The Team House - Israel/Hamas Negotiations Breakdown, Ukraine Fires Top General, Putin's Interview

Episode Date: February 11, 2024

Introducing a new podcast called Eyes On with Andy Milburn & Jason Lyons, where we talk about geopolitics and international news.Today we talk about the stalled negotiations between Israel and Hamas, the Ukrainian leadership shake up, Putin's wild interview with Tucker Carlson and the targeted strike on KH leadership by the United States.Check out Andy Milburn here:https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8https://amilburn.substack.com/Support the show here:https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouse#israelpalestineconflict #putin #ukraineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey, guys, it's Jack. I just wanted to talk to you today about a way that you can help support the podcast if you're not already. We would really appreciate it if you guys went and reviewed us on Apple or Spotify. Those reviews really help people find the podcast and help it get recognized. And, you know, if you've been enjoying the show, we really appreciate your support. Another thing that you can do to support the channel is to become a Patreon member. So we have Patreon memberships that start at just $5 a month. And when you sign up, you get access to all of our episodes ad-free. That's the big bonus for that. I mean, we also do some Patreon bonus episodes for our subscribers. But this is the biggest and best way that you can support the Teamhouse channel and podcast if you'd like to. And we really appreciate that. So go in and check us out at patreon.com slash the team house. Hello, everyone.

Welcome to another episode of IZON. I'm Andy Milburn, former Marine Infantry. and special operations officer, now working for the team house. I'm very glad to be hosting this episode with my co-host, D. Tarkos and Jason Lyons. Jason, Jason, over to you. Thanks, Sandy. Appreciate it. I'm Jason Lyons, former Marine Corps infantry and former CIA staff operations and operations

and operations officer. And I really appreciate being here with you guys. Like we've said in the past, this is our. guys take three guys sitting around our take on world affairs as they occur and um just happy to be here over to you d if you have anything uh i just want to thank everybody for being here jason i'm glad you're uh back on it and your backs getting feeling better uh i have no real credentials at all um i'm just come on now i'm the movie movie producer yeah podcast producer but i have not i have no former chippendale dancer yeah that was my past life ren asanceance man

man. Yeah, I was my passion. Dance was my passion for a couple years there in my youth. But, no, I'm happy to do this. We digress. Yeah, I hope everyone likes, subscribes. If you're listening to us on audio, rate and review it. Do whatever you can to help, you know, spread out, spread the message of what we're doing.

A political. Trying to keep it down the line. Facts, you know, and I have two experts here that, you know, know, know what you're talking about. So it's basically. a show for me, guys. It's what it is. Thanks for the overwhelming introduction, Dee. You're welcome. Jason, you better step in before Dee totally buries himself. Well, then I'll end up burying myself, but here we go. So leading off, we, on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu came out publicly rejecting Hamas's proposal for a ceasefire to the ongoing

in conflict over there. He flat out rejected the terms of proposal as preposterous. And he basically said that the only thing that will end the war is the complete destruction of Hamas, whatever, you know, whatever that means for as far as Israel's concern. So according to Routers, I'm going to read from what the confirmed sources say the document of the proposal read. It says during the first 45-day phase, all Israeli women hostages,

males under 19 and the old and sick will be freed in exchange for Palestinian women and children held in Israeli jails. Israel would withdraw troops from Gaza's populated areas. That's phase one. During the second phase, it would not begin until both sides conclude indirect talks over the requirements

for ending mutual military operations and restoring complete calm. Obviously, what complete calm means is relative to either side. The second phase would also include the release of remaining male hostages and full Israeli withdrawal from all of Gaza. The remains of any dead would be exchanged during the third phase. And Washington has cast this part of the deal as part of a wider resolution for the Middle East as a whole, conflict as a whole, hoping that there be a reconciliation between

Israel and all of its Arab neighbors and the creation of a Palestinian state. Secretary Blinken made a trip, I believe it was Wednesday there as well. So while Israelis outright rejected it, the U.S. still has hoped that there's going to be some sort of that this can at least be the the cornerstone for a long-term uh ceasefire and a deal other from what i've been reading other partners in the east uh or in the middle east such as saudi arabia saudi arabia has flat out said that uh they like the deal but the only way that they would uh sign on to it would be uh the establishment of a two two state two state solution Yeah, two-state solution. That's the only way that they'll even speak with or entertain entering into relationship with Israel. So I won't say that's a separate thing, but it is a separate thing. And we already know Israel's stance on that. So I think what as far as we are concerned, the U.S. is concerned, and everybody, the world is we need to look at the implications from a 10-foot level all the way up to.

to a 50,000 foot level on what, you know, this means if it's even partially implemented. I mean, obviously, first and foremost, we want the hostages. Everyone wants the hostages returned and we want there to be a, you know, we want the shooting stop. We want innocence to die. Or, excuse me, hello, somebody's going to take that and cut it. That would never happen to anyone on a team house. Not at all.

