The Team House - Who Started the War? & Gen. CQ Brown's Firing | EYES ON PODCAST

Episode Date: February 24, 2025

Today we discuss Russia disinformation that's made its way into Trump administration talking points, ceasefire deal between Russia and Ukraine, the mineral deal and the firing of General CQ Brown.New merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comSupport the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseFind Andy Milburn here: ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023https://amilburn.substack.com/https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-Operationshttps://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialhttps://open.substack.com/pub/amilburn/p/journal-of-a-plague-year?utm_source=app-post-stats-page&r=emo6q&utm_medium=iosFind Mick Mulroy here: ⬇️https://fogbow.com/https://www.loboinstitute.org/https://x.com/MickMulroy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthorhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_apphttps://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.sociMusic by - Karl Casey @ White Bat AudioBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Russia is our, not only our enemy, they are one of our most significant adversaries and probably the most dangerous. And treating them in any other way is naive and essentially we'll come back to Biden as big time. We need to maintain the policy that every president left, right, and center, Democrat and Republican has had for as long as I can remember, that Russia is not to be trusted. And we are the leader of the free world, which means we actually have to lead it and be a part of it. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Aizan. Full crew here today. Mick Mulroy, Jason Lyons, Andy Milburn and me. Wild week. Big change in our foreign policy, I guess. I guess we think now that Ukraine started the war, which was news to me. Ongoing peace negotiations are what, I mean, if you can call them that, glorified peace negotiations. you guys yeah we haven't had a how to show we didn't talk about like this the meeting between the u.s and and russia in sada arabia without ukraine or EU input um a lot cooking let's just

kick it off i mean you guys are on top of it uh Mick you go first what do you got what are you thinking sure and i'm sure there's a lot more uh to follow on this but i guess we could start with you know everybody's entitled the own opinion about their own facts right so Putin's a brutal dictator. You would probably tell you that. And he started the war, largely because he would like to see the reconstitution of the Soviet Union, right? Not because of expansion to NATO. We saw NATO expand because he invaded Ukraine with Finland, Sweden.

And he said, basically, he didn't care. So let's start there. If you back up a little bit, though, if you look at the, I think it's called the Budapest Agreement or memorandum back in the mid-90s, when Ukraine, the fall of Soviet Union, the U.S., the U.K., of course, Russia, guaranteed Ukraine security if they would relinquish their nuclear weapons back to Russia. It wasn't legally binding, but it was an agreement by the United States. So it's important to point out that this goes way back. They've been asking to be a NATO ever since then, and we have not allowed them.

So where are we now? We're at a position right now where the U.S. wants to enter into a ceasefire agreement. I think that is a good thing. I think General Kellogg, Special Envoy Kellogg's plan, is, as he put it out there, fair, freezing the conflict, not requiring Ukraine to concede terrain, bringing in NATO forces or European forces, and the UK in France have already proposed. I think it's around 30,000 coming in into heavily populated areas, which is very good for Ukraine. And then freezing the conflict so the Ukrainians can essentially rebuild and rearm and refit and get ready if this, if Russia, again, violates their own agreement. And that's something we should keep in mind when it comes to actually how this agreement would go.

The pressure, I think the fair points of criticism on the Biden administration, are that we essentially slow-rolled major weapons approvals, almost as if we weren't really wanting them to win. I don't think they would say that, but just not lose. And I think a fair criticism would be you could have done this all in once route, that if you invade, we're going to prove everything that requires them to win and then not have this debate publicly and just drag it out. The other thing, and I think it's a fair point, is Europe has been providing their security assistance as a loan, right?

So not just providing it complete like we have. So the idea that there should be some kind of agreement that does deal with these rare earth elements, which according to the CSIS study, is trillions, like 10 trillion of dollars. potentially. It's going to cost a lot of money to extract from the ground and use. But perhaps going forward to the U.S., not for what we already provided, going forward could come up with some kind of agreement to defray the cost or the basically invest in Ukraine. And if I was advising President Zelensky, I would say, well, if you gave the U.S. some rights to the rare earth minerals that are currently under where Russia is occupying Ukraine, you're going to get

the biggest country on earth that now is a vested interest in getting them off, right? So off that terrain. So I think that's a fair point for the Trump administration to try to be balanced at this. But to your point, D, last point, Russia is our, not only our enemy, they are one of our most significant adversaries and probably the most dangerous. And treating them in any other way is naive and essentially will come back to Biden as big time. We need to maintain the policy that every president left, right and center, Democrat or Republican, has had for as long as I can remember, that Russia is not to be trusted. And we are the leader of the free world, which means we actually have to lead it and be a part of it. Yeah, well said. Andy, what are you thinking? I know.

