Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on A full full crew is back. So happy new year, guys, Ady Millburn, Jason Lyons mc mulroy and myself.
Lock Cooking.
We've had a bunch of episodes dropped the last week, or a couple episodes the last couple week, so check those out for sure. One thing I need to tell everybody up top is to like and subscribe. Don't forget to do that. And if you're listening to us on the audio platforms, you can subscribe and like it and rated five stars there. It really helps. And if you really want to go above and beyond, tell your friends, share it, send it out there so we can keep growing this thing.
Busy.
I mean, it kind of slowed down over the holiday
break and then it's kind of picked up domestically. And also, you know, gearing up for the new administration, there was some word make you wanted to talk about, like what the China Plan is going to look like in the new administration, and if there's a little bit of a schism in the administration in terms of what side wants to do, wants to defend Taiwan, what side doesn't want to defend Taiwan if it were to come to that, and yeah, I'll let you rock and roll.
Yeah, well yeah, Happy New Year's fellaws, Happy New Years to everybody in the audience. I think the biggest thing going on right now and the national security realm is trying to predict or at least, uh try to guess
how policy will change. Foreign policy, in particular course with the transition between the Biden administration to the second Trump administration, so on the China front, Having got a call from somebody who remain nameless, but was okay with the discussion saying that you know, there is a he didn't call it a schism, so I will call it more of a debate already in the transition team on the national security side on how they're going to go about the
strategic competition with China. You know, there's a pretty significant element within the Trump team that is what I would call chinahawks. So they are wanting to put maximum effort on the strategic competition with China, which means defending our allies in the region of course, Japan for example, the Philippines for example, and also the defensive Taiwan specifically. You know, beyond just the legal requirement under the Taiwan Support Act.
So there's those that want to get more aggressive and spend more of our resources in attribute more of our resources to the End Pacific. And then there's an element in there that I would just call more on the business side, which could include you know, Elon Musk and others that have a substantial influence with the administration on not tweaking China too much. Now, I would imagine that there's it's not an either or. There's probably good arguments
and good points on both sides of this. We're intimately tied to China when it comes to global economics, but it's apparently already become an issue with I think Senator Rubio likely the next Secretary of State, being more on the China hawks side, that's my characterization, and others that have direct influence on President Trump potentially not completely aligning with what they intend to do. So it's going to be interesting, I think on that front on just what we do.
Yeah, I think no.
I was just going to ask, is there any indication on which way President that Trump is leaning?
Good question, Jason, That's exactly what I asked him. Now, to be fair, he's biased he is a China Hawk, so he thinks that he that President Trump's firmly in their camp, but does have a much more pragmatic view of a strategy or a policy when it comes to this, that he won't like fully commit either way. He will make the decision as as it plays out, and he's
going to listen to all sides. So I think they realize they be in the Chinahawks, that they're going to have to make their case continuously, which might make it a little bit difficult for a long term strategy. But that's just the way President Trump, you know, has done it in the past and likely is going to do it again. So it's going to be it's going to be something that might not be either or, and it
might change as the circumstances change. Of course, all these tariffs that might come out could force this into a a significant competition, right, so a tense competition for.
Sure, Thank you, Sorry, Andy Goohead.
No, it's just saying that, you know, of all the of all the global threats that most threatened to pull the United States into, you know, out and out war pier on pier, it's certainly Taiwan, and it's it's kind
of interesting. I mean, the Biden administration never really abandoned the policy of strategic ambiguity, right, but they you know, Biden kind of edged forward and some of the things that he was saying that coming bordering on the United States is committed to defend Taiwan, but he never actually
came out and say that. But but Rubio and and and the other guy is Waltz, have been pushing for strategic clarity, you know, to to actually declare that the US will back Taiwan in the event of attempted Chinese invasion. And whether or not you believe, you know, the prognosis of the commander of Indo p who said recently that he expected that, you know, China would by the end
of the decade try and invade Taiwan. Certainly there are indications that g is edging towards, if not out and out confrontation, certainly rampant, you know, up in the anti by you know, by declaring that that Taiwan is you know, renegade state that the you know, the premiere there has been has been intolerably belligerent in all of these things.
It's not just the rhetoric, the fact that China's stepped up its patrols in the air see patrols that it's you know, it's old news that it's been building bases on reclaimed land, you know, along the nine dash line. I mean it, without being kind of chicken little, it does seem as though some really hard decisions are going
to be made. I think central to those decisions are this question of whether the US is going to kind of go on pretending that or being a peaue about its intentions should China actually invade Taiwan, or whether they will kind of jump on whether Trump will jump on the platform of out and out saying out and out commitment to defend Taiwan, which honestly, I've got to say, it's just difficult to imagine, isn't it that any administration we talked about this before would commit US troops, US
lives the defense of Taiwan. And I can't imagine, you know, I'm not coming down either way on this, but I can't imagine that the American public would support such a thing. And it seems to fly in the face of what Trump has been saying about not wanting to be involved in wars overseas.
