Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
π¨ UKRAINE RAMPS UP ATTACKS ON RUSSIAN TERRITORY: Whoβs Winning?
Recorded: May 30, 2023 Duration: 3:09:14Space Recording
Short Summary
The discussion primarily focused on the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with various perspectives on military strategies, geopolitical implications, and the roles of different countries. Key points included debates over the effectiveness of military aid, the impact of NATO's involvement, and the potential for escalation. The conversation also touched on the economic and political motivations behind the war, with some participants highlighting the influence of military-industrial complexes and the strategic interests of global powers like China.
Full Transcription
How's a good one today, gents?
Hey guys.
Let me send out the invites.
Should we start putting music when we start a space or silly?
No need for it.
I don't think so.
Our topics are too serious.
Bro, listen to music is better than listen to your voice, so yes.
What was that, Nick?
What are we saying?
Nick, do you think we should put music?
I kind of like the Twitter.
You know, you don't have to do it very long just until you...
Oh, your connection's not that great, by the way.
He basically was saying that Solomon's worth listening to for Mario.
If there's a stretch between Mario and music, we choose music.
Damn.
All right, let me get the invites out.
Where is the panel?
All right, let's get this out.
Is AllSourning from the beginning today or a bit later?
No, he's joining a bit later.
Of course he is.
So the question to the people is...
I mean, Russia, it seems like, is dominating the war.
I'm not a...
This is a...
This is...
Sam Toppies is good to joke about.
I wouldn't put that one there.
Who's joking, bro?
It's a genuine question.
I want people to answer in debate.
There's no one.
There's no one on the panel yet, man.
They're listening.
Look,
Mickey is the main man.
He's requesting.
Snecker's requesting.
Mike's requesting,
right?
Yeah, advice.
Invite the ones on the,
on the panel.
You've got the panel list.
So help me out by accepting the requests while I send out invites.
There you go,
accept your request.
Accept your request.
But anyway,
so the question is this.
My main man,
Mickey's here,
so he'll push back and give us a different perspective.
That's what we like.
But Mickey,
We've got a scenario where Russia...
Let's...
Before...
Actually, silly, silly.
Before doing here, you're ruining my flex, bro.
Before doing that, I think maybe just give an update on the recent developments in Russia.
I think just to keep the audience updated, not everyone's seen the tweet.
Not everyone knows the latest...
The escalation that happened today that let us do the space.
I was literally going to do that in a question.
That's a skill you need to learn rather than announcing a boring guy.
I was going to put it into a question to Mickey and educate the audience about what was happening.
But don't worry, you're going to learn these skills.
You've improved so much since you've been around me and you're only going to get better.
But Mickey, so the question to you was, we saw a scenario where...
What do you call it?
Russia took through the Wagner group Bahmuth,
and then we know the Russian forces have now taken over the Wagner group
and have taken the control of Bahmoud.
That suggests that Russia is dominating.
And then what we saw was Ukraine attacking Moscow
in a direct attack which was shocking to many.
Like no one thought they would cross this line.
Is this panic from Ukraine?
Are they attacking and have just lost it?
Is there going to be significant escalation from both sides?
I'd love to hear your thoughts, Mickey.
Yes, first of all, thanks to having on this space and great space.
I'm happy to talk about this.
Excited to smash Suleiman, as usual.
I decided to body slam him here and just share my thoughts.
So let's kind of take a big, big,
zoom back on where we were a year ago and where we are today.
What's the,
what's been happening over the course of the year is a steady,
a steady movement from Russia to be in more and more defensive posture.
You mentioned Bachmoud,
which is five miles from Russian controlled territory in a year.
They basically,
You would call that in advance, but I mean, essentially they were on the outskirts of Kiev a year ago.
Now they're fighting five miles outside of Russian-controlled territory in Bahmoud.
And what's happened to Ukraine, right?
You're seeing, you know, places like in Belgarod, Russian nationals fighting against other Russians against the Kremlin governments.
You're seeing the intention of the war from Russia was demilitarizing Ukraine and to push back against NATO.
A year later, you've seen a more militarized Ukraine than ever in its history and a bigger NATO ever in its history.
We've doubled the size of NATO's border on Russia.
And now we're starting to see these drone attacks.
take place on Russian territory. This is the first time, really we're seeing, you know, since, you know, for a very long time, we've seen mass attacks on Moscow. We don't know yet who is responsible for these attacks. Are these the same people in Belgarod? Are these people protesting against the Kremlin? Or are the, is this Ukraine? No one yet knows.
But I think the trend is clear.
The trend is that Ukraine is militarizing more and more.
In the beginning of the war, its allies were sending legacy equipment.
You know, Germany was sending helmets and body armor.
Now Germany is sending cruise missiles and leopard tanks.
And you're seeing Ukraine advanced position.
We are expecting a Ukrainian advance when the soil hardens up.
But I think it's clear to me that, you know,
in every measurable way Ukraine is is starting to progress from a year ago today and that this is
certainly anyone in Russia would certainly have their alarm bells running they don't even know who's
attacking them there's people saying it could be the Russia attacking itself they some people
are saying it's a false flag you know that that leaves question marks for me so yeah so how likely
so how likely is it to be a false flag because I've seen a lot of people say say that it is a false
flag and it's not hard to
to fabricate, you know, drones getting shot down over Moscow.
But then doesn't that weaken Russia?
And they haven't made a big deal out of it.
Because usually if it's a false flag,
then make a big deal out of it to leverage...
the false flag.
But they said, hey, there's limited damage.
It's nothing too serious.
We shot down most of them,
which is a different reaction to what I would have expected
if it was a false flag,
where they would have reacted in a much more aggressive way,
saying this is a red line crossed.
They're going to regret it, et cetera.
What are your thoughts, Mickey?
Yeah, I think, so first of all,
I think we've learned in the last six months that,
you know, our understanding of what Russia is and how they act is starting to splinter, right?
We're starting to see disparate groups within Russia infighting against themselves.
You're seeing, you know, Wagner criticism.
You know, it's very interesting to see the Wagner group basically pointed out that there's a one military that's completely useless and they basically said there's one military that's useless.
They're terrible. That military they said was Russia.
and they said one military is doing a great job
and they said that military is Ukraine.
So it's like,
there's,
you've got any progotion
the header of the one group.
And I think like the,
this guy,
Mickey,
this guy,
this guy,
this guy is just,
it's just,
he's just going out.
he's going all out.
It's very weird.
So it's like, it's weird.
And I think what we're seeing is the splintering of Russian leadership.
So it could be that one group is trying to make, you know, this idea that it's Russia falls flagging.
It could be many different.
forces within Russia causing this, we don't really, really know. I would, I would agree with the point that it's, it's not a good look for Russia. Like one way or the other, you don't, you don't want, you know, a year later when you promised you'd be taken Kiev in a couple of days, you don't want a year later to basically have advanced five miles and have drone attacks on your own country.
but I think the splinting of Russia is happening, right?
That's the trend and that trend might reverse,
but the trend is clearly infighting in Russia
between various political parties and political groups
within the military and without.
And,
You know, as you see these drone attacks, like I think everyone here on the panel would probably agree that these are not, this is the beginning of the trend of drones attack in Moscow, not the end of the trend.
So let's see where that goes and who's ultimately responsible if there's more than one group.
You know, so let's, this is the start of a shift in the in the tide of the war where the war is now being taken.
The war has been brought to Russia for the first time.
You saw it in Belgarod.
Now we're sitting in in Moscow.
This is a beginning of a trend and we'll see where this trend goes.
Right.
But certainly this is not a trend that makes Russia look very good.
And in terms of Belgarod, we know that Ukraine is directly attacking Belgarod, don't we?
That's not.
I know it was a, it was initially a splinter group that was within Belgarad from memory.
But now isn't it directly Ukraine attacking Belgrade or could be a Russian group that's going against Russia?
I think the official line from Ukraine is that it's Russians that they are supporting, but that there was Russian nationals in Russia. Of course, like, you know, this is like, you know, the little green men strategy from Russia, you know, it's kind of a funny thing that Russians are getting upset about it. But we don't really know. There's a lot of fear, the fog of war. There's, you know, statements going in all kinds of ways. But like, again, the trend is.
you know, are Russian cities more at risk now than they were a year ago? Yes. Are Ukrainian cities more at risk than they were a year ago? No. You know, like, you know, at risk of invasion. So I think, you know, it's certainly a trend that doesn't look good for Russia.
Aiden, do you have a different take? I mean, I, all of these things, it's just, it's, this is all just perspective, right? So when you say,
There's all of this infighting. Well, there's open infighting happening on display for everybody.
Is that mean that that's the actual infighting? I totally think that there's infighting in the Russian military and, you know, the auxiliary militaries as well.
You know, the PMCs, the Chechens. This is not a new thing. I can guarantee you that there's infighting on the Ukrainian side as well.
The U.S. disagrees with things that Kiev is doing.
You know, I'm sure Europe has their ideas.
They disagree with what the Americans are doing.
There's, there is constant infighting that occurs all the time during conflict.
But you mean publicly, publicly infighting or just?
No, I think that the.
fact that the infighting is so public, especially in such a, you know, in the culture that the
Russian military and that the Russian society lives in, to put all of that on display should be
your first huge red flag that, hey, maybe this isn't what it looks like. I think that banking on
infighting, especially public displayed infighting, as some sign that Russia is weakening in the
SMO is not really...
the right logical path to be going down
because, I mean, we can look at the battlefield.
If you want to talk about the Belgarod incursions,
I mean, there are, I mean,
I mean, that's AFU. They cross the Ukrainian border and Ukrainian supplied, I mean, you know,
NATO supplied vehicles, Humvees and MRAPs. I mean, they're not getting these from, I mean,
they're not Russian partisans or anything. That's a, that's a complete joke. We know who they are.
And even if they are Russian, you know, separatists or whatever you want to call them, they're
fighting for the AFU. You know, the Georgian Legion is not.
Georgian when they're in the when they're in Ukraine fighting for the AFU. So that whole that whole
you know topic, it's a funny meme. You know, there's some people that have been writing it,
you know, because of the little green men, uh, connection. I understand the hypocrisy, but I don't
really think the Russians are that upset about it. They condemned it as any country would. But
It kind of just ended poorly for the Ukrainians.
They went over and they got some pictures and they got bombed and lost vehicles.
So, you know, it didn't play out in any major way.
I think that the way that the Ukrainians wanted,
I don't really know what the goal was.
If it was just a distraction from losing Bachmute, that's, I mean, it's just another embarrassment.
So I, you know, you can say it's embarrassing for the Russians,
but the Russians came in and bombed the Ukrainians on their border and then they left.
They handled their business, right?
Right.
There's also constant shelling of the border region of Belgarod from Ukraine.
So this is not, these attacks are not.
some random mysterious group coming out of nowhere. This is planned and organized and it's meant to
you know, elicit a response from Russia. As for the drone attacks, the recent drone attacks,
I mean, to say that their false flags is ridiculous because the Ukrainian government has come out and
said that they were planning on doing this. You know, they've been talking about it for a year.
They had a stamp.
ready to go, you know, this is just, this is just once again, it's like, it's like,
it's like dealing with a child. They, they are going to do things inappropriately and then
pretend like they didn't do them and not get in trouble for it and say, you know, I don't do that.
I get what I think of that, Aidan, I just want to bring in, based on what you just said now,
I just want to bring in Daniel. Daniel, obviously, we've had a couple of different perspectives
on what's happening with the war. What's your thoughts on the current events?
Let me make it.
Let me make it more specific, Daniel.
We never thought Ukraine will attack Russian territory.
That was a big no-no.
And even today, we saw the U.S. saying that Ukraine promised the U.S.
that will not use U.S. weapons to attack Russia.
Yet we saw Belgrade getting attacked.
Now, we're not sure whether Ukraine directly, but it wouldn't be surprising.
Yeah.
We saw the West supply tanks to Ukraine.
F-16s are likely next, which again, no one expected.
And we saw drones over Moscow as a response to retaliation to the attacks on Kiev.
I'm just curious as how far could Ukraine go?
And has that red line that we had earlier, has that shifted, the red line that we spoke about earlier?
year. Well, I don't know that there really were any genuine red lines as we've just discovered
Yeah.
one after the other. I mean, almost by the month, it seems like another so-called red line was
passed and nothing happened to it. And you say that nobody expected this. I certainly did. I've
expected these things to come for a long time. I've
I actually called the F-16s were coming about a month and a half ago because everything was falling one by one.
And we just have this pattern to where we say, oh, we're not going to do that because it's a potential risk for escalation.
And then we end up doing it.
And so actually the Russians themselves have been wondering why there haven't been any attacks on Moscow for months, at least going back into November.
They were expecting it.
And they were talking about preparing air defenses, which apparently were only partially successful.
And so I expect that's going to continue to happen.
But what you have to keep in mind here is in the context of a war and not any specific incidents here.
Now, I will say that I have a very different take on the nature of the war after a year than one of your previous speakers there.
Because in military terms, there are sometimes there are tactical objectives where you're trying to take terrain.
And then sometimes there's enemy forces.
objectives where you're trying to destroy their capacity to wage war, not specifically to take territory.
And I think that by that measure, I think Russia has been quite successful, especially over the last three months,
and causing significant casualties onto the Ukrainian side.
On the Ukraine side, they have imposed significant casualties as Progotion himself admits,
but primarily on the Wagner group, not on the Russian army per se.
And after they mobilized 300,000 back in September of last year, there has been, by numerous
reports, somewhere between 100, 150,000 Russian troops.
that never deployed into combat that are still training and waiting on the Russian side of the border.
Daniel, can I ask you a question on that quickly?
And then please continue on with what you were saying.
So my question is this.
When you hear from Western and Ukrainian sources,
they tend to frame it as though there has been significant Russian losses in comparison to Ukrainian losses,
even to the extent where they maybe even argued that is disproportionate.
On the other hand, when you listen to Russian sources, they make the counter argument.
So, I mean, when you make a comment, how do you consider those two sources?
I do. I expect everyone's lying and everyone's going to say the opposite on either side,
what makes them look the best and the other side look the worst.
What I pay attention to, though, is what happens on the battlefield.
And look, the only success...
the large-scale success
Ukraine has had offensively
and this entire war
has been the one move
in the Kharkiv area
where they caught Russia
with their pants down.
And Russians had
a very thin line
of basically
national guardsmen
who had no experience
in the north
while the Russians
were looking all down
in Kyrsone
and Ukraine did a great job,
caught them off balance
and then rolled them up
with the force it was somewhere between five or eight to one until they stopped at the Kramina Savadovo line in October.
From that point till today, Ukraine has not advanced anywhere.
They never went further than that Svadovo-Kremina line.
They tried many times.
They couldn't break through it.
They've tried several other places, and other than just small skirmishes, they haven't.
On the other side, you see Russia methodically moving down in the direction of first in Sildi Dar,
and then now into Bokhmut, and who knows where they're going to go next.
Meanwhile, they have also been building these elaborate defenses throughout the entire front, in-depth,
very, at least from what we can gather, very professional and tough defensive lives
that would take a modern army very, very difficult time to try and get through.
