Speaker 1: You are listening to a Fonds Media Network production.
Speaker 2: Welcome one of the Blades listeners. Today, I have retired
Speaker 2: Army Intelligence Colonel Doctor Jonathan S. Lockwood, PhDe. Doctor Lockwood
Speaker 2: offers his insight based on his many years of experience
Speaker 2: into the Ukraine Russia situation, as well as offering some
Speaker 2: very unique solutions that can be deployed to further strengthen
Speaker 2: American defenses and deploy an effective iron dome. Doctor Lockwood
Speaker 2: and I had an insightful conversation that I believe you
Speaker 2: will find very informative.
Speaker 3: Put that over you. What's going on in Ukraine? I
Speaker 3: deal with it twice a week on the Ukraine Show
Speaker 3: with IBMTV pod TV. We do it every Tuesday and
Speaker 3: every Friday. And we went about one of our podcasters,
Speaker 3: Yvon Kirrachenko. He is in Kiev, so he's our man
Speaker 3: on the spot and the host of the host of
Speaker 3: the podcasts uh Sasha Starr. He is based in Canada,
Speaker 3: but he's Ukrainian native Ukrainian and he's he lives in Canada,
Speaker 3: and so so I have a Ukrainian host based in
Speaker 3: Canada and a Ukrainian co host who's based in Kiev,
Speaker 3: and I'm I'm the Russia expert.
Speaker 2: Got it, So you have definitely gotta grass what's going
Speaker 2: on with the Ukraine Russia situation then. And so before
Speaker 2: before we go too much further in this recording, I
Speaker 2: got to announce your name so people actually know who
Speaker 2: you are. You are doctor Jonathan Lockwood, PhD.
Speaker 3: Yep, and you know, but you know it's you know,
Speaker 3: it's really striking about that. And you don't have to
Speaker 3: mention this to your audience, but I came into the
Speaker 3: army with my PhD the same year that our current
Speaker 3: Security Defense Hegseth was born.
Speaker 2: Well, we're recording, so we're just gonna let everybody know
Speaker 2: about that because I think I think that offers some
Speaker 2: unique perspective in terms of who you are in your
Speaker 2: experience in these matters. You know, it's it's it's it's one.
Speaker 2: It's one thing to be recognized, right such as you know,
Speaker 2: uh sec def Hegseth right now. But for someone with
Speaker 2: your experience with the PhD, who's actually taught, you know,
Speaker 2: at a university level, and you you have been leaned
Speaker 2: on as a subject matter expert for so long in
Speaker 2: your career, I mean, I think that just speaks volume.
Speaker 2: So for me to have you on it is awesome
Speaker 2: because you know, I've talked about this Russia Ukraine situation
Speaker 2: with many people, some YouTube famous people, some people maybe
Speaker 2: you know, I don't know, but also an intelligence community.
Speaker 3: Well here's something that can make you excited. When we
Speaker 3: get to the discussion about the Iron Dome.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I want to talk about that for sure.
Speaker 3: I have some unique recommendations that if the Trump administration
Speaker 3: hears about them and acts on them, this will be awesome.
Speaker 3: The thing that I'm going to be talking about the
Speaker 3: suggestions for making the Iron Dome work, this is the
Speaker 3: I am the only one in the world making these
Speaker 3: particular types of suggestions. No one else is. And you
Speaker 3: will understand why once we get into it, because I
Speaker 3: first introduced the concept back in my book The Russian
Speaker 3: View of US Strategy, which was published in nineteen ninety three,
Speaker 3: and the predictions that I made in that book are
Speaker 3: coming true now wow, which is yeah, so it's gonna it.
Speaker 3: This could be wild.
Speaker 2: Well, we're definitely, We're definitely going to get to that
Speaker 2: for sure. So I'm gonna put up oh In in that.
Speaker 2: But just because it's so hot, right now, let's start
Speaker 2: with the Russia Ukraine situation, because it seems as I
Speaker 2: had an idea of what to ask you and what
Speaker 2: to go over, but as we were just discussed online earlier,
Speaker 2: it's like it seems by the hour, almost every twenty minutes,
Speaker 2: there's an update as to what's going on.
Speaker 3: So it is a fast moving train and it's going
Speaker 3: to be we have to we have to jump on board,
Speaker 3: and the you are, we are on the We are
Speaker 3: at the hinge of history. Absolutely, this is a sise
Speaker 3: of moment in history and the great favor that this
Speaker 3: conflict is giving us. It is making the world more
Speaker 3: aware of historical precedent. Absolutely, of trying to learn the
Speaker 3: lessons of history. If there was ever a need to
Speaker 3: learn the lessons of history, this is it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, But it seems like at the moment
Speaker 2: we're kind of repeating a bit of it.
Speaker 3: Yep. Yeah, And they keep they people keep thinking about
Speaker 3: Munich nineteen thirty eight, right, and I would bring up that,
Speaker 3: I'll bring up that parallel, and I'll bring up what
Speaker 3: Churchill had to say about it.
Speaker 2: Well, let's actually let's get to that. Let's get to
Speaker 2: that point. You want to make right after, right after
Speaker 2: we discussed this, because I want to ask you. I
Speaker 2: want to ask you a question. I do get political
Speaker 2: on my show when I do my solo episodes, but
Speaker 2: I'm going to try to keep out of that. We'll
Speaker 2: just talk about the present for who he is and
Speaker 2: whatnot and stay out of right left politics for now. Right,
Speaker 2: So the question being, do you yourself, with all your
Speaker 2: experience and knowledge and everything that you've done and assess
Speaker 2: in these situations throughout the years, how do you feel
Speaker 2: about Trump being criticized for trying to negotiate with Putin?
Speaker 2: People are feeling that Zelensky should have a seat at
Speaker 2: the table with I don't think he's necessarily not going
Speaker 2: to be invited. But we also have to acknowledge that
Speaker 2: during the Biden administration, even even a little bit towards
Speaker 2: the end of Obamas, mostly during the Biden administration they
Speaker 2: kind of isolated Putin from any types of negotiations and
Speaker 2: only talk to him through through the ambassadorship in you
Speaker 2: know what, twenty twenty two, and then there was nothing
Speaker 2: really more from that since then. How do you feel
Speaker 2: about the criticism that Trump is getting for trying to
Speaker 2: bring Putin to the table and talk to him directly
Speaker 2: to find out what he would like in.
Speaker 3: This Well, I don't vote the president for wanting to
Speaker 3: reach out and bring an end to the war. The
Speaker 3: problem is, you can't focus on bringing the end of
Speaker 3: an end to the war just for the sake of
Speaker 3: bringing an end to the war, because you have to
Speaker 3: be able to guarantee the peace that follows. And the
Speaker 3: problem is you cannot have peace at any price, because
Speaker 3: if you focus on that, you can fall into the
Speaker 3: trap at Neville Chamberlain fell into in nineteen thirty eight,
Speaker 3: where he basically, in order to gain peace for our time,
Speaker 3: as he put it, he engaged in what is appeasement.
Speaker 3: You know, you gave him what he wanted and hoped
Speaker 3: that he would honor and not start a war as
Speaker 3: a result. And Winston Churchill, as we recall, he said
Speaker 3: to Neville Chamberlain, he said, you had a choice between
Speaker 3: dishonor and war. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.
Speaker 3: And it was true, and Churchill was absolutely correct. And
Speaker 3: now people, to their credit, various nations across the world
Speaker 3: are remembering that historical precedent and they are drawing parallels
Speaker 3: with it. And they are very concerned that the Trump
Speaker 3: administration may fall into the same trap in their eagerness
Speaker 3: to establish a peace agreement. Now President Trump wants to
Speaker 3: He pays very much. He is very mindful of his
Speaker 3: potential legacy after the end of his second term. He
Speaker 3: would certainly like to be remembered as a man who
Speaker 3: brought peace to the Russia Ukraine War. But by the
Speaker 3: same token, also he does not want to be remembered
Speaker 3: as a sucker. Yeah, someone or someone who has taken
Speaker 3: advantage I have played for a fool. He does not
Speaker 3: want that either. So I have noted that he has
Speaker 3: mentioned some made remarks that said that that we can't
Speaker 3: ford to stop supporting Ukraine or otherwise Putin will think
Speaker 3: he's won. And Putin apparently does seem to think that
Speaker 3: he is winning, although I would tend to argue with
Speaker 3: his rationale for it, because he is not gaining a
Speaker 3: decisive victory on the battlefield. He is taking horrendous casualties.
Speaker 3: They are largely his own fault because he overestimated the
Speaker 3: Russian army's own ability to essentially occupy Ukraine. He greatly
Speaker 3: underestimated Ukraine's will and ability to resist.
Speaker 2: And I agree with that point. I agree with that point.
Speaker 2: I have talked about this previously with another individual. And
Speaker 2: what is interesting though, is he's not winning the land
Speaker 2: battle at all. But we also have to point out
Speaker 2: that Putin has not unleashed the full potential of the
Speaker 2: Russian military either, which I have to question why. I
Speaker 2: don't understand it. It's above me, to be honest, it's
Speaker 2: beyond my comprehension as to why he's not going full force,
Speaker 2: other than maybe that he knows he would decimate a
Speaker 2: land that he wants to make part of Russia, and
Speaker 2: maybe he didn't want to go through the process of
Speaker 2: rebuilding it if he did. But what is your opinion
Speaker 2: on why he hasn't unleashed the full potential of the
Speaker 2: Russian military on Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Well, okay, he has. One of the things we have
Speaker 3: to remember is that Putin has been capitalizing on the
Speaker 3: fact that they have technically the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
Speaker 3: And the importance of the nuclear arsenal to Russia itself
Speaker 3: cannot be overstated because based on my research in my
Speaker 3: book The Russian View of US Strategy, as well as
Speaker 3: the previous book The Soviet View of US strategic doctrine
Speaker 3: and my observations of Russian behavior sent in the post
Speaker 3: Cold War period. For president, Russian President Boris Yelsen stated
Speaker 3: in a speech to the Russian Duma in nineteen ninety four,
Speaker 3: he stated, the only reason Russia is considered a great
Speaker 3: power is because its armed forces have nuclear weapons. Now,
Speaker 3: that statement tells you more than they practically. He practically
Speaker 3: gave the game away there with that statement, because during
Speaker 3: the Cold War as well as in the post Cold
Speaker 3: War period, the Russians viewed their nuclear arsenal as the
Speaker 3: decision not only as a symbol of their great power status,
Speaker 3: but as their principal means of leverage over the West,
Speaker 3: the implication of the growth of their view of US
Speaker 3: strategic doctrine. They saw it as a forced response to
Speaker 3: the growth of Soviet nuclear power. The implication, the more
Speaker 3: the Russians built their nuclear arsenal, the more the United
Speaker 3: States would be forced to accommodate itself to the growth
Speaker 3: of Soviet power. So this provided no really definable upper
Speaker 3: limit when it gave them a self sustaining motivation for
Speaker 3: building Soviet nuclear power. So that is interesting. And in
Speaker 3: the post Globar period they have used that as their
Speaker 3: principal means of leverage of trying to intimidate the West,
Speaker 3: relying on the Western fear of nuclear escalation in order
Speaker 3: to give them cover to pursue their military and political objectives.
Speaker 3: So this becomes a fascinating dynamic it's playing out. But
Speaker 3: this also reveals a potential weakness that a means for
Speaker 3: the that the West has not yet fully taken advantage of.
Speaker 3: The implications of it are clear in the success of
Speaker 3: the ballistic missile defense efforts in Ukraine. Ukraine has experienced
Speaker 3: a great deal of success with the Patriot system and
Speaker 3: that it had a high rate of intercept and other
Speaker 3: ballistic missile defense systems at least the not the lasers,
Speaker 3: not laser systems, but ballistic missile defense and stems that
Speaker 3: have been highly successful. This has great potential if it
Speaker 3: is properly complemented with other types of developments of the
Speaker 3: for example, bring in to fully create the Iron Dome
Speaker 3: over the United States. But it has to be done
Speaker 3: in a different way than Israel is doing it.
Speaker 2: So do you think so? Do you think that maybe
Speaker 2: their power is just a perceived power because of their
Speaker 2: nuclear armament?
