Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics.
Speaker 1: I'm here with Mick Moloy Jason Lines on the mich
Speaker 1: Com Tacos. Guys, do us a favorite, don't forget to
Speaker 1: like and subscribe if you were listening to us on audio,
Speaker 1: subscribe and rate five stars there and yeah, that's the
Speaker 1: bit of housekeeping. Just go ahead and do that, don't
Speaker 1: it won't hurt And tell a friend. A lot happening
Speaker 1: as usual. First thing, the kickoff is a couple of
Speaker 1: days ago, we paused our weapons shipments, some of that
Speaker 1: were already in transit heading to Ukraine. That's caused a
Speaker 1: huge stir. There was some word that the reason why
Speaker 1: we were doing that was because we were worried about
Speaker 1: our own stock piles. An NBC report came out yesterday
Speaker 1: that said that's not the case, and hex Seth's paused
Speaker 1: it anyway. Uh, let's start there because there's a lot
Speaker 1: more going on obviously, see Russia's pound in Ukraine with
Speaker 1: drones and cruise missiles. Way more than it seems, way
Speaker 1: more than usual, to be honest. Yeah, where you guys
Speaker 1: at with the pause and the arm shipments.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, first of all, I hope you guys had
Speaker 2: a good Independence Day. Did a lot of motivational American
Speaker 2: stuff myself. And to start a positive note, I would
Speaker 2: highlight didn't get a lot of coverage, but the NATO
Speaker 2: summit that was at the Hague, which will lead into
Speaker 2: my comments online Ukrainian pause was very positive.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: So, and you got to give the president some credit.
Speaker 2: He's the one that's been pushing so hard to get
Speaker 2: our NATO allies, not just him, every president since going
Speaker 2: back to when Europe decided to abdicate their security conserves
Speaker 2: the United States, so many presidents, But give President Trump's
Speaker 2: some credit. They're out now agreeing to five that's a
Speaker 2: substantial increase, right. Just to give you an example, I
Speaker 2: think I was talking to somebody yesterday. Germany's buying a
Speaker 2: thousand new main battle tanks, twenty five hundred infanty fighting vehicles,
Speaker 2: and creating six new combat brigades new. Right, that's just
Speaker 2: one example. Now, I'm sure some of our friends out
Speaker 2: there and the audience are going, well, isn't that because
Speaker 2: Russia invaded Ukraine?
Speaker 1: Yet?
Speaker 2: Probably it has a lot to do with it as well.
Speaker 2: So it's not just the American influence, but I think
Speaker 2: that's important to point out five percent is considerable. Those
Speaker 2: that aren't doing it should step up. But there's also
Speaker 2: there was also an ironclad re affirmation of Article five
Speaker 2: of NATO, which means you fight one of us, you
Speaker 2: fight all of us. That was important for our NATO
Speaker 2: allies to hear. There was another affirmation that eventually the
Speaker 2: Ukraine will end up in NATO. There was a I
Speaker 2: think creation of the NATO Assistance to Ukraine entity, which
Speaker 2: is awesome. My son's out there doing that. As far
Speaker 2: as the US assistance to Ukraine with the unit, and
Speaker 2: there was and there was a lot of I think
Speaker 2: significant steps towards the development of a NATO that's a
Speaker 2: functional military fighting force.
Speaker 3: Anyway, we could.
Speaker 2: Talk a lot more about that, but I just wanted
Speaker 2: to highlight that before we get into I don't know
Speaker 2: what we're thinking about pausing. This is stuff that was
Speaker 2: already approved and in the pipeline.
Speaker 1: By the way, there wasn't some of the stuff in
Speaker 1: Poland and stuff like in.
Speaker 2: Poland, Yeah, in Poland. Like now there's reports, I don't
Speaker 2: know if it's true that this was uniliterally decided in
Speaker 2: the Pentagon. In my experience having been in, you know,
Speaker 2: on the Pentagon. This would never have happened in a
Speaker 2: normal situation. This is a huge decision to cut off
Speaker 2: critical defensive offensive included but defensive munitions to an ally.
Speaker 3: Who's in a war.
Speaker 2: That would at least have gone through the policy coordination
Speaker 2: process where other people would have an opportunity to chime
Speaker 2: in on why that's a terrible idea. And this would
Speaker 2: be a decision by the President of the United States.
Speaker 2: I mean, this isn't This isn't something that would be
Speaker 2: decided on the datas d level for example, what I was,
Speaker 2: I mean, this is, this is this is getting kicked
Speaker 2: up to the to the president. So I don't understand
Speaker 2: why it was done. I think it needs to be
Speaker 2: turned back on immediately. I'm sure there's some senators and
Speaker 2: representatives on both sides of the isle that want answers.
Speaker 2: This is and this was already approved. It's in the
Speaker 2: US interest to continue and to increase the support we
Speaker 2: give to Ukraine, not not charity but actual our national
Speaker 2: security interest. Or maybe we'll talk about it today, but
Speaker 2: we just proved it one trillion dollar basic defense annual budget,
Speaker 2: so we have the capacity to do this American companies
Speaker 2: benefit from this, our allies and partners benefited from this,
Speaker 2: and cutting it off it's just going to inspire President
Speaker 2: Putin to continue the war, believing that he has the
Speaker 2: US and a place that is more beneficial to him
Speaker 2: than potentially even her. So that's all.
Speaker 1: That's what I got to say about that.
Speaker 2: I think Jay, you listened to back and forth, so
Speaker 2: maybe you have some of the opposing side.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it was an interview on PBS. I do not
Speaker 4: remember the two ladies' names, but one was they're both
Speaker 4: think tanks, but one was for the pause, one was
Speaker 4: against the one who was for She made the argument
Speaker 4: that this isn't just a pause, it's not a complete halt.
