The President's Daily Brief - PDB Situation Report | August 10, 2024: Iran’s Retaliation Countdown & Ukraine Invades Russia

Episode Date: August 10, 2024

In this episode of the PDB Situation Report: We start in the Middle East, where the world is on edge awaiting a military response from Iran and its proxies following two high-profile assassinations. We'll dive into the latest developments with former deputy assistant to the president Robert Greenway. Later in the show, Ukraine escalates its conflict with Russia, launching a cross-border incursion into the Kursk region. This marks the first time since World War II that a foreign country has occupied any part of Russia. We'll break down the implications with Peter Doran from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. To listen to the show ad-free, become a premium member of The President’s Daily Brief by visiting PDBPremium.com. Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of The President's Daily Brief. Watch this episode on YouTube: youtube.com/@presidentsdailybrief ☕ Blackout Coffee: https://www.blackoutcoffee.com/PDB 🏅 Patriot Gold: Patriot Gold: Call 1-888-870-5457 for a free investor guide. 💵 Tax Network: Tax Network USA: To schedule a complimentary consultation, call 1(800)245-6000 or visit https://TNUSA.com 🕶️ MySudo: Go to https://mysudo.com/mikebaker & use code 'MIKEBAKER' to get 30 days free on a SudoPro yearly subscription. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the PDB Situation Report. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. Let's get briefed. We'll start things off today in the Middle East, where the world is still awaiting a military response from Iran and its proxies, don't forget their proxies, following two high-profile assassinations. We'll discuss the latest news with former deputy assistant to the president, Robert Greenway. A little later in the show, Ukraine, is bringing the war to Russia,

launching a cross-border incursion into the Kursk region. The invasion marks the first time since World War II that a foreign country has occupied any part of Russia. We'll speak to Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Peter Duran, about those developments. But first, the Situation Report Spotlight. Weeks after the high-profile assassinations of top leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah,

Israel is still playing the waiting game on the, quote, harsh revenge promised by Tehran in the Iranian regime. According to reports, Israel is readying for potential attacks against civilian infrastructure, as well as Israeli-linked targets abroad. Meanwhile, leaders of Hezbollah appear to be growing impatient with the group's secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, pledging it will respond to the killing of its military commander by Israel last week with or without the aid of its regional allies.

Israeli officials are now leaning towards the belief that Hasbullah, not Iran, will be the first to launch a major attack on Israel in the coming days. This shift in expectation comes as Tehran is reportedly reconsidering its plans for a large-scale onslaught. According to CNN, which cited two sources familiar with the intelligence, Hezbollah is gearing up to act against Israel independently of any anticipated Iranian response. Now, don't forget, at the same time, Hezbollah is essentially created, resource funded, trained by Iran.

So it's not as if they're completely disconnected here. For more on this, let's bring in Robert Greenway, former senior director for Middle Eastern Affairs at the National Security Council. He's now the director of the Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for National Security. Robert, thank you very much for joining us here at this critical time on the Situation Report.

My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Absolutely, absolutely. Great timing. Listen, this may be a very difficult question to start off with. But from your perspective, why haven't we seen anything yet? I think there was a lot of anticipation that even as early as this past weekend, perhaps on Monday, that this retaliation would take place. So in your assessment, why the delay? I think there are two factors. First is that Iran wasn't expecting the hit that occurred against Ismail Hainia, the Hamas's political chief and leader in Tehran at the inauguration of the new president. So it caught them off guard. And it followed in quick secession, as you pointed out, the strike against Fulad Shukar, the Hezbollah number three,

and also the man responsible for building the missile force, which is the greatest threat to Israel at the current moment. And that's reason number one. Reason number two is I think that they wanted to set in motion a series of activities that would give them time to prepare and build the capability and decide internally what course of action they would pursue. So yesterday they finished the last, I think, scheduled meeting of the Office of Islamic Cooperation, where they brought in regional leaders at the ministerial level to discuss the response to the incident and manage the consequences. So now I would expect we're in the window where a response is viable. I also don't think it's going to be limited to the Middle East. I think they're

capabilities exist and expand obviously beyond it and will be expected to strike Israeli targets civilian and government related as well as potentially American targets and infrastructure outside the region, potentially even in the homeland. So I think all of that is set in motion. They weren't in a particular hurry. They are known to take their time. And I think we can certainly expect the response. And I suspect that we won't have to wait much longer. What do you make of the rumblings from State Department, from White House? There seem to be trying to set the table saying, well, we believe that Iran is actually rethinking this, you know, perhaps they, because they don't want to, you know, create a broader,

wider regional war. So, yeah, there seems to be this effort to create a narrative within the U.S. administration that Iran is maybe thinking about moderating their response. Do you think there's any truth to that? I don't. I think that's wishful thinking. I think the sources of that reporting are coming from the administration. It is the world they'd like to live in, but I don't think that's the world and the reality that we're in right now. And we only have to look at the incident that occurred earlier this week when seven of our service members, two contractors, five, active duty military were injured in Iranian, sponsored militia groups attack on Al-Assad Air Base in Western Iraq.

