Speaker 1: Hey everyone, If you're listening to this, you are not
Speaker 1: a supporter of the Team House. If you'd like to
Speaker 1: get ad free episodes, both video and audio, please go
Speaker 1: to our patreon Patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse. You
Speaker 1: get them. You get the episodes early and add free.
Speaker 1: You can also ask the guys questions, and if you're
Speaker 1: a Teamhouse fan, you can also watch our Team House
Speaker 1: episodes as we record them live. So it really helps
Speaker 1: the show. We couldn't be anywhere without our Patreon supporters,
Speaker 1: so we'd love for you to consider subscribing. It's patreon
Speaker 1: dot com slash the Teamhouse, and that link is in
Speaker 1: the description of the show notes down below. Thanks guys. Enjoy.
Speaker 1: Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics.
Speaker 1: We're here with the whole crew, Mick Moulroy, Andy Milburn,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Hackett, and Mark Polymereopolis. Happy forth to everybody who
Speaker 1: just passed July fifth. I hope everybody had a safe holiday.
Speaker 1: Ate some hot dogs, didn't blow your hands off with fireworks.
Speaker 1: It was fun. It was very hot here in New York,
Speaker 1: but it was still a good time, all right, boys,
Speaker 1: A lot happening as usual. I think we should kick
Speaker 1: off today with talking about Ukraine. We have seen over
Speaker 1: the last probably a couple of months now, Ukraine hitting
Speaker 1: deep inside Russia, Russia's fuel supply being severely limited, where
Speaker 1: it is that they're buying fuel from India to try
Speaker 1: and keep up with the man. I did see a
Speaker 1: couple of things where like we really won't see a
Speaker 1: big difference until like it hits like their lubricitts and stuff,
Speaker 1: and like their war machine gets hit a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Russia also did come out the other day and claim
Speaker 1: that they took over a town in uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Dombas area, which then Ukraine sent down in a salt
Speaker 1: force and basically took it back. So it's interesting what's
Speaker 1: going on they see Russia seems to be flailing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what are you guys tracking here? Let's go with Mark
Speaker 1: poly Moreopolis first. Greeks first, Greeks he first.
Speaker 2: Oh, I like that Greeks first. This is like a
Speaker 2: Mick Molroy is but throwing in the Greeks. By the way,
Speaker 2: I just have to one shout out to Mick. I've
Speaker 2: been I don't have it with me. I've been reading
Speaker 2: that all the Stoicism books, very inspiring and I started
Speaker 2: giving them to all my friends and I have just
Speaker 2: on a serious note, I have a friend who's going
Speaker 2: to not government related, is going through some really tough times,
Speaker 2: and I gave him that book. You know, the obstacle
Speaker 2: is the way it really helped them. So good stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah, most of the stoics know me. So this is
Speaker 3: a book by a friend of mine. Two friend of
Speaker 3: mine just came out, one that runs the earliest foundation
Speaker 3: justin Seed and another one who's a professor at Oxford. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we need these, we need them.
Speaker 2: No, I like it. I gave it Look for the
Speaker 2: Stoics Ukraine so interesting in a couple of different ways.
Speaker 2: And I'm gonna throw a little curveball in this because
Speaker 2: the thing that I've been mokes focused on, which is
Speaker 2: really weird. So first of all, there's certainly events on
Speaker 2: the ground, and I think maybe you guys can cover
Speaker 2: them in great more greater detail. What is interesting to
Speaker 2: me is politically how things have changed in the United States.
Speaker 2: Laura Lumer just put out a post where she said
Speaker 2: I am now pro Ukraine. She loves Zelensky and she's
Speaker 2: railing against others in the MAGA world who are who
Speaker 2: She is obviously claiming to be perhaps correctly pro prutent
Speaker 2: pro Russia. This is the Tucker Carlson's of the world,
Speaker 2: Megan Kelly and others, And it's really interesting to see
Speaker 2: and I think this actually does, this actually does have
Speaker 2: some effects here in the United States because these individuals
Speaker 2: on the right, whether they're podcasters or influencers, certainly kind
Speaker 2: of move the way the MAGA movement in the Republican
Speaker 2: Party goes sometimes. And Laura Lumer has the ear of
Speaker 2: the President of the United States, there's no doubt on that.
Speaker 2: So she now is a huge supporter of Ukraine. Now
Speaker 2: you can kind of, you know, throw it in your
Speaker 2: mouth and kind of because she's kind of she has
Speaker 2: her own issues, massive ones. But it's really interesting and
Speaker 2: so you know, how does this now translate when to
Speaker 2: get to the next part. There are serious, you know,
Speaker 2: issues ahead in terms of what the US willer will
Speaker 2: not provide. I think the Ukrainians just asked us if
Speaker 2: they can co produce patriots. So there's some things coming
Speaker 2: down the pike, you know, in which there will be
Speaker 2: some US policy decisions. But the thing I'm really looking
Speaker 2: at d is is this really strange divide in the
Speaker 2: MAGA movement over Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Did she give any kind of reasoning why now she's
Speaker 1: a pro Ukrainian or no. It was just like I
Speaker 1: will come up.
Speaker 3: Today because it looks like they're going to potentially turn
Speaker 3: the tides. Winning tends to win over people more than
Speaker 3: even logic. Sometimes I don't know who you're talking about necessarily,
Speaker 3: but you know, if we get more people on board,
Speaker 3: even if it's for the right wrong in different reasons,
Speaker 3: I'm all for let's actually help with Ukraine witness.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the Maga wright have done a flip, not just
Speaker 4: on Ukraine but on Israel.
Speaker 5: You know, Israel could do no wrong.
Speaker 4: And now Israel is the country I'm paraphrasing magaworld right here,
Speaker 4: is the country that is leading us down into the
Speaker 4: dark abyss and has been feeding the president lies. And
Speaker 4: it's it's interesting once the once that critical momentum starts,
Speaker 4: you know, it's difficult to identify the turning point in
Speaker 4: the Ukraine or in Israel, but it goes strongly the
Speaker 4: other way suddenly, doesn't it.
Speaker 3: So you I mean Ukraine Senator McCain used to say,
Speaker 3: was a Ukraine. Russia was a gas station with an army,
Speaker 3: and I think Ukraine said, great, take out the army
Speaker 3: and the gas nation, right, So that's what's happening right now.
Speaker 3: These long range strikes by Ukraine into areas, whether they're
Speaker 3: logistical hubs, refinery, storage facilities, are now more deeper and
Speaker 3: more effective than they were before. Ukraine's mass producing drones
Speaker 3: every month, they produce more, every year, they'll produce more.
Speaker 3: They're seriously challenging. In Crimea, there was fourteen significant strikes
Speaker 3: in the last forty eight hours.
Speaker 5: There.
Speaker 3: We're not seeing an eminent fall in Ukraine. We're not
Speaker 3: seeing an imminent, you know, or anywhere close to animinent
Speaker 3: withdrawal of Russia. But Ukraine has gone from the back
Speaker 3: foot to the front foot, and I think people recognize
Speaker 3: it all of a sudden. There's people going, oh, maybe
Speaker 3: we should support It's like, you can't support them when
Speaker 3: they're you know, teetering on the brink, but you can
Speaker 3: now Again. I would have hoped that the U, asked
Speaker 3: the leader of the free world, would have been leading
Speaker 3: discharge the whole time. But you know, if it takes
Speaker 3: some people coming at the end, fine, But that needs
Speaker 3: to be translated into direct support the US basically now
Speaker 3: just allows them to purchase things through NATO. I think
Speaker 3: NATO countries, European countries, countries around the world that are
Speaker 3: that want to promote democracy and stability and counter you know,
Speaker 3: naked aggression like Russia need to throw in with Ukraine
Speaker 3: like now, not when they're on the Virgin winning now,
Speaker 3: and this could push President Putin, who's under an incredible
Speaker 3: amount of pressure internally. I mean, right now they've got
Speaker 3: I think I saw the stat if you're recruited, and
Speaker 3: by recruited, I mean basically conscripted into the Russian army,
Speaker 3: you got about three week lifespan. Amazing includes includes going
Speaker 3: through training, right Apparently on the battlefield now it was
Speaker 3: like forty minutes. Yeah, you step foot on a battle
Speaker 3: for you're dead for you. So the whole generation of
Speaker 3: Russian males are being annihilated. And now it's become almost untenable,
Speaker 3: you know, because the fuel shortages. Everything that's going on
Speaker 3: in Russia is really putting pressure on Putin. He's gonna do,
Speaker 3: of course, what Putin usually does, which is launch at civilians. Right.
Speaker 3: We saw in Kiev last week, I think it was
Speaker 3: like five hundred drones and almost seventy five missiles Senate
Speaker 3: keep but and Andy can tell you spent a lot
Speaker 3: of time there. I think that just makes them more resilient,
Speaker 3: like there's no way you're going to kill more kids
Speaker 3: and they're gonna quit. Like it's the opposite. They're never
Speaker 3: gonna quit. And this is only going to firm up
Speaker 3: their resolve to ensure that they save their country. So
Speaker 3: it's now is the time for the West. And the
Speaker 3: supporters of Ukraine include the United States, but more security
Speaker 3: assistants direct security assistance into Ukraine with the idea that
Speaker 3: it'll force I think putin to the negotiation table on
Speaker 3: terms that are more are actually completely aligned with what
Speaker 3: the Ukrainians want to see.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean the war.
