The Team House - Putin/Russia are Delusional & Famine Declared in Gaza | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: August 25, 2025

Support the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseIn this episode, the hosts discuss the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, marked by a declared famine affecting hundreds of thousands. They explore the military strategies employed by Israel, the public sentiment in Israel regarding the conflict, and the challenges surrounding the two-state solution. The conversation also delves into the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, examining the implications of military strategies and international support. The hosts emphasize the importance of maintaining a US presence in Iraq and the complexities of counterterrorism efforts in the region.Sign up to our newsletter here!https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/Support the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseNew merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comFind Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️https://fogbow.com/Lobo Institute ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/Twitter ⬇️https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCALinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/Bluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialMick’s publications ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023Substack ⬇️https://amilburn.substack.com/Andy’s book ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-OperationsBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?uBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.social"Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio"00:00 Famine in Gaza: A Humanitarian Crisis04:4 Military Strategies and Humanitarian Concerns09:58 The Role of Hamas and Israeli Policies15:09 Prospects for a Two-State Solution20:04 Intelligence and Military Operations in Gaza24:47 Political Dynamics and Military Decisions33:23 Russia's Demands and Ukraine's Response36:23 The Role of the US and Europe in Ukraine38:53 Negotiating Peace: Challenges and Considerations40:56 The Future of Ukraine: Military and Civilian Perspectives44:11 Global Implications: China, Taiwan, and NATO45:51 The Potential for Military Escalation51:23 The Situation in Iraq and Counterterrorism EffortsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey guys, what's going on? It's the, I just have a small request for everybody out there who's a listener of this podcast. If you enjoy listening to this podcast and you want to help support the show, you can go to patreon.com slash the team house. That link is in the description of the show notes, whatever platform you're listening to us on. What do you get for supporting us on Patreon? Great question. The only question. You get completely 100% ad-free audio. No more commercials annoying you, interrupting you, being a little bit louder than the media,

like then what your, the podcast you're actually listening to. I've been trying to fix that for the last seven months and it's the most frustrating thing in the world. So I completely understand where you guys are coming from. Our Patreon starts at $5 a month. If you join the $5 a month part, you could get ad free audio, add free video. You get access early to the audio of both the Teamhouse, and Aizond. So you get both two for the price of one.

And you help support the show. We're out here grinding every day. We're not a huge podcast. So we really appreciate the support. It really does go a long way. So it's Patreon.com slash the team house to make it easy for you. That link is in the show notes on whatever platform you're listening to us. Thanks for the support.

Thanks for checking out the show, guys. Very much appreciated it. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Aizon Geopolitics. I'm here with Mick Morroy, Jason Lyons. A lot happening as usual. Do yous a favor, like and subscribe. If you're listening to us on audio,

rated five stars, subscribe there as well. And check out our Patreon. And check out Fogbo and Lobo. The links are all in the description, if you're wondering. So big news, the UN has declared a famine in Gaza,

backed by, I guess, the integrated food security phase clarification, the IPC, confirmed on Friday that the famine has taken hold in Gaza, government encompassing Gaza City and the nearby areas, and warned it could extend to Central and Southern Gaza by late September. Obviously, a lot is happening there. The Hamas has accepted the June ceasefire offer.

Israel is currently building up forces, ready to go in to occupy the majority of Gaza. So it looks like they're kind of On the opposite ends of the spectrum here Mick, what are you tracking with First of all, let's talk about the famine that was declared There was a lot of back and forth actually going on on social media Saying how

They're classifying it as For them to classify it as a famine It should be 30% of people are malnourished It's actually 15% That was refuted to So there's a lot of like disinformation and back and forth going on. So Mick, I know you're, you know what's going on here. So clueless in.

Yes. So to present both sides and you started doing it, D, so you've got the IPC, which is a UN-backed organization that does this, right? So this isn't like they just randomly decided that they would declare a famine. They, the phases that we talk about and the fifth phase is the worst is what they're saying, were in, at least for parts of Gaza. And there is no phase after that. Death is after that. So the concern, of course, is there's 500,000 people that the IPC says are currently in a famine.

They predict that within a month, I believe, by the end of September, there'll be 640,000 of Palestinians in this phase. And once people start dying, it increases exponentially, right? So it's the end of the rope, if you will. So a lot of concern about that. And we can touch on the plan for the full occupation of Gaza. But obviously that impacts the famine. It's going to be more difficult, even if there's an all-out effort to get people food, when there's full-on conflict combat in Gaza City,

it's going to be very difficult to get food to be. And you're going to have to relocate a 900,000. So a huge concern. At its height, the UN had, I think, 400 food distribution points. Right now there's four. And they're all in the south. The flip side, if you will, and you already addressed it, is the Israelis say, well, most of the stats are coming from, you know,

the Ministry of Health in Gaza, which they believe is essentially run by. have us. I don't know if it's it is or isn't, but that's their position. And so they think the facts are skewed so that it's not actually, to your point, 30 percent, it's much less. So I don't know that, I don't know, you know, even though we're involved in, we're not really much involved in Gaza anymore, but we certainly have been. And so we keep very close ties with the groups that do support folks in Gaza. So we do have, I think, more information. than the average person on the situation. But I don't know which one's accurate,

but unfortunately, we're going to find out. Right? Because when people start dying, when children start dying, malnutrition, if they do, then there's your unfortunate proof that they were correct. So I think everybody should get behind the idea

that we should not allow innocent civilians, period, but certainly not children. to die of starvation, especially when it's a man-made scenario, whether that man, you know, is Hamas, who obviously could care less about the civilians in Gaza or the policies of the Prime Minister Netanyahu at one time completely cutting off food, which of course compounds the problem even when you turn it back on and then the very restricted nature of what's going in now. So again, I think, unfortunately, we're going to find out who's right in the next coming weeks if we start seeing a lot of deaths from starvation. Yeah.