You wouldn't let that happen. No, never. see my face being right now. Where is Max Blumenthal? Yeah. We want the innocent. We want no more innocence. Nobody does. So that is if, you know, if we could have a perfect world right now, that's the biggest and best thing to happen on both sides. Um, regionally, obviously, you know, they, we want as the U.S. I say we as the U.S. would want a, uh, we just, we want peace in the region for not just those on the ground, the innocence on the ground, but for us as well. have interests, you know, for better or worse in the Middle East. And then we've got the peripherals.

We've got the Houthis. We've got, you know, Iran who's got their, you know, finger in the pie, so to speak. So one way or another, the, whether the, along with the positives of a ceasefire and whatever else comes from that, there's the negatives, which is we're going to be pricking at Iran and, you know, the Houthis and any kind of extremists in the region. So these are all things we're going to have to take into account. Yeah, you know, for a, I was just thinking about that. I mean, this brings out so much. And we're not going to have time to delve into everything here. But just some of the things that you touched upon, Jason, one of which, which is a recurrent theme. But it's very interesting. It's a very interesting. It's a very,

interesting phenomenon that is happening in two countries right now, Ukraine and with Israel, where military commanders are apparently voicing concerns that the stated political objectives are unattainable, and yet the political leaders are still holding firm to those objectives that the commanders have told them. We can't get their boss. In the case, of obviously Netanyahu, who by the way, realizes that when this is over, he's gone. So I will make no more comments about that. But, you know, in his case, destruction of Hamas in very general terms, and his military commanders are asking what exactly does that mean in terms of objectives on the ground, right?

And not getting an answer. And in the case, we'll talk about this. D, I think you wanted to, Zillusioni's firing this week. Solutioni, by the way, headed up Ukrainian forces. And this is something that's been a long time coming. Gradual disagreements becoming more and more serious as the offensive bog down in, you know, in the South and eventually boiling over.

But, you know, at root cause fundamentally, the largest difference between Zoluzni and Zelensky was it wasn't in their objectives. They both went and evict Russians from Ukrainian soil, but the fact was that Zoluzni felt that Zelensky was not willing to pay the political price, which was going to general mobilization. Zuluzzi said we're going to need 500,000 additional troops. Now, the Ukrainian military, I'm sorry, I mean, this is a lot. a good, fairly good segue, right? By the way, we'll come back and talk about Israel,

great detail for a couple of episodes while I'm out there later this month. But, you know, on the topic of Solutionis firing, think about this, because this has, this is very interesting, such a high-tech war right now, the game change or the resource that, that is becoming most critical. It's not artillery shells right now. It's not even, you know, high mars or glide bombs or any weapon system. It is manpower. And I think, you know, I don't want

to appear press in. Back in January, I was saying this, Ukrainians have a military of 800,000. Zillusionis saying they need half a million, right? That's what he was saying. Half a million. You want a conscription, right? Yeah, general, yeah, absolutely general mobilization. Ukrainians have not gone to that yet. And, you know, one would guess that the only reason not to would be a political reason that it's kind of a, I mean, it's a very unpopular measure, right? But it's, but Zillusioni's saying, hey, boss, we cannot get there from here. The offensive has bought down, you know, for an example, the last, at the height of the

offensive, the Ukrainians made 10 miles in 10 days. the very high of the offense that had the most successful down near Robitin, you know, when the main effort was pushing, but they barbed down in 20 straight kilometers of Russian defenses. You know, the Russians knew they were coming.

And that's where the argument started between Zollusian and Zelensky. Zelensky, under immense pressure, all right, to show gains on the ground to NATO, is saying, hey, you've got to go through it for it. You've, you know, you've got to get, we've just got to continue conducting these huge attacks. And solution is like, hey, man, there's no, there's no sign of incoming manpower.