Speaker 3: That is correct? Okay, they call their forces. It's interesting
Speaker 3: the Russian word that they use, they don't have an
Speaker 3: exact word for deterrence in the sense that we have it.
Speaker 3: They call they translate our word for deterrence, they translated
Speaker 3: as ustrashnya, which means intimidation. So they call their nuclear
Speaker 3: nuclear intimidation forces.
Speaker 2: Okay, and this is.
Speaker 3: Not very caught on very well in the West.
Speaker 2: What about what about the irishnik missile technology, the hypersonic
Speaker 2: missile technology? Was that just a show kind of like, hey,
Speaker 2: look what else we have in our arsenal because it
Speaker 2: seemed like it was a one time use. And it's
Speaker 2: been argued that the only reason that they haven't used
Speaker 2: more of them is because they can't afford to and
Speaker 2: maybe there was a financial constraint here as to also
Speaker 2: why they're not, you know, doing a full court press,
Speaker 2: as they say against Ukraine. What do you think of
Speaker 2: that assessment or that opinion.
Speaker 3: Well, it's it's probably a very sound assessment, because we
Speaker 3: must One of the historic weaknesses of the Russian military,
Speaker 3: which very clearly shown in World War Two and carrying
Speaker 3: through to the present still, is their logistics capability, their
Speaker 3: ability to supply and sustain war. I will point out
Speaker 3: that in World War Two the Russian logistical system was
Speaker 3: basically horse drawn wagons. That that that there is and
Speaker 3: if it were had not been for the fact that
Speaker 3: the United States during World War Two was supplying Russia
Speaker 3: with Ford trucks, that was that gave the Russian army
Speaker 3: a motorized logistical capability which and eventually enabled them to
Speaker 3: drive the Nazis out of Russia, out of out of
Speaker 3: Slow Union. Without that, they would have had a very
Speaker 3: hard time driving. The Germans would have been able to
Speaker 3: last a lot longer on the Eastern Front had it
Speaker 3: not been for the logistical capability provided by the United States.
Speaker 3: Now that carries over into the current situation. The Russian
Speaker 3: logistical capability has been very suspect. There's a lot of
Speaker 3: corruption in the Russian logistical system.
Speaker 2: They'd steal from they steal from their own system.
Speaker 3: Exactly right, You've got You've nailed it. So here's what
Speaker 3: happens because of that weakness in their logistical capability. The
Speaker 3: Ukrainians are fully aware of it, and so they capitalize
Speaker 3: on it. They are striking deep at the Russian logistical system,
Speaker 3: at the infrastructure and what it has shown up in
Speaker 3: a continuing decrease in the power of a Russian offensive
Speaker 3: they don't really have. They are becoming less and less
Speaker 3: capable of sustaining offensive actions against the Ukrainian military. They
Speaker 3: are not much better off in their offensive than they
Speaker 3: claim to be. And of course they're using disinformation and
Speaker 3: other types of reports to confuse the issue and basically
Speaker 3: try to convince the world, yes, we are winning this war,
Speaker 3: when in fact they are not. Their Russian Black Sea
Speaker 3: fleet has been, you know, severely damaged. They really don't
Speaker 3: have a presence in the naval presence in the Black Sea.
Speaker 3: NATO could, with certain coordination, take advantage of this by
Speaker 3: getting Turkey's permission to allow NATO's fleet to get into
Speaker 3: the Black Sea and establish naval superiority for Ukraine on
Speaker 3: behalf of NATO helping them to shut off the Russian
Speaker 3: ability to use the Black Sea completely. There are opportunities
Speaker 3: there depending on and I pointed out on the Ukraine Show,
Speaker 3: even in the current situation, we have to remember we
Speaker 3: do not know everything that is going on behind the scenes. No, no,
Speaker 3: And the thing is people were saying early on in
Speaker 3: the war that Ukraine would never be allowed to use
Speaker 3: Hi Mars Kerry would never be allowed to use attacks
Speaker 3: and blow and behold. You know, the Ukrainians come up
Speaker 3: with surprise after surprise, right and there's still the potential
Speaker 3: even though right now, you know, everybody says, oh, it's
Speaker 3: impossible for Ukraine to recover the Crimea. I have pointed
Speaker 3: out on the show several times that the Crimea is
Speaker 3: a significant center of gravity in the Russian Ukrainian war.
Speaker 3: If the Ukraine does have the potential to seal off
Speaker 3: the logistical and reinforcement lines to Crimea, if they seal
Speaker 3: it off and make it impossible for the Russians to
Speaker 3: reinforce or resupply the Crimea, then the Ukrainians can use
Speaker 3: whatever strategic reserves they have to mount an offensive into
Speaker 3: Crimea and force the surrender of the Russian occupiers in Crimea.
Speaker 3: If that occurs, and the potential is there, then that
Speaker 3: would inflict a decisive operational defeat upon the Russian forces
Speaker 3: which they would not be able to disguise or explain away,
Speaker 3: and that would provide a significant victory for the Ukrainians
Speaker 3: to then form and negotiate a shall I say, justin
Speaker 3: lasting piece.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Crimea is an interesting piece because it also a
Speaker 2: piece of the puzzle. Way, I mean, is it kind
Speaker 2: of started with that what twenty fourteen fourteen? Yeah exactly.
Speaker 2: But you know, this leads me to this question, and
Speaker 2: he maybe I don't know what Trump's strategy wasn't in
Speaker 2: this statement, but blaming Zelensky basically for this war and
Speaker 2: even pointing out the war that started back in twenty
Speaker 2: fourteen which led to the Minsk agreements and all that,
Speaker 2: and so is it Zelenski's fault? I mean, here's the thing.
Speaker 2: It was started under the guise of, hey, we're going
Speaker 2: to go in and protect Russian citizens or the people
Speaker 2: of Russia, because Crimea was mostly populated by Russian sympathizers
Speaker 2: or Russian citizens allegedly. You know, I don't know all
Speaker 2: the ins and outs you probably, I'm sure do, And
Speaker 2: so that that was a justification for putin the first time,
Speaker 2: going in and saying, you know, we're going to take
Speaker 2: this they annexed it as part of Russia. Now, but
Speaker 2: what you're saying is, even though that happened fast forward
Speaker 2: today's times, they can no longer really hold onto that
Speaker 2: land militarily. If Ukraine wanted to press Russia for it,
Speaker 2: and I think that would be a major win.
Speaker 3: There is a potential there for an operational surprise. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: because Russia has not has failed to anticipate, as during
Speaker 3: this war, Ukraine's ability to resist and to inflict. They didn't,
Speaker 3: They didn't anticipate Ukrainian counter attack into the Kursk Oblast,
Speaker 3: and they still have not been able to demonstrate any
Speaker 3: real capability for driving the Ukrainians out. Now, it's a
Speaker 3: very interesting situation, and what I would say is that
Speaker 3: if the UH to attain an operation, obtaining an operational,
Speaker 3: significant operational victory is vital for Ukraine at this point.
Speaker 3: If I would use using a historical good historical analogy
Speaker 3: would be the American Civil War during that time the
Speaker 3: Confederates in eighteen sixty four, after Gettysburg, the Confederates were
Speaker 3: hoping for a political victory by running McClellan against Lincoln
Speaker 3: in the eighteen sixty four election. Now, in order to
Speaker 3: guarantee that the Union could sue the Civil War to
Speaker 3: lot to its conclusion, the Union army had to win
Speaker 3: victories against the Confederacy that would make it impossible for
Speaker 3: a foreign power such as Great Britain or France to
Speaker 3: politically intervene in the American Civil War, which was still
Speaker 3: a possibility, and the Confederates were trying to gain a
Speaker 3: political victory in the eighteen sixty four election. So the
Speaker 3: interplay between military operations and political developments was certainly very
Speaker 3: much at play all throughout the American Civil War, and
Speaker 3: I would argue it is still very much at play
Speaker 3: here in the Russian Ukrainian War and Ukraine. As noted,
Speaker 3: you may have noted has Celensky did talk to Mark
Speaker 3: Sturmer and to gain their support, and there is a
Speaker 3: great deal of evidence that various NATO nations will be
Speaker 3: willing to have peacekeeping troops in Ukraine to help secure peace. Now,
Speaker 3: that is not the optimal solution, but it is if
Speaker 3: the and if President Trump, I would argue at this point, whoever,
Speaker 3: whoever are the people that are on the Trump team
Speaker 3: who are supposed to be the Russian national security advisors,
Speaker 3: whoever is advising Trump on Russia, in my my opinion,
Speaker 3: is not doing his or her job at all. Well,
Speaker 3: they do not comparently understand.
Speaker 2: So you don't you know, they're not being or.
Speaker 3: They're not If they do understand, they're not being listened.
Speaker 2: To understood, Yeah, because I mean, it's the statement he
Speaker 2: made about this being Zelensky's fault, Lensky's fault for defending
Speaker 2: his own country from being invaded and calling him, look.
Speaker 3: What you made? Look what you made me?
Speaker 2: Do?
Speaker 3: You made me invade you? What?
Speaker 2: Hey? Look? I can agree that that is a bit
Speaker 2: of a ridiculous statement, But I do know that Trump's
Speaker 2: power in negotiating is making very outlandish public statements just
Speaker 2: to stress test the situation and see how people react.
Speaker 2: So I'm not sure if that is what he was
Speaker 2: trying to do here.
Speaker 3: But that may well be. That may well be, you know,
Speaker 3: let's let's give. Let's give the man. There is there
Speaker 3: are advantages and disadvantages to President Trump's approach. His approach
Speaker 3: is is that it's almost like he's almost like he's
Speaker 3: using a principle of judo, and judo, as you know,
Speaker 3: is the Japanese the gentle way, using an opponent's off
Speaker 3: balance points and trying to apply strength against weakness to
Speaker 3: keep an opponent off balance and not being able to
Speaker 3: anticipate your next attack to defeat him without killing him.
Speaker 3: So what is interesting is is that Trump's approach keeps
Speaker 3: his adversaries off balance and not being sure exactly what
Speaker 3: course of action he's really going to take, because because yeah,
Speaker 3: the people that point out the madman theory, look out,
Speaker 3: he's crazy. He might attact. And this is a clever
Speaker 3: element of deterrence, is because if you can keep your
Speaker 3: opponents uncertain of what you are going to do. Uh.
Speaker 3: President Trump was probably is correct and saying that if
Speaker 3: he had been president the consecutive second term, that the
Speaker 3: Russian War never would have occurred. That He's probably quite
Speaker 3: correct in that because Putin would never have dared attack
Speaker 3: because he feared Russia. Putin's he feared Trump's unpredictability. So
Speaker 3: that but besides that gate, he is now relying on
Speaker 3: his unpredictability to keep not only his adversaries off balance,
Speaker 3: but it also unfortunately keeps his allies off balance.
Speaker 2: Yes, and yeah, you're right there. Yeah, it's it's.
Speaker 3: Very it's very high. And his NATO allies and his
Speaker 3: other allies are trying to accommodate and predict and role
Speaker 3: sort of go with the flow and try to figure out, Okay,
Speaker 3: how do we work around this.
Speaker 2: So the question the question here, Jonathan, I have is
Speaker 2: how else should have the US gone about in supporting
Speaker 2: Zelensky or trying to get involved in ending this war
Speaker 2: through a negotiation because it seemed I'm just saying bid
Speaker 2: administration because it was a previous administration, not for you know,
Speaker 2: calling one good one bad, but the previous administration did
Speaker 2: seem to not be interested in talking to Putin whatsoever,
Speaker 2: even though he invaded in twenty two. There were warning
Speaker 2: signs leading up to that where they could have definitely
Speaker 2: gone to Putin or gone to Russian tried to squash
Speaker 2: this from even happening, I think, And we also have
Speaker 2: to acknowledge that this is just my opinion based on
Speaker 2: what I see. I'm not claiming I'm writing this, but
Speaker 2: from my perspective, I haven't seen the EU do much
Speaker 2: to get in the way or get ahead of this either.