That's a good point. It's one thing to have these discussions in time inside the you know, the DC Beltway. It's another to try to convince the American people that they need to commit a substantial amount of force to be able to defend Taiwan. And all the war games, some of them I think have been reported in the media,
they play this scenario out. It's not good. I mean, we win in these scenarios from one of a purric victory in the sense that we lose a lot of troops who use a lot of ships, a lot of aircraft. Taiwan gets decimated, Japan potentially as well. In China, of course, is the biggest loser in it, but I guess you
could say everybody could be a loser in it. And then of course at risk and all out, which would be an all out war between two superpowers, nuclear superpowers, So it's a huge It's one thing to have a policy discussion in a think tank at DC. It's another one to see this actually play out. And I think
and he makes a good point. I mean, when the American people start hearing discussions about the US going to war, I want they're gonna start looking at a map and say, what, what's this Taiwan right, because it's it's it's not it's not an easy decision, that's for sure.
I mean, yeah, it'll take something dramatic to happen and like you know, an aircraft carrier sinking or something like that to get the US, just like how nine to eleven happened to get the US electorate or populous to be like, yeah, let's go for it. Like it would have to be oh, yeah, we need to get some payback, because that's pretty sure. That's how it goes with the
US for the most part. It's like, you know, if we look first seemed to have been attacked in any way, we're like, okay, it's time to let it rip.
But they were that would be changed. I agree, indeed, all right, go ahead.
Yeah.
The really tough part about the Taiwan question is the fact that we cannot prevent an invasion of Taiwan. We can on to one, but we you know, we we there's just no way that we can get forces in place to prevent crossing. You know that the Taiwan straight I mean, China will have I mean, it's it's going
to be up to what is on the island. Now for that initial defense, I'm not saying it's going to be easy for China to gain a you know, a lodgment the beachhead, but nevertheless, it's likely to happen before we can get forces into the region. So you see what I'm saying. It's it's going to take a conscious decision to respond, rather than US to responding to a US attack on I mean to a Chinese attack on US forces, which would be easier to back with the
American public. It's going to be you know, the Chinese are going to have be able to present us with facts on the ground. Yes, the fighting will be fierce or to be ongoing. The Chinese will take tremendous casualties crossing the strait, but nothing there now and nothing within range can prevent them from doing that from at least seizing a bridgehead. I mean, that's I'm not an expert on this, but that's what the war games suggest, and so it's going to be up to the US to
respond and they to dislodge them. And that's really that's not only politically tough, it's a military tough proposition.
Yeah. The second scenario is it wouldn't be an all out invasion. It could be some kind of attempt to isolate Taiwan blockade blockade, which then the US would have to make the determination of whether to you know, run that blockade.
Yeah, in which case we would still have to to make an aggressive move or an offensive move.
I got a question, uh, like, if the US comes out in a strong you know, set, comes out strong support of like we will do what it takes to defend Taiwan, whether it's blockade or actual invasion, does that do enough to deter China from doing it.
It's a speculative question.
But that's the question that Andy was been talking about strategic ambiguity or strategic clarity, right, It's been we often do the strategic ambiguity, just don't tell them and they can guess. But many argue, why would do that? Why not be, you know, clarify. I guess the question is if you clarify, you better be really willing to back it up, right, because you can't do that many too often before people just don't care whether you're what you're saying. You don't back up what you say.
It's it is a tough question. I mean, arguably, do you remember the invasion of uh you know, I know d was not born then, but the invasion of Kuwait back in nineteen ninety.
I was born then, and I mean I was five.
They didn't, you know, in any case, So the argument was that, I mean, the strong argument was that the US was not clear enough about how it would react, you know. And the ambassador in Baghdad was actually blamed for being ambiguous when Saddam Hussein started ranting about what he intended to do and Kuwait. So you know, strategic ambiguity does not sometimes counts against this. But as Mick points out, this is such an enormous decision and if we commit to it, then we really have to commit
to it and announcing it. I think one of the reasons why we haven't announced it isn't just because we don't want to be tied to it. It's it's the enormity of the announcement to the American public.
Right.
I mean, as long as we're ambiguous, it doesn't become front and center as a domestic issue or i mean an issue for the electorate. But once we announce it, it certainly does very easy, very easy stance to attack.
Yeah, and the and the reference you just made and I believe Saidda he stated that he thought that gave him tacit approval. Obviously that wasn't the case. But that's the risk of not being really clear with what you'll do. But it does kind of lock.
Yet what other ways is can we kind of deter it without being like, yeah, well we'll straight up send five carrier groups and.
