Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 7/24/26 Matt Williams on the Wars in Ukraine and Iran

Episode Date: August 1, 2026

Matt Williams returns to the show to discuss where things stand in Ukraine and with Trump’s war with Iran. Discussed on the show: Williams’ YouTube Channel Matt is an Australian Army veteran, independent journalist, and content creator. He served in the Australian Infantry with the 7th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment from 2014-2021 and was awarded a Queen’s Order of Australia Medal. Since 2022 he has worked as an independent war correspondent and analyst. Subscribe to his YouTube Channel.  Sign up for the Scott Horton Academy of Foreign Policy and Freedom at scotthortonacademy.com For more on Scott's work: Check out The Libertarian Institute: https://www.libertarianinstitute.org Check out Scott's other show, Provoked, with Darryl Cooper https://youtube.com/@Provoked_Show Read Scott's books: Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine https://amzn.to/43D82oY (The audiobook of Provoked is being published in sections at https://scotthortonshow.com) Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism: https://amzn.to/4eMQblu Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan https://amzn.to/4a5fKvx Follow Scott on X @scotthortonshow And check out Scott’s full interview archives: https://scotthorton.org/all-interviews This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Tax Attorney Matt Sercely https://agoristtaxadvice.com; Moon Does Artisan Coffee https://scotthorton.org/coffee; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom https://www.libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=1616 and Dissident Media https://dissidentmedia.com; Expat Money https://expatmoney.com/scott; and Crowdhealth https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/ (use promocode Horton) You can also support Scott’s work by making a one-time or recurring donation at https://scotthorton.org/donate/https://scotthortonshow.com or https://patreon.com/scotthortonshow Audio cleaned up with the Podsworth app: https://podsworth.com Use code HORTON50 for 50% off your first order at Podsworth.com to clean up your voice recordings, sound like a pro, and also support the Scott Horton Show! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, guys, let me take a second to tell you about expat money at expatmoney.com slash Scott. It's a guy named Mikkel Thorup. He's a great guy. I've met him. And he's been an expat for many years and knows the rules and regulations all around the world about buying property and or other investments, how to protect your neck, even get citizenship and passports from other countries and everything you need to know

to be an expat, whether you're afraid of the coming collapse or just fighting. modern day price inflation, find out what you need to know about how to protect your neck at expatmoney.com slash Scott. Ladies and gentlemen of the press have been less than honest, reporting to the American people what's going on in this country? We're dealing with Hitler revisited. This is the Scott Horton show, libertarian foreign policy, mostly. When the president doesn't, that means that it is not only...

We're going to take out seven countries. They don't know what the fuck. They're doing. Negotiate now. End this war. And now here's your host, Scott Horton. Good A, you legends. Welcome to the show.

Introducing Matt Williams, Willie OAM is his name on the YouTube's there, Ozzy Afghan War Vet and Current Day War Analyst. How you doing? Well, howdy, legends? I thought if you do an Australian welcome, I'll do an American welcome. Mate, thank you for having me. Scott, it's great to be honest. It's great to see you finally getting as much traction as you deserve. I was scrolling my YouTube's and see Joe Rogan and Mr. Horton.

Mate, it's fantastic. Thanks for having me. Yeah, we've been having fun. And let me say, you look very handsome with a full head of hair, which I guess means that we're at least over a phase of your recent treatment. Can you tell us a little bit about your health? Yeah, so I finished up the chemo a while back, at least, say, seven or eight months ago.

And of course, my hair never, I truly lost it, but it really thinned out. So I kept it very short. Plus, I had that pretty nasty surgery on my head. What's never nice having stitches through your head. But my hair, you know, it's come back. And I think it's come back well. There's a rumor going around that...

I was really jealous, quite frankly, I sure I had. There's a rumor going around that I took a month off and went to Turkey. Because I took a month off work just to just have the month off. And everyone thinks Willie was in Turkey getting a hair transplant, but it's come back well. Man, you must be using a special shampoo or something. Well, I'm glad I'm not a redhead,

but I do wish that my Nixon Mohawk was a little wider. It used to be. Anyway, whatever, man. I'm old and I'm complaining about it. I have to comment too. I saw you, you did a great bit in Oxford, when you did that recent sort of debate there. Oh, yeah.

You like that, huh? They hated it. Well, all I was thinking when I was watching the debate is I'm like, there's a lot of able-bodied young men who are demanding other able-bodied young men to go and fight with them themselves, not willing to. And I think, was it, Seneca who said beware of the man who urges an action of which he himself has no or incurs no cost.

So I always say, like, Ukraine is desperate for men. They are recruiting actively foreigners. If you want other, if you want Ukrainian men to go and fight and, well, you know, sign up yourself. If this is existential for you, it's existential for you. That's my take on it. You know, Ukraine is desperate for men. That is what they need. And I had an argument on my chat yesterday.

Someone said, Ukraine should grab every single person off the streets and the front line. And I said, are you in support of Ukraine? He says, yes. I'm like, well, you go then. You are demanding that these young men, young women, these people in Ukraine get pushed on to the front, regards of how they feel about it. But you won't go. I'm like, well, yes, I think it's ostensibly supporting Ukraine.

but it is truthfully in the hatred of Russia. A lot of these people demanding a fight of which we don't incur their man cost. Yeah, you know, I got a couple of regrets about that. The first one is I know what I'm talking about, but I just simply misspoke and flubbed when I said how, and it was an accusation against the idiot in front of me that I got, there's a discrepancy where I says,

freed and his buddy's work to undermine the partnership for peace, which I mistakenly said, which Russia was already a member of, in favor of NATO expansion. But that's not what I meant. That was what HW Bush did with the OPCW. No, no, no, the OSCE, which already existed. And they said it was going to replace NATO and which Russia was already a member of. But with the partnership for peace, it was that.

they promised the Russians that they would be able to join it in a meeting with Warren Christopher and Yeltsin in October of 1993. And they promised that they were going to use the partnership for peace to replace NATO and that Russia, the Baltics, Ukraine, and everyone would all be members of it at the same time. And it would replace NATO. And freed worked to undermine that in favor of NATO expansion. So it was the right accusation, but I screwed up the damn detail. And it's right when I'm picking on the guy.