I mean, I, you know, rather than simply echo mixed words, which I think were right on target, I would just add a couple of things, you know, and so take my full support for what, what Mick just said. The, and let's look at the peace agreement itself, right? So the problem with this is only Russia and Ukraine can maintain that peace. you can't put a European peacekeeping force in there and expect them to keep the peace, certainly not enforce the peace, but not, they are going to be helpless in the face of violations of the ceasefire. And I'll explain why.

You're talking about the two most powerful militaries in Europe, both of which now have three years of modern war experience facing each other across a thousand over a thousand kilometers of front. And you're talking about tens of thousands of relatively inexperienced European troops in the middle there. They don't know the terrain. They don't know the rules. They haven't experienced anything like what both Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have experienced in the last two to three years. If either side decides that they're going to violate this agreement, and it doesn't even have to be a conscious decision,

whether it's at small unit level all the way up to Corps Commander, there is absolutely nothing that a poultry force, like the one that is suggested, can be put in there. The Russians alone have been losing 30,000 people, 30,000 dead a month, okay, at the height of the war, 30,000 dead. The entire German army is 68,000. That's two months worth of casualties at that rate, okay? The entire German army would be, I'm just using that as an example to show how pitifully inadequate this peacekeeping force is going to be, all right? So again, we're having to trust the Russians, all right,

and the Ukrainians, yes, of course, but we're going to, but I think. I share a mixed concern. I don't, I don't for a moment think you can trust the Russians to keep the peace. So there has to be some other kind of sanction. There has to be, you know, we talked about, hey, if the Russians violate the security, the ceasefire, then it's all on, right? It's all on NATO. It opens the floodgates on weapons, opens the floodgates on letting Ukraine, you know, a pathway for Ukraine to join NATO. So you have to stipulate that because you can't rely on a peacekeeping force, literally, to enforce the peace here.

The peace is only going to come from Putin. It's only going to come when he is so afraid of the consequences of violating that ceasefire that he will adhere to it. And anyone who doesn't realize that is hopelessly naive. Good point. That is all on that topic. But I will say one other thing. I'll ask you a question for the open audience unrelated. How many federal workers at the average federal worker wage would you have to fire to make up for one aircraft carrier?

160 million. I just, I did the math. 160 million. All right. That's how many. That's my whole point. That's my whole point. We're going off to the wrong things here if we want to cut the budget.

but that's, I digress. Go ahead. No. Very well said. I mean, are there, isn't there like two million federal workers, like total workforce? You know what I mean? Like a little short there in terms of cutting, cut in head, you know, cutting scalps, basically. One thing that came out today, Zelensky was at a press conference and he made a statement saying that he would happily step down because of the talk about him.

being a dictator and all this stuff because Ukraine is under martial law because of the war that he would happily step down if Ukraine could join NATO. And I think, you know, what are you guys' thoughts on that? Because that's a big talking point about from the other, from the right, about Zelensky being a dictator and hasn't been elected in a while. I mean, I think it's an altruistic. statement. And of course, it's one that, you know, put up or shut up. You know, it's great to say it. It's heroic and noble to say it. But are you really going to do it? But I believe that not knowing the man

myself, just, you know, what I've seen, I believe that he would do it if it meant peace and that his country could not just have a short-term peace, but a long-term, you know, piece as well. So I think that he would do it. I just don't know that there's enough support on the right, you know, that he would do it and then something else would come up. You know, it would be something else that he's done wrong. And then, too, and I'm ignorant on this. So I'm asking the question, who would be a good candidate to take his place? I have no idea.

Like, I don't know anything about his cabinet or anything like that. Yeah, I mean, I think this is a red herring because it's, only it's only the United States and Russia that have accused him of being a dictator. I mean, you know, Zelensky's criticized within his own country, but he's not criticized with being a dictator. He is criticized for a few things. And by the way, I preface this by saying I admire Zelensky. I think he is an extraordinary, has been, regardless of whatever his flaws prior to the war, he has shown himself to be an extraordinary war leader. You know, and he has had the gravitas, the charisma, and the courage to be almost iconic and represent in an almost

Chilean way, Ukraine and determination to defeat Russia. So good on him. And no easy task when you think what he's had to deal with. But I don't, you know, who's going to, how is this going hasten a peace agreement. I mean, I don't, I think the Russians may put something in there about Zelensky leaving. I don't see why the United States would. And, you know, again, within Ukraine, when he has been criticized, it's for lack of preparation for the war, for kind of, you know, and this is largely from the army has, has criticized him for not listening to their, concerns that the Russians were indeed going to invade, which led to a lot of tactical through operational errors, such as failing to really fortify Mary-Opaul, you know, you name it.