Fuck you guys up.
You know what I mean, Like, what are like the economic ways or diplomatic ways you can put pressure on China to like not invade Taiwan.
You can make Taiwan very very tough to swallow. You know, that's probably I mean militarily, that's that's one of the things. The only things we can do is really you know, take a if it's still sticking to strategic and piguity. We nevertheless put facts on the ground helping Taiwan build its defenses, building a a militia. You know, Time's already working on this, but that that you know, prepared to go underground and make the seizure of any part of
Taiwan extremely painful for China. You know, all of those efforts are kind of playing I mean, they're playing in the gray zone which is playing China's game, but they're sending they're sending a very clear message to China without coming out and saying anything, you know, putting us offt on, you know, on laughing because of all the media attention
that this has already received. But us offt on the island now to to help train and and prepare, and of course you know what we are doing to an extent, which is giving Taiwan top end weapons systems specifically designed to repel an amphibious and airborne assault.
Yeah.
I think they were calling it the porcupine strategy. You know, you're gonna get it, but you're gonna hurt, you know.
Yeah. And that's the Taiwan Relations Act, and I'm looking at it here, nineteen seventy nine. It doesn't require that we come to their defense militarily, but it does require that we provide Taiwan with the military capacity to resist, you know, any attempt to remove them from power and take over Taiwan. So that is that is something we
have legally required ourselves to do. And that's I think going to your point, Andy, is that we're going to make them so difficult to actually militarily dominate that China will hopefully not decide to do that.
Make sure the who's the prick in the Trump transition team that doesn't want to go get tough on China?
You could say it's no, I didn't.
The person I was talking to.
No, Yeah, I figured that.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean I think he's referred to as the business side of this, which is obviously important as well. It's not all military, right, there's an economic component. And he didn't reference him. I'm referencing you know that there's people that have significant influence with the president, that have significant interest interest in the China relationship. Yeah, Musk is one of them.
That's yeah, become as secretary. It's his name.
Could be.
I mean, has has talked about striking a striking a deal approach to China. Yeah, I'm just guessing here.
But the end this, I mean, of course it's us. He's got the biggest voice. I mean, the move is that definitely just put that rift there. It's going to happen at some point between Musk and Trump. You know, they're just two to two narcissists that can't will not get along over the long haul.
And that's the move.
If they're doing that they should be doing that internally, if I were them, doing whatever I can to make them break up. For lack of a better term, I mean, right, everyone's waiting for that explosion, that that you know, those fireworks when it when it eventually happens, I try to rush that as soon as possible if I were them, because he does have a significant interest in China.
It's a huge market for ye.
Yeah, yeah, And I think that's that. I mean, it's it's going to be something that plays out. There's no I don't think there's gonna be a straight line. I think there's going to be multiple decision points and we'll see how it goes. But you know, the Chinahawks have.
Been a big part of the right side of the political national security spectrum for a while, so they're they're pretty excited about this, and I guess they get they were surprised by the parent early pushback.
Yeah uh uh.
You know, before we are, if we leave the topic, one thing that hasn't been talked about, and I think maybe because it kind of flies in the face of trump sustensible distrust of alliances, of committing to alliances. But one thing that we haven't really done is focus on a network of bilateral relations in the Pacific. You know, there's no there's no organization that parallels NATO there and
it would be hard to start one. But you know, we we're in a strong position to establish these bilateral relations and that is what China is working on right now. You know, China is simultaneously defending its position along the nine dash line, but at the same time working, you know, on appeasing some of the major players in the region Japan, Korea,
South Korea. And so we need to play that game more and and we have to offer I'm just we you know, we owll this empty toolk about to pivot to Asia over a decade ago, but we really have done very little to back that up. Now would be the time.
M yep, and you could do it both security wise and economic wise. To these alliances in the US. It was my former boss, uh used to say, maybe all are former bosses. Secretary of mattis is the US always fights with a coalition, right, So coalitions are built of alliances, and it's just part of It's always been part of warfare. It's not like it's a modern thing. So and uh, yeah, I think I think You're right that President Trump looks
at a lot of these with some skepticism. Sometimes that's good because they wake up and realize that they got to start contributing more to the alliance itself, right uh. And you know, but hopefully the the traditionalist, I would say, and his administration can really highlight the importance of these alliances when it comes to competing with China, because China certainly realized Sowbourn they are and.