That occurred during a situation room meeting of the National Security Council, which, as you know, is not advertised generally in advance. This was a lot more theater than substance, but the president, vice president, and the team were convened to discuss the situation and we had seven casualties during the meeting. And we've not responded. And I think that tells you all about the mood in the region and the degree to which the U.S. has established deterrence. It's an illusion.

Yeah. And we can talk about. I want to get into that here maybe in the second half of our conversation in terms of U.S. response, U.S. treatment of Iran. but just looking at this potential for a retaliatory strike, when we talk about Hezbollah, in your assessment, how independent is Hezbollah from the Iranian regime from the IRGC? Do they move in lockstep? Do they take their instructions from the Iranian regime? Or is there a significant degree of independence in Hezbollah's activities?

Yeah, so first in the Middle East context, you know, command and control is a, as a flexible term, I think. It never really applies in the sense that we would internally look at it. Under ideal circumstances, you're not going to get willing and able partners and allies to do your bidding exactly and explicitly, as you've stated. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the constellation of the Houthis, the axis of resistance, all have different relationships with Tehran. All of them are dependent upon Iran for material expertise, mostly funding, and, so,

certainly a broad variety of economic support. Hisbalah, though, is in its own category. It was the first. It's the crown jewel and the Axis crown. And it, as more as than any other organization within the Axis, has the ability to act somewhat independently. It is the best resource. But at the end of the day, they are still completely dependent

for their survival and sustained operations on Tehran. And so it is a bit of a given tape. I would add that Nasrallah, as a leader, also has a unique relationship in that, along with Soleimani before he was removed from the battlefield prudently, exercised a great deal of autonomy. Nasrallah also occupies a position where he has significant influence, even within the Iranian system. And so he and the organization he sits on top of has a degree of autonomy, but at the end of the day cannot exist independently of Tehran. And so there is a bit of a give and take. No other organization enjoys that degree of latitude.

The last thing I'll say is there are no circumstances at which Hezbollah would intentionally escalate a scenario without a degree of approval from Tehran and from the leadership there. Yeah, I think that's, I'm glad you brought that up at the end there, because the idea that somehow they would get off the reservation and engage in some conflict or escalate this thing beyond what the Iranian regime is willing to imagine. I think that's not going to happen. And this is some speculation, obviously, and everybody's speculating on this. But you spend a great deal of time covering this topic. And I'd like to get your assessment on how you imagine this retaliation will break out. Look, the leader of Comini has promised retaliation.

So they have no choice, right? They have to do this. But how do you imagine it to look at the end of this? today? So I think that they're going to employ the full range of options. One, they've been studying our ability to respond and Israel's ability to respond. They learned a lot in the last several months, especially during the April assault where we're at 320 combination of missile and drones launched against it. And again, as we talked about, they've got an asymmetric capability to threaten diplomatic facilities, economic infrastructure, and target individuals, not just in the

Middle East, but in Europe, in Asia, to a certain extent. inside the Americas. And so they have capabilities, and I suspect they're going to employ them in combination. And that's what the Axis was designed to do, to impose costs to deter or to respond to a strike against Iran. And that was the original purpose. Now it's being used since October the 7th in an offensive way. So the direct answer to your question is, I think it's going to be sequential. It is going to start in one vector, but it will eventually include the other. So you'll see perhaps an initiation from from Hezbollah in Lebanon. It could equally come from the Houthis in Yemen.

Obviously, the Israelis responded to the last strike on Tel Aviv by destroying oil facilities in Houdada. It could come from Iraq and Syria. I don't think it would come necessarily from Iran first, but that's also an option. More importantly, I think you can see that all of the inbound vectors, the different directions of attack, complicate effective air defense. And second, that it'll come from a variety of altitude. So it's a different proposition to defend against high altitude ballistic missiles, from land attack cruise missiles to drones. All three are different robops and different vectors.

So they're going to attempt to overwhelm the Israeli air defense system and our own by providing multiple threats and multiple vectors at multiple altitudes. And at the same time, incorporate asymmetric threats from cyber to terrorism outside the area of operation. I think we can expect to see a combination and I think we can expect to see it sequenced over a series. of days, perhaps even a week, depending on the constellation and how well it goes up at first. Yeah, that's a chaotic scenario. But if we look at the issue of self-preservation, and what I mean by that is, look, the mullahs aren't stupid, right? And they're also human, and they like power.