I'm making an accusation to his face. And then so that it sucked to get that detail wrong. But then also, I guess, to me, the question that we were debating, this house would rather go to war with Russia than lose Ukraine. I thought it was so absurd that I thought it was unfairly biased toward my side of the debate. And so I barely even really made the best argument I could. I didn't really at all. I spent my time picking on Daniel Fried and, you know, having a good time

because I thought that my opening crack about you'll all be dead in a nuclear war, dude. Britain can't fight Russia because there'll be a nuclear war and you'll all be dead. So that's off the table. So what are we even talking about? But that was not persuasive. I don't think you can hear in the video. But when I said that, the room, they all scoffed. They all acted like that was the most ridiculous thing.

And in fact, you know, maybe this is a transition to our real conversation here. I was just remarking about this recently, and then I read a story, I think it was in foreign policy. I can't keep track anymore. I think it was in foreign policy where they said it's the changing definition of nuclear deterrence.

And essentially what it is is nuclear deterrence used to mean that you can't have a conventional war against another nuclear power because that could lead to a nuclear war. So you just don't fight. But they say, no, it doesn't. doesn't mean that at all anymore.

Now what it means is you have license to go to war with anyone, including Russia and China, apparently, because what are they going to do? Newk you? They wouldn't dare because they know you have nukes too. So now it's a license to get into a conventional war rather than the reason that one is completely forbidden. And I've seen, you know, talk about nuclear deterrence,

especially in regards to America's conflicts. with the Russians in Ukraine there. I've seen that twist, but here somebody wrote it up in one of the journals. That's like, yeah, that's the thing now where those words don't mean what they used to. Now they mean something totally different. Well, I fully agree that I believe the question was basically written in such a way

that it was not up to your side to make an argument. It's up to them to make an argument. Like, your side is basically as far as we maintain the status quo, we negotiate through a diplomacy out, But the opposing side of the argument is you have to build an argument to send hundreds of thousands, if not millions of young men, into a war and risk a civilizational erasure style event. But my whole piece to that would be, guys, if you believe this war is as critical for the West to maintain everything, there's two options here of which we can do. today. Firstly, you can go, as long as you are 18 to 60 or if volunteer, you can be above, you can go and volunteer into one of the foreign regiments or one into the, into one of the

Ukrainian regiments and go and fight. You can do that. Third option, or sorry, second option, is you can donate money to Ukraine to continue to fight. Now, those two options are individual options, and I'd say that very few people there are willing to do either of them, especially the first one, but a call it for other guys like me and my mates to go. The third option is there is nothing stopping any of these states signing a bilateral treaty and security arrangement with Ukraine. This is what Ms. Jennifer Kavanaugh was saying the other day that, hey, if you talk about NATO this, NATO that, but the problem is all the states need to be in agreeance,

okay, Finland, you can sign a bilateral treaty with Ukraine if you would choose. And if Mr. Stuby's not willing to do that, I think that says a lot. And I could understand Zelensky's incredible frustration beyond just having to sit down with that tweet of Laura Luma. But of, hey, do you want to put your money where your mouth is? And then we start seeing the reality of it. And it was up to them to mount the argument, not you. And the points which are raised, you know, people might say, they're not going to use a new,

Well, it might be unlikely, but it's not an impossibility. People that say Russians and nuclear weapons don't work. If they are sending missiles every day into Ukraine, they send many rockets into space, both manned and unmanned with Americans often as well. Trust me, one-wave warhead is deliverable. But we need to understand something on that nuclear deterrence, too. And I agree that much like some vaccinations,

You start changing definitions, you get into a scary part of the world. But when we talk about nuclear weapons, there is no such thing as tactical nuclear weapons. Every nuclear weapon is strategic, whether it was one kiloton or a hundred megatons, whether we're talking czar bomber or something smaller. There's no such thing as a tactical nuke. I hate the term. It's all strategic. But there is tactical.

use case of nuclear weapon and strategic use case of a nuclear weapon. And one thing which the Soviets had developed, and the Russians, of course, will still maintain the doctrine, is battlefield use case of nuclear weapons rather than an end-of-the-war erasure-style nuclear weapon usage. So where a lot of our doctrine will be, we're starting, we're leveling cities. Moscow will look like Gaza and Munich will look like Gaza the other way and etc, etc. That is ours with high kilotunage, megatunage bombs where the Soviets did develop battlefield use case, often referred to as tactical nukes, of which you have mechanized

maneuver or maneuver warfare within a fallout zone. So kilotunage bomb, smaller yield, lands on an area of relative front line. that gets just flattened and then you actually have a maneuver style element under that. And that is something that we haven't developed because we don't see the use of that. But my argument would be, and I hope to God we don't end up in this, are we willing to start leveling in strategic sense areas for battlefield use case of weapons? And I don't know. But if you ask me about nuclear weapons at this point in time,

I think that the man in Washington is significantly closer to using a nuclear weapon than the man in the Kremlin. If you're like me, you consider Ron Paul to be the greatest American who ever lived. I mean, after all, who taught more people about liberty than Dr. Paul? Right. Nobody. He's the greatest. That's why I got this statue behind him right here. And that's why you could get one for your desk or your shelf too, if you want, at rickcasally.com.

slash store slash Ron Paul. And you could get your great bust of Dr. Paul. It's the same one you see on the Tom Woods show as well. And they're really of the finest quality. And they make great gifts. And use promo code Scott or Horton or just follow the link in the right hand margin at Scott Horton.org. Yeah, it's true.

People call me a lot of things. One of them is publisher. Look at all these books I've published. Five of them are mine, but 15 of them are not. And they are all so great. and I'm so proud of all the great stuff that the guys at the Libertarian Institute have been putting out and continue to put out.

Of course, our very latest is Ken Silva's book on the Trump assassination plots, but we've got more in the pipeline coming soon right now. Check them all out at libertarian institute.org slash books. Yeah, well, let's talk about Iran in a minute because I know what you're referring to there. But on the question of the Ukraine war, Yes.