No. Sorry, Dee. No, please. Are these agencies able to calculate how much time and food it would take to get back above famine levels, like well above? Are they able to do that? I think so, yeah, Jay. I think, I mean, they do this and they've done it for decades. Unfortunately, the problem of famine has been a perpetual one. They have the science down.

And it's a science not in the amount of food that you have available to people, but once you reach a certain phase, there's only certain foods you can eat. Unfortunately, if you're in the last phase, you can't just eat normal food. right? You can't just, it has to be very specific. It has to have the right amount of minerals and nutrition that can be digested, you know, like a steak, for example, can't be digested. So it's, it's the type of food. It's the medicine that would allow. So it's the rehydration, you know, medical devices that would do that. But they're going to need to flood the zone to get it back. And there's also the issue of panic, right? If you know,

that there's a lot of food. You're like it's not going to go away. You'll stand in line, right? You'll stand in line to get you and your, obviously your children food. But if you think there's only enough food for 10% of the people out there and you're trying to get food for your kid, it quickly turns into survival of the fittest.

You know what I mean? So it's having a lot of food, so the population can come back from the brink of starvation and stabilize. And that's the question, think a lot of people are putting pressure on the Israeli government. What's the military, like strategic military advantage of like starving people? Well, I mean, if you just look at it from a purely military perspective, it's population movement, right? If you want a population to move from one place to another, you could shoot

at them. They're doing that too. Well, you can't, you can't just shoot at civilian, civilians. It's against the law of armed conflict. Or you can starve them, which is also against the law of armed conflict. In fact, it's one of the main impetus of all the conventions that we collectively agreed to after World War II. Or you could just simply not starve them, but put food in another other area so they have

the lead to go there. I don't know if, I mean, maybe you have some international lawyers in the audience, but I don't know if that is also included in what's online. In other words, you're feeding them, but you're feeding them in a way that you're manipulating. And a big concern, and I don't know if this is going to be the case, is that's how they're going to get the civilians out of Gaza City. They just won't want any food or water to turn it off. if there's even running on. Honestly, like, I'm obviously clearly against this whole thing. And, um, you know, if the case was, hey, we're going to open up 400, um, aid sites and flood

it with food and medicine and keep like off, like not attack the civilians that are going to get the food and medicine down in the south, I'm probably, me, I would probably be more okay with, uh, of like a full occupation of Gaza city that if they did something. something like that. But I mean, it doesn't seem like they will. At least that doesn't look to be on the cards. And it's just a fucking,

it's a tragedy of epic proportions. And I know Hamas is dirty and they're fucking scumbags and they should be killed. But there's also like 1.9 million other people there that just luck of the draw you know, got unlucky with where they were born. And I don't know how the U.S. can continue to support this, going to be frank.

And I know, like, we're never going to send troops there, nor should we. But outside of contractors. But I don't know why we need to give them. I think military aid should be contingent on people not starving to death. Certainly make the argument. And the U.S., of course, is a, and will remain a big partner of Israel. I don't understand necessarily why they would want to use these techniques.

I mean, I think the world's with them, to your point, Hamas is a despotic terrorist organization and, you know, should be hunted down and killed, essentially. And they've shown no interest in, they brought all up, they spent all the money that they could have spent on infrastructure to support the citizens of Gaza, you know, in schools, hospitals. And I was talking to a priest for him on the other day. And he'd been there.

And he's like, you know, when they turned it over, they had cafes and hospitals, Israel, that is. They had fields of agriculture and all that. And instead of building on that, Hamas spent billion dollar on a tunnel system for themselves, right? All for the purposes of eventually attacking Israel. Because you don't need a tunnel if you're not going to attack Israel. What's the point? A billion dollars with the tunnel systems? Right?

So, yeah, I think they would have most of the goodwill that counts in the world if they would not use civilian population and the controlling of food as part of their tactics here. I think a lot of Israelis agree with that. Yeah, we have seen a ton of, like, protests. like hundreds of thousands of people. I think one was half a million people calling to like, you know, ceasefire, get the hostages back. And, you know, so it does seem like tide is turning at least with a populace in Israel in terms of like, let's just get this over with. It's like, um, I mean, listen, I don't like Hamas either, right?