So I would argue that they're not going to do anything that jeopardizes their long-term position here. And the IRGC, which makes a great deal of money, they've got their hands in every part of that Iranian economy. They also understand that they've got a good thing going. So I guess where I'm going with this, Robert, is if you imagine that a wider conflict, something that would break out into direct conflict between Israel, which I assume would have to include then the U.S. and Iran would likely, from a pragmatic sense of, would likely mean the end of the Iranian regime as it currently exists. And correct me if I'm wrong, but in a broader regional conflict that brings these,

these elements together in conflict, do you assess that somehow the Iranian regime could get the upper hand on that, even with their proxies? You see where I'm going with this? I do. And you're not alone. But what I've learned over time is that while they are rational, and they have a deliberate process for making decisions, they're certainly not stupid, they frequently miscalculate. They make a lot of mistakes. And right now, I judge that the Supreme Leader does not envision circumstances that would threaten his grip on power. There are greater and lesser risks

depending on the options employed, but that's why the access exists. So far, no one except Israel has determined that they will impose costs directly on Iran for the actions of their surrogates. And as long as that's the case, Iran judges that Israel alone cannot threaten the survival and that the United States is dedicated to constraining Israel under the current administration's policies and as they publicly stated. So you're right. But the reality that the Supreme Leader is currently living in doesn't, I think, allow for him to envision a real risk to regime survival.

He does, in other words, judge that the United States would join the fray and impose costs on Tehran under most scenarios he envisioned. And again, look at what happened in April. So they launched 320 missiles. 16 were launched after the Kassum Soleimani strike for order of magnitude difference. And only 12 made it to their target. All of them were manageable, older systems. We knew about it in advance.

They told us in advance. 320 protectiles were launching anyone given time. If you and I had to recreate that, I don't know that we could prevent somebody from dying. It's a miracle. I know we're competent. Israelis are competent. It's still a miracle when you launched. that many warheads at any given direction that somebody doesn't get killed.

I think that they envisioned that they got away with it and they'd be able to do it again. And we led them to believe it. So I think that they're likely to miscalculate here. Yeah. No, that is, that's fascinating. I want to pick right back up on that, Robert. But first we've got to take a break. Robert Green may stick around.

Okay, we'll hear from our sponsors and then we will be right back. If you're a listener to the BDB and by God you should be, you know, there's a lot going on in the world today. Authoritarian regimes on the march, war is overseas, and of course, political turmoil across the globe. That's why now more than ever, you should support those on the right side of history. Am I right? Blackout coffee is committed to your values, supporting constitutional rights, and certainly those on the front lines. The troops, local law enforcement, look, they honor all hardworking Americans. I'm proud to recommend blackout coffee. This is a coffee company that's 100% committed to American traditional values.

From sourcing the beans to the roasting process, customers support and shipping, they've got an incredible work ethic, and they're dedicated to promoting your principles, and they accept no compromise on taste or quality. Check out blackout coffee.com slash PDB and use coupon code PDB for 20% off your first order. Ditch those other guys. Get rid of them and stick with blackout coffee. Blackout coffee remains true to your values. That's blackout coffee.com slash PDB and use coupon code Peeb. for 20% off your first order. As we say around here, be awake, not woke. Not loving your AT&T or T Mobile Bill. Yeah, we've been hearing that a lot.

Good news. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile Bill to Verizon and we'll give you a better deal. So get away from that unfortunate phone bill and get to Verizon. Run, ride, canoe. Whatever it takes, we'll be here. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal on the best network. A better deal. No surprises. That's Verizon. Best network based on route metrics, best overall mobile network performance U.S.

Second Half 2025. All rights reserved. It must provide a recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person, regained me the deal, additional terms, conditions, and restrictions apply. Welcome back to the PDB situation report. Let me bring back Robert Greenway. He's a former senior director on the National Security Council and the director of the Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for National Security. Robert, we were just when we, before we went to break, we were talking, you were talking,

and I was learning about the more recent. strike that Iran conducted on Israel and the size scope of it. But also, and you mentioned this, the fact that it was telegraphed. And it was telegraphed, obviously, for a reason, because they were trying to limit the potential for an escalating conflict. So by advising the Saudis and others, they knew that intelligence, that information would make its way to the U.S., to Israel, and there would be a purpose to that. this whatever this retaliatory strike will be as a result of the killing of hanje in tyran

do you imagine that they will go through that same route or will they say no there's no more telegraphing of this well i think there's probably been some debate internal to iran on the degree to which they want to inflict damage and therefore the degree to which they want to telegraph this i think they've come to the conclusion that they could accept more risk ultimately and so what I would expect to see in a, not necessarily a repeat, but on a reprise of what happened in April, a response to the Henea assassination is a less telegraph event that is sequential and designed to really stress the United States and Israel's integrated air defense systems, more than was done so in April. So they're going to turn it up a notch or two in order to evaluate, because each time they do this,

