker 1: convoy in done in four hours. I mean it's molten
Speaker 1: rubbish in four hours. That the balance of power gets
Speaker 1: tipped so quickly back on the side of Ukraine that
Speaker 1: the level of embarrassment that Vladimir Putin suffers is amazing.
Speaker 1: So again he's cognizant of the fact that he doesn't
Speaker 1: want to bring us in the red line. Everyone talks
Speaker 1: about the red line, the red lines, the border. That's
Speaker 1: the bottom line. There's no chemicals, there's no nuclear The
Speaker 1: red line is the Ukraine board. As long as if
Speaker 1: that's not violated, there's not much we can do, I think,
Speaker 1: at least offensively in order to stop him. And then
Speaker 1: of course, if we are, for instance, we take out
Speaker 1: that convoy and he gets that on the news in Russia,
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden, the public opinion swings towards
Speaker 1: him as he gets to say he's at war with
Speaker 1: the the evil United States. Right, So the hundred and
Speaker 1: forty million people right now who are confused about what's
Speaker 1: going on are no longer confused because now NATO has
Speaker 1: attacked Russia, attacked the Motherland. They start the music up,
Speaker 1: they start all those old videos up about the Great War.
Speaker 1: Here we go. At the end of the day, Russia
Speaker 1: has capacity. They do have things that they can do.
Speaker 1: They have those nuclear weapons, they have they have a
Speaker 1: lot of different capacity. Now their military has failed miserably,
Speaker 1: no question about it. The fact that they know Ukraine
Speaker 1: is not even close to being a peer competitor with them.
Speaker 1: But the fact that they've had to standoff for now,
Speaker 1: which is every day that goes by Ukraine actually gets stronger,
Speaker 1: standoff gets more. I'm not gonna start to be worried
Speaker 1: about stinger missiles that are inside there. Let's hope they'll
Speaker 1: find their way back to shores. Hopefully I have some
Speaker 1: accountability about those, because those weapons can find their way
Speaker 1: outside of Ukraine into the hands of other people. So
Speaker 1: there's a down side also of putting a lot of
Speaker 1: this material into the Ukraine military and making sure that
Speaker 1: they use it. Military analysts Mike Lions on the line, Mike,
Speaker 1: I know your student not only of military strategy, but
Speaker 1: society too. It is going to be difficult to contain
Speaker 1: the passions of the Western world when the videos start
Speaker 1: to emerge from say Mariopola or or or Kiev. When
Speaker 1: it finally falls of literally starved children, and and it
Speaker 1: scenes of horror and carnage and or maybe or maybe
Speaker 1: Zelinsky on his knees somewhere. So again, and we need
Speaker 1: to get him out of there. He's got to survive this.
Speaker 1: I still think that the Israeli Prime Minister, when he
Speaker 1: went there a few weeks ago, I think he whispered
Speaker 1: in his ear said, look, it's not going to be
Speaker 1: a good look if you assassinate a Jewish head of state.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna look filing upon that um. And we
Speaker 1: need to get the Chinese in the game. I know,
Speaker 1: I think we're meeting with them this afternoon in Rome,
Speaker 1: but basically sell them, you better get your tach dog
Speaker 1: on a leash here, and you better figure this out
Speaker 1: because we're gonna start sanctioning you. We've got to get tougher.
Speaker 1: We have to show power in places like that. About
Speaker 1: with the Chinese and other influences of Russia, I mean,
Speaker 1: Russia asking to Chinese for military and logistical supplies? Is
Speaker 1: that a serious request? And the Chinese are actually gonna
Speaker 1: consider it, So again, that's they're not even a superpower anymore.
Speaker 1: If that, If that is the case, so that's where
Speaker 1: this is going to if we're gonna be in on this,
Speaker 1: so does the Chinese, and the Chinese need to get
Speaker 1: the Russians on the leash pretty quick. I was watching
Speaker 1: David Martin on CBS News yesterday. He said, Russia in
Speaker 1: the next couple of weeks is going to have to
Speaker 1: resupply either people, are equipment or something. I mean, because
Speaker 1: they didn't expect this to last that long. Does that
Speaker 1: sound accurate to you, Yeah, there's no second echelon here. Normally,
Speaker 1: Russian doctrine deploys in multiple waves, um and they have
Speaker 1: different groups that come on and kind of passed through,
Speaker 1: and but this wasn't the plan here. This was a
Speaker 1: special operations group. So for example, they're eventually they're running
Speaker 1: out of animal they running out of artillery in these cities,
Speaker 1: and now those were those the animalyts on those convoys,
Speaker 1: and it's a lot of things that are in there.