Meanwhile, they still have this striking force.
If Ukraine, getting back to where we are now, with all the losses they've had, and by any calculation,
All these reserves that Ukraine kept sending into Bakhmut have caused a loss of a great many, tens of thousands potentially of reserves that they would have had for an offensive had they surrendered Bakrude earlier and repositioned on the next line of defenses.
that they were going to use an offensive.
Now they don't have them.
So the striking power is now going to be even less for an offensive to try to go into a prepared defense without air superiority,
with limited artillery support, and very limited experience in how to conduct these very complicated operations.
So I think that the chances of a successful operation are going to be low.
And here's the big kicker.
Once they use this one striking power, I mean, I think I even heard the check commander of their armed forces say this is a couple of days ago.
They got a one shot here, and they won't be able to build up striking power again for six to nine months at the absolute earliest.
If Russia does still have this large striking force and they absorb whatever the Ukraine side does here, they are going to be very vulnerable to a large-scale counterattack.
We haven't seen that yet, and there's no guarantee that's going to happen.
But I think that Ukraine is in a very precarious situation than a lot of people seem to think.
Hold on, Daniel and Sergey, same question to both of you.
First, Ukraine, so I was asleep.
I woke up, you know, not long before this space.
And so Ukraine is denying they were involved in the drone attack on Moscow.
I didn't see that one until now.
So obviously, Suli, you've seen it.
I want to get your thoughts on this, Daniel, and Sergey, but also Daniel, another question after this.
Something I've always asked in previous faces, when should we be worried about Russia escalating this to tactical nuclear weapons?
When would they be in a corner to an extent where they need to escalate this to tactical nuclear weapons, which we know was unlikely because China wouldn't be happy with this, the international community wouldn't be happy with this, but it seems that we keep...
pressing them and pressing them.
I'm not saying Russia's a victim.
I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes.
Yeah, I think that I'm actually very confident that the only way that Russia is going to use nuclear weapons is if they start being driven out of Ukraine and Crimea.
gets into positions where it's actually at risk.
That's the only way.
Nothing else is going to cause them to do that because Russia right now has ever reason to believe that they can, over time, succeed on the conventional level here to whatever, however they want to define success.
Right.
because they have their industrial capacity,
which doesn't get much notice here in the West,
but they also mobilized that back in September,
and it is now starting to crank out lots of missiles,
artillery shells, drones especially.
They apparently are starting to really start to crank that out.
And over time, I don't know that the West could match the quantity
of what the Russians are starting to be able to produce here.
And over time, I think that's going to continue on.
So they don't have any need to use anything.
any tactical nuclear weapons unless some tremendous reversal happens,
and they start getting physically driven out of territory.
Short of that, I don't think there's any risk of it.
The second question that you asked there, I think it's a lot of just odd,
questioning that it's going on.
Look, if Moscow is hit with drone attacks,
if Belgarad is hit with American-provide armored vehicles
that originated from the Ukraine side that was supported by artillery that was fired
from the Ukraine side,
Nobody has to wonder where it's from.
I truly don't understand why the Ukraine side wants to try to deny that they were doing it.
I mean, look, their capital is getting hit.
Why shouldn't Moscow get hit?
I would be open about what I'm doing and say, hey, we're going to continue to try to do that to take the fight.
You don't think it's likely a false flag attack.
For me, it doesn't look like it?
No, I don't.
Sergei?
Yeah, thank you. Wow. I don't know where to start. I have heard so much of things that were really surprising for me, despite of the fact that I'm like constantly in Ukraine or talking with the people who are...
like directly involved in the in the in the pranian but i sergey your mic not sure if you can get your
mic closer and by the way we will have the ex-spokesperson for president zelenski coming on shortly
as well sergey yeah so it should be too long but yeah if you can get the mic a bit closer to your
mouth so we can hear you better it would be great uh yes i will i will try to do it like uh now
just a moment um yes okay uh can you can you hear me now better
I think it's okay.
So, Leo, good?
Yeah.
All right, go ahead.
Okay, yeah, great.
Thank you.
So, well, first, like, regarding the situation with the, like, allegedly huge Russian
resources and production, I think, like, it is far beyond the reality.
And that is what the Russians want us to believe.
what we know the russians have continuously decreased the usage of the new missiles which they
sent to ukraine the indeed they have pretty much amount of shahidrons which they get from
iran but that is not the russian production that is what they get from iran and uh what they
shoot against ukraine is the really old soviet shit
like the old Soviet missiles which have zero precision.
That's why they use them against the living, like residential areas against the cities.
Because they have zero precision, you can use them against like military targets, bridges, railroads, etc.
You just shoot them against a city and hope that they will hit like one on another residential building.
We also know that the Russia's allegedly unstoppable hypersonic, wonderful missiles.
Yeah, that was interesting one.
Yeah, exactly.
It got was actually not as unstoppable as they claimed.
May I just comment on the thing that Daniel said he had like enough time to say that.
Like what we are observing now, we like first, I don't believe that the, that it was a drawn attack on Moscow conducted by the Ukraine army.
Why? Because Russia is autocracy or maybe a dictatorship. I believe it in dictatorship.
Someone preferred to say it is autocracy. And you can never.
force an autocracy or dictatorship to stop a war by, like, disturbing their civilians.
Never.
It doesn't even work with democracies as we see in Ukraine.
But...
Sergei, can I ask you a question?
You know what you said?
I mean, I get...
that one side always...
Sergey.
Sergey.
Sergey.
Sergei.
I get that one side calls the other side as not being democratic.
Isn't the same argument levied against Zelensky that he's basically silenced all opposition?
He's essentially become a dictatorship now.
He's become the one ruler dictator.
Like, what's your thoughts on that?
I don't know.
Like, if you watch what is going on in...
Like in the Ukraine media, like Zelensky has been criticized.
If you look like what is going on in Ukrainian social media, he's like constantly...
I mean, hasn't he shut down all opposition media?
He didn't he arrest Gonzalo Lira.
Like isn't this like a complete silencing of opposition?
No, where have you got that info?
His arrest of Gonzalo Lira, it's everywhere.
It's been published.
He was arrested...
He arrested Lira.
I'll put it on the...
He's the Chilean blogger who was giving up a location of Ukrainian soldiers in Ukraine and violated Ukrainian law.
He's a journalist who basically is anti-Ukraine.
Oh, okay, okay, I understand that.
Let me add, Sergey.
Let me do your favor, sir.
Sorry, this is a guy, like, I know who you mean.
Like, that was a blogger who constantly, who constantly,
who constantly, like, passed that story supporting the Russian troops,
and allegedly he also provided the Russian troops as information.
He was like, uh,
like nobody in the Ukrainian media.
It was not any prominent journalist,
like one person among 40 million of the population of Ukraine.
Sorry.
That is like really, really, that is not serious what you're saying.
And also Sully, Szilensky, hold on.
Slensky has been president for four years.
Putin's been president for 19 years.
And if you add the four years, Medvedev was president.
Obviously, you know, Putin was making decisions.
And if you add the other four years, that's 23 years for Putin.
So it's a bit different.
I mean, does not mean that people love him?
I mean, the question is, we should that, we should that, we should not spend our time.
No, man, I do it.
I don't know this conspiracy theories.
There's not, I mean, do you think Zelensky is going to have a fair election, Sergey, in the next election? When is it? Or is he going to have a fair election?
There were no elections planned in Ukraine until now. There were presidential elections, which Zelensky won.
And Ukraine has a tradition and the next elections should come like next year.
obviously there were
like some of the
territorial problems
with the war
but there are no plans
no plans to postpone
them as far as I know
and look
he already is sorry
Sergei Zelensky announced that he will
be postponing the fall elections
because the country will be under
martial law he said he's already forecast
that so that's this year
Sergei it's this year
that is not yet officially
said and I'm not an advocate
He made a statement, he made a public statement, Sergei.
I'm a German citizen who works closely with Ukraine.
I think it is extremely complicated to organize elections, fair elections in a country where you have 10% of population, if not 15% who are refugees and who are abroad, who are not in country.
and with like about 7% of the territory of the country is being occupied.
That is extremely complicated.
So let me just go to Patrick on that.
Patrick, I like to hear your thoughts about the same question I had.
So my concerns are that there's not going to be a free and fair election.
This guy's basically almost become a dictator if he does implement martial law.
If he...
If he silenced opposition as is per reported, again, that's under the caveat to it.
In addition to that, him silencing journalists, I mean, and GonzΓ‘la Lira, although...
That is crazy. That is really crazy.
And arresting a number of journalists, I mean, does that concern you?
But Patrick, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Patrick.
So, yeah, Gonzal Lira, American.
And Mickey said he gave up troop locations or something like that.
So it sounds like Mickey's an operative of some description,
wanting to string up an American, Gonzalo Lira.
Interesting.
So, yeah, 13 years, a sentence, or is he facing 13 years or something like that?
Anyway, he's not the only journalist.
There's a number of them that were disappeared, including in Odessa.
and many journalists, in fact, who were critical of the government stance and the whole sort of NATO-aligned war effort,
or just critical of the fact that there was no peace negotiations or no diplomacy going on early on in the conflict.
Sergei, it's a fact.
Okay.
Okay. And there's, there are human rights organizations, including ones in your country, if you're in Germany, or that's not your country, but your country of abode, who are campaigning to have some of these people found, not just released. They don't even know where they are. Okay. So, listen, so shutting down the media, shuddering the media, also the church,
in Ukraine, the Orthodox Church, beyond the schism.
So this is controlling all the different sort of aspects of society.
No elections, as Sergei admitted there, no plans for any elections.
There were no elections planted constitution.
There are...
Because because Patrick, Patrick, would you agree?
So first, I did bring up a journalist I think was banned in Ukraine.
Mario, Mario, there's dozens of them.
But, you know, Ukraine is dealing with an existential war.
Putin was on the borders of Kiev.
So I wouldn't put those circumstances as the circumstances
Russia's been in for the past, you know, over a decade now.
It's not comparing apples and apples when you compare Ukraine's situation during war and Russia over the last decade.
What do you think, Patrick?
But the way you're framing that argument, Mario, is just really, I mean, I'm not you, but just generally that argument is crazy.
Because you're having a situation, here we are, we're in what, end of May, 2023.
And all parties in Kiev, obviously, under the instructions of Washington,
are basically precluding any negotiations, any peace settlements, anything, right,
right the way forward, or just guaranteeing there's going to be martial law and using this excuse,
like, well, it's not a good time to have an election.
We'll put the election to the side for a moment.
What about negotiating an end to the conflict?
Right.
that's not even on the table.
So what kind of a situation is it where one side is losing badly?
And they're basically saying we're not going to wind this conflict down.
We're going to keep going.
And then the West is saying, yeah, we need more weapons.
This conflict will only end that Washington position is.
And the hawks in Europe.
and the other delusional political actors in the West,
their position is this conflict will end.
We need to give them more weapons, more weapons,
and then they'll, until they defeat Russia,
total unmitigated insanity, naked,
insanity. That's what this conversation is. So the only logical, there's only two options for Ukraine right now.
One is cease hostilities now and negotiate and save what's left to their country, or do what Washington, London, want,
which is to keep fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian and end up with no country or maybe a rump state.
That is actually wrong. There are all Pauls who show that 95%
Well, look at the map, Sergey, look at the map.
Sergey.
1 to 5.
80% of you've already lost, Sergey, you've already lost.
It is not about London.
Sergey, wake up to reality.
Sergey, wake up to reality.
Look at the map of Ukraine.
Is it bigger or smaller than it was in February of last year?
But at the same time, Patrick, it did get bigger since over the last few months,
Ukraine was able to take back.
No, no, it didn't.
It's not gotten bigger, Mario.
But Russia was next to Kiev.
The Russians.
are winning in
23, there is no debate about that.
And the momentum is on Russia's side.
Of course, they're going slow
to obviously avoid civilian casualties,
which are extraordinary low in this conflict, Mario,
if you compare it to other conflicts.
And there's a reason for that.
The West translate that.
translates that is Russia's incompetent, they don't have enough ammunition, they have bumbling military,
therefore they're going so slow. No, they're judiciously avoiding civilian casualties.
On the counter argument, Patrick, and I'll go to Michael right after, but on the counter argument,
if you look at the map in the early days of the war, Russia was on the borders of Kiev,
many of us thought Ukraine will fall within weeks.
now we're seeing the war taken into Russian territory, into Belgrade, into Moscow, and even the drone on the Kremlin being an embarrassment for Putin.
We're seeing the chief of Wagner pretty outspoken against Putin's administration in terms of supplying them ammunition.
It looks bad for both sides, my opinion.
Mario, Mario, look at the map.
Doniesk, Lugansk, a land bridge to Crimea.
Odessa is now under fire.
They're next.
And Crimea, of course, is solidly in the Russian Federation.
It's never going back.
Anybody who thinks that this war will end when Ukraine achieves its 1991 borders
is smoking the same pipe if anyone he thinks that Israel is going to retreat back to its
1949 borders.
It's about the same probability of happening.
I think...
I think just a quick point.
I think, you know, something to respond to Patrick, like almost all the major predictions
Patrick's made the course of being these spaces have been incorrect.
Like the most important.
Give me an example.
Well, you thought you thought you thought Kea was going to fall in three days.
I never said that.
I wasn't even in these spaces.
No, it's on your Twitter.
Mickey, you're lying through your teeth.
Mickey, who are you?
Let me just make my point.
You're putting garbage out.
You already called me an opportunity.
Mickey, you're a NAFO.
Mickey, you're a NAFO.
I don't know what a NAIFO is, but let me just say.
You know what a info is.
Imagine for a second.
Because their head supervisor is on your account.
Imagine for a second, someone you had an opinion about startups in the United States.
We know.
Guys, let's try to get in the phone.
We know your game, Mickey.
We know your game.
Mickey is NAIFO.
Let me just say one quick thing and then I will turn my mic off for a player a long time.
Imagine someone here from, let's say, China had an opinion about U.S.
startups.
And not only had they never made an investment in your startups, they didn't even speak English, right?
People like Patrick have no expertise in the region.
When you have people like Sergei or other members here who have spent time in Ukraine, people
like myself spent time in Ukraine and in Russia who speak the language, they are the best people
in the best place to give you the best information.
The closer you are to a problem, the better you understand it.
Who are the best people to understand what happened in Hurricane Katrina?
Mickey, Mickey, who are you?
You just put words in my mouth.
So I lied about me saying Kiev, so quiet, lied about me saying Kiev was going to fall in these spaces.
I wasn't even in these spaces last year.
You are lying through your teeth to try to defame me and divert and gaslight.
Nikki, you do it, Rick.
Mario.
Yeah, I understand.
This guy is ridiculous.
So, Mickey, before going to Michael, any specific point you wanted to address.
One of the points I wanted to press on was anyone, you know, the narrative that Ukraine will
take back, will go back to the borders of 1999.
It doesn't seem to be feasible.
Is that just a negotiating tactic or do you legitimately think Ukraine could get back that territory?
There's no choice.
There's only two, there's only two courses of action that can take place.