Speaker 2: And so like commised made by Jadie Vance in Munich,
Speaker 2: where he was basically saying, hey, look, you guys put
Speaker 2: yourselves here and you need to step up and protect
Speaker 2: yourselves and watch your own backyard, are basically what is
Speaker 2: your opinion on that, like, how how should the US
Speaker 2: have handled that? And how should the EU have handled that?
Speaker 2: Since it really is like their backyard, like right there,
Speaker 2: you know, And here's the thing of Russia encroaches and
Speaker 2: gains control. They're right on Poland's border. And now we
Speaker 2: do have a potential natal situation, so you know, what
Speaker 2: are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the e EU and NATO both have their respective
Speaker 3: spheres of influence. The us EU is primarily economic and
Speaker 3: NATO is primary for military and ensuring proper coordination between
Speaker 3: the two because there is no overarching command over both
Speaker 3: the e EU and NATO that can make them act
Speaker 3: in a fully coordinated fashion. So you know, Klauswitz has said,
Speaker 3: you know, politics, war is an extension of politics by
Speaker 3: other means. So EU has certain instruments at its disposal.
Speaker 3: They could participate in imposing sanctions if necessary on RUSSI,
Speaker 3: but that's in the peacetime realm, right And now you
Speaker 3: have and NATO only if one of its members is
Speaker 3: attacked can they invoke Article five Since Ukraine is not
Speaker 3: a member of NATO, at least not yet, and they
Speaker 3: because there's the essence of the NATO charter Charter precludes
Speaker 3: and them being brought into NATO while they are being invaded.
Speaker 3: There's that complication. So Ukraine has been trying to work
Speaker 3: out with it. We're around that with a series of
Speaker 3: bilateral security agreements and negotiations, which they've been able to
Speaker 3: do fairly successfully up to this point. So now you
Speaker 3: have the problem for the EU is they have to
Speaker 3: get back to a state of relative peace so that
Speaker 3: they're economic sanctions, they have more ability to interact with
Speaker 3: Ukraine and other allies in order to make the economic
Speaker 3: levers of power work moreffectively. NATO, for its part, because
Speaker 3: the United States is signaling that they are not willing
Speaker 3: to be the principal load bearer of the military effort.
Speaker 3: Now the burden is increasingly becoming on NATO NIP members
Speaker 3: to step up and devote a larger share of their
Speaker 3: their budgets to militaries, of their GDP to military spending
Speaker 3: and aid, as well as coordinate their response to the
Speaker 3: Russian invasion. And this is a very complicated problem, one
Speaker 3: that none of the NATO nations foresaw. None of them
Speaker 3: foresaw this situation.
Speaker 2: Well, it's certainly, it's complicated. Yeah, it's complicated, But when
Speaker 2: it comes to NATO, you know, we can talk about
Speaker 2: percentage of GDP, but we also got to talk about dollars,
Speaker 2: like how much is funded and the US funds over
Speaker 2: seventy percent of NATO on their own right, we have
Speaker 2: if it was a board of directors, we have the majority.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it's right for us to act that way,
Speaker 2: but what I'm trying to get is, I guess I
Speaker 2: understand why Trump is saying what he's saying. You're like, hey,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 3: You've got to chip in more so that it's more sustainable.
Speaker 3: Because at the same time, remember that President Trump and
Speaker 3: is his team, they are trying to tackle the the
Speaker 3: enormous national debt.
Speaker 2: Absolutely right now.
Speaker 3: It's out of it is out of control. And uh,
Speaker 3: it's in order and in order for the UH for
Speaker 3: those to achieve a subjectives to get this thing under control.
Speaker 3: Remember the interest here's the key. Here's a key figure.
Speaker 3: The interest on the national debt is about oh something
Speaker 3: like what is an eight hundred and fifty eight billion
Speaker 3: a year and increasing. It's like an out of control
Speaker 3: credit card. So in order to pay down that national
Speaker 3: credit card, if you will, you that's why they were
Speaker 3: using that target of reductions of two trillion a year
Speaker 3: around that if you paid it down, if you if
Speaker 3: the dose team succeeds in identifying, and the US and
Speaker 3: the Congress managed to reduce the national debt the next
Speaker 3: year by say, if they were to do it by
Speaker 3: two trillion, Okay, great, you know then that means they
Speaker 3: have reduced they have exceeded that amount of interest, and
Speaker 3: therefore the next year would have a lower interest on
Speaker 3: the national debt. It would not be eight hundred and
Speaker 3: fifty eight billion, it would be significantly lowers. That kicks
Speaker 3: the whole process into reverse. If you can generate spending
Speaker 3: large enough, spending cuts that are essentially one trillion a
Speaker 3: year or one trillion a year or greater for the
Speaker 3: next several years, you start to kick the process into reverse.
Speaker 3: And you also give the tax cuts and economic growth
Speaker 3: a chance to generate more revenue. So by doing large
Speaker 3: spending cuts, not just not just breaking even an eight
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty eight billion, you give this whole thing
Speaker 3: a chance. So economic strength and so sustainability is directly
Speaker 3: tied to the United States ability to support to support
Speaker 3: its allies in a military sense for the long term.
Speaker 3: So it's all intricately related. There None of these things
Speaker 3: that the Trump is doing can be considered in a vacuum.
Speaker 3: You cannot consider them as problems unrelated to other things
Speaker 3: that he is doing.
Speaker 2: I agree with that. I agree with that, and the
Speaker 2: other thing. You know, outside of NATO, people don't understand
Speaker 2: that the US and I've done plenty of shows on
Speaker 2: these numbers, but the US funds literally funds and assists
Speaker 2: two hundred countries every single year, not a small amount
Speaker 2: that we pay out every single year. The I want
Speaker 2: to circle back a bit though, because you explained the
Speaker 2: EU's part, like what they could have done to help
Speaker 2: avoid this war or get ahead of it through the
Speaker 2: economic side of things. And also what NATO could have
Speaker 2: done by putting pressures, not being directly militarily involved, but
Speaker 2: trying to put pressures on on this situation to keep it,
Speaker 2: you know, tame. But when we talk about Europe, the
Speaker 2: powers of Europe, for example, the powerful nations, what could
Speaker 2: they have done differently in your mind, because like France
Speaker 2: when this when this was going on, let's fast forward
Speaker 2: to twenty twenty two, not back through the twenty fourteen,
Speaker 2: but franceca I think more like they didn't come to
Speaker 2: the table to try and negotiate with Putin when they did,
Speaker 2: he put them Putin put mccralan at the end of
Speaker 2: one hundred foot table and just kind of like, yeah,
Speaker 2: who is this guy whatever? And the only country that
Speaker 2: has gone to try that, from my knowledge memory anyway,
Speaker 2: is really been Turkey has been very involved through this
Speaker 2: time period previous to Trump's administration and trying to actually
Speaker 2: bring Putin to the table and negotiate and you know,
Speaker 2: try try to find out what can be done in
Speaker 2: concessions between Putin and Zelensky. I'm not sure, like, Okay,
Speaker 2: what I'm trying to ask is why hasn't Europe been
Speaker 2: more involved in trying to get a handle on this situation.
Speaker 2: Seems like they didn't really jump until America said, fine,
Speaker 2: we're sending attack coms over to Ukraine. We're going to
Speaker 2: increase our funding and send billions of a years since
Speaker 2: this has gone on, it seems like they were just
Speaker 2: kind of waiting until we got involved for them to realize, oh,
Speaker 2: it's time to step up. Because Germany didn't want to
Speaker 2: do anything. They didn't want to do anything for a while,
Speaker 2: France didn't want to do anything. It seemed like nobody
Speaker 2: did anything to help Ukraine until America stepped in. So
Speaker 2: was europe right in waiting or should they have really
Speaker 2: gotten ahead of this from the outset.
Speaker 3: Well, the European allies made the mistake of thinking that
Speaker 3: the United States was going to carry the bulk of
Speaker 3: the burden indefinitely and that there was no need. The
Speaker 3: sense of urgency was not being was not impressed on
Speaker 3: our NATO allies to really step up and says, oh, well,
Speaker 3: we don't need to, We don't need to step up.
Speaker 3: You know, America's going to step up to the blatant Yeah,
Speaker 3: And so there was no sense of urgency. It was
Speaker 3: not until Trump was elected and Trump President Trump said no,
Speaker 3: you guys have to do your part, because otherwise we
Speaker 3: just may take our marvels and go home. The implication
Speaker 3: being right, and so that that put a sense that
Speaker 3: instilled that lit a fire under our NATO allies that yay,
Speaker 3: we've we've got to take this seriously because Putin has
Speaker 3: made it very clear that they are not interested. There
Speaker 3: are many signals that are coming from the Russian side
Speaker 3: that indicate they are not interested in compromise in this
Speaker 3: in the sense that we understand it now. Until the nineties,
Speaker 3: believe it or not, the Russian language did not even
Speaker 3: have a word for compromise, because this compromise as when
Speaker 3: you hear the word compromise, what do you think of
Speaker 3: when we talk about making a compromise with someone, What
Speaker 3: does that mean to you?
Speaker 2: You're giving your little given up a little something that
Speaker 2: you want to appease the other side in order to
Speaker 2: make peace. Right, Yeah, and that's something that Russian doesn't
Speaker 2: want to come.
Speaker 3: You know, the American political system is built on compromise, right.
Speaker 3: And it's also compromise in the sense of both sides.
Speaker 3: You are meeting the other person halfway, you are you
Speaker 3: are giving each side gains something. They don't gain everything,
Speaker 3: but they gain something. Compromise in the American sense is
Speaker 3: a more positive word. When the Russians they saw that
Speaker 3: word compromise, they essentially translated it into cyrillic compromise whatever
Speaker 3: the cyrillic letters. But when the Russians translate the word
Speaker 3: compromise into their language, compromise to them means mutual surrender.
Speaker 3: That is a negative comp That is a negative connotation,
Speaker 3: and the Russians hate compromise.
Speaker 2: It makes sense though, to be honest.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a it's a fine nuance.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: The Russians put the Russia. The Russians, the Russian language
Speaker 3: and culture puts a more negative, a more negative connotation
Speaker 3: to compromise. They hate leaders who compromise. It's it signals weakness.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like there's no surrender in their culture. Correct,
Speaker 2: there's no surrendering to surrenders.
Speaker 3: Matter of fact, the Russian phrase in Russian culture that
Speaker 3: is common, which we don't fully understand ourselves.
Speaker 2: Is.
Speaker 3: Who whom, Who rules whom? Who is superior to whom.
Speaker 3: In the Russian culture, you are either someone superior or
Speaker 3: you are their inferior. You are never their equal. Equality
Speaker 3: is something that is a concept that doesn't even exist
Speaker 3: in Russian culture either. The only word they have for
Speaker 3: equality is being equal in the sides of that two
Speaker 3: sides of a mathematical equation are equal. So when they
Speaker 3: read the US con Institution and they see the words
Speaker 3: all men are created equal, then the Russian, in the
Speaker 3: Russian mind says that's impossible.
Speaker 2: It's kind of a it's kind of a rule or
Speaker 2: be ruled mentality.
Speaker 3: Exactly right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm sorry, Jonathan. That leads me, That leads me
Speaker 2: to this. Really, the implications here is if we can't
Speaker 2: find a deal, which in Russia's mind would literally be surrendering, right,
Speaker 2: surrendering something that you But if we can't find a deal,
Speaker 2: Putin's actions. If you're just looking at everything he's doing
Speaker 2: and what what he has actually stated. He wants to
Speaker 2: reunite the us s R, the old USSR. He's literally
Speaker 2: trying to claim those old territories. So I think the
Speaker 2: fear is for for if Europe, if the European nations
Speaker 2: are paying attention, and I'm sure they are, is if
Speaker 2: he takes Ukraine, He's not going to stop there. He's
Speaker 2: going to continue to try to gobble up the prior
Speaker 2: or previous uss R territories. And I think that's part
Speaker 2: of what he wants to do. And I don't think
Speaker 2: people understand. Look, he's how old is he now? In
Speaker 2: the seventies, late seventies?
Speaker 3: He is, Oh, yeah, he's in his early seventies.