I think, I think Israel and Musad should go after them one by one strategically what is what they're clearly very good at, right? Like, that's what they excel in. in terms of like some of the some of that billion of dollars came from israel too right like it wasn't and nanyahu's government was you know funneling money through to through katar to Hamas before october 7th um yeah i mean i don't know the all the details but a lot of the money came from iran yeah iran provided 90 percent of the support militarily to maz and i i have a hypothetical question right let's say we live in in brink Brooklyn and Long Island and Queens and the rest of the boroughs are you know control who comes in and out

It's been like that for a long time Wouldn't you set up a tunnel network to in terms of like being able to have a little bit more freedom of movement and not being tracked by Israel 24-7? I don't know if I agree completely with the open-air prison what people call call But if there ever is one in the world I mean it was as close to it as possible possible. I don't know if I completely agree with that because there was freedom, like relative freedom of movement before October 7th, but, you know, their coastline was shut down. Like, I don't know how I would react. I'm trying to put myself in that position and how I would react and how I would act, you know, and it's just tough for me. And again, I think the Hamas leadership and

stuff should get clipped. I think they really should. I mean, but I would not be surprised as well if, like Hamas's numbers are staying steady because, you know, there's a bunch of young kids being radicalized, right? So I wouldn't be surprised if recruitment was like not in the dumps for Hamas or Islamist jihad or any of the jihadi groups. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, you could make an argument that if when it was turned over by Israel when they left, if you would have had a technocratic government that focused on the popular. itself and not, you know, perpetuating a terrorist war against Israel, think of the different

place it would have been in, right? And if they never attacked Israel, there'd be incredible pressure on Israel right now to have a Palestinian state, right? If they had avocado fields and orange fields and kids were going to school and they were prospering and they weren't attacking Israel? What would be the argument against the Palestinian state, even in Israel? Now, go try to talk about a two-state solution in Israel, because they're going to say, oh, we tried it. And guess who they elected? Hamas. Guess what they did, October 7? And ultimately, it doesn't matter the pressure of the international community. If Israel doesn't agree to it, we're not going to have a we're not going to have a Palestinian state, I don't think. So ultimately, it depends on what

the people want, do they want their children to be educated and have a future? Or do they want their children to, you know, join the jihad and go killing Israeli? And we're further away from like even talking about a two-state solution now that we probably have been in our lifetime. And I think that's, you know, on the doorstep of Hamas personally. Also, like, yeah, what would a two-state solution actually look like? the West Bank is being settled. Dividing up the West Bank and they're settling. So if you look at it, you know,

and I'm not a historian, like actual story and I've obviously followed it. Every time there's been an offer to Palestinians and Israelis, when the Palestinians turned it down, the offer next time has gotten less. From the beginning, it was like 50-50 land split. Right? So it's, I mean, some people that support the two-state solution basically, you know, probably coined the term.

They didn't, that the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And now look where we are. Do you got anything? I have one more question for Mick. No, go ahead, man. So let's show, you know, Mick, you know, you were a military advisor or a DOD advisor, high up, CIA, SIS, J-U-2, you guys were in the room. if you were advising a prime minister or president about what's going on with what's happening now in Gaza what would you what would be the broad strategic obviously not street to street tactics

but like what would be the broad strategic plan in your eyes I know this is it's a thought exercise obviously but like you mean is Israelis yeah yeah yeah so I mean I would you can already tell where I'd be on the restriction of food. I wouldn't use that at all. I'd accept the fact that Hamas is going to steal some food, right? So, as you said, if there's two million people living in Gaza, Hamas started at 30,000. I think the AIDF is probably reduced in below 10,000, my guess.

Yes, they're going to recruit more, but they recruit more because of the conditions, right? So I would, I would re-look at that entirely and not, because you've got to keep, you know, not only internet, national goodwill, but internal, I think. I mean, it's a democracy, right? So I don't think the Israelis are good with the conditions of the way they are and to the extent that Israel is responsible for it. And then there really has to be a militarily achievable set of objectives. I mean, politicians say stuff like, we're going to annihilate destroy Hamas.

Okay, got it. So the U.S., the most significant superpower in the world, not just conventionally, but unconventionally, fought for 20 years to try to destroy al-Qaeda, ISIS, which came from al-Qaeda, and all the other responders. They're still there, right? Because you can't just beat a philosophy with brute force. So I would set, and I'm sure the IDF would appreciate this, reasonable militarily objectives, but I think they think they've already met them. And then you have an exit plan. and it can't be tied to your own political, you know, fortunes or misfortunes. It's just what the, what you need to do to ensure that Gaza will never be a safe haven for Hamas and never mount a threat to the state of Israel.

Yeah, that sounds a way more measured. Jay, go ahead. Yeah, no, I agree with everything that was just said. And I would also add that if we're going to bring it down just a little bit, more. One of the big reasons for this all starting after the October 7th attack was to get these excuse me, the hostages back. So why not once we, let's just say we do take Gaza City and, you know, we do occupy the country. Once we've done that, as Mick stated, bring in, let, allow the food in because now once you're feeding people, they'll be more apt to be like, okay, my kids are fed. I know where these hostages are or I know a little bit of information.

Now I'd be more willing to give that to the IDF. Those sorts of things. I think right now, as tragic as it is, that the hostages are kind of an afterthought because the Palestinians in Hamas, they don't, they're not going to give up that information while people are starving. And the IDF, and, you know, Israel is not going to, is not necessarily pushing that narrative to get them back because people have other things on their mind, taking Gaza City or whatever it is. So I think most, as we discussed earlier, most the average Israeli citizen wants those hostages back.