Either Russia remains in Ukrainian territory, they leave Ukrainian territory.
If they remain in Ukraine territory, that is a forever war.
That's crazy to look at it in such a binary way.
That is a forever war.
If Russia remains in Ukrainian territory, that is a nightmare forever war.
We want to avoid that at all costs.
We must, like, the only path to peace is for Russia to be defeated on the battlefield.
There is no other option.
They will not leave Ukraine voluntarily under any circumstances.
And how do you think Russia will respond if Ukraine is taking back Crimea?
Russia will swallow it as Russia swallows everything.
Like Russia, all...
already threatened us with all the possible consequences for everything.
A threat is one thing, but a threat became a major, they will new Finland. Nothing happened.
Quite the opposite. They pulled their divisions from the borders to Finland and moved them to Ukraine.
But, but how far John, so you said?
Wait, wait, there were so many red lines. Like, Germany delivers artillery.
nukes nothing happened germany delivered tanks nukes nothing happened ukraine like occupies how they call it
in effect liberate kerso nothing happened like russia is losing all the way uh within like after the
after the liberation of karkov region and liberation of kerskirn russia has burned about 100 000 of its troops and
and moved for how long, like 10 kilometers in Bahmoud.
Bahmoud has a population, had a population,
before the war of 70,000 people.
There is nothing.
No Russian...
My question...
My question...
And then they burned...
Yes, please.
Let me go to Michael as well on this one, if you don't mind, Sergei.
But, Serge, my question is, and I'll go to Michael with it,
Russia has 6,000 nuclear warheads.
How far do you want to go?
We don't know it.
First, we don't know it.
Because all this super duper weapon, the Russia said it has, it like has relieved as a fake, total fake.
They steal everything.
Like the Russian military is like totally fake.
They steal everything they can't get.
And the weapons they know they will never use, they steal them twice.
Because they steal even the weapons from which their life depends.
We know we see like the active defense on Russian tanks, like these aeroblocks.
They have filled them with like with wood, with shit, etc.
Now they knew their life depends on that.
Now imagine if you are an officer of a Russian nuclear force and we know you guard a nuke and you get money for maintenance and this nuke will never fly in its life like for 50 years.
You can steal all the money.
This is horrible.
So, Aiden, before going, guys, so, Sergei, so good.
So what I'll go, no, no, Sergei, I will go to other speakers just to balance it out.
And Michael, before going to you, I will go to Sneckotron, because there's a lot of claims made there,
and I think it's important that they're addressed.
And then we'll go to Michael right after, just for balance.
Sneakotron.
If you can focus on my last question on what Sergei said and then go back to previous points
you wanted to make.
Well, what's the last point he was saying before everybody jumped in?
Yeah, we're talking about the nuclear warheads that Russia has and how far could we press?
So he was making the point that Russia keeps bluffing and bluffing and we keep we keep well I mean if somebody has like thousands of nukes you're going to bet that they're all they're all non-functional.
I mean that's basically what I say like you have to assume the threat is credible to some extent at least.
As for the main topic, which is the drone attack in Moscow, I've been telling you guys for months now.
I mean, I don't know why everybody all of a sudden is hyperventilating.
I've been telling you for months now that Ukraine has been trying to sneak, you know, attack drones into...
into the Moscow region.
I mean, several months ago, I mean, they've been crashing in the woods because they've been
trying to skim the treetops trying to hide from radar and they crash.
These are typically T-141 drones that were from the Soviet era, the strapped of 100-kilogram bombs.
Or there are UJ22 drones, which are basically these small drones are purchased.
Small propeller drones are purchased by the Ukraine military.
They have made 10, 15, 20 kilograms of the RDX or C4 in them.
And this attack itself was done by these small UJ22 drones, which does suggest
to me this was the Ukrainian military.
They have about 7,800 kilometers range.
They're pretty efficient.
They can fly pretty low.
And it's very difficult to stop when they're basically just skimming just at very, very low altitude.
The thing is like eventually this was going to happen.
Like I told you months ago that they've been doing this on a smaller scale, but, you know, is building up to this.
But you know what?
This is a war.
In war, both sides get a vote.
I mean, the thing is, everybody's, so these small UJ22 drones, about 20 of them,
arrived outside Moscow, and everybody is hyperventally.
And when people just kind of lose sight of the fact that Russia's been conducting a 30-day nonstop,
multiple waves a day even, air campaign, multiple strike packages in different cities every night for the past month,
And you look at what's happening.
Like, this is essentially, they're getting some success shooting down some of these missiles and drones in Kiev,
but this is also stripped the rest of the country of air defenses.
And you're also seeing the devastating hips.
In terms of what you said, let me just, because that's the, for me, that's the main point.
Jackson, thanks for joining us.
Let me ask you this question.
We talked previously about...
We talked previously about the, you know,
Ukraine, the silence of oppositions and so on so forth.
So I don't want to go too much into that, you know,
the fact that there's no free press, GonzΓ‘la Lira.
But separate to that, my question to you is,
this attack by Ukraine directly on Moscow,
does that mean that now there's going to be significant escalation,
A, and B, does this show some form of weakness
that Ukraine were able to penetrate Moscow?
I mean, as I said,
they've been able to get pretty close to Moscow before.
So this kind of thing is not...
Sorry, Dr. Snickle, I am going to come to you.
I was asking Jackson.
Oh, okay.
Jackson, Hinkle.
I'm so sorry.
I thought that question was not for me and I wasn't listening.
No stress, no stress.
Let me ask David.
I think you were listening to that question.
Go ahead.
Okay, I guess not.
Let me ask the question again to you, Jackson.
So the question...
No, no.
Go to Michael, man.
Go to Michael, because I wanted to go to him earlier.
Michael?
Okay.
So, you know, we are sitting in a really interesting time in the Ukraine offensive here.
Effectively, right now, Ukraine is waiting for the ground to harden before carrying out the next big counteroffensive.
It's an interesting time for Ukraine because they have all this equipment that's come in,
but the recruitment drives haven't been nearly as successful as they might have hoped.
And now they have effectively four axes in which to attack, whether they go and push for Luhansk,
they push from Maria-Pol, they push for the Sea of Zov across the top of Crimea.
You know, the worry is that effectively a lot of these areas are quite built up with Russian defences at the moment.
And Ukraine doesn't want to go and attack something and lose far too many men because they don't have the massive pool to take from.
I want to address a few of the points that sort of people put out earlier on.
The capacity industrial-wise is still very much in Ukraine's favour.
Russia effectively has used most of its, you know, inheritance of the Soviet Union.
All these old tanks, equipment, trucks, whatever you need has been pulled out of storage
and that's been able to be throw at the conflict here.
Ukraine, on the other hand, has a lot of weapons and artillery and everything coming in from particularly the West in Europe, and as we're at the US, with capacity now ramping up to sort of a million shells a day capacity, which is huge.
A lot of that won't hit the battlefield for a little while yet, but Ukraine can carry out these offensives knowing that there's a replacement equipment coming down the line.
As for why there's strikes in Moscow, whether it is the Ukrainian military itself or whether it's a splinter group, you know, Ukraine has been striking all across the country.
They don't know if they can keep everything secret at the moment.
So what they're doing is they're striking in Heirsan, they're striking in Lakhaz, the striking in
everywhere they can to sort of muddy the waters as much as they can and you know put the russians
off balance where they put their troops and reserves and michael just a question on this and by the way
you spoke at a nato event a week ago is that correct or i just want to get my facts right uh we speak
i'll be speaking in one next okay so so is they concern um among members at those events
On how far we could keep pressing Russia.
I'm saying it's Ukraine's right or not the argument I'm making.
I'm saying how far we can keep pressing Russia?
Because it is a country that does have nuclear warheads, the most reportedly more than the US.
Is that a valid concern?
Is that a logical concern or is not one that is shared among your circles?
No, no, it's a concern.
And obviously, no one wants to see the disintegration of the Russian state.
That was just a nightmare scenario for a vianalyst that we have, you know,
this if it breaks up into, let's say, a bunch of republics and there's nukes flying around as a whole, you know, no one wants that.
What they want to see is the offensive capability of Russia sort of blunted.
Because if there is, if Russia was to walk away from this, you know, successful, let's say they drew the line and they win this, it would be, okay, what's next on the table?
Moldova's would be pretty raw to that point.
You know, the nuclear weapons aren't particularly...
particularly going to be that useful. I mean, right now, if they were to launch a nuclear weapon
and take out a major Ukrainian city, it opens the genie's bottle, and I think that is the point
where the West would draw the red line. I don't think Russia is stupid enough to do that anyway.
It's not worth the international backlash in exchange for the mild gains.
Russia, to do what, to use tactical nukes? Is that what you said?
To use tactical nuclear weapons. You mean, you can achieve similar sort of, uh,
outcomes with very large munitions.
But the moment you use the nuclear weapons, good God, that's the genie out of the bottle.
We're now talking real, real nasty stuff.
What I think Russia is looking at here is either, A, do we wait until the 2024 election and hopefully things change in the US and maybe that's a change of policy?
Or B, do we try for what effectively they have in Transnistria and South Ossetra, where the war is still technically going, but it's reached a stalemate and no one really crosses?
Transnistria right now is on, effectively, the Danista River, where one side is owned by a Russian breakway and the other side is owned by the Moldovan Republic.
Because of that stalemate, because no one's crossing it, that's where it's sat since 91 now.
92, sorry.
You know, that's maybe what the Russians are hoping is if they can draw a nice enough defensive line across some of the sort of rivers in the east there and across the south.
Maybe this goes to a stalemann.
I think it's probably the best outcome Russia can hope for because, you know, right now, though, they're going into a period where they either have to, you know, they've got some reserves coming in, but they're not nearly as effective as what the sort of troops have been through Syria, been throughout the conflicts are.
Whereas the guys they would need to go recruit, again, would either be from major cities,
which would cause political instability or from migrant communities, particularly Tangi, Kedegis, Uzbek.
And that's going to cause instability in those regions.
So Shoygu will probably be saying, let's recruit more.
But Shirtiev might be saying let's not do that.
It's a really complicated time for Russia.
And their arms capacity is not nearly what they hoped it would be.
And they haven't got massive amounts.
It's why they've been going to the Egyptians and everyone I was looking for spare arms.
So, Michael, I want to go to David just to balance out the discussion.
But before that, also, it's good to have you back.
give us a quick overview man on the developers in Moscow you usually kick off every show with an overview on the latest developments would love you to give us and give the all just members that just joined just an update man and then we'll go to david yeah so the the quick update i'll provide is that what we saw yesterday evening of us time
You got me in Mario?
Yeah, man.
Your connection is shit, also.
Also, your connection shit.
Also, I think also, I think also,
I said Russians,
he said Russians,
let me summarize.
Okay, all right.
So we'll go.
David, I'm,
yeah,
also,
you get to fix your connection, man.
Yeah.
Thank you, Mario.
Yes, I think what I've just heard in the last 20 minutes have been nothing but these nursery rhymes coming about how good standing the Ukrainian element is.
You have to look at why Russia is at the moment.
Putin gave an interview today of the coolest demeanor you've ever seen of him.
He demonstrated that Russia is under absolutely no stress whatsoever.
The Russian army is consolidated.
It's consolidated along the entire front.
There is no stress on the Russian army.
The current statistics are, we were in a space last week.
Your mic, just make sure your mic is close to your mouth.
Sorry about that. The Russian army has demonstrated exactly where it is at the moment. It's exactly where it wishes to be. Patrick discussed why the reason is they are slow methodical in it. We are looking at the least damage to the civilian population in any conventional war so far. Russia has not even scratched the tin. In the last conversation we had, we discussed this in that the Ukrainian side was saying Russia is not producing tanks. They have no armor. They have no men.
There's less than 25% of the Russian army currently engaged inside Ukraine.
To talk about the 20-odd drones that were on the Western wing of Moscow today,
they were all neutralized.
They were neutralized miles from the inner ring.
They were possibly launched within 30 to 50 kilometers of Moscow.
They skimmed the tops of trees.
Most of them crashed into trees as they were coming in.
Russia at this point in time is not stressed.
I would like someone to point to something.
Bergosian played a master theatrical play in the last couple of weeks,
demonstrating that he was out of armor, out of everything,
and yet within three to four days thereafter, Back Mud Fallen.
Kadrov, the head of the Chechen army, just released a notification tonight
that the entire Chechen forces are being pushed into the western Dombas area.
Everything is calm and methodical about the Russian entity.
There is no counter-offensive coming.
The Russians are not squandering weapons.
They're not squandering artillery.
They're still on a 10-to-one ratio of shells thrown on one side against the other in the Russian favor.
Russia has complete air superiority.
They are now with attack aircraft entering deeper and deeper into the Ukrainian area of Sumi, Chernikov, Zabrosa, etc.
If someone can please show something rather than this bullshit rhetoric that we are hearing every time that we listen to these people,
I would like to see facts rather than dreams.
Because at this moment in time, the Russians are in a good standing.
There has been, rightly, 2,500 individual incursions of attacks on Russian soil.
But what are we talking about tactical nuclear weapons for?
There's no reason for Russia to do tactical nuclear weapons.
The mic, David.
The mic keeps going in and out.
I'm sorry about that. I'm just on a VPN.
But look, the point in fact is, Russia is not stressed.
They're using 25% or lesser, their current conventional forces,
and they're slowly taking what they need to take.
The Ukrainian army is on its third force.
It's third force, and there is nothing there.
Absolutely.
So, Silly, I know you've got a question for Jackson.
And John, I'm going to go to you after Jackson.
And what I want you to do, John, is kind of push back on David's point,
is that there's nothing to show that Russia is struggling.
And I know there are some indicators worth mentioning there, John.
But Sully, I'll let you ask you a question for Jackson first.
Yeah, sure, Jackson.
So the question to you is,
We talked previously about the fact that the Ukrainian government, Zelensky himself, is silencing all oppositions, not allowing free press, arresting GonzΓ‘la Lira.
But we've talked about that, but any kind of points on that would be interested.
But more specifically, we've seen the Russian, sorry, we've seen the Ukrainian attack directly on Moscow.
A, does that show that basically things are going to accelerate?
And B, does that show some kind of weakness from the Russia perspective?
Yes, so the imprisonment of Gonzalo Lira over just voicing his opinion about the Ukrainian government shows that Zelensky is the ISIS of Europe.
He is the Al-Qaeda of Europe.
And, you know, they are Nazis and they have no regard for free speech.
They have no regard for even slightly dissenting opinions.
Gonzal Lear was a YouTuber. He posed no like strategic or military or otherwise threat to the Ukrainian people or the Ukrainian government. He's a good guy. We don't even know if he's alive right now. I'm in contact with his family and they're very worried. They're in contact with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev.
We've seen multiple congresspeople make, even Democratic congresspeople, encourage the State Department to engage with the Kiev authorities and free Gonzalo Lear and get them back to America.
But I mean, the question stands, why are we sending hundreds of billions of dollars to a government that's imprisoning our own citizens that were trapped in Ukraine?
And we're not allowed to leave.
I mean, the SPU said that you're not allowed to leave.
So it makes no sense.
