how much longer do you think Ukraine can last, given this continued and persistent reticence on the part of President Putin to finish the job?

Well, that's something your expression or your sentiment there is something widely shared in Russia.

The Russian people are all standing around and saying, you know, this needs to end.

Go end it.

Now, we have seen some turnover in the General Officer Corps.

Somebody who's immensely unpopular in Russia, who is seen as partially responsible for the slow, methodical grind, of course, is Gerasimov, the chief of the Russian General Staff.

General Sorovkin, who set up the strategic defense that was so effective against the Ukrainians, thanks to the wonderful military advice that we and NATO provided to them.

Where do you see this going?

Now, without any further ado, what are, rather than me hitting or missing, what are the salient points that you think that your takeaway, that you find interesting, that you want to address, rather than me trying to divine your take?

Well, two things.

First of all, let's go to Vice President J.D. Vance, who did publish on X, you know, his assessment.

And most of it was sort of hand wringing over mistakes that were made and polling data that was ignored and so forth.

And he finally got around to four specific points.

He said this, what we should have done and did not do has produced the defeat that we've witnessed.

And number one was end the war.

decided, you know, let's build a tourist industry here.

What do you make of that?

Well, Mark Thiessen is someone who's handsomely rewarded financially for his support for AIPAC and the lobby.

He's somebody who has gotten Netanyahu's talking points, memorized them, and spouts them at every turn.

And that's what he's going to continue to do.

These people that are profiting from the war, profiting from their support for the lobby, are not going to change their positions.

So I don't find anything surprising about what the man said.

Now, was it ludicrous nonsense? Of course.

What is the risk or in fact, if you could just explain to us a little bit about what that actually means, is that better or worse for the American people than the three to four billion we have been given them?

But do you see this being something that the U.S. would actually do or would they prevent it?

Well, let's first just talk about France.

France, interestingly enough, though it is part of the larger maelstrom of change in Europe, and France has a habit of being usually first in line when it comes to revolutionary change, France is really isolated in terms of its political movements and operations in France from the rest of the continent.

That is not true for Germany.

It's not true for Poland.

It's not true for Austria or Hungary or the Czech Republic.

It's not true for Sweden.

Do you think that Trump or the Washington general is no longer considering scaling back the empire? Because that kind of impacts what it wants out of the war against Russia and Iran.

How do you in broad terms expect the restart of the war in the Middle East to occur from here? And what kind of target should we expect to be hit? Will it remain an air campaign mostly?

Well, we have reassembled an enormous fleet of air refuelers.

Not all American, some British.

Whether or not the French have sent anything, I don't know.

But almost every refueler that we have available is now in the area, in the region.

That tells me that we're preparing for a massive air assault.

Secondly, this time I would expect it to be more intense and potentially more destructive than anything we've seen to this point because...

Do you think the U.S. might be working on something similar, going back to gold institutionally? You know, it's

So they're obviously panicking and desperate to make this work.

Well, Iran has succeeded thus far in creating a desert where there formerly was none.

What do I mean by that? The world that you and I knew on the Arabian Peninsula, all these Emirates, these oil protectorates and statelets, and Saudi Arabia itself that we inherited from the British Empire, they're going out of existence.

They're not going to survive.

That is a disaster for us because that's been the cornerstone of our influence and power in the region.

All of our bases have been destroyed or so badly damaged that they're not usable.

Why is that? Because Iran understands in order to defeat Israel, Iran must drive us out of the region.

I mean, what do you make of this firing? What do you think this has to do with?

So they're obviously panicking and desperate to make this work.

so what has succeeded thus far in creating a desert where they're where they're formerly was done what do I mean by that the the world that you and I knew on the Arabian Peninsula all these Emirates these oil protectorates and statelets and Saudi Arabia itself that we inherited from the British Empire they're going out of existence they're not going to survive that is a disaster for us because that's been the cornerstone of our influence and power in the region All of our bases have been destroyed or so badly damaged that they're not usable.