That's what's foremost on their mind. As bad as it sounds to say, they don't care about, most of them don't care about the Palestinian, you know, the average Palestinian because they want their people back, which I completely understand. Well, that's probably not going to happen until you stabilize that. area and allow food in, then people will be more apt to give up that information. Hamas or probably, although they really don't care either. But how can they argue negotiating for the release of the hostages if their own people are now being fed and the things that they're saying are not happening or happening?

So it behoove Israel to allow those things happen, food to come in, you know, water, electricity and all that stuff. now you've taken every argument away from Hamas, you know, and you can work on getting them. Yep. That's a great point. That's exactly what I would propose. And on the intel side, I would basically put the word out from Assad and Shinbet. If you're guarding one of these hostages and you turn them over, you're going to be a wealthy person.

Just would do it that way, right? How much time after we spend negotiating when you could just pay people off? And during a rescue attempt, I would tell him if you keep the person alive and he tells us when you get, when we recovery, that thanks to this guy who did not shoot me and kept me alive during the raid, same thing. Yeah. It's just to maybe it's just the way the intel system. And I would be like, okay, Moss leaders, you can leave Gaza. And I spend the rest of my existence tracking them down. I mean, yeah, absolutely.

There's smart ways to do stuff. And there's, you know, that, and I'm not saying that not doing all this stuff. I actually don't know. So I would just, you know, I'm looking at it as a blank slate. So I don't know what they are or aren't doing. Yeah, I was, I had a question. Like when we were in Iraq, right, from what I've heard from like people folks that were there, whether they were Army intelligence or CIA, whatever, is like we set up easier,

easy mechanisms for people to come in with tips. stuff like that, right? Is that being done? Do you think in Gaza? Because like Andy's mentioned it before, they go in, they clear, they get out, they go back in and clear again. Like they don't really kind of plant a flag

for lack of a better, like to just simplify it from my dumb brain. Like so do they set that up where like they can have, like they have a forward operating base and if somebody has information, they come and they debrief or they try and figure out

what they're trying to say, you know. There's got to be a way to do that. that. I mean, they do have a fob. What Andy's talking about is they're, they're, their, their, uh, straight infantry forces aren't trained to, to clear and hold. They're basically clear and then retract back in the fob. I mean, I don't have any reason to say that Andy's not right about that. If that's the case, it causes a lot of issues, right? And our, like we did Fallujah, we took it. Yeah. We didn't go take it and retract and let them take it back. And I mean, you don't have to be a regular warfare expert to know that's not very effective. But there's also an internal pressure

that's going to mount because they had to call 60,000 reservists up for the Gaza City offensive and the rest of, you know, the 25% or whatever they don't occupy, plus retain 20,000 reservists that would have been getting off active duty now. Huge pressure. I mean, they rely on reservists, which is okay, unless you're, in a multi-year war on multi-fronts, then they essentially you take your whole population not only disrupt their lives for years, you know, and I know a lot of Israelis, some wanted to be like doctors and lawyers and such. They kind of gave it up. You know, take three years out of a young person's life. It changes the dynamic. And it's very disruptive to the economy, right? People who

would have finished college and gone to the tech industry and created other jobs and all that, they're all bartenders in Tel Aviv when they're not reservists. And nothing wrong with being a bartender in Tel Aviv, but if you had an aspiration to go to finish college, just like here, right? And all of a sudden you were told, eh, you're going to take three years of your life. And so the only thing they can do. They go fight in a war too, right? Like sea combat.

How does that affect them in that way? Huge, huge PTSD issues. Yeah. And to answer your question from an intel standpoint, there are, well, I would assume Israel is good at Intel. So there are mechanisms in place and they're called walk-ins where people have information. And the traditional walk-in is usually like an embassy or something like that. You know, someone will say, hey, I have information. But I'm sure that Israel has mechanisms in place in Gaza for people to approach. probably not IDF because they don't want to get shot, but someone to say, hey, I have information that I want to pass on. And plus probably,

I'm sure before, if I'm, remember correctly, before October 7th, Israel had networks in place, you know, I'm sure, and,

you know, people that they could call on and say, hey, you live here, what the hell is going on. So I don't know if they're there anymore. Either they've left. or they're dead more than likely, but at the very least, there's probably mechanisms in place

because I'm sure that Israeli intelligence is not just sitting back, you know, sitting on their hands. I'm sure they're in Gaza talking to people. So there's mechanism in place. Do you guys think they're relying a little bit too much on Sagan stuff? I don't know. I mean, good intelligence is everything, right? It's not, you know, like, hey, let's do this, not that.

You use it all. Yeah. And sometimes you have, you know, better humid or better SIG-It. And then a lot of SIG-in is actually human-enabled, right? So it's, especially in today's, you know, intelligence world, it's all intermingled, right? And you need all the whole picture, the whole picture. And, you know, for example, SIG-S is very effective unless they think you're listening to them. and then they can turn it entirely around on you, right,

and run basically an operation where you think what is being said is accurate when they just want you to think. Right. So it's a challenge. Tricky business and tell home. Go ahead. Yeah, look at what happened on Iran with before the U.S. We used our bunker busters.