And so resulted in unnecessary casualties at the beginning of war. That's the criticism of him. Prior to the war, the criticism of him focused on the fact that he hadn't done what he said he was going to do against corruption. But you know, as a war leader, he's finally plenty of people he's had to he's shown he's shown significant courage and has really you know as soon as something pops up and has brought to his attention about corruption he's made it public which has taken which takes a lot of courage in a nation at war and and has fired those responsible to include i believe in two cases you know the the head of his intelligence the head of the ukrainian intelligence in one case for your corruption

and the other for suspected, according to Zelensky, complicity with the Russians. So, you know, he's shown leadership into your point, Jason. I can't, you know, I'm not very baffa with Ukrainian politics now, but I can't think of anyone who's going to step into issues at this point. So Churchillian is a good way to, I think, describe President Zelensky, right? Yeah, sure, he has his flaws, just like Churchill did. But he also stepped into, you know, his time in history, you know, the finest hour in Churchill's sense. You know, when he said, I don't need a ride, I need more ammunition.

At the time, he said that. Most people thought he was done, right? This wouldn't last three weeks, let alone three years, which I think tomorrow is the three-year anniversary, right? So he is under the Constitution. They don't hold elections during a time where they're been invaded by a foreign country. So it's it's not him not holding elections. If he were to step down, and I do think that would be a noble, altruistic fugitives like Jay,

I guess somebody would just have to step into his shoes that was, you know, that was a part of his cabinet, right? Because they're not going to hold elections. I mean, how do he hold elections when, you know, 20% of your country's occupied and any given minute you're going to get incoming, right? So I think it's a red herring. I think Andy's right about that. I don't know why there's so much ached against Zelensky.

Potentially, it's the whole issues with investigating the Bidens or what have you. But it's not about, I think, his leadership in this time of conflict with Russia. I think everybody will view that as what it is, Churchill. And he's the one they elected. And by the way, his polling is not 4%. I think it's more like 57%. Everybody Google it as soon as that was said. So it's higher than most.

But I think we need to focus on the strategic implications here, which is ceasefire. Yes, good thing. General Kellogg, Special Android Kellogg's plan deserves a lot of attention. And hopefully we can get it to a point where both sides agree. So we can start this. See, fire. Hey, guys, it's Jack.

I just want to talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show if you've been watching it, enjoying it. But you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue to do this. You can check out our Patreon. It is patreon.com slash the team house. And for $5 a month, you can get access to all of these episodes of the team house ad free. The same goes with our affiliated podcast, Eyes On, with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy. That one, you will also get all of those episodes ad-free. And you support the channel and the show, and we really appreciate it.

The Patreon members are literally what has helped this company, this small business, survive, especially during our early years. And you are what continues to help this thing going, even as we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we really appreciate all of you guys. There's going to be a link down in the description to that paper. Patreon page. And there is also going to be a link to our new merch shop. So if you guys want to go and get some Team House merchandise, we got stickers and we also have patches. And I should mention, if you sign up for Patreon at $10 a month, we will mail you this patch as well. So we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale on the merch shop. And additionally, they got T-shirts up there,

water bottles, tote bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff. So please go and check them out and support the show. We really appreciate it, guys. Thank you. The only viable alternate as a leader I can think of might be Valerie Zolucci, right, the former chief of the army, who is very popular within the army and in Ukrainian society. and well regarded by foreign leaders too. So, I mean, he, you know, that's, but I haven't seen him.

And there was talk of him actually as being a post-war leader, but I haven't, I don't think he's entered into this discussion. Just, I want to debunk a little bit more of that disinformation. I mean, Mick hit it on the head a little bit with the 4%. It's actually 57 in terms of Zelensky's approval. the narrative that any U.S. president, any U.S. president would be quite happy with that.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. Forget it. Yeah. No matter what point of his term he was in. Yeah. And the other big one that big narrative was that we gave them $350 billion. Half of it's missing.

I mean, you guys know more. I mean, obviously not true. It's not close to that, really. it's you know just you get about a hundred 170 billion total yeah i think i mean a a dollar transactional approach to this just loses the whole point you know the point is this that that that nado has the strongest that it has probably been no not not probably the strongest that it the more united than it has been uh since you know the end of the second world war we've got sweden and finland joining both both countries said they would never do that um you've got poland stepping up as a as a leader

on the eastern flank i mean extraordinary you know four percent of its GDP on defense and uh and the russian army has been atrophied beyond imagination over the last three years the russians have been absolutely shallick uh now you know on the other hand they have developed extraordinary capability in the areas, areas such as, I mean, they tested capability now, you know, not just drones, but glide from everything from glide bombs through to EW. So, you know, although their army's been destroyed, they've had a chance to test a lot of other their systems that are, you know, proving quite formidable. But the point is that Russians have been brought to them.

their knees by this war. The economy is not doing well. The army, you know, we talked about the casualties they've been taking. And at the cost of what? Not a single NATO soldier. Not one. All right. Now, that may seem quite cold-blooded. The Ukrainians have certainly suffered. But my point is, and when we talk about dollar cost, that is nothing. How much should we spend on Afghanistan plus all the blood, right? Plus, you know, thousands of Afghanistan and Iraq. thousands of British troops, but you didn't hear people billy aching about that. No one complained about the money. And now it's a big issue. But the point is that all these things have been achieved without losing a single NATO soldier. That's quite something. And it's there largely weapon systems

made in the United States, right? And every dime that we spend that depletes Russia, I mean, I heard somebody say today it's about the Ukrainians killed. about four times as many Russians has been killed in Ukraine. Their military is being decimated. I mean, completely decimated. I read something that said... The war strike is relative to them. I don't know.

