The Team House - Is Washington Negotiating Russia’s Terms to Ukraine? | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Aizond Geopolitics. I'm here with Jonathan Hackett, Mick Mulroy, Andy Milburn, and myself, Andy's leaving. See, Andy. Good seeing you. May congratulations on your daughter getting married. Thank you. Slongin.

Starting point is 00:00:18 You're welcome. Yeah. And we got a lot cooking, as usual. We just had, we just had Uncle Steve Wickoff and, you know, and Jared Kushner head over to Moscow to talk to Putin. And now they are in. Currently we're shooting this right 11 a.m. on Sunday. Eastern time.

Starting point is 00:00:40 They are now in Ukraine talking with Zelensky. I didn't really see a lot of like the readout. I want they really talked about in Russia and stuff like that. I did make a joke on Twitter that they went to get their marching orders from Putin and then are going to Ukraine to like give Zelensky a laundry list of stuff. I did see a little bit of some stuff, a clip of like Wikov kind of. just glazing Putin, basically, which was incredible to me. Like, we're going to be old and we're going to be thinking about these is really good times.

Starting point is 00:01:09 Like, bro, you're not leasing a strip wall, brother. This is like people dying every single day in a legal invasion by Russia into Ukraine, into a sovereign country, democratic country. So not exactly like just a feel good thing to be talking about and like with such kind of, very blasé, I'd say. where are you guys at? What are you think is going to come out of this? Did you get any readout as to what they were talking about?

Starting point is 00:01:38 Were there any specifics? Mick, you go ahead. On the substance of the meeting, also they discussed U.S. Marine veteran Robert Gilman, who had been imprisoned in Russia unlawfully for four years because he was teaching in Russia. He was held there as a political prisoner. And last month, the U.S. negotiated for his release. And in this meeting just this weekend, the delegation thanked Putin for releasing him. So the question is what was exchanged?

Starting point is 00:02:08 That's not been discussed. I don't think what was exchanged for that person, that American to return home. So I think that's important for people to pay attention to as well that these things aren't free. Russia's not releasing people for charity. There's absolutely something that was given in return. And it would be interesting to see what that thing was. Besides what you already mentioned, Mick, which are all very important, like strategic global things. There was a more tactical issue I noticed when Kushner was getting off the airplane.

Starting point is 00:02:34 He was wearing white Nike tennis shoes, jeans, and a black t-shirt, and everybody else was in a suit, including Kirill Demetriev, the presidential envoy, which is the equivalent of Whitkoff, but on the Russian side, wearing a full black tailored suit, clearly indicating, you know, sartorial decisions are decisions, and people choose to wear what they're wearing to send a message. if you remember when the CEO of Twitter was in Congress testifying, he famously refused to wear a suit, even though the dress code is a suit and refused to, you know, dress appropriately. I feel like Wittkoff is, sorry, Kushner is doing something like that in this meeting where he's intentionally dressing down. Just something interesting that I noticed in the image, if you look at it. And also, Demetriev said, so he took a bunch of pictures and released some pictures on his ex account and he said, welcome to Moscow peacemakers.

Starting point is 00:03:24 That was how it was advertised on the Russian side in Russian. through task media was that these are peacemakers arriving in Russia, which is something very interesting as well. I will say this. I hate Kushner as much as the next person does. He wore that like when he got off the plane, but in the meeting with Putin, he was suited up. True, true. But it's just like, I mean, if you've done these kind of flights when you're like, for example, when I was at the couple of embassies, we would get these diplomatic or these distinguished visitors coming in, you know, usually a secretary or somebody hired than that. There's a protocol. There's a dress code. There's very specific ways that you have to appear as soon as you get off the aircraft. You know, for example, one time we were

Starting point is 00:04:01 receiving the Secretary of State in a country I was in and the Secretary of Defense as well. And the senior person on my side of the delegation forgot his tie. And because he forgot his tie, all of us had to remove our ties because we couldn't be dressed above his level. So like, this is like carefully orchestrated stuff that was not an accident. And it wasn't just because he wanted to be on casual Friday. There was, there was a choice in how he dressed. Yeah. I mean, I, I would say that is, that's such a. pathetically minor gesture compared to, you know, the central part of this is this, that the pattern since, where are we now? So the pattern since last year, early last year, is that we send,

Starting point is 00:04:45 we the United States, we send the same envoys to Moscow first, they come away with the gesture, right? In this case, the release of, um, dormant. And then they carry the Russian framing to Kiev and to Europe. So, you know, whatever the intent, whatever Kushner is wearing, the sequence in which the United States is doing this makes Washington kind of the broker of Russia's terms, right, rather than the backer of the side it's supposedly allied with, which is Europeans and Ukraine. And so, you know, that's one thing I find disheartening. Putin's got no reason to stop, right?

Starting point is 00:05:32 As long as we do it this way, he believes that time favors him. You know, I get it, that absolutely the Russians are losing what to us is an incomprehensible amount of people on the front every month. But until that translates into some groundswell movement in Russia, and even then, it's, it's hard to see it affecting Putin or putting them in a bind. I mean, in return, you know, Ukraine is having a manpower crunch, something, by the way, I predicted on Substack two years ago. Western attention has been firmly on Iran, and the U.S. administration keeps showing up in Moscow.