Speaker 1: They're a're running out, so they can't even feed their soldiers.
Speaker 1: Every day you see these stories of the Russian tanks
Speaker 1: being blown up and the farmers taking them and they're
Speaker 1: abandoning their troops. It is it is mind boggling to me.
Speaker 1: That they haven't thought any of this through. So again,
Speaker 1: and the Ukrainians live to survive one day at a time.
Speaker 1: Right now, if if they can can continue to take
Speaker 1: the pounding and they fight this to a stance, the
Speaker 1: they end up winning. That's exactly where I was going
Speaker 1: to go, Say, the major city's fall and Zelinski either
Speaker 1: heads out of town or is killed or what have you.
Speaker 1: What is the Russian occupation of Ukraine look like in
Speaker 1: terms of numbers of forces, the cost, etcetera. Yeah, not
Speaker 1: very long. You thought Afghanistan was bad, and you thought
Speaker 1: some of those other things were bad. And again, given
Speaker 1: the fact that they won't be able to secure the border,
Speaker 1: that the guerrilla math would mean let's say twenty million
Speaker 1: men remaining in Ukraine, because you know, the women are
Speaker 1: out in children around, a lot of people are out,
Speaker 1: let's say so, so the guerrilla math is anywhere from
Speaker 1: one to two million soldiers that the Russians would need
Speaker 1: inside inside of Ukraine only in order to try to
Speaker 1: pacify that they don't have. They don't have those kind
Speaker 1: of resources. So so again there will be entire groups
Speaker 1: formed in the western part of Ukraine that will come
Speaker 1: in and launch massive attacks on Russian soldiers and there
Speaker 1: won't be a Russian officer safe in any city in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: They won't have a cup of tea thinking there'll be
Speaker 1: poison that don't be able to turn a light switch
Speaker 1: on the they're gonna get blow up. They won't be
Speaker 1: able to turn the ignition on a car they're going
Speaker 1: it's not going to get blown up. That's the kind
Speaker 1: of level of inserviency that's going to take place because
Speaker 1: the whole world is going to help with them, help
Speaker 1: with them too as well. Yeah, I was gonna mention that.
Speaker 1: So I saw a report last night and how there
Speaker 1: are soldiers coming in from all over the world. Americans, Canadians, Australians,
Speaker 1: Brits that have fought in wars. They're there, you know,
Speaker 1: seasoned soldiers that are going to Ukraine to fight. Are
Speaker 1: we gonna be able to continue to get weapons into
Speaker 1: their hands throughout this Yeah, So again they're going to
Speaker 1: try to interdict those supply convoys. I think they're going
Speaker 1: to enter the border with them in hand, but they're
Speaker 1: eventually gonna need to be resupplied as well. I'm not
Speaker 1: necessarily a fan of that because we see that the
Speaker 1: Russians are bringing in Syrians and whether or not that's
Speaker 1: also a story we remains to be seen. The fact
Speaker 1: that Syrian fighters are gonna come and help this again,
Speaker 1: good luck bringing those guys into that country and not
Speaker 1: being identified as Syrian fighters, and how the people will
Speaker 1: react to that as well. Um So, this is just
Speaker 1: becoming a mess, and it's be the Russians just unable
Speaker 1: on any level to control it, and it's gotten, it
Speaker 1: gets more out of hand for them every day, and
Speaker 1: it's and it's completely outside of their kind of space
Speaker 1: that they thought they were going to be in this now.
Speaker 1: They thought, but this point this would be over and
Speaker 1: done controlled and they'd be honest to the next thing. Uh,
Speaker 1: And they're now completely in a situation where I don't
Speaker 1: I don't see the offer for them right now. Great analysis,
Speaker 1: Mike Lions. We can't properly express our appreciation. Great stuff.
Speaker 1: Thank you, gi me yep. Absolutely, I absolutely love how
Speaker 1: Mike does not give a single crap about being in
Speaker 1: the mainstream or going with anybody's flow or anything. He
Speaker 1: just calls it as the season. We got to discuss
Speaker 1: some of that. Holy cow, I never thought we'd have
Speaker 1: a conversation like that text is FO five k f
Speaker 1: TC