Speaker 4: I guess, tomato, tomato, she believes that. And d I
Speaker 4: don't know if we can post that the interview in
Speaker 4: the link somewhere so people.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna actually say it's Kimberly Keith Kagan the Institute
Speaker 1: for the Study of War and Jennifer Kavanaugh of Defense Priorities. Yep,
Speaker 1: I'll throw the link in the description.
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, Jennifer Kavanaugh, she was the one who was
Speaker 4: for the pause. She kept arguing that this was necessary
Speaker 4: because we needed to uh focus on war with China,
Speaker 4: a possible you know, future war with China, and that
Speaker 4: by continuing to send these arms that we were hamsteringing
Speaker 4: ourselves and the other lady she uh said, you know,
Speaker 4: one has nothing to do with the other, and that
Speaker 4: would actually only give h Russia as well as China
Speaker 4: and Iran, you know, it would give them pause to say, Okay,
Speaker 4: you know, they they stand by their allies and they're
Speaker 4: willing to do whatever it takes to, you know, to
Speaker 4: support them. And so it was a it was a
Speaker 4: really good back and forth to watch, but you know
Speaker 4: how I feel about it.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, well it's good to listen to both sides, right,
Speaker 2: because yeah, we don't want to just be the I
Speaker 2: would say on this idea that you know, the eminent
Speaker 2: war with China over Taiwan. You just said it, Jay,
Speaker 2: I mean, the more the more you pull out of
Speaker 2: supporting your allies, the more China would be inspired because
Speaker 2: they don't think you're gonna We're going to support Taiwan
Speaker 2: by looking at how we support Ukraine and China. This
Speaker 2: is reported out there that China actually was talking to
Speaker 2: a lot of European countries saying essentially that the same thing.
Speaker 2: You know that they they view the US's as a
Speaker 2: as a weakness, you know when it comes to supporting Ukraine,
Speaker 2: and it's it's going to inspire them and obviously Russia
Speaker 2: to just continue this. So if we have a problem
Speaker 2: keeping up with the manufacturing of these key critical munitions,
Speaker 2: which isn't just defensive but also upfensive, we need to
Speaker 2: fix that problem because what if we're in a war
Speaker 2: right now, If we were in the war right now
Speaker 2: and we can't even support Ukraine because it's our criticals
Speaker 2: thought piles, something's not adding up and something. So they
Speaker 2: need to do a real assessment with people that are
Speaker 2: more on the military national security side, let's on the political,
Speaker 2: and say, if we're this close to critical, then we
Speaker 2: have dramatically underestimated how we're going to get our munitions
Speaker 2: if we should go to them. And maybe that's addressed
Speaker 2: in the new defense budget.
Speaker 3: Hope it is.
Speaker 2: It is in some part, but I just don't believe
Speaker 2: that that's actually the case here. I think we can
Speaker 2: do both. I think we can prepare and send a
Speaker 2: strong message to China not to screw around with Taiwan
Speaker 2: or any other entity out there and also support our
Speaker 2: ally that's currently being attacked after years and years by
Speaker 2: our other adversary Russia.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that, Like that's an interesting argument in
Speaker 1: terms of like being prepared for China. It's like you
Speaker 1: could say make the same argument, like why is saidcom
Speaker 1: going fucking bananas? Saya, cum'sm going bananas for the last
Speaker 1: four months. I mean, we're bombing the Huthis for a
Speaker 1: sixty fifty five fifty two days or whatever.
Speaker 2: It was, right, and nobody said anything that was a
Speaker 2: billion dollars worth of munitions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I was.
Speaker 2: I was for taking it to the Huthis, but you
Speaker 2: can't have it. It's it's just Ukraine. It's just selectively Ukraine.
Speaker 2: So the same people are talking about transferring B two's
Speaker 2: and moved to is.
Speaker 1: I got I got triggered when I saw that.
Speaker 2: Or wringing their hands when it comes to basic defensive
Speaker 2: munitions to defend themselves against these barrages. When we do
Speaker 2: have Americans in places in Ukraine, like it's you got
Speaker 2: to call it for what it is. This is just
Speaker 2: political and it needs we need to focus more on
Speaker 2: our national security and interests collectively, not.
Speaker 1: Political I mean, since you brought it up, Nick, let's
Speaker 1: talk about this too, dunce caps of a congressman, bipartisan too,
Speaker 1: one's a Republican, one's a Democrat. Who are I guess
Speaker 1: proposing a bill. They've done it before to other people,
Speaker 1: where we give over our b twos and mobs to Israel.
Speaker 1: It's like, bro, there's a reason why we don't have
Speaker 1: health universal health care. We need to keep our own
Speaker 1: shit to ourselves, right, the things that no one has
Speaker 1: not even trying to have strategic bombers like that stealth ones.
Speaker 1: Yet I saw that and I was like, dude, you're
Speaker 1: a congressman, man, like, make that count. Make it fucking
Speaker 1: count for your constituents. You think your constituents give a
Speaker 1: flying fuck that we give b twos to to uh Israel?
Speaker 1: Come on, make it. You know I can say the
Speaker 1: same thing about Lindsay Graham too. Do you think anybody
Speaker 1: in South Carolina gives a shit about what's going on
Speaker 1: in Iran?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: I mean, let's be real, like, you have your first
Speaker 1: and foremost job. I feel like is as a congress person,
Speaker 1: we're getting sidetracked. And I'm sorry to everybody, but you're
Speaker 1: gonna have to get over it now, you guys, the
Speaker 1: audience is like doing what you got to do for
Speaker 1: your district or your state. It's crazy to me, how
Speaker 1: like there's only how many You're thirty five guys and girls, right,
Speaker 1: that's out of three hundred and forty million people. You're
Speaker 1: the leaders of the land and nate number of you
Speaker 1: take your job seriously. All right, I'm off my soapbox
Speaker 1: now you got.