As for the attacks in Russia, it doesn't show weakness per se because, I mean, these are just rogue terror attacks.
But it does show that Russia is having a continued, I wouldn't say an increasing, but a continued difficulty.
and stopping or preventing these terror attacks from being launched.
In this case, they did prevent the terror attack from doing any significant damage.
Fortunately, there was a massive explosive on one of the drones that landed in a residential building.
It did not detonate, but I mean, this is really scary stuff, and there's been a lot of terror attacks in Russia
that have been increasing in scope recently over the past few months.
And Russia has not been able to stop many of these.
So strategically on a military front, what does that mean?
It means nothing.
It means that Ukraine doesn't have any true military, you know, based response to Russia's invasion
and their ever-growing hold on Ukrainian territory.
Russia has...
conquered a great deal of Ukrainian territory.
There's far more Ukrainians that have lost their lives in this war.
Russia is contributing to the greatest struggle for peace
in the face of humanity since World War II right now.
And they're continuing to charge along their path.
They're going to win.
They are winning.
They just took Bakhmuts.
They're going to take Chasseviyar or Avdyevka next, Prajadievka.
And eventually they will free all of Novoricea.
and they will create us, they will take us into this new multipolar world,
and Putin is the most base person on the face of the planet other than Xi Jinping right now.
So I got to push back on that.
The Jackson's comment there about the journalists there.
You know, I've been a frontline correspondent for a long time now reporting from war zones.
This journalist gave away Ukrainian positions, which is a big no-no.
There are lots of journalists from both the West and other and critical states in Ukraine.
who are giving all rights, who are there on the front, interviewing troops on both sides,
actually doing their job as journalists, who are being shot at,
and the only one that Ukraine's pulled away is one that was giving away Russian troop positions.
Again, Russia arrested 22 journalists just recently.
They arrested the New York Times journalist recently as well.
This is not one side good, one side bad.
This is a journalist who gave away troop positions.
Michael, it wasn't one, though, was it? It was many...
GonzΓ‘lezuela was just a more well-known one, but they arrested a number of journalists.
Is that not right?
Again, if they're giving away, when you're deployed as a frontline correspondent,
the big rules are you do not give away positions at all.
They will give you all the time in the world, but you cannot give away positions.
If he's done that, that break breaking the Cardinals, I'm going to respond to this.
I'll respond to this because it was directed at me.
But,
So I'm a friend of Gonzalo.
You know, we're not frontline reporters or anything like that.
I mean, I'm just like a YouTuber or analyst who gives commentary on other people's
news and data that they bring to the table.
Gonzalo's no different.
You know, he's not out there taking frontline photos of anything that's happening.
In fact, he tried to hide his location because of the fact that there's a lot of people
in Ukraine who wanted him dead.
So he wasn't.
putting out or jeopardizing the placements of Ukrainian troops and in
And in fact, to claim that it was just one journalist that was imprisoned by Zelensky is laughable.
I mean, from the start of the war, we've seen Zelensky consolidate all opposition media into one state-run media company that runs on a 24-7 broadcast of any, let me finish, Michael, I didn't interrupt you, that runs on a 24-7 broadcast of everything pro-Zolensky and whatever Zelensky wants.
He outlawed almost all the opposition parties in Ukraine.
He's had the SBU go into the recently overtaken regions that Russia used to hold and clear out to anyone that was considered to be a Russian savvature, disappear these people or worse.
And to top it all off, I mean, just a few months ago, we saw the almost the entire leadership of the Ukrainian interior ministry magically go up and smoke when a Ukrainian air missile defense system accidentally launched itself into a Ukrainian helicopter carrying the entire leadership.
They all died.
In addition to that, we've seen Zelensky disappear multiple SBU leading officials in different oblasts of Ukraine.
To say it was just one journalist that's been disappeared or taken out is laughable and honestly, like, shameful to the propaganda work that you're doing, Michael.
I mean, you're better than this.
Then, Michael, go ahead and respond.
Again, I never said it was just one journalist.
I said there's been people abreast on both sides.
I'm not equivocating here.
No, I said that we were talking about this journalist here saying, oh, how could he arrested this was awful?
But he gave away frontline positions.
You said it was just one journalist, but Russia arrested 20 plus.
That's exactly what you said.
You did say, Michael.
That's why I said, man.
Okay, that was a mispeak on my part.
What I meant to say was we're talking about one journalist.
That is like conspiracy theory that like what we heard now,
that Zelensky allegedly ordered its air defense to kill the whole leadership
of the interior ministry which was flying a helicopter.
That is the craziest thing I have ever heard.
Like really.
That is the craziest thing.
Like you really have a nation now which is fighting for its survival.
The nation which has protected its capital, which have liberated a lot of regions
because they know that what the Russians bring is rape, torture, kidnapping, like execution, deportation, etc.
And that is happening.
We see mass graves.
We see people who were raped.
We see people who were killed, who were kidnapped.
And we did that we did, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
You were talking a lot.
You were talking a lot, Jackson.
And we know we know this myth of an almighty Russian army.
It's a fake.
The Russians try to attack Ukraine, like since over a year, like since like April last year, the Russians haven't gained anything significant.
They tried to fight Bahmoud for 10 months. It's longer than Stalingrad battle. And what they got, they got ruins of
of a city where 70,000 people's lived sometime and now like they can't they neutralize one
third of the ukrainian they control they neutralize 75 000 men what are you talking about they
i'm sorry to tell you what no facts i'm sorry to tell you 75
thanks sorry i'll let um i let sergey jane finish your point just do it in 15 seconds and
then i'll pass it to jackson to respond
The Russians could not achieve anything significant.
Like they made an advance of like 10 kilometers.
That is nothing.
The Russian army has no men, no weapon, no nothing.
The only thing they have is Iranian drones.
And Iranian roads, they have a lot.
All other weapons do not work.
They don't know where to find men.
They have immigration of their country.
They have immigration of the use.
They don't have money.
They don't have technology.
They need to beg for ammo in North Korea.
Which country begs for ammo in North Korea?
That is Russia.
Sorry, Russia is a fake.
The US begs for it in South Korea.
One second, guys.
One second guy.
Let me go to Jackson.
Jackson, he did respond to you, so you should respond back.
Yeah, I'll keep it quick. I mean, I'll keep it quick. I just think it's funny that this Sergei
Sergei, well, Ukraine is shooting down every single Russian ballistic-en caliber missile that is headed into my country.
But also, our Ukrainian defenses accidentally shot down the helicopter carrying the entire interior ministry.
So what is it? Do you have the best air defense system on the face of the planet, or do you have an air defense system that accidentally takes out the entire interior ministry leadership?
We in Germany have pretty good Irish team air defense, Jackson.
We in Germany have pretty good air defense.
Sergei, if you could, let him finish, please.
Go ahead, Jackson.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
So, anyways...
I mean, we could pass it off to like anyone with the half working brain to explain why Bachmout is a victory.
You said that Russia's had no major strategic victories anytime in recent history throughout the course of this war.
I mean, like,
You guys lost, I don't even know, like, probably 50,000 men or more, just in Bakhmud alone.
I mean, you're getting royally fucked by the Russian, but not even by the Russian military.
You're getting royally fucked by a bunch of, like, ex-convicts who were freed from prison
and were being led by someone with no military experience and was a restaurateur,
the Wagner private military company.
So get fucked.
Let me let Sergei or Michael respond.
Sajar?
Yeah, sure.
First, like, we have pretty good air defense in Germany.
Like, RST has, like, almost 100% of success.
Like, that is slightly more than Patriot, but Patriot is also good.
Thank you for them.
And yes, like, you can call Bahmoud where we want, like a success or not.
Like when the Nazi Wermacht almost like almost conquered Stalingrad in 43,
they like they conquered the city like the Russians to Bachmood.
Was Stalingrad a victory for the Nazi Germany?
No, it was not. Although, like, you maybe would say, yeah, like, Nazi Germany is a perfect, like, military power.
They have got, like, Stalingrad. They can do whatever they want. They have heavy weapons.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. That is what you're talking. That is what you're talking.
The Russians. Sergei, hold on. Hold on, Sergei. Did you, I mean, you're a German...
citizen, right? Did you just say that Germany won Stalingrad?
German Vermat.
Is that what you just said?
The German lost Stalingrad.
But before that, the German army, the Stalingrad battle was clearly lost by German Vermat.
But before that, German Wermacht almost completely controlled the city of Stalingrad.
Oh, okay, okay.
So the difference, the difference is, the difference is, the difference is, the difference is.
Bachmood is not Stalingrad.
So that doesn't make any sense.
The Russian foreign ministry.
Oh, Jesus Christ, man.
You better listen to Russian foreign ministry.
They said Bachmood and here's another problem, Sergei.
I say that what you're talking is is bullshit.
Sorry.
You try to convince us that the Russian army is might.
We all have opinions.
You're like assholes.
You try to convince us that the Russia is really poor.
Okay, go ahead.
Okay, just quickly. Let me go to Ed and I'll give you a chance to respond. Go ahead.
Yeah, this is not so much about in particular, but when people come in and they start pulling out wartime government statements as when, you know, listening to the, you know, Ukrainian intelligence agency or any of the government-related departments in a wartime government, this also goes for Russia.
you don't trust those statements.
That is just the bottom line.
And Sergei and, you know,
there are other people in here who also do this,
just don't do that.
There is other outside analysis you can make to come to a conclusion that doesn't rely on a government statement.
Sergei in particular was bringing up almost purely Ukrainian MOD statements.
They do this a lot and they pretend like it's fact.
It's not.
When the Russians said that they kill, you know, they hit five Patriots and, you know, a radar station,
five launchers and a radar of a Patriot battery, do we believe that?
Do we believe that, like, on face value?
Like...
They could have hit a Patriot. They may not have, but do you believe the Russian government when they say that?
The first thing you should say is, no, I don't believe that.
And that's the exact same thing you should say with the Ukrainian government, probably even more,
because throughout this entire conflict, they have been caught up in lies nonstop.
It is a regular thing.
So I have a really hard time listening to any analysis that comes from people saying, well, you know, Zelensky said this or Zelensky said that.
Another issue I have, and this is not character assassination, because I don't know any of you people on the more pro-Ukrainian side.
But if you guys are all making money from this, like, this is your job.
Somebody said, you know, Michael said that he was speaking at a NATO conference.
And obviously...
Sergei knows people in Ukraine.
These are people that their livelihoods depend on this, you know, this SMO or the war or whatever you want to call it going.
in that direction. So just take a pause and listen to them because they produce good content,
I'm sure. I don't know them personally, but just know that these people have biases and
stuff going on outside of their, you know, just what they're saying.
Thanks that, Eden. So I'll go to our Sergei has gone. Let me go to Mickey. Mickey, I'll give
a chance to respond. Yeah, just quickly to say, um,
And I think John's actually been waiting a bit longer, so I'll try to be fast.
I think it's fair to be...
Sorry, I don't know.
Oh, well, yeah.
Next time, make me a co-host, man, I'll nail it.
I just want to say, you know, just to push back a bit to Aiden.
Let Dr. Snackleckle talk.
It's fair to be critical and skeptical of people.
Absolutely, yes.
I think that's fair.
Like, and it's fair game to make that claim.
I think it's the same...
same goes the other way, right? If people have people here have made claims and safe
reputation on the success of Russia, a lot of people here, I believe, are basically just
repackaging information from Russian pro-Russian telegram groups and using it to promote their
own social media. And people like Jackson here himself has stated that he's a big fan of Xi Jinping
and of Vladimir Putin. And if, you know,
you know, like, that's the kind of people you're in people you're in bed with who believe that that, those are the type of people we should be, you know, supporting.
So, you know, I think we should be skeptical and curious about every single person that's perfectly reasonable.
But I think it's just as fair to say that people have staked their reputation on the success of Russia.
And people here on this panel on the more.
I wouldn't say not everyone is pro-Russia exactly. Some people just believe it's a statement of fact that Russia is winning. But those of you who have made predictions about Russia being successful in Ukraine, we will know whether or not that's true or false a year from now. So let's just breathe and let's look at it in a year from now and see who was right and who was wrong.
Let me go to...
Hold on just a second.
Mickey, I didn't...
I couldn't hear you speaking,
so if I interrupted you,
I thought it was just silent in the space.
I really did not mean to interrupt.
No, no, you didn't interrupt anyone, bro.
It's all Suleiman's fault, man.
It's 100% swimming.
No, no, it's not.
It's not.
You didn't interrupt anyone.
Don't stress.
David, let me go to David.
David.
Sorry, if you're Brickson, this time I'll switch over my phone.
But just to reiterate what Jackson said,
we witnessed the decimation of a Ukrainian army to the tune of 75,000 men by a PMC,
not even the full professional Russian army.
Yes, it was backed up artillery-wise and with intelligence,
but we saw 20,000 Wagner's die.
in back mode, just under 20,000.
Perugosian actually released the data last week with all the facts, names and details of that.
He included a full itinerary of every weapon that was lost by the Ukrainian side,
including the numbers that they calculated, just above 75,000.
With over 125,000 furthermore, wounded, they were taken away from the battlefront that they estimated.
And that is just a normal discourse of war where you would have two wounded for one dead.
So basically that one battle neutralised one third of the Ukrainian army.
And that was just back mud.
Now we are seeing Pinser movements being pushed on all along the Lugansk and Donbass area.
with the Chechen forces now coming into over 20,000 men within the Western Donbass.
If anyone can show me where the Russians are under pressure,
having neutralized with the PMC of Wagner,
one third of the Ukrainian existing army, please do so.
But...
Exactly what Aidan has said.
All we are seeing is a reiteration of talking points coming from the Ukrainian MOD, which is absolutely hilarious.
It is Hans Christian Andersen, fairy tale stories, sleeping beauty, etc.
It has no, no recognition in reality on the ground.
What is happening?
Did he...
What is happening at the moment is simple facts.
Russia is producing its own military industrial complex at 400% what it was in 2021.
It is producing thanks more in one month than what the entire NATO forces are able to do.
You're talking about bringing an F-16-60-thum, 40-them, 80-them?
Russia just took out in 15 months over 700 fixed wing and helicopter aircraft.
And we are now talking about 60 F-16s that are going to be what?
Domicidal airports within Ukraine are flown out of Poland.
It will only escalate the war further.
And this is what we were talking about here tonight.
Just Medvedev, just a few days ago, gave his three options
on what's going to happen with Ukraine.
The first two, semi-comical,
but the last one was something that we discussed in our groups
up to three weeks ago.
The Russian people are expecting the full submission of Ukraine,
an autonomous zone of Kiev,
and hand back the regions in the Western area.
And that's the only thing that the Russian people are going to accept
because they have been promised...
by the Moscow government. And we see no reason to doubt that.
Thank you.
Sorry, can I just point out that David saying we shouldn't, we shouldn't look at the,
you know, anything coming out of Ukraine, but also just quoted Medvedev and Progogian as his sources.
I've actually got into this with David a bunch, and I'm going to say the exact same thing that I just said.
Don't listen to either.
Please do your analysis outside of it.