Starting point is 00:06:14 So, I mean, negotiation only works. I'm laughing a little bit here because we don't appear to be very adept the negotiation, the art of the deal. But negotiation only works when the other side thinks that continuing costs more than negotiating, right, or agreeing to a settlement. And nothing in our current approach changes that calculation for Putin. I mean, Putin's concessions are all theater. You know, Gilman's released a weekend pause. That costs Russia nothing. It buys headlines and you know they're just

Starting point is 00:06:53 kind of treating them as goodwill rewards and it just invites more it really seeds ground again to the Russians I also what I one thing I found like kind of weird is like every time that they would have a it would be reported that we're talking with Zelensky or Zelensky's coming to America

Starting point is 00:07:12 and stuff like that President Trump would always have a phone call with Putin beforehand and to me just the lame and it looks like what it looks like when Whitkoff and Kushner go to Moscow first before they go to Ukraine, it kind of looks like

Starting point is 00:07:27 like they're getting their marching orders and essentially going to negotiate Russia's terms to Ukraine. Even with the phone calls with Trump. It's happened like multiple times before Trump met with Zelensky. I don't know if that's protocol

Starting point is 00:07:43 or whatever, but like it seems like why the fuck do the Russians keep talking first? Why don't we get what the Ukrainians want and be like, this is what they want, bro. Like, and you're invading a country, dude. Like, who were you to dictate terms? You're not doing it well. Who were you to dictate terms?

Starting point is 00:08:01 That's my, yeah, that's my point. You know, and there's another point, too, doubtless, our regional allies in the Middle East are watching, right? So, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Doha are probably drawing conclusions from how Washington treats Kiev. Also, the Iran negotiators are looking at this. think about how differently we're approaching the Ukraine-Russia negotiation versus the Iran, U.S., Israel, because there's three countries on both of these conflicts that are negotiating in different ways. The U.S., first of all, would never visit Iran to negotiate before talking to Israel, first of all, right?

Starting point is 00:08:34 They also don't call the Iranians first to talk about what they're going to talk to Israel about before talking to Israel. And Israel's on our side, and Ukraine's on our side. And just look how starkly contrasted those two approaches are to how the U.S. is approaching both of these conflicts, neither of which are going in the U.S.'s favor to the exact degree that we wanted to go. But it's just kind of interesting to look at that choice. And it's the same people, Wittkoff and Kushner. It's the same human beings on both of these teams, right? You know, in deference to the section of our audience who are downhearted by the fact that we're always pointing out bad things and suggest that we are being overly pessimistic,

Starting point is 00:09:13 I would say there's not, well, there's not a lot to be too optimistic about, but in terms of solutions, you know, I mean, it's simple here. Go to Kiev first, agree the terms with Zelensky and the Europeans, then present them in Moscow. And, you know, the other thing is put leverage on the table before the talks, right? But say, I mean, look what we're doing against Iran. Do the same against Russia. Secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian crude, go after the Russian shadow fleet, the banks that, that are aligned with Russia, you know, enforce all of these things the same way that we're enforcing the Iran blockade. Russia's, you know, and John Cremier from Ron, but Russia's budget, its war budget, runs on oil revenue.

Starting point is 00:10:05 And so the same tools that squeeze Iran will probably work against Russia. And then at the same time, restore the weapons pipeline and say so publicly, right? I know I get it. I understand all the arguments. I've got a good friend, the senior executive Lockheed Martin, so I understand all the arguments about Patriot Interceptors, but step it up, you know? Still, we could still be able to do that, raise Ukraine to a higher priority for Patriots

Starting point is 00:10:39 and long range precision fires, you know, all of these things. And, yeah, as I said, announce it and stop, you know, as far as Ukraine, stop leaning on Ukraine to pause the air war. I mean, Ukraine's deep strikes are the one lever that actually reaches Russian decision-making. You know, and we've talked about the pressure they're putting on the Russians here. It's a significant amount of their oil refinery, the energy infrastructure based on oil is getting hit. Yeah, and harassing the rear area in those. deep strike scenarios, it's not just a one-for-one thing, like you just strike and that's the damage. It also has a moral effect on the population. It demoralizes those who are connected to those

Starting point is 00:11:30 industries. And it kind of, it goes far deeper. It's got like exponential impact if you're able to strike something far, far inside the country versus at the front line. It brings the war outside the theater into the place where the people think they're safe. And that has a huge impact. I have a question. If you're Ukraine, right? And you kind of see the messaging, right? Because, like, obviously, U.S. is, you know, pretty focused on Iran and what's going on there. But when you see, like, the, like, Scott Basset go on the news and talk about how the reason oil is spiking up a little bit is because the Ukrainians are striking oil infrastructure in Russia as if.

Starting point is 00:12:15 That's like a bad thing and like kind of comparing Ukraine and what they're doing with those deep strikes on oil infrastructure to like Iran closing the straight over moves and you know and blocking shipping essentially. The fact that like I don't know if those are talking points that are given or this guy's just flailing because everything he's done is fucking hurt the economy more and more percent. But to like lump Iran and Ukraine into the same. kind of basket, it's very different, right? Because on paper, Iran is our enemy, right? Like, whether you believe that this war that we started was a good thing or not, you know, Ukraine's not the enemy. It's like very clear Russia's the enemy.

Starting point is 00:13:01 And it's weird that this administration particularly does a lot of like spinning, for lack of a better word, for Russia. If you're Ukraine and you're seeing this, like, I know it's a delicate situation. They need the info. They need our intel and stuff like that. But at what point are you like, guys, whose fucking side are you really on? The problem with what the Senate says is a lot of...

Starting point is 00:13:30 Sorry, Mick, you're a little lagged. I think you're like a few seconds back. Let's go Mick and then, John, you pick up right after Mick. Okay. Yeah, so I was going to say is the Ukrainians don't have a choice. This is how Russia raises money to fight the war. So if they don't go after their ability to fund themselves, just like we're going after the Iranian's ability to fund our third, like we're having an effect, the Iranian economy is in a free fall

Starting point is 00:13:56 right now. That's what the Ukrainians are trying to do. They're trying to cut off the source of funding for the Russians. And one thing I wanted to point out to the Internet went down is Russia's help in Iran. They actually came out and announced relatively recently that they're going to do everything they can to help Iran get past the economic restrictions that the U.S. is putting on them. So the fact that they're not our friend is clear. And they're providing, I think, a lot of the intelligence that they're using to say, and I know we're going to get to it, target our military. So Ukraine has no choice.