Speaker 4: It's it's flipped into a strange dual reality, right, So
Speaker 4: Russia's grinding out its symbolic prize in the dombas and
Speaker 4: the town you're talking about the is constantin I'm mispronouncing it.
Speaker 1: I tried. I don't want to pronounce it.
Speaker 4: We used to call it constantinivkas so as Constantinople with
Speaker 4: Nivka on the end, but that's totally wrong. But anyway,
Speaker 4: it's a ship home of the place. But nevertheless, I mean,
Speaker 4: I've said that about puck Ross, but the similarity. The
Speaker 4: point is, the Russians are grinding it out as they're
Speaker 4: taking this territory at at just incredible cost. CSIS estimated
Speaker 4: that they're advancing fifty meters a day. They're taking eight
Speaker 4: times the casualties said the Ukrainians are, and those figures
Speaker 4: come from Russi, you know, so this isn't stuff that
Speaker 4: we're making up right, eight times casualties and they've seize this,
Speaker 4: you know, after years of trying. They never got pop Ross,
Speaker 4: but they've they they may have got Constantinika. The Ukrainians
Speaker 4: are challenging that. And some of the videos you've seen
Speaker 4: online of Russians waving flags there apparently are AI generated.
Speaker 4: So they may not even have taken shithole town, right,
Speaker 4: but if they have, it's that great costs they just
Speaker 4: can't sustain it. And so they're grinding this out, but
Speaker 4: simultaneously they're losing the strategic initiative Ukrainian Ukraine's running. I mean,
Speaker 4: it's the most effective deep strike campaign of the war,
Speaker 4: you know, to mixed point, I mean, going after cohesively,
Speaker 4: going after Russian energy sources, reducing production by estimates of
Speaker 4: twenty percent, which is huge, right. Not only that, but
Speaker 4: look what they're doing in the Crimea and Crimea has
Speaker 4: a tremendous symbolic value to both sides. Although it's probably
Speaker 4: a bridge too far for the Ukrainians to win back,
Speaker 4: but they've made it untenable. They've dropped the Kerse Bridge,
Speaker 4: they've dropped the bridge that I forget the name, that
Speaker 4: goes from Crimea to occupied Ukrainian territory, you know, towards
Speaker 4: Kerson and they keep dropping them, so the Russians there
Speaker 4: are trapped. And then systematically they've taken out the air
Speaker 4: defense systems and so now what they're doing you can see,
Speaker 4: they've just they're doing these mass drone raids on Russian
Speaker 4: infrastructure across Crimera and apparently it's, you know, nothing can
Speaker 4: move there. I mean you're looking at they're hitting, they
Speaker 4: destroying the roads. So Russia has Crimea, yes, but it's
Speaker 4: it's it's kind of a hollow price and it's becoming
Speaker 4: a death trap for them, and of course it's you know,
Speaker 4: the Ukraine is very clever at this. They know that
Speaker 4: Putin will continue to pour forces into Crimea in a
Speaker 4: vain attempt to defend it, but they're being attacked asymmetrically
Speaker 4: from the air.
Speaker 2: And what's the what's the pr value of them actually
Speaker 2: dropping the Kirk Bridge, of actually doing it, finally destroying
Speaker 2: it if they can. I mean, there's you see a
Speaker 2: lot of talk of that. You hear even in town
Speaker 2: here in d C. Ukrainian officials saying that this is inevitable,
Speaker 2: it's coming, and you could see that that, you know,
Speaker 2: the public relations value in doing so would be rather massive.
Speaker 2: And then on top of that question for you is
Speaker 2: and then what about the kind of the strategic yes
Speaker 2: as well, and what would the Russian reprize will be? Sorry,
Speaker 2: go ahead, yes.
Speaker 4: So on your first part and Putin, uh, I've Putin
Speaker 4: has kind of staked his reputation at times on the
Speaker 4: Kersh Bridge. He keeps going on and on about it's
Speaker 4: the umbilical cord and paraphrasing him that links Crimea to Russia,
Speaker 4: et cetera, et cetera. And so, yes, the Ukrainiu has
Speaker 4: gone after it. They've made it on and off untenable.
Speaker 4: But it's strategically what they've done is they've just isolated
Speaker 4: Crimea I mean totally. It's Crimea is now pretty much useless.
Speaker 4: I mean, it was used for for a number of reasons.
Speaker 4: It was a port. But the Ukrainians have decimated the
Speaker 4: Black Sea Fleet through their kind of mosquito fleet navy,
Speaker 4: which is ironic that Ukrainians don't have a navy, but
Speaker 4: they've done. They've done to the Russians what the Uranians
Speaker 4: are doing. The Straits of hor moves, right, only they're
Speaker 4: using unmanned they're using missiles, drones, and they're using unmanned
Speaker 4: sea vessels.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: So they've they've negated Crimea to the Black Sea fleet.
Speaker 4: They've decimated the Black Sea Fleet, and now they prevented
Speaker 4: it from being a logistics hub for the Southern Front.
Speaker 4: They've prevented it being anything but just a giant missile
Speaker 4: and drone and bomb sump. And it's infuriating Putin because
Speaker 4: I remember, I mean from twenty fourteen he's banged on
Speaker 4: and on about Crimea and now and now it's just
Speaker 4: it's a it's this black hole, right, and.
Speaker 3: This decision could actually lose in Crimea to do the
Speaker 3: full invasion of Ukraine, which likely he would have kept Crimea.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, that as a viable and the Black Sea
Speaker 4: Fleet and everything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're right, Ye, a.
Speaker 2: Worry of reprisals because this means so much to putin Well, yeah,
Speaker 2: they dropped the bridge. Is he going to actually go
Speaker 2: even crazier than he had has done so in terms
Speaker 2: of the tax on civilian targets, et cetera.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, but I think to your point, Mark,
Speaker 4: I think Russia is doing all it can right now.
Speaker 4: And we're always talking about, well he's going to escalate,
Speaker 4: What the hell more can you do? You know, he's already,
Speaker 4: he's already hitting Kiev. He's you know, I think the
Speaker 4: consensus is despite him always threatening to go to in Ucas,
Speaker 4: he's unlikely to do that.
Speaker 5: And and you know what I mean, what's that said?
Speaker 4: Go on?
Speaker 3: Nuclear would be like throwing a grade at somebody in
Speaker 3: an elevator. Ok, you're right next door, man, literally right
Speaker 3: next door. So if you start to use the nuclear weapons, yeah.
Speaker 4: And and you know one thing I forgot to mention.
Speaker 4: So they've destroyed a railroad bridge over this is all,
Speaker 4: you know, everything that links Crimea to the mainland Russia
Speaker 4: or Ukraine. That destroyed the bridges, They destroyed a railroad
Speaker 4: bridge of the North Crimean Canal. They're even hitting and
Speaker 4: now they're hitting ferries that the Russians are using to
Speaker 4: to move military equipment, and Defense Minister feder Off says
Speaker 4: Crimea is being isolated by drones and effectively is being
Speaker 4: turned into an island. They've declared a state of emergency.
Speaker 4: You know, it's gonna be interesting. And Moscow is the
Speaker 4: one that's cut the Kosh Bridge rail traffic just because
Speaker 4: of the risk to traffic going across the bridge. So
Speaker 4: so Crimea has been isolated, it's been negated as being
Speaker 4: any any sort of asset to Russia. And then you've
Speaker 4: got this deep strike campaign that's gone up a gear.
Speaker 4: And so in just the last few days, trying the
Speaker 4: last weeks, since the beginning of July, the Ukrainians have
Speaker 4: hit twelve Russian substations. The Belograd was the Belograd thermal
Speaker 4: power plant knocked out, which caused a huge total blackout auto.
Speaker 5: Disruption across the city.
Speaker 4: The main airfield in Crimea Siki I think it's called
Speaker 4: s A k Y destroying Russian aircraft there and Saint Petersburg.
Speaker 4: I don't know if you saw that. You know, the
Speaker 4: film of this massive black cloud coming out of the
Speaker 4: oil terminal in Saint Petersburg, struck by drones.
Speaker 5: So it's it's.
Speaker 4: A really yeah, you know that it's come to the
Speaker 4: point where and I agree with you, Mick, I mean
Speaker 4: we should have been piling on, of course, the support
Speaker 4: Ukraine years ago, but Ukrainians are turning the type by themselves.
Speaker 4: Of course, you've still got to win back territory and
Speaker 4: that is the long pole for the Ukrainian state. They're
Speaker 4: running out of manpower and that that is certainly an
Speaker 4: issue for them. But strategically, yeah, they you know, they
Speaker 4: they have turned the type.
Speaker 3: Russian is the mass. You're gonna hear more and more
Speaker 3: about this, this junction of seventeen gas pipelines. It's in
Speaker 3: northwestern Siberia. Once they can hit that, that could have
Speaker 3: a major major impact in general Russia. So I think
Speaker 3: we should be obviously providing a lot more security assistance,
Speaker 3: but we should also be doing we don't have to
Speaker 3: be public about it, we don't need to know about
Speaker 3: it and talk about it, but we should be doing
Speaker 3: a lot more to push push the ah the tides toward.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a uh, I mean, it's a fascinating topic
Speaker 4: and Iran's kind of the cliffs that. But what has
Speaker 4: been going on in the last three months is it
Speaker 4: has been extraordinary. And you know, even when Russia, i
Speaker 4: mean his operational insight, even when Russia wins right in Dombas,
Speaker 4: it wins nothing. And I'm not just being facetious because
Speaker 4: Constantinivka and pop rosca shithole town, So I mean they
Speaker 4: are important to sites, especially Pokrovski it's a rail terminal.