Speaker 2: He's up there a little bit of seventies. And what
Speaker 2: I mean by that is he's looking at his legacy
Speaker 2: at this point, so he has nothing to lose really,
Speaker 2: So this may just really be about his ego more
Speaker 2: than anything.
Speaker 3: And given the fact that he is a position of
Speaker 3: near absolute power in Russia. We have to we have
Speaker 3: to assume that uh lord lord acton once pointed out,
Speaker 3: power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt. Absolutely, Yes,
Speaker 3: so you might, you might enlighten, you might liken the
Speaker 3: latter of Putin to someone who is in possession of
Speaker 3: the one ring of power from the Lord of the rings. Yeah,
Speaker 3: the ring of as you know, the ring of power,
Speaker 3: and the lord of the rings, the ring, the one
Speaker 3: ring of power inevitably corrupts its user. Yes, and so
Speaker 3: they so you might you know, your President Trump and
Speaker 3: Vladimir Putin obviously each have a ring of power.
Speaker 2: So and you're right? And can I with with that
Speaker 2: being said, where where do you think this is going
Speaker 2: to go? With these peace talks? Will we actually have peace?
Speaker 2: Will this be a prolonged war that actually leads to
Speaker 2: a larger period appeer on conflict? What?
Speaker 3: What do you think here? Here's you know, given my
Speaker 3: study of the rush of the Russian perception of both
Speaker 3: of US strategy and its own great power status, the
Speaker 3: it is reaching a what the claud Switz called the
Speaker 3: culminating point of war, culminating point of a battle. Inevitably,
Speaker 3: when one side is on the offensive and you reach
Speaker 3: a point where the offensive side can no longer continue
Speaker 3: the attack, they can and there is an opportunity for
Speaker 3: the defender to counterattack. Are right now, the Russian side
Speaker 3: is steadily reaching that culminating point where will no longer
Speaker 3: be able to continue an offensive effort against Ukraine. And
Speaker 3: this is why it is so such a vital turning
Speaker 3: point right now. If the NATO Allies and the United
Speaker 3: States simply continue to supply Ukraine with an ability to resist,
Speaker 3: because Zelenski is calling for larger Ukrainian military forces, if
Speaker 3: they succeed, in the worst case, bringing the Russian offensive
Speaker 3: to a halt so that it's no longer making visible progress,
Speaker 3: or even if they managed to drive back to Russians
Speaker 3: in certain cases, or as I've also mentioned, inflict that
Speaker 3: decisive counter offensive woe against crimea which most people are
Speaker 3: discounting and saying that's not possible, and I would disagree.
Speaker 3: It is those things that can't ever happen that change
Speaker 3: the course of world history. We thought in World War Memory,
Speaker 3: in World War I two on the Western Front, we
Speaker 3: were dry in December nineteen forty four. Hardly anyone except
Speaker 3: for patents G two thought that the Germans were capable
Speaker 3: of launching No one thought they were capable of launching
Speaker 3: a counter offensive, but they did in the Battle of
Speaker 3: the Bulge, and the US suffered tens of thousands of casualties.
Speaker 3: It was the most devastating war, devastating battle for the
Speaker 3: United States, all because they failed to anticipate that the
Speaker 3: that an opponent could launch a counter offensive.
Speaker 2: So do you think do you think people are or
Speaker 2: at least Putin is underestimating Zelenski's chances here?
Speaker 3: I think he is. He has shown time and again
Speaker 3: that he has underestimated the Ukrainian both the Ukrainian will
Speaker 3: and the Ukrainian ability to resist. And there have been
Speaker 3: several instances throughout this conflict where the Ukrainians has surprised
Speaker 3: the Russians technically and operationally. So is not to say
Speaker 3: that they are there, is that that potential exists yet again.
Speaker 3: And even though we may be on the verge of
Speaker 3: a negotiating peace, any piece that that visibly rewards Russia
Speaker 3: in any way for having started the war against Ukraine
Speaker 3: and engaged in this conflict, that is not a piece
Speaker 3: that is appeasement, yes, agreed, and simply invites more war
Speaker 3: later on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, And that's that's the that's the issue. Okay,
Speaker 2: So that I kind of kicked this can down the
Speaker 2: road in my mind here, but it's gonna, it's gonna
Speaker 2: it's gonna lead me to asking your opinion on this. Now.
Speaker 2: I've had others say that they don't believe this will happen.
Speaker 2: But as as Trump's statements, everything he's making in terms
Speaker 2: of his statements and and what he's saying about Zelensky
Speaker 2: right now, and and how it seems like he's really
Speaker 2: trying to appease Putin, And of course it just could
Speaker 2: be a tactic to get him to relax and sit
Speaker 2: down and talk. Could be. But where does where would
Speaker 2: that leave us? Like if it gets that situation, because
Speaker 2: Zolensky obviously has made it very clear he's not backing down.
Speaker 2: He's not going to back down unless they're both they
Speaker 2: both come to the table, and it's clear that he
Speaker 2: does not want to give up any more land whatsoever.
Speaker 2: In fact, I know he wants crying me up back
Speaker 2: as it was originally there from from the outset, you know,
Speaker 2: going back to that twenty fourteen war. But where does
Speaker 2: that leave us? Where does it leave America if we
Speaker 2: because it has been said that we may have to
Speaker 2: put boots on the ground, for example, But but on
Speaker 2: whose side? Like where would we be in this situation
Speaker 2: in your mind?
Speaker 3: Will and as far as putting a yes, American troops
Speaker 3: in Ukraine either as a peace either as part of
Speaker 3: a peacekeeping force or are you suggesting as part of
Speaker 3: peacekeeping force or either or.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what's your assessment? What do you where do you
Speaker 2: think our involvement will Where do you think this will
Speaker 2: lead if we absolutely do have to get involved in
Speaker 2: putting troops in the area. What do you think that means?
Speaker 3: We have troops in we have troops in NATO Europe still.
Speaker 2: Well, yes, we do, but it's not it's not like
Speaker 2: a large like it correct unless you explain I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, No, it's not a significant enough contingent to affect
Speaker 3: if we wanted to force a confrontation between the United
Speaker 3: States and Russia, yeah, then we would put American troops
Speaker 3: in Ukraine and that would be a situation reminiscent of
Speaker 3: Believe it or not, the January nineteen ninety seven Army
Speaker 3: after Next Winter Wargame that was a the first strategic
Speaker 3: level wargame in which I was a participant on the
Speaker 3: Red Team representing Russia, and it was a It was
Speaker 3: designed to simulate. It was trying to test out the
Speaker 3: revolution in military affairs for structure as a proof of concept,
Speaker 3: and it was a station. The scenario was set in
Speaker 3: a in twenty twenty with a hypethetical war conflict, and
Speaker 3: the problem was the United States was well, excuse me,
Speaker 3: the Blue player, we were willing to commit forces. We
Speaker 3: had advisors in Ukraine in the wargame, and the Red
Speaker 3: Team we saw that as an intolerable provocation. So in
Speaker 3: order to do that, we were stating analyzing the situation
Speaker 3: and said, if we are going to invade Ukraine and
Speaker 3: we do not take out lose intelligence and communications satellites
Speaker 3: prior to the beginning of the war, we're going to lose.
Speaker 3: So the Red Team in that wargame launched a preemptive
Speaker 3: strike in space to destroy using its satellites that it
Speaker 3: had its counterspace weapons to destroy Blues communications and intelligence
Speaker 3: satellites in the wargame. It paralyzed Blue and the wargame
Speaker 3: controllers told the Red Team, well, absent intervention by the
Speaker 3: wargame controllers read just won the war, and so that
Speaker 3: was a devastating conclusion. We learned from that wargame that
Speaker 3: if you put if you have counter space satellites and say,
Speaker 3: for example, UH interceptor satellites with laser weapons in space,
Speaker 3: and you have that, you have a an unstable hair
Speaker 3: trigger situation in Earth orbital space, almost like a Mexican
Speaker 3: standoff in Earth orbit. So from that's from that standpoint,
Speaker 3: if you're looking at the United States intervening in Ukraine,
Speaker 3: are putting troops there, that would provide an almost intolerable
Speaker 3: provocation for Russia. So right now it.
Speaker 2: Would, yeah, but real quickly. So if yeah, that would
Speaker 2: that also hinges. That also hinges on these negotiations or
Speaker 2: talks being successful, because if if Putin doesn't want to
Speaker 2: back down Ukraine, Zelensky doesn't want to back down, and
Speaker 2: Trump says, fine, We're going to send a peacekeeping force.
Speaker 2: That peace keeping element is entirely hinged on Putin still
Speaker 2: respecting the US as a force to be reckoned with.
Speaker 2: And if we lose that respect, are we truly going
Speaker 2: to be a peacekeeping force at that point?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's going to be a very not a problem
Speaker 3: for the for the United States and it's NATO allies
Speaker 3: because in order to uh you hit Putin has made
Speaker 3: it very clear, and the Russian leadership itselves made it
Speaker 3: clear they are not interested in peace, and they want
Speaker 3: the whole of Ukraine. They want all of Ukraine. Right,
Speaker 3: And once the United State, once it becomes clear to
Speaker 3: the US political leadership that Russia genuinely is not interested
Speaker 3: in peace but in effect our de facto surrender in
Speaker 3: this war, then there's going to be a crucial test
Speaker 3: for the Trump administration. They will be compelled.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: Trump has has said, had said to Putin previously, we
Speaker 3: can do this the easy way, or we can do
Speaker 3: this the hard way. And and given give him credit,
Speaker 3: give him President Trump credit. He will recognize, however, reluctantly,
Speaker 3: that as much as he wanted to be seen as
Speaker 3: the peacemaker, as the deal maker, and for his legacy,
Speaker 3: he may have to earn his legacy the.
Speaker 2: Hard way, and that could be bad for all of us. Yes,
Speaker 2: to go that direction, for sure.
Speaker 3: So as more as Mark Twain went, as Mark Twain
Speaker 3: once said, history doesn't repeat itself, it does rhyme.
Speaker 2: Though. Wow, well so this is so, let's let's go
Speaker 2: to what you were saying earlier about the capabilities for example,
Speaker 2: and and it's kind of leads leads I'm sorry, Leans, yeah, Leans,
Speaker 2: towards the US's capabilities at the moment, because when it
Speaker 2: when you're talking about satellites, lasers, I mean, that goes
Speaker 2: all the way back to the star Wars program that
Speaker 2: was launched, you know, years back exactly. And why don't
Speaker 2: you explain that element and what that can do for
Speaker 2: not just our security of course, you know, as Trump
Speaker 2: has mentioned the Iron Dome for America, just as we've
Speaker 2: done for Israel. But how does how is that going
Speaker 2: to come into play here? If we have to go
Speaker 2: that direction as a deterrent.
Speaker 3: Now, this is a fact. This is a fact going
Speaker 3: to be This is going to lead some fascinating ideas
Speaker 3: and potential. Okay, so let's step through this. When President
Speaker 3: Reagan first declared the Strategic Defense Initiative back in nineteen
Speaker 3: eighty three, and that was when I had come out
Speaker 3: with my first book, The Soviet Yew of US Strategic Doctrine,
Speaker 3: in which I had also recommended space based defense as
Speaker 3: an element. Now, the interesting thing is is that when
Speaker 3: the Soviets saw the declaration, of Strategic Defense initiative. This
Speaker 3: terrified them, Yeah, absolutely terrified them. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 3: if you take a look at the book Inside the
Speaker 3: KGB by Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky. In that book,
Speaker 3: the Gordievsky talked about a KGB report that went to
Speaker 3: President that went to Gorbachev in April nineteen eighty five
Speaker 3: discussing the US Star Wars program. In that report, the
Speaker 3: KGB concluded that the USSDI program would eventually be able
Speaker 3: to block of Soviet missiles in a first strike, and
Speaker 3: that there was no way the Soviet Union could keep
Speaker 3: up with this capability. Now, I told my students, any
Speaker 3: of you out there who believed that the SDI program
Speaker 3: could walk ninety percent of Soviet missiles in a first strike,
Speaker 3: please raise your hand. The point is it didn't matter.