The time is right, especially with the Philippines and Vietnam, you know, I mean Vietnam. Do you remember when we pulled out of a longer po I think it was way back in the in the early nineties. I mean, we pulled out of our clock and Subic Bay in the Philippines, and then under Due thirty we didn't have a great relationship with the Philippines. But now under Marcos Bongbong Marcos, with all the Chinese that are doing that, you know, they're reaching out to us again, and Vietnam
has done for a long time. I mean, that would be a great place to establish a base, as ironic though it may seem, I mean, Camrade Bay no longer called that, I know, but would be a superb location to have a US Navy base, and that would send the Chinese up the wall if we established you know, we lodged the Pacific Fleet back in the Philippines and
Vietnam right on their doorstep. And it would also help solve some of the distance time distance problems for a defensive Taiwan or the you know, counter attack of Taiwan. We're stacking, We're stacking all our eggs, you know, in South Korea and Japan, you know, in areas that are
heavily targeted by the Chinese. And I think, you know, my feeling is we should diversify and take advantage of you know, particularly in the case of Vietnam, and I think that economically and everything, that would be just a great location. How ironic too, you know, I mean, they kick our ass, but in the end, you know, we get. I mean, yeah, fifty years, sixty years on, we we get. We get what we needed as a bulwark against communism in a communist country.
Anything else you guys got on China.
I mean, we'll have a lot more to say in China as we go.
For Yeah, no, we covered it all.
Yeah. Yeah. The next big thing, of course, what's gonna happen with Iran?
Hey guys, it's Jack. I just wanted to talk to you today about a way that you can help support the podcast if you're not already to support the channel, is to become a Patreon member. So we have Patreon memberships that started just five dollars a month, and when you sign up, you get access to all of our
episodes add free. That's the big bonus for that. I mean, we also do some Patreon bonus episodes for our subscribers, but this is the biggest and best way that you can support the Teamhouse channel and podcast if you'd like to, and we really appreciate that, So go and check us out at patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse.
Yeah's kind of.
Like, yeah, it seems like the administration is a little bit more on lockstep in terms of being more hawkish on Iran. On Iran, at least from what like the reporting and like the messaging coming out of them. I mean, Iran is actually like it's seems to be on the back foot right as well as decimated Hamas is decimated, the Hoothy's. It looks like we're gonna like I think we just hit the Hoothi's again, We're gonna They're gonna
be in our crossairs again. And I guess the big worry for that, Like, you know, if I'm if I'm the regime in Iran, I'm thinking about nuclear weapons too, right, Like what's going to secure my regime? And it seems like that might be the only move. But you know, so what are you guys seeing on that?
Well, if you look at the actual House report, national Security Advisor sol Of and Breef President buying about a month ago, all the options to either eliminate or significantly reduce their nuclear capacity, because in the last four years they've really advanced it. I think they're a threshold nuclear state right now, is official talk. And I think the IEA said that they have enough enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
Now that's obviously a horrible thing. I do believe, and I'm only doing this based on reporting I've seen in the media that we think it would still take a year to make the nuclear detonating explosion device that would have to go with the uranium. So not a nuclear scientist here, but so we still have some time. But the concern, of course, you lay it up these they've lost their proxy forces, or at least they're significantly degraded.
Why not go for a nuclear weapon. We have to be ready, I think, to be able to take that focused military action to deny about that if that's what the Intel says they're going to do, And I think there's a very real chance that they are going to try that. So this is more than theoretical. This could happen, Wow, in short order. If the Intel says they're racing to a deliverable nuclear weapon.
Andy, Yeah, I mean, I don't, I don't know, it's already, don't It's it seems like a matter of time before Israel strikes against Iran's newclear capability. I mean, but there have been several points where the time seemed optimal Netna who was advised by his you know, his own generals to do so, and he didn't. And you know, there's a lot of there's a complexity with Netanyahu. I mean, he's become you know, we see him as the Hawk of Gaza. This is neither a defense or an attack
on Netan. Yahoo. I'm just saying, you know, he's seen now it's the Hawk of Gaza. But traditionally he has opposed getting bogged down in major military strikes or wars because he's seen how that leads to the demise of politicians in Israel. But definitely there's a school of thought within the Israeli high command that no time is better
than now to go after the Iranian nuclear program. We've talked about this before, and I think part of the question is perhaps, you know, they're waiting for the new administration to come in where they perhaps think that they're going to get a green light because President Trump has indicated that he will give them once. So I don't know, but it seems like that could be one of the preconditions that they are waiting for. In other words, this may not be a wholy US decision. This may be
simply just giving them not to the Israelis. The second question, of course, is can they do it alone? And it used to be, you know, the the consensus used to
be though they cannot. But they did execute a remarkably complex air strike air campaign, actually two of them in the last few months, one on Iran involving over one hundred planes to include f thirty fives, where they totally penetrated the Iranian IADS and supposedly knocked out all their S three hundred radar, in other words, blinding you know, blinding them. And the other was the recent one in Syria, which was actually the largest air campaign Israel has conducted
since the seventy three war. It didn't exactly go under the radar, but it wasn't heavily reported here in the States, but that was a So what I'm saying is that they, you know, when you look at all their capabilities ground penetrating, you know, deep bunker penetrating bombs, aerial refueling, stealth technology, they have leapt far ahead, far ahead of where they were a decade ago.