Speaker 4: But for the Russians having ground, you know, Constinivka is
Speaker 4: it's a ruins of a small city, that's and it's
Speaker 4: cost them tens of thousands of lives. And they the
Speaker 4: Russians are exhausted. I mean they're not They're moving fifty
Speaker 4: meters a day, which is slower than the British move
Speaker 4: than the song and they're staring at tens of kilometers
Speaker 4: of mind fortified drone patrol terrain between them and the
Speaker 4: next objective, which is Krematrusk, which is basically Ukraine's last line.
Speaker 5: Of defense internets.
Speaker 4: So you know, even on the ground, the Russians are
Speaker 4: their prospects don't look they don't look good.
Speaker 6: Well, you know just the most recent development, which is
Speaker 6: the ninety minute phone call that Trump had with Putin
Speaker 6: yesterday during the Fourth of July celebrations, which is a
Speaker 6: very interesting development, and as far as I know so
Speaker 6: far what I've seen, the US didn't announce the details
Speaker 6: of that call, but the Russian Foreign Ministry did, which
Speaker 6: I think is also a little bit interesting because that's
Speaker 6: similar to what was going on between the US and Iran,
Speaker 6: where the US was not announcing any of the points
Speaker 6: from the deal, but Iran was. And it seems that
Speaker 6: Russia's doing the exact same thing right now, which means
Speaker 6: the US doesn't have control over the narrative about what's
Speaker 6: being said in those calls. So that's an opportunity for
Speaker 6: the US policymakers to seize control the narrative and actually
Speaker 6: say what needs to be said publicly. And I believe
Speaker 6: Zelenski was also called yesterday as well. So my hunch
Speaker 6: is that these calls were made ahead of the NATO
Speaker 6: summit to get some things ironed out, so that way
Speaker 6: those things can be discussed in person at the summit
Speaker 6: with other NATO leaders, of course, and that's why the
Speaker 6: Secretary General visited last week as well to get those
Speaker 6: things kind of evened out in person before they're discussed
Speaker 6: in Turkey coming up in the next few days.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, Gloria victory is right now, it's purely
Speaker 4: political because they can't win militarily at fifty meters a
Speaker 4: day and half a million dead. So what it's doing
Speaker 4: is buying negotiating chips, right, but just by trying to
Speaker 4: seize a little more ground in don Esk and betting
Speaker 4: that Western patients runs out before Russian manpower does.
Speaker 3: And it's backbar and miserably right. I mean, his whole
Speaker 3: purpose was he was concerned about the expansion of NATO
Speaker 3: and the threat of NATO, even though NATO's never been
Speaker 3: a threat to Russia unless Russia is a threat to it.
Speaker 3: It's a defensive alliance, defensive alliance, right, So because of
Speaker 3: his invasion of Ukraine, it's now expanded in two countries
Speaker 3: it managed not to join for the entirety of the
Speaker 3: Cold War, and now they have. And now although they
Speaker 3: should have been doing it the whole time, but now
Speaker 3: they are. All the countries are spending more money on
Speaker 3: their national security and defense. There's I mean, look at
Speaker 3: what Germany's doing right now increasing the size of its
Speaker 3: its army, poland all across Europe. Right now, they are
Speaker 3: becoming a stronger ally to the United States. I think
Speaker 3: the United sty should recognize that we could take credit.
Speaker 3: I guess we want to. I think it's largely because
Speaker 3: of Russians of Asia Ukraine, but what have you. We
Speaker 3: now have a more substantial military alliance than we did
Speaker 3: before Russia invaded Ukraine, and Ukraine is going to be
Speaker 3: the strongest military in Europe by far proper, but it is,
Speaker 3: especially with Finland joining.
Speaker 2: I agree with all that. The problem, of course, is
Speaker 2: we don't know what the US administration wants to do
Speaker 2: because it seems so divided. You know, there's there's the
Speaker 2: there's all these reports that came out that Hegseth was
Speaker 2: about to announce some very significant troop cuts. Uh, you know,
Speaker 2: Rubio and others kind of preempted him on this. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's this divide between kind of the Rubio Rancliffe Wing
Speaker 2: Dan Kane versus versus heg Seth and JD.
Speaker 5: Vance.
Speaker 2: But I think that you know the problem is, I
Speaker 2: mean you talk to European officials, you know, nobody really
Speaker 2: knows what Trump's going to do, uh when he when
Speaker 2: he gets to Turkey. Now he's going there because Radiwan
Speaker 2: is his buddy, fellow autocrat, and so you know, he's
Speaker 2: doing that as a reward. But you know, you just
Speaker 2: don't know. At the end of the day, is the
Speaker 2: US to announce significant true cuts in Europe? What kind
Speaker 2: of tone is Trump going to send? You know, is
Speaker 2: it going to be this kind of humiliation?
Speaker 5: Will it be more?
Speaker 2: And on the one hand, there is a notion, and
Speaker 2: I don't know if I subscribe to this, that because
Speaker 2: the Ukrainians are doing better, Trump wants to back a winner,
Speaker 2: and that the Laura Loomers of the world and Ratcliffe
Speaker 2: and others who kind of have kind of been feeding
Speaker 2: Trump the notion that Ukraine is doing really well. Well,
Speaker 2: then Trump's going to just side with Ukraine because he's
Speaker 2: just transactional and he believes in nothing. I don't know,
Speaker 2: you know. One of the other things too, to kind
Speaker 2: of think about is we have pressed Europe correctly to
Speaker 2: spend more our NATO partners. The US still only spends
Speaker 2: about two pointy eight percent of GDP on defense, not
Speaker 2: five percent, not what we're asking the Europeans to do.
Speaker 2: And now we have a huge issue coming up politically
Speaker 2: in the United States and in terms of rebuilding a
Speaker 2: military which has been which has you know, significant shortfalls
Speaker 2: right now after the war in Iran. I know they
Speaker 2: want to do a trollion. Plus I don't know if
Speaker 2: there's political support and on either side for this to occur.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, lots of lots of interesting things
Speaker 2: coming up. But this, this, and and of course D
Speaker 2: you know, D and I are going to have heart
Speaker 2: palpitations over Trump's turn towards Turkey. The idea of giving
Speaker 2: them the F thirty five while Turkey has an S
Speaker 2: four hundred Russia air defense system I think is preposterous.
Speaker 2: But that's because my greekness comes through, and Mick, you're
Speaker 2: an honorary Greek as well. I mean, the Greek defense
Speaker 2: establishment is probably going crazy at this point. That's a
Speaker 2: lot of reason for their turn to the Israelis, of course,
Speaker 2: but but that that issue of the F thirty five
Speaker 2: is going to be really significant in this UH, in
Speaker 2: this summer coming up, we'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: What's interesting about the F thirty five though, is like
Speaker 1: we're still having supply change issues with it, like there's
Speaker 1: supposed to be a new radar coming out for like
Speaker 1: the Block forty, and we're being we're getting delivered F
Speaker 1: thirty five's that don't have radars in them, and we're
Speaker 1: going to wait until they're ready. So adding another country
Speaker 1: I know they were in it initially Turkey, h doesn't
Speaker 1: exactly make a lot of sense, especially like when we
Speaker 1: are in need of getting our F thirty five fleet
Speaker 1: up to snuff. It doesn't make sense, frankly, and also
Speaker 1: fuck Turkey, you know, I.
Speaker 3: Do think there's a Putin realizes that there is a
Speaker 3: split in the Republican party, like like Mark said, but
Speaker 3: he has two more years of the Trump administration. Right,
Speaker 3: So if you look at Secretary of Rubio, I would
Speaker 3: call him more of a traditionalist when it when it
Speaker 3: comes to the US foreign policy and a lot of
Speaker 3: the traditional Republicans or Reagan Republicans, I would say, maybe
Speaker 3: more pro Ukraine then President Biden was. It's a possibility,
Speaker 3: and it depends on what comes next, right, So Putin's
Speaker 3: got to realize that the chances of it being a
Speaker 3: new administration that more pro Ukraine or high. So he's
Speaker 3: got two years and then if if it's a Democrat,
Speaker 3: or if it's more of a Republican or Reagan Republican
Speaker 3: like I would call uh Rubio, he's going to be
Speaker 3: in a bad position, which is great, I think. So
Speaker 3: he's got to keep that in mind. And he's got
Speaker 3: a refurbished NATO who's focused on him like a laser beam.
Speaker 3: So this is not going his way at all. Huge
Speaker 3: strategic miscalculation.
Speaker 4: It's really so someone mentioned in here that no one's
Speaker 4: really sure what the US policy is, and I think
Speaker 4: that's what's really unnerving the Europeans. I mean, they can,
Speaker 4: I think generally they can live with a diminished or
Speaker 4: a reduced US presence, but they need to know how
Speaker 4: much it's reduced and what that means. And there's a
Speaker 4: lot of focus on, you know, the withdrawal of a brigade,
Speaker 4: which actually isn't that many people. It's five thousand troops, right,
Speaker 4: and I'm trying to remember someone can probably look it up,
Speaker 4: but the NDAA, right, the NDA stipulates that there has
Speaker 4: to be I think it's a floor of about seventy's
Speaker 4: seventy or seventy five thousand troops in Europe, and that
Speaker 4: five thousand withdrawal takes that level, maybe a thousand guys
Speaker 4: below that, so it's not a it's not a huge deal,
Speaker 4: but legally the United States has to maintain that troop
Speaker 4: level unless the more changes, so I think, but I
Speaker 4: think the real iss I'm not sure it's covered so
Speaker 4: much by the media, but it's covered in it.