When Israel was attacking Iran, there's that conversation between Israeli intelligence and that Iranian general. And they were telling them, you know, you have 20 hours to get out. So I'm sure that Israel, again, has contacts within Hamas that they're talking to and, you know, back channel discussions. And they're getting some of the information that they need. But the problem is, is when you, I'm not saying, and I'm not. advocate for keeping them alive. But when you kill the people who would talk to you and give you the information, then there's nobody left to talk to. So now you have nothing but a military option. So, but I'm sure that there are people who are considering that. And I'm watching a series

right now, as you might guess, called Rebellion. It's about the Irish Easter Rising in 19. Seen it. 14. And then the actual successful, you know, Michael Collins led 1920, right? So One, their whole, one of their main efforts in Intel side was to get the list of the informants, right? And then there's a spring of assassinations by the 12 disciples, right? Fascinating. But one of the parts now, New York, if you guys have seen it, is this one of the ladies that works for the castle, right? So the Brits, she's about to lose her out of wedlock child. it's going to be sold. And so the IRA figures that out.

And they leverage it, essentially to keep her from losing her child. If she can... So Intel is not a pretty business, right? It's not a pretty business at all. But it has major impact, if done correctly. And Collins, before he became the ultimate leader of the rebellion, was the Intel guy. I got one more thing about, like, the reservists. You mentioned 60K being called up plus the 20K that were supposed to

rotate back or staying on. A couple of weeks ago, the chief of staff of the IDF came out and said they would need 200,000. So is that number, the 60K that are being called up, call it 80 with the 20, they're staying? Is that like kind of negotiated a little bit? And like, I'm assuming Nanyahu are thinking about like, oh, shit, maybe I should call up a little bit less so like I don't piss off as many people, right? Like, you know, it's the same thing where we have.

had when like Obama came into office, right? And he wanted, he wanted to get out of Iraq, but he wanted to like kind of surge a little bit in Afghanistan and they were trying to come together on like the number of troops that they were going to send there. Right. And you know, the generals want quarter million, right? They didn't want as many people as possible. But like then you look at the political side of it and they ended up at a number. I don't remember 100K or whatever it was. Is that what's happening in terms of how many reservists they're calling up? Like is there political consideration being thought into it? I'm assuming it has to be.

I think there's about five visions in Gaza right now. I don't know how many that is total, but maybe 200,000 to the entire thing on a rotational basis. But, you know, some people believe and we'll find out that this whole plan is basically to put pressure on Amman to accept an agreement that Israel wants. Right. So this is long buildup to this. And it's believed that most Hamas that are remaining are in Gaza City. Right. So this is very important to that. So it may be, and it's like a long lead-up time, like October 7th, you know, on the anniversary,

it's supposed to be the date that it, like, fully kicks off. So hopefully, whether it's the intent or not, and we all know what we know, as you brought in the lead-up, the Hamas is accepted an agreement from June. June they say. So we still got to wait to see if if Israel acceptance, hopefully they do. Since they agreed with it in June,

it would be better if Hamas actually accepted agreements when offered, right? Because generally they expire. The hell with that. If it's, if they, if Israel accepted it then, it seems like they can accept it now. They could get hostages back. There's around 20. And that's, you know, I don't know. It's sad. say, but it's likely that that 20 is going to be diminished every week because of the conditions. So the quicker they can do that. And, you know, there's been reports that the IDF senior leadership have told the prime minister's office, we pretty much accomplished everything that you've told us to.

So, like, what is the purpose of continuing the conflict at the expense of potentially the remaining living hostages and the expense of more Israeli soldiers who are undoubtedly going to be killed or seriously injured in the Gaza city offense. So hopefully they can get to. Yeah. Uh, man. It's a, it seems like a nightmare. All right.

If you guys, you guys are good on that, you guys have anything else to, to add to like Israel, Gaza. All right. So I'll push through, uh, you know, obviously we have. the big summit last week on Friday, Putin met with Trump in Alaska.

Glaze session occurred. Nothing came out of it. Then on Monday, we had Zelensky and a gaggle of European leaders, UK, France, Germany, NATO, and now other guys, Italy, Finland, a ton of people in the White House. I am assuming figuring out next steps what the points would be. obviously the biggest point is a security guarantee what that looks like is it is it actually going to be article 5 like or not um trump indicated initially that um putin was open to having some sort of nato like or article 5 like a security guarantee but since then uh it seems like they've been walking that back um laveroff who looks like a melted candle he said no way we want Western troops in there or NATO troops in Ukraine and stuff like that

it seems like they want their security to guarantee to be up to Russia how you know just trust us bro we got this don't worry just trust me that doesn't seem like that oh it shouldn't go anywhere and shouldn't it should be an absolute non-starter um what are you guys looking at with this uh tell me teach me So, I mean, if you look at what Russia is asking for, let's just start with them. They want the territory they've already taken, unlawfully. They want territory that they don't own and haven't taken to be given to them. They want Ukraine to disarm, literally disarm.

They don't want any European troops in Ukraine. They want Chinese. I don't know if the Chinese would agree to that insanity. They don't want Ukraine to ever be able to join NATO. It's so maximalist, it's absurd. And we should call it as a. We should just like, we're not talking about it. This is, the U.S. came up with a plan.