Which, you know, the audience should know that really your YouTube channel is really one of the very best places to go if you want to keep up with all the battle maps on an absolute day in, day out kind of basis of who's advancing where and to what end and what difference it makes. And along with the politics and other aspects of the war as well. But you're really just so up to date on the finest details of the war and all that. And well, and on the medium and bigger picture, too. But so I guess my question is along the lines of both sides say that they're just fighting a war of attrition. They're not fighting necessarily to seize land. They're fighting to grind up the other side. And then once they're done, break in the other side's army, then they'll have their way.

And they both claim that. And obviously, that's at least somewhat true. Although it also sounds like a big cope to me because of course. course, if they could just use maneuver warfare and go where they want and smash the other army with decisive blows, then they wouldn't have to fight a war of attrition, right? So they're kind of being forced in that situation in the first place. But at this point, I wonder, you know, from the Russian military's point of view, you know, how desperate they might be to go ahead and figure out how to form up a, a, you know, how to form up a, you know, how to, you know, how to

forest large enough to win some sort of knockout blow here due to the expense of keeping the war going forever. I would ask the same question about the Ukrainians, for that matter, except I just don't believe that they have the manpower of one way or the other to do it. The Russians just have a much bigger population. And so if they wanted to conscript a million man army and go ahead and finish this damn thing, then they could do that. Right. But they're not doing that. But they're not doing that. And they seem just as content as the West to drag this thing out. Is it that in your mind, do you think that they figured that they're actually inflicting a strategic defeat on us? That this is costing us more than it's costing them and that it's in their interest, really,

to drag the thing out? Or they just figure that if they really went that hard, they still might not be able to just march to Kiev. And they would have so much little to show for it that it, that it would not be worth the effort and maybe they'd suffer too much backlash for trying and failing the same way as, of course, Ukraine has tried their various offensives, especially in 2003, which didn't go anywhere. Well, this is where we really have to take a step back and look at the goals and look at why different types of war are fought and the possibility of fighting something like a maneuver or mechanized maneuver war currently in the battlefield with drones.

and that mechanized maneuver, you'll see tiny little bits of this pop up, but you're not seeing these large movements like you may have seen in 2022. And in a drone environment, we have not seen a complete introduction or at least reintroduction of mechanized maneuver. And I know you want to talk about Iran later, but this is something the American command need to take into account is you are not going to have the freedom of maneuver that we had in maybe Afghanistan or Iraq

if you enter a war in Iran. We know that they are operating FPVs, fiber optics, etc. We've seen how devastating they are against some of the top of the line, armored vehicles from either the west or from Russia.

And they have the volume, the Ukrainian side of drones to be that severe of a deterrent against a conventional type of an invasion? Well, this is where we have to digress back into what the aims, objectives, goals of this war actually are, and why attrition is the way that the war is being fought. Firstly, what we'll hear is, I've just taken some notes here, but we'll hear a lot about

the tide is being turned, the tide has turned. What my question to that would be is, when was the tide ever in the Western media that Russia was winning? Like if the Guardian or the telegraph put up, you know, Ukraine's now winning, the tide has turned, Putin's on the back foot, find me an article of which one of these papers said in the past few years that the tide was in the way previous to that, which is funny because the tide can't turn if you were never losing. But that's on the informational front.

But we need to understand that a tritional war, their primary goal is not territory. People measure the war as being one or long. as territory. That is just not true. You could be moving rearwards and winning an attritional war if you are attritting at a higher rate than the other side can replace their forces. A war of attrition is ultimately about losing slower than your enemy and absorbing your losses, absorbing losses, absorbing even tactical defeats or victories for the ultimate objective of war of having a political outcome in favour of your state or party. Now, an attritional war can make territory and it can make territory to be opportunity,

it can lose territory to get into a better position, as per what we have seen before, Ukraine and Russia conducting a withdrawal to better positions to treat the enemy. But a war of attrition is ultimately about destroying the potential and capability of a state, whether that is removal of their resources or removal of their most precious resource of their men. Now, drones are so simple and so numerous that you would need to see a state of complete route before you wouldn't see too many drones on the front line. But drones are overreported and over, um, over relied on, in my opinion.

are still incredibly important. I'm not saying that. One of the most important weapons on the battlefield and they have changed war. The fundamentals of war are still in place. You still need a man with a gun on a position to have held that position. And drones do not have the area saturation effect that something like artillery, traditional tubed barrel artillery or aerial bombs can have. but a war of attrition. So we won't see a point of where there's no drones. And to reintroduce mechanized maneuver, we're probably a long way off. Neither state is that attritted.

But it's about destroying capability and potential. And if you look at Russia's war aims, it is to remove the potential or the capability of the Ukrainian state. And the way to do this is you end up having large areas that are enveloped and you lay massive amounts of saturation, and fire onto those and it tripped down the forces that remain in that pocket. And that is what we're seeing. We saw it under, of course, the former commander-in-chief, who's just been replaced under General Surski. I would often call it Surski's cargo shorts because he gets stuck in pocket after pocket after

pocket. And these cities would get stuck and then they would just be leveled with, say, Russian glide munitions, the FABs from 250 kilograms up to 3,000. and forces have continued to get pushed into these cities of when the correct doctrine on an attritional factor would be to pull back. So where I think Russia is overall fighting more of an attritional style war of doctrine and strategy and tactics, which you can see because that's exactly what the Soviets did in the second world war,

at least in maybe the second half, to more greater effect, the Ukrainians didn't in the same way. And this is why I think the new commander-in-chief Drapati is actually a very good choice. But it's about removal of potential and capability. And Russia's war aims have always been a little bit opaque, in my opinion. Always a little bit. But ultimately it's to remove Ukraine's ability to have a fighting force. Whether that be military deterrence, we will invade if you are not.

neutral if you join NATO. Obviously didn't work. Have the initial invasion, we will continue if you seek NATO, if you want to grow the military. Of course, Mr Boris Johnson upended those negotiations and now we're four and a half years down the line and hundreds of thousands are dead and the war aims of removing the capability and potential of the state to form a fighting force or to ever form any offensive style actions against Russia, it still exists. Now, you could nitpick in the justifications or provocations. I'm not concerned with that as far as in the military analysis attritional front, but that is the goal, is to atrip them down either way in this to the point of which they cannot

form a defense or offensive actions that threatens you to have complete political impunity, say, to do what you'd like. So that is the goal. That's what we need to look at. If you're measuring just a kilometer square is made or lost, not a good way. Even if you're just measuring just military vehicles loss, not great. You need to look more closely at, say, casualties. And you need to look at, and this is where the numbers get very difficult.