Speaker 4: No. I mean, there's really not much I say. I mean, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 4: it's I agree. I mean, there are more pressing things
Speaker 4: to worry about. As a congress person. It's a representative,
Speaker 4: you know whatever, too close to home to be uh,
Speaker 4: you know, proposing something like that, you know, or someone's
Speaker 4: face on Mount Rushmore or whatever it is. You know,
Speaker 4: there are more important things. Now, someone could come back
Speaker 4: and say, well, you just made our point about Ukraine.
Speaker 4: There's things too close to home. Well one directly affects
Speaker 4: things close to home or could in the future, whereas
Speaker 4: us giving Israel B two's it's not going.
Speaker 3: To help us at all.
Speaker 2: So we want to control the assets and nobody else
Speaker 2: in the world, as I mean, that's that's where I
Speaker 2: come down. So you know, and I supported the strikes,
Speaker 2: So I think the US should be able to take
Speaker 2: the strikes if if it's needed for our own security.
Speaker 2: If it's not needed for our own security, why would we
Speaker 2: you know, why would we then give it to somebody
Speaker 2: else whoul then decide what?
Speaker 3: Yeah, what if it's not now not in our interest?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, we can see a scenario where we don't
Speaker 2: want to see the war kickback off, or you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a lot of scenarios where the US
Speaker 2: would would want to have the control of the very
Speaker 2: assets that nobody else has to be able to make
Speaker 2: our own decisions. So and that's not a slight against Israel.
Speaker 2: It's not a slide against any it's it's you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, it.
Speaker 4: Was the British or the French or anybody, Yeah, anyone
Speaker 4: that's ours.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: It's like your buddy's like, hey, let me borrow your car.
Speaker 4: I know, damn that drive you give me gas money,
Speaker 4: I'll drive you, but you ain't taking my car, you know.
Speaker 3: Yep, that's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me get your one out of nineteen car
Speaker 1: that's worth a billion dollars that nobody has to maybe
Speaker 1: bomb a country whenever we feel like like no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we dictate what happens. Right, We're the United States, for
Speaker 1: God's sake. I mean I sound like a you know,
Speaker 1: I'm on the board of Halliburton. But you know, but
Speaker 1: at the same point, we have these things, why give
Speaker 1: them up? Like here you go, no problem, laissez faire
Speaker 1: that call Blanche, enjoy.
Speaker 2: Yourself, Lions' shift man, think about.
Speaker 1: It, right, I mean, we gave you Ron, you know,
Speaker 1: at fourteen's and their first new clear reactor, you know.
Speaker 1: And we're not exactly writing each other Christmas cards right now, Nope,
Speaker 1: and we'll be talking about it just a round out
Speaker 1: going back to Ukraine and Russia. This is more of
Speaker 1: like I guess, like just an odd thing from a
Speaker 1: dummy like me that looks at it from the outside.
Speaker 1: There were reports that Zelenski and Trump were going to
Speaker 1: have a phone call, and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: the day before Putin and Trump had a phone call.
Speaker 1: There wasn't much readout on what went down on the
Speaker 1: phone call, but it was the day before he talked
Speaker 1: to Zelenski. And this is after the pause and the weapons. Uh.
Speaker 1: I just don't get it, Like why does Trump need
Speaker 1: to feel the need to have to talk to Putin
Speaker 1: every time he talks to Zelenski. Pohon's not our buddy.
Speaker 3: Definitely not a buddy.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know if I don't know the
Speaker 2: thought process. Looking at it both ways, I guess President
Speaker 2: Trump can say that he's trying to get some kind
Speaker 2: of concessions from pot before we talk to Zelenski. So,
Speaker 2: but because he came right out of it and said, basically,
Speaker 2: I got nothing, clearly not interested in ceasefire. And he's
Speaker 2: clearly not interested in ceasefire. So it's time to pass
Speaker 2: the Sanctioning Russia Act, sponsored by Senator Graham, Senator Graham
Speaker 2: and Blumenthal on the Democratic side. But it's got eighty
Speaker 2: plus senators, right, so it's a veto proof, Like, I
Speaker 2: don't know what they're waiting. I really don't. Uh, there's
Speaker 2: zero interest by Putin to stop this war. He's intensified it.
Speaker 2: He's bringing in thirty thousand now it's pretty much verified
Speaker 2: thirty thousand North Korean troops are going to be going.
Speaker 2: So he's got he's got allies. They're pumping out ammunition,
Speaker 2: they're pumping they're sending our own soldiers for Christ's sake,
Speaker 2: you know, And so we need to keep up the
Speaker 2: pressure with Ukraine, who's never going to quit. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you haven't figured that out yet, right, if Putin
Speaker 2: hasn't figured that out yet, I mean, they're just not
Speaker 2: gonna quit. They're going to fight all the way to
Speaker 2: the end. So that means every life Ukrainian and Russia
Speaker 2: simply hasn't shown that they have the capacity, military capability,
Speaker 2: planning anything. So let's hope that that part of these
Speaker 2: this increase in NATO also translates to an increase in
Speaker 2: support Ukraine, because I think they're one of the same.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree with Mick on that.
Speaker 4: It seems I'm not in the administration's heads or Trump's head,
Speaker 4: but it seems like this is his way of saying, Hey, look,
Speaker 4: I'm addressing both sides. I'm trying to get this thing done.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: It just so happens that I'm talking to Putin first. Now,
Speaker 4: from an intelligence officer point of view, Mick Will knows
Speaker 4: as well as I do, one of the biggest things
Speaker 4: you want to know is what is a world leader thinking,
Speaker 4: what's in their head?
Speaker 3: Where?