And I think Lieutenant General Kellogg is going back soon. I'm not saying he was the one that came up with the whole plan, but he's the one that presented it. It sounds like him, which is what the Europeans are trying to do, which is the Europeans accept certain facts. Yes, the Russians are on this territory. It's unlikely we'll be able to get it back. Doesn't mean they concede it legally. They just say, it is what it is, right? They can always seek legal recourse to try to get their territory back. They freeze the lines. They bring in tens of thousands of European forces, which they've already signed on to, the coalition of willing,

and that there is a blanket security guarantee similar to Article 5, and there's no permanent ban on Ukraine joining NATO. If you look at Finland, Finland gave away 10% of its territory to Soviet. They agreed to stay neutral. And then now they're a NATO. There's a model to do. But the U.S. and Europe has to stand firm and stop just being pushed around. I mean, we had the summit.

They said that he's okay with Article 5. Now they're saying they're not, right? We had a meeting at the White House, but all these, you know, allies of ours who all talked about sending their own forces in. And now, as you just said, Dee, Russ is not good with it. Well, patience isn't just a one-sided thing. We have to adjust every time they did, they changed their mind. This is the plan.

And if you don't do it, we're going to impose secondary sanctions, sanctions don't actually work when you don't actually trade with the country. We don't trade with Russia. So sanctions are kind of a role. Has to be secondary sanction. Frozen assets. There's about $9 billion in the United States, about $3. I think $325 billion in Europe.

That's got to be getting some interest, too. You know what I mean? That's got to be going up. Tronches to let Ukraine buy F-16s, attack them, patriots, whatever they think they need, right? It all has to be in a row. And then I think Europe should start training and planning for this, you know, deployment if there's a ceasefire.

And they need to start talking about what is the red line. You know, that's a risky thing to say. But are they going to allow Ukraine to be taken in total? But the U.S. and the Europeans, in my opinion, need to start pushing back harshly. at least diplomatically in militarily, right? So if they're buying $30 billion a month from their own, from Russian frozen assets, that's a lot of material. They need it.

So if we're just, if we're just going to go with, you know, show having meetings and let Russia just delay and delay and delay, I think we're making a mistake. Something else, too, I think needs to be discussed is if, You know, if Ukraine sees that, that, what Russia has already taken, what about the people that are, the Ukrainians that are in that territory? Are they going to be allowed to come out, you know, of their own free will? That's something that needs to be considered. Yeah, totally. And, I mean, ultimately, the Ukrainians have to pass a referent.

I mean, what if, you know, I mean, you could use all the analogies, but say half of half of the country are, actually, It's a fifth of the country who was occupied by a foreign invader. Are you going to be willing to not only vote to give your terrain up, but your people? Yeah. Yep. Or is part of that going to be you have to, if we agree, you have to pay to resettle all these people in Ukraine and rehousal. It's complicated. Yeah.

That's why there needs to be a ceasefire before the negotiations start or they're just going to keep fighting. Because even if they had goodwill, which I don't think. they do, but even if they did, it would still take months to go through all of the issues and all the kids that they stole? I mean, that's insane. 30,000. He steals kids. And the German Chancellor brought that up, too, in his remarks in like the Oval Office or

wherever they were speaking with Trump, Donald Trump, and the rest of the European leaders. He actually was pretty firm in it, which was good, the Italian. Like, listen, Europe's saying the right things. And I think Europe's down to do it. I mean, are they sitting in rooms together with their advisors and stuff like that? Or even, you know, prime minister to prime minister saying we might have to go this solo without the U.S. I think so. I'm sure.

Right. Yeah. I'm sure that's happening. Yeah. Now, I'm not even just saying like troops. I'm saying just generally like let's pressure put in to like come to terms with us and Zelensky. And the U.S. is going to do whatever the U.S. is going to do. this administration, you know,

makes it kind of clear that they're kind of a little bit easy on Putin. Just that, Lavrov triggers me bad. Like, rocking this CCP sweater. Like, bro, get fucking lost, bro. Get out of here,

you fucking ogre. So what do you think happens next? There was some talk that possibly Zelensky and Putin would be meeting at the end of August. Doesn't seem like that's going to happen. It seems to have cooled off. Um, what and and at the same time, Russia is pounding Ukraine with like drones, a ton of drones. Uh, I think like 500 hit one night in one night. And they're not really, uh, discerning from military targets.

They're hitting civilian targets. Um, what do we see happening next here? Well, I mean, Russia is going to make incremental gains, but it's important point out there is no real path to victory unless everybody just stops supporting it. Right? So look how long we're into it now, three years and 200-something days. Yeah, closing it on three and a half years.

Yeah. So what are we going to do collectively? If we keep supporting them and of course these, right now the U.S. is supporting them with funds that were approved in the last administration. So are we going to just let her run out? And if we are, why are we even involved in this? You know, to your point, D, Europeans should take the lead.

They should start releasing the funds. They're in their banks. And they should start planning and preparing to be the main, you know, support for Ukraine. I mean, if we've advocated that role, there you go. Yeah. Getting what we wanted. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, but then, you know, I think Ukraine will clearly fight to the end.

I don't see them giving up ever, or they would have done it already, right? I mean, they've lost how many people, so then now they're going to give up. That's not going to happen. And I think there's going to have to be a reckoning with the support network for Russia. There's going to be a lot of pressure put, especially if we can get secondary sanctions, but I don't know why they... There's 85 plus senators that support

the Graham Blumenthal bill. Secondary sanctions would really affect trust. Is there a problem in the house or do they not need the house to pass this? I think it passed the house. Oh, exactly.