Speaker 5: I know, what's it. The Spiegel did a story on this.
Speaker 5: It's not so much the troops.
Speaker 4: It's the fact that the that the US has told
Speaker 4: NATO officials they planned to significantly cut other assets fighters,
Speaker 4: strategic bombers, destroyers, submarines, tankers, drones, and most importantly missiles
Speaker 4: and and so that and not having clarity on what
Speaker 4: exactly the numbers are I think is causing the problems.
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, the good news story idgree one hundred percent.
Speaker 4: I mean is the fact that NATO has up spending
Speaker 4: across the board. So I mean that's one that's one
Speaker 4: benefit when advantage perhaps partly of US pressure, but mostly of.
Speaker 5: Just the threat from Russia that's caused them to do that.
Speaker 2: I mean, let me just put one one quick thing
Speaker 2: in there. I just just came to mind because I
Speaker 2: know you focus on this too. I met with the
Speaker 2: senior European intelligence official recently got to keep it at
Speaker 2: that and they said, literally they they every the first
Speaker 2: thing that that country's embassy does every morning is check
Speaker 2: true social That's how they determine US policy. That insane
Speaker 2: and so you know, to me that was just, first
Speaker 2: of all, it's embarrassing because that's that's our policy making.
Speaker 2: But that's the level of uncertainty in Europe. Their first
Speaker 2: thing they do track what Trump is fifty five tweets
Speaker 2: that you know the night before.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I do think there's substantial security assistance for Ukraine that's
Speaker 3: coming out of the Senate and the House right now,
Speaker 3: like close to a billion. So we'll have to see
Speaker 3: how it's implemented, right, but I think there's it's a
Speaker 3: bipartisan issue in the in Congress.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but is he going to sign it?
Speaker 3: I think it's at least part of it's in the NBA, Okay,
Speaker 3: which is where it should be.
Speaker 2: Because but the Ukrainians, I mean, I think Europe and
Speaker 2: Ukrainians have to just there's a way to do this,
Speaker 2: and you know, you plan for the worst. If this
Speaker 2: comes through, it's great. They cannot plan to receive anything
Speaker 2: from US, period end of story. And if they so,
Speaker 2: they're stupid.
Speaker 1: I think they've they've seen the riding on the wall
Speaker 1: ever since. Yeah, ever since it happens.
Speaker 2: That's great, and that's that would be a significant boon.
Speaker 2: But there's no European that you speak with who thinks
Speaker 2: who actually can plan for the US to come. The
Speaker 2: cavalry is not coming. If it does, wonderful, you can't
Speaker 2: plan for that.
Speaker 1: And Andy, if you think this administration is worried about
Speaker 1: being in contempt of Congress, you're wrong with having like
Speaker 1: one thousand less troops in the European theory.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, I agree with you.
Speaker 4: My point wasn't that the NDAA is I mean it is.
Speaker 4: It is a benchmark. I mean it is, you know,
Speaker 4: a significant reduction below that would be problematic. What my
Speaker 4: point is that there are other assets that we're pulling
Speaker 4: out of Europe that are arguably more important than troop strength,
Speaker 4: that are more of a deterrent. And then of course we're.
Speaker 1: Pulling them out. Are we pulling them out because of
Speaker 1: what's going on in the RAN we need to shift
Speaker 1: assets there or is it just like an overall like
Speaker 1: we're looking to tighten our belt because we're asking for
Speaker 1: eighty billion dollars from Congress. Where are in.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean the perception in Europe.
Speaker 4: I think the thing it's fair to say is that
Speaker 4: it's it's it's retribution for them not stepping up to
Speaker 4: the plate in the in the war with Iran. I mean,
Speaker 4: but there are you know, I mean the positive aspect
Speaker 4: of this across the board, self defense and also defense
Speaker 4: of Ukraine. European nations stepping up to the board, stepping
Speaker 4: up to the plate. And there's a program and I
Speaker 4: forget what it's called, but it's been running since last
Speaker 4: year where the NATO's providing it's like five four to
Speaker 4: five billion worth of a billion dollars worth of equipment
Speaker 4: to Ukraine, but it's bought by European countries in Canada
Speaker 4: from the United States and program.
Speaker 3: I do think it was a mistake by NATO countries
Speaker 3: to prevent us from using their the bases to carry
Speaker 3: out the Yaron. And I'm not saying that they should
Speaker 3: have to agree with the Iran war, but they cut
Speaker 3: our argument in half when they when we say, well,
Speaker 3: we were there for our own benefit. It gives us
Speaker 3: a platform to launch and then they say except for
Speaker 3: when they don't agree with us, and then we can't, right,
Speaker 3: and then then you're like, okay, well there is that.
Speaker 3: So I'm not saying that they have to politically or
Speaker 3: militarily support every thing that we get involved in, like
Speaker 3: the Iran war. But when they politically prevent us from using,
Speaker 3: you know, the bases that we're at in Europe, then
Speaker 3: you start shooting yourself in the foot when it comes
Speaker 3: to the people who believe that we are in Europe
Speaker 3: in their bases primarily for our own benefit, it does
Speaker 3: benefit them, and it benefits NATO with.
Speaker 2: Part there's there's but nick I pushed back just on
Speaker 2: that in a way, these are European democracies. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: you're in the European public was with vehemently ninety ten
Speaker 2: ninety five to five opposed to the US actions that
Speaker 2: are on and so a prime minister in any European
Speaker 2: country they want to, you know, maintain power and get
Speaker 2: elected again, and so they are responding to their constituency.
Speaker 2: And so I hear what you're saying. I think that
Speaker 2: the way to have done this would have been to
Speaker 2: sell this better. So this is where the Trump administration
Speaker 2: deserves a lot of contempt is that they made no
Speaker 2: effort to sell it to the American people, nor to
Speaker 2: our European allies. And frankly also the golf or to
Speaker 2: the golf and so. But but again, if you're if
Speaker 2: you're the prime minister of the UK or France or
Speaker 2: anywhere else, look, their public is against this. So by
Speaker 2: allowing that's it.
Speaker 1: I get it. I get it.
Speaker 3: But then from a national security perspective, I'd moved to
Speaker 3: a country that didn't block me whenever they disagreed with
Speaker 3: my the decisions that I made. You see what I mean, Yeah,
Speaker 3: they could block us, but then why why are we
Speaker 3: considering that a major hub for us rejection of power
Speaker 3: if they block us because they're populations against it. Our
Speaker 3: population is against it.
Speaker 2: I think though that when the country you know, hosts
Speaker 2: in the United States base, they do have a say
Speaker 2: on what we do with that base.
Speaker 3: And then I'd go to another country that didn't block
Speaker 3: us when we're in the middle.
Speaker 4: Of a war.
Speaker 3: It's from it's looking at it from our perspective, they
Speaker 3: can do it, and it's like both countries get a choice.
Speaker 3: They can stop us and we can move. If you
Speaker 3: supported this war or not, you specifically, But if you
Speaker 3: were a supporter of this war, I think you would agree.
Speaker 3: I think you'd say, look, if they're going to block
Speaker 3: us from using our base when we need it, we're
Speaker 3: at war, whether we agree with them or not, then
Speaker 3: we need to be in another location. So when you
Speaker 3: do that and then you arrive because the United States
Speaker 3: moved to a more friendly.
Speaker 2: Country, I don't know where that country would be.
Speaker 3: There's other countries I think in Europe that are would
Speaker 3: love to host a major your hub for the United States.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 4: I mean, whichever way you look at it, Iran, Iran
Speaker 4: more exposed, right, something that not even Ukraine had, And
Speaker 4: that's that the US and Europe they no longer assume
Speaker 4: that fighting the same fights, right, So I mean, from
Speaker 4: from the US government's perspective, Europeans wouldn't escort tankers through Homouse.
Speaker 4: From their perspective, it's because it was for a war
Speaker 4: they weren't consulted on. And from US government's perspective, Trump's perspective,
Speaker 4: he won't guarantee troops for a continent Europe that he
Speaker 4: thinks is a free rider. So I mean, you know,
Speaker 4: if you're in Magaland, or whether you're on the side
Speaker 4: of the Europeans. The arguments seem internally rational, and.
Speaker 2: I guess, I guess the ghost in the notion we
Speaker 2: should have sold this better. There should have been better
Speaker 2: consultation with al and that's the way. And because you
Speaker 2: can't make a case for this, and and and and
Speaker 2: because the European prime ministers and presidents will have to
Speaker 2: do so to their publics. But when it's just you know,
Speaker 2: just thrown upon them, then they you know, that's when
Speaker 2: there's the there's the backlash. So I certainly get that.
Speaker 2: I mean, but you look at I mean, there's all
Speaker 2: these you know, there's stories came out of the last
Speaker 2: week or two or two about the Saudis and how
Speaker 2: the Saudis UH did not want any part of renewed
Speaker 2: strikes against Iran again. And you do see and I
Speaker 2: think and of you you did raise it. Uh. There
Speaker 2: is a huge backlash in the Gulf. And you're going
Speaker 2: to see a lot of golf countries, maybe not the UAE,
Speaker 2: but even maybe them, but but but others cutting side
Speaker 2: deals with the your onions now and so you know there,
Speaker 2: So we talked about the US bases. There US bases
Speaker 2: in the Middle East are certainly exposed right now. Uh,
Speaker 2: in terms at first they're you know, the the degree
Speaker 2: in which we can protect them, but also in terms
Speaker 2: of countries not wanting any further strikes. I mean the
Speaker 2: Saudis said, no, is that right? Yeah, Jonathan, maybe you
Speaker 2: want to comment on that. Sorry, sorry, make sorry, No,
Speaker 2: I was just.