Why is that? Because Iran understands in order to defeat Israel, Iran must drive us out of the region.

We're out for all intents and purposes.

It's pretty clear we're not going to go back in again.

We can't afford it.

Now, why didn't somebody think of that before we started this? Because they didn't understand the capabilities that we have been witnessing in Ukraine and now seeing in the Gulf.

I mean, what do you make of this firing? What do you think this has to do with?

So they're obviously panicking and desperate to make this work.

Well, Iran has succeeded thus far in creating a desert where there formerly was none.

What do I mean by that? The world that you and I knew on the Arabian Peninsula, all these emirates, these oil protectorates and statelets, and Saudi Arabia itself that we inherited from the British Empire, they're going out of existence.

They're not going to survive.

That is a disaster for us because that's been the cornerstone of our influence and power in the region.

All of our bases have been destroyed or so badly damaged that they're not usable.

Why is that? Because Iran understands in order to defeat Israel, Iran must drive us out of the region.

I mean, what do you make of this firing? What do you think this has to do with?

Please, I'd love to learn more.

Well, I think we have to come to the conclusion that what's being demonstrated in Ukraine as well as in Iran, but even more so in the Iranian conflict, is the superiority of the defense over the offense.

And this is very important because if you look at our force structure, our force structure is constructed entirely for the purpose of projecting power overseas for offensive operations.

We haven't really thought seriously about defense for a very, very long time.

In fact, the last time it was actually part of our doctrine in a straightforward way was before World War II and the Department of War, which was then effectively the Department of the Army, Army Air Corps and Ground Forces talked about hemispheric defense.

And we were postured organized for hemispheric defense because we knew we didn't have enough forces and we would have to mobilize the whole country to conduct offensive warfare.

What changed after World War II and in the decades that followed was the ability to wage offensive warfare without necessarily mobilizing the country, mobilizing its industries, mobilizing its manpower.

Well, China has the

Trump came in and he said, China is not a trading partner, they're an enemy.

Yeah, well, you recall, if the price of beef went up, Donald Trump said, China! You know, if a ship sank on the high seas and it was a foreign vessel but had the American flag on it or something, it was China! I mean, it's just on and on and on.

We need to come back to that, but we need to understand something that I don't think Donald Trump fully grasps, and if he does, he doesn't like it.

And that is, number one, that the fundamental change to the world that you and I live in over the last certainly 30 plus years is the rise of China.

And what's remarkable about the rise of China is it's predominantly peaceful.

but it is now a direct economic competitor to the United States.

And in terms of purchasing parity comparison, purchasing power, China is now larger economically than the United States.

What does that mean, chief Pentagon planner? And do we know why he was summarily fired?

So how could these states not come to any different conclusion than what you say?

Well, their description of the Arab states in the region is accurate.

We know that from personal experience.

That doesn't mean that God has conferred on us the right to dismantle these states or to destroy them.

And you see, that's the difference.

The Israelis know that to be true, but they've decided to arrogate to themselves this godlike power that allows them to destroy all of these Arab states.

There's a problem, because the artificiality of the states that they're mentioning also applies to Israel.

I mean, is that even possible anymore?

Do you think they have a bigger stranglehold now versus 1974 or less so? Oh, it is

infinitely stronger.

It was strong in the 1970s.

There's an interview that you can find on YouTube where Richard Nixon is asked by a Jewish journalist whose name escapes me at the moment.

He was a very prominent figure in American media.

And he does a good job.

And he asked him specifically about Israel.

I understand there's Game of Thrones, but this is Game of Thrones on drugs in a way.

So again, they might not ally up with Russia, but how do you see Ukraine? What will

it look like after this war? Well, I think to some extent you described it.

Ukraine is not going to be aligned with NATO because NATO is not even going to exist.

It's just going to vanish.

You remember, I guess it was Henry James who said sacred cows are never slain.

They simply vanish.

In other words, everyone is expecting everything to go out of business with a giant explosion.