David, you can come to the same conclusions that you're coming to now through outside analysis and just don't talk about Medvedev because it doesn't really play well in debate.
Let me go to Bon. Von.
Don't judge the previous Prime Minister of Russia or the next to be Prime Minister of Russia.
Eden, I don't know what drugs you're on tonight, but please give me your number for them.
Right, okay.
Yeah, we don't condone drugs.
But let me go to Von.
Von, you know, we've seen the direct attack on Moscow and the videos are out there.
I mean, what do you see happening next from this exact point in terms of escalation?
I mean, this isn't surprising. I don't think it's a huge escalation. It's a discovery that they have the numbers and a capability to do it to do it.
I think we're just going to see more of the same in the short term.
Russia is going to keep bombing what is bombing. Ukraine's going to keep trying to send drones into Russia to do damage.
And we'll see what happens.
I did read that the Russians hit some aircraft on airfields or something like that.
I don't know. I didn't bother confirming because it was way late.
So it looks like they might be trying to diminish Ukraine's capabilities before the upcoming counter-offensive.
So that's something to keep an eye on.
I want to chime in on what Aiden said 100%.
I think it's ludicrous when...
Serious people who are intelligent upon this panel and generally know what they're talking about are just parroting talking points back and forth at each other
There's an info war going on as with every war don't trust the MOD don't trust the intelligence apparatus their job is to shape narrative
You're not doing anything by by by just throwing their talking points back and forth to each other that's what they're doing
You're not helping with that and you're not
provide anything constructive, you're all capable of well-thought-out thorough analysis.
Let's please see more of that.
Hey, I just want to chronically add something to that.
Yeah, go ahead.
About the airstrike that took out aircraft,
that was actually confirmed by the Komenitsky Regional Administration.
They said five aircraft were damaged.
The extent of damage we'll have to see later on.
But one thing that is the case, apparently, this has been confirmed.
It's like that is...
the base from which the SU-24s were modified to carry stormshadows was based.
So somehow they got timely information and did the airstrike.
And this is what I've been also saying, like the reconnaissance strike complex of Russia has been
improving incrementally, but it's the is marked from where it was, you know, six months ago.
Thank you for that. Also, good to finally get to speak to you. I think we've been mutuals
for a bit longer than forever. Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, that's nice.
That's what we do.
We bring people together.
John, go ahead.
Yeah, I just want to quickly speak to a point that Aiden had mentioned this idea, you know, that many people, which is probably true, that are making money off of propagating certain talking points and things like that.
So me personally, right, I make no money off of this.
It's kind of just a hobby that I have.
I mean, I think that's a lot of other people, especially people who, like, you know, people like Vaughn who I don't believe Vaugh really makes much money from this, if at all.
I think this...
We're just trying to kind of bridge a lacuna that a lot of people have on specifically geopolitics and military topics.
One thing that I did like to hear was this idea that just kind of pushing forward talking points from either side, which is something I try to avoid.
Right.
at all times. I try to find things where they meet in the middle at the most,
just generally when you're going to find the truth. So when both sides, if both M-R-Ds are reporting
similar things, it's probably the closest thing you're going to find to the truth.
I don't believe any of the casualty statistics that come out of any country because as long as history has
been history. People have been
inflating casualties. To this
day, there's many battles that have taken place
hundreds, thousands, and even a couple
decades ago that we don't have accurate casualty
reports of because of that.
So that's just one thing I want to remind people about.
Mario earlier
had asked me, I don't want to divert the conversation
too much to kind of push back on
something David had mentioned, which is this idea
that, you know, Russia is only winning, has
only been winning. And more
importantly, I believe I don't want to
misquote David, but I believe he said the Russian military is exactly where it wants to be right now.
I think there's a couple things that would show that they aren't.
One, they're begging the Chinese to constantly, constantly bring the idea of ending the conflict to the table
because the Chinese wouldn't be doing this if no one was telling them to,
or if they didn't believe Russia was easily going to, you know, wrap this warp.
Because at the end of the day, their interests are more aligned with their Russians, right?
So they would like to see Russia wrap the war, but they would like to see Russia wrap the war on their terms.
If the Chinese believe they could do that quickly, they wouldn't be constantly crying about peace.
Not to say peace is a bad thing.
I think we all need this war to wrap up as smoothly as possible because obviously globalization makes war very untellable to the world economy.
but the second thing that I would say
and I just want to say two points because I don't want to
kind of throw out a bunch of points just to kind of
you know as like a debate method but the second
point I would say which is this big overarching
one is the whole idea of Russia building defense
is at scale. If you look at
from
essentially the Bakhmud sector all the way down to the Crimean border, you know, we see extensive,
heavily extensive defenses in the south. If Russia didn't think Ukraine or didn't have credible
intelligence, someone just said, right, Russia's ISR and reconnaissance capability has been improving.
That it has been, right, because early on in the war, if we're going to be honest, it was close to
nothing. If Russia didn't believe or have...
or have a reason to believe that the Ukrainians were forming for a counteroffensive,
were preparing for that, or operations to shape the battlefield for a counteroffensive
were ongoing, which I believe they happened for a while.
They wouldn't have dug these defensive.
If they really thought that they were in the spot that they need to be tactically and strategically,
you wouldn't see them building these defensive at scale and in-depth.
So that's something I would say to push back.
Let me go to Halisi.
Halisi, you had something, sir?
Yeah.
Yeah, thanks, Salaman. Hi, Mario. So basically, I'm listening to this and it's a pity that Sergey left because I found it really novel, what he was saying. It was like something out of a fairy story and not realistic, not related to what's happening on the ground at all. This is a proxy war.
and this is basically a war that's been engineered by the NATO countries and America.
Russia had no choice but to defend its territory.
You know, like we're really skirting around some of the issues here while people have been talking.
When you say engineered, sorry, just to understand, when you say engineered, do you mean intentionally caused the war or they kept expanding...
pressuring Russia to start the war
because there's a bit of a difference.
So one of them is intentional,
one of them is unintentional.
So the thing is they can both be applicable, right, Mario?
If you continuously put pressure on and leave somebody no choice, you know, these aren't kids in the playground.
They've got strategies, they've got intelligence, they know how far they can put.
They can both be applicable, but the reason I pressed on it a bit further,
because one argument I've heard is that NATO intentionally caused this war to weaken Russia.
And obviously the other argument is that NATO expanded.
and other countries have the right to choose if they want to join NATO or not.
But obviously, it can be seen as a threat by Russia and Russia responded.
But NATO didn't want to cause a war, but they did want to expand.
Yeah, so that's applicable, but also the reason that you can give, Mario, you said to weaken Russia.
Now, that's one of the reasons that's been put on the table.
The other one is money laundering.
The other one is, you know, covering up for Hunter Biden.
There's multiple reasons that I've heard.
Starting the war in Ukraine to cover up for Hunter Biden, a whole war, one of the worst wars since World War II to cover for some of the presidents.
I've heard that.
Okay, okay.
I thought you're making the point.
My bad.
No, no, I'm not making the point.
I'm saying there are many, what I said to you was there are many reasons that have been put on the table.
Yeah.
Yeah, theories that have been put on the table.
I mean, you know, I've even heard.
So that literally the day before this conflict started, and I prefer to call it a conflict,
is that Boris's career here was hanging by a thread.
And at the same time, Biden had the lowest ever ratings that any president has had in America.
And he had his speech the next day, his state of Congress speech.
literally waltzed in there and said, we have to deal with this.
And at the same time, Boris, the following day, managed to save his career, albeit for a few months.
And the Daily Mail headlines were, we can't let him go now because we're at war.
And I remember thinking when we're not at war, so there's multiple reasons, Mario, but I don't know the exact reason. Only those behind it would know it. What I'm saying is, look, you know, I'll give you an example. So there's this story that we've forgotten, this airman Texera, I think his name is 21, arrested on April the 13th.
in America. He's an American guy for leaking classified documents. And he said in those documents that basically American and British special forces are fighting in Ukraine because they're the only ones able to go toe to toe to with the Russians. And he's been arrested for this. And these are classified documents. So I will say that. The other thing that I wanted to say here was that, you know, like...
I don't know. I just think that we can dance around this issue, but something Patrick said was really prominent. The only way this is going to come to an end is on the negotiating table. I think anybody who's got any notions of the fact that we're going to beat Russia and we're going to do this.
this is not just an honest on the space earlier it's not a military war it's a war of narratives
as well as a military war and it's it's a war on every front the media the narrative if it wasn't
fair and square we wouldn't have r t and all russian news banned in the uk we get headlines like
you know putin is dying russia's ran out of weapons and they expect
us to believe this, our governments do. And this is what's happening in Germany. They've literally
got NATO police forces in Germany arresting people. They're not showing any of the NATO protests
that are going on in Germany on the mainstream media news. And there are NATO protests going on out
there. So if it was a fair, balanced war, and then we wouldn't have all these restrictions on
us to deny us the truth of what's happening out there. It's to do.
It's graceful.
And people, like, as young as 15, are being recruited in Ukraine to be used as cannon fodder.
I've been listening to Patrick's show, the two-hour show he does every day on TNT.
And really, I'm getting so much information.
There's no 15-year-olds of the military.
I didn't say they were in the military.
I said they were been recruited.
And Ryan, don't interrupt me.
They're not recruiting 15-year-olds.
I'm in Ukraine.
Don't interrupt me.
I don't want to hear you until I finish speaking.
And then you can speak.
Stick your hand up, mute your mic.
Thank you very much.
So, you know, there's a lot of nonsense going on, and I think there's a lot of lies going on around this as well.
And I know that our, certainly our government's lying to us, and I know the American government's lying to them.
They could end this today if they wanted to.
I heard that European Union countries that are involved in this, they don't really have the money either.
Right.
and they're having a little bit of noise in the background to say,
well, we'd like to bring this to an end, really,
because we don't really want to go on the forefront of this.
And I'll make this last point, Suleiman.
You know, and Zelensky, this globe-trotting, you know, superstar hero,
he's not been on the front line at all.
His country's at war.
You know, he's begging people, can I go to the Oscars and present anything,
you know, going on the cover of Vogue, going to all the celebrity shows?
I mean, seriously, why isn't anybody...
questioning that. Whether you're for Ukraine or Russia, everybody on this panel should be questioning
why that guy whose country is at war is not on the front line dealing with it. Why is in his khaki
t-shirt, globe-totting, even went to the freaking Arab League. What's that got to do with anything?
I'm going to pause there for that. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to correct that. I'm sorry. I'm going to
have to be able to correct that. Like there has been, first of all, he's the president of a country.
Right?
Yeah, I was going to, let me, let me do, let me, there's a few, I can correct.
Let me, let me do the ones.
Let me do the ones I know, because you probably can do more of them.
There's so many points made.
So in terms of Zelensky or Zelensky or Putin or any president going to the front line,
a president is a president, not a soldier.
So it's important to keep that in mind.
Being on the Vogue magazine, you know, speaking at the Arab League,
I'm not he's supporting Zelensky or Putin, but just specific points that were made.
You know,
There's a lot that the president needs in getting support.
I think he was in the Arab lead to get Middle Eastern support for Ukraine.
Also, you can elaborate on this as well.
Being on the Vogue magazine, you talked to, hold on, last thing, last thing I want to say is he said,
at Kiliu said this is a war of narratives.
Well, Zelensky needs to control the narratives.
I think Ukraine's been doing a good job at,
controlling the narrative in some ways,
but it's kind of shifting over the last few months.
But whether it's on the appearance on the Vogue magazine
or doing an interview there or any other magazine,
I think it's part of that effort to control the narrative.
All source, anything else?
Mario, I just want to add something to what you've said.
So if he was successful in controlling the narrative,
our government wouldn't have banned the entire Russian media over here.
He's not controlling the narrative.
Our government's aligned to us.
They're controlling the media.
They've banned the media.
So that's controlling the narrative.
There's no success of his in that.
No, he's playing a role as well.
I think he got a lot of support as a president in the early days.
This is shifting now as the war dragged on.
I think the government.
I mean, you're right, Mario, you are right.
He did play a role.
I mean, the government is banning alternative media,
and he's been to the Oscars.
So, but he's contributing.
But, Mario, I think an important point to highlight is,
He has been documented many times going to the front during the intensity of the battle of Bukhmud.
He was in Bukmood.
He has seen frontline troops, but he's the president of a country at war.
I mean, the same argument can be made of Putin, right?
And Putin has gone to, you know, Maricopo, for example, but he's made visits.
He's never been as close to the front line as Zelensky as.
But there has been multiple cases where the president of Ukraine has been to the front line.
And let's not forget, when Kiev was under invasion and assault, Zelensky stayed in Keith.
He did not, which a lot of people...
He wasn't even in the country when Bathmuth was taken.
So where was he when Backmuth was taken?
Yeah, but he's been to Bachmood.
It doesn't matter.
Any children who should have been to Backmood.
I may have been to Backmood, but he's his country.
He should have been there.
He's the president of a country.
Exactly my point.
I don't get it, but why does, hold on, why does, why does he need to be here?
That's huge, Mario, she's right.
Imagine, imagine the UK, you are in the war, you're about to lose an important territory
where you have dedicated enormous on manpower.
He was, yeah, it is huge.
He was at G20.
He was a G20, bro.
It's optic. You can't be going to a different country while your country is being...
Well, of course, I don't know how many countries you've run in your career.
But if you look at it, going to a G20 summit is pretty important as well,
when all the world leaders are there.
If Zelensky can run a country, anyone can.
That's a silly comment, bro.
It was G7, Mario.
G7, thanks.
It was the G7 Mario in Japan.
Was he invited to the G7, Patrick?
What was he doing at the G7?
He was there. He was there.
He had a legitimate reason.
Sorry, Kleece. He had a legitimate reason to be there.
They had photo ops booked for everybody.
Now, Patrick, you're pretty critical of, obviously, Ukraine and Zelensky.
But do you think him being at the G7 during the Bukhmud?
Because there's some points that are still...
you can still disagree with specific points.
Do you think Zelensky being at the G7 summit
while Bukmut was falling is not the right thing
for a president to do?
Meeting with world leaders trying to get support for Ukraine
is not the right thing to do while a city was falling?
Well, Mario, it was the right thing to do for Washington optics and for NATO optics, but not for Ukrainian optics.
He absconded at the most important, crucial battle, and it didn't go in his favor.
It looks like he fled and absconded.
That's what it looks like.
What are the people on the front line think?
This guy's press-ganging people off the street as young as teenage years and old as 60
and forcing them to go to sit in a trench somewhere in Bakhmut or in Dombas
where the average lifespan, once they get there, is something between 12 and 24 hours.
And he's off gallivanting around in designer, the latest green T-shirt, doing photo ops with Justin Trudeau,
staged photo ops with hugging Rishi Sunak.
and all these sort of staged ops.
Ridiculous.
People in Ukraine are looking to him as a leader, and he's bailed.
He bailed at the hour of...
What do you mean...
What is he...
Let me, Mario.
Can I?
What can he do?
What can he do in Japan that he can't do in Kiev?
It's ridiculous.
It's terrible optics.
It looks like he fled to avoid the heat.