Right. Faculties actually confirmed, not just claim, confirmed. Recruitment and conscription. And of course, all this is massively modified by size of population. that Ukraine needs to have a minimum of three to one, four to one casualty ratio on the front line to even break even with the Russians. And that is something that I don't think, like at times it's probably been that and at times it probably hasn't been. You go through peaks and troughs of war. But there's a lot of people who go to very intellectually dishonest positions and try to

apply incorrect military formulations to justify those figures. And I'll say, because the Ukrainian general staff has said, this is how many we've killed, as much authenticity as the Russian general staff saying, this is how many we have killed. The best ways is media zone and UA losses. They are not perfect by any means,

but you'll see that the losses are fairly similar. And that is not a good case. and even just observe that Russia is completely recruiting forces, high salaries, but they are, it's very costly, but they are still recruiting 30 to 40,000 guys a month. Voluntarily, Ukraine is completely reliant on busification, dragging someone off the street into a van to the front. That tells us a lot about the war.

If we saw that in the reverse, I guarantee the media would not shut up about it. So this tells us a lot, and then we need to add basic military knowledge to this as far as artillery typically causes the most of casualties in war. Russia has held a significant artillery advantage, the entire war, including, in my opinion, in aerial weapons, which have developed into an artillery piece. So the Russian Sue 34 fighter bomb aircraft with the glide munitions, I actually classify as a heavy artillery piece because it's not used in the precision firepower of a traditional missile under a jet.

They fire over 8,000 a month of those minimum 250 kilograms, the majority of 500 kilograms straight onto a target or a tree line. Even if there's one Kaz per bomb that is catastrophic for the level of recruitment and conscription we are seeing currently in Ukraine in a nutritional war. and then as well to push back on people will say, the force on the offensive action takes three casualties to one. And that's just untrue. That is actually just misrepresenting a figure. Militaries, like when I was in the military,

we like to fight at a three to one ratio. If we're taking a position with 10 enemy soldiers, we want 30 to go on it. It doesn't mean that we're going to take three to one casualties. It's just the ratio I'd like to fight with. And there'll be times in a battle that you'll lose significantly more forces being offensive or defensive. But that's really the number we'd need.

And from my observations, applying military rationale, I don't see in any of these data points that Ukraine is winning the war of attrition. But to go, I think, to the last point of your question is, well, who's really a treating who? And this is where I think there's a lot of tension and I listen to Mr. I believe his name was Stephen Jeremy. It was recently,

it was a British like Admiral who was on Tucker Carlton's a podcast recently. He's a really interesting guy about is the West are treating Russia or is Russia retreating the West? And an nutritional war is you're both losing, you're trying to lose more slowly. That is the basis you win in a nutritional war

by losing more slowly. You accept you're going to have lost and you accept you must absorb it. So of course it comes down to your industry, your community, your morale, as many factors. It's a war of nerve in many ways. And this is something that I think is a overlooked position and something I'll be looking into more now

is this war was always said that we are treating Russia by pushing in these weapons systems in Ukraine, by pushing Ukrainians onto the front line and continuing this war, we are putting Russia in such a position that it will break apart, it will collapse, it will be defunned, okay? And there is real military strategy behind that, okay? But now we see with the extension of America, say, into the Middle East, and Ukraine doesn't have a single Pact three intercept a missile,

you could look at this and go, shit, have we treated Europe in a very, very bad way? Because I've always been, if Russia actually managed to break through, Ukraine and try to go to Europe, it would be, you know, it would be a pretty bad day for Russia. All right, guys, let me take a second to tell you about expat money at expatmoney.com slash Scott. It's a guy named Mikhail Thorup. He's a great guy. I've met him.

And he's been an expat for many years and knows the rules and regulations all around the world about buying property and or other investments, how to protect your neck, even get citizenship and passports from other countries. and everything you need to know to be an expat, whether you're afraid of the coming collapse or just fighting modern day price inflation, find out what you need to know about how to protect your neck at expatmoney.com slash Scott. All right, you guys, let's talk about crowdhealth at join crowdhealth.com slash horton

and or use the promo code Horton there to join crowdhealth, join crowdhealth.com. Essentially the gangsters have priced us all out of health. What are you going to do? Well, there's a solution. It's not insurance. It's crowdfunding. And what you do is you pay cash and then your friends and fellow members at Join Crowd Health help defer those costs and you help them when it's their turn.

And it works really well. It's really a great program to replace health insurance. Look at join CrowdHealth.com slash Horton. But at this point, you go, shit. if we look at the actual shell situation, like how many shells does Europe actually have for their guns? How many 1-55 guns actually are there, or all of it being pushed into the front lines in Ukraine, where Russia is able to, they have a defensive line and they're able to just to treat this down as well as the treating economies, that the Russian economy is, of course,

are treating and can be in difficult positions, but so is the Europeans. If you don't think that Germany and France, you're in a really bad position. economically in the future. You're kidding yourself. Volkswagen, they're laying off over 60,000 people in the next couple of years. China, BYD was 4% of vehicle market share in Europe last year. This year is over 10%. It's unbelievably huge.

And of course, well, the manufacturing sector in Europe is, especially Germany's vehicles, Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc. And that's just being undercut everywhere. So there isn't a treating factor here, and where Europe is reliant on, you know, some external forces and a lot of internal sovereign manufacturing, Russia will further and further move towards China, which if you think that for America to maintain a sense of being a unipole, even within clearly a multipolar order, that Russia has pushed towards Beijing, is in the favor of Washington, you're kidding yourself.