I mean, I can understand the panic is what I'm trying to say, but what is happening with Europe moving forward? Well,

What's the case for that, Doug?

Well, I think the first thing is we need to understand that crude oil, as well as their finished products, are in closely connected but distinct markets.

So once you get the crude, you've got to get the crude to a refinery that is capable of processing it.

Now that may not seem a big deal to many people, but it actually is.

Not all refineries can produce, can refine the crude that you bring to them.

The resulting products, diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, then require storage facilities, product tankers, pipelines, and distribution networks.

So a disruption anywhere along this line or this supply chain can restrict deliveries, even when crude is available for years.

I'm curious, what is your take on that, Doug?

epstein files too someday right exactly it'll all come out together well said doug so if you're you know you you followed the war in ukraine as close as anybody who could possibly do that and better than pretty much anybody that i've had the privilege of talking to where do you think where do you think it's like the ground truth is sitting right now

well i think there are some others who've actually done a much better job day by day systematically plotting the advance of russian forces The Russians are now looking at seven provinces being annexed immediately.

That includes Zaporizhzhia and Kherson and territory up to Kharkov or Kharkiv as Ukrainians call it in Sumy.

That's in addition to the others that they've already essentially announced as being part of Russia.

I think the Russians are moving cautiously, but deliberately method methodically and consistently.

And if you look at the map where they are right now, the fact that this man, Zelensky says he's willing to accept a freeze.

He'll call it whatever you want, just to freeze.

in

I'm going to guess you agree with me that Macron, who of course can't run to succeed himself, Burnham, who's new in the office but is no different from his predecessor, Merz, whom you've described as the most dangerous German chancellor since Hitler, And these crazy ladies that run the EU will soon be gone because they speak with a bellicosity profoundly at odds with what the public wants and poking the bear.

Well, the answer, of course, is, you know, the Europeans will ultimately expel these people.

I think you're going to see that happen sooner rather than later.

And the people that failed to defend their country defend their countrymen who fail to protect, shelter and feed their countrymen in favor of these aliens inside their country are going to be removed.

There's no question about that.

And I think we have to understand that President Putin is sitting on the sidelines watching this.

And what that has done inside Moscow is encourage people to exercise patience.

Does China pose a threat to the national security of the United States, Colonel? No.

Yeah.

That's failed, so we lost.

It's over.

I mean, Ukraine is a dying nation.

Russia is stronger than ever.

It's no...

It is not suffering as popularly believed.

We want to conquer everything, uh, or there just won't be a Ukraine." Is this indicative, do you think, of a broader thought in Russia, or is this just a, an isolated article?

Do you agree with Scott? Do you think that there's no way to stop the demise of Saudi Arabia and it's over?

I think not just Saudi Arabia, but the Emirates themselves on the western side of the Persian Gulf, they're all on the road to extinction.

Sykes-Picot and all of the arrangements made at the end of the First World War in Versailles by largely the British, secondarily the French, supported for stupid reasons by Wilson, that's another problem.

But the point is, all of those arrangements are now defunct.

All the artificial constructs, Jordan...

Where did Jordan come from? Churchill posted he drew that in an afternoon.

All of these places are going to go away.

So a return to the Ottoman Empire, basically.

are.

Well, look, I listened to this and then I went back and looked at some of the material he was using.

If you went back to the file cabinet in the office of the Supreme Commander Europe, the SACEUR as we called him, I think you could find a lot of the material that he's using on file.

It sounded like something that people would have said in the late 70s, early 1990s or mid-1990s, that we're strong and we can face you down and you have no chance and so forth in the Soviet Union.

Well, the truth is that by the time you get to the mid-80s, any chance of the Soviets launching a major offensive against us were largely gone.

We can talk about that.

But once Poland was destabilized in 1981, there was no possibility of a conventional, high-end conventional Soviet offensive.

a few

Hmm.

I have no doubt about it.