Starting point is 00:14:37 They're fighting a war against a very large enemy. started it and Russia is clearly not our friend they are they're doing what they can to help Iran basically deal with our strategy which is to economically isolate the regime and cut them off for their funding so I think it's clear I mean people have different opinions but I don't believe that's an opinion I believe that's that's pretty much a fact hello everyone if you're hearing this you are not a member of the Patreon you can get your hands on at free episodes that come out early and you can ask us questions maybe we'll answer them you can also watch the team house podcast completely ad free and early and you can also watch it live as we interview

Starting point is 00:15:24 our guests um and it's the best way to support the channel so if you can if you're open to it you can go to patreon.com slash the team house that link is in the description uh we appreciate the supporters and we hope you would consider being one so it's patreon.com slash the team house thanks guys Yeah, and I'll mention that too, the kind of unity between the Ukraine theater and the Iran theater. There have been numerous overlaps in combat between these two theaters since 2021 and even earlier, obviously. But the Alabuga Shahid drone factory and Russia is a key thing to point at that there is a unity on their side over both theaters. It's not about the U.S. thinking both are connected. It's those adversaries believe they are connected both militarily and financially.

Starting point is 00:16:11 And a great thing to point out for the financial side, the Caspian Sea route between northern Iran and Russia is a key trade node that they control. You've got other countries in the caucuses region that are either aligned with Iran or aligned with Russia or neutral or aligned with Turkey, and Turkey's allowing it to occur. And that Caspian Sea route is providing a lot of trade, not just oil and gas and things like this, but food and other materials that Russia or Iran does. depending on which material it is, can't get their hands on internationally. And they have this kind of closed domestic sea route that they're able to, it's as if the U.S. and Canada were friends again and we were shipping back and forth across the Great Lakes. You can kind of think of the Caspian Sea like this. It's an open space for them that it's hard for the rest of the world to access, right?

Starting point is 00:16:58 So that's something important between those two countries that they're both helping each other in both of these conflicts, right? And then, you know, the way that we're going after Russia with sanctions, there are plenty of sanctions against Russia. Don't get me wrong. But it's about what do you do with them? And there was a great article in the Wall Street Journal last week about the Russian oligarch yacht seizures. So we've been seizing a bunch of these big expensive yachts. The problem is there's one, for example, in Italy that's just sitting there docked. U.S. taxpayers have to pay for all the staff, all the food, all the fuel, the docking fees, the dry dock fees. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars a month to keep these yachts alive.

Starting point is 00:17:38 while we have them sanctioned and captured in these foreign ports. And there are dozens of these yachts. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. taxpayers are paying. So it's like where is the actual punishment going? Because the U.S. government and taxpayers are keeping these yachts that belong to these oligarchs in pristine condition while they're captured from the oligarchs. So it's like we're taking care of the oligarchs yacht for them. And I'm sure they can get another yacht because they're wealthy.

Starting point is 00:18:04 So it's this very strange kind of offsetting that the U.S. is doing where we have a very strategic view of sanctions, but as soon as they trickle down to the tactical level, we're kind of forgetting what we're supposed to be doing with these sanctions or thinking about what are the actual effects on the ground, both to the oligarch and to the American taxpayer. I thought that was interesting. I think readers should definitely check out that article. Yeah, I was going to say, like, take the staff off and just fucking sink the fucking problem is they're trying to sell some of these, and depending on which jurisdiction they're

Starting point is 00:18:36 and they're trying to sell them and like rename them. And the problem is insurance companies are like, we will not insure that vessel because the person who owned that vessel before it was taken was a murdering psychopath working for the government of Russia and they're probably going to murder the next owner of it. Like this is the concern that these insurance companies have. So just like the insurance companies in the Straits of Hormuz with like Maersk, for example, they're like, well, maybe you say it's safe, but is it safe? I don't know. I'm not going to bring my actuaries to tell me that that's actually safe enough to insure. So of course, the buyer won't buy it because the buyer doesn't want to have an uninsured

Starting point is 00:19:08 $50 million boat off the coast of Italy, right? So there's a huge change. challenge here where, okay, we've got our sanction, but okay, what next? Sorry, you did the Ukrainian Navy. Yeah. Excellent idea. Just sail it into the Black Sea and let them deal with it. Let them shoot out, like send over a jet ski or drone jet ski and just let it rip. Take the people off of it.

Starting point is 00:19:30 Don't kill the staff, all right? I'm still a lib. Let's, we were going to talk about the AEI report. Let's do that next after this. Let's talk about Iran and the hypersonics. and the fact that we can't stop them. John, start us off with that and enlighten us a little bit. So hypersonics generally are a big issue because they travel so fast that they're hard to defeat.

Starting point is 00:19:57 And that's kind of the point is that with missiles, because of physics, the more advanced our air defense gets, the faster a missile has to go to defeat it, depending at what altitude and speed and things we have our air defense systems. So, for example, like the PAC three or the THAA or any of the, like, SA7s on the, on the Russian-slash-Soviet side, like these are all with numbers on them because those numbers are like the next generation because the other thing it's trying to defeat also has increased its speed and other things. So the hypersonic issue is like the latest generation of challenge where this thing is traveling so fast and at such a trajectory that it's almost impossible to stop because not just the speed it's traveling but the way it's traveling. So if you look mathematically at this, it's very hard to defeat. So with that kind of like underline of how challenging this is, Iran is trying to use hypersonic missiles against U.S. vessels in the Straits of Form moves. So this is kind of a new development.