so they want to learn and they want to stress the system continually, because ultimately they want to prevail. They want to ensure that there's as close to zero intercept as possible. They know they'll never get there. So I think they're going to ratchet up and increase the risk because they think they can get away with it. That's just the way they calculate. Is it fair to say, I'm going off the reservation here a little bit now, is it fair to say that there is no short, mid, long-term peace and stability in the region as long as the Iranian regime in its current form exists? Fundamentally, that is correct. As long as they are there, it is a question of the resources available to them and the cost associated with mitigating and containing the risk. But there is never

zero risk as long as they are there. They will be a force of instability. The question is the resources they have access to you. If they have little resources, they're little threat. If they have a lot of resources, they're a great threat. That's the fundamental equation. Okay. And they have managed to make their way through sanctions. They have have managed to maintain relations and they're deepening their relations with Moscow and others. And, you know, even the current U.S. administration has been playing softball with him since, you know, the President Biden took office. You could argue. Some people may argue the opposite. But look, I guess where I'm going, the confusion I've always had in my mind, and I understand,

nobody wants war, right? But everybody wants peace in the Middle East. Everybody bangs on about that. Everybody talks about how horrific the situation is, as an example with Israel and the Gaza conflict and what Hamas did. But Hamas, again, another creature of the Iranian regime. And so I've always been a little bit interested in this notion that, oh my God, we have to prevent a wider conflict here. We certainly don't want to get into a direct conflict with the Iranian regime. While at the same time, there does seem to be a general acceptance of the idea that the Iranians regime is responsible for most of the instability and, you know, instability in the region.

Again, knowing, I'm not warmongering here. I'm just pointing out the discrepancy here that you're constantly putting lipstick on a pig in the Middle East, oh, maybe we can get a ceasefire here, or maybe we can go shade a little bit of a deal over here. And meanwhile, the Iranian regime sits there with a stated objective of destroying Israel, has created a network of terrorist proxies. And probably a number of the regional players, and this is, I guess, where I'm going with this, and I'd love your assessment of it, a number of the regional players in the Middle East would have no heartburn seeing the disappearance of the current Iranian regime. 100% true.

Look, what we found to be the most stable path forward, the most realistic way to obtain our vital national interests, which ultimately are stability of the global energy markets. We don't need their oil, but everybody else in the world does. And as long as we import export, it's got to be managed. not currently being managed. It should be and it could be. That's number one. Number two is stability global trade. Again, as long as we buy and sell, we need stability in the markets. We can't have significant disruptions to it. Number three, prevention of counterproliferation, countering proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, not letting Iran get a nuclear weapon because everyone else will. And then fourth, I think I would argue would be counterterrorism. Now, to get there, the most

efficient path forward is two things. First is to reduce the threat, and that is to deny Iran, access to resources. And it's not that they're bypassing sanctions now. There's no attempt to enforce them. So there's no real evasion required. They're simply doing it because there's no impediment. When we enforce sanctions, we got them down to a point in which it was barely survivable. So that's number one, deny them access to resources. Then number two is we have a choice to make. Either we're going to introduce forces in the region to preserve that balance of energy markets and freedom of navigation, or we're going to build up the capacity of our partners and allies. In the long term, our calculation was we need a new regional enduring security architecture

with Israel at the heart of it as our principal investment and the most capable representative of the United States and its interests in the Middle East to work with our other partners and allies. And so the Abraham Accords was designed to meet with what we called the Middle East Strategic Alliance or Mesa so that we would have a partnership that didn't require a massive investment from the United States that had a weakened Iran, and that would preserve a satisfactory balance and preserve our vital national interest. That was what we were working towards, and I think we made substantial progress in that direction. And I think it's been dismantled in many ways since, unfortunately. Yeah. Yeah. No, it's fascinating. And we could go on for another couple of hours on this, Robert,

but I won't do that to you just yet. We will be calling you because I would love to have you back on in the near future when we can assess what actually happens with this existing current situation to stand off with Iran and Israel. Robert Greenway, director of the Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for National Security. Thank you again for taking the time. We really appreciate you. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Absolutely, man. Take care. All right. Coming up, a surprising twist in the Ukraine war. As Ukrainian forces, get this, launch a blitz into Russia's Kursk region. They've invaded, Russia breaking through Russian defenses. We'll get insights on this with Peter Duran, an adjunct senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. If you've been paying attention

to the financial news, and you really should be in today's turbulent times, experts are beginning to express concern that the U.S. dollar may lose its status as the world standard. Have you been reading about this? Look, the warning signs are there. Saudi Arabia ending the petro dollar, Russia replacing U.S. dollars with the Chinese currency for their trades and BRICS nations attracting countries and trying to get them to move away from the U.S. dollar. The global de-dollarization trend, as we call it, is accelerating. And in times like this, with the ups and downs of the economy, gold is security. Call the proud Americans of the Patriot Gold Group today before it's too late.