I know him somewhat, not as well as other people, but the man I knew back in 19... or excuse me, 2020, uh, in 2019 was very different.

You're talking about somebody who was acutely sensitive to the criticality of avoiding unnecessary conflict, and when the opportunity presented itself towards the end of his term of office, he wanted to e- extricate our forces from the Middle East.

That all failed.

He waited too long.

He didn't understand how business in Washington is conducted.

Mm

Yeah.

They've postponed a lot of the pain by, uh, dumping, uh, f- you know, money into futures Propping up prices.

Now, how much longer can that go on? Well, look at the 10-year bond.

For about the last three or four years, everybody's told me that's an economist.

If you hit 5% in the 10-year bond, you're probably gonna go under because you can't service the debt.

Now we're up over 40 trillion national sovereign debt, and we're paying, uh, over a trillion in interest every year, and we have a $2 trillion deficit.

Well, what do you do about a $2 trillion deficit? Well, you just borrow more money.

I mean, are you following your own advice? Did you take your money out of the stock market?

But I'd love to get your thoughts, not only on this report, which talks about the Moab, that's why it's getting a lot of attention, but all the reports we've seen in the last few days that Trump is coming up with a strike plan against Iran.

I think president Trump, uh, is someone who, if he were to speak frankly and honestly for a change, which I don't expect to happen anytime soon, but if he were to do so, I think he would make it very clear that he'd like very much to get out from under the war in the Persian Gulf.

There's no question about that.

Uh, he blundered into this in the worst possible way.

He believed all the wrong people.

He fell victim to wishful thinking, and now he's a sort of stuck like a bug on flypaper and can't get off.

So any number of different things will be presented to him that he is going to try and use for the purpose of convincing himself and everyone around him and the rest of the world that he's been victorious and successful and extracted some sort of, uh, Some sort of concession from Iran.

But there's one thing between an illegal war against Iran versus countries just completely disappearing, you know, invading and annexing countries.

Does this inspire confidence among the troops?

Well, I think his initial response was accurate when he said no-brainer because whoever thought this up wasn't thinking.

You know, this, this may come as a surprise to a lot of people, uh, and this is just a note on military history that at the end of World War II when we arrested people for trial at Nuremberg, there were several that had been officers in the German army.

And you had something similar with the Imperial Japanese Army.

When they were found guilty, none of these people were shot, and almost all of them, with very few exceptions, asked for a firing squad because a firing squad was considered to be honorable.

Uh, so they were hanged because that wa- that was, uh, what happened to common criminals.

So the first thing I would say is that he's actually doing this man an honor by, uh, executing him with a firing squad from a purely military standpoint.

... whose confinement is a que- is a matter of fact, but not generally known in the West? What i- what's the story behind this?

What is... what would a collapsed Saudi Arabia and a Houthi victory mean for the United States and our credibility and reputation in the region, especially if what you just described there about the Houthi side of victory meaning an, an invitation in for more Chinese investment, et cetera, um, what do you s- what, what does that do to American reputation and credibility in the region?

Well, I think that's a, that's a great question, and, uh, I would say the following.

Uh, I think, uh, you've gotta go back to 1998, s- uh, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and she justified the use of force by saying, "You know, America is the indispensable nation.

If we use force, it's because we have to, and we're justified because we see further than everyone else.

We know more than everyone else.

We see danger here to all of us." So that meant the indispensable nation was either you align with Washington, and then all things become possible, or you challenge Washington, and the offending state risks punishment, even military intervention to replace its government.

Now, that's what we are about.

So the notion that, that you're going to get something out of the force today-

Why it's difficult to translate this, you know, minor victories into a sustainable piece.

Well, it's always a difficult task.

You can start a war.

You can fight a war.

You can even win it on the battlefield and still have no peace.

And that's particularly true when you're dealing with large continental powers.

Bonaparte marched into Russia without really understanding, despite his extraordinarily high IQ and remarkable intelligence, he did not understand what he was dealing with.

Otherwise, you know, we'll lose control of it.