Starting point is 00:20:55 they've been experimenting with hypersonics for a while. So has Russia. So has China. So has the United States, but less loudly. And, you know, Russia is probably the loudest advertiser of it because they want to scare the other side. I mean, that's what deterrence is. It's making a credible threat public and making the other side know that you're willing to use it and that you will use it. So Russia is using this as a deterrent.

Starting point is 00:21:17 Iran is not using it as a deterrent. Iran's using it as a defensive mechanism because they're running out of options, right? So different reasons for using the hypersonics. But they're trying to fire them at our. like the George Washington, for example. Now, we have very advanced systems like the Aegis and other systems aboard vessels and also land-based systems that can do some things, but so far they haven't struck a vessel, probably because their GPS has been struggling to work properly, most likely not by accident. But once their GPS is able to work properly, let's say they use the Chinese

Starting point is 00:21:48 global, the GNSS system that China has bydo. They might be able to get past our GPS interference, right. So there's a real threat here that hypersonics could actually hit a vessel. And even if they didn't do it purposely, if they did hit a vessel, even by accident, we're talking about a problem. It doesn't have to kill anybody. It just has to strike because then suddenly their level of competence is perceived to be much higher than we thought it was, which is again another problem we had in February when we thought their level of competence and sustainability was lower than we thought it was, or it was higher than we thought it was. And we had the war and we saw that that wasn't true. So they're going to probably try more of these hypersonic strikes.

Starting point is 00:22:26 It's kind of a low cost for them to test these out. And all it takes is really one. They do. John, are they actually using hypersonics? Mick, hold on, let Andy go. Yeah, sorry. No, it's just a question, me, John. I mean, are they actually hypersonics?

Starting point is 00:22:43 You know, I mean, so, or are they reentry vehicle, some of the ballistic missiles that, you know, that reenter and then, and, you know, have the ability to maneuver at the last minute. That's an excellent question, Andy. You're absolutely right. And actually, this is the same problem with the Russia advertisement of hypersonics where they said, oh, we used a hypersonic, and then it came out that it wasn't actually a hypersonic. It was a modified, medium-range ballistic missile. And that's exactly the same situation here, where you have something called the Chai Bar, which is called the Castle Breaker, or has some history behind the name, which I won't get into.

Starting point is 00:23:17 It has to do with Jewish people. But this missile they've developed can actually maneuver upon reentry and also change speed after launch. And they've modified the motor on it for this purpose. So let's say it's coming toward the vessel, the vessel moves or the vessel launches some kind of air defense system or there's a jet that's trying to intercept it in the air. This missile is able to maneuver at that reentry point. Remember ballistic missile for listeners, ballistic just refers to the trajectory of the munition. So it has to launch and it has this curved exit up into the different levels of the atmosphere, depending on what kind of missile it is. And as it re-enters, it has to change things about it. And older missiles could not change their impact point after they

Starting point is 00:24:00 started re-entering the atmosphere. And this missile that we're talking about, the Chibar, is able to change its trajectory after reentering the atmosphere. So not only can it change where it's going, it can also change its speed. And this is how Iran is advertising as hypersonic. hypersonic is a squishy word because there isn't actually such thing as a hypersonic missile yet anywhere that anyone's used but it does sound powerful to the world hearing this and that goes exactly to your point Andy that they're trying to make it sound like they've got some new super weapon but really it's a faster more precise medium range ballistic missile that they're able to use maneuverable reentry basically which is which is actually not new technology it's old at technology 80s. Right. And the ballistic missile itself, people should remember, is based on the V2 ballistic missile that the Nazis used in World War II against Britain.

Starting point is 00:24:57 So this is actually pretty old technology all the way around. I mean, it's all just physics, really. It's like how much can you pack onto this thing at what speed and what distance? And that's really what it comes down to. Mike, go ahead. Sorry. Yes, and I mean, excellent description there, Jonathan. And the other part of that is they get better every.

Starting point is 00:25:15 time, right? So they're figuring out how to deal with each defensive systems, the gaps, the seams. So there is, I think, legitimate concern that if they pair really high-level intelligence, lessons learn every time this happens, and then potentially just get lucky, right? I mean, that might happen too. This is going to go higher, right? I can think we can all imagine if we're sitting here watching a smoking hole on the side of the U.S. S S&S. George Washington, what's going to happen next? Right? So I think they're actually trying to strike it.

Starting point is 00:25:55 I don't think you'd use this type of technology that they know is difficult to deal with. If it was just like a symbolic thing and it clearly showed they're really wanting to cause damage and casualties to the United States, I think it's going to probably increase as the economic pressure increases. And this is far from over. but one strike that kills sailors and Marines aboard one of our naval vessels, and this is going to shift dramatically. I think they know that.

Starting point is 00:26:23 They need to be told that. This is going to be, you know, whether we want it to escalate this substantially, we're not going to take, you know, high-level casualties, surface minute, but without a major response. Yeah, and it's very similar to the USS coal bombing, which you remember that was a very low-tech attack, but had a massive impact on America. Americans, as it should. The Liberty incident that Israel struck the USS Liberty in 1967, June

Starting point is 00:26:53 1967, killed American sailors. That also had an impact, although relatively smaller. But it doesn't take a massive impact. I mean, the American culture toward the military is that any American casualty is a massive problem, as it should be in our culture. I mean, that's how we are as a society. And they know that. They don't need to make a mass casualty event like 9-11. They just need to kill one American soldier, sailor, airman, or marine, and that will have a huge outsized impact domestically inside the United States. The midterms are only a month and a half away, and they have their eye on that. It's funny. The term, though, and we've seen this with Russia, as you pointed out, the term hypersonic gets everyone's attention. But it's really our, I mean, I would guess, not not guess, but informed

Starting point is 00:27:39 speculation that the real problem continues to be interceptors. That's a real threat, right? Because the way the way to get through lead ballistic missile defense is saturation. I mean, so the maneuverable reentry missiles, vehicles, whatever you want to call it, where it, you know, interceptors like the SM3 intercept those ballistic missiles before they enter the atmosphere anyway. So it doesn't matter if they maneuver once they've reentered. But the real question is, do we have enough interceptors to sustain that? Can the Iranians build up big enough inventory to saturate on our defenses? Yeah.