Speaker 3: Going to agree with you on the on the we
Speaker 3: should have done a way better jump sell on the war,
Speaker 3: not only to Europe but to the United States population,
Speaker 3: and we should probably stop beating up on our longest
Speaker 3: standing allies. If you look at the National Defense strategy,
Speaker 3: for some reason, it goes after Europe, right, you know,
Speaker 3: in a way that it never has and and then
Speaker 3: leaves countries like Russia off the criticism list. There's a
Speaker 3: lot of things that we should do better, but that's
Speaker 3: somebody who's been in the Pentagon. It's it's also our
Speaker 3: ability to project power once we're given an order, right,
Speaker 3: Whether we don't need to agree with the that's the
Speaker 3: that's my point. So we have to have platforms that
Speaker 3: we can use. They can't just be at the whim
Speaker 3: of well, we don't like the war, so you can't
Speaker 3: use it, because then From a military perspective, you've just
Speaker 3: taken out that capability because your job is to carry
Speaker 3: out oars. It's not to debate the efficacy of the policy.
Speaker 6: We need access basing and overflight. That's the keyn like
Speaker 6: from the Pentagon perspective, that's what we need. That's those
Speaker 6: security cooperation is supposed to provide us those things, especially
Speaker 6: in the Gulf. That's why we have AFCENT Air Force
Speaker 6: Central Commanding Qatar, when we have fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
Speaker 6: This is access basing and overflight. And if we want
Speaker 6: to do strikes in Iran, we have to be able
Speaker 6: to fly over those partner nations countries with their permission.
Speaker 6: Sure we could do it without the permission, but that
Speaker 6: would be destructive to that relationship. So we need to
Speaker 6: have those deep ties there. And like you were mentioning
Speaker 6: mark with Saudi Arabia, before the war started, Saudi Arabia
Speaker 6: was inching closer toward a warming of relations between Iran
Speaker 6: and Saudi Arabia. They had sent, you know, their highest
Speaker 6: level delegation in years. If you remember back a few
Speaker 6: years ago, nim Or Nimmer was executed, which is a
Speaker 6: Shia leader in Saudi Arabia. Was beheaded along with a
Speaker 6: bunch of other folks that caused Iran to cut relations
Speaker 6: with Saudi Arabia. So like this was getting repaired very
Speaker 6: slowly and was getting back toward what the Saudi government wanted,
Speaker 6: which was a more pragmatic approach to Gulf relations with Iran.
Speaker 6: And of course they're also secretly negotiating with Israel as
Speaker 6: well for a future recognition of Israel. So Saudi Arabia
Speaker 6: is trying to you know, grow up in the region
Speaker 6: with MBS in particular at the Helm and this kind
Speaker 6: of muddy, that delicate negotiation going on behind the scenes
Speaker 6: between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel, and now Saudi Arabia
Speaker 6: has to wait for that to settle before they can
Speaker 6: get back there again because they're trying to modernize. They're
Speaker 6: trying to change the state from what it was, you know,
Speaker 6: in the previous monarchy, and now that's on hold, which
Speaker 6: their government does not want. The same thing with the Emirates.
Speaker 6: The Emirates are trying to do things as well to
Speaker 6: change not just be an oil or you know, an
Speaker 6: oil and gas dependent country for their economy, and that
Speaker 6: has also been destroy I feel like what's going on
Speaker 6: with Dubia's tourism industry. It's wrecked, and it's about risk
Speaker 6: and do people want to go there and spend their
Speaker 6: money there? Some will, but not the ones, not everybody
Speaker 6: that was before. It's going to take a very long
Speaker 6: time to build that trust again. And as you mentioned,
Speaker 6: if we could sell this war in a better way
Speaker 6: from the very beginning, we wouldn't have this discussion now
Speaker 6: because those countries would have participated. Just like nineteen ninety
Speaker 6: one when the US went to the Middle East and
Speaker 6: asked Saudi Arabia and even Syria to join forces with
Speaker 6: the United States against Saddam Hussein, and the Syrians sent
Speaker 6: forces to fight against Saddam Hussein to kick them out Kuwait.
Speaker 2: That was because we sold war else then in policy making, right, so.
Speaker 6: We sold it to them because you couldn't just show
Speaker 6: up to Damascus and be like, hey, come with us. Instead,
Speaker 6: you had to have made a case that it's in
Speaker 6: your interest, even though we're not great friends, it's in
Speaker 6: your interest to come to this conflict with us.
Speaker 1: And in that case Iraq and Iraq invaded a sovereign country.
Speaker 2: But making your peverst position, your previous position. You know,
Speaker 2: conceivably you would have been involved in the policy making
Speaker 2: process saying, Okay, there's a run up to the war
Speaker 2: in Iran, we have to do X, Y and Z
Speaker 2: to get our allies on board. I'm going to take
Speaker 2: a trip. It's the das D and I'm going to
Speaker 2: do it. I'm going to do multiple stops in the region.
Speaker 2: We're going to say that we're going to prep them
Speaker 2: for this. We're going they're going to be fully involved
Speaker 2: in this instead of just kind of, you know, kind
Speaker 2: of we were winging it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree, and I don't necessarily hold it against
Speaker 3: the politician who has to respond to their public I'm
Speaker 3: not even criticizing the decision from their point, but from
Speaker 3: our point, from the Pentagon's point, then we have to
Speaker 3: adjust because it is access basing an overflight, and if
Speaker 3: we can't actually carry out an order that we're given
Speaker 3: because we put all our assets in a country they
Speaker 3: won't let them use this, then that's that's unacceptable. Doesn't
Speaker 3: You can just take off whether you agree with the
Speaker 3: war or not, But from the US military's ability to
Speaker 3: carry out orders, they have to. So yeah, we should
Speaker 3: have definitely sold it much better and.
Speaker 2: That would have been a policy process. There would have
Speaker 2: been NSC meetings, and then you know, the action items
Speaker 2: coming from this would be the you know, the civilians
Speaker 2: the side of the Pentagon, and the State Department would
Speaker 2: start prepping our allies months in advance for this. Oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: and you know there's a way to.
Speaker 3: Do this with the embassy and everything.
Speaker 1: Yep. I don't think actually selling this war would have worked,
Speaker 1: to be frank, I don't think the United States would
Speaker 1: be Are the people of the United States to be
Speaker 1: interested in that? Maybe they could have just broadcast Bbe's
Speaker 1: power point in the situation room a month before we
Speaker 1: struck our in maybe that.
Speaker 6: I think there's always a way, because we invaded Iraq
Speaker 6: in two thousand and three on a completely false pretense
Speaker 6: that we sold very well and we were able to
Speaker 6: get people to join us, So I mean it's possible.
Speaker 6: So hey, if we do it, maybe they'll come.
Speaker 1: I think the information environment is completely different now.
Speaker 4: I think it's a different world than the fevered atmosphere
Speaker 4: of post nine eleven. I mean, yes, it was, it
Speaker 4: was eighteen months, but it was a different country, right,
Speaker 4: and everyone was still nine eleven focused. Everyone suddenly on
Speaker 4: foreign policy. That focus has gone, that interest has gone.
Speaker 2: Mick, Mick, do you remember we were watching in the
Speaker 2: team house up in the Northern Rock Colin Palace speech
Speaker 2: and we're all like, We're all like, what the hell
Speaker 2: is he talking about?
Speaker 3: We must not be read into this line of you know,
Speaker 3: it was love coming out of the two places we
Speaker 3: were at.
Speaker 1: Wild talking about if you guys are in northern Iraq
Speaker 1: and he's shaking the anthrax file thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, team leader. He used to get called by the
Speaker 3: White House all the time.
Speaker 2: But it was a quick deviation because we did have
Speaker 2: actually I don't know if we had, I think the
Speaker 2: other the other guys did. We could get Turkish porn.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I just got it like this, So we
Speaker 2: had to just a little diversion from Turkish porn to
Speaker 2: watch Colin Palace speech.
Speaker 4: I don't even that's an image I just can't shake loose.
Speaker 4: We didn't watch Turkish and porn two words that don't
Speaker 4: belong together a good old days.
Speaker 3: But we had a lot of as Yeah. But yeah,
Speaker 3: I remember when our team later I don't know if
Speaker 3: we name him, but used to get called by the
Speaker 3: White House on these topics. Yeah, and he used to
Speaker 3: stand there at attention, which you should.
Speaker 2: I but but there was definitely a lot of what
Speaker 2: the healthy talking got.
Speaker 3: Is there another c I A.
Speaker 2: Yeah, got some good ship going on, not us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fucking crazy, guys.
Speaker 3: That's why I well, when it fell, they took us
Speaker 3: to a lot of places where they said the chemical
Speaker 3: weapons were. There was signs all over the place, and
Speaker 3: there was nothing there. So I think, you know, not
Speaker 3: to re litigate this, but you know, from our perspective,
Speaker 3: we were collecting information that from people who should know,
Speaker 3: who were telling us no, it's right there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, and it wasn't.
Speaker 3: So it's more complicated than the US, you know, was deceptive.