And let's do it, man. Like, what are they so scared of, do? The midterms are far away enough where you could fucking make this happen so you're politically kind of covered. I mean, if Trump goes after you, maybe you're not as politically covered and stuff like that, but just do it.

Put up or shut up, man. These guys like being told. Go ahead, sorry. No, I'm just saying the polls I've seen shows America's all about supporting Ukraine. Still are. Both sides of the aisle. This is secondary sanctions. Like, you won't get secondary sanctions if you stop buying oil for Russia.

And we're terrifying everybody anyway. Right. If Canada could catch a smack, so could Russia. You know what I mean? Or the people that buy oil from Russia. Interesting, like he said, like how the Ukrainians are not willing to give up, right? And when Keev was encircled or semi-encircled back in 22, Andy Milburn was there. And he said he's like a city of three million people, 25% of them state.

That's 750,000 people who were down to fucking fight. So yeah, this isn't a country that's going to roll over because they would have rolled over already. And they're fucking Democratic, by the way, guys. Just FYI. It's so insane to me how this is even like a thing where we can't get on the same page or not even get on the same page, but we can't get the American president to do what most fucking normal sane people would do. Sorry, I said it. Once you allow this, I mean, if your main effort is countering,

China, right? And you abandon Ukraine or Russia. You're just inspired on China. Yeah. You're not coming to Taiwan's defense. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Totally. It doesn't matter how many aircraft carriers you send to the Indo-Pacific. If they don't believe you're willing to push back in on them in any reasonable or any significant way. You see what I mean? And if you just abandon Ukraine, then they're like, well, that's how you support your right. your allies and partners.

And it's not just restricted to Taiwan, who says that they don't try to take seas other islands of other countries and, right? They just say, well, the international community will say a lot, so we'll get a lot of harsh tweets. They don't care. Why would Chinese Communist Party care if, you know, the Western world sends negative tweets?

No, yeah. They're not going to see it anyway. So, you know, I'll see it anyway. I don't care. Yeah. They just, you know, sorry. And also, you know, What does that say to you like your, your historic allies of 80 years, you know,

Japan and South Korea and stuff like that? It's like, hey, fuck you guys. You're on your own. Yeah. And I mean, we do see Japan, you know, starting to like go beyond the 1% of like their GDP to defense and stuff. Yeah, they have to do it. I mean, what so I know they game this out. But let's say you're European, Europe, European countries, you know, the seven or so that came

to the White House, we're like, all right, we're going to send about 150,000 troops to Ukraine. We're going to fucking bring them in and put it to Russia to be like, you want to try, like, is that something that you, I guess, like, what plays out if that were to happen? You think Russia actually hits us or them? You mean before there's a ceasefire? Before there's a ceasefire. They just start bringing people in. I mean, there'd be a lot of, you know, ringing of hands and clutching a pearl.

when even talking about it. But we have one country that up until the night of the invasion was saying they were going to do it. And they invaded a country and out deliberately targeting civilians. You know, when is Europe going to wake up and say part of it they are, right? They're spending up to 5% on their own defense. That's great. Talk, they've already agreed to be the coalition of the willing sub after the ceasefire. That's what I'm saying.

And what's their red line? Why aren't they planning it and actually training right now so Russia can know? Yeah. Are they going to let them take key? And maybe you don't want to make this public, but you've got to plan for it. Hopefully they're willing to, because if not, wow, the next, the next country is going to go. You're just showing Putin that it was, if he can take you, I don't think he can actually take your credit. No, but just under your hypothetical.

Yeah. Yeah. If he come close to it, are the Europeans willing to actually draw the line? Send forces in saying, we're not fighting you unless you fight us. Like, this is our line. So you're not getting Keith. But if you attack us, obviously going to defend herself. And if you're not willing to do that, are you willing to watch Ukraine go down? And then where are you going to make your stand? The next Moldova, where's the next country you're going to make your stand? And he's not going to believe you will because you just showing you on. So from his perspective, he doesn't care about international law or morals or ethics, why not take another country? And I think we're going to be, we as in the U.S. is going to be a big litmus test for that. Like, so let's just say Europe does send in those 125,000. Russia's going to look past Europe to us to see, to try to gauge what our reaction would be to it. Did we protest the fact that they sent those troops in there? because now that's a crack.

That's a fissure in, you know, in NATO. And if, and even beyond that, are we saying, okay, those 125,000 are there, Putin? So you touch any of them, now we're going to get involved. And if we stay silent or if we turn on Europe and start scolding them for sending them in, well, I don't see them. I don't put it past Putin to say, take advantage of it. And if you want to hit him, hit them. So I think we're that.

There's an interesting point that I talked to somebody the idea about. The article five part of NATO isn't as actually an ironclad as you think it is. At least that's what this person was. It's like the language general? The language is general. Like we come to each other's defense, but doesn't specify what that means. You know what I mean? I like to, I mean, I should do.

more research on it, but this person was saying it could be a like strongly written declaration all the way up to like, we'll fight and write, you know, elbow to elbow with it. I don't know, I don't know that there is, I don't, I don't know that it is ironclad as I'll just speak for myself, thought it was. Like you attack Poland, we're in. Like we're, we're starting to mobilize forces. We're going over there. I think that's what people think. I think that's what we hope. But I don't know, like, for example, and if they deploy as France, Germany, the UK, not as NATO.