At the rate we're losing people, I cannot afford to do that. Or we won't even be able to hold the line, let alone exploit an offensive. Solution is supposedly his argument all along was that unless they had a large exploitation force, they were not going to be able to take advantage of any of their gains in the offensive, the hard-won gains in breaking through these breaching lines. There's a host of things to talk about here. And again, it's not something, you know, that we can go in a lot of detail right now,

but I want to come back to it because there's some really extraordinary things happening in the war in Ukraine that we should take a look at. We've all heard about, you know, the rise of unmanned systems, but the scale at which this is happening has to be seen to be believed. And I'll give you an example,

because it has cultural, I mean, it has dot MPLF that is, you know, doctrine through fielding of equipment implications for the U.S. military. It has cultural implications for the U.S. military. A typical, the Ukrainians are finding that the most effective small unit in this type of warfare is 12 to 16 men, you know, roughly size of an infantry squad larger than the U.S. Army's infantry squad. But it doesn't matter the amount of men. What's really significant is that half of these guys are drone operators, right?

Even the local security, you know, flank security, all these things that we learn about in the infantry officer course or whatever. All these things are now being conducted at the tactical level, all these tasks by drones. You know, so you can see the implications here. It's a different type of fella who is really, you know, the sought-after dude, even down at that level. You know, what do you think they're doing for it? I mean, point man, right? The point man is using a drone all the time. It's considered suicidal not to do that, right?

Same thing now when they're getting to urban clearing. They're even using FPVs, which is the first person view drones, which are old, you know, previously quadcopter racing drones that have been repurposed in Ukraine. As some of you may have seen the videos, There's some extraordinary videos of these things, chasing Russian soldiers, I mean, and vehicles under culverts, interbunkers, all kinds of things. I mean, we talk about combined arms in conjunction with artillery. These FPVs are really proving to be a game changer.

And down to, again, down to the squad level. When you look at the Marine Infantry Squad, and I just speak of the Marine Infantry Squad, of it because I, you know, I was a member of, I always remember of said squad at one stage. It has not changed as far as lethality significantly in the 35 years it has been since PFC Melbourne was carrying the saw as a newly fledged member of his fire team. But the Ukrainian squad certainly is, you know, and they've learned hard lessons, but nevertheless, until we can find unmanned systems that can take and hold ground, we're going to need flesh and blood as infantrymen.

And that is the problem now facing the Ukrainians. And that was the fundamental, one of the most fundamental reasons between the split, between Zolluzni and Zelensky. And I think it's, you know, it's sad that he's gone. It is sad. I think it's a policy. I mean, we want to see civilian control the military in any way. Western democracy. So the act itself is encouraging, I suppose. But the fact that it was

Luzni, who had such an iconic hold on the Ukrainian soldiers, they loved them. They really did. I was going to ask you that. He was a soldiers general. I don't want to draw comparisons, but I will. You know, Montgomery in the Second World War, Montgomery was not necessarily a tactical genius, but he knew his relative strengths and weaknesses between the British Army and the Germans. El Alamein was a triumph of material, you know, to stop partying everything. He was almost an traditional general, but the soldiers loved him because they knew he wasn't going to throw their lives away. And that is how they felt about solutioning. You know, the word got out that he was stopping his mass assaults without sufficient cover on a transparent battlefield. By the way,

the way that we conduct breaching the U.S. military is pathetic now, has been shown to be pathetic by 20 standards of 21st century warfare, Sosa for Christ's sake, using, you know, outdated methods like smoke generation. Ukrainians have tried that and we're getting massacred. And that is why Zilluzzi stepped in, altered the tactics to move treeline by tree line, covered by vehicles, by small unit, you know, making small incremental gains. but at least saving lies, which he knew was going to be critical at this stage of the war. Andy, I got a question. Yeah, please do.

Let's say they did mobilize half a million troops. Would it make a huge difference in terms of pushing the Russians back? Yeah, that's also a great question. I would say, you know, it's a question of scale, right? 500,000 guys. Now you've got to factor in the timeline to get those dudes through the system. The Ukrainians have had to push people through in a matter of a few weeks, you know, before these guys get.

They're barely trained in many, many units, most units, bizarre judgment, motorists, even a year ago. But even then, it's going to take a while to integrate and assimilate these guys. But yeah, sure, that's a significant force. And here's the other part of this. The Russians, as far as personnel, are on the ropes too. They went to general mobilization or not even general mobilization, partial mobilization over a year ago to raise 300,000 guys.

They've lost, you know, combined attrition more than that since then. So they, too, are fielding understrength units. And if the Ukrainians can put together this many dudes and replenish the stocks of equipment that they have lost in the offensive, yeah, they've got a fighting chance. Absolutely. But you've got to remember, too, that there's many a slip between cup and lead. That's going to take months. You've got NATO's less zealous members already kind of looking at Putin saying, maybe we should go to the negotiation table, right? Hugh Tarke-Karsson, by the way, for that interview.