You can use Zoom and WebEx that in Ukraine, his country's at war.
He doesn't have to fly.
What I mean you use Zoom in WebEx?
I had to travel to Ukraine for one meeting.
I got on a flight for 15 hours just for one meeting.
I hate traveling.
Two shows I couldn't attend.
I despise traveling just for one fucking meeting that lasted two hours.
And I don't need a country.
I need a small business.
But true, Mario, true.
For a businessman, 100%.
But, you know, the men that they've lost in there,
you talk about tens of thousands in a meat grinder that lasted for six months.
And that's how the president thinks of that,
that he can't honor that, at least say something to the country.
It's an absolute cluster.
You know what?
This is food bar.
Sorry, could I...
You can try to dress it up all source, but you can't...
Okay.
I'm going to...
So, like, I find it absolutely hilarious when we're having this conversation about Zalinski
being the president or like, oh, he was in vogue or he was in the G7, went back.
Like, so it's mundane examples of, but like, everybody's going to forget that he stayed
in Kiev when Russia invaded and attacked Keev and seized Hossamil Airport.
Like, he did not leave.
That was his job also.
He wasn't doing a favor.
That was his job.
When you take your country to war, you're supposed to be there.
When you run a country and
And you're having the key leaders of your country, having an international reunion with the higher international community, where you can argue for your country to get more weapons and support and to provide an update.
That's pretty big deal for any foreign leader.
That's why you're a president.
The military commanders on the ground from the general, specifically in the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, handled the fight.
You don't expect a president to dictate to the military.
I need these forces here, here and here.
That's that his job.
Well, Ukraine is already supported by the G7 nations.
No, but Ukraine is already supported by the G7 nations.
It's already supported by the G7 nations.
Number one.
Number two.
Wait, wait.
No, wait.
No, wait.
Wait.
Wait, wait, wait. It's a case of priorities. It's already supported by G7 and back moods was falling. Do you know what? If Rishi Sunak, if we had the same situation here and London was falling and Rishi Sunak went to the G7, I tell you what, it wouldn't be, it would not be acceptable. So number one, number one back.
Wait, wait, wait.
Wait.
Wait.
So you're talking about, you're singling out, no, wait.
You're singling out, G7, right?
G7, you're slinging, he's already supported by them.
So park that.
I'm talking about the celebrity events, the photo ops as part.
Hold on, Kalisi.
No, no, no, wait, you know what he did after the G7?
He did the graduation ceremony for Johns Hopkins University.
And he got a standing ovation.
That's what the mainstream media press covered.
Listen, he's available for birthdays, bar mitzvahs, and stagnates.
Okay.
And I'll say this, I'll say, let me go to Ryan. Let me go to Ryan just to push back.
So, Ryan, so I can I just quickly jump over just a second? And I've got to head off because I've got to jump another call.
Oh yeah, go for Michael. Go for it.
Zolenski's main role here is as a country leader and also as a fundraiser and to keep the support coming.
right now, if he was going to carry out this counteroffensive,
he needs to know that the tanks, the troops,
whatever he burns through in this offensive,
that more is coming down the pipe.
Now, sometimes, you know, he has that in contract.
There are some leopard tanks coming, yada, yada, yada.
But he wants to keep that going.
And the best way he can do that is by lobbying these people
and making sure Ukraine stays in the headlines.
that's been,
for both you've heard,
the Ukrainians,
it's been a massive worry of them
that they fall out of the major headlines
and then these countries go,
well,
I don't really feel like funding them anymore
and they fall out and they don't have the,
weapons and whatnot coming in to be able to fight this war.
You know, Zelensky doesn't do battlefield tactics.
And the fact he was away when Buckmutt fell, well, there was pretty much
any of a block left of Buckmunt by the time he left.
It's been going on for 10 months.
Buckmutt doesn't change the war dramatically.
It's just a city that both sides gave, you know, probably too much significance.
But him falling and leaving, you know, him being away while it fell is not the biggest deal to me.
What is important is he's still out there lobbying, making sure Ukraine stays in the headlines to get more money and get more support.
One second.
Let me go to Jackson.
Let me go to Jackson.
So, Jackson, I mean, I think Kaleisi makes a silly point because just think in the US,
and Biden was away just for a bill
and people lost confidence
there was an upro
this guy was away
while they lost the entire city
a place,
the entirety of Bahmoud
a place where they
Well they lost one block of Bahmoud
one.
They lost the entirety of Bahamas.
Let me they're lost the entire.
Let's stick to facts.
There was one block left that they lost to Lama.
Can you stick to facts when he asked your questions?
That makes it worse.
That makes it worse that he was about to lose it.
He didn't.
It doesn't matter.
No, no, no.
Listen, listen.
He was about to lose it.
And then there were a part from Ukrainian-led-Bel-
He's been about to use it.
But he's been about to lose it for months.
Not really, because he's saying bullshit.
He's been about to...
How many men do you do that?
How many men died?
He's been about to lose it for months.
He was about to lose it.
For months. You know that, yeah? We've talked about it for months. He's about to lose it. He's going to lose it this week. He just lost it. No, he did it.
No, no, no, no.
So he was about to lose it.
And then it got to the point where there was escalation
and it went to 95% where they had taken it.
And then we heard reports from Ukrainian media
where they infiltrated, the reroute in telegrams
where they were basically on the offensive
and they'd taken back certain territories.
We were reporting on that.
And then what happened was they got completely destroyed.
So if he knew that place was going to be taken,
why would it be out of the country, prancing about,
going to...
Prancing about nothing to do with the G7 summit, yeah?
Well, he went to G7.
I think Halisi made a salient point that he already had the support of them.
And Patrick made it even better.
We don't know.
We don't know how much support.
We don't know what they're negotiating.
We don't know what support.
Hold on.
It's just Patrick's stuff.
Everyone's even admitted in it.
John Hopkins was a remote.
He did it by video.
All right.
But it was headlocked.
Let me just make my point.
Let me just make my point because I haven't been able to make my point.
And I can effectively end this entire conversation.
And I know there's a lot of people listening.
If you haven't listened to anything, just listen to this right here.
Because this is the most important point that's been made this entire conversation.
So remember when everyone lost their minds when Ted Cruz went to like,
he planned a trip to like Puerto Rico or Mexico or something when his state was in the middle of like a semi-severe like weather storm?
They had like freezes or something like that.
everyone, MSNBC and they lost their minds, they lost their damn minds.
Compare that to Zelensky.
Throw away the whole Bachmoot conversation.
I don't give a fuck about that.
Zelensky, who brings uranium shells into his country from the UK
the same week that they launch a drone strike on the Kremlin,
knowing full well that those are two major red lines that they just cross,
putting all of his civilians, everyone in the country,
every Ukrainian who's fighting in harm's way,
an insignificant risk of receiving a very, very large response from Russia.
The same exact time that he brings in the depleted uranium shells
and they do the Kremlin drone strike, Zelensky's gone.
He's nowhere to be found.
If you're going to do something as maniacal and insane as that, go down with your ship.
Don't be a pussy running around giving blow jobs to Rishi Sunak.
Be a man.
Go down with your ship.
That's all that needs to be said.
That's the final point in the end of this conversation.
Okay.
Allsauce and Mickey, I think you guys should probably respond in Austin, respond to all the points that Patrick
I guess because I think there's one argument.
Yeah, because I think I think there's one point to, the argument that was being made earlier, who's winning the war, who's got about ammunition, you know, who, even who caused what caused the war, et cetera, a valid discussion to be made, but talking about a president leaving a country or, or Ted Cruz or any president.
to do their job leaving a country.
I'm not talking about when Kiev was falling,
which is when it mattered.
When Kiev was falling, it mattered.
His life was in danger.
He was in Kiev,
and everyone expected Kiev to fall.
That's a different discussion.
I think he's worth it.
But if Bukh is falling, et cetera,
and he's out there within the G7 summit,
I just don't think it's our place to say,
yeah, he doesn't really care.
Bukh fell and he's in G7.
He wasn't out of a holiday on the beach.
But he's not.
Patrick, I would like, I think for balance, because it was just...
They lost 50,000 men, Mark.
Yeah, Patrick, yeah, I know, but again, again.
Guys, guys.
Yeah, also.
If I may, just quickly, because I did want it to provide it,
because I'm sorry to everybody, I did have significant connectivity issues.
I think I finally fixed it.
But David, you know, he said a figure that, like,
25% of the Russian army is committed.
I'm sorry, that's just...
factually incorrect. That's just factually incorrect. I mean, I don't know where that number came from,
where it got pulled, but this notion that only 25% of the Russian army is committed in Ukraine
is not true. It's almost laughable. And it's like the max of just like, it's not based in any
reality because if that's the thing, where's the rest of the 75%?
So what's the correct figure then?
What's the correct figure?
No, not on the border.
I'm not going to say 25%.
No, he said it, but what is the correct figure?
It's a police.
If it's 25%, if it's 25%, then how in the hell did Russia have to pull out of Kiev?
Why did they pull out of Hirsson or Kharkip because of goodwill gesture?
Like if it's 25%, and you have a substantial amount of reserves that every military analyst has actually
serious has come on and said, no, like that's a huge issue that the Russians run into is they
don't have significant amount of combat power in reserves to plug holes.
If you're telling me it's 25%.
Where the hell is the other...
How did Belgrade get attacked
and an entire day of battle
was registered right at the front line?
Like, if you're going to throw that 75%...
But you don't...
You don't have a figure, do you?
Do you have a figure?
Do you have a accurate...
All force.
May I...
That's a bad argument.
They pulled out of Kiev
because they only had 40,000 troops there.
We all know that.
That's established.
They didn't have enough troops.
25% is just...
Wait, wait, wait, I'm not done...
...25% of the entire Russian army?
Okay, go ahead.
Yeah, and the other one is 25%, I think, seems low,
but it's also, if you include the reserve force,
that's just under a million troops.
That's not insignificant.
Remember, they have 3 million active soldiers and reservists.
Keep that in mind when doing your percentage calculations.
That's all I want to say.
You have to remember the reservists are further back, too, as well.
They're not just all on a front line.
Okay, so Austin, I know we went to you.
I know you had an answer to Jackson, so please go ahead, Austin.
Yeah, by all means.
I mean, like...
It's kind of like hard to explain how ridiculous this notion that Zelensky, like, number one, needs to be in the country at all times, or number two, needs to be on the front lines.
Like, Napoleon Bonaparte himself was not on the front line.
Droman.
Winston Churchill was meeting in Morocco with Joseph Stalin during World War II.
Like, this is not.
No one said all times.
But no one said all times.
What they're saying is, when he's...
He went to Ristram.
frigging Pope. Was the Pope going to give
him weapons? No, no, no, no. It's really fascinating.
Did he go to see the Pope to get his military arsenal
or was the Pope going to fund his war?
What the hell? Listen, let me tell you something, right?
No, no, no, hang on, hang on, hang on. I interrupt you.
You don't need to interrupt me.
It's, no, Kaleisi, it's fascinating.
It's fascinating. How acquainted
the, the pro-Russia side of this is
acquainted with modern Russian foreign policy.
Austin, I'm not pro-Russia.
You bully. You bully.
Just like Russia bullied Georgia.
I'm not pro-Russia.
Moldova. No, let me finish my fucking point. Jesus fucking Christ. Yeah. No, it's, it's nonsense. Take the Lord's name in vain.
It's nonsense to apply a standard to a president, an elected official in a country that is at war, that they need to be on the front lines at all times.
That is not how any war has been run since before the Roman Empire.
It flies in the face of history.
Political leaders do not lead detachments on the front line.
And if you really believe that they do, we can ask why wasn't Putin at Hostomel Airport?
Seriously, it's not a matter of pro-Russia, pro-Ukraine.
It's basic reading skills.
Okay.
So let me just one to you, Austin.
No, no, no, I'm not done.
I'm not done.
Okay, okay.
I'm not done. Yeah, let me finish. So, so the idea that Zelensky is going to the G7, that he's going to talk to, you know, allied countries that have been providing logistical support to his, his country's military effort, to say that that's somehow like flying in the face of his own country's defense efforts. That's ridiculous. As all source pointed out, he stayed in Kiev when Keeb was under direct force.
threat. You know, if the Russian gamble for Hostomel Airport had paid off, Zelensky's personal safety would be at extreme risk there, right? So the idea, and you know, when we talk about Bakhmut, Bakhmut was a battle that went on for nine months.
So this idea that Zelensky needs to be at Bachmout the entire time is ridiculous.
No, but when it's falling, he does, when it's falling he does.
It's a matter of having basic fucking logic skills to look at a situation
and look how governments are led during periods of war.
And I'm hearing none of that.
So I want to hand off the rest of my time to Ryan here because I know Ryan is currently in Ukraine.
That was the response to me.
That was the response to me.
Go ahead, Jackson. That was a response to me.
No, it wasn't. It wasn't directed at you at all, unless you think you don't have basic reading skills, in which case, then reply ahead.
Who's reading? You said, first of all, you're speaking, you're not reading.
And second of all, you said responding to Jackson at the start of your statement.
So anyways.
No, I didn't say that at all. But again, you may have listening problems as well.
No, no, I have great, great hearing capabilities, and your shrill voice is incapable of me to ignore.
So I actually did hear it.
But anyways, the reason why I said when I made my point that that's the end of the conversation, and we may as well move on, is because, I mean, it was by all standards of your response, because you shifted the goals so hard in your response.
How's that?
Okay.
Let me finish.
So I made the point that Zelensky...
I said, screw the whole conversation of Bachmood, G7, whatever.
I said, the point is that Zelensky should not be escalating the war to extremes that we've never seen before
and fleeing at the same time as he leaves his country to sink.
What have we never seen before?
Hey, hey, I didn't interrupt you.
No, I'm just asking questions of what you're saying.
Yeah, and I'm going to get to it, you fucking retard.
So shut the fuck up.
Okay.
No, no, no, no.
Just clarify for it.
Go ahead, Jackson, just leave it with a personal tax, bro.
Go ahead.
Yeah, yeah, I'm glad that the retard's done talking.
So, um, so, Zelensky...
He takes in depleted uranium shells from the UK and fires a drone attack on the Kremlin the same time that he leaves for the UK.
So all that happened.
So the Kremlin attack was with depleted uranium shells? Can you make like basic sense?
I'll just shut your mind and let him finish his point because I want to go next.
Go ahead, Jackson.
You're so stupid. I said he brought in depleted uranium shells.
Yes, for the Kremlin attack. You made that clear.
No, listen to me. I said he brought in depleted uranium shells and did the Kremlin drone attack. Hey, Brainiac, depleted uranium shells are not fired from drones.
Yeah, so then why is that relevant to the Kremlin attack?
It's two separate red lines that Zelensky crossed the same week that he was gone in the United Kingdom.
And he knew full well that this could have prompted a major response from Russia and put all of his country in jeopardy.
You guys are all they going to do level another city.
Oh my God.
Let me finish my point.
Are they not already in an act of work?
All right guys.
Let's let's let's let Jackson go ahead with your point.
Bro, literally.
Okay, so you guys are always talking about how crazy Putin is and we're always talking about nuclear bombs and all this madness, right?