So that's a fair point, especially the fact that they've depleted the air and most of the defense of our own, which is the biggest factor when it comes to taking this right. And then the question is do they have the proper monitions you already referenced it to be able to do this right. That's why the US is going to have to make the determination of whether we get involved, because if we don't get involved, if we do get involved, the chances of success are high. And if Israel does
it alone, don't we still have the same consequences. That's the question that the US is going to have to ask itself if Israel's going to do this alone.
So, given their capability that they've proven they can they have and can use, is there a red line where they will not even wait for a decision from US, not not our permission, just a decision and say we're just going to do it, because I mean, obviously they're the closest geographically and they're probably the target.
So I just wonder if there's a.
Hey, Iran, is that our intel shows Iran is at this point in the process, we're not waiting anymore for US to give us a green light.
I think so. I think that's right, Jason. I think they probably already relay that red line to US. I don't know that it's you know, I don't know what it is, but certainly where they think that they cannot control it and it's close to happening, and of course they could get an injection of from Russia or others in technology that can speed this up. So this is all going to I think the intel driven and there probably is a point where Israel would would do it
regardless of our even even political support. But they wouldn't certainly hope. And then of course this leads to can we get a grand bargain? Can we get another agreement that deals not only with the nuclear weapons issue and iron but also their support for proxies like asthmlanomas the Houthis of which they could get full sanction and relief. You know, obviously have to be something in it for them.
Could we get to a point now that they feel so vulnerable that they would be willing willing to do that? I think that's another factor that incoming administration is going to be looking at. Long we're going to have the negotiations, Are they willing to like really have these negotiations and verifiable proof that they're not going towards you know, a weapon system over at a covert? And then how we're willing to believe the sanctions because that's what they're going to want to do.
I got a question for you guys, What do you guys? What was your take on the Obama administration's deal the nuclear deal they deal with them?
Was that good?
Not good? I mean, I'm sure to have his pros and cons, but would they be at this point right now where they're six months to a year away from a deliverable nuclear weapon if we stayed in it.
That's a you know, it's a fair point. I think to look at both sides. The JCPOA was an agreement that focused on their nuclear intentions, and the critics would say did not address the malign activity use the proxy force, which made it, you know, not a perfect agreement. The supporters would say, yes, but it did curtail the nuclear ambitious so getting out of it, the argument would go is that you could have addressed the proxy malign activities separately,
but we didn't. And obviously that's only gone up right the attacks from as Law Moss and since we got out gone up exponentially. But the question is, since that's water are under the bridge, if we do another agreement, I think everybody would agree it should include both, because that's what it failed at before. It's all depending on whether Orron wants to include both, and then they're willing to,
and they might because they're super unpopular back home. They literally can't keep the lights on in a country that produces that substantial amunt of energy and their economies and some like reform, so it might be perfect opportunity. But I think everybody would agree, even the supporters of the JACPO agent. It should be a comprehensive agreement.
Yeah, that's a good, really good point Mit brought up about the the the regime sensitivity to its own citizenry is surprisingly high. In other words, they they are concerned about the you know, feeling of the population towards the administration and they were alarmed, you know, they had kind of these half sham elections that that and and there was a regional elections which were held last year and there was a really really low turnout and that concerned
the regime. And there's a there's a bubbling discontent for some time against all this adventurism abroad, and a lot of it is mixedpointed out is driven by the economic freefall to the Uranian population. Know, it feels that they're in and and so sanctions relief will be a big one. It is a big incentive and we should certainly use it. And the other piece I agree with mec on Jake poa you know, pros and cons It was it was
poorly framed and poorly enforced. But one thing it did do was it gave us access and a certain amount of visibility to Iran's nuclear program. Okay, yes, things can always be hidden it but since we pulled out, it's been we have no visibility at all. It's become absolutely opaque. And so you know, I mean, any any sort of engagement is I think is better than none to an extent. And it's concerning. I mean, it's like, you know, as much as I as much as I hate the Russia,
I mean, I hate the Russians. You didn't say this right. As much as I'm distrustful of Russia or anything, you know, it was a big loss to us when we we we could no longer communicate with Russian military in Syria. You know all that any any any sort of open communication lines at whatever level with potential adversaries can only be positive.
Yeah, I agree, all right.
Plans for Ukraine? What's going on? There's a new push.
That they just got into it to Kursk that supposed the Russians are retreating a bit. Is this a move because Trump's coming in and they're gonna try and freeze the line, So keep a little bit of Russia while Russia keeps a whole lot of Ukraine.
Is that part of it?