Speaker 4: From Putin's point of view, he doesn't have to wonder,
Speaker 4: he doesn't have to send his spies out to know,
Speaker 4: because by Trump calling him first, he's telling him what
Speaker 4: he's thinking. I'm sure that they talked about I can't
Speaker 4: one hundred percent say, but I'm pretty certain they talked about, Hey,
Speaker 4: what are you going to talk to Zelenski about? And
Speaker 4: by doing that, now Putin can kind of steer the situation,
Speaker 4: steer the conversation. You know, you know that makes sense,
Speaker 4: But you know, what about this?
Speaker 3: What about that?
Speaker 4: Put things in Trump's head that could now steer the
Speaker 4: conversation with Zelenski in a way that it wasn't intended,
Speaker 4: you know, And that's one thing that we learned as
Speaker 4: intelligence officers is you never let an asset control that
Speaker 4: the uh uh, the situation, whether that's everything from where
Speaker 4: you meet to what the conversation, how the conversation goes,
Speaker 4: you always steer that. So, I mean, I don't know
Speaker 4: who he has in his head, if the DNI is
Speaker 4: talking to him or anybody like that, but to me,
Speaker 4: it's just a bad idea to talk to Putin first
Speaker 4: every time. Maybe on certain occasions, depending on what the
Speaker 4: situation is, what the conversation is going, to be about,
Speaker 4: but not every time, because now you're also just giving
Speaker 4: the appearances of let's get it, you're going to defer
Speaker 4: to Putin first anyway, So you know, why are we
Speaker 4: even talking.
Speaker 2: That's a really interesting point. I mean that, I don't
Speaker 2: know that anybody's obviously, I don't know if anybody explained
Speaker 2: that to Potus that you know, we have the ability
Speaker 2: to psychologically profile key leaders and give you a lot
Speaker 2: of information that would make you better prepared for any
Speaker 2: of these conversations. I assume that they have. But that's
Speaker 2: that's readily available. And Putin is a former KGB spy, right,
Speaker 2: he knows what this is all his this is his world.
Speaker 2: So that's a really interesting point. Hopefully they are taking
Speaker 2: advantage of that and the president's taking the feedback because
Speaker 2: if not, I mean this, I'm not saying it's you know,
Speaker 2: he's manipulating the president, but he's certainly trying.
Speaker 1: We know he's trying.
Speaker 2: So it would be interesting to see if somebody is
Speaker 2: actually trying to counter that and even give talking points
Speaker 2: to president. I think this happen in the past. They
Speaker 2: could you know, turn the tide so to speak.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, because you break that pattern if sorry, I
Speaker 4: don't mean, but if you you break that pattern of
Speaker 4: going to Putin all the time and then this next
Speaker 4: time go right to Zelenski first, Now you might force
Speaker 4: Putin or his people to reveal something, you know, questions
Speaker 4: that they might have, which is intel you know about
Speaker 4: it by saying whoa would you go to him first?
Speaker 3: You know for you know, uh, did you tell him this?
Speaker 3: Did you talk to him about that? You know?
Speaker 4: So now we're getting information on what they're thinking, so
Speaker 4: hopefully somebody is in his ear about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Jay, I was literally what I was thinking. I
Speaker 1: was like, doesn't it couldn't it? Couldn't you get more
Speaker 1: yardage out of Like I'm talking to Zelenskin, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna miss a fucking phone call with Putin and
Speaker 1: let him stew on it a little bit, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, like just to fun with him a
Speaker 1: little yep. So yeah, great, great point, Jay. I mean, Also,
Speaker 1: like outside of like from ninety nine, two thousand and
Speaker 1: two thousand and one, when Putin first came to power,
Speaker 1: there were some talk about like he's a reformer and
Speaker 1: stuff like that, but over the last twenty plus years
Speaker 1: he's clearly shown that he's a manipulative lying I mean,
Speaker 1: you just even see dmitriy Medvedev like him and Obama
Speaker 1: had a good relationship right when he was president, even
Speaker 1: though Putin was still pulling the strings. But he's got
Speaker 1: totally fucking batshit. You know. It's like these guys were
Speaker 1: just always lying essentially right, always trying to manipulate. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's wild, like I you know, I mean, there's a
Speaker 1: reason why I guess Biden didn't take a ton of
Speaker 1: poot or any phone calls from Putin. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: completely ice amount and stuff like that, but you want
Speaker 1: to make a phone call mean something and get like
Speaker 1: actual stuff out of it, right, like strategically put it
Speaker 1: in the right place where it's like, yeah, we got X,
Speaker 1: Y and Z out of this and it was worth it.
Speaker 1: Because the more and more phone calls you gotta feel
Speaker 1: like it just waters down the effect.
Speaker 3: There's a reason why.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, I was going to say, there's a reason why. Again,
Speaker 4: going back to training. As intelligence officers, you're it's always
Speaker 4: emphasized that you do not you do give some a
Speaker 4: little bit to that you know, to your asset or
Speaker 4: you know, or to the person you're trying to recruit,
Speaker 4: but you don't give everything because now they control it.
Speaker 4: So we've got to get better at that, you know,
Speaker 4: by the why we I mean, the administration has to
Speaker 4: get better at making Putin stew make him sit for
Speaker 4: a little bit, make him wonder what the hell we
Speaker 4: were just talking about. You know, have the conversation and
Speaker 4: then announce it on TV. Let him see it on
Speaker 4: CNN or Fox News, and then that might force him
Speaker 4: and his people to give up something that you know
Speaker 4: that we want to know.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, like, what else can Putin do right
Speaker 1: outside of a nuclear weapon? Like, what else can you
Speaker 1: do to U create? Yeah, ominously civility.
Speaker 2: That's that's his his actual point. And that's what I mean,
Speaker 2: we got to think about that for future warfare. What
Speaker 2: did Iran do when they were trying to fight Israel?
Speaker 2: They just launched ballistic missiles into like Tel Aviv? Right,
Speaker 2: I mean it wasn't even a fate of like, well,
Speaker 2: we're going after military targets. It was a military target,
Speaker 2: you know, three miles outside of Tel Aviv. So there
Speaker 2: you go, right, they're not even trying That's what That's
Speaker 2: what Putin's been doing. The whole time they just strike civilians.