So Zelensky draws two major red lines the same week that he decides to be out of the country in the United Kingdom.
And somehow, you know, you managed to respond to me without acknowledging either of those points, okay?
So that's what I was saying.
You shifted the goalpost back to Bachmout and all this stuff and like, oh, my God, well, no leader's ever been on the front before.
My last point here, do you think Stalin would have ever done, you know, Vogue cover shoots?
No, because he's base and he's a real man unlike Zelensky.
So, so, Justin.
So, like you make zero sense.
I just, I find this argument of red lines, like, hilarious.
Because it's the ever-shifting red line.
It always shifts.
Everything is the red line for Russia.
The moment it crosses, nothing happens.
But then, but also, so this is, so this, let me ask you a question there also,
because I think this argument is more interesting.
Like, I just get a bit annoyed when we start all pretending to know how a president
should run a country.
And I'm talking both Putin and Zelensky.
But I enjoy the discussion of, like, are we crossing the red line?
Is Russia winning?
Is Ukraine winning?
Which, who's reporting the deaths correctly?
None of them are, but what are the deaths on both sides?
Yeah.
Those are better arguments, in my opinion.
So the question there on the red line, all source.
Not really, bro.
Okay, bro.
Agree with you.
Because being a president...
Bro, bro, you haven't...
I don't know.
You haven't run a company.
You haven't run an organization.
Guys, guys, guys.
The question...
Just think about your arguments, Mario.
Like, I don't understand sometimes so much.
I'm on some of the others.
No, but you know, okay, so let me ask you a question, silly.
Let me give you an example.
Let me give you an example.
Let me give you an example what I mean.
So do you know why Zelensky went to G7?
And by the way, I have run a company.
Okay, okay.
Do you know why Zelensky went to G7?
Yes, I do know why he went to D7.
What I'm trying to explain?
Who did he?
Okay, so who did he?
Don't move away from the question.
Answer this question.
No, no, because you keep, I'm not going to let you slip away from this one.
You said, your argument is this, that the only...
No, no, I take that one.
It's a fair point.
It's a fair point.
That one I'll give it to you.
So you can't talk about a president running a country
if you haven't run a country or run a company or an organization before you're happy.
So I give you that one.
Now, do you know who he met in G7?
Do you know why he went there?
Do you know how often G7 meetings happen?
Do you know if he had data knowing that Bakhmut will fall within those days?
So I'm just saying that there are so many unknowns for us to start criticizing him and not being there.
I think the argument of...
That's the point. You can criticize him. What you're missing is...
When it comes to Bahmoud specifically, it's not some, I know now basically pro-Ukrainians are basically making an argument that it doesn't matter.
But we know that it matter to both sides significantly.
They're both dedicated a huge number of resources, a huge number of personnel to ensure.
I think it matters.
It matters symbolically.
And when you have a scenario, Mario, where you basically having reports, and it was reports that we all received, he should have received more concise reports.
But let's say he's a clown and he didn't.
We all knew that...
I'm trying to...
How about...
Sully, Sully, you're meant to be...
Hold on, Kallisi, can you stop yelling and Sully?
We're meant to be trying to be objective and stuff.
I'm not sitting there calling Putin a clown.
I said very clearly we shouldn't be judging Putin
or Zelensky as a president.
I'm trying to be...
I'm trying to be moderate.
For you to start calling Zelensky a clown,
you're starting to be very biased in this discussion
when you're trying to moderate a discussion.
I mean, yeah, I have a cause I be biased.
If I may, if I may, my argument is, my argument.
So my question to you also, let me move on to the next question because this is a...
I'm sure I'm sure Allsauz is going to make a pro-Russia point.
Yeah, yeah, so also the point, the point, yeah, yeah, all right, right, so yeah, another good point,
because All-Sourc is here to balance it out.
But I think the argument of Zelensky not being in Buckmoot, what about, let me ask you a question,
Solomon, and then we'll go to All-Source about the red line, because that's why I'm shifted.
What about Zelensky being in Kiev when Kiev was expected to fall?
What are your thoughts on that one?
All right, great counterpoint, Suuili.
Also, on the red line that keeps shifting, my concern is, if we keep saying, because we had, I forgot his name, what was the name he kept mispronouncing, Suuilis?
Yevgeny.
I think it was Yevgeny.
When Yevgeny was here, he talked about Russia always bluffing and bluffing and bluffing about that red line.
Well, do you really want to keep seeing how far they're going to be bluffing and when we actually reach that red line?
That's my concern.
Right, but I think that, but then there's a conversation.
No, I mean, okay, so that, so right, but I think there's a fundamental conversation we should have about the red line, right?
But I think the problem we run into is this idea that depleted uranium getting sent to Ukraine is a red line.
I'm so that's laughable.
That's absolutely laughable.
Depleted uraniums are for tanks, mainly utilized for tanks, to penetrate enemy armor tanks.
That's the whole purpose where we have it or to provide extra protection for armored vehicles.
I mean, these are purely tactical level weapon systems, but because it has uranium,
people connect that with dirty bombs or something and think we're going to have a dirty bomb mushroom cloud somewhere around the battlefield in Ukraine or Russia.
That's not what it is.
And so the argument is for the Russians, right, is like if you say everything is a red line and then that red line gets crossed,
and then nothing happens, then it's, you keep, continues to push.
It's the same with the UK giving shadow strike cruise missiles to the Ukrainians.
I mean, here's a fundamental, like, you want me to tell you right, what is more important
militarily over duplated uranium, the shadow strike cruise missiles.
I mean, flat out.
That is way more threat.
It doesn't, okay.
So you bring up some good points actually about the red lines being crossed and Putin not
responding aggressively.
and some bad points as well.
So briefly, I just want to go over them.
So you said that the shadow missiles are a much bigger military advantage to Ukraine than the depleted uranium shells.
First of all, and I don't want you to jump in and say something stupid and interrupts me.
First of all, I don't know if you know what depleted uranium shells do,
but the impacts on human life generationally, even for unborn fetuses, are so severe that I can't even show them to my audience on YouTube.
So I didn't want you to interrupt me and say some stupid fucking shit, but you keep doing it.
Okay, so shut your mouth.
Okay, let me, Jackson, I have co-host, so I'm going to mute you.
Look at my profile picture
Bro, shut the fuck up
Shut the fuck up
You still fuck
Guys guys
So Jackson you've done personal attacks on three speakers
Three speakers so far
So I think Jackson
You're right
And people not interrupting you
But to tell people to shut the fuck up
And call them an idiot
I don't know how that's been
They're still ongoing now
You've called three speakers
Idiot and told them shut the fuck up
that's the only way to argue
I want someone
to make the point
that was being made though
because the point is still valid
about the
depleted uranium
and the risks they have
to counter all source
Patrick maybe you could do that
or Kaleisi on that particular point
or von
Yeah, look, it's well documented.
You can go to Iraq, Yugoslavia, the concentration of carcinogenic cancer cases around the areas where NATO depleted uranium.
As a half-life, I don't know, it's what, 5004 million years, I don't know what it is, but it's radioactive dust.
that is ejected after the explosion.
So they're not harmless as all sources trying to paint it as a trivial thing.
They don't just say that willy-nilly that it's a red line for nothing, okay?
And the United States is trading in depleted uranium, Britain as well.
And so, you know, just to even say that this is a,
a serious thing, it really dishonors and is an insult to all the people that have died,
that have died, that have died and the soil that will be contaminated.
Where's the talk about the cleanup for all the DU dust?
You do realize that Russia has depleted uranium too, right?
I'm just asking you.
So can I just answer that all sorts?
2020.
Russia's used them too.
Yeah, sorry, a 22 UN Environmental Program report
said it was concerned about depleted uranium use in Ukraine.
It didn't mention Russia.
I'm just reading to you.
It was 2022 last year,
warning that it will cause cancer,
irritation, kidney failure,
skin disease,
the list goes on.
So I'm just reading this official documentation.
There is well documented evidence of Russian cells
having depleted...
Well, I'm quoting you one,
so maybe you can bring the pictures of them.
It's a military...
It's a military round that is used universally across multiple military.
In 2018, Rush upgraded their tanks to fire D-U rounds.
2018, Rush upgraded their plane.
They upgraded their tanks in 2018 for the T-72s to fire depleted uranium rounds.
Rush has the same exact shit that we do, and they've been using it just like we have as well.
And there's no international ban on depleted uranium.
So, so, okay, but Mario specifically asked about Ukrainian use in Ukraine, so I was answering that.
So just a couple of things I wanted to say was, um,
We already talked about Zelensky and his presence and whether that's important or not,
given that his commander in chief, I mean, he has a title of commander in chief for a reason.
But anyway, I guess from the beginning of April when he was away until literally the middle of May,
seeing the Pope and going around France and Italy.
I'm trying to move away from this point.
I'm going to move on. I'm going to move on. I am moving on. I'm moving on.
I'm moving on.
Everywhere else.
I mean, he did this quick tour around Europe,
I'm talking about specifically in Italy and everywhere.
So then after that, listen, I want to say something.
So, okay, he's not there, whatever,
whether you think that's justified or not.
I just don't understand where the war aspect in what he's doing comes in because he's meeting,
and maybe this is the norm, maybe I just haven't actually viewed a war this close.
But to meet the CEO Larry Fink of BlackRock and agree to coordinate investment efforts
and reconstruction and channeling investment, the country's at war.
It's being torn apart and he's already got all of this lined up.
The other thing that concerns me is there's all these people saying Ukraine is winning.
At Zuna, I think it is, it's a job site.
It's got Β£20,000 a year advertised for citizens from the Middle East and North Africa, specifically, to come and fight in Ukraine to be a military specialist.
They'll get all the training.
And it says that they'll get high contract payment, which is Β£20,000 a year.
And after the contract expires, if they're compliant with their agreements and requirements...
they may get accelerated citizenship in the UK or EU.
And this is from last week that this advert is asking for people to come and fight in Ukraine from the Middle East and North Africa.
So, you know, whatever we want to sit here and pedal, there's loads of information out there.
And I can post that advert.
Can I comment on this?
So I'm a company commander over unit.
And by the way-
I'm actually a company commander of a unit in Ukraine.
What can you share, Ryan, about where in the-
Listen, listen, look, I'm a company commander of a unit in Ukraine.
The advert is complete bullshit.
First off, the Ukrainian government does not recruit outside of Ukraine.
If there's people recruiting us to Ukraine, that's on their own dime, first off.
Secondly, anyone coming from the Arab states or Africa needs to get a visa to go to the EU first,
then they also need to get a visa to get into Ukraine.
They're not just letting people waltz into Poland and cross the border.
I don't know where you're getting this, that you can just buy a plane ticket and fly to Poland and cross the border.
Unless you're from Schengen or the U.S. or Canada, you ain't getting into fucking Ukraine that easy.
So I don't know what website you're looking at on that, Ryan, but I can send the advert.
And it's from that.
You can send the advert all you want.
I can post an advert saying, hey, I'll give you a million dollars to fight for Russia.
Yeah, but it's not you.
That's advertising for this, Ryan.
No, but this is the problem, you see.
It's not Ukraine that's advertising for this.
I specifically said it was...
for the UK. The UK is funding this war, right? Now, what happens here is, and this is my issue
with any Russia-Ukraine debate, that anybody says anything, even if it's credible with receipts,
you're just going to say, oh, yeah, that's not true. I don't believe it. It's not true. It didn't
happen. It's not possible. What you're saying is incredible, though. Where does the UK say
they're giving Schengen visas to all these people?
Nowhere. It's not credible because it's not true.
Have you seen the adverts?
You can go on the Schengen website right now and look it up, you retard.
Listen, no, Mario, that's not accepted.
No, if you remove Jackson, that should be acceptable.
Hold on. So, Calisi, number one, I didn't remove Jackson.
Number two, he's attacked like four times before he left the space.
I never removed him.
So just to clarify those two things.
But yeah, Ryan, let's stop the personal attacks.
Go ahead, Calici. Is it on the Schengen?
Have you checked the Shenzhen website?
No, I've got the advert here and I'll get it.
No, because she just reads an advert and thinks it's real.
Like, fuck, the clouds grow mountain.
Did he ask me or did he ask you?
Hey, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I just blew it up in Russia yesterday. You want to buy it?
Well, well, you're dumb enough to buy a bridge and go and fight in Ukraine so you must be pretty dumb anyway.
So you don't.
Sorry, hold on, hold on, sorry.
I don't understand. I just said no personal attacks.
You as a co-host, personally, start with the personal attacks.
Well bro, he's attacked her two, three times.
He said once, I didn't.
I attacked her once.
The other time I asked if you wanted to buy a bridge.
All right, guys, guys, guys, let's just all grow up.
Number one, Sully, if someone does a personal attack,
you interrupt him and say no personal attacks like an adult, like I did.
You don't just go later and start personal attacking him and try and if you're going to cause.
Well, I'd rather just say.
And number two, I don't know who dropped Jackson.
I didn't drop Jackson.
I think he left.
Well, it's obvious also.
Also, did you drop Jackson or he left?
not drop them oh there go so i attacked her once the other time but i asked if she wanted to buy a bridge i just
there you go silly about your claim of all source dropping uh jackson but yeah go ahead ryan so just
sticking back to the discussion like adults so this um i was just going to only attack her one job advert is
company is e u citizenship program
So it's part of an EU citizenship program, which is where Schengen comes into it.
I know how the Schengen works because I used to travel to Europe literally weekly for my work from the UK.
So this is what this...
I didn't know you're a lawyer.
I didn't say I was a lawyer, Ryan.
I said, Ryan, just got up.
Okay, don't address me.
Ryan, that's not, okay, wait, hold on.
So, Kalisi, I understand your point you're trying to make about the advert,
and that's fine.
I just, Ryan, do not interrupt.
I want Kalee's to finish her point.
If not, then what I'd like to do is that because we have a lot of hands up.
I'd like to go to Aiden, and then we'll go to Mickey.
Okay.
So, if you have anything else, if not, we can just shift it to aid and then we go to the
All source.
All source.
You said that Russia uses depleted uranium in Ukraine.
Do you have evidence for that?
Can you show receipts, please?
Russia has not used depleted uranium in Ukraine.
Russia is not.
Russia has not used.
I'll find it.
Russia has not used depleted uranium in Ukraine.
I'm telling you, I'm in Ukraine, Russia's not used it here.
That's fucking bullshit.
Russia has used it in places like Syria and other places, but they have not used in
Ukraine.
That is known.
Thank you.
All source, you lied.
Thank you.
I'm not lying. I'll see if I got it wrong, I'll let's head, I got it off.
No, it was something that was...
If I got it wrong, I'll admit it. It's not a big deal.
Like, I don't understand like this whole year.
It was something that was posted a few months ago.
I saw, so, Mickey, there's a lot of points.
Listen.
Guys, guys, guys.
The Russian...
My mute button isn't working.
The Russian depleted.
So, Ryan, I'll let you finish your point and then we'll go to Mickey.
Okay, now it worked.
Oh, good, right.
I'm going to move away from depleted uranium and the Shenzhen visa.