Let's jump into that next. But before we do that, I do want to talk about a couple of adaptations that are significant to what's happening now in the Middle East. Right. So the Russians have adapted very, very quickly. You know, there's been a lot of news about, you know, the Ukrainians. So the Russians are using all the drones in exactly the same way now, even not quite at the extent Ukrainians are.

But they're also adapting by using a weapon that has become the most feared to Ukrainian infantry. The reports messages I'm getting back from people I still know out there. That's the glide bomb, right? So, you know, earlier on in the war, the Russians were dropping dumb bombs and quite ineffectively. they suffered high, high attrition. And of course, the air war became kind of, where it became almost static. I mean, there was no air superiority by either side.

Aviation operated behind or up to the front line. It was considered suicidal to operate in front of the front line, right? But so what the Russians have done, particularly with, I mean, all of their aircraft, rather than flying up or across the line, they will lob these things, these glide bombs from behind the lines out of range of Ukrainian ADA systems. And these things have a warhead of between, you know, 200 and 500 kilograms, so significantly more destructive than drones. And they are, they are wrecking havoc. The Russians too are using them almost in swarms with their Lancet loitering ammunition. I don't know if you've, some of you've been watching the videos maybe about these things.

They are, the Lancet, too, is a very feared weapon. You know, as is any loitering munition. I mean, one minute, everything's fine. Next, you're gone, all right? And there's no warning sign, at least with artillery or small arms. or anything else, you get some indication, right? But yeah, these things have a tremendous psychological impact,

which is interesting, you know, the Lancet, even though they are the small warhead, and even though they can take out one or two guys and small vehicle at a time. So the Russians are adapting fast in this. Now, when I say implications, the Middle East, there's a couple of things, right?

So the Ukrainians have done very well in the Black Sea. They've been using the kind of hooty tactics, right? So there's a message for us here, the downside. But I suppose you call it a mosquito fleet. The Ukrainians really do not have a Navy worth talking about. But they've got plenty of anti-ship missiles, or rather missiles, they've repurposed to be anti-ship missiles. They've got still very capable special operations guys to include maritime special operations. And they've got a fleet of seaborne drones that are really cutting edge, you know, beyond what we have.

And so with those things, plus, you know, the loitering munitions of their own, they've been plinking away at the Russian fleet with some success. But the Russians still largely control the Black Sea. And, you know, when we're talking about the fight for freedom of movement there, you know, I don't want to suggest the Ukrainians have brought the Russians to a stance. But it's kind of interesting how they have certainly prevented that freedom of movement. The Russians are unable to impose a blockade, and the Ukrainians as a result, we're able to export, you know, 4.8 million tons of grain last year, which is almost back to their pre-war level. So, again, we should be looking at what's happening in the Black Sea to glean some lessons.

What are the Russians, you know, what are the options to counter this type of warfare? The other thing, very quickly, because we're not going to come back to Ukraine in this episode. Who knows what's going to happen next episode? EW. All right. Counter-drone warfare then has come down to electronic warfare on both sides. All right. The Ukrainians estimate that they lose about 2,000 drones a month to Russian EW.

And the Ukrainians have themselves brought in large systems and are reporting that, yeah, these are way more effective than any kinetic solutions. So again, you know, some lessons here that we can certainly learn from them. You know, aside from that, engagements on the ground from between vehicles, this is kind of an interesting point, have been small packets, right? We, US military, we wouldn't dream of sending a tank out without a sister tank, right? I mean, that's, you know, preferably a platoon, which is four tanks. You know, you need your wingman, you have mutual support, blah, blah, blah. But the Ukrainians are operating their tanks and Bradley's or IFEs singly. Why is that?

Well, it comes back to glide bombs and lance it, and it comes back to priority of targets. the Russians aren't going to plink a single vehicle and lose an asset, right? Even a, you know, even a Lancer, they might do it with Lancer, but certainly not a glide bomb, right? It costs a lot of money. So they're waiting for a larger conglomeration, you know, at least the platoon, maybe company. So the Ukrainians have figured out that if they can work out how to operate a loan in conjunction with infantry, loan vehicle, then they're going to be more survival and had more success. Hence, that is why you've had this extraordinary story of the Bradley knocking out a T90, you know, a couple of weeks ago near our divider.

So anyway, hey, listen, I've drawn, I've gone on about Ukraine for a amount. Back to you anything. I just got one more, one more thought about Ukraine. I was thinking about Zluzni, from a political and slash intel standpoint, I had a thought of given his popularity with his troops, how much of this is this decision to remove him as political because of he may be a political threat, you know. So that's something to think about.