There's a lot of maneuvering right now. I think there's a lot of maneuvering to try to get ahead of what they think it's going to happen, which is negotiations based on General Kellin's plans. I'm sure he's obviously working with income President. The idea I think right now would be to freeze the lines at where they are. Doesn't mean that Ukraine concedes to twenty percent of Ukraine that they've taken, but it does essentially stop the fighting. What does it get does Ukraine get out of it? Well,
they should get some kind of security guarantee. If that's not part of the DAL, I don't see them agreeing with it, But I do think President Zelenski realizes it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to militarily take back the twenty percent that you know that Russia is currently occupied.
So what is it from his perspective that he loses by freezing the conflict, getting the security guarantee and then building up his defenses to ensure that no more in Ukraine could be taken by the Russians, again not conceding that part of Ukraine is currently being occupied by a lawful invasion of Russia. Now I don't know. I mean, it seems like President Zelensky is really talking about this as a viable option. I think the question is will Putin?
Will Putin accept that as a viable option. Will he be able to sell that to whoever he thinks he needs to sell it to. This was all worth it to get that part of Ukraine, and now there's some kind of security guarantee for Ukraine, and and and will he be the one that actually hems and haws on doing this. I think the one thing that could really push him to not is for the US to say, Okay, if you don't, then we're going to double the seceritor assistance.
You gotta have it. You got to have a stick, right. You can't just you can't just rely on Putin to be a fair broker of this ceasefire agreement. So we're going to have to be ready to tell him that we're going to open the flood gates of support if he doesn't. So it has to be some consequences to his his not participating in this agreement, if that's what.
We're going Andy, Yeah, no, I mean, the risk of sounding like I'm echoing Meg I couldn't agree more that there has to be a part of the agreement has to be that we continuously reinforce Ukraine during a during this phase of Fruzen conflict of negotiation, because that's the only that's the only thing that Boutin is going to pay attention to. You know, right now, Ukraine does have
an incentive to make peace. And despite the you know, the incredible fighting they've been doing for the last two and a half years, the biggest problem right now is manpower. They are really hurting at the front. Their units are way under capacity. They have problems with desertion, as you know, I mean, which is just not surprising when you think what a meat grind at the front is there. And
it's becoming increasingly difficult to hold the line. And you know, while everyone applauds quite rightly what they're doing in Russia itself, both drone strike, sabotage assassinations and what they've done in Kursk, these things are kind of side shows. They're not going to have a strategic effect. And and in the theater that matters, or the you know, the battleground that matters, that is in Dombas, and that matters to to Russia
and Russia's plans they are, they're still giving ground. Pok Ross is holding on, you know, by its fingernails.
And the.
Streets of Pokrofsk now are just empowered passable because of the Russian drones. You know, I don't know if you're tracking this, but the population are sheltering in cellars and have been doing doing so for weeks, those who haven't been able to evacuate, and the Russians are closing, you know, they're they're closing the noose on Pockwarfs. Pokrofsk is the large last major town and it's a very important one. I mean, I mean before Kremitosk, and it's a very
important one. It's a railway up and it's been a mainstay of logistic and man palace supply for the for the Ukrainians so far in the wall. And if it falls, that is that's very serious for them, and that is no doubt about it. That that is the Russian plans to make it fall as soon as possible, certainly before talks begin for a possible cease fire.
Jay anything.
Now, when it comes to this kind of stuff, I'm just I'm learning from these gents. But I, as an outsider, you know, a neophyte, I agree that any kind of talk should include us continuously arming and supporting them because I feel like if we don't and whatever the talks break down, they're just going to be on the back foot.
So so I got a question about in terms of that, what are the chances that that's part of it, that's something we could can admit in terms of like if you know, well we will support you militarily or you know, whether it's anything logistics, whatever you call name it, what are the changs? I mean, it barely got through Congress this time, this past time. With the new administration, I feel like it would be uphill, an uphill battle to get that guarantee in there from us on our side.
Well, certainly if President Trump was pushing it, that would help, right, So of course, yeah, I'm sure somebody's gonna tell I'm like, mister president, this is on you now. So do you want to be the president that loses U grain to Russian I don't think he does. And if he supports this and it's poutin, that is the problem under the scenario I'm going out. Then if President Trump is telling the Republicans, who there's plenty of Russian hawks that are
still Republicans. Sure, I think you'd have all the Democrats, You'd already have the traditional Republican. I'd just call him Reagan type national security types. And then President Trump's influence over the mega folks I think could push this over the line, especially if it's part of a strategy to push prudent to the table, right, because if he's not coming to the table because he doesn't believe, he believes that our support is gonna wane and potentially even go away.
But obviously this, uh, this idea that he's gonna President Trump's gonna actually in the conflicts is not gonna happen. It's gonna it's gonna take his direct involvement. I think.