NATO, yeah. Right? And if they go, hey, look, we're not going to, somebody has to ask for Article 5, like we did after 9-11. And all these people thought next to it was for 20 years. What's interesting is, like, would they take the precedent of what happened after 9-11 and how it was invoked and other countries came and helped us, right? Like, they sent troops.

They send equipment, intelligence sharing, the whole, you know, not how they didn't send aircraft carriers and stuff because most of them don't have them. But, you know, they did send people to come and fight and die. They did for us after 9-11, including in Iraq, which had nothing to do with that. Yeah. Yeah, that's an interesting. Yeah. Oh, God.

You know, is it worth, what is it worth? Is it worth the paper that it's written on or is not, you know? And they sent, they sent folks to Syria, I believe. And we're still fighting in Syria. So hats off to the team, particularly J-Soc, out in Syria, that just took out the next ISIS. I think he was going to be the ISIS. Yeah.

We kind of forget that it's still going on. Those guys are out there still hooking and jabbing. Absolutely. The Delta guys are just still crushing it every day. Well past when most of the global war on terror is kind of, you know, over. What do you guys make on, we'll wrap this up, obviously, because this is a bit in the news, but it's a quick hit. Where, like, we're pulling folks out of Iraq. Did you see that a little bit?

But what do you make of that in terms of being able to, you know, fight ISIS and things to that nature? I like maintaining presence everywhere I'm allowed to, to be frank. projecting force means you actually have to project force, not just a theory, that everything can come from the states. We're not actively involved in combat. I understand that part for sure. I don't want American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marine, all of the world fighting. But especially in Iraq, we're an advisory capacity. So we're on, you know, fortified bases owned by the Iraqis. and we're just an advising capacity. But they're their own sovereign country, and if they have decided they don't longer want us,

then I also don't think we should force ourselves to stay. In other words, just saying we're not late. So I think that's a scenario we're in now, although there's probably plenty in this administration that don't want us there anyway. So it might be, if you don't want us here, fine, we're out of here. We could move to Syria. It's not a complete.

It's just the military. members that are not part of the embassy team. But I think it's in our interest stay. I mean, we don't have a J-Soc element or a ground branch element there. We must have. I mean, what are we doing? So I don't know. I wouldn't say.

Of course. The disclaimer. There's two different things, right? So J-Soc is going to fall under the military approvals. Ground. It's different, different authority. You know, Special Activity Center, ground. Title 10, Title 50, right?

Yeah. I would hope that we push to keep certainly J-Soc folks and the Title 50 folks. It's in their interests, right? They have a big neighbor who likes the medal in their stuff all the time, who's built armed forces in Iraq that they essentially control or strongly influenced to the point about. Iran. Yes, Iran. So the PMCs, the Hashnell Shabhi, all those units, which are still huge problems.

And there's big, I mean, we don't cover it as much anymore in the media. But, you know, a group of these Iran-backed, controlled groups just took over government building as I wanted to. And so it's a big issue. It's in that what I'm saying is it's in the government of Iraq's interest to have some kind of counterbalance to Iran because they were gone. They obviously can't really push back significantly enough. So hopefully they see that. And we should keep our mission in Syria. It also helps us counter Iran in Syria. And of course, you know, we want to declare the end of the

global war on terror, but the enemy gets a vote. One one giant explosion in Times Square that emanated from Syria or Afghanistan. You know how this works? Yeah. You were in New York on 9-11? That's when Americans start pulling out the maps. Going to do what? Right?

We start talking about manifest destiny and shit, you know? Yeah. It's not over just because we say it's over. And thank goodness for the hard work of the intel community and the military for being out there doing it. they're doing in place like Syria. All right. I'm done. I got enough.

I'm spent. I don't know. You guys. I was ready for a nap. All good? Um, yeah. I want everyone to do us a favor and like and subscribe. Uh, Patreon.com slash the team house.

Check out the guys' links down in the description. Fogbo, Lobo, Jason Lyons. His links are down in the description. You want to connect with him on LinkedIn or connect with him on blue sky or whatever. He's down there. Andy Milburn, of course. He's working out right now. He's working on his biceps.

Yeah, as always, guys, a pleasure. Thank you. Nice, yes. See that. Take care, Jans. Hey, guys. I want to tell all of you today about a new newsletter that we're launching that encompasses both the Team House podcast, the Ais-on podcast, and the high side news outlet, which I run with Sean Naler.

The newsletter is going to be once a week. It's going to come into your inbox, and you're going to get the most current podcasts on eyes on and the team house and whatever's topical or current on the high side. So it's another way for us to get the information out to you as social media algorithms are pretty iffy and you never really know what you're going to get. So this is a once a week email. It'll slide into your inbox and it will have, you know, the greatest hits of that week. It's really good, man.

Checking it out. The website for it is teamhousepodcast.com.com slash join. teamhousepodcast.kitt.com slash join. You go there and you enter into your email list or you enter your email into the little thing on the website and you're good to go and that'll be it. So we really appreciate your support and hope you'll consider signing up. Where's the link? The link will also be down in the description if you're looking for it there. And that's teamhousepodcast.com.kitt, kit, kilo, India, tango.com.

backslash join you