Mention PDB and you'll always get best in class service from Patriots protecting Patriots. Patriot Gold Group has the no-fee-for-life IRA, where your IRA or 401K can be in physical gold and silver, and you may be eligible for the no-fee-for-life IRA on qualifying rollovers. Call 1-888-870-5457 for a free investor guide. Patriot Gold Group is Consumer Affairs top-rated gold IRA dealer for seven years in a row. That's a lot of years in a row. Call 1-88-870-5-4-7. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report.

Now, this week brought a surprising twist in the Ukraine war, with Ukrainian forces launching a blitz into Russia's Kursk region. Unlike previous raids by Russian paramilitary units siding with Kiev, this time, it's regular Ukrainian military units doing the invading. Reports say Ukrainian forces have broken through at least two Russian defensive lines. and seized around 45 square kilometers in Kyrsk since starting the operation on the 6th of August. For a bit of historical perspective, this is the first time since World War II that a foreign country has occupied any part of Russia.

In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin, you probably remember him, well, he met with his government and accused Ukrainian forces of, and I'm going to try to say this with a straight face, a large-scale provocation in Kursk. Yes, yes, because, because apparently, They forgot about that whole invade Ukraine thing as a provocation. On the flip side, the Ukrainian government has stayed silent and hasn't commented on what's happening in the Russian border region.

Now, to dive deeper into this, let's bring in Peter Duran, an adjunct senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Peter, thank you very much for joining us here on the Situation Report. Thanks for happening, Mike. Now, let's start at the 30,000 foot level. Give us your perspective. Is this a one-off, is this just for show, or are they seriously intent the Ukrainian military, I mean, on invading Russia and trying to hold territory? Well, I think that's correct, Mike.

Ukraine, and specifically its armed forces have very obviously raised the stakes with this military incursion into Russia. It is different than previous paramilitary groups going in on a thunder run themselves back on the other side of the Ukrainian-Russian border. What we're seeing right now is different in scale and purpose, and it has a near-term and I believe long-term goal. Near-term, the Ukrainians are trying to shift Russian military forces away from the fighting in the east towards their long border in the north with Russia. Longer term, I believe we're seeing something very new here. By occupying territory, Zelensky is creating a potentially powerful bargaining chip in any final negotiation over the end to this war of national self-defense. This is a new development

and something that the Ukrainians could achieve if they can hold on to what they have taken inside Russia. As you said, Mike, the first time since World War II that a sovereign country has invaded and occupied Russian territory. Now, what have you heard about the logistics of this operation? How many are we talking about here in terms of the Ukrainian military side? How many personnel? What sort of hardware are we looking at? We're looking at least two battalions and numbers have been all over the place. Somewhere around 1,000 troops could be involved. I do have to stress, Mike, we are deep in the fog of war right now.

As is tradition with the Ukrainian government, they are extremely disciplined when it comes to saying nothing during major military operations. They have been extremely disciplined just like. late-breaking today, President Zelensky offered the first slight hint into his thinking. He said, well, Russia has been attack invading our lands. We're going to show them what it's like. Interesting that he stressed lands. Again, it appears that the Ukrainians are attempting to create some kind of military buffer that would protect their northern cities and towns in the event that they could trade that land away. And Mike, that's something for everyone to consider. Right now in Ukraine, the majority of the population is very strongly opposed to trading away

Ukrainian land for peace. It would be a political mistake for Zelensky to try. However, what if he were to trade Russian lands away from peace, lands that he has now occupied? I think that's the play here. The Ukrainians have been silent, but we could perceive their tensions by what they've achieved so far. How far are we talking into Russian territory? How many miles? How many kilometers are we talking about? As of earlier this morning, and again, we are in the fog of war.

The Ukrainians had made it at least six miles, definitely six miles into Russian territory. Some reports, unconfirmed from Russian sources, Russian military bloggers indicate that perhaps Ukrainian forces have made it farther along. They very clearly look to be moving faster than the Russians were ready for. And that's an important lesson here, Mike. The Ukrainians took a page from Sun Tzu's art of war, attack where your enemy is weak, youth surprise, and take as much land as possible before they can respond. That's what we're seeing. And it's been well supported with indirect fires, artillery, and logistics. This was well planned and executed. Yeah. Now, it also implies that if the intention is to hold the land in some sort of, you know,