It's true. It's what I read something that said that Russia's lost about 1% of their male population, entire male population. That's crazy. Yeah. And maybe in the war itself. And then who knows what percentage have escaped overseas? I know the figures are out there on Google, but millions of Russian males of military age,

you just have to visit Dubai or Eurovan or, you know, many other countries to see what has happened there. So, yeah, I mean, I just don't, I don't get this fixation on how much money we have spent. You know, even if you don't care about our values, all right, even if you think the United States doesn't stand for any values, It goes back to mixed point that Russia is our adversary. And we've seen our adversary being bled dry over the last three years with very little cost to us.

Yeah. And another bit that was swirling around yesterday was during the negotiations, I guess, for the mineral deal. It was floated that they would cut off Starlink Internet access to Ukraine if they didn't sign a deal. It's like I'm going to editorialize guys. So trigger warning. I don't know how the fuck you use that as a bargaining chip during a war to sign some mineral deal that'll pay us back 5X like it's some deal where there's a body count. People are fucking dying every day. And like to use that as a bargaining chip or tactic is just kind of fucking disgusting.

thing. Going to be honest. It's extortion. I mean, he recognized by everybody that used Starlink in the future. Yeah. I mean, Musk already limited the, you know, the full capabilities of Starlink, right? Less than a year into the end of the war. I mean, there's no doubt about, of course, Ukrainians use it and are quite dependent on it for their communication systems. But, yeah, I mean, all of this just seems quite dystopian to me. it really does. Yeah. So, I mean, hopefully it works out.

I mean, where it benefits the Ukrainians. Like, I don't want to see Ukraine get stripped. You know what? Like, you know, completely fucking stripped. And it's for past support. It's not even for like the next year or two of more support from the U.S. It's just like what we've done for them in the last few years. Yeah, I don't know how yours Zelensky and you signed that deal,

especially when you have Europe stepping up. up too like Europe's not Europe's spent more money and given more support than the US five you know couple 10 billion um so it's not like they're totally alone without the US obviously that's a huge help US you know firepower and stuff um and intelligence support too because I could see that being the next thing that goes um so I don't know I don't know how they signed that deal I really don't I think it has to be for future support, right? I mean, that's just normal contractual type agreements. It's too bad.

We're to a point where we're not actually the leader of the free world. This is basically just us looking out for financial interests in the United States. I understand why that could be a component of it, but now that's become the entirety of it. It's just like we're trying to make money. This was our partner. We had actually, we collectively, the U.S. government, and if we don't honor our past agreements, then essentially why would anybody enter your agreement? agree with and with the United States in the future ever, right? So we agreed. We didn't do it. And

and we supported them to our own interest. And now we're at a point where we are actually, instead of being the big brother of Ukraine and pushing Russia, we don't even have any idea whether Russia will agree to any of this stuff. We haven't asked them anything yet. They might get to the table and say, yeah, we're not interested in any of these plans that you've bullied Ukraine in to take it. That's a very real possibility. hearing that they push back. I'm hearing that they push back on the European troops acting as the peacekeeping force.

I don't know how true that is, but I heard that that was already a big sticking point with them. Yeah, that's a good point. It was in our plan. Say again, Andy. No, I was joking. St. Putin wants the North Korean peacekeeping force. I mean, yeah, it gets back to the fact, yeah,

you need to put in an incentive for Russia to it here. And by that, I mean a massive disincentive, which is, yeah, we drawl in on providing Ukraine with weapons, if you, you know, and NATO membership, by the way. And, you know, honestly, think what are your asset Ukraine would be to NATO membership? You've got the most powerful, the most experienced army in Europe. and pulling it into NATO's fold, I mean, that would be an unbeatable team. But Ukraine and Poland side by side,

there's going to be no more infringement on NATO or threats to infringe on NATO territory. The Estonians are all in, too. I mean, yes, they have small militaries, but they've got, you know, high-end capability. And by the way, the Estonians are organizing, have been over the last. last year, kind of a European coalition is a wrong word, but it's like an industrial

manufacturing agreement to produce, mass produce, 1-55 rounds to keep pace with Ukrainian need because the U.S. has fallen far short. And so, you know, all these countries are stepping up to the plate. And I, and, you know, I know, I know the Estonian and the Poles would love to have Ukraine as part of NATO. And it's only kind of the weaker wine-drinking countries, you know, Italy and France and Germany's beer drinking, but they mentally, they're kind of wine-drinkers, all those countries that are having second doubts.