Speaker 3: The Russians believed it, they acted, They acted on that belief,
Speaker 3: and they spent themselves into bankruptcy. If really trying to
Speaker 3: counter a phantom SDI program, which in reality was really
Speaker 3: a research and development program. The Soviets were so terrified
Speaker 3: they even they saw the Patriot system. When I was
Speaker 3: a Brigade S two in Germany, my brigade commander, because
Speaker 3: I was a brigade S two of a Hawk and
Speaker 3: Patriot brigade the first one deployed in Europe. And my
Speaker 3: brigade commander said, hey, Captain Lockwood, you are you read
Speaker 3: those Russian military journals. Take a look at them and
Speaker 3: see if the Russians are saying anything about Patriot.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 3: I looked at the had the issue of Vistnik Protasi Oberoni,
Speaker 3: which is herald of anti aircraft defense in that are.
Speaker 3: In that journal there was an article on US medium
Speaker 3: to high altitude air defense systems and the last third
Speaker 3: of the article talked about Patriot. So I'm busily translating it,
Speaker 3: and then all of a sudden, I see the A
Speaker 3: the Russian acronym for per oltoi Oberoni antime missile defense,
Speaker 3: and the author was crediting Patriot with an anti ballistic
Speaker 3: missile capability. Now this is really wild, considering the fact
Speaker 3: that the Patriots system had not yet demonstrated that it
Speaker 3: could intercept ballistic missiles.
Speaker 2: Okay, so all right.
Speaker 3: They've been terrified of Patriots since nineteen the nineteen eighties
Speaker 3: is my point.
Speaker 2: No, No, and also makes you almost confirms the syop
Speaker 2: capabilities of the US and how effective it is.
Speaker 3: Oh, yes, it was. As a matter of fact, the
Speaker 3: US reinforced the Russian fear of patriot when in September
Speaker 3: nineteen eighty seven a US patriot successfully intercepted a US
Speaker 3: Lance ballistic missile and demonstrated that it could work and
Speaker 3: raytheon continued to refine the capabilities of Patriot until it
Speaker 3: was able to successfully intercept studs in the nineteen ninety
Speaker 3: one Persian Gulf War. It kept on refining ever since
Speaker 3: until now when they send patriots. To send patriots to
Speaker 3: to Ukraine, the Ukrainians promptly adopted them and made them
Speaker 3: work even more effectively near one interception rate. So this
Speaker 3: shows the full potential of patriot and reinforces the Russian
Speaker 3: fear of US technology. The one thing that is the
Speaker 3: major thing conclusion that I have reached from my research
Speaker 3: and analysis of the Russian perception is that the one
Speaker 3: thing that the Russians fear more than the Russian military
Speaker 3: and political leadership, what they fear more than anything else,
Speaker 3: is the potential of American technology to neutralize the one
Speaker 3: thing that makes the Russians a great power in their
Speaker 3: own perception, their nuclear missile arsenal, And therein lies the
Speaker 3: key what President Trump in his administration by declaring they
Speaker 3: intend to produce an iron dome defense over the United States,
Speaker 3: they are essentially repudiating the previous Biden administration's strategy, which
Speaker 3: was essentially to be prepared to fight a nuclear war
Speaker 3: with three nuclear armed adversaries and expand their own nuclear
Speaker 3: arsenal to do this, relying on the concept of mutually
Speaker 3: assured destruction mad. If the Trump administration should be reputating
Speaker 3: anything from the previous Biden administration, that should be right
Speaker 3: at the top of the list, and apparently they are
Speaker 3: implicitly doing this by declaring an intent to create an
Speaker 3: so called iron dome over America. This presents an impetus,
Speaker 3: presents an interesting problem. Remember the lesson from the Army
Speaker 3: after Next Winter War game. If you put satellites in
Speaker 3: space where the other side has counterspace weapons, you produce
Speaker 3: an unstable hair trigger situation in your Thoroberttal space, a
Speaker 3: Mexican standoff where the side that fires first has a
Speaker 3: decisive advantage. Now, how do you get around this problem? Well, Congress,
Speaker 3: in its Iron Dome Bill has allocated nine hundred million
Speaker 3: dollars for studying space based interceptors. That's an implicit recognition
Speaker 3: that there is a hole in the Iron dome, you know,
Speaker 3: because you can Israel only has to worry about short
Speaker 3: range and intermediate range ballistic missiles, right, We've got to
Speaker 3: worry about the intercontinental ballistic missiles that can come through
Speaker 3: that hole in the Iron dome.
Speaker 2: Right, and can't really interest that and potential hypersonic missile technology.
Speaker 3: Exactly the way you deal with the only effective way
Speaker 3: really to deal with both hypersonic and intercontinentalistic missile systems,
Speaker 3: and it's correct, is using space based interceptors. But in
Speaker 3: what form? You can't really do it with satellites because
Speaker 3: that's too unstable because it gives it the other side
Speaker 3: a very huge incentive to fire first. But how do
Speaker 3: you do that? Well? You what you do? You create
Speaker 3: what I had advocated back in nineteen ninety three. You
Speaker 3: create something called the Worldwide Strategic Defense Matrix w s
Speaker 3: d M wisdom. This is both a symbolic and a
Speaker 3: real paradigm shift. Would be a real paradigm shift. And
Speaker 3: we are and I am the only one in the
Speaker 3: world discussing this because I I've searched for it, and
Speaker 3: when I first talked about it in my nineteen ninety
Speaker 3: three book, no one else is talking about this, but
Speaker 3: in order to go ahead.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I like your idea and it's it's something
Speaker 2: that was brought up before, but I think it was
Speaker 2: more of a sy op previously with the Star Wars program,
Speaker 2: I think there was nothing ever really proven or tested.
Speaker 2: It was just it was just really just propagana, I think.
Speaker 2: But it worked in our behalf. But fast fast forward.
Speaker 2: You can't deny the technology. You can't deny that laser
Speaker 2: technology has come a very long way, and that is
Speaker 2: a very plausible possible. It's very possible these days that
Speaker 2: that could absolutely work.
Speaker 3: Well, he works even better when you consider the following. Now, well,
Speaker 3: if you put if you're going to have space based interceptors,
Speaker 3: you don't put them on satellites. What you do is
Speaker 3: the key. Here's the key, and this is something that
Speaker 3: I discussed that no one else does. The key to
Speaker 3: making the Iron Dome in effect the worldwide strategic defense
Speaker 3: matrix even more effective than an Iron Dome is you
Speaker 3: upgrade the US Space Force with a space fleet manned
Speaker 3: by Space Force guardians, where do we get the space
Speaker 3: fleet from you buy it from SpaceX. You Pentagon effectively
Speaker 3: says to the to the UH to mister Musk says elon,
Speaker 3: Pentagon would like to buy twelve of your Falcon nines,
Speaker 3: twelve of your Falcon heavies, and twelve of your starships,
Speaker 3: and the Pentagon can then add to for the space
Speaker 3: force add the appropriate weapons, equipment and crew, specifically lasers
Speaker 3: that would be mounted that would be mounted on these
Speaker 3: starships in lower orbit. Once they are in low Earth orbit,
Speaker 3: now you have effective interceptors against any ballistic missile attack
Speaker 3: by Russia, China or North Korea, because at the speed
Speaker 3: of light, there's no way a nuclear missile in its
Speaker 3: boost phase coming up from the ground can evade a
Speaker 3: laser attack, so that effectively blocks. That is the key
Speaker 3: and the interesting thing is, okay, what the answer? Well,
Speaker 3: what if the Russian and Chinese counterspace weapons, these counter
Speaker 3: space satellites, what if they fire on a space war starship? Well,
Speaker 3: guess what if you if it were satellite versus satellite.
Speaker 3: No one cares much because satellites don't have mothers. But
Speaker 3: if if a counter Russian or Chinese counter space satellite
Speaker 3: were to fire on a US Space Force starship armed
Speaker 3: with laser weapons. That is a clear and unmistakable active
Speaker 3: war and the in self defense, the starship could simply
Speaker 3: destroy the satellite. Now what that that is a very
Speaker 3: powerful counter deterrant to add to any preemptive action in
Speaker 3: space and would and by neutralizing the nuclear arsenals of Russia,
Speaker 3: China and North Korea simultaneously, this provides a very stable
Speaker 3: deterrent for countering any future Russian invasion of Ukraine. Because
Speaker 3: if we have an effective strategic defense against nuclear missiles
Speaker 3: and the other side does not game over, you can
Speaker 3: preserve the piece indefinitely. That is an idea that I am.
Speaker 3: And yet and here here's the other. Here's the other
Speaker 3: wonderful thing about it. The people might say, well, what
Speaker 3: if Russia China and oh, let's say Russia China, what
Speaker 3: if they start developing strategic defenses against ballistic missile attack?
Speaker 3: And I would say to them, knock yourselves out, go
Speaker 3: ahead and build it, because they will be forced to
Speaker 3: build defense. You will either be forced to build defenses
Speaker 3: to keep themselves from the vulnerable to US and NATO
Speaker 3: nuclear missiles, or they're all going to have to start
Speaker 3: channeling mister Rogers and learning how to be good neighbors.
Speaker 2: Right, I think the only the only nation that would
Speaker 2: be able to keep up with this currently in the
Speaker 2: race for laser technologies would be China, and I could
Speaker 2: see China definitely doing that. But I have to ask
Speaker 2: the question, like, I like the theory and the idea
Speaker 2: of this because it makes a lot of sense and
Speaker 2: it makes me think to the helios, Right, a laser
Speaker 2: weapon that has been used on naval ships lately. Now
Speaker 2: they've tested it, it does work. The only problem they
Speaker 2: have is it doesn't recharge or the power source at
Speaker 2: the moment doesn't charge quick enough for repeated use for example,
Speaker 2: or at least rapid fire use, and it does have
Speaker 2: a limited range currently. It's like, let me see, I
Speaker 2: think I looked this up. Let me okay, at the
Speaker 2: it's what three hundred kill at laser? So how how
Speaker 2: would we be able to develop that? Or do you
Speaker 2: think we're close to developing something that could be put
Speaker 2: on a ship for example, that would be effective and
Speaker 2: be a rapid fire use weapon.
Speaker 3: Well, here's the other lovely thing about putting such a
Speaker 3: laser weapon in Earth orbit. If you are firing from space,
Speaker 3: a laser is not obstructed by the atmosphere. Sure, because
Speaker 3: it's firing, it's firing down. It's much more. The lasers
Speaker 3: are much more effective in space than what they would
Speaker 3: be if they're firing from the ground, because they would
Speaker 3: be they won't be dispersed by the Earth's atmosphere. And
Speaker 3: if you have several starships equally spaced apart in lower
Speaker 3: Earth orbit, what it does is it creates a ring
Speaker 3: of interlocking shields around your adversaries so that they have
Speaker 3: you will have continuous coverage of their ballistic muscle launches.
Speaker 3: And it prevents overhauling of the system. So this is
Speaker 3: and how do you fund such a system? Well, here's
Speaker 3: another beautiful thing about it. If you are going to
Speaker 3: focus on defense, on neutralizing the other sides nuclear arsenals, fully,
Speaker 3: you don't build, You don't spend another dime on nuclear weapons.
Speaker 3: You do not build additional nuclear weapons, you do not
Speaker 3: try to build improved system nuclear systems. All you do
Speaker 3: is you focus on pure defense and neutralizing their systems.
Speaker 3: And the motto I use for wisdom WSDM wisdom does
Speaker 3: not kill. It is a purely defensive system which does
Speaker 3: not threaten the existence of Russia, China or North Korea.
Speaker 3: It threatens their power, it threatens their ability to intimidate,
Speaker 3: and that is what they fear more than anything else,
Speaker 3: because if they lose their nuclear if their nuclear arsenals
Speaker 3: become are rendered obsolete and impotent, they lose their great
Speaker 3: power status in their own perception.