bargaining chip, that they've got to be able to do that. And the concern has been for some time now the difference between, you know, manpower capabilities, personnel on the Russian side and the Ukrainian side, when they're worried about holding the line in areas where, you know, the Russian military has been, you know, making some ground. They have been gaining ground in their latest efforts. How do you, how does the Ukrainian military imagine that they'll be able to, essentially what they're doing is stretching their resources even thinner? So talk to me about that. How do you anticipate that holding up? Well, the fact is, this is a high risk, high reward gambit that Kiev is currently playing. You are absolutely correct. The fighting in the

east and south of the country has been bitter. We have seen very serious losses on all sides. And the fact is, Ukraine does not have an infinite manpower supply. They are running low, so relatively speaking, compared to Russia, on the number of young men and women they can put in a uniform and get them onto a battle line. So by moving towards where Russia has been weak, by encountering what looked to be poorly trained conscript soldiers and perhaps some Chechen irregular troops, the so-called TikTok army from Chechnya, by hitting hard there, they certainly caught the Russians off balance, and now we can anticipate the Russians to hit back. This would force Russia, on the other hand, to move some of its forces, potentially out of the eastern battlefields to harden its defensive lines,

around territory that the Ukrainians have taken. Now, but if you move, I mean, let's walk through this a little bit if we could. If you move six plus miles into Russian territory, say a couple of battalions, if that's the case. And you're right. Earlier you said the numbers are all over the place, and that's kind of been true throughout this entire conflict, whether we're talking about casualties or just assessment of existing operations. But if you're talking about moving, say, six miles into Russian territory and you're talking,

talking about a couple of battalions. You've got to keep them supplied. You've got to resupply. You've got to maintain contact. You can't just drop them in there and say, hold this turf until someday when we can use it as a bargaining chip. So talk to me about from what you've seen, and you cover this extensively and you've had a great deal of time now to assess both sides in terms of their abilities and resources, talk to me

about where this, from your perspective, will likely go. Again, I keep looking at this and thinking maybe it's a one-off. Maybe it's a bit of a dog and pony show to try to, you know, stick a thumb in Putin's eye. Yes, it's a distraction. Yes, he's going to have to move some troops. But I'm just wondering that the long-term viability of this seems at odds with reality. I think the Ukrainians are very clearly thinking ahead to, say, six months from now. What if there is more pressure from the next presidential administration to force all sides to a negotiated settlement. The Ukrainians, as I said before, there is a political and military dimension to this fight, Mike. A political dimension cannot be underestimated. I think

there is some thinking that they needed a bold gambit at this point to take Russian territory to invade or have this invasion or a Persian into Russian territory, hold what they could, and perhaps aim to trade that away. This is shaping. up to see a Russian counterattack just before we went on. Some, again, Russian military bloggers, unconfirmed reports and voices from inside the Russian government indicated that a counterattack was underway. We may have seen the opening of an additional front. If the Ukrainians can hold it, they will have an advantage for the endgame. And I think that's what's driving this. Need, urgency and a view towards how this fight is ultimately resolved, Mike.

What do you think is the manpower advantage for the Russian military at this stage of the conflict? You know, this is a question many people have asked. I actually looked into it. It's not so much the wrong numbers. The wrong numbers definitely go to Russia's advantage. Russia simply has a far larger pool of young men. fighting-aged men, that it can put into a uniform.

The catch is how hard the Russian government can squeeze its own population without hitting a major political blowback domestically. Think back to the autumn of 2022 after the expanded invasion went sideways on Putin. They started running out of troops, and they initiated a, I'd call it a tentative recruitment and conscription drive, and they saw immediate and severe political backlash to that effort. Imagine a child touching a stove and learning that's hot. That's basically been the reaction of the Russian military when it comes to conscripting its own citizens and putting them into the Ukrainian meat grinder.

The alternative has been to just offer a lot of money for someone to volunteer, take the cash and go and essentially get killed in the Russian battlefield. Excuse me, the Ukrainian battlefield. So the issue isn't so much, hey, let's do a back of the napkin calculation. How many millions do the Russians have versus Ukraine? It's how many soldiers can Russia squeeze out of their own population without inferring severe political political blowback to that action? I don't think the Russian government knows, but we do know they are very worried about squeezing

too hard. Yeah, I think we've already seen a fair amount of pushback from the Russian population. And the longer this goes on, you can't help but think that, you know, that's got to be part of Putin's calculation in terms of possibly approaching the negotiating table. Peter, if you'd stay right there. We've got to take a quick break because we do have some terrific sponsors. But we'll be right back with Peter Durant from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Are you overwhelmed with back taxes or unfiled returns? Look, with 88,000 newly hired agents, yeah, I said 88,000 of them, the IRS has increased enforcement issuing