Speaker 2: It goes directly after and strike civilians. They're terror So
Speaker 2: that's the adversary we're going to face. Those are two
Speaker 2: of our adversaries if we you know, if God forbid,
Speaker 2: there is a larger conflict than involves in the US.
Speaker 1: You can't get eighty senators to agree on fucking anything, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, it could seem like, hey, we're fucking serious
Speaker 1: outside of just military support, right, like sanction them even more,
Speaker 1: give away their three hundred and twenty five billion to
Speaker 1: like whatever, whether it's European defence companies or American that
Speaker 1: are making shells, or patriots or whatever, because like, what
Speaker 1: else can you fucking do outside of a nuclear rep
Speaker 1: He's not gonna.
Speaker 2: Do that, No, because if he does a nuclear weapon,
Speaker 2: it might trigger Article five because the radiation fall out
Speaker 2: it's likely to hit Poland and other NATO countries that
Speaker 2: surround Ukraine.
Speaker 3: It's not like you could contain it.
Speaker 1: Right at the end of the day, he wants to be,
Speaker 1: he wants to be, you know, regime security is paramount
Speaker 1: for him.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you could, you could unfreeze, and they have
Speaker 2: been unfreezing, like Canada has I think Japan is free
Speaker 2: unfrozen some but the big bulks haven't been unfrozen. And
Speaker 2: I don't really know why they did that. I mean,
Speaker 2: then you're paying the US industrial base to which will
Speaker 2: improve our ability to do this right. It will increase capacity,
Speaker 2: will increase all sorts of things in innovation when it
Speaker 2: comes to development these systems. So if you did both
Speaker 2: of the things you just said, if you did release
Speaker 2: the funds to support Ukraine periodically, right, changin thirty billion,
Speaker 2: I don't know, whatever, just to put more pressure on
Speaker 2: Putin Andy did this section in Russia Act. That's going
Speaker 2: to send a serious message to Russia. It's going to
Speaker 2: be beneficial to the United States and Arnado partners and
Speaker 2: obviously Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I got to like, outside of maybe people in the
Speaker 1: comments would know, like, are is Europe still getting a
Speaker 1: lot of their gas and oil from Russia? I believe
Speaker 1: they are. Are they worried that if they did start
Speaker 1: like giving out changes of that three hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: five billion, that they would get cut off and stuff?
Speaker 2: I mean, I think there's an initiative to go to
Speaker 2: nuclear I don't know if that could make up I'd
Speaker 2: defer to the energy experts. But yeah, they to my understanding,
Speaker 2: I think they've tried to wean themselves off. I think
Speaker 2: there's other like I heard, you know, through discussions with
Speaker 2: Middle East friends, that there's going to be some kind
Speaker 2: of pipeline that might come through Syria that's going to
Speaker 2: get to Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong people who know.
Speaker 1: But that's years away.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if it were happened, but it would benefit obviously
Speaker 2: Sero Syria which needs it. But anyway, the point being
Speaker 2: it was helped, there's there's initiatives that long term could
Speaker 2: get Europe, which should have been trying to get off
Speaker 2: Russian energy the whole time. The idea they got more
Speaker 2: relying on it was just a huge strategic mistake.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we'll see what goes down. Hopefully they unfreeze
Speaker 1: the weapons package, you know, weapons that are stuck in
Speaker 1: Poland just sitting there. It's not even like it wasn't
Speaker 1: like they're all they're sitting in an American fucking warehouse.
Speaker 1: They're in Poland like ready to be transferred. So hopefully
Speaker 1: that happens soon. Moving on to UH, looks likely that
Speaker 1: there's going to be a cease firing gods of fingers crossed.
Speaker 1: Hamas answered and said that it looks like they're down
Speaker 1: for it, or at least down to continue to discuss it.
Speaker 1: I mean, thank god, I hope it's fucking done, frankly,
Speaker 1: because that situation is an absolute nightmare. And we also
Speaker 1: have Netna who coming to visit the States, which is exciting. Mick,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts?
Speaker 2: I think I think you're right. I've been talking a
Speaker 2: lot of my friends in the Middle East, and it
Speaker 2: does look like this wouldn't have been Netna Who coming
Speaker 2: if there wasn't going to be an announcement.
Speaker 1: There.
Speaker 2: I think the IDF has told him that they've essentially
Speaker 2: gotten a lot of the objectives they wanted to accomplish.
Speaker 2: It is a natural point to have at least the
Speaker 2: start of a ceasefire, and the US proposals sixty days.
Speaker 2: It's adjusted somewhat, but I do believe now it's ten
Speaker 2: living in eighteen deceased hostages will come out within that
Speaker 2: sixty days, and of course the corresponding Palestinian prisoners like
Speaker 2: three to one ratio. But most importantly the massive this
Speaker 2: is what I was told, increase in humanitarian aid, which
Speaker 2: needs to happen I mean, I mean, I hope. I
Speaker 2: wish Hamas was eradicated to the last person, but withholding
Speaker 2: humanitarian assistance from civilians isn't the way to do it ever,
Speaker 2: so that needs to change. But apparently it is so
Speaker 2: we might see and which is great, and we should
Speaker 2: all hope that Hamas is the right thing for the
Speaker 2: Palestinian people, which they haven't done yet, but maybe they'll
Speaker 2: view it in their own interest because I think there
Speaker 2: is an offer. I think there's an offer to allow
Speaker 2: the leadership of a MOSS to depart.
Speaker 3: And go somewhere else. You know, maybe we're wrong.