Speaker 2: If so, if the US, if our Defense Department was
Speaker 2: to take this idea serious, I think from the outset,
Speaker 2: we would have the advantage because, as you brought up,
Speaker 2: Elon Musk currently have uh the richest individuals in the
Speaker 2: world in America that have already proven that they can
Speaker 2: privatize space crafts and space travel. And because they're not
Speaker 2: beholden to government oversight necessarily and funding, they've been able
Speaker 2: to really push the boundaries and show how effective they
Speaker 2: can be when they're not restricted. And so if we had,
Speaker 2: for example, him and Bezos together behind this, and the
Speaker 2: US was able to tap them both, oh yeah, that
Speaker 2: was very interesting.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah. As a matter of fact, you're you're you
Speaker 3: and I are are saint. You're on the same track here.
Speaker 3: Because let's let's say for example, that that Hesth Benegon's
Speaker 3: issues this contract now he has. He has a couple
Speaker 3: of options here. He could issue the contract as a
Speaker 3: sole source contract, in other words, say there's only one
Speaker 3: company that could really do this, and that SpaceX. Or
Speaker 3: he could make it a competitive contract in which SpaceX
Speaker 3: could become the prime contractor, and then Elon Musk could
Speaker 3: chap his billionaire bodies who have space capabilities as subcontractors
Speaker 3: and expand the power and ability to produce the Space
Speaker 3: Force fleet once. Here's the other. Here's the other interesting
Speaker 3: bonus and incentive for the Space Force having a fleet
Speaker 3: other than satisfying all the happy star Trek fans out there, Well,
Speaker 3: we have star fleet command in the for twenty first century.
Speaker 3: How about that life imitates art, so we have here.
Speaker 3: But when you have a space force fleet with starshift,
Speaker 3: even if they're only chemically powered at first, there is
Speaker 3: promise for having them having nuclear theorough vulsion, which gives
Speaker 3: you even more options. But when you have a space
Speaker 3: force fleet in low Earth orbit and one in geosynchronous orbit,
Speaker 3: as well as space starships that can form a lunar
Speaker 3: base or doing other things, you gain several bonus capable
Speaker 3: which are not fully realized. A space force fleet in
Speaker 3: orbit can also This sounds mundane, but they can clean
Speaker 3: up space junk. They can those while they're while they're
Speaker 3: on station, they're they're while they're monitoring and doing other things.
Speaker 3: They can clean up space junk and they can make
Speaker 3: They can take turns shuttling that space junk to the
Speaker 3: lunar base to form a lunar junk yard to process
Speaker 3: all that lunars, all that stuff and get it starting
Speaker 3: a front. Those lunar caves they're talking about, you could
Speaker 3: establish a storage place for them there. So cleaning up
Speaker 3: space junk is one useful function. Also, that space Force fleet,
Speaker 3: armed with lasers and other supplementary equipment, could also have
Speaker 3: assigned the mission of blocking, intercepting, or destroying near Earth
Speaker 3: objects such as asteroids, meteors, or comets. You know that
Speaker 3: asteroid they're talking about that, Oh, it might collide with
Speaker 3: the Earth in two thousand thirty two. Well, if you've
Speaker 3: got a space Force weight, now you've got to answer.
Speaker 2: That was the original concern when it came to space
Speaker 2: based laser systems originally, was was it tearing that possibility
Speaker 2: of an asteroid colliding with the Earth. So with everything,
Speaker 2: everything that you're proposing, which some people may Okay, years ago,
Speaker 2: people say, oh, that's an outlantish idea, But you know,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, it really doesn't seem that far.
Speaker 3: It's not that the technology has advanced. Technology has advanced
Speaker 3: to the point where it is now quite thinkable.
Speaker 2: But what do we so? What what about now? Given
Speaker 2: the situation we're in, it seems like the idea of
Speaker 2: an iron dome over America is long overdue, given the
Speaker 2: threat potentials, especially how they have escalated over the last
Speaker 2: twelve years for example, So what technologies can they deploy now? Like,
Speaker 2: what is what is available now that can quickly be
Speaker 2: deployed to be effective? We can.
Speaker 3: We can deploy now all the things that we can
Speaker 3: increase the production of FAD. We can increase the production
Speaker 3: of Patriot, we can increase all of our ballistic missile
Speaker 3: defense interceptors that are capable of intercepting. It still leaves
Speaker 3: a hole in the iron dome in the sense of
Speaker 3: the then that and that is why I propose the
Speaker 3: development the upgrading of the key to plugging the hole
Speaker 3: in the iron dome is to upgrade the space for
Speaker 3: wars with a space fleet. Right, I'll tell you that's
Speaker 3: the quickest way you could do it.
Speaker 2: And so we do need to get there. But we
Speaker 2: should absolutely stop putting off the deployment of what technologists
Speaker 2: we have now to at least create some don't right, correct?
Speaker 3: A partial shield is better than no shield at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Should this be something that should be a joint coalition,
Speaker 2: not just for America but for North like for Mexico
Speaker 2: and Canada as well, since I mean, they're right on
Speaker 2: our borders and they would definitely be affected by any
Speaker 2: kind of attack.
Speaker 3: Well, here's here's the again. The beautiful thing about wisdom
Speaker 3: is that when you upgrade the space force, you create
Speaker 3: the potential for cooperation and alliance with our allies. Let's
Speaker 3: say our NATO allies we start producing this space fleet
Speaker 3: and our NATO allies say, hey, is there any way
Speaker 3: we can benefit from this? Well, you can say to
Speaker 3: our NATO allies, well, if you want to buy a starship, right,
Speaker 3: you want to buy a starship from SpaceX, and they
Speaker 3: will help you equip it, and they have their they
Speaker 3: it becomes a symbol of national pride and power instead
Speaker 3: of nuclear weapons. Each nation that wants to be considered
Speaker 3: significant would have its own starship which they could they
Speaker 3: could have crews on it. Now, by the way, how
Speaker 3: many crew? How many? How many crew would you need
Speaker 3: to crew a starship for the purposes of a space
Speaker 3: force mission. Well, you don't put one hundred on there,
Speaker 3: because Elon Musk is diabot sending one hundred to it
Speaker 3: to colonize Mars. People who have analyzed the starship sitting,
Speaker 3: a more realistic number for a starship for our starship
Speaker 3: crew is ten. Now that's workable. You would need ten
Speaker 3: to perform all the functions as well as operate the
Speaker 3: nuclear laser than the laser interceptor. So ten is realistic.
Speaker 3: And we could even in the US space wars itself,
Speaker 3: we could invite our NATO allies to provide crew for
Speaker 3: our space war starships to help provide crew.
Speaker 2: So this could this could potentially be an effective affordable
Speaker 2: arm or or leg of the Department of Defense. And yeah,
Speaker 2: so then, but what will end up happening is exactly
Speaker 2: what's happening now. Instead of a nuclear arms race, we'll
Speaker 2: have a laser arms race, and then we'll be back
Speaker 2: in the situation of the Terrence, just based on who
Speaker 2: has the more effective laser defense system.
Speaker 3: Well, here here's the here's the interesting here's the interesting
Speaker 3: difference about that. In an offensive arms race in which
Speaker 3: there's no there'sically no limit, there is no there is
Speaker 3: no finish line.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: In a defensive arms race, where both sides are developing
Speaker 3: defenses against nuclear attack, there is a finish line. When
Speaker 3: both sides have fully operational defensive shields. Essentially you're like
Speaker 3: two gladiators with full length body armor. It's a stalemate. Fine,
Speaker 3: that's more acceptable than mutually assured destruction.
Speaker 2: No, absolutely, Yeah, And technology is technology is advancing words.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're dealing with drones. We've never seen it
Speaker 2: to the level we have before, to where now it's
Speaker 2: not just about you know, singular drones going out and
Speaker 2: shooting missiles from afar. They can be used as a
Speaker 2: kind of a swarm attack. Now where they're.
Speaker 3: It almost looks like something out of Terminator.
Speaker 2: I was just going to say that, Yeah, a robot,
Speaker 2: a robot.
Speaker 3: Army going against the flesh and blood army. Yeah, that's
Speaker 3: a nightmare. That's a nightmare for the Russians. There's no Ukrainians.
Speaker 3: For where are the Ukrainians we can kill? They aren't there.
Speaker 3: They're using robots. They're back there with their little joysticks
Speaker 3: sending the drones to attack you.
Speaker 2: Well, so we so we definitely need to do something
Speaker 2: in terms of an iron dome. I I think you're
Speaker 2: right on with developing space based capabilities for defense and deterrence.
Speaker 3: Hey, I could I could save Congress nine hundred million
Speaker 3: dollars about off that interceptor studies say, guys, I've got
Speaker 3: your answer. Now, it's concentrate. Let's concentrate on upgrading the
Speaker 3: space force.
Speaker 2: Right what what so that that's still a little ways out,
Speaker 2: I think, but I think it would be an effective solution.
Speaker 2: What let's let's get let's circle back to where we're gonna.
Speaker 2: We've been doing this for a little bit, so I
Speaker 2: want to I want to kind of bring it back
Speaker 2: to this Ukraine Russia situation, because yes, the iron the
Speaker 2: iron dome proposal would work, not just for America, would
Speaker 2: also work as a as an amazing deterrent and in
Speaker 2: this Russia Ukraine war as well, because you can target
Speaker 2: the systems wherever need be. Especially the way you're you're
Speaker 2: describing it, like how you would deploy it, it would
Speaker 2: be very agile in that respect. It could turn into
Speaker 2: an offensive weapon if we wanted it to.
Speaker 3: But yes, as a matter of fact, if the if
Speaker 3: we had an effective shield, the beautiful Again, the beautiful
Speaker 3: thing about introducing a ballistic missile defense system, especially one
Speaker 3: like Wisdom, is that it puts a It introduces a
Speaker 3: great deal of uncertainty into the mind of a potential attacker.
Speaker 3: If the Russians were to contemplate attacking the Wisdom system,
Speaker 3: they would they would not know how many of their
Speaker 3: missiles would actually get through the system. They do not
Speaker 3: know which ones will get through. However, they do know
Speaker 3: that if their attack failed to destroy the integrity of
Speaker 3: the Wisdom system and left our nuclear forces largely able
Speaker 3: to counterattack, they would be faced with a massive nuclear
Speaker 3: counterattack from and the US. And yeah, once you do that,
Speaker 3: you introduce defense. Introduces more uncertainty. And even if they
Speaker 3: started building defenses themselves, that means they have to divert
Speaker 3: resources from attacking to defense, and that is also beneficial.
Speaker 2: So even so, even with with how delicate the situation
Speaker 2: is now, and for example, if we did have to
Speaker 2: have a peace keeping force, do you do you think
Speaker 2: that maybe do you think maybe that if if if
Speaker 2: Putin felt that he was being respected from the outset
Speaker 2: that a lot of this would have been able to
Speaker 2: be would have been able to come to a piece
Speaker 2: deal a long time ago.
Speaker 3: Hmm. Well here here's why I think that that is problematic. Uh.
Speaker 3: One book that I would recommend for you to read
Speaker 3: and uh introduce to your listeners is the book why
Speaker 3: Tim Marshall Prisoners of Geography. And it tends because it
Speaker 3: tends simple maths which explain world politics and geopolitics. Wonderful book.
Speaker 3: I would recommend that book not only for every American
Speaker 3: but for every high school student in middle school student
Speaker 3: because it's very readable. What makes geopolitics and geography readily
Speaker 3: understandable and important and the pro and the thing is
Speaker 3: with the uh. The problem with Prisoner's you have to
Speaker 3: be able to uh. Oh lost my train of thought there.
Speaker 3: Momentarily I was going off with the prisonership geography thing.
Speaker 3: But the problem is you have to be able to
Speaker 3: understand the importance of geography.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 3: Yes. The problem with the Russian is the Russian perception
Speaker 3: of security. The Russians have a word yasopastos to describe
Speaker 3: security jaeso means without danger. Their concept of security is
Speaker 3: more absolute than ours concept of security. We what they
Speaker 3: they are talking about when they talk about visa posnos
Speaker 3: without danger, they are talking about the absence of threat,
Speaker 3: and so they in order for them to feel insecure,
Speaker 3: in order for them to feel secure, their neighbors must
Speaker 3: be made to feel insecure or subordinate. It's an extension
Speaker 3: of the Russian cultural attitude of tokovo superior inferior, not equality.