And on the outside, on the on the back half of that, now that if it is political, if part of it is political, which we would, you know, we would assume any replacement, is this going to be somebody that's going to, you know, walk the line, which would down the line. compromise, you know, tactics and, you know, the troops and stuff. So that's something to think about. No, that's a really good point.

Really good point, Jason. I got to tell you that that the scuttle butt in Ukraine is exactly that. That, listen, I'm just repeating, you know, the word. And this is why it was a tremendous move to fire this guy, I suppose. I mean, it was, I suppose, I draw a comparison with McArthur's firing. But to your point, yeah, that's, I mean, politics in Ukraine, as you know, is pretty cut in frost. And that's an understatement, right? I mean, you take no prisoners.

Even a guy like Zelensky, you know, ostensibly easygoing, amiable, he wouldn't have got where he is without being able to slit some throats politically. And the popularity certainly of Zoluzni could well have annoyed him. they had differences. I mean, there were, listen, there were sensibly. There were good reasons to fire. I mean, Zuluzni had a public difference of opinion with him. Again, like to McCarthy. Yeah, an interview to the economists in which Zilluzni said,

hey, yeah, the war is a stalemate. You know, we can't get there from here without more resources, which was a huge departure from his boss. His boss, you know, I had to walk that back in. So yes, I agree with you, Jason. I think that could well be a motivation. But there were enough reasons ostensibly for the president to blame it on other things. Can I ask?

So Zelensky's like, you know, he's trying to get more resources out of like, you know, NATO or the U.S. specifically probably. Was it like the biggest beef between them was the mobilization, right? He meant more resources in terms of. manpower. I, yeah, I can't pretend to be, you know, in the inner circle. But that is, yeah, that's what I'm hearing. That, that was, you know, that was the root cause.

Yeah. I mean, he, solutione emerged from the first year of the war as a hero. And he still is regarded as a hero to the troops. I mean, he is, you know, I mean, my mind, there's no doubt about it. And I can't believe I used that term. but the last year has been a rough year. You know, first year saw the defense of Kiev. It saw, you know, the Kharki breakthrough.

It saw retaking Kassan. But there's been definite change in the last Ukrainian casualties melt. Ukrainians haven't released their figures, but all estimates are that they were on parity for a while, both in vehicles and in personnel during the offensive. which of course the rate you know the ukreans cannot they can't afford to sustain that right all right so back to the middle east and this is more like jason's uh jason's expertise uh the u.s targeted strike on the what's the organization's name in bagdad

harper's bula yeah the uh logistics guy was it a CIA drone jason tell us everything Let me close the doors first. You know, I honestly, I don't know. I would venture an educated guess that we had a, that the agency had a hand in it, whether it was on the ground intel or, you know, strategic intel on it. But I would think so that we would have had a hand in it. It was the precision of it would suggest that this was, something that was in the in the works for a little while whether that's two weeks or you know

because it was it was not indiscriminate at all um and this guy's been wanted for i mean this guy has been i would just say this guy has been on our yeah on on on on yeah he's been on a checklist yeah he's been on the post office well for a while yeah so um sorry go on just no it's all right um and also too the first fact that we knew, uh, going into this, you know, before we hit the pickle switch that we were going to incur the wrath of, uh, the Iraqis in this. So, you know, at this point, we're already talking about withdrawing our troops from that, from the coalition anyway. So it's kind of one of those, uh, in my eyes, it's one of those, well, we're going to do it anyway. We're leaving anyway. So we're going to get our

licks in before we go. So, um, you know, yeah, I, I do believe. I mean, even on a, you know, on a common sense level, agency or any intel apparatuses would have been at work in the planning and executing of this thing. So hopefully that is a roundabout way of answering your question. Yeah, it was, yeah, a strange name was like Wissim Al-Sadi, but he called himself Abu Bakr. I don't know how he got away with that, but that was that was his Norm DeGuerre, after a big daddy, Abu Bakr. And actually, and he was, he headed up, the media reported fiercely that he was there,

you know, he handled logistics, that he headed up KH operations in Syria. I don't believe he headed up all KH operations in Syria. He was certainly connected with their drone operations. And so you see there may have been a position. seed connection between the fact that it was a drone attack and, you know, on the base, even though the drone came from Iraq, you know, this guy was supposedly an expert in, in repurposing drones. So, you know, we, we had that. But in these statements, remember, they just made a comment that he was responsible for, for aggression against U.S. forces or whatever,