Speaker 3: It's it truly is more complicated.
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we got it wrong, but it wasn't.
Speaker 2: The Bush administration knew that Rock didn't have WMD. It wasn't.
Speaker 2: It wasn't a lie. We just got the intelligence thing
Speaker 2: completely wrong.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's what I'm getting.
Speaker 2: But there was there was no manipulating, you know, it's
Speaker 2: I mean, it was just it was just wrong. Now,
Speaker 2: some of the some of the reporting streams were bullshit,
Speaker 2: and we should have been done better on that. The
Speaker 2: analyst maybe I'm putting too much on on them. But yeah,
Speaker 2: this wasn't like Wolf of Wits and Bush were like,
Speaker 2: let's let's deceive the American people. They actually thought very
Speaker 2: much that when we were there, we just didn't.
Speaker 1: But people were telling us that, guys, are we living
Speaker 1: in the same fucking world right now? But like they
Speaker 1: pushed it from the minute almost a minute nine to
Speaker 1: eleven happened that we were going into Iraq, and they
Speaker 1: basically molded the CIA to tell them what they wanted
Speaker 1: to hear. You had analysts that were, you know, fighting
Speaker 1: up against the what were the the tubes, the circular
Speaker 1: tubes thing, what do you call it doesn't matter, the
Speaker 1: stuff that actually enriches uranium, like interfusions. I don't know
Speaker 1: how Yes, thank you, John. I don't know how you
Speaker 1: can really say with a straight face that the Bush
Speaker 1: administration didn't deceive the American people.
Speaker 2: Think you can. Every every Iraqi senior regime official I
Speaker 2: talked to thought they had w m D.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm saying, that's where we collect information from.
Speaker 5: We didn't.
Speaker 1: We didn't.
Speaker 3: We didn't have Saddam on the books.
Speaker 2: Some really high level folks, and they thought they had it,
Speaker 2: and that's it's an incredible deception campaign by Saddam himself.
Speaker 2: But this is a separate issue. Yeah, and the CEE
Speaker 2: I failed in this, Like analytically we failed. You know,
Speaker 2: there were certain streams that you put too much weight on,
Speaker 2: and there's I mean, but it's a it's a it's
Speaker 2: a little more complicated story.
Speaker 1: Frankly, I don't want to give enough. I don't want
Speaker 1: to give that much guff the CIA, because you guys
Speaker 1: are doing your job and you're supposed to get the
Speaker 1: information I try to. I guess I'm giving more guff
Speaker 1: to the administration because they cherry picked fucking evidence and
Speaker 1: intel that wasn't confirmed and put it in a state
Speaker 1: union speech about yellow cake in Niger, like what you
Speaker 1: know they received the fucking American people. Let's let's just
Speaker 1: make sure that's that's I'm putting that on record at least.
Speaker 5: Noted.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mick.
Speaker 4: It's an interesting topic though, I mean, the because there's
Speaker 4: a parallel now right, I mean, if you have the
Speaker 4: most anodyne approach to this, it's if you have a
Speaker 4: political stance, and the political stance was he you know,
Speaker 4: Saddam's a bad guy. He's disruptive to the region and
Speaker 4: he needs to go all right, not necessarily in the
Speaker 4: farious objective, right, And then you have that, and then
Speaker 4: there's a dual bias. Right, you are asking the questions
Speaker 4: that confirm that bias from your intelligence agency and intelligence community,
Speaker 4: and they they're finding that information because it is there,
Speaker 4: but they're focusing the collection assets on that.
Speaker 2: So there's that.
Speaker 4: And then the feedback loop is such that as the
Speaker 4: information comes forward, it's also given that political filter because
Speaker 4: it fits you know, it fits their agenda without there
Speaker 4: being conscious deception in that process. And it's kind of
Speaker 4: the same thing that led to seven October. Right, you
Speaker 4: see a lot of conspiracy theories. Now, oh, hey Netnya,
Speaker 4: who sacrificed the border communities, they knew it was coming,
Speaker 4: they wanted it to happen. I don't for a moment
Speaker 4: believe that's true. But that same bias was taking place. Hey,
Speaker 4: we don't we want Hamas to remain in place because
Speaker 4: the alternative is the Palestinian authority. If it's Palestinian authority,
Speaker 4: then now we've got to start talking about a two
Speaker 4: state solution. Harmas psycho But on the other hand, they're
Speaker 4: contained right they are. They're firmly contained. That contained both
Speaker 4: militarily and that contained because we're.
Speaker 5: Giving them economic scentives.
Speaker 4: Right, That was the political stance, and the military, as
Speaker 4: shouldn't bet is the well, either told to stand down
Speaker 4: on collection or the collection they produced was filtered to
Speaker 4: confirm that bias. Without anyone saying, Hey, this attack's going
Speaker 4: to happen, but let's just shut the fuck up and
Speaker 4: let it happen.
Speaker 5: You know, I wouldn't.
Speaker 4: I don't believe for a moment anyone said that. But
Speaker 4: the information coming up, if it had been filtered correctly,
Speaker 4: was clearly indicating exactly what.
Speaker 5: Was going to happen, right for eighteen months private the attack.
Speaker 6: It's the same with any intelligence failure, even the nine
Speaker 6: to eleven situation. I mean, when I was training to
Speaker 6: be a kind of intelligence station, that was one of
Speaker 6: the cases we studied, was like the nineteen ninety three
Speaker 6: bombing of World Trade Center and then from that leading
Speaker 6: up to nine to eleven, and just the volume of
Speaker 6: intelligence that did exist that did indicate like this was
Speaker 6: being planned. It was the resources of being accumulated, people
Speaker 6: were being positioned, That all existed, but it was just
Speaker 6: the way that we collected it in that moment didn't
Speaker 6: work in the way that it should have worked, and
Speaker 6: it led to an intelligence failure. And I think a
Speaker 6: lot of intelligence failures are like that, where we look
Speaker 6: back and we're like, oh, there was a that's a
Speaker 6: data point right there, but in the moment, you just
Speaker 6: you can't see it like that because you don't you
Speaker 6: can't predict every possible outcome and direction that the intelligence
Speaker 6: is going to lead.
Speaker 4: You. Yeah, that that's a different that's I mean, absolutely correct,
Speaker 4: that's a different coolest tho. And that's one of the
Speaker 4: big challenges, right, is that indications in trying to trying
Speaker 4: to and you guys, no far out of eno to pose,
Speaker 4: but interpreting indications right that afterwards seem unambiguous, but at
Speaker 4: the time where anything but unambiguous.
Speaker 5: How's that for a double negative?
Speaker 6: It's true, when you get these walking sources to the embassy,
Speaker 6: for example, you're gonna get a thousand of these guys
Speaker 6: saying wild things. One of them might be telling you
Speaker 6: something totally true, but it sounds also wild, just like
Speaker 6: the other nine hundred ninety nine wild reports, and it's
Speaker 6: very difficult to figure out, like which of these was
Speaker 6: actually credible, especially for walkin that you have no previous vetting,
Speaker 6: no previous knowledge of this person. What they what are
Speaker 6: they there for? Are they a double? Are they a dangle?
Speaker 6: And it's so hard to figure that out, especially if
Speaker 6: it's like a short term like hey, this is going
Speaker 6: to happen in forty eight hours kind of thing. It's
Speaker 6: it's very, very difficult to actually figure out the credibility
Speaker 6: of that individual.
Speaker 1: In the moment, guys want to touch on the NATO
Speaker 1: summit that's coming up a little bit, like what to expect.
Speaker 1: I always spoke about it a little bit, but what
Speaker 1: do you guys expect to be coming out of.
Speaker 3: This, Well, there's going to be a lot to talk about.
Speaker 3: What we just talked about. Is the US going to
Speaker 3: redeployed forces from certain countries either back home or to
Speaker 3: other countries that they're more favorable to at least at
Speaker 3: the time. If anything, the US should be plus enough
Speaker 3: our capacity in Europe to send a strong message to Putin.
Speaker 3: But also because the world's an unstable place. Part of
Speaker 3: what we caused, and I don't mean that necessarily in
Speaker 3: a negative thing, but we're at war and Iran and
Speaker 3: right now. I mean, we haven't touched on Iran too
Speaker 3: much on this one, but there's a lot of people
Speaker 3: who believe this MoU is simply a means to replenish
Speaker 3: the global energy supply to get past the mid term
Speaker 3: elections and then it's kicking back. And I know a
Speaker 3: lot of friends who hope that's actually the case, because
Speaker 3: they really don't like the MoU, and I think they
Speaker 3: have good reason to believe to not like it. So
Speaker 3: this isn't over, is my point, right. I wish it
Speaker 3: was in the sense that Iran would agree with a
Speaker 3: new nuclear agreement and then that's that. But it doesn't
Speaker 3: look like they're coming anywhere close to that, and it
Speaker 3: doesn't look like they're coming anywhere close to relinquishing control
Speaker 3: of the straight upromos. I think we're at about lower
Speaker 3: than sixty ships a day, it's normally around one hundred
Speaker 3: and twenty. And Iran is making a lot of money
Speaker 3: selling its energy. So I'm attaching the two because we
Speaker 3: need to if you look at our conversation, we need
Speaker 3: to send a clear message to Russia and we can
Speaker 3: do that by presence in Europe and NATO. We need
Speaker 3: to be prepared for this thing to kick back off
Speaker 3: in Iran. Obviously we hope it doesn't, but I don't
Speaker 3: see an indication that this is headed toward a resolution
Speaker 3: that's acceptable to the United States.