Speaker 2: As an old intel dude, I would say, let them go,
Speaker 2: we'll find them later. Man, we got we got a
Speaker 2: forever memory. So uh, anything to stop the war and
Speaker 2: the issues that are the humanitarian crisis that's in the
Speaker 2: Gaza right now. I just hope that let's hope that
Speaker 2: Hamas can see see the pathwoard. The issue, of course
Speaker 2: is Hamas doesn't want to sign some thing that the
Speaker 2: that that doesn't permanently in the and have the IDF withdraw,
Speaker 2: and that's that's the big issue. And the IDF doesn't
Speaker 2: want or Israel doesn't want to sign on to something
Speaker 2: because they don't know what ever Moss is gonna do,
Speaker 2: right and right now there's no suitable or even option
Speaker 2: to unless maybe private security, and I just don't see
Speaker 2: that being enough to fill the vacuum of the IDF. Right,
Speaker 2: So there needs to be some plan, maybe some way
Speaker 2: to build and train Palestinians that are vetted and trusted
Speaker 2: that can provide security for other Palestinians both ways. And
Speaker 2: you know, but that's that's something needs to be started.
Speaker 2: Hopefully it can be started in conjunction with the Sea
Speaker 2: Spire that we can, Like you said, they all hope
Speaker 2: starts next week.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think I read somewhere the IDEF is controlling
Speaker 1: about seventy five percent of Gaza. Now, yes, yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I hope this fucking stops, man, because it's
Speaker 1: it's a it's seems like it's a fucking nightmare. At
Speaker 1: least it looks like it's a nightmare. And also, what
Speaker 1: do we really want contractors there doing complete security for
Speaker 1: the entire place. I mean, it's not really working out
Speaker 1: great as of you know. The other day AP reported
Speaker 1: that American contractors were shooting at Palestinians and stuff like
Speaker 1: that today, just now, the Gods of Humanitarian Foundation posted
Speaker 1: a statement saying that there was an attack on a
Speaker 1: distribution site. I think a couple of contractors were injured.
Speaker 1: On top of the IDF you know from Heratz. IDF
Speaker 1: was saying they have a green light on fucking shooting
Speaker 1: essentially people at the eight sites where there are only
Speaker 1: what four, which, like you've mentioned before, make there should
Speaker 1: be four hundred. So yeah, I hope this sees fire happens, man,
Speaker 1: I hope it ends. And uh, you know, we could
Speaker 1: just fuck a chill out for a little bit and yeah,
Speaker 1: go smoke commas. Guys in around Iran or guitar, have
Speaker 1: at it, go nuts, ushah, do what you you know
Speaker 1: you're actually good at.
Speaker 2: And and hopefully with this, I mean we spoke to
Speaker 2: former very senior UN humanitarian folks last week. There needs
Speaker 2: to be like four hundred age stations, right, so this
Speaker 2: is hopefully not enough. So yeah, so hopefully it comes
Speaker 2: with that and and we'll we'll see and we'll see
Speaker 2: what what Hamas actually does. They've indicated this positive response,
Speaker 2: so if they come back and then don't agree to it,
Speaker 2: I go from here. There might be a uniladal declaration
Speaker 2: by Israel and uh. And also part of the the
Speaker 2: sixty day is a withdrawal of IDF from certain areas
Speaker 2: of GOSM. So there is there is both sides are
Speaker 2: submitting submitting here.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I do worry that it's gonna be like
Speaker 1: the first cease fire, where like after the first, like
Speaker 1: the phase two, where it was like who's gonna do
Speaker 1: the security? And that's how it basically, at least my
Speaker 1: understanding is that's how it collapsed. I hope that's not
Speaker 1: the case. Again, Man, I don't know who the fuck's
Speaker 1: gonna step up because it doesn't seem like anybody else will.
Speaker 1: So at least that's stopped the fucking bombing. And let's
Speaker 1: let's get people some fucking food in medicine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's start reconstruction.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Uh. Last bit the Iran ending cooperation with the
Speaker 1: i a e A, which is what they said they
Speaker 1: would do obviously if they got hit, and they would redouble.
Speaker 1: They also said they would redouble their efforts and getting
Speaker 1: a nuclear weapon. A couple of things there too. The
Speaker 1: Pentagon came out and said that we brought them back
Speaker 1: a year or two. Frankly at this point, I don't
Speaker 1: really trust what the Pentagon says. Uh, gotta be honest
Speaker 1: with you, it could be true. I mean they were
Speaker 1: year away anyway, even Yahoo said that. So anyway, Iran,
Speaker 1: it seems like it's kind of like a cooling period.
Speaker 1: Now they have a ceasefire and stuff, but it does
Speaker 1: seem like Uran's like they were photos satellite photos of
Speaker 1: them excavating the Ford out site. We'll see where it
Speaker 1: goes from there and make it. What are you reading
Speaker 1: on that?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, first thing, trust your enemy when they're
Speaker 2: telling you what they're doing, right, So, I mean they
Speaker 2: were already at sixty percent enriched uranium and there's around
Speaker 2: four hundred kilograms of the stuff. We think that's way
Speaker 2: over what you need for civilian energy. So that tells
Speaker 2: me right there they want a nuclear weapon. It told
Speaker 2: me before the the strikes actually that they were trying
Speaker 2: to send a message to the world that that's way
Speaker 2: they were heading. So maybe they were using it as
Speaker 2: negotiation tactics. But there you go, you got you got,
Speaker 2: you got the response. So now when they the IAEA,
Speaker 2: they had cameras at these facilities, they had access to
Speaker 2: these facilities by taking them out. They're saying that they're
Speaker 2: going to do things that they would not have wanted
Speaker 2: to see the ia EA C Right, that's I mean,
Speaker 2: that's how you have to view it, in my opinion.
Speaker 2: So they are going for a nuclear weapon, and we
Speaker 2: need to focus on dismantling that, and that to me
Speaker 2: is everything's on the table. I'd like to see it
Speaker 2: in the diplomatic new nuclear agreement, but that's up to Iran.