Starting point is 00:28:25 So talking about inventory, there was an AEI report that John brought to our attention about procurement. And John, give us the skinny on that. Yeah, it's a really interesting report. It does a kind of high-level statistical analysis of a lot of publicly available information on U.S. procurement, modernization, kind of comparing every year as far as the pre-law version of the National Defense Authorization Act for the past 40 years, roughly, to see, you know, in the pre-version, like the draft version, what's in there, what is Congress asking for, what does Congress think as a priority? And I think it's interesting to look at that instead of

Starting point is 00:29:03 the actual NDA because it shows what does Congress actually want, not what do they negotiate to become the law. So that does tell you more about what is the actual desire for specific procurement outcomes, specifically like the PAC 3, the THAA, missile defense, counterterrorism, these kind of things. Very interesting to look at. And one thing that they saw was the PAC 3 and the THAAD being challenged, let's so to say, in procurement. In particular, the THAAD is almost completely depleted. And what they've asked for is a five-year accelerated output model because we're 27 years behind on where our THAAD numbers should be. That's a shocking, shocking number. And that's based on what we would need to actually defend against a peer adversary like Russia or China. And the AEI report in particular

Starting point is 00:29:52 looks at China as the threat. So they're looking at what we need against China and looking at these national defense authorization pre-bills. And could we do it? And the answer is no. And the focus needs to be, according to this report, on hypersonics, like we were just talking about, on countering hypersonics, on counter UAS, on UAS, deep strike, long range improvements. The aircraft carrier, Andy will like this, is a problematic concept that should be reduced or eliminated in a conflict against China, according to this report based on their analysis. So the peer threat is where our modernization should point, not Iran, which is a regional actor, and not even Russia, which is a kind of declining actor, especially in the last 20 years we've seen for sure.

Starting point is 00:30:39 Their capabilities are not what they used to be, at least on a peer-to-peer level. China is a rising power, not just in the Navy, which has been loudly proclaimed that the production of Chinese vessels is going to overwhelm the U.S. naval fleets and so on. That's not as much the focus here. The focus more is on the air, space, cyberspace, the less focus on the sea, as far as I read it. And you look at, for example, how much did we fund for our defense in terms of GDP? It's only 3.7% of our GDP. During the Cold War, it was 7%, which is almost double spending on defense for GDP. So that's kind of interesting because there is a lot of talk about, you know, one point,

Starting point is 00:31:22 I think it's $3 trillion of defense spending, which is actually less than it was in the Cold War as a percentage of GDP by half, which is very interesting. Because, you know, these are big numbers, but inflation is a real thing. And we have to adjust back CPI to see what did it actually cost in the 80s, for example, for the strategic defense initiative, you know, Star Wars, what did that cost? In today's dollars, people's eyeballs might get a little bit bigger when they actually see what did we spend back then. And what are we spending it on now? Like, where do those dollars actually go now? Like the PAC 3, for example, is an interesting development. And this report points it out that it can go further than the Patriot missile. It's an intermediate solution just like the THAAD. And it can protect ships. But we don't have enough of them. And the PAC three isn't just an interceptor that goes and, you know, throws fragmentation up in the sky or tries to shoot something down when it launches. It's a body-to-body impact weapon that smashes into the other weapon, which is a different approach than other weapons we have. And this report kind of pointed out that our PAC three stocks should be dramatically higher than they are right now, not just to defend our allies and partners like Ukraine, but also to defend the United States against a Chinese direct attack, right? So this is a very interesting report because AEI has typically, it depends how you read it, but

Starting point is 00:32:39 AEI is typically moderate or a little bit right. So this is kind of a report that's designed to speak to the administration, not so much to be a contrarian, I think. Yeah, so the PAC three, I mean, it's kind of scary if the numbers are correct. So back in July, August, open source report said that the depletion rate, and we don't have have the exact but the pollution rate was somewhere between 65 and 80%, which leaves something like a thousand, right? Maybe under that.

Starting point is 00:33:18 And they get made very slowly every year, I think it's... 600 a year. Is that how many? Yeah. So, I mean, if we've fired something like 60, 80% of 2300. So we fired, you know, about two, possibly, almost three years' worth of pack threes, three years production-wise in six months. And we haven't gotten anywhere, really, in our aims or whatever our aims are.

Starting point is 00:33:56 Think of back. Please, Mick, go ahead. It does make you, I mean, we obviously need to correct this, right? we're in a air-only war, regional war with a mediocre military. And we're having this level of defense production issues. It's a multi-administration issue, right? So it's not just this one. It didn't just start.

Starting point is 00:34:20 But this has to be addressed because if we were going up against China, for example, just like Jonathan was describing, we'd be screwed technical. Right. I mean, this is, this is, and we're seeing that our main adversaries do have production capability, right? North Korea providing how much of the munitions for Russia to fight Ukraine, they are addressing the issue. I realize we've spent a lot on our defense, but as Jonathan also pointed out, relative to during the height of the Cold War, we're not. and the world's a dangerous place and we need to be prepared. And if right now we're that low on precision-guided munitions and defense interceptors, this needs to be addressed.