I mean, if you want to look at the glass half-full, to Andy's point, we could end up with Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, and a much stronger NATO with countries exceeding the 2%, which would give us the ability to do more against the Chinese in the Indo-Pacific, right? Because now we have this stronger alliance, which is good for the United States. Everybody should remember, I probably heard it, but we've only used Article 5 once, and it was at our request to fight alongside up, and over 1,000 NATO forces died in Afghanistan for us.

So it's in our interest, and we could get there. We could get there. It's a bumpy road to get there, but we could get to a point where this has been a complete disaster for Russia. It already is, I think. But certainly we could put the nail in the coffin when it came to this being a disastrous strategic decision by Russia. I read something in the study for. You know, Russia, you know, Putin's threatened escalation. And, you know, to mix comments about the Biden administration, that terrified the Biden administration,

into drip feeding all these weapons systems, you know, MLRS and attack arms, I mean, you name it, which gave the Russian response to adapt and adjust. But, yeah, if you bring, if you or even threat bring Ukraine into the NATO fall, what is Russia going to do, I mean, nothing? They're going to be powerless, all right? I mean, it's almost as though it's not that we're afraid of escalation, Are we afraid of hurting their rulings? I read this thing on the Institute of Study of War

about Putin's worried about a peace deal because he's worried about Russian vets coming back home and starting, you know, obviously being traumatized from the events and being upset about what went down and like that being a bit of a, you know, threat to his regime, his power. you know, because you'll have a bunch of like military age guys who are really pissed about what went down and they're back home and they don't have jobs, you know, and that could threaten his security,

regime security anyway. Yeah, it's probably a real concern because it's a real threat. I mean, they're going to have to leave a significant army there and they're already dealing with social problems from rotating from veterans coming back, you know, and mainly because they emptied their prisons to feed the war in Ukraine. And now, and they gave these guys like lifetime pardons and made them heroes. I mean, you can, you know, this is in the Western media too. And they come back and start murdering and stealing and raping. And no one can do anything about it. You know, there's a significant social problem. I don't know, honestly, if it's feasible that Putin is

worried about them joining together and staging a coup or anything. I mean, you know, the Wagner group is one thing, because they were already a coherent unit. But I'm not sure right by the fear of all these Yahoo's coming back from the Ukrainian war and overthrow Putin. But nevertheless, it's going to be a problem. It is a problem now. They've got significant problems. They've got, you know, as I've said, I forget how many military-aged males overseas

who now face prison sentences if they return. that's a significant part of the labor force, and a lot of their most educated, you know, and most, and highly qualified, middle class escaped. You just have to look around Tampa to see a massive Russian community there. So, yeah, I mean,

that's, and that's, the thing is Putin's going to have to, I mean, that's how he brings the country together, and that's how he shuts down opposition. by manufacturing crises. And so the war in Ukraine did that for him. Sure, I did. Anything else on Ukraine and the peace, the ceasefire deal? You know, sometimes I think, to mix point when he's,

and then what both of us have talked about American values and America being, you know, a world leader. And that's just kind of, that's the United States we grew up with. and in my case admired, and it's one of the reasons why I came to the U.S., but also because I broke in my leg and I couldn't get in the British Army. But, you know, the point, I wonder sometimes whether the great unwashed, you know, the American public really cares about all this stuff. We certainly say it a lot, leader of the free world, you know, shiny city on the hill. I mean, that's, that was President Reagan, right?

That was a Republican Party. That was a Republican Party that I still think there's a substantial part of the Republican Party that believes that. You're seeing it from senators on the hill. I mean, Senator Wickham was pretty clear. He's a war criminal. He should be in prison for the rest of his life or executed. I mean, that doesn't leave, that is far from the other rhetoric that we're hearing. So I think that's also going to come through with traditional Republicans to include Senator Lindsey Graham.

who are very much cognizant of what Russia is and isn't, and they sure the hell aren't our friends. And we do have immoral obligations to our partner and allies. I mean, that's why people form alliances, ultimately, and that's why people trust our word when we say, we'll provide them security asserted. I mean, they're asking for that now, right, with this ceasefire agreement, when they might point to the Budapest memorandum and say, well, is it even worth the paper it's written on? So there has to be some significant assurances that are guaranteed, I think, for the Ukrainians to feel comfortable with going ahead. I mean, I agree with you 100%, Mick.

And I think, yes, certainly, I mean, you would hope that GOP that there are still certainly in the Senate of those who believe in that. Because, I mean, that was a very Reagan-esque view of the world, too, right? I mean, it's commitment to desk. But I'm wondering about just the American public. I mean, you know, I don't, we've all been national security professionals with the exception of D. So maybe I should, you know, question him. But D's tied into kind of our community too. He's like-minded.