So he's the guy they need to they need to convey. I mean, it makes sense. He's the president, right, he and he runs that party with an iron fist. Let's be real, they would all fall in line if he were to come out strongly in terms of like supporting Ukraine and whatever that number is, or in terms of material or whatever.
Uh So there's one guy, Yeah.
It'd be enough to put to get the security assistance approved through both the as.
I think, Yeah, I agree, all right, just switching back towards like US domestically into you know, we've seen what's happened the last week with the New Year's Day attacks and stuff I inspired and another one was a both former US Army soldiers, both I guess radicalized in their own way, because for you to go to the point where you're blowing yourself up to send the message something's gone wrong.
We just have this.
Know, the overall terrorist threat in the US, has it? I mean, I don't think it's ever gone away really since nine to eleven. I think it probably has gone up since nine to eleven. If I'm being honest, what do you think? I mean, Nick Jay, you guys are the experts.
I started, Yeah, I agree that I believe that the threat has gone up a little bit since nine to eleven.
I mean, I.
Guess it depends on where what you're talking about as far as going up. You know, some people would autumn actually say it's the border. But those are the same people who are believing that there's what one hundred thousand isis fighters in the United States waiting to attack US. You know, those sorts of things. So I think it's a combination of things. For me, I think the biggest issue is the threat has gone up, but not to me externally.
I believe it's internally.
Radicalization has gone up due to you know, social media and things like AI and all those sorts of things. So I think that's our biggest thing. Plus you have the the inherent divisiveness within our country anyway, so those sorts of things are causing people to look elsewhere and they're finding that inspiration. And I think in some cases I don't know yet, but I think even with this guy in New Orleans, what was it a year ago
or so, you're supposed to have been radicalized. I think some people just throw on that ma ask that isis mask or whatever mask just to do whatever it is they're doing and aren't committed to it. So you have all that stuff that's all mixed in there.
Yeah, for sure. I mean, if you say there are two separate incidents, and I don't think they're tied, one in the days appears to be a suicide essentially, you know, horrible event, horrible. The veteran suicide is a whole other issue. You can do a whole several episodes on that, and then to Jay's point on New Orleans. I mean, the guy was actually thinking like should I get my family all together and killhim or should I go do this?
So it seems like he was just a completely disturbed individual who was looking for some kind of although it completely warped rationale for doing what he did. It's a big problem. It's you know, radicalization, self radicalization. I do think they'll look into his foreign travel, which seems to be verified by the FBI today that he travels to Egypt. Was there any kind of connectivity that kind of boosted them over the edge to do this. I don't know the answer to that, but certainly the FBI and CI
are going to be looking into that in detail. And then I think you travel a long or day in Toronto, Canada, But those kind of things will be looked at. But I do think, you know, one of the things we tend to think that we can just calling into these the enemy. It's a won't right. The isis exists to attack us, So this is not going to go away. We have to accept that this is going to be It's almost like a bunch of cops that around going talking about the end of crime, right it's not going
to end. Terrorism is not going to end. The ideology still exists. The isis is, you know, went from you know, one country or Rock Syrea two countries to I think twenty four twenty eight countries right now spread throughout the world. So this is going to be something that we're just going to have to accept. It's going to be you know, we're going to have to dedicate certain parts of our security apparatus to fight period. It's not going to end.
I wish it would, but if we have that mentality, we'll constantly be surprised when they verly likely add an attack. And I think they are in many ways looking to attack the West because that's what they why they exist. Al Kaida isis right now, I just saw something today, whether the UN predict or not estimates, there's twenty different terrorist organizations in Afghanistan today and there's not a whole lot of checks on them, and there's not a whole
lot of visibility on them. So we have to accept the fact that we're still at war with terrorism and that it's not going to be something we can just opt out of or just declare an end.
To and also to something to think about is if this all the talk of the incoming administration is looking to designate cartels as terrorist organizations. Now we're adding that
into the mix, you know. So it's not just Middle Eastern countries, it's not just Muslims, it's not you know, there's if this happened, If this they are designated and there is a direct action that's taken against them, that's something else we have to think about, because I mean, there are people who live in Brownsville, Texas or wherever who are looking right at what could possibly be you know, hey, you've designated those terrorists. Now we're coming right across to
you know, hit these towns. So it's not just we we have to be able to look in more than one direction at once.
I don't know, but I would guess that law enforcement is yes, concerned with you know, with all those things, but I would guess that they're very concerned about domestic extreme right wing terrorism too, you know.
I mean, the.
Of course, you know, anythink packed to the Oklahoma City bombings and I and there have been since then, there have been there's been near run off the near run that has been of the tacks that have been preempted by law enforcement. You know, nothing on the scale of Oklahoma, but you know, there's these groups exist, and they're active and and you know, as we've just seen, there are some pretty extreme attitudes out there from people who ostensibly
seem to be normal. And I think that's that's definitely of concern.