The deficiencies that China has and Russia have are basically the exact opposite and fit each other. You couldn't pick a better mix. China has a massive population, big country, but not enough food. Russia, relative, small population, massive country, shitloads of food and resource. On Matt, you just need to have more faith in Joe Biden. He knows what he's doing.

Who knows what he's doing? Biden or the big dog? None of them now. None of them. Sorry, we're not on a bit of a rant there. But down to the factor of we won't see maneuver for a very long time, if ever. The goal here is to a trick your enemy down to reduce their potential and capability, which we are trying to do to Russia.

Here's a thing. But it's not going to be absorbing it. And sorry, we need to understand that we need to look at war too. This war for Russia is seen as existential. This is why they will call it. another great patriotic war as per the Soviets or now Russians would refer to the Second World War. And what I'll say is, if you look at Russia's history of war, it is always absorption and bouncing back from initial catastrophic defeats.

The Russians lost almost 30, or the Soviets lost almost 30 million in the first great patriotic war if you're looking from their perspective. Russia, even by the Ukrainian general staffs figures, okay? So the absolute top end of this figure has lot killed. They would say about 350,000. I believe they say it's about 1.2, 1.3 million overall Kaz. What will mean 350,000? Now, I do not believe that figure. I think it's probably half of that, if at best. But even if that figure is correct, and they see this war as the level that will cost they're willing to incur, you could have millions of casualties. Read, I'll say to people, read a book about a Barbarossa

when the Germans, of course, pushed into the Soviet Union, and look at some of the casualties there. Oh, this town you've never heard of, got surrounded, and there was 200,000 POWs. Yeah. St. Petersburg got surrounded, and there was 10 million people starving to death. You conveniently never hear about this. And people, cannibalism because of these actions.

What I'll say is if you're fighting a war of attrition against a state with their back to the war who believes it is existential for themselves, it will survive a lot longer than you think. And this goes for the Ukrainians as well. So essentially the Russians, despite all the costs, they're willing to stay at war indefinitely and not really speed up the pace. Well, it's existential for Putin and for them. If you've got someone saying, we want to break up your country, we don't want it to exist, you don't have the right to exist,

they will fight tooth and nail. Which is what the defense minister said, by the way, that's a direct quote, the Russia has no right to exist and the Russians freaked out and call them a Nazi, which I don't know if he has actual national socialist background or not, the new commander-in-chief. So can you talk about that, get into the politics

of the cashiering of the defense minister and the top general and their replacements here? Look, I think it's a funny change in, sorry, just one last point. And Ukraine is on that same thing too, that if they see that this war, without a victory or a better

outcome in this war, we will no longer exist. A state will mobilize and use a lot more resources and hang on longer than you would believe. Let's go, that change of the upper echelon. So it's funny to hear that a war

that is being won, that the tide has shifted and Russia is about to have an imminent collapse. has also just seen Ukraine fire and replace defense minister and the commander in chief. Now, I have a few different thoughts about this. Now, I'm no fan of Serski because I think he burns a lot of men in areas. But I do understand that General Serski does understand the Russian doctrine, the way of large ground fighting, very, very, very. very well. He's just too heavily influenced by the ideology of holding ground.

Sureski is a very good strategist. It just sometimes bleeds into ideology of holding a position. Kerski is a great example of this. So it was him versus Mr. Mikhailio Federov, who was the minister or the defense minister in Ukraine. It was basically a young tech bro, he's palanteers guy inside of Ukraine. And they just didn't see eye to all. where Federov would say we can have a war with more technology, less men, drones, and we can win. He was one of the only people apparently in the civilian side, which is the defense ministry and the general staff of the military side at that upper upper level. Apparently he was one of the only people actually saying we can win.

And I think that was one of the reasons he may have been pushed out because if Zelensky and Budinov is now chief advisor, basically, former spy chief, they have both indicated, negotiated by the end of the year. But if you have the defence minister, who is popular, who, of course, Zelensky's pushed out Zerlusne for being too popular, if he's saying no, we can win, and he would actually push back on that,

push back on maybe a settlement, that can cause a lot of problems. But the tech bro basically got pushed out in favour of your more old-school, general military, traditional military-style commander of Sersky. Now, I think that both of these have real elements to add in a war, a war that requires technology and requires involvement, but that still requires men on the front line

and looking that, look, artillery is still the King of Battlefield, even if it doesn't produce these videos that go viral, because there's no camera on an artillery shell. There is a camera on an FPV and you can share around of someone being struck if you're that sadistic and want to watch that. But, And that was the change. And then Fedorov got pushed out. There was minor protests all over Ukraine. And now Sarski has been replaced by Draparte.

Now, there's a little bit of sort of intellectually dishonest propaganda about Draparte, or at least I don't know his ideological affiliations. Again, I'm not really concerned with it because he's compared himself to a German field marshal, a German field marshal, modal. And people go, therefore, Nazi,

I go, no, no, you need to look at what was modal most known for. And I won't know the German words.

I tried to pronounce the other day and got laughed at, but basically, he was the king of attritional defense. And I've gone, if this guy

is the king of attritional defense, he is the guy that Ukraine needs in command right now. But he will grow unpopular because he will have still no other. option but to use a lot of men.

It's unpopular using men. No wonder Fedorov is so popular because Fedorov, the former defense minister, he's saying we can fight a war with less men being killed. And that should always be the goal. But of course you're going to be popular, but the general staff

side, your Serskis and your departes will go, that's nice. We still need a man on a tank. We still need a man in the hole. So he will likely grow unpopular. as well. So there's been a lot of tension in here, a tension between the two different ways of seeing war, maybe even misunderstandings of war and technology. And I think mostly probably from

the civilian side, I think there's an over an overvaluation of drones in Ukraine. I think that they see that the war will be one or lost guy unmanned systems. Unmanned systems can't seize hold terrain. They are useful. They are a battlefield multiplier, but you're not taking positions and holding them just with a drone. The battery will run out or the fuel will run out and then the position will be walked over. Or you get a stoppage on a gun. You get one stoppage and that the thing's done. They're an awesome machine. I say awesome. They're an awesome machine as far as lethality and precision on the front line, that it's not the be all end or. So that's where there's a lot of tension, but I still think the factor that people are maybe overlooking is if you were

going to negotiate something unpopular, potentially by the end of the year, you need your upper team all in agreeance on this and all, you know, falling into line. Otherwise, you end up with, you could end up with a level of coup. Yeah. And in Serski, he was loved by his assault loved by some elements of the assault forces, and they were able to deliver Zelensky successes on the battlefield at astronomical cost, but it did work. So I'm no fan of Sersky, which many aren't. They call him the butcher for a reason. But did he recover Ukraine from really bad positions?