Speaker 2: Right, I see, I see the point there, and you
Speaker 2: kind of touched on it earlier. But this is just
Speaker 2: my take and and it's it's been very well documented
Speaker 2: during Putin's time of existence as a leader or the
Speaker 2: leader of Russia, and he seems like just literally an
Speaker 2: alpha male type who just needs to be acknowledged, needs
Speaker 2: to be respected, And I think he felt slighted. Now
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm not advocating for him being correct in
Speaker 2: invading Ukraine in any way. I'm just saying that he
Speaker 2: did seem like he felt slighted by being ignored and
Speaker 2: isolated and everything, because he was Obviously, he's a world power,
Speaker 2: no matter how we wanted, how much we wanted to
Speaker 2: diminish or most people doing to diminish Russia as a
Speaker 2: world power. They are And when all of this was
Speaker 2: going on. The powers that be, the biggest currently in
Speaker 2: the world, which is still the United States of America,
Speaker 2: wanted to isolate him and just kind of just pigeonhole
Speaker 2: him from acknowledgment or even trying to have any kind
Speaker 2: of talks whatsoever in how to alleviate this. No matter
Speaker 2: how wrong Russia was, I still feel that the Biden
Speaker 2: administration's tactics didn't help in the situation. And here we
Speaker 2: are now, and now we have Trump making outlandish statements
Speaker 2: to try to get people to the table, and it's
Speaker 2: we're just everything just seems very unstable right now, and
Speaker 2: I'm not really able to see that we're going to
Speaker 2: actually come to an agreement because, as you said earlier,
Speaker 2: Russia will not surrender. They don't, it's not in their vocabulary.
Speaker 2: They don't see that. They don't they don't see compromise.
Speaker 2: And Zelensky is adamant on not compromising either. And so
Speaker 2: I'm not sure there's an answer that I'm not asking
Speaker 2: for answer. By the way, you know this, we're being
Speaker 2: theoretical at this point.
Speaker 3: I'll get, i'll get, I'll give you, I'll give you one.
Speaker 3: Which here's the the essential problem again, which the Trump
Speaker 3: administration has to address is the fact that during the
Speaker 3: Cold War, the United States and its NATO allies had
Speaker 3: a grand strategy which governed the actions and allowed the
Speaker 3: United States and its allies to consistently deal with the
Speaker 3: Soviet Union during the entire period of the Cold War.
Speaker 3: That was the Grand Strategy of Containment, which was originally it,
Speaker 3: but George Kennan elucidated that strategy in the nineteen forty
Speaker 3: seven issue of Foreign Affairs. Containment was a strategic defensive
Speaker 3: designed to not try to roll back the Soviet Union,
Speaker 3: but to prevent it from achieving through subversion or conquest.
Speaker 3: Just a defensive strategy to contain them, not go to
Speaker 3: war against them, but is sented to rely on the
Speaker 3: internal contradictions that Kennon argued were consistent within the Soviet
Speaker 3: system until the essentially contained them long enough, and the
Speaker 3: Soviet Union will buckle under the stresses of its own
Speaker 3: internal contradictions. History proved Kennon right, because starting in nineteen
Speaker 3: eighty five, the Soviet Union was starting to show the
Speaker 3: problems of its political instability and even the failure of
Speaker 3: its economic system. So eventually the Soviet Union collapsed of
Speaker 3: its own dead weight by nineteen eighty nine and the
Speaker 3: republics and the Warsaw Pact dissolved. And here NATO is
Speaker 3: confronted with a essentially a power vacuum, and the Eastern
Speaker 3: European nations wanted to join NATO, so NATO gladly accepted.
Speaker 3: And while while Putin usk Is seen this as a
Speaker 3: great disaster, well, it was a disaster of the Soviet
Speaker 3: Union zone making. And so he really does not have
Speaker 3: a leg to stand on claiming that it's going to
Speaker 3: contribute to a world peace and political stability for Russia
Speaker 3: to rebuild its own empire, that they have shown that
Speaker 3: their ambitions are essentially unlimited, and that is just simply
Speaker 3: going to bring on more warfare. How do you stop that?
Speaker 3: You have to stop. You have to is disagreeable, it
Speaker 3: may sound to some people. You have to neutralize the
Speaker 3: thing that makes them think they're a great power. You
Speaker 3: have to make make them channel mister rogers, make them
Speaker 3: learn the hard way how to be good neighbors. And
Speaker 3: it may take a while, but it's better than going
Speaker 3: to all out war.
Speaker 2: Okay, I I can absolutely swallow that for sure, because
Speaker 2: it seems like it may be the only effective measure
Speaker 2: against such a powerful military. I mean, it is a
Speaker 2: big military, regardless.
Speaker 3: Of it is.
Speaker 2: And we don't we don't want to have a world conflict.
Speaker 2: I don't know just in anyone's interest.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, not at all.
Speaker 3: Asked what want into World War two? Should have told us.
Speaker 2: That, yeah, what what led us from getting away from
Speaker 2: this containment strategy? Though? Because it seems, ah.
Speaker 3: Well can take well. Remember when the Soviet Union collapsed,
Speaker 3: there was no there was no opponent to contain anymore.
Speaker 2: No understood, I I I get that. But but we
Speaker 2: obviously got away from that strategy because Putin has been
Speaker 2: very effective for so many years. And yes, and it's
Speaker 2: we may have gotten away from it. Europe may have
Speaker 2: gotten away from it.
Speaker 3: We forgot that, We forgot a crucial lesson of history.
Speaker 3: Henry Kissinger. Yeah. In the in the preface to my
Speaker 3: book The Russian View, Yes Strategy out what history Henry
Speaker 3: Kissinger was predicting at the end of the Cold War.
Speaker 3: Even though Russia seems to be prostrate right now, he
Speaker 3: says Russia will eventually begin to reassert itself. Henry Kissinger
Speaker 3: correctly predicted this that Russia would inevitably begin to reassert
Speaker 3: itself once it is economically recovered, and it will become
Speaker 3: an assertive power once again. So the interesting thing that
Speaker 3: we failed to what we failed in doing, is we
Speaker 3: failed to develop a grand strategy for the post Cold
Speaker 3: War period. We fail. Okay, how do we deal with
Speaker 3: a resurgent Russia, a competitive China. Do we develop a
Speaker 3: new neo containment strategy? Or what I propose in proposed
Speaker 3: in my book. The Russian view is that the US
Speaker 3: should become the world's geopolitical balancer. Mckinder once had this
Speaker 3: in his of whoever dominates the world island dominates the world. Well,
Speaker 3: Great Britain acted as a geopolitical balancer with respect to
Speaker 3: the continent of Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Speaker 3: They balanced the pathway. Yeah, yep, the old British Empire
Speaker 3: acted as a geopolitical balancer. So now the United States,
Speaker 3: in an analogous situation, should act as the world's geopolitical
Speaker 3: balancer in the twenty first century and use its power
Speaker 3: not to control necessarily or project its power all over
Speaker 3: the world, but to be able to use it judiciously
Speaker 3: to frustrate or negate any potential aggressive empire builder from
Speaker 3: attempting to dominate the world island. It's you're basically trying
Speaker 3: to force a stalemate, an indefinite stalemate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree with I agree with your statements there
Speaker 2: with throw the statue though, but sure of one of
Speaker 2: the greatest ways to control a nation is economically, because
Speaker 2: it's exactly how we've been keeping North Korea and Check
Speaker 2: all this time. Okay, and and so when it came
Speaker 2: to Russia though, we never fully went down that pathway.
Speaker 2: You know, they supply Europe with so much energy. Now
Speaker 2: what happened with this Ukraine conflict. Finally, finally they got
Speaker 2: wise and said, hey, you know what we're gonna have
Speaker 2: to We're gonna have to turn off the finances here.
Speaker 2: We've got to turn off that faucet, and we're no
Speaker 2: longer to get energy from you, and we're gonna get elsewhere.
Speaker 2: But here we are, all of a sudden, European nations
Speaker 2: are backtracking on that strategy and saying, you know what,
Speaker 2: we need to re engage Russia for energy again. So
Speaker 2: it's like we're not even I mean not even from
Speaker 2: from history of old. We came and learned from history
Speaker 2: within a few months. You know, it's it's kind of ridiculous,
Speaker 2: so it can't stick to the plan.
Speaker 3: And the thing is, we are we are not a
Speaker 3: truly unified coalition.
Speaker 2: True and the end.
Speaker 3: Here's where the Trump administration could exercise genuine leadership in
Speaker 3: consultation with its NATO allies in formulating a grand strategic framework,
Speaker 3: a grand strategy for the twenty first century and beyond.
Speaker 3: This is the true challenge for the Trump administration, and
Speaker 3: the instrument of wisdom, the creation of wisdom, which I've described,
Speaker 3: would be one very important instrument in carrying out that
Speaker 3: sort of grand strategy. The idea is the United States
Speaker 3: as both the combination of the arsenal of democracy, the
Speaker 3: arsenal of freedom, you know, an example for the rest
Speaker 3: of the world, but also the potential to generate large
Speaker 3: amounts of economic wealth. For example, if we successfully develop
Speaker 3: fusion power for use commercially, what the potential of fusion
Speaker 3: power is to provide for the people of the world
Speaker 3: an unlimited source of energy to clean, carbon free if
Speaker 3: you're worried about that sort of stuff, but the but
Speaker 3: essentially an unlimited amount of energy forever right for all
Speaker 3: practically intense and that, and the historical experience has been
Speaker 3: every time that humanity has developed a new source of energy,
Speaker 3: the result has been a massive increase in wealth creation.
Speaker 3: Every time it has never failed. It generates more wealth
Speaker 3: and raises the standard of living for people worldwide.
Speaker 2: You know, and this is the potential. Yeah, and then
Speaker 2: on that energy topic, since you brought that up, it's crazy. Hell,
Speaker 2: we've held ourselves back from not fully engaging in the
Speaker 2: nuclear energy possibilities, especially with all the safeguards we have.
Speaker 2: And you know, we've been dealing with nuclear since if
Speaker 2: I'm correct, the sixties or so. Yes, Okay, so with
Speaker 2: all that time gone by, we've definitely developed much safer measures.
Speaker 2: We definitely have a handle on on power plants, and
Speaker 2: we could even do them on a smaller scale now
Speaker 2: almost I wouldn't say like a micro power plant, but
Speaker 2: more definitely much smaller than they used to be, so
Speaker 2: you can have one in every city if you need be,
Speaker 2: for example. So, yeah, I wonder why we haven't really
Speaker 2: gone down that road and we're still relying on these
Speaker 2: older methods of energy.
Speaker 3: For the power of the power grouprid Yes, because our
Speaker 3: power grid is becoming inc increasingly vulnerable.
Speaker 2: Too, because that's that's their and that could really, as
Speaker 2: you said, push this world further forward. Why what what's
Speaker 2: going on with that? Why why are we so so stubborn?
Speaker 3: Well, to its credit, the Trump administration is looking at
Speaker 3: ways for unleashing creation of more energy, and people like
Speaker 3: Elon Musk and others. You know, Elon would certainly welcome,
Speaker 3: for example, the development of nuclear therbal propulsion engines because
Speaker 3: that makes the space fleet more effective, and it also
Speaker 3: makes missions to Mars if he's looking at trying to
Speaker 3: colonize Mars, at least with a small scientific colony, because
Speaker 3: there are still many other charge challenges that they come
Speaker 3: with trying to explore Mars. But you have the great
Speaker 3: potential for again, widespread use of nuclear energy would be
Speaker 3: a useful backup for nuclear fusion power because those two
Speaker 3: in combination, you could satisfy the energy needs of humanity
Speaker 3: in a car in a non polluting manner indefinitely, and
Speaker 3: that would introduce a potential golden age for wealth creation.
Speaker 2: And yeah, and the advestment of technology, because now we
Speaker 2: have the energy, we have the ability and.
Speaker 3: If you couple that a couple that development again with
Speaker 3: the creation of wisdom to neutralize the possibility of global
Speaker 3: thermon nuclear war. Then you have a really winning commendation
Speaker 3: and you have the potential for the Trump administration to
Speaker 3: make significant contributions to the betterment of humanity.