that they're causing U.S. casualties, not specifically notice the attack on Tower 22. But, you know, I say all that because, you know, here's the deal. And I've said this before. It's immensely viscerally satisfying to see a bad guy killed, right? On the other hand, one hopes it's part of a larger comprehensive plan. And we said the same thing about Soleimani. And by the way, you know, at the time, I think we, the more circumspect observers were saying that,

hey, listen, it's going to take a while for revenge to happen, but revenge will happen. And it did, you know, could Harbisbullah lost Mahandez. And it took three years, but they hit Tower 22. There's anyone who thinks there's no connection there is. So what I'm saying is we're injecting. It's incredibly, when you look at it. everything we've been talking about, right, from what's happening in the Middle East to what's happening in the, I mean, what's happening in the, I mean, what's happening in the Middle East holistically from Gaza to the Red Sea, right? Obviously, it's a wicked problem to use General Nevis terms. And what we're doing is injecting energy into the system. The Israelis are injecting energy in the system. Iran is, right? And we're all kind of observing, okay, what did that do?

Well, we should have some predictions about whenever we inject energy into the system to include whacking someone, you know, a mitigation strategy, just a campaign, so it's part of a larger picture. And that's what I hope is happening. I'm not suggesting that that's not, but there will be repercussions, of course, you know. And even in the kind of information space, we are going to suffer some loss of ground, all right? That's all I'm saying. Okay, before your audience goes crazy saying that I don't, you know, I don't support killing, which is I know one of the main ethos is of the Team House podcast.

But, you know, when you talk about information space, it's almost amusing. Of course, the Iraqi military is up in arms about violation of sovereignty. You know, the military spokesman said, United States has become a factor for instability and threatens to entangle Iraq and the cycle of conflict. The coalition consistently deviates from the reasons and objectives for its presence on our territory, right? So just laying, you know, laying the reverse side of the red carpet for us to get out

while the chairman of the PMC meets with a Russian ambassador, the chairman of the PMC is an official Iraqi government position. That happened as I talked about two weeks ago. You see what's happening. All this blood and treasure we've spent all this effort in Iraq. And now we're kind of being eased out and coming in the back door is Russia at no cost to itself in blood and pressure. And Iran. Don't worry.

We'll talk about positive things later, right? There's another story out there, too, about the IDF or Mossad hitting on, you know, smoking IRGC guys in Syria. There's another report about somebody being poisoned, too. I don't remember that. But, yeah, they killed actually three IRGC guys in a farm near Damascus, which brings up an interesting point. When we talk about, again, and we, you know, we stay clear of taking sides politically. but when we talk, but politics drives warfare, right? And we talk about our political stance, vis-a-vis the Israelis,

how we're walking a fine line. And yet, meanwhile, although we, you know, say ourselves, we didn't kill any IRGC guys and the well-publicized strikes that we do. Behind the scenes, almost the Israelis are taking them out one by one in Syria. Yeah. So, like, my question is part of the U.S. strategy like you've seen it with a specifically at the white house briefings like they're trying to cool some tensions moving towards the ceasefires negotiations is it part because they need

israel to kind of turn down the volume a little bit because like you said they bring so much energy to the region yeah is that part of the strategy right like to to have them like pull back a little bit so this place like kind of calms down a little bit yes certainly you know i mean that we we trying to we're trying to lower the heat right and and and i mean these the Israelis have an advantage in a sense in that they almost can do what they want right and they know they will ultimately get u.s backing um and they're playing to a domestic audience when they do so right um it's the opposite for us and we're walking all these fine lines um in in the middle east right now and we're trying to the lid on.

And as we've seen, there's so many relationships there that that don't work in terms of cause and effect anymore, you know, like the Iranians and their proxies, that it's, the unpredictability is off the charts. And I mean, you throw in, you name it, you throw in the peripheral activity that is spiking or growing on the, on Israel's northern border. of Hezbollah that's again almost behind the scenes, all the trouble on the West Bank, discussions about Iranian influence now and infiltrating the West Bank. I mean, these are not comforting signs, right?

You don't have to be chicken little to be saying, wow, I really think, I really feel right now there's always sitting on a powder cake in the Middle East, man. That is such a cliche, isn't it? But it really does feel that way right now. for all of these reasons. Let me see. What else on that? I'm just trying to think of anything else on that topic.