millions of pay-up notices in 2024. How would you like to walk out to your mailbox on a bright sunny day? You're all happy. Maybe you're whistling in a tune. You open up your mailbox and there's a pay-up notice from the IRS. Look, don't face IRS collection tactics alone. Tax Network USA can help. As the nation's premier tax relief firm, they've negotiated over, get this, one billion dollars in tax relief for clients. Services include penalty forgiveness, hardship programs, and offering compromise solutions. Now, whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, my God, how do you owe $10 million? Their experts can assist. Behind on taxes, well, they can guide you in catching up. Protect your financial security. Contact Tax Network USA for strategic advice on reducing or eliminating

your tax debt. To schedule a complementary consultation, call 1-800-24-5-6,000 or visit tnusa.com slash Mike. Don't let the IRS control your life. Empower yourself with Tax Network USA's support and take charge of your financial future. Visit tnusa.com slash Mike today. You know, every day we hear more about surveillance and how our right to privacy is being infringed upon. It's true. It feels like we're living in a world where nothing is truly private anymore. Now, for most of us, for the sake of convenience, we hand over our personal information without a second, signing up for services, shopping online or using social media. Here, here's my personal information, you take it.

But this convenience comes at a cost. It's time for us to take a stand and fight back for our right to privacy. Now one tool that's been essential for me in this fight is the all-in-one privacy app. It's called MySudo. And you spell that M-Y-S-U-D-O, MySudo. It's an app that lets you create multiple digital identities with separate phone numbers and emails so you can keep your personal information. private. In this age of constant surveillance, having MySudo is crucial. Look, for my listeners,

I've got a special deal. Go to mysudo.com slash Mike Baker and use code Mike Baker, just like you imagined it would be, to get 30 days free on a pseudo pro yearly subscription. Take back your privacy with MySudo. Trust me, it's worth it. Welcome back to the PDB situation report. Let me bring back our guest, Peter Duran. He's an adjunct senior fellow at the Foundation for the defense of democracies, and we're basically knee-deep right now in the Russian-Ukraine conflict. Peter, let's talk about another aspect of this incursion by the Ukrainian military into Russian territory, and that is the U.S. perspective on it. There's obviously sensitivity at the White House and at the Pentagon over the use by the Ukrainian

military of U.S. hardware, munitions and weaponry. What have you heard about that? How much pushback might the Ukrainian military get for this? Because this is no longer firing a missile towards Russian territory to take out, you know, munitions coming in towards Ukraine. This is actually boots on the ground holding territory in Russia. Well, you know, Mike, there's been a lot of criticism of the Biden-Harris administration's policy towards Ukraine to essentially tie one hand behind their back and have the so-called drip.

drip-drip approach to the release of weapons. We can think back to how long it took to provide the Ukrainians with long-range fires like the attack-em's missile. This is a very powerful capability. The Ukrainians now have it. It just took two years to put that into the field. So this has been the general approach. I will flag that the Ukrainian military operation into Russian territory appeared to have caught most of the U.S. government on the back foot. We saw the State Department admit we had no idea this was going to happen. John Co. The National Security Communications Advisor to the White House said openly, yeah, we're asking the Ukrainians what's going on in order to get a better idea of their intentions.

So the U.S. government was caught on the back foot as a result of this operation, but it does look like the Ukrainians are at least using some U.S. equipment for this fight. Again, fog of war, I've been seeing sub videos don't know what's confirmed or not. We will learn more from the Ukrainians about this. Bottom line, the U.S. government has not screamed bloody murder yet about the use of Western equipment in this operation. That's significant. Yeah.

Do you believe the White House, do you believe the State Department when they say, we had no idea? Or are they just doing, is that kabuki theater? Are they just, you know, acting as if they had no idea? Not that I give them a lot of credit for being able to do that very well. But to what degree do you think perhaps there was coordination and they just want plausible deniability to say, hey, we had no idea. Sorry about that.

I think it's the latter. Plausible deniability is the phrase of the day when it comes to this operation. It's very difficult to assemble that much, that many military personnel, that much equipment, having your long-range fires right there on the border ready to provide artillery cover to Ukrainian troops as they move into Russian areas. It's really difficult to hide that from our eyes in the sky, let alone from our close relationships with the Ukrainian military. So I think plausible deniability is key here, especially since we're dealing with a nuclear-armed state like Russia. It's better for the United States to claim ignorance now and pretend to go sort out

the questions. Now, if the State Department and the White House are being honest and they had no idea, well, that shows the Ukrainians were really able to maintain intense operational secrecy in advance of this incursion. Yeah, maybe they were just confused over who to coordinate with at the White House. They're not sure who's in charge. That could be part of it. Good question. So, okay, well, yeah, if we genuinely didn't know about it, then that doesn't say much about

our liaison on the ground with Ukrainian forces. It doesn't say much about our Sagan capabilities, our photo analysis. our ability to understand, you know, what's happening on the battlefield. So I'm going to go with the notion that they, you know, there was some element of coordination, but they don't want to be caught out being aware of and perhaps resourcing an encouragement into Russia for obvious reasons. Let's play the game where we ask you a question that's basically impossible to answer, but I find it entertaining. Well, I love that. My favorite kind of game. Go for it. Okay. Let's go with six months from now. You had mentioned six months earlier in our conversation.