Yeah, and that goes back to keeping our eye on you know, many different things at one time, because they're going.
To take full advantage of that.
We designate cartels as terror organizations and at the same time we're looking at isis well, what's behind us these extremist group FARI groups that Andy's talking about, and they're going to take full advantage of that.
Yeah. One of the populations we definitely need to protect, the lack of a better arn't is veterans. And I say that because you know, oftentimes we undercut just how much training somebody who's serving Afghanistan and Rock actually has when it comes to being able to carry out a terrorist attack. I mean just to rudimentary training, not even to get into the special operations type stuff. You know.
One of those and one of our individuals I should say that's radicalized can do an extensive amount of damage, which just a knowledge they have and they're you know, capacity. So that's that's when it comes to the fact that
both of these two individuals wore veterans. That's something the Pentagon is going to be looking at, how do we prevent radicalization to protect our force and to protect our population because you know, five veterans put together can exponentially do more damage than just a bunch of knuckle heads that happen to believe in the ideology but have no
actual capacity to do anything. So that's that's something I think is going to be looked at very closely by Department of Defense and how to prevent this from happening.
Boys anything, It's a good discussion.
You guys have anything on the action terrorist attacks. I mean, like we touched on that a little bit in the last couple episodes, but we haven't had Andy or make on that. So if you guys have any thoughts, please feel free.
I think we covered it. I do think they're gonna I mean this is you know, you do the immediate triage when it comes to the intel of whether there's an ongoing threat. And even though it started off saying that they thought this was multiple individuals, which would indicate a more planned isis main involvement. Now it looks like it was just him, But they do have to realize they do have to find out whether there was direct direction,
not just inspiration to the New Orleans attacker. And I think we won't find that until they've completed their both law enforcement investigation and the intelligence gathering and analysis that's there to come.
And jel Yeah, I really don't. I mean, I think you guys covered it very well and is in the UK enjoying myself when when you're having these serious discussions. Yeah, nothing nothing positive to it?
All right, boys, Nick, what do you tell us about what you're working on with fog Won and Lobo?
Yeah? I appreciate you guys. Let me bring this up. So this book's actually been out a while for those that are looking at it and holding up. It's called All the Glimmering Stars. It's by Mark Sullivan, is a great author here in Montana who met me and my business partner Eric Olrich. We had done a documentary on a child two child soldiers actually married right now, that were abducted into the l RA and forced to fight and eventually escaped together, started a family and went on
to rescue many other former child soldiers. So I just wanted to highlight this book is out. You can get it just about anywhere you can buy a book, and a portion of the proceeds goes to Eric in my five to one c three in Child Soldiering, which is completely dedicated to the rehabilitation of children who were forced to fight against their will by adults, who, of course
are the ones that start the war. But I appreciate you guys allowing me to kind of like this book because it really does do a lot of good when it comes to the NGO.
Yeah, I'm gonna put a link in the description for the book as well. I can grab it there and I'm gonna put a link in the description for the NGO. Links are always in the description, so check it out. Incredibly good cause I feel like there's no real unless you're running the child soldiers. Who's against whose four child said? You know what I mean, It should be really easy And.
A lot of the audience, I might I might add that were participants in Operation Observant Compass, which was the US effort to counter of the LRA, and I imagine there's a lot of folks in the audience that participated in that would know this individual. Anthony Oka, he worked with us very closely because of his knowledge of Joseph Coney and know him very well, so that are very
familiar with this story. It is. It is an operation that I thought was very unique in that it really did focus on the influence aspect of special operations fights the kinetic part, because you know, there was no Green Bray that was with me on these this operation that really wanted to go fight kids, right, So it was really focused on the messaging of getting them out without the fight, and it was very successful in that regard, and much of it because of people Anthony and people
like Anthony that knew how to talk to these flguers.
Yeah, so check that out. The link is in the description. I'm gonna put the Lincoln description too for the documentary as well. Andy Milburn, how are you first off?
Great book?
When the Tempest Gathers? Check that out. That's in a description as well. Jason's links are in the description. Doesn't have a book yet, h He's gonna be coming out with some erotic fiction. I know he's been talking about it for a while NAOW loosely based on actual little events. Guys,
this is great. I think I'm forgetting something. Oh we I'm gonna tease it a little bit because Nick gave us the green light about the work that he's doing in Sudan, so we will get into that with a bunch more of the people you work with at fog bow uh. Probably I think, probably making an episode by itself.
And what else.
The team Patreon dot com slash the team House is the best way to support and thanks guys.
This is great.
Thanks everybody awesome.
See you next time.