Oh, hey, so yeah, information space, right? This week, various statements released about our strikes. But H. came out, and they basically said, hey, our previous ceasefire is off. And there are no U.S. forces that are out of reach of our drones. Basically, you know, it specifically talked about using drones to hit us again. And, and, uh, Ashabal Khav, another major militia group, Iranian pack militia group, said, set your clocks for revenge time. It's minutes on missiles.

It seconds our drones. Oh, wow. Yeah, you like that? Set your clocks for revenge time. I can see their, I could just picture their like, strategy session on that statement. Yeah, yeah. Well, I think that would be a pretty cool Christmas present. Like, you know, a clock literally with minutes that are missiles and seconds are drones.

And I do know that that the both the initial halting of operations against U.S. troops and then this reinstatement of it is from a tap on the shoulder from Big Brother Iran. I don't think that that was a group, a small group decision. I think that was, okay, you know, back off. for a few minutes for a little bit and now it's okay go ahead and wrap it up again we got your back so yeah that's a good that's a good point uh it's you know as we talked about uh last week the iran of course iran stance is disingenuous it has made these groups capable of doing what they can do whether they are now controlled by iran or not is almost irrelevant in fact it's our interests that they are controlled by Iran because at least then we have one

semi-rational actor to exert pressure on but our fear is and the evidence well the indicators are that in the cases of the Houthis and certain and to certain extent the PMCs in Iraq they're beyond I mean they're no longer listening yep to to Kud's force and the way the knowledge and training to do it around and that could be again you know unintended consequences of a strike. Remember, you know, Jason, we talk about strikes and we go through all the other stuff, why it needs to happen now. There's always the, you know, what happens? What are the repercussions? Who replaces this guy, right? And so who replaced Soleimani was a guy named Garni, we talked about a little bit last week, different, different guy. Sulamani was loved by the

rank and file, very charismatic. But he, the, the, the, the, the, The militias in Iraq were scared of him. Garni doesn't exert that kind of control. So part of it may be just natural kind of move on. The kids have grown up when they leave their house. Part of it may come down to personality, which is all important. Absolutely. How are we doing on time?

Pretty good. I think we're at like 35-ish, 40 minutes. Yeah. You want to talk about Tucker Carlson real quick? Yeah, the interview with Putin. Yeah. All right. It's a great history lesson of like,

Putin's view on things. It was wild that first 30 minutes of shutting down Tucker and being like, no, no, this is what's going on. And I'll get to that whenever, you know what I mean. He just freaking owned them. Yeah, let me frame it this way. Okay. I'm not, you know, certainly make comments about Mr. Carlson as a person. I don't know him. And I'm sure he has many staunch fans within our audience.

but I will say this that he had a terrific opportunity you know Western journalists which he's we're almost going over time which he's got his bonus making it very evident but you know he he's the first Western journalist right to get in with Putin

recently certainly all the major networks have been turned down and he so he had this prime opportunity to really get in and dig down. What were you thinking? What are you thinking now? Well, instead he asked a series of softball questions, all right? And he let Putin run off script and didn't bring him back in. You know, he acted like a rookie. He acted like a starstruck rookie. So regardless of, you know, what do you think about this politically, blah, blah, blah, I think it was a huge lost opportunity. I just wish that we'd had someone,

or it had been someone of more substance, greater talent than Tucker Carlson. I mean, Christ, for goodness sake, in the first, you know, interview, first minutes of the interview, we're in a lengthy discussion about Rurik, a what's it, a Varianian chieftain of the ninth century in the medieval reign of Yoroslav, the wise.

You know, I'm thinking, what just happened we fell through the looking glass tucker get us back um and and by the way that you know although there may have been some crossover there may be a reason why they're talking about this guy uh because he's kind of a he's kind of a hero with the right wing um Rurik he's doesn't Rurik sound like the guy in dirty rotten scoundrels yeah who who asked to go to the bathroom sounds like that's Rupert that's he's under the table. Andy you know what's funny? that's a great reference because that used to be one of my favorite movies as a kid.

It was a great movie. It was Rupert. What was true for me is when he spoke about Poland and World War II, basically starting World War II. And literally right after that, I watched, I turned on YouTube and I was watching something and they were talking about Wagner's footprint in Africa and how it's starting to wane a little bit. And taking over is what Russ.

is dubbed their Africa Corps. And I was like, oh, okay. Well, that's, that term sounds so familiar. Yeah. I was like, holy. Yeah, I know. That was a great one. Poland started the Second World War by very selfishly being invaded by Germany.