Starting point is 00:35:09 Obviously, we need to find cheaper alternatives, but we also need to figure out how to mass-produce things that we would need in the case of a major, you know, global war. I hope it never happens, of course. But, you know, most people would say during World War II wasn't just the fight men and women of the armed forces that won it. It was the production capability of the United States that just outproduced our enemies. So, you know, I don't have all the answers. So it's easy to point out the problems.

Starting point is 00:35:41 But that needs to be addressed and it needs to be made. Just like we need to adapt all the autonomous fighting, it's going off, going on in Ukraine into our system. We need to figure out the defense production. I'm with you on the defense production. Guys, sorry, I'm going to cut in because as the citizen, you know, that's not part of the military industrial base or defense industrial base. Star Wars was never fielded, right? It was a thing on paper we wanted the Soviets to know about,

Starting point is 00:36:14 to be scared about shooting missiles our way. I get it, and to make them spend money that they didn't have. And I'm sure it helped bring down the Soviet Union for sure. Um, 1.3 trillion guys. Let's, before we start adding, let's see if outside of the Marine Corps, the DOD can pass a fucking audit. Let's see where the money's going, really. This is where I'm getting a little dogy where like actual like, um, people that know what they're fucking doing, not doge, but like actual like, you know, bean counters and whoever you need to do. Consultants bring in whoever you need to bring in, find where the fat is and fucking get rid of it.

Starting point is 00:36:53 Yeah, and be relentless with it. Because the fact that this report where we should have 27 times more or whatever the fuck, you know, what do we spend in the money on? Where's the money going? Well, a lot of it goes on platforms, right? I mean, no, I get it. You know, the biggest source of DOD spending is personnel. But beyond that, you know, platforms, procurement. and to the point that we talked about earlier here,

Starting point is 00:37:26 yes, there should be a wake-up call and the fact that we need to focus spending on more mundane things like Interceptor stockpile, 155 munitions to prepare. There's a whole plant in Texas that's not fucking doing anything. It costs $500 million. Who gets fired there? We're just scraping the surface on the interceptor discussion.

Starting point is 00:37:48 When you think about it, it's not just about, we're not the only users, right? I mean, there are, there's Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain. So the Gulf, the Gulf countries, right, they all depend on us for PAC-3s. And we don't know how many they've fired, but we suspect that the percentage, that they've expended a far greater percentage than the United States has. I mean, that would stand to reason, right, because they've been the main targets and they started off with fewer. But the Gulf is competing with the U.S., but also Ukraine, Poland, Germany for the same 600 rounds a year.

Starting point is 00:38:30 So, you know, people who say there is not a shortage of really bearing the heads in the sand. And from Iran's perspective, I mean, this talk about hypersonics is kind of a distractor, right? And we talked about the fact that what Iran has fielded is not a hypersonic. It's a maneuverable reentry vehicle. But that's not the point. So it doesn't need a missile that beats Patriot or Thad. It just needs to make the U.S. fire interceptors that things aren't worth those interceptors, right? So Pact 3 is what, $4 million.

Starting point is 00:39:08 We talked about this. So Shahhead is a few thousand, $10,000. I think that is $8 million a piece. Yeah. So just continue. continuing to force us to expend these interceptors is a, is liable to be to a more effective strategy than any high-end missile. Interceptors are really the currency of deterrence in the region right now.

Starting point is 00:39:38 And our credibility, I want to say, our U.S. Air Defense umbrella over Riyadh, where I am now, Doha, you know, and Tel Aviv. It's really a function of how many rounds are in the magazine. And on your point about deterrence, Andy, let's say deterrence failed. And now we're in a war force-on-force with a peer actor, let's say China or Russia. We have these ICBMs that are designed to launch in a first strike, second strike, and there's all kinds of different nuclear strategies and things like this.

Starting point is 00:40:11 But these systems that are underground that are ready to launch, many of them have been there for 30 years. years, 40 years. And we haven't been able to test them or recalibrate them or if we have to press that button and launch, do we know for sure that they will actually launch, that they'll launch the way we want them to, that they'll strike where they're supposed to strike? There are so many questions along that launch line to the target that we haven't been able to test or reevaluate because of our treaties and because of the way that the world works. And they're sitting there and we're just hoping that they'll work. And it's not just us too. It's also China and Russia have the same problem, but they're not as constrained as we are on these strategic testing initiatives.

Starting point is 00:40:50 And that's a concern to me is what happens if we do launch into a war, deterrence fails, we press the button, and that ICBM crashes in California, or it explodes out on the platform. Like there's so many questions about are we actually ready to fight, not just forces on the ground, but with the full spectrum of weapons that we think, that we assume that we have if this war does start. And like one thing I'll say is like, you know, how they're, you know, with us like trying to license or like the idea of licensing patriots or factories to Ukraine and Lockheed and the other defense primes being worried about them, innovating them and making them cheaper. And I know, Andy, I'm sorry. I don't want to point out your buddy who's an executive at Lockheed, but like what's, who's his primary person he's worried about?

Starting point is 00:41:40 Is it the defense of the United States or is it just shareholders? Let's be honest here, right? We should be able to innovate what's been going on in the last four or five years with Ukraine. We should have been at the forefront of innovating what we're supposed to be doing on defense. We see what's going on plain as day, right? Drones are a big thing. And it's like we can't get, we can't help but trip over ourselves. Like it's amazing.

Starting point is 00:42:06 And we have smart people that know what to do. and the fact that we can't make decisions to implement those changes as a citizen is frustrating. And when I hear, let's add more money to the defense budget, I'm like, no, fuck off. Frankly, I mean, am I crazy to think that? There's no, I mean, anybody with a working frontal lobe would be like that. Your thoughts. We are our acquisition procurement system. And we've talked about this and it's been written about endlessly.