Speaker 2: It's clear the US wants to do that too. Maybe not,
Speaker 2: but if they don't, then we need to focus on
Speaker 2: our intelligence efforts. And I'd like to keep it on
Speaker 2: the covert side. You know, it's better than the overt side.
Speaker 2: But you know, and every step they make makes it
Speaker 2: more likely that this is going to become a conflict again.
Speaker 2: I mean, they have one of their eye tolas calling
Speaker 2: for the assassination of Prime Minister Nanyahu and President Trump. Okay,
Speaker 2: the two commanders in chief of the most significant military
Speaker 2: forces against you, and you've just called for their assassination.
Speaker 2: So I mean irresponsibility. No, not the supreator. It's Katami,
Speaker 2: I believe, okay, But I mean I don't think he's
Speaker 2: gonna come out, and you know, one Iyetot is gonna
Speaker 2: come out saying this stuff unless the Iotola supports it.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Again, I'd like to see it in a diploma action.
Speaker 2: But this is not the way Aron's headed. So we
Speaker 2: need to be ready to strike again. I think we
Speaker 2: can use our own b twos if we have to.
Speaker 2: Hopefully this stays on the black side and doesn't become, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, an overt war again. But you know, the
Speaker 2: enemy gets a vote. The enemy in this case is
Speaker 2: I wan yeah.
Speaker 4: And it looks like to me, I'm not Again, I'm
Speaker 4: not downplaying or saying that the strike's are wrong. I
Speaker 4: don't think they were, but i it gives Iran the
Speaker 4: perfect cover to two bar the IAEA because they're saying
Speaker 4: it's for safety reasons. You know, we can't guarantee their
Speaker 4: safety down there, you know, until we know it's safe,
Speaker 4: we're not gonna let them in. Well, they could be
Speaker 4: screaming that for the next two years while they rebuild,
Speaker 4: So it's like the perfect cover. So, like you said,
Speaker 4: our intel has got to be on point so that
Speaker 4: we can say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, hey
Speaker 4: we know what you're doing down there, We're coming, you know,
Speaker 4: So Uh, yeah, they're just going to use this excuse.
Speaker 3: It's for the safety of you know.
Speaker 2: That's why you're going to let it exactly totally agree, Jay,
Speaker 2: That's why you got to let Intel speak for itself, right,
Speaker 2: So you can't because the problem when you get into is,
Speaker 2: you know, and I do think it was severely damaged,
Speaker 2: but when you say it's like completely erased. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: then four months from now, you're like, oh, we've got
Speaker 2: to strike it again because they've rebuilt it, and you're like,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, how was it? You know, I mean, yeah,
Speaker 2: just let the let the Intel speak for itself and
Speaker 2: it just based on that, that's.
Speaker 4: What you're on the side of the caution, and then
Speaker 4: you can say later on, see it was obliterated. But
Speaker 4: when you start out saying one hundred percent it's gone,
Speaker 4: you know, now the burdening proof is on you to
Speaker 4: make sure that it's actually like that, because, like you
Speaker 4: just said it, four months from now, we're launching new strikes.
Speaker 4: You know for a fact people on the other side
Speaker 4: are going to come back and be like, well I
Speaker 4: thought you said now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it all comes out later, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: Freedom Information Act and all that's going to come out later.
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess people don't care, but you know, eventually,
Speaker 2: years from now, they're going to know exactly what the
Speaker 2: intelligence community.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 2: Thanks, But anyway, let's let's see where it goes. There
Speaker 2: doesn't look like any plan to get back into the negotiation,
Speaker 2: and you know, and oman so this I don't think
Speaker 2: it's over put it that way. I think we're not out.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Not not great, guys, that's my assessment on this
Speaker 1: is not great. Uh, make you wanted to talk a
Speaker 1: little bit more about the defense budget, like was that
Speaker 1: part of the big beautiful bill thing?
Speaker 2: So there was a supplement talking to five billion I
Speaker 2: think was part of the Big Beautiful Bill. But that
Speaker 2: brings our total one point one trillion if you take
Speaker 2: the twenty f y twenty six base budget plus that
Speaker 2: obviously a lot and I'm sure you know, there's could
Speaker 2: be a lot of discussions on where we're putting our money,
Speaker 2: but you know, I'm a national security guy, so I'm
Speaker 2: focusing on that. I think a lot of it was
Speaker 2: directed correctly on the enhancement of our space operations, our
Speaker 2: artificial intelligence, drone operations. Our navy is getting a huge
Speaker 2: bump night if you add the three ships from the
Speaker 2: base budget, sixteen more from the supplemental on the big
Speaker 2: beautiful bill, it's nineteen you know, by my Marie Matt.
Speaker 2: That's a lot of ships, right so, and hopefully these
Speaker 2: aren't ships like just historic ships that are giant targets.
Speaker 2: These are ships that can use drones and are hard
Speaker 2: to see and can be latoral and you know all
Speaker 2: that stuff. We need to be able to project power
Speaker 2: from the sea, but we do it, need to do
Speaker 2: it in a modern way. There is this golden dome,
Speaker 2: you know, if done correctly, I can see the twenty
Speaker 2: five billion for that. We want to be able to
Speaker 2: defend ourselves as nuclear weapons spread and the ability to
Speaker 2: deliver them spread, ie North Korea. Right So there's a
Speaker 2: lot in here, and hopefully it does more than just
Speaker 2: appease you know, different districts, but it really focuses on
Speaker 2: our national security. The US has always had an offset
Speaker 2: plan where we try to jump ahead in technology of
Speaker 2: our adversaries. You know, it's a big buzz talk always
Speaker 2: in the Pentagon, and it's exponentially going from you know
Speaker 2: where it was to quantum computers, artificially intelligence based robotics,
Speaker 2: drones where the air maritime ground, we're entering it to
Speaker 2: a you know, dangerous new world, put it that way,
Speaker 2: and we have to be way out front this and
Speaker 2: then figure out how to deal with what could be
Speaker 2: an explosion of very lethal, inexpensive options for our adversaries
Speaker 2: that are coming out of these wars, especially in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: So I mean, I think I think it's got the
Speaker 2: right priorities. We'll see how it's actually implemented, but yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a big Now we're at over a trillion dollars,
Speaker 2: which you know, i'd say out of politics from the
Speaker 2: national security side, that just means we have to really
Speaker 2: figure out how we're going to deal with this national debt, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, nobody's deal with it period either side, And
Speaker 2: I don't know how you can do both, but you know,
Speaker 2: I'll leave that for the political ends.