Where are we in this conflict in, say, six months' time? From your perspective. I think we have to take very seriously the possibility that the next presidential administration, whether or not it will be Donald Trump or Harris, that next presidential administration is going to look for an answer to the question, what does the end game look like? Remember the fight that Congress put up over the additional supplemental military support for Ukraine. I think we got an indication that any future acts of Congress for more billions in military assistance to Ukraine, something that I support, but I think Congress is really reaching its limit there. The Europeans have stepped up, good for them, but without the United States Congress providing additional billions of

to keep Ukraine in this fight alongside with our allies, I think either the Harris or Trump administration are going to be looking for some kind of negotiated settlement. Trump has said he will solve this war on day one, possibly. But I think there's some more complications involved. But again, that's where I went to. You're saying we may not be able to solve this conflict in one day? I think it might be more difficult, but, you know,

Trump likes to use. rhetorical hyperbole to underscore a deeper point. I think that's what he was saying. And that's why I just see this move to grab and hold Russian territory as a new kind of chip at the negotiating table. It's also been very politically damaging, Mike, to Putin. Remember, Putin's whole regime is predicated on the promise. I am the one who will keep you safe. I'm the one who makes Russia strong and provides for your security. Now with this occupation of Russian lands, we've seen the second time in six months. The first was a shocking terrorist attack unrelated to this event, but a shocking terrorist attack in Moscow six months ago. That rattled a lot of people. It

showed that Putin's narrative was a true. And now this event, there are a lot of Russians in the Kursk region who are asking themselves, is Putin really keeping me safe? My home just got bombed. I had to flee with my pets. Yeah. From your experience, look, it's not 30 years ago. right? Information is not as tightly held and controlled and controllable inside of Russia as it used to be. But from what you're seeing, how aware is the general Russian population as to what's happening over the past few days? Telegram has been a game changer. So social media apps are, many of them are tightly restricted, but Russians have access to their own social media platforms, telegram, Periscope being another one. They're actually getting information out.

Not all of it's confirmed, but the open intelligence community has gone through and verified some of these videos and claims that Russians themselves are making on social media. Telegram's a big game changer, even though the state nominates the airwaves, news still travels, and facts do get out, Mike. Another impossible question for you before we have to wrap it up. Did I win on the first one? Fire away. We will be calling you back. So I hope you pick up the phone the next time we call because I don't think this problem is going to be solved in short order. But we talked about six months from now, yes, the U.S. administration, whichever it is,

will be looking possibly for a negotiated settlement. Do you imagine that any settlement could involve Crimea being returned to Ukraine in other? So it's Putin being willing to give up Crimea. I think Crimea will be a prize that Putin will not easily give up, frankly. This peninsula holds strategic significance for both Ukraine and Russia. Remember that when this war began in 2014, Vladimir Putin held a giant celebration on red square flanked by two enormous jumbotrons under the message, we have a giant celebration. We are together once again. Putin has promised the return of Ukraine, Ukrainian territory like Crimea.

It's a big price for him. It is an illegal occupation on his part, but I don't see him giving it up unless put under immense pressure. Okay. Peter, this has been fascinating. And like I said, we will be pestering you to come back to the situation report again. and hopefully in the near future, because this incursion into Russian territory, as you pointed out at the beginning of a conversation, is a fascinating and very significant development. Peter Duran of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Thank you for joining us today and sharing your insights.

Thank you for having me, Mike. Talk to you soon. Well, all right, that is all the time we have for the PDB Situation Report. On that cheery note, if you have any questions or comments, please, reach out at PDB at thefirstTV.com. The PDB staff, of course, and including, and we can never forget, our crack team of interns, they love getting your emails, your faxes,

your Western Union telegrams, your beeper messages, and every month, of course, we take a bunch of those questions and comments, and we bundle them up, and we put them into a monthly episode that we call Ask Me Anything, right, within reason, okay, let's keep it reasonable and polite. To listen to the podcast of this show, ad-free, become a premium member of the President's Daily Brief by visiting PDB Premium.com. It really is that simple.

And remember, new episodes of the Situation Report. They air every Friday at 10 p.m. on the first TV. And, of course, they're on all a podcast platforms. And our YouTube channel, don't forget our YouTube channel, it has turned into a juggernaut at President's Daily Brief. I'm Mike Baker. And until next time, well, you know the drill. Stay informed.

Stay safe. Stay cool.