Speaker 2: One thing that I heard in Jonathan and the Curious
Speaker 2: if you agree with this, is that there's more than
Speaker 2: likely for the rest there is a possibility for the
Speaker 2: rest of the Trump administration that this is the status
Speaker 2: quo right now and it's just you know, plus sixty
Speaker 2: plus sixty plus sixty whatever, just kicking the can down
Speaker 2: the road. And so there's the argument that Okay, after
Speaker 2: the mid terms the Republicans take a shellaking, Trump won't
Speaker 2: give a shit anymore, and so he'll he'll go at
Speaker 2: it again. I'm not sure that's actually true.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: It could also be that it's just going to stay
Speaker 2: this way, which is enormously unstable, and in some ways
Speaker 2: that is because I think Trump has lost interest in
Speaker 2: this totally. One other quick point on the NATO summit,
Speaker 2: I think d that ultimately Europe is holding its breath
Speaker 2: and if you know, it's just it's just, you know,
Speaker 2: how bad can this be? Is Trump going to make
Speaker 2: you know? It is going to be so disruptive let's
Speaker 2: just you know, it's a it's holding your breath to
Speaker 2: get get this, get past this. You know, he there
Speaker 2: was not even an expectation that he would attend, but
Speaker 2: of course Airdwan he's doing it for his fellow auto
Speaker 2: pratic buddy. But it's just it's holding your breath and
Speaker 2: you know, good God, what's going to happen? How bad
Speaker 2: can it be? Is there anything embarrassing coming out of this?
Speaker 2: Because at the end of the day, I do think that,
Speaker 2: you know, when I was just in Sweden, I saw
Speaker 2: the head of Swedish military. I mean, there's a notion
Speaker 2: that again it's the idea hope America helps. Can't count
Speaker 2: on them. You know, we're going at it as a
Speaker 2: as a as europe only, so you know, we'll kind
Speaker 2: of see where that goes. I mean, even as an American,
Speaker 2: as a patriot like these, when Trump travels overseas, you
Speaker 2: have no idea what's going to happen. You just you
Speaker 2: just pray that it's not going to be embarrassing to us.
Speaker 2: At least that's my view. And if something good happens,
Speaker 2: that's just unusual. But that's what you hope for.
Speaker 6: And also the enemy gets a vote. And that's the
Speaker 6: thing with Iran right now and with Russia that we
Speaker 6: could sit here and say, you know, in the next
Speaker 6: six to eighteen months, we can do all these things
Speaker 6: to prevent or do something to either of these actors.
Speaker 6: But in the time that we're waiting and planning, they're
Speaker 6: also waiting and planning, and in particular Iran, if they
Speaker 6: get financial infusions during this period of time that we're
Speaker 6: kicking the can down the road, that money is not
Speaker 6: going to some static account and just collecting interest for them.
Speaker 6: It's going to be spent on things to rebuild what
Speaker 6: was damaged. And it's like Andy you've mentioned on previous
Speaker 6: episode that you know and also you two maic if
Speaker 6: we're giving them three hundred million dollars to reconstruct, well,
Speaker 6: the things that were destroyed were not civilian infrastructure. They
Speaker 6: were military infrastructure or dual use infrastructure that has a
Speaker 6: military purpose. So that money is going to be going
Speaker 6: back for them to reconstruct the things that we destroyed,
Speaker 6: which are military structures, facilities, equipment, resources. They're going to
Speaker 6: reposition those resources. Those resources are not for purely defensive purposes.
Speaker 6: They are offensive weapons and structures and facilities and so on.
Speaker 6: So they're going to be reconstituting the entire time. They're
Speaker 6: also resilient in learning. They're learning from the mistakes that
Speaker 6: they just suffered through in the last two months of
Speaker 6: a meat grinder, teaching them new things, and they're going
Speaker 6: to do them differently. They're going to rely more on
Speaker 6: drones and so on and so forth, you know, as
Speaker 6: far as strategy is concerned, and less on people the
Speaker 6: next time this happens, because to them, there will be
Speaker 6: a Part two. They're they're waiting for it. They're preparing
Speaker 6: for it every day.
Speaker 2: God know this. So so this this time period now,
Speaker 2: I would think that US and Israeli military planner should
Speaker 2: be concerned that Iran is reconstituting. So absolutely, if it's
Speaker 2: the theory that okay, well they're going to kick it
Speaker 2: off again post elections, well actually Iran has had time
Speaker 2: to recover. That's actually a bad thing.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's why hes Bola's number one on the list
Speaker 6: of stuff to be negotiated to be you know, hands off,
Speaker 6: because they're seeing like, well, we need to reinforce the
Speaker 6: surrogate forces around us, because that's going to be a
Speaker 6: major component of Part two and you can see what
Speaker 6: the houthis. Just yesterday, fifteen government forces in Yemen were
Speaker 6: killed by this massive Houthy attack that was that was
Speaker 6: actually pretty interesting if you want to read about the
Speaker 6: tactics of it. That was very successful. It opened up
Speaker 6: with sniper fire all over the place, kind of like
Speaker 6: a mini Dnben Poo from Vietnam era, where they surrounded
Speaker 6: them ahead of time and got stuff in there very smartly,
Speaker 6: which means they're probably practicing that technique to use on
Speaker 6: larger scale later, which I wouldn't be surprised to see. So,
Speaker 6: and the Houthis don't have their own economy, you know,
Speaker 6: they rely on to pay for them to a large degree.
Speaker 6: So if Iran gets more of that money, they're going
Speaker 6: to go support the Houthis. They're gonna support Hasbola, and
Speaker 6: they're going to support forces in Syria and Iraq for
Speaker 6: part two. That's that's in their mind, like, hey, we
Speaker 6: are still surviving.
Speaker 3: That's what's happening right now. And money is fungible. So
Speaker 3: even if we released the three billion from Katar and
Speaker 3: we get that's you know, food, then they don't have
Speaker 3: to spend that much money on food, right, So it's
Speaker 3: there's it's better that they're buying American goods, I suppose,
Speaker 3: but it's not. It doesn't protect the money. It's still
Speaker 3: they still can use the money that they're getting, for example,
Speaker 3: selling in their oil to rebuild the realistic missile capability,
Speaker 3: their suicide drone capability, and every other thing that they've
Speaker 3: found to be most effective during Operation Epic period.
Speaker 2: This is which costs and Cushners like this is insane.
Speaker 2: The idea, like the idea of selling it because they're
Speaker 2: buying US goods. It's just mind bogglingly stupid. And it's
Speaker 2: this because you have two estate guys who just think
Speaker 2: in these ways. And that's why we're going down this rye.
Speaker 2: I mean, I find this to be I mean, it's
Speaker 2: it's it's an argument is so easily uh kind of
Speaker 2: you know, dissected because exactly what you said, any kind
Speaker 2: of relief for the Iranians means they can reconstitute their
Speaker 2: military period, end of story. There's no US stipulations, there's
Speaker 2: nothing we can do it just and but but this
Speaker 2: is I mean, you see the President, you see Kushner
Speaker 2: and Wikoff keep talking about this that this is great
Speaker 2: American farmers are going to benefit from the Iran deal. Like,
Speaker 2: my head wants to explode when I hear that.
Speaker 6: It's hilarius because they don't even eat corn. I mean,
Speaker 6: this is just not part of the cuisine. It's like
Speaker 6: we're gonna send American corn cob barrels over there, Like
Speaker 6: what are we talking about?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think we can all agree that the decease
Speaker 4: fu of the negotiations. It's just become a soup sandwich.
Speaker 4: But I mean, he, you know, back to you a
Speaker 4: question about the summit, which I think is a great topic.
Speaker 4: When we started off with it, it was Mock's idea
Speaker 4: and it hadn't occurred to me. But now I think
Speaker 4: about it, it's really important.
Speaker 5: I think, you know that who knows what us goals are.
Speaker 4: But for Mark and I'm pretty mispronounced his named Rutter, right,
Speaker 4: the Dutch guy.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 1: Head drops my daddy guy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So I mean he's gonna he's going to want
Speaker 4: to emphasize the building on the five percent of GDP
Speaker 4: pledge from the you know, from the Hague.
Speaker 2: But he's gonna also want to.
Speaker 4: Tell the US, say, look, the Europe's already embarking on
Speaker 4: this goal.
Speaker 5: European nations.
Speaker 4: But he's going to want to secure a an agreement
Speaker 4: from the US clarity on what exactly has been a
Speaker 4: commitment to keep a number of these enablers in theater.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: You know, the troops says that I said, have taken
Speaker 4: care of to a certain extent by US law. But
Speaker 4: things like i SR long range strike, ballistic missile defense, EDAW,
Speaker 4: air refueling, all those things, strategical left, command and control,
Speaker 4: all of those things are key enablers that the US
Speaker 4: provides to NATO. That you know, there's troops are easy
Speaker 4: to count, so there's a lot of focus on that,
Speaker 4: but there aren't. But again, those are the those are
Speaker 4: the really significant capabilities that the United States is providing
Speaker 4: most likely to be used in NATO short of actual
Speaker 4: outer and out war and certainly in out in our war.
Speaker 4: But I mean the troops are just there almost as a.
Speaker 5: Token presence, let's let's be honest.