But I'm wondering whether the average American even cares about it anymore. And I mean, part of it is lack of education. Part of it is just the way that the media is right now. You know, you get your news from an echo. chamber and and a lot of it is just kind of it's it's it's that very kind of blinkered view of the world that it's what affects my pocketbook is everything and I don't really care if what we do let me think back to the fall of Afghanistan right that was a traumatic event for i you know if I can speak for us collectively anyone who served in Afghanistan certainly for me it was a hugely

traumatic event because it wasn't just about losing a war. It was about the way it happened. It was about betrayal of our allies. It was, you know, all of this stuff. And and yet the American public just didn't seem to care at all. Am I right? I agree. Yeah. And for me, it's, I'm kind of blunt, like D on a lot of things. And whatever people think, as far as Russia is concerned, and I I guess this is my blunt way of making the point, the point that both of you made. There's that saying that people love to throw around. Facts don't care about your feelings. You can feel however you want.

The fact of the matter is, is that the Russian government, I'm not saying the Russian people, the Russian government and military does not abuse the United States as an enemy and will act accordingly. So it doesn't matter. You can say all you want all day long, you know, I think I sent you guys something that someone had tweeted the other day or put on X saying, that the U.S. and Russia would be great allies, make great allies or something like that. To me, that's just not going to happen. And as long as people keep those blinders on, Russia is going to keep doing what they're doing, knowing that they have at least that piece

of the American population in their corner. You know, and, you know, Andy, you talked about blinders. And I agree. And I think those blinders on either side of it have media on one side, and the other blinders says what my political party tells me to think. And the Russians don't care about that. At the end of the day, they see us as our enemy as their enemy, and I believe that we should view them as the same, plain and simple. Yeah, you know, I go, I have good friends who are civilians, believe it or not. And, you know, and it's dangerous to judge a whole country by my small circle of friends.

But nevertheless, you know, even among this group of friends, I hear apologies for Russia. well, you know, we really pushed them into this, right? Encoachment of NATO to go back to, you know, the 90s and all of this. I'm like, wow. You know, there was a reason why we did the things that we did in the 90s. Yes, some of it was probably a little ethically suspect, but it was with a view to our own national interests, and it was with a view to the fact that we knew that unless Russia was contained

as it collapsed, then that bad things would happen. Yep. And both sides of the political spectrum and the U.S. has gotten Russia wrong, right? Big red reset buttons and, you know, that's your policy from the 80s and now this version, right? So in Russia the whole time,

at least one thing you've got to give them is they're consistent. They essentially want to do whatever they can to be in opposition to us, wherever they can, right? They are very consistent. And Putin's, you know, he would say, and he said many times, the biggest tragedy of our generation, of his generation, was the fall of the Soviet Union. He wants to try to get it. And Ukraine was a breadbasket. Ukraine had a great deal of their intellectual capability, they being the Soviet Union. He wanted Ukraine back. It wasn't because of encroachment. He knows that, you know, NATO isn't going to start a war with Russia.

I mean, think about that economically, why they would ever even consider it, right? So he wanted to recreate the Soviet Union. Ukraine was there. He invaded it. We have to make it the biggest mistake of his life. Yeah. Yeah, he looked like he was like kind of legacy shopping, I would say, you know, getting up there and age and stuff like that. And he's like, what can I do before this, you know, the lights turn off?

Let's try and reestablish the USSR. I mean, it hasn't worked great. I mean, it's not great that he does have the American president on side now. Going to be completely real with you guys. It just turns around. I mean, sadly, the USSR that he wants to revert to is kind of the Stalinist USSR.

It's not the latter-day USSR because, you know, I'm not an apologist for Soviet Russia, but the fact is that, you know, at least in the last decade or so, you know, I mean, there were, there were positive things about Soviet society that the collapse starkly emphasized the fact that, you know, that everyone did have a job, right? I mean, those jobs weren't great. They weren't paid well, but everyone had a job. Everyone had security. Their lives were unbearably monotonous. There were a hundred things wrong with it, but at the same time, they had that basis of security. And there were, you know, I get it.

You know, I've read the Gulag-Arpelago. I understand everything that went on on the Stalin and Khrushchev. But in the latter years, as a dissident, you weren't likely to suffer the same fate as you are now as a dissident in Putin's Russia, which is consignment to another archipelago and likely death. All right. Yeah, lock and if he said about this,

obviously stay tuned to eyes on because we're the best geopolitical podcast, maybe ever. When are we getting our own t-shirts? They're coming soon. We do have our own t-shirts. You can grab them at the link in the description. Looking for one that fits me across the chest. Yeah.

We haven't made that one. We're getting yours specially made, custom-made. It's like a $4,000 T-shirt. Make sure he has a little more room in the biceps. Yeah, that's what I told him first and foremost. Like, he's too swole. Those biceps won't fit in anything. We try and give him.

Other bit of news, a little bit of like, a semi purge at the DOD. CQ Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, was fired yesterday. A lot of rhetoric going on about that one. He was visiting the southern border while it, like it happened probably two or three hours later, so I don't know if he was really expecting it. I think another group of people also got fired when he got fired as well. Mick, what are you thinking on this?