Yes. Did he also put troops in bad position? Yes. Kursk operation, the push into Russia, could have been a stroke of genius. but ended up a stroke of catastrophe. If it was a in operation, grab some Russian POWs, kill some of the Russians on the border and across,

and a raid for a month in and out, it would have been very, very costly for Russians and a stroke of tactical genius from the Ukrainians. This is where, I believe, Sersky's ideology overtook. And note, we're going to now hold this land and at 1,300 kilometers at 1,300 kilometers at an absolute max of that. And it ended up in a disaster.

And Ukraine did lose significant forces and significant resources in curse. Basically, and a second defensive military got burnt up there for no long-term strategic gain whatsoever. Initial tactical gain, zero. It's strategic negative after a while. And this is always the problem. that Ukraine has with a center of gravity, as Kavon Klauschwitz would call a Schwerpont, which is the center of gravity of your nation,

that doesn't sit within your capital, and that it sits in the western capitals for Ukraine, whereas Moscow can make the decision on the ground. So these tanks are going to this area for this operation. And they will just contact, you know, RosTech to build a tank to do X. Ukraine's problem is they still must actually appeal to the democratic countries in Europe, especially, in America, to continue operations.

So Ukraine does need to have offensives or actions that do have an optical impact, even if it would be strategically more important, strategically more efficient or have strategic efficacy to have further withdrawals. The problem is if it's hard to explain military strategy to a democratic country that you're relying on money for. So let me say it like this. Ukraine's best bet would be a elastic-style defensive attrition

and continuously step rearwards and to trick the Russians down and extend the Russian's logistical lines. But what would that look like in the world's media? Well, it would look like Ukraine is losing day in, day up, back, back, back, back, back. Even if you sat down with the general, he'd go, yeah, but we're extending lines and X, Y, Z. No one's listening to that. Ukraine has to mount offensives, even if it is the wrong time to do it in 23 or in Kursk or even in the south at the moment.

Because, well, we have to appeal to these countries. We have to show that we are winning to get weapons in because that's where our Schwerpunk, industrial sector is. So it is a bit of a hand behind a back. But it does appeal. It does also work for them because Russia can't really destroy Ukraine's industrial sector of, say, military equipment because that sits in the West. So that is another factor in this. And many are speaking that could we see strikes into Europe from Russian ballistics? I don't know. I think it's becoming more likely. I still think it's unlikely. But, but, it's definitely growing that we may.

Right. You guys, me here for tax attorney Matt Sersely at aggris tax advice.com. And he is just a real hawk. He serves small businesses and high income professionals who are on the run from the revenues. And his job is making sure that you don't have to pay those sons of bitches one penny more than you absolutely have to. That's Matt Sersley, your new tax lawyer.

He's at agoristtaxadvice.com. My mom always told me you keep drinking that much coffee. You're going to turn into some. Well, look, it's true. Now I'm a coffee. Scott Horton's show flavored coffee. It tastes just like my show. It's great.

Sort of. Well, no, it's Ethiopian and Sumatran coffees blended for your mornings. It's the first thing I do when I get up is for myself a pot of coffee. And then I drink it. See, that's why this mug is almost. empty. And the deal is, it's so good. You never go back to your grocery store coffee again.

And it's Mundo's artisan coffees. Get it because they hate Starbucks because Starbucks supports the war party. But Mundoz Artisan coffees, like, they support peace. And all you got to do to get some is go to Scott Horton.org slash coffee. That's Scotthorton.org slash coffee. So let's wrap up. Let's talk about Iran. I hate to ask you to predict things.

It just whatever. As far as we know, it looks like there very well could be a massive escalation. As we all know, Trump could turn around and go the other way too. But I guess, you know, what's your overall sense of the status of the war? It is very difficult to get a sense on what this administration will do next. Because America's got its hands tied. They're in a difficult position, which, I will say, everybody knew that Iran was going to become a very difficult situation very quickly if you have

military action against them, that, hey, this is not going to be an easy operation. But I see America really has, I see four options. Number one is maintaining the status quo and just continue the bombing campaign, which, how long can America actually continue this with the shortage of Tomahawks and ballistic missile interceptors, which they are low on. And this is dangerously low that a regional war, like Iran, has made American missile systems especially run pretty low considering the world of which we're stepping into. But you can maintain the status quo and a bombing campaign follows the law of diminishing returns. That the longer and longer you strike, the less and less targets

there's going to be that actually have real strategic value. Look at the first two weeks of the war. targets, missile depots, bases, girls' school, we must have bombed that. But after the first two weeks, then we see police checkpoint being hit, a bridge being hit. And you start seeing there's actually a law of diminishing returns in strikes because things just disperse. So you can, one, maintain the status quo, you're not getting anywhere. You're just punching dirt, shooting shit around. Option two is you negotiate an ending.

And of course, that means that you need to take into the realities of the war at this point in time, of which Iran hold a lot of cards because their main cards are, well, what are you prepared to do? How far are you willing to actually take this, given the cost on America? And the cost to America of this war, it's not in resource or man. catastrophically, 18 soldiers have been killed at a minimum. There's been thousands of course killed in Iran. But America and Iran can of course absorb that cost. They're large populations.

The cost to America is international credibility, reliability, and being seen as a force for peace. And this could not come at a worse possible time because unlike when America did actions like this in the 90s and 2000s, there was not another poll. there's a unipolar moment. America's done this and destroying that credibility, reliability around the world and their reputation when there now is another option of China.