Speaker 4: So the five percent, and he's going to be wanting
Speaker 4: to to get an agreement, a firm agreement from the
Speaker 4: US on those enablers. And he's going to want to
Speaker 4: I mean, Zelenski's attending, right, so he's going to want
Speaker 4: to Rutter is going to want to be able to say, hey,
Speaker 4: his art commitment, his NATO's commitment, whether it's continuation of Pearl,
Speaker 4: and then agreements outside that to keep both string Ukraine
Speaker 4: against Russia. I mean, I imagine that those are his goals.
Speaker 4: Turkey is going to be pushing for the F thirty fives.
Speaker 4: By the way, I thought they weren't allowed F thirty
Speaker 4: fives because they have the S four hundred.
Speaker 2: I thought that, but Trump said it that's small. I mean,
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter, and he keep.
Speaker 1: Talking about US law like this administration gives a funk
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 4: But that's going to cause problems A for the Israelis.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, I know we care about that a
Speaker 5: lot D D does, But no.
Speaker 4: I meant the Israelis is going to be pissed off
Speaker 4: about that. But not just the Israelis, UAE and Saudi
Speaker 4: Arabia who have run into issues.
Speaker 5: On the F thirty five for you know, some for
Speaker 5: similar reasons.
Speaker 2: And there's there's there's something to be said for goals,
Speaker 2: and so again, the whole bunch of folks here have
Speaker 2: been involved in policy making before, whether tip of the
Speaker 2: spear or whether back or both back in Washington. But
Speaker 2: ordinarily you go into a you go into meetings like
Speaker 2: this with a set of hopes, expectations, objectives. Trump changes.
Speaker 2: If you you know, I've been reading Regime Change, this
Speaker 2: is the book by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman. It's
Speaker 2: fascinating because Trump literally just goes on a whim. He
Speaker 2: changes course, changes directions, and it throws everyone into it,
Speaker 2: you know, completely for a loop. And that is what
Speaker 2: can happen here. That's why everyone is nervous on these things.
Speaker 2: We don't know and there might be something, you know,
Speaker 2: on the plane they're gonna fly over Cutty. Actually they
Speaker 2: won't take the Cuttery Force one, which flew over my
Speaker 2: house the other day, by the way, twice, really the
Speaker 2: new Cutvery plane. I was sitting on my deck and
Speaker 2: I say, this giant seven forty seven flying over me.
Speaker 2: But but you know, we just don't know what what
Speaker 2: Trump's going to do. That's that's just and that to
Speaker 2: me is incredible.
Speaker 4: I mean, Mick, you were.
Speaker 2: Sating up a policy. Can you imagine me at the
Speaker 2: Pentagon right now in a policy position and you don't
Speaker 2: know what true social posts or what what's going to
Speaker 2: be from a little oval office, you know, session on
Speaker 2: an app and and you're going to get ship rolling
Speaker 2: downhill to you, and you have to now implement which
Speaker 2: can be one hundred and eighty degrees different what you
Speaker 2: were doing literally two hours ago.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's I mean, it's a challenge. We've talked about
Speaker 3: the need for the NSC policy process, coordination process to restart.
Speaker 3: It's never too late, right, let's do it now maybe
Speaker 3: and and get some of the career professionals back there.
Speaker 3: But I just don't see, that's not appen. That's not
Speaker 3: gonna happen. I think Secretary of Rubio would want it
Speaker 3: to happen. I mean, he's technically the National Security Advisor
Speaker 3: if because he doesn't well, I think General Keane would
Speaker 3: be great if they're looking for a national security advisor.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: So we go to what's that buddy, they're going to
Speaker 4: clear up the reflecting pool?
Speaker 5: First?
Speaker 2: Did you see did you guys send it to me?
Speaker 2: Someone else send me? So there's there was people who
Speaker 2: made was it in our chat? Jellow shot?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the jealous shot.
Speaker 2: That was amazing, green yellow shot.
Speaker 3: Friend of mine said that to me it was a
Speaker 3: Trump supporter by the way, it's just funny. It's funny.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, boys, anything else we did it. We did
Speaker 1: a lot. I never feel good after these conversations, but
Speaker 1: we did do a lot.
Speaker 2: I went. I was on DC yesterday. I went to
Speaker 2: the Nats game and started eleven am. It was about
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifteen by the time we left it, too.
Speaker 5: It was hot.
Speaker 3: It was hot seventy five degrees out here.
Speaker 1: In Jealous it's been a it's been really hot in
Speaker 1: New York too, it's been one hundred degrees and disgusting.
Speaker 1: I was looking at like Copenhagen in places like that
Speaker 1: where it's like sixty five degrees. I'm like, fuck, why
Speaker 1: can't it be like this here? Sorry? We again, by
Speaker 1: the way, us playing Belgium. Yeah all right, yeah, So
Speaker 1: I want everyone to go and check out Mix. You
Speaker 1: guys talked about stoicism. He's got a stoicism podcast called
Speaker 1: The Pub and the Porch Applied Stoicism. Those links are
Speaker 1: in the description. Andy Milvern's got a great book that's
Speaker 1: coming out soon. Very excited. He sent me the the
Speaker 1: uh cover and the back cover, like, uh, you know, summary,
Speaker 1: it's going to be a really good one. You've worked
Speaker 1: very very diligently on it, I would say, Andy, and
Speaker 1: I'm extremely extremely excited for it. Can we say what
Speaker 1: it's called or no? Yeah, yeah, I don't want to
Speaker 1: overstep Warren Gaza Warren Gaza seven October and it's aftermath
Speaker 1: and account from both sides. What do you think I
Speaker 1: just spaced out just now a little prizes, No, I
Speaker 1: got my phone.
Speaker 4: Yeah, first first installments on first chapter one is on substack.
Speaker 4: Now it's about the lead up to the attacks.
Speaker 1: It's very good. It's that first chapter is really good,
Speaker 1: incredible because you see what's going on on the ground
Speaker 1: and the confusion and like, you know, people that want
Speaker 1: to bring it up to higher but the mid levels
Speaker 1: are like no, you know, it's it's an interesting look
Speaker 1: at it. I'm very excited about it. I'm sure it'll
Speaker 1: get a lot of people upset, Andy, which is fine.
Speaker 1: They'll get over it.
Speaker 4: Made made a huge effort to make it a very
Speaker 4: I uh.
Speaker 1: Already call it crazy.
Speaker 6: Yeah, is that BB calling to ask about it?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: When it when? When it is? When is this going
Speaker 1: to be out?
Speaker 4: It's not going to be out until the end of
Speaker 4: the year, early next early next year.
Speaker 2: That's the problem.
Speaker 4: With using Hey make by the way, I'm going to
Speaker 4: get back to you on self published a different you know,
Speaker 4: the after action from Gaza because the gazet book separate
Speaker 4: the one I've written. I'm committed to a publisher. I'm
Speaker 4: going to say good things about the publisher.
Speaker 5: They've been great.
Speaker 4: But the problem is that when you that, when you
Speaker 4: submit a minute script, there's a delay and for the
Speaker 4: editing process. It's not just the editing process, but it's
Speaker 4: lining up to get a slot. I guess unless you're
Speaker 4: a really big name, and I'm not a really big
Speaker 4: name obviously, so yeah, it's a leista. It's gonna be
Speaker 4: about a six month wait, all right.
Speaker 1: So keep an eye out for that. Of course, your
Speaker 1: autobiography When of the Tempets gathers great book. Check that out.
Speaker 1: All the links for Andy Supstack and the book down
Speaker 1: in the description. Jonathan Hackett, he's got two great books
Speaker 1: as well. I ran Shadow Weapons and The Theory of
Speaker 1: a Regular Warfare, very good books. Jonathan, of course is
Speaker 1: our resident smart guy. And Mark p. You have a book,
Speaker 1: Clarity and Crisis that came out a while ago. Though
Speaker 1: five years when are you doing another one? Not nice? Okay?
Speaker 1: So if you want to watch, check out Mark's links.
Speaker 1: He's earning the description as well. He's also on MS.
Speaker 1: Now you know, MS not as any fucking plugs from us.
Speaker 1: They should plug us.
Speaker 2: I'm on tomorrow morning talking about this straight. I just
Speaker 2: got a note.
Speaker 1: And if you want to support the show, Patreon dot com,
Speaker 1: slash the Teamhouse and of course the white Fish Security.
Speaker 1: So I'm to check it out. That link is in
Speaker 1: a description as well. Guys, A pleasure as Allly.
Speaker 7: Hey, guys, I want to take a moment to tell
Speaker 7: you about the Team House Podcast Newsletter. If you go
Speaker 7: and subscribe, it's totally free, and what it will do
Speaker 7: is aggregate all of our data, all of our content
Speaker 7: that we put out, the things that are on the Teamhouse,
Speaker 7: on our geopolitics podcast, Eyes On, things that I write
Speaker 7: journalistically with Sean Naylor on the high Side, anything else
Speaker 7: that we have going on books, we recommend upcoming guests
Speaker 7: that we have coming on the show, and also you know,
Speaker 7: filtering in some fun stuff in there as well. If
Speaker 7: you go and check it out, we send it out
Speaker 7: just once a week. We don't want to spam you, guys.
Speaker 7: It's just a kind of roll up of all of
Speaker 7: our content on a weekly basis. You can find our
Speaker 7: newsletter at teamhouse podcast dot kit dot com slash join again.
Speaker 7: The website for that is teamhouse podcast, dot kit dot
Speaker 7: com slash join uh so we hope to see you there.
Speaker 2: The link will be down the description
Speaker 5: Assass