Starting point is 00:42:38 It's just not designed to innovate. And everything that we have read about initiatives to change that have, you know, in the last year or so, just been kind of diddling around in the margins. We are not, I mean, Ukraine is probably the most innovative, that's the most innovative defense industry in the world right now, undoubtedly necessities, the mother of invention. But we are, we're nowhere there. And we don't seem to be making a comprehensive, coherent effort to change that. But you're right.

Starting point is 00:43:23 I mean, everything from drones, short range, air defense, armored vehicles, right? We talked here about the fact that manned armored vehicles are arguably already obsolete. and yet we're still pouring money into them and depending on them. All of these things. Manned aircraft, right? We're still bemoaning the fact that we're losing predators at a very expensive rate in the Middle East. Why are we still fielding predators? Why haven't we worked out how to make drones with the same capability or similar capability,

Starting point is 00:44:06 but mass produced, you know, blue-collar sophisticated drones, the rest of the world is doing that. You know, the Turks are leading the charge, for instance, on that. We are not. So, yeah, I don't, you know, this is one of those topics. I don't see a solution on the horizon when it comes to the U.S. A great example of that, too, is the MV-22 Osprey, which was imagined up during the end of the Cold War to fight Russians that we thought, continued to be an adversary. Cold War ended. The MV22 procurement continued, development continued. It was built. There was no war for it. 9-11 happened. Suddenly there's a just by chance there is a need for it.

Starting point is 00:44:49 And now it feels like it should be part of our military. But it is this like literally ancient concept as far as the speed of the military process goes, the world goes, that we're using because we think we need it. The mat-v is another example. We procured all these mat-vies for overseas contingency operations. We don't need them anymore. We bought a bunch of them for our allies and partners who also don't want them. There are tons of them just sitting in the Gulf on pavement, never used and will never be used.

Starting point is 00:45:16 And Oshkosh got paid for it. And there's this whole maintenance program for it and all this that's just being spent on stuff we don't need because it was thought up. And the thought takes so long to reach the ground that the ground that needs it doesn't exist anymore when it actually is ready. McAulope. Guinness, actually. You gentlemen ever heard of splitting the G, by the way?

Starting point is 00:45:40 Not changed the subject or failed. Splitting the G is when you drink a Guinness, your first sip, you try to get it right in the middle of the G. I have to try that. I have to try that, too. We tried hard. My business partner's really good at it. So, I mean, I agree with everything.

Starting point is 00:46:03 This is, you know, it might seem, well, it shouldn't seem mundane to anybody, quite frankly, but this is one of the biggest issues we have to address as a nation, national security, don't care every side you're on. You should just be on the USA side, right? We don't want a war. Nobody should want a war, but we should be prepared to win it. And I think we have the best military as far as like capabilities and people,

Starting point is 00:46:30 but we're just not keeping, and, you know, a bias, obviously, but one of the things the United States is known for is innovation, right? I mean, that's what we do. That's what we do. We can do this. We do do better. And it's going to take, you know, some hard work probably on the committees, right? The Armed Services Committee, some appropriations committee.

Starting point is 00:46:51 But it's going to take both sides to really just kind of put the partisan stuff aside. It's not about pointing fingers because you could point fingers at every administration when it comes to this. And I think that's what needs to happen. and it needs to be, you know, one of the top efforts, right? It's not just about spending money. It's about spending money wisely, right? And, you know, that would be my two cents on this. It needs to be number one priority.

Starting point is 00:47:18 I completely agree with you, Mick, totally. Like, and you see a lot of these new defense tech firms, specifically ones that are focused on like UAS and counter UAS. They're raising a lot of money. And it feels like, Like, I want people, I want these companies to actually believe it and not just be preaching it because they want to fucking raise 300 million. So they're worth two billion dollars and they can exit by being sold to a prime and become rich and nothing gets fixed. Nothing gets done.

Starting point is 00:47:51 Right. Like, like are these companies, the Anderrills and even the smaller ones that are they going to Ukraine? Are they fucking learning? Are they actually doing this to value to just. what their valuations are. And I hope greed is not getting in the way of an actual problem that needs to be fixed. And frankly, I don't think that's happening. Going to be on.

Starting point is 00:48:17 I think greed wins every time. Especially you see these valuations. Every week it's like another company got $100 million in seed fund. And now it's worth a billion dollars. And it's like, are you producing fucking anything? Or you just have a really good pitch deck. and you walk into these offices and you're just people are sold and like yeah let's do this like i want to see i want to see actual fucking results rather than just both just talk really from

Starting point is 00:48:44 these defense companies primes and the little guys and the little guys who are trying to climb up and disrupt or whatever the fuck they say in their pitch decks to try and like uh uh u and a investors yeah the other you already brought it up but the other aspect of this is we're moving so fast into a new form of warfare that we got to keep up. Like there's a you really talk to the people, spend some time in Ukraine and I have, like on the front lines. And there's going to be really quick,

Starting point is 00:49:15 where the first phase of a conflict has very little humans actually directly engaged, even in the decision process, right? And I know people should be nervous about that. But the problem is you talk to people who've really looked into this, whether it's artificial intelligence or you know, the next phase of this, which could come within a few years and even the higher the superintelligence, it moves so fast that putting a human in the loop actually slows it down to the point where if your adversary isn't, you will lose, right? So you can definitely have a

Starting point is 00:49:46 philosophical or ethical debate about it, but the problem is we're moving so fast into this new world where automated systems paired with artificial or superintelligence are going to be making a lot of the decisions, including lethal, right? And it's happening. And so, you know, we might have all these legacy systems, which are doomed on the, you know, next 10 years of our battlefield. And we're still making them because it's made in a, you know, a district, right? That's, I mean, I get it. I understand the jobs. But we're not, we got to ensure that the people making the decisions about what weapons systems and stuff are the warfighters, the people that actually are responsible for winning the war and not necessarily a jobs program for, and they're all across the United States,