Speaker 2: Yes, well, doctor Lockwood, I want to be respectful of
Speaker 2: your time because you are three hours ahead of me, and.
Speaker 3: So hey, I'm armed with my coffee. I can take
Speaker 3: I can. I've got it. I've got it. I'm not
Speaker 3: running on fumes.
Speaker 2: No, No, you're not, you're not. I just want to
Speaker 2: make sure I'm respecting your time here. So with that
Speaker 2: being said, like I I really like everything that you said,
Speaker 2: and I liked your proposals. I really hope though, that
Speaker 2: we can come to some kind of peace agreement between
Speaker 2: Ukraine and Russia. And you know this all hinges on
Speaker 2: whether or not Putin wants to be stubborn improve the point,
Speaker 2: I think I am a little fearful as as far
Speaker 2: as how Trump has been acting lately. Not that not
Speaker 2: that he has I.
Speaker 3: Share your fear because he can be. It's he's exciting
Speaker 3: to watch, but a little dangerous. Davy light.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, and we need our allies. We cannot look
Speaker 2: it's been predicted by by Intel people in the Intel
Speaker 2: community that we are definitely we're definitely going to be
Speaker 2: engaging with China in a peer on peer war here
Speaker 2: probably around twenty twenty seven. It really seems like we're
Speaker 2: on the fast track of doing that. We need to
Speaker 2: get this situation with Ukraine and Russia under control before
Speaker 2: we can even think about engaging with China. And so
Speaker 2: there's my fear in how the Trump administration has been
Speaker 2: acting as as far as our allies are concerned. I mean,
Speaker 2: are are Are they correct in calling them out for
Speaker 2: not carrying their own weight? Sure, but at the same
Speaker 2: time you do have to kind of like pat him
Speaker 2: on the back and realize that, look, I'm just going
Speaker 2: no offense, but if shit hits the fan for example, No,
Speaker 2: we need our friends period.
Speaker 3: Yes we do.
Speaker 2: Yeah we're not We're big, but we're not that big.
Speaker 2: I mean, the world is bigger than we are, So
Speaker 2: we do need our friends.
Speaker 3: Even in World War Two, we had we had to
Speaker 3: be very even though we had amazing resources, we had
Speaker 3: to very carefully plan what how much were we going
Speaker 3: to develop devote developing naval power? How much did we
Speaker 3: devote to air power? And how much would would we
Speaker 3: have to devote for our army, and we ended up
Speaker 3: building it. We ended up using economy of force, relying
Speaker 3: on air superiority and naval superiority to get to a
Speaker 3: basis to have to uh mobilize only ninety divisions, only
Speaker 3: ninety divisions. And we calculated that that allocation of forces
Speaker 3: so finely that by the time of the Battle of
Speaker 3: the Bulge in December nineteen, we had to win that
Speaker 3: battle with the forces we had left because we had
Speaker 3: just committed the last of our divisions. We had calculated
Speaker 3: it that precisely, And so that gives you an idea. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we couldn't go it alone in World War Two. No,
Speaker 3: we were providing the bulk of the power. And in
Speaker 3: any future war, especially if we adopt a strategy of
Speaker 3: being the world's geopolitical balancer, we allies are a must.
Speaker 3: We have to reinforce what allies we have, not attempt
Speaker 3: to go it alone or or god forbid, become isolationists,
Speaker 3: because eventually the war would eventually the war would come
Speaker 3: to us.
Speaker 2: That's not a strategy of success at all, being an isolationist. Now,
Speaker 2: since I did bring up China, though they are an
Speaker 2: ally of Russia. Now, what I found interesting through this
Speaker 2: entire conflict is China has not been too vocal in
Speaker 2: their stance on this. They've sent some aid to Russia,
Speaker 2: but it's mostly in like I don't know, like micro
Speaker 2: chips and other things like that, so they can continue
Speaker 2: to develop technologies in the war. But they haven't even
Speaker 2: sent any troops to help, which was interesting because North
Speaker 2: Korea stepped up and did so. China's kind of been
Speaker 2: a little hands off in this whole thing, and it's
Speaker 2: very interesting to watch them in this involvement. What do
Speaker 2: you think of that?
Speaker 3: I think they are recognizing tacitly that their Russian ally
Speaker 3: isn't exactly as dominating as they thought they were going
Speaker 3: to be. They're hedging their bets yea and so, and
Speaker 3: they are trying to develop their own sources military. They're
Speaker 3: trying to develop their own nuclear arsenal and build that up,
Speaker 3: which is also all the more reason why if you're
Speaker 3: going to be dealing with you, if we're all the
Speaker 3: more reason for developing wisdom.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, I agree with you there. Maybe China also
Speaker 2: sees Russia as no longer really completely aligning with their
Speaker 2: views or with their agendas anyway, that could also be
Speaker 2: the case. I mean Putin has kind of well he
Speaker 2: hasn't kind of he is showing to be more dictorial
Speaker 2: in his in his efforts and his actions in the world,
Speaker 2: especially now as he's getting older and really thinking about
Speaker 2: his legacy. I believe so maybe China's looking beyond that.
Speaker 2: They're like, look, yeah, we're allies, but maybe you're not
Speaker 2: the partner we really need.
Speaker 3: Well, neither Putin nor g are spring Chickens.
Speaker 2: Well, no, no, no, no, understood. And I'm not trying
Speaker 2: to make this an ageous thing. It's just you know,
Speaker 2: after a while, he's been Look, Putin's been been a
Speaker 2: leader for a while, and he's always wanted to reunite
Speaker 2: the old USSR period, and he knows he has so
Speaker 2: much time to do so. So that's that's why I
Speaker 2: make that statement. I just think I just think he can.
Speaker 2: He's he's feeling the pressure of Look, if I want
Speaker 2: to get this done, I better get this done now.
Speaker 2: And that's why I made that statement. It really wasn't
Speaker 2: to demean anybody by age. It was just I think
Speaker 2: he sees his timeline, he sees how much time he
Speaker 2: has and he's like, I'm going to now make this happen.
Speaker 2: And that's just my opinion based on what I see.
Speaker 3: So yeah, well if he if he, if he's a
Speaker 3: factoring in his own mortality as driving his timeline, then
Speaker 3: it becomes all the more imperative for the Western powers
Speaker 3: to say, no, you're not.
Speaker 2: Agree, and I agree with you.
Speaker 3: I do, absolutely says your your mortality, your legacy is
Speaker 3: not our priority.
Speaker 2: No, absolutely true. I agree.
Speaker 3: So that that's going to be the message that they're
Speaker 3: going to have to learn to learn to deliver it
Speaker 3: to mister Prutin. And this is a George. I have
Speaker 3: genuinely enjoyed this discussion. It has been energizing. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: appreciate it, and I welcome any future opportunities as as
Speaker 3: things develop.
Speaker 2: Listen, next time, I guarantee where you to go the
Speaker 2: full two hours, believe me, if not.
Speaker 3: Longer, really, well, let's see, yeah it's full hard. Well
Speaker 3: let's see a mere a mere hour and a half. Ah, yeah,
Speaker 3: we fell a little.
Speaker 2: Short, but I think well, I think that we I
Speaker 2: think we covered everything very concisely, and and you made
Speaker 2: some very very good arguments. So it's like, I'm not
Speaker 2: really sure I'm not really sure what else we can
Speaker 2: add to this Ukraine Russia situation because it's it's still developing,
Speaker 2: right and it's developing by the hour. So it's probably
Speaker 2: best that look at this point, you made some great points,
Speaker 2: I had some questions answered, and I think this is
Speaker 2: something we need to revisit because it's we're not done.
Speaker 2: We're absolutely not done with the situation.
Speaker 3: So I'll get my closing statement as far as the
Speaker 3: Ukraine Russia conflict is, is that you here you have
Speaker 3: two nations with politically irreconcilable goals. Yeah, the restoration of
Speaker 3: the Russian Empire versus the sovereignty of Ukraine. These are
Speaker 3: politically irreconcilable that they can be cited realistically only by
Speaker 3: war in which one side or the other prevails. And
Speaker 3: any peace agreement which rewards Russia in any way for
Speaker 3: having invaded Ukraine is not a peace agreement. It is appeasement.
Speaker 3: And therefore we'll set the stage for another war, which
Speaker 3: neither NATO, the United States or Ukraine wants.
Speaker 2: Can argue with that statement, Why don't you for the listeners,
Speaker 2: I have tell everybody how they can connect with you,
Speaker 2: where they can find information on you, etc. If you
Speaker 2: have any social media.
Speaker 3: Well, okay, I let's see you can. They should check
Speaker 3: out IBMTV pod TV on which I appear on the
Speaker 3: Ukrainian show, The Ukraine Show with and I will What
Speaker 3: I will do, George is I will send you the
Speaker 3: email for my producer. Okay, and you they can. You
Speaker 3: can then send it to your listeners and they can
Speaker 3: tune into the Ukraine Show, which is every Tuesday and
Speaker 3: every Friday at eleven a m. Eastern Standard time, and
Speaker 3: usually goes for at least a half hour, sometimes for
Speaker 3: as much as an hour. And they have the option
Speaker 3: to you sort of, uh, actually pop into the broadcast
Speaker 3: itself and ask questions. All that doesn't happen too often.
Speaker 3: We are still equipped to handle it, okay, And for uh,
Speaker 3: if interest viewers who are interested in the I have
Speaker 3: two published books which are available on Amazon Books. You
Speaker 3: just simply you know, Google Amazon, get on their book
Speaker 3: section and look up either The Russian View of US
Speaker 3: Strategy It's Pasted its Future by Jonathan S. Lockwood and
Speaker 3: Kathleen O'Brien Lockwood. We co authored that one. The other
Speaker 3: book is The Lockwood Analytical Method for Prediction LAMP l
Speaker 3: a MP. Now that is a that might be a
Speaker 3: topic for another for another another time, But that is
Speaker 3: an an analytical method which I developed and for which
Speaker 3: apparently I'm still very well known in the intelligence community.
Speaker 2: Actually, when I looked your name up after we connected,
Speaker 2: I looked, you know, just to do a little soft
Speaker 2: you know, dive on you, and LAMP came up quite
Speaker 2: a bit. So we do have to discuss that another episode,
Speaker 2: for sure.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, there's an interesting there's an interesting thing, but
Speaker 3: that was published in twenty thirteen and it is it
Speaker 3: is a structured method for making an intelligence prediction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's let's save that for another because I am
Speaker 2: interested in talking about that one with you, for sure.
Speaker 2: You know what I do though, I let me mention
Speaker 2: this too. I'm going to create a guest page for
Speaker 2: you on my website, and we were going to make
Speaker 2: sure that we have all these links there so when
Speaker 2: they click on this episode, you will pop up, and
Speaker 2: then we'll make sure that I can get all those
Speaker 2: links from you that you have, and we'll make that
Speaker 2: part of your guest profile on the website on my
Speaker 2: end as well, So hopefully that'll help listeners find you
Speaker 2: a little bit easier as well.
Speaker 3: Fantastic. Yeah not this is this has been very energizing
Speaker 3: and interesting discussion. I really enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: I appreciate your time. Yeah, oh very good, Dan.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I'm going to get back and to hunkering
Speaker 3: down in this cold weather, winter weather and just yeah,
Speaker 3: just just chilling out and maybe getting a bottle, maybe
Speaker 3: getting a glass at Bubbly or something.
Speaker 2: That's kind of where I'm going next. I'm a big
Speaker 2: champagne guy, so I'm about to pop a cork here,
Speaker 2: Doctor Lockwood. Thank you very much, and I guarantee you
Speaker 2: and I will be staying in touch. So yes, appreciate
Speaker 2: your time. Excellent, awesome, Thank you as always, Thank you
Speaker 2: for listening, and don't forget to like, subscribe and share
Speaker 2: the show with others and for all things world Ablaze,
Speaker 2: including social media links and more information about this particular episode,
Speaker 2: visit www dot world Ablaze podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: Get Doo Doo Do Do Do Do Do Do Do
Speaker 1: Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do
Speaker 2: Do