Speaker 1: Jay, you got anything to add, I know you got
Speaker 1: to run soon.
Speaker 4: So no, no, I mean agree with Mick. It's like,
Speaker 4: when you're just talking that last part. I was thinking
Speaker 4: about giving one of my daughters my credit card for
Speaker 4: the weekend. You know, they're going away, and it's like, here,
Speaker 4: take my credit card, and then Monday.
Speaker 3: Comes and like how am I going to pay for this?
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: So it's great. It's great that we're you know, up
Speaker 4: in the budget.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: The toys are nice because they're necessary, but somebody's gonna
Speaker 4: have to pay for this, you know, down the road.
Speaker 3: So hopefully we're thinking that. But that's it, and life's.
Speaker 1: Not gonna play the game. Jay, you gotta go.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I gotta I gotta bounce, take care of guys.
Speaker 1: Follow I'll wrap up with Mick right now. I don't
Speaker 1: want to get into the politics of it. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get worked up again and I can't go on another rant.
Speaker 1: Let's not do the politics of it. You're right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we just put it on the on the tab and
Speaker 1: I have a few I have a sneaking suspicion that
Speaker 1: the reason why they made it as supplemental to the
Speaker 1: Big Beautiful Bill is because if you're a Republican or
Speaker 1: a Democrat and you vote against it, you can get
Speaker 1: tagged with being anti defense, right. I mean, it's the
Speaker 1: it's just normal like logic, you know. Uh, I'm not
Speaker 1: against you know, spending money to beat China, be better
Speaker 1: than China in terms of that and like at least
Speaker 1: showing them, like, Hey, don't fuck around because like we
Speaker 1: still you know, are willing to spend as much money
Speaker 1: as possible. My beef is with like getting rid of
Speaker 1: like you're making ICE the biggest federal agency. Uh, and
Speaker 1: other things met people on Medicaid losing their medical coverage
Speaker 1: and things to that nature. Is I feel like kind
Speaker 1: of but that's part of the other side of the bill,
Speaker 1: where like I don't really feel bad if like a
Speaker 1: millionaire has got to spend thirty grand more a year
Speaker 1: in taxes, I really don't because like that guy doesn't
Speaker 1: give a shit about me. And I'm sorry make I
Speaker 1: know you're a millionaire, so I apologize for that.
Speaker 2: Hard to be a millionaire on your government service there
Speaker 2: you go to humanitarian work in the are Yeah, but no,
Speaker 2: I had to stay out of the pall. I mean
Speaker 2: they irish, you know, they talk about two things you're
Speaker 2: not supposed to be religion in politics all the time.
Speaker 1: I just don't.
Speaker 2: I'm just national security analysts, man a right, guys focus
Speaker 2: on easy things like Warren P's.
Speaker 1: Yeah, just the easy stuff. Uh, Guys, do us a
Speaker 1: favorite liking subscribe? Of course, if you're listening to us
Speaker 1: on the audio side, subscribe and rate it right there too.
Speaker 1: Mick moulroy of course, fog Bo Lobo all his stuff
Speaker 1: links are in the description. Andy Millburn, Jason Lyones everything
Speaker 1: is down in the description. The best way to support
Speaker 1: the show is patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse. You
Speaker 1: get both a Teamhouse and I is on completely AD
Speaker 1: free and early. Yeah, that's it. Mick has always a pleasure.
Speaker 2: I have a great rest of your weekend.
Speaker 1: See everybody.
Speaker 5: Hey guys, it's Jack.
Speaker 6: I just want to talk to you for a moment
Speaker 6: about how you can support the show. If you've been
Speaker 6: watching it, enjoying it, but you'd like to get a
Speaker 6: little bit more involved and help us continue to do.
Speaker 5: This, you can check out our Patreon.
Speaker 6: It is patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse, and for
Speaker 6: five dollars a month you can get access to all
Speaker 6: of these episodes of the Teamhouse ad free. The same
Speaker 6: goes with our affiliated podcast eyes On with Andy Milburn,
Speaker 6: Jason Lyons mcmulroy that one you will also get all
Speaker 6: of those episodes ad free, and you support the channel
Speaker 6: and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon
Speaker 6: members are literally what has helped this company, this small
Speaker 6: business survive, especially during our early years, and you are
Speaker 6: what continues to help this thing going even as we
Speaker 6: navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising.
Speaker 5: So we really appreciate all of you guys.
Speaker 6: There's going to be a link down in the description
Speaker 6: to that Patreon page, and there is also going to
Speaker 6: be a link to our new merch shop, so if
Speaker 6: you guys want to go and get some Teamhouse merchandise,
Speaker 6: we got stickers and we also have patches, and I
Speaker 6: should mention if you sign up for Patreon at ten
Speaker 6: dollars a month, we will nil you this patch as well,
Speaker 6: so we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale
Speaker 6: on the merch shop and additionally, they got t shirts
Speaker 6: up there, water bottles, a tote bag, coffee mugs, all
Speaker 6: that good stuff, So please go and check them out
Speaker 6: and support the show.
Speaker 5: We really appreciate it, guys. Thank you.