Starting point is 00:50:37 but I get the point, but we have to make the right decisions on weapons procurement for the battlefield of the future so that we actually are successful and not just, you know, worried about particular plants. We could just switch the plants to them, right? There's a way to do both. And so, yeah, we could, we should, we can and we should talk about this quite a bit. Going to your head, guys, do you think that's actually going to happen? Mickey can go first and then I want John and Andy to tell me. I think this is actually waking us up right now, the war in Ukraine and the war that we're in Iran,

Starting point is 00:51:19 so I think this could happen, yes. If it wasn't, if it was just a status quo, then there's no forcing function necessarily. We'd all be happy thinking that we are doing the right things. But one thing about warfare, it teaches you really quick lessons. And innovation, you know, the mother of necessity, and the mother of necessity is you're in a war. Hack it. I think if Americans are too distracted by each other, they will not innovate the way that Ukrainians are because Ukrainians are united against something. and Americans are disunited, relatively speaking, now.

Starting point is 00:52:01 It will be a challenge if that continues. Colonel? Yeah, I hate to bring it back to something that may seem like a political statement, although it's not the Driscoll actually had the Army, or it was pushing with the Army Transformation Initiative to put the Army's futures command and trade arc on the right path of this, right? You know, killing the Apache, the Grey Eagle, the M10 Booker, and redirecting all that money into drones, counter drone, long range precision fires, cheap mass over exquisite platforms.

Starting point is 00:52:51 It was really, from an army perspective, at least, was the first serious attempt to reshape Army procurement. And that's really where most of the problems lie right now. I mean, you know, the Navy's a different, it's a different beast and we're going to be wasting money on aircraft carriers for as long as any of us live here. And so I'm not sure, I'm not sure we have seen the light. You know, it really will see whether that those efforts are sustained. But certainly Driscoll got it. Now it seems as though not just procurement in the Army, but the Army generally is pretty

Starting point is 00:53:35 rudderless, even more so than the Army normally is. Yeah, didn't they kill that? Kill what? Didn't they say they were getting rid of the unit that was going to be innovating drone? The drone, specifically, yeah. I'm talking about Army, kind of the Army transformation initiative. the whole picture. Yeah, this is what happens when you have inept people running DOD or the actual secretary.

Starting point is 00:54:06 It's just the fact. That's a fact. I mean, there's a reason why things were leaking like a sieve in that place and they purged generals. And it's still leaking like a sieve. Yeah, I mean, I think, again, politics aside, the modernization loss. With Driscoll departing, that's a concern. So, you know, everything we've been talking about here, interceptor economics, cheap drones, launcher attrition. Driscoll was arguably the one senior civilian trying to build a force around or taking them on board those lessons and trying to reshape the force around them.

Starting point is 00:54:46 And that, I don't know the whole story. I don't know much of the story about, Dee, your point was about the Europe drone unit, right, that got showing. shut down. Yeah. And the unit, I mean, they were studying exactly what Ukraine has been teaching for three years. I don't know what the rational was for that, but it's concerning, certainly. Yeah, it's devoid of rationale. Boys, anything else?

Starting point is 00:55:12 I never feel good after this, ever. I'm sorry to the listener, but maybe one day we'll have some good news to end the show with. Well, Mick's daughter got married, so congrats there. There you go. That's some good news. I'm going to split the G right now. You should do. All right.

Starting point is 00:55:31 Cheers. This is better than Ireland, by the way. It is fact. It's not just a say. It's not just our urban legend. That's right. Just one point. Please.

Starting point is 00:55:43 You know, not to kick it off again, but mixed, mixed point about autonomous engagement, right? Engate, target engagement without having a human in the loop. I mean, we're already there. not us in the in the states yet but um the Ukrainians have and they don't advertise this but they've got uh you know they've they've got drones that that do autonomous navigation they fly to a grid without a GPS or link um and then terminal guidance right so right now the operator picks the target on the screen and the drone lots on and flies the last kilometer itself because Russian jamming,

Starting point is 00:56:30 to avoid Russian jamming from cutting the video link. But then now what does that drone do in those last couple of kilometers? It's autonomous engagement. So the machine, the drone finds, chooses and strikes with no operator decision at all. And the Ukrainians are doing that. All right. And they're saying, hey, no, we still have a human in the loop, but the human just gets the drone to that, the last kilometer or two, and then it's all up to the drone, recognized the target, make the decision to engage. So materially, there's nothing, there's no, there's already, and, you know, there's more than rumors that the Israelis are doing the same thing, and those are on, those are among our allies, so undoubtedly our adversaries are able to that too. That's concerned.

Starting point is 00:57:22 right I mean if you it's concerning on a lot of levels I suppose on an on an ethical level but it's concerning because if you can do that if you can make these decisions at the edge right with way not with I mean with masses of drones now now you've increased you've increased tempo beyond to a point where it's it the interception problem becomes harder and harder Say something nice. I just wanted to add some more good news, right? Yeah, some more to think about. Guys, a pleasure as always.

Starting point is 00:58:01 I want everyone to go and check out the links in the description. Andy's new books coming soon. John's writing a new book, and you can grab his books that are available now. All those links are into the description. Lit Mick to Whitefish Security Summit. Patreon.com slash the team house and helps support the show. You get both eyes on and team house episodes

Starting point is 00:58:20 at free and early, and you help support the show. So please do that or consider doing that. Guys, I love you. Happy Sunday. See you guys.

The Team House - Is Washington Negotiating Russia’s Terms to Ukraine? | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.