Yeah, and apparently more today. I mean, I'll start with, you know, obviously the president gets to choose his own people. And I do think if the incoming team wants to look at, you know, diversity, equity, inclusion policy, whether and if we do, I don't know, but certainly out there about quotas on folks, then that's one discussion. But I'd like to start with pointing out that this idea of call and out full disclosure, I know, Sue Q, Brown, General Brown, he was the deputy commander at Central Command, I was at the Pentagon, a great individual. But I like to really point out that he was a perfect example of meritocracy. So to refer to him as a DEI hire is not only counterfactual, it's insulting.

and it's quite frankly disgraceful to a person who spends so much time in service to his country. I mean, fighter pilot, squatter commander, wing commander, deputy at CEDCOM. He was in charge of all Air Force activity in the Pacific. He was chief of staff of the Air Force chosen by the first Trump administration, which to me indicates, and it should to anybody, that they believed he could. be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff. You don't put somebody in charge of the Air Force, and I think the Space Force, right? Also, if you don't think he's qualified to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff. And so then to turn around and fire him abruptly and say,

D.R., it's just, it's not right. It's not right. And I'll start with that. I don't know the Admiral, and I think somebody can make the same case for her. If you disagree with the policy, two things, but disagree, have the discussion. I've heard it on both sides. I can certainly see that it in many cases gone too far. The other part of that is there's civilian leadership at the Pentagon, right? So even the most senior military person, the chairman, is an advisor. They don't set policy. So you've then basically punished them, if you will, for the policy of your previous administration.

They carry out policy. They advise and then they carry out policy. So we don't even know where, you know, in this case, CQ stood on this stuff. But it is clear that he was a great American and he deserved much better than this, you know, peanut gallery, basically questioning his qualifications to serve in a place where this exact administration appointed him in the last administration. Essentially. So I had to, I'll get up my soapbox, but. No, that you may have.

You made the key point, which is, you know, we, military leaders enforce policy given to them by their civilian leadership. That's in, and so to punish a military commander for enforcing what he's being told by, you know, the secretary of defense of the president is, is quite frankly absurd, number one. And number two, yeah, I echo, you know, a couple of thoughts about, you know, about Siku is that, You know, I didn't get to call him that, but I did brief him regularly when I was at Soxent. And I'll say this, he was highly respected within the Air Force, very highly respect. I never heard anyone say anything negative about him, you know, to include among his peers. That's number one. Number two, he was a great guy to brief because unlike several other generals over there,

as Sancom or anywhere, he wasn't dismissive of briefers. He knew their names. He would ask them really good questions. just the way he treated subordinates, I thought was exceptional and it was indicative of his character. And, you know, I mean, he'll be okay. And, you know, I'm sure there's this part of him that may also be really, almost be relieved because there was all this chatter about him going to be fired from even before the administration came in. And so, you know, a guy like that, who is very highly talented will rise to the top where he is. And that we just, you know, this country is fortunate that he was, that he was chairman for that

that period that he was. Yeah. And I'm just, you, you gents have had interactions with him personally and professionally. I have not. But for me, point blank, as soon as someone throws out the term DEI hire as a, as an insult, I just turn them off mentally anyway. So none of that means any shit to me. Like if you, even if you can show me in someone's record, which I've never understood when someone calls someone a DEI hire, is that in their service record somewhere?

Is that in their professional record where it's stamped DEI hire? If you can't show me that, I'm sorry to borrow a term from you, D, but fuck off. That means nothing to me. So as soon as I hear that, I just dismiss them, that argument out right. I mean, a guy like that cannot rate go to the level of, uh, chief of, uh, chief of staff of the Air Force and then joint chief is chairman of the joint seat of staff by like, just because he's a black guy. Like what the fuck are we talking about? You know what I mean? And that's how I got on this panel, but yeah.

Whatever. Whatever works, right? I mean, at some point, though, like it just, people need to be fucking serious at some point and understand like things logically and rationally, right? Like, if we're talking about America, like, please. It's a dangerous precedent. It's a dangerous precedent, regardless of which political party does it, to fire a senior member of the military for reasons other than competence. Right.

Or, you know, behavior to defar him simply because you disagree with policies that he is enforced on the behest of his civilian leadership. It's a dreadful policy. And what it does, and then to bring in some. someone because they are because you you know I'm not saying necessarily this is what's happening but bringing someone in because politically they're more they're more allied with you undermines the you know the the fact that the military one of its strengths in this country is that it is supposed to be apolitical I mean Marshall right Marshall took it to the point where he didn't

even vote you know which is I mean it's successive of course military members of the right to vote. They have the right to have political views. Of course they do. But they also taught that you don't combine the two. You don't combine your duties with your political views ever. And there's no quicker way to be kicked out of the military than to do that. It's why we can't, you know, speak out politically in uniform. Indeed, when we're on active duty, there's pretty tightly tight constraints on what we can say about, you know, either a support or, or opposition to any political party. Make you sound like you were.