Yeah. On 3rd of September, 1939. The interesting part to me was. And then he claimed, and Jason can talk about this at length, that, you know, 24, in Ukraine was a CIA-backed coup. By the way, you know, Carlson seemed to not understand the difference that there were, you know, there were two revolutions, one in 2004 and 2014, and he got confused between those two. He didn't ask a single question, hardball question, not even about, I don't know, Russian war crimes,

including those for which Putin stands personally accused or the repression of domestic. critics such as you know, Novoni. And the only thing he came away with was kind of these memories of the 17th century Cossack leader which Putin,

oh, a file of letters, right? Yeah, that was hilarious. That should be like on a bingo card. Like what? A word leader handing documents over to a journalist. Like, that's the best when that happens. I love it. But on a serious level, it sounded like Putin was hinting

that he still might use nukes. I think that's going to come up in any interview with him. Oh, yeah, no, I mean, yeah, exactly. He said he wasn't interested in invading Poland or Latvia, but of course he said the same thing about Ukraine. Yeah. What I get from Putin, and this is like most of his interviews or statements, is he plays like the victim really well, or at least that's a message he's trying to put

across, like, you know, wo is us. and like we're just trying to negotiate with the West. Like we're not doing anything. He did ask him about like if Russia would be, would have Russia have joined NATO back in the 90s? He's like, yeah, we would have been open to it. Like, what are we talking about? I mean, even though he wasn't running in the 90s.

You know, one of the challenges for a guy interviewing Putin is he's got this, especially when he's on home turf, very kind of a snaring, a supercilious, arrogant attitude that builds a war between him. him and the interviewer and many interviewers, especially Russians, of course, fall into this kind of sycophantic mode. So, and it's very much Putin is in control the interview. And this was no exception. You know, he, Putin showed absolutely no regard for the interest or patience for the viewers and Tucker didn't bring him back in. Putin's just not, he's not accustomed to

explaining himself and Carlson didn't make him do it. And he's an intel guy at heart. He's a, he's a spy. So, I mean, look at what he did. I don't remember the year when he bought his dog into the talks with, that wasn't Merkel, I believe it was, knowing that she was terrified of dogs.

Yeah, that's right. Right in between him. I mean, he's a, he's an intel guy through and through. So he does, I'm giving credit. He does mention that, that he is a, you know, I'm a KGB guy. I work for the main director and stuff like that. Like, because he talks some shit about the CIA.

He put, he put Carlson in his pocket, though, like at one point when he mentions to Carlson, like, oh, yeah, you, uh, you, uh, you know, try to get into the CIA and we're rejected. You know, that's interesting. Like, yeah, he knows how to get in your head. Yeah.

Well, you know, here's the point. I mean, he, he, he blew it. I'm talking about. Carlson, as a professional journalist, he should be, he shouldn't be proud of that effort. You know, power in Russia is absolutely opaque. And it seems like the often seems as though the only, only one man in the know is Putin. And even he seems to be frequently failing. And so, you know, Carlson's granted this rare access to him.

and he blew it. And the message we all got was, you know, again, Putin's not a, it's not to be trusted. Yeah. But more importantly, certainly not a guy to emulate or admire as, you know, kind of the, at least I got the impression from Tucker Carlson could be wrong. But that's, you know, which is a shame. So that's saying, well, on that note, D. over to you.

Did we miss anything out, right? No, I think we got everything. Jason, you got anything that you want to hit touch on? No, I think it's all a matter of, as Andy alluded to earlier, connecting all the dots between everything. Nothing is happening in a vacuum, whether it's Ukraine, Middle East, whatever it is, it's all connected, whether it's for the military tactically, what did we learn, lessons learned, politically, you know,

what's going to happen next? I think we just need to keep an eye on it and keep doing what we're doing. Yeah, well, I am going to wrap it up now, and I know Dee has reminded me to say something. I was desperately trying to remember what he had reminded me to say. And now I know, all right. Hey, everyone, we really, really welcome your support, but kind of tangible proof of it is really what we need. So, you know, even just liking videos or the podcasts, writing a review, all of these things, really help out. So if you enjoy this, if you kind of enjoy this format, you don't have to like us

personally. But please do, please do like the episode, subscribe on whatever platform that you are watching or listening to this. And follow us on on social media. And that is pretty much it. Yep. We'll see you guys again on Wednesday. We're going to be doing these twice a week. week because I think, you know, the news is evolving so fast that I think it's warranted. And yeah, exactly what Andy said. Don't forget to like, subscribe, share. Tell your best friend about it. You know what I mean?

Like you're sitting there with your wife and she doesn't want to hear it, but tell her about it anyway, you know, in and date people. So thanks, guys. All the best. See in a couple of days.