And China is looking at this going, thank you. The Chinese I speak to, they referred to Trump internally as the nation-building comrade. That doesn't mean building America's nation. It means building China's nation because here they're going, people are disgusted by your actions, middling powers need to do trade with a major hyperpower, and people are turning towards us. Canada did it. Europe's doing it.

Even Australia to a degree. So the second option is you negotiate, but America is not going to step out of these negotiations in a favourable position. And we'll look at this point in time as per the memorandum of understanding, which of course got thrown out. It will be seen as a failure by the American forces. And we have confirmed that Iran will. go for further deterrence packages of which Israel will not let that occur. Israel see this war

is existential and you will go to existential lengths to prevent an existential war. So strap in for that. That's where I think down that path, things like false flags are incredibly dangerous and could actually occur. Number three is mass ground forces. And you're talking hundreds of thousands of men, potentially like a million men, you're landing somewhere around like Qasem Island. You're landing on the wrong side of Iran because ultimately you'd want to gain the capital of Tehran, which sits relatively in the north. And that's so fucking unpopular because you're going to be in another decade long at a minimum war against a major player with 92 million fucking people with drones.

And I've said this, that you start landing soldiers on Qasem Island on Carlin. or whatever, be prepared to see America's best, America's young lads being struck on camera by drone. That's what we must be prepared for in the next war. And I don't know if liberal democratic countries who live in the West and our sort of safety blanket the West have to any sort of building any resilience, I don't think our society is actually prepared for that in the way that even more militarized societies and more traditional societies like Ukraine, Russia, Palestine, and Israel actually are to see that occur to their

soldiers. I think it would have big ripples. I think it would actually have more psychological impact than you believe. So that's option three. Massive ground war. So unpopular. You would see protests in the street, not off blue-haired lefties. You'd see protests of the street of dudes looking like me, likely some in probably uniform. And four is nuclear strikes, is a limited nuclear strike, which I think is, I would actually say of those final two options, more likely to have a nuclear strike than a massive ground operation. I'm being conventional force ground operation, primarily because, one, it's escalation to de-escalate. Would it work? Well, that's the gamblet, that the cards you put on the table. I probably think, no.

But there's also Pickax Mountain. Pickax Mountain is likely where Iran's nuclear material is at this point in time. And conventional weapons can't fucking touch it. Like conventional weapons, like your mass ordinance penetrator from your B2s will bounce off the fucking thing. It won't even get fucking close. And I do not believe that the stocks of GBU5-7s are in such a way that you could actually conduct their digging campaign with those B-2s, if it's possible at all. We must remember that Fodot facility,

again, there's still questions of whether that was destroyed or not, but that was not under the same rock that pickaxe is under. Pickaxe is under granite, and at least, at least 100 meters, so 300 feet, or just over 300 feet below the surface of granite is then when the underground facility for Iran begins. look through some of the Iranian PhDs that have been entered. Iran holds absolutely world-leading high-pressure concrete.

Even bunker-level concrete is about 14,500 PSI pressure. Granite is from 14,000 PSI to about 30,000 PSI. It's fucking hard. That facility, it's questionable if a B-6011 or 1-2 nuclear bunker b-bbuster could actually destroy it. but they do work in a different way. Whereas a traditional bunker buster is trying to push a penetrator to destroy your bunker, a nuclear bunker buster is trying to push a pressure wave through the surface and collapse underneath,

similar to how a depth charge works against a submarine. You drop a big explosive, pressure through the water and you crush it like a can. And harder rock actually works better because if you have soil, it would just absorb that impact. because it's cushy, but if you have granite, it will just push into that bunker underneath. And, well, Picact Mountain, if that's where the material is,

conventional weapons aren't working. Are you going to have a fucking conventional attack on that with forces or special forces? Hey, Delta and SEALs are fucking good. They're not that good. Because it's going to take weeks because all the Iran will do is they'll blow the entries and exits.

I've no doubt the Delta operators could get there, but then you're going to need fucking 10 bulldozers and lorries to take out fucking 50 meters of soil. You're going to have to, and you're going to have to be there for weeks, and Iran will just artillery or drone the fuck out of your positions there. It's difficult, and it's in sort of like the northwest of the country, which is now where America has a more difficult time suppressing because Israel's not involved in the war. So if you think about, America's primary aerial assets in this war are, of course, in the Gulf and in the Arabian Sea, which of course is close to south and southeast Iran.

Iran's north and west, of course, was more heavily suppressed by Israeli aerial forces who are now not involved in the war. So America's having a more difficult time suppressing this. So that's right. I do believe this escalate to de-escalate could really – people say it's ridiculous. I consider it. I do not doubt that is not a consideration in this war within Washington. But Trump would need to understand that it's, to quote Tim Dillon,

who Tim Dillon is probably one of the better speakers in the world on the Iran situation. It's unbelievable from a comedian. It's over. If America does that, this moment of trust or reputational credibility that America has left, It's over. People will just go, we can't, you drop the fucking nuclear bomb on the, no, it's over. And you would want to be very, very careful opening that can of worms because if I was in, if I was in Ukraine and I saw America drop a bomb on Pickax Mountain or anywhere in Iran,

I would be going to fucking Poland. And if I was in Taiwan, Taiwan's a different case because of the domestic affair they see them as Chinese, but border disputes like this with powers of nuclear weapons, very, very dangerous. But I don't see what other options Trump really has left that are actually actionable, given the deep state, even the CIA and given Israel's influence in America. Can Trump actually negotiate an end to this war that would put Iran in a more powerful position? In my opinion, no. Yeah, break down on nuke's as easier than sitting down at a damn table.

with all these lobbyists screaming. Well, it actually, in my opinion, actually is for America to do that. Trump can deliver a nuclear weapon on target within probably, or within a very fast period, depending on what type it is. But to actually push back against these astronomical powers in the US, and Israel is in there going, well, this is my concern is, once you start this war, you have to fucking end it. the problems. Trump's figuring out to start wars is easy. To start wars is piss easy. To end

the war is fucking hard whether you end it through. A secret key to it, the ancient Chinese secret, just admit you lost. Cut and run that better later. But again, Hey, you're an Afghan war vet. Shouldn't we have just quit that war in 2002? We should have, we should have spoken to or read a single book by the Soviets and gone. That's not going to work. I am waiting for China to have some level of military action in Afghanistan so the Afghanis can beat the three biggest powers in the world. And then India.

