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