And for those who don't understand that, they don't understand why. Think about it. Do you want, do you want Department of Defense that represents, I mean, it's the largest department, obviously, military, the, you know, too much. million trained killers with all the weapons and everything that have. Do you want them to side with a particular party or their leadership decide with a political party? And we've just finished talking about what's been happening in South Korea, right? And it's, you know, it's not too far-fetched. That's what George Washington warned about, right?

You know, our first president and our first general. Now, it's clear that the, not only the military, but the IC and the law enforcement community, federal specifically, needs to. to stay out of politics entirely. And it's an issue that I think people should be concerned about if that's the way we're going, that people are being chosen not for their merit, right? This is supposed to be about meritocracy. And you can look at the backgrounds of every chairman that we've ever had, and you can match them up.

And guess who's going to stand right there with the credentials that most have? CQ Brown, guess who's not? And I don't know them, but the individual that, they picked, right? He hasn't commanded its service. He hasn't commanded a commandant command. He hasn't been a four-star. And he was retired. So if this is about meritocracy, and obviously, you know, very few people are actually qualified to be the chairman. But CQ Brown had the qualifications to be the chairman. And I think we can all say that the individual that was appointed, who of course has to get through confirmation, does not have historically the same

qualifications. And according to President Trump, one of the reasons he chose him is he told him he loved them and that he would kill him. So, I mean, if that's true, and I, you know, what do I know, but I doubt it is. I can't see any military officer saying that. If it's true, he's disqualified. If it's not true, that's going to, that's going to be the first question he gets at his confirmation. Did you say that? Right. You don't kill for a person. You don't kill, right? You defend you, you follow lawful orders and you defend your country.

Yeah, I mean, it's going to be a test of the Senate. You know, a lot of this is, I mean, particularly the GOP senators on what do they love most, their country or a particular individual. I mean, guys, we've seen what the Senate's been doing for the last few confirmations, right? Like, Cash Patel is just confirmed on Thursday. Like, let's, he's qualified. Hegg says qualified. Come on. What are we talking about?

Make me, I'll take the job. I had the FBI. What do we talk? It's a joke. Like, we could be honest. Or at least, I'll be honest. I don't know. Well, the checks and balances are not working as anticipated, right?

You know, I mean, you've got the courts, but the court's ability to really provide a check. They are dependent on the process, which is inherent with delays, right? And so that's why you have the legislature that we're supposed to provide a check and particularly the Senate. But it remains to be seen whether the Senate will do that. God. We always that. And on also the Russian ceasefire negotiation. I think we're seeing a lot of senators that are willing to step out and push back.

I hope more join them. left or right doesn't matter like it takes courage it takes courage but in the other hand you know that's why that's why you're in that position yeah and ultimately i mean i think we'd all be better off if the party of your regan resurfaced so you can see where i am and this uh and you know not that anybody's asking me but if you don't get reelected who gives that damn you know yeah just you mean go down with integrity and then go get a job yeah yeah you know i mean it's okay for all these federal workers that are getting fired right now for no apparent reason so you know go down with your integrity and if you if you get unelected because

you've stuck up to what you believe should be proud of it and just move on i wish people were that happy i wish people did that to be honest yeah god we always end on a great note um i want to thank you guys go ahead one personal ambition i Excessive personal ambition can be extremely insidious. You know, we see that in our military careers. Fortunately, quite rarely, I have to say. But, you know, everyone knows that officer who will do anything to get promoted, right? And I'm sure those people, you know, it's common knowledge that there are congressmen like that who would do anything to get reelected.

but you kind of hope, think that the Senate is kind of the, you know, the senior chamber, the more mature chamber, you're going to find a great deeper wells of moral courage. I mean, I didn't be going all the way back to Roman Senate, right? Which I think somebody actually told me there's a Latin word for old men, right? Nobody remembers the ones that just gave her alms. Nobody remembers the ones that just agreed. it's not even it's not even a thing ultimately you're forgotten in history if you're just a person who just nods to get elected nobody cares except for maybe you so i mean this is going to be an issue that

you know are we going to have three branches of government are we going to have a balance of powers this is all the the basic part of our system that um i think a lot of americans left right and center are looking at making sure it continues that way right all right guys any and all right guys any and all Mick Mulroy, Fogbo, Longbow, doing great work. The link is in the description. Andy Milburn, follow him on X, Blue Sky, wherever else. His book, When the Tempest Gathers, incredible memoir. Jason Lyons, all his links are in the description as well.

If you want an eyes-on t-shirt or an eyes-on mug, that link is in the description as well. Feel free to go and buy that and support the show. Also, you can support the show at patreon.com slash the teamhouse. Thank you, guys. Thanks, everybody. guys. Bye, man.