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