And then India. We actually forget how powerful India is, especially their diaspora is incredibly powerful. But my opinion on this is if you start this war, you need to have a clear trajectory of where are you going? and Afghan we didn't have that, obviously. This war, we don't have that. And in this war, if Trump says, yep, okay, we're admitting, we're going to sell defeat to Trump.

He'll believe that. But we're admitting defeat. We're pulling out and saying, this is a mistake. What is the first thing Iran is going to fucking do? Is they going to obtain nuclear weapons or they're going to rebuild their forces? Israel can't have that. Say what you want about Israel. And I've probably said at all.

But they do act as power realists in their area of the world. And they will go, we can't have that, that that is existential to us. We don't care about America's reputation because we're shifting towards countries like India or more of a sovereign capacity anyway. We can't have a more powerful Iran after the war than now. They cannot have that. It upends everything. Therefore, we must keep the US involved in this campaign to destroy Iran.

And that's where I see. Hands are fucking tight. I do not know where this is going. But in my opinion, the cost to America is basically the cost of its once hegemonic status. That if you were to walk down Australia, Canada, probably even America, and say is a world-leading, stabilizing force. and show a photo of Trump and of Xi. I think eight out of ten people would probably choose Xi Jinping, and that is very dangerous position to being with America.

China know it. I think the advisors who aren't drinking the Kool-Aid in America, they know it. And this is where, when Trump went to Beijing, that she warned, let's not get stuck in a facility's trap. Because the facility in trap is that when you have a power shift or you have equalizing power, the ability for you to clash heads is very high, and America's soft power is reducing around the world due to American actions, not due to anyone else's actions, not due to anyone else's actions, America is completely to blame for their own actions.

They're the world's most powerful country. Who else are you going to fucking blame? Don't blame Australian these exports on why things might be more difficult. Fuck off. Don't tariff us. I'm going to speak about shit trade. Like we got tariff yesterday, 12 and a half percent for trade. Well, we pay a massive minimum wage.

And as far as I'm concerned, having to tip for someone's wage being on the someone buying a beer, that's fucking bullshit. It's not my job to make sure you get paid your correct wage. Anyway, you know, it might be Willie's a fucking commie. No, but America's in a very, very dangerous position of a turning point. and they have ushered in a new age of multipolar order by probably two decades. And I think that within the inner party in China and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they would be sitting around going, fuck me.

We thought this was going to take 20 years to have countries see us in a more positive life. Like, think about this. People now in Australia, there was an ABC who's an Australian public broadcaster, they did a poll the other day that showed war people see Chinese party or China as a more stabilising force for good than America.

Now you could argue that to the Kowsk moment. I'm just saying this is what the poll said. Imagine five years ago that you said war people have a faithful view of the CCP than the Republican part. I'm like, fuck me. We've seen a shift unbelievably quickly.

Yeah, and it's really not high praise for them. as most as is just the discrediting of the American empire, which is, forget the China part, but all other things being equal is fine by me. Vampires, nothing but trouble for the American people. We get nothing out of it except terrorist attacks and giant budget deficits and all of the rest of the police state and the rest. It's a dangerous world, but America relies on being America's hubrisers,

which has developed, their international order relies on them being in the number one position. You can't act like Americans, live like Americans do without being in a very powerful international position, being able to bully your way into situation, which is where I see that China is really threatening, threatening that order for America. And America just has zero focus inwards, in my opinion, really at all, to improve the experience for everyday American. So, know that might be easy for an Australian. No, you're up.

And I agree. Our government has the same, but the Australian government, by not doing it, doesn't have the international consequence of which America being the world-leading Western country, it doesn't have the flow-on effect. I struggle when I look across the pond

and go, what the fuck are you guys doing? And it is seemingly, I'm asking myself this time and time again of you're pushing your greatest partners away. Like Australia, you said we did nothing with you in the wars in the Middle East. You tariff us. You put us into these bullshit backdoor deals with submarines that are costing us hundreds of billions and all this.

And it's like, guys, we have fought with you, we've led with you, we've done this, we've done that. Why are we not incredibly close? But why do I, when I come through the American border, get treated as though I am some enemy combatant? Like I'm applying for, you know, it's not even visa free on a rival. Like I have to apply for the, you know, it's an easy visa, but still like that, you can go through all my phone. You can do what? Like, it's, I think America's in a difficult position. I just wish that I'd actually try and plug the holes in the sinking ship because people are seeing it as a dying empire.

Yeah, it's difficult. Well, look, cut the empire loose to save the Republic if you ask me, I mean, not that it ain't long dead, but if there's any part of it left in terms of the form of national federalism in the remnants of the Bill of Rights or any of these things, the only way to cling on to the last of that is by abandoning the world empire. And we can be friends with Australia, but oh, you, nothing, and vice versa. And that's the only way, really, to go forward from here.

But anyway, I'm sorry, I'm so out of time. You're fine, please, please. Thank you so much for doing the show again. It's so great to have you on. And I watch a show all the time. Everybody, please check out. Matt Williams, it's Willie O-A-M over there on the YouTube, man. And best of luck to you with your health thing there.

Thank you, mate. Cheers. The Scott Horton show is brought to you by the Scott Horton Academy of Foreign Policy and Freedom, Roberts & Roberts, Brokerage, Inc., Moondos Artisan Coffee, Tom Woods Liberty Classroom, and APS Radio News. Subscribe in all the usual places and check out my books, Fool's Aaron, Enough Already, and my latest. Provote, how Washington started the new Cold War with Russia and the catastrophe in Ukraine.

Find all of the above at Scott Horton.org, and I'm serializing the audiobook of Provote at Scott Horton Show.com and patreon.com slash Scott Horton Show. Bumpers by Josh Langford Music, intro videos by dissident media, audio mastering by Potsworth Media. See y'all next time.