Mickey.
Yeah, thank you so much.
There's one thing, Kalisi said, that I do want to push back on and kind of bring us back to center on what we're really talking about here,
which is like this concept that it's like this defensive move from Russia.
You know, I just watched earlier this morning, just friends from mine in Ukraine and Kiev,
sent me a video of like a little girl getting a leg blown off from a Shahad suicide drone from Iran.
And the thought and the idea of him,
Kleece is saying this is an act of defense from Russia is absolutely fucking appalling.
If I'm in the country and I'm a soldier,
and whoever's going to go and get me the weapons I need to fight these people to get them.
Mickey, I'm really sorry that was by me.
I did that back.
I'm not trying to stop the other side.
Oh my God, my God, I'm getting smashed.
But I just think, I think, you know, if I'm a soldier on the ground, get me,
if I need Zelensky to go to the end to Kalamazoo, the end of the earth,
to get me the weapons I need to keep my country safe from people sending suicide drones
to my cities and killing children, go off as far as it needs.
Go to New Zealand.
I don't care.
Just get me the weapons I need to win this war.
Look, I was on the front line when Zelensky left.
Nobody gave a fuck that he left the country.
None of the troops were all down and depressed.
There were nobody cared.
You really think the Ukrainian troops care of
Delensky leaves to go talk with someone?
No, the general public doesn't care here either.
The only people that care are the pro-Russian people
or the people in fucking Twitter space.
I was just going to tell you guys,
I was going to say, like, on this particular point,
I'm getting a bit tired of it.
I think Zelensky and Putin know how to run a war
better than we do.
They're not perfect.
But I just, they know a lot more.
They know what the...
There we go.
Mr. General is here.
What's up?
Yes, Ali.
The lessons know how to take orders from external forces or external countries because he's merely a proxy.
He's a puppet.
Fair point.
There's a lot of influence from NATO.
It's silly to deny that.
And how much of it is his own decision versus NATO telling him to do this and that?
NATO supplying enough weaponry, they deserve kind of a seat on the table in the decision-making process.
But I do want to move back to the war and the recent escalations.
And the point that was made by all sorts about the red line,
Colonel, first time, not first time,
but today for the first time we jump on,
would love your thoughts.
Yeah, first of all, thanks for having me on.
I appreciate it.
The issue of the red lines, I find it,
it's a bit disingenuous because it's always only on one side right i mean the fact that
you know russia decides to up the ante and um use um use hypersonic missiles was never considered a
red line there's there's numerous examples where russia has upped and escalated the war
and we never talk about those red lines we only talk about the red lines when they're
associated with ukraine um
I don't believe that Ukraine or Russia is going to use tactical nuclear missiles.
I know that it is a scary thought.
And when I say that, I can be right all the way up to the point that I'm not right anymore.
And look, I get that, right?
I'm trying to be an honest broker here.
So, but I don't see them using them.
And there's numerous reasons that I don't see them using them.
We can go into that.
But...
Can you go into them, Colonel?
I'm actually curious, because I know China being one of them.
China does not want to see such escalations, obviously,
and they're a big backer of Russia.
What other reasons are they?
The response from NATO could be another one.
Yeah, so your first answer is correct.
The second answer is if you look at the prevailing winds, if they use them, the radiation cloud actually moves back over Russia, right?
So that's a problem for them.
The third issue is, is...
Putin's already isolated enough in the world, right?
He's not getting a bunch of support from the rest of the world.
Does he want to isolate himself more by actually destroying the planet that everybody has to live on?
I mean, again, there's numerous different issues that we can talk through.
Fawn, jump in, man. I'm just getting Jackson back up.
Go ahead, Von.
Fawn?
Yeah, I wanted to speak on the Zelensky going around, but you're tired of that, so I'll skip that.
Thanks, man.
No, no, no, come on.
Suli, can we stop all playing presidents?
I think it's not that.
I was actually going to come down on the side opposite of what you probably...
Hi, look, just want just, just do it.
And then this is the final point von Neal make on this point, and we'll kind of wrap it up and move on.
From why...
Well, what I was in the say was already said.
He needs to keep himself and Ukraine in headlines...
War fatigue is starting to set in amongst a populace of his support countries.
The comparison to the United States or Britain is flawed because the United States would not require anyone else to supply them with munitions and equipment.
Neither with Britain. Ukraine does.
Ukraine has to worry about its backers getting war fatigue and, you know, cutting off funding, cutting off support.
Right.
Nothing is gained by staying hold up in Ukraine, even when Bahmoud's falling.
It doesn't matter.
He's not going to make a difference by being on a front line.
He's a president, not a combat soldier.
Also, I just want to say that we don't know that Suleiman isn't the reincarnation of Suleiman Shah,
so he might have run an empire.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt.
In terms of what the good colonel just said, I mean, he and I had an exchange about this this morning.
I think we're way far down the escalation ladder to where nuclear weapons are an option.
There isn't a scenario that makes sense to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
There's no massive armor columns to ionize.
There's no capital ships to one-shot.
And they have other means of busting bunkers without going nuclear.
So that rules that out.
The NATO response thing I think is a bit overstated because there's three options, right?
Because Russia has a dead hand system.
So they launch a de-escalatory tactical strike.
And then there's the option.
Do you option A strike back knowing that...
The retaliation is automatic, so you're trading cities.
You're deciding to trade cities dead in there.
Do you go to a negotiation table, which is option B and de-escalate?
Or option C, massive overwhelming conventional strike, put Russia in a situation,
whereas nothing to lose, and therefore, you're just taking option A with more steps.
The thing is, we don't want to, as the colonel said, you know, you could be right until you're wrong.
Right.
But do we want to chance that?
Do we want to test where deterrence ends and it kicks in?
The thing with a constant red lines is deterrent doesn't work unless you make the threat.
It has to be known that...
you will eventually get to a point where, I mean, that the classic example of this is World War I,
where England never said Germany couldn't go into France through Belgium, but when it did,
while the alliance had a mutual defense pack kicked in and they got involved.
But they never communicated that. So it never function as a turrent. You have to make the threat.
I know we're all bored of the threat, but he still has to make it.
Pardon?
Yeah, also.
Sorry, go ahead.
So I just wanted to, I did share on the top.
to, you know, the, and again, if I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but, you know,
I was independent tweeted first, the specific system, because I can remember the top of my head,
the Russian one, and then on the top of picture from Riber.
But I don't want to go back and forth and depleted uranium because I literally have a tank profile.
That's my, like, I've been in tanks with depleted uranium.
But I do want to kind of move on from this conversation.
So I know I did want to get Aiden, but, you know, just for the balance, I think Austin and then Aiden,
because Aiden has been waiting a while.
But so Austin, if you want to provide a point, and then we'll go to Aiden.
I'm actually happy to let Aiden go first and then I'll just respond.
Thank you. Go ahead, Aiden.
Honestly, my clown really summed up what I was going to say properly.
I've had about eight different things to say.
I've been raising my hand and putting it up and down, but it's all good.
If somebody else would like to go, they're more than welcome to.
Let me go to Khalisi.
Halisi, Castle Drama.
Yeah, do the words.
Go ahead.
Yeah, so the thing is every subject I go to either it's like yeah, that's not true, that's not true.
Or we don't want to talk about that.
We don't want to talk about that.
Or there's just just justifications for it.
And it's crazy.
Look.
Look.
At the end of the day, there is no way that Ukraine is going to win this.
Okay?
So if it's not going to win it, what's the only way out of it?
The only way out of it is to get to the negotiating table.
And when we keep saying NATO, you know, the NATO countries are driving it, let's not kid ourselves.
It's the United States of America and the United Kingdom that are driving this.
You know.
You know, the rest of the NATO countries in Europe, they don't have much of a choice in this.
They're pretty much doing what they're told to do.
And it's been funded by the US of A.
Now, we have to ask ourselves why.
Why isn't this bringing forward to?
Would you say the same about Poland?
Do you think Poland is not, or the Baltic countries, like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia?
I mean, I mean, Finland, Sweden, that both Finland joined NATO and Sweden is applying to join NATO?
I mean, I think this idea that is there's not this transatlantic...
So, also, what's that got to do with?
Finland and Sweden joining NATO, what's that got to do with Russia, Ukraine, right here, right now today?
Because they provided a substantial amount of military support to Ukraine.
And that reinforces this idea that they also have national security interests in this conflict in this war as well, right?
Because so Russia invades Ukraine.
Because Russia invades Ukraine, they both feel their national security is now threatened.
They have to change their neutral policies that has been existence for decades.
Right? They fundamentally altered it. And part of that fundamental alterations of Finland and Sweden in their neutral policy, again, you know, they were getting closer to NATO anyways, but there was never this idea that they would join NATO. Part of that also is the increasing military support to Ukraine to fight against the Russians. I look, I agree. I mean, and Ukraine's would agree.
I hear that, my point is maybe let me phrase it a different way. Okay. Let's say, um,
Let's say none of this happened since last year.
And let's say tomorrow morning, Russia invades Ukraine, right?
And you've got all of these NATO countries, right?
And America says, yeah, I don't think we really want to go there and support this.
And United Kingdom says, I don't think we really want to go there and support this either.
Are you telling me Germany and Sweden and all these little countries are going to get up and it's going to be the same?
I think there's a valid argument.
But not only political or militarily, that you cannot support Ukraine specifically from a logistical standpoint without the United States.
I'm the United Kingdom.
I agree.
I don't, but I don't think that somehow, but I think there's this, but this idea that.
Europe, because they have deficiencies, either political or whatever,
clearly the United States is the lead on this, right?
Clearly the U.S., but now the U.S. has not been the most aggressive.
There's been other countries.
I mean, the U.K. is a perfect example.
But even in many ways, the French has also, you know,
punched way above their weight and provided military support to Ukraine that many did not expect.
And again, this is why it's a coalition clearly led by the United States, but each individual
country also has their own national security interests they want to get involved.
I don't disagree that without Western military support, Ukraine wouldn't be in a lot of trouble
right now. I don't disagree with that.
My disagreement is that this war was over and it's done.
Yeah, but Western is a big term.
No, Western is a big term.
I always put the United Kingdom alongside the United States in this conflict.
But they are, they're leaps above, either France or Germany or any of the other NATO countries, leaps above them.
And we have to recognize that.
Without the US and UK pushing for this, even today they're pushing for it,
if either one of those two countries turned around and said, you know what?
But actually, I think we've had a stomach full of this now, and our citizens don't really want it anymore.
They want us to actually put our countries first.
It would be negotiating table tomorrow morning.
If Biden made that decision.
I have an example that can counter.
Go ahead, Mickey.
Go ahead, Mickey.
I'll go first and then I'll go after the colon.
Yeah, so, Kaleisi, I don't dismiss from a, from a volume perspective, you're right. But here's, here's an example where that doesn't really work, right? So when the Dutch give their F-16s and they're going to give them to Ukraine,
Their amount of money of gift per capita is going to greatly outweigh what the United States gives.
And as all source said, if you look at on a per capita basis for the Baltics, for Lithuania, Latvian, Estonia, they're giving way more.
And now, again, I realize from a volume perspective, when when you're a nation has a massive GDP that matters, but the reason that the Dutch are actually given the F-16s is, and they force the U.S.'s hand.
But let's not let's not kid ourselves.
Biden did not want to give F-16s.
And that was a private policy issue that he had.
It had nothing to do with the operational capability.
But when the Dutch said, look, we're sick of this.
We're upset with Russia.
We're never going to get justice for MH17, which was the Malaysian air shootdown.
So we're going to give F-16s.
We're going to push the United States to do it.
So there's an example where actually the NATO nations were actually leading on an issue
and pushing the United States into a decision.
Let me go to Jackson.
One second, guys.
Let me just go to Jackson as a response to some of the points that would be made.
Go ahead, Jackson.
Yeah, so I don't know who kicked me from the space, but huge L for you.
Suleiman.
It was someone.
Tephy Suleiman.
Bro, it wasn't a hundred percent Suleiman.
He does it all the time, Jackson.
All the time.
I mean a good point to mute me, Jackson.
I'm on your side, bro.
Even you even muted Mike, Mike you just for the record.
Go ahead, Jackson.
Okay.
Hey, if I was a co-host, I'd be kicking way more people. Let's be honest. So, um, anyways, so let me just frame it for you like this, because this is the biggest black pill you're going to hear in this entire conversation.
Everyone's been giving you this wishy-washy service level BS. Here's the largest black pill you're going to hear this entire conversation.
Ukraine?
Ukraine.
Is Bill Gates, the red line is Jeffrey Epstein.
That's exactly what's going on right now.
This whole time, you know, Bill Gates is thinking, oh, one more flight with Jeffrey Epstein's not going to hurt anybody.
One more, you know, trip to the Epstein Island isn't going to make me look like a bad guy.
You know, this isn't going to turn out bad for me.
And then boom, the whole thing drops.
He loses his wife.
Stock prices go down.
He's exposed as an Epstein associate and conspirator.
Same thing is going to happen with Ukraine.
They keep testing this red line over and over and over again.
They're going to find out that one day they're going to have their last trip.
Ukraine, Zelensky, he's going to have his last trip to Epstein's Island,
and there's going to be no turning back.
This is the type of, dude, I, Jackson, I love you, bro, but you are literally the goal of your
good shit.
You're smoking crack with Biden's son.
In Olympics, dude, what are you talking about?
Like, you've been saying some crazy stuff, but oh my gosh, like, you, this is like hilarious.
Smoking crack with Biden's son.
Remember, it's like anyone on this, anyone on the pro-Russia side of things, just like,
these are the people you're in bed, but this is their how they think about things.
Like,
absolutely he thinks like that China is the blasphasing of freedom come on I do want to say one thing
calisa mentioned which actually I think a good point and her point was that if smaller countries in Europe
believe that Ukraine was going to lose or if the solar countries in Europe believe that
the United States and the UK were not going to back up Russia backup Ukraine that they wouldn't
do it. I think that's a fair point. So what does it tell you, Kalisi, that you see that all these
countries are investing more and more in Ukraine? I think, you know, these like I would say the
Russian intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, you know, NATO intelligence, Chinese intelligence
probably have the best idea what's happening on the ground.
And what are the actions of these countries based on that intelligence?
They have much better information than we do.
China is slowly backing away from Russia and everyone in NATO is doubling down.
Just sorry, on that point, yeah, before, Aide, before you jump in, because I don't want to interrupt Mickey.
Mickey, on the point you said, it's an important one, China backing away from Russia.
So I've been watching this, the China's narrative in their involvement since the early days of the war and how it shifted.
I haven't watched it in the last few months.
What makes you say they're backing away from Russia?
I think in the beginning of the war, you saw a much closer relationship with Xi Jinping.
He was, like, cleared, you know, very careful to have public savings support.
But I think, sorry, I'm interrupting you just to kind of understand more, Mickey.
Sorry.
But when you say in the early days of the war, I think it's because China and the rest of the world didn't expect the war to go the way it did, didn't expect NATO to unify behind Ukraine the way they did.
Exactly, exactly. I think winners get backed and losers get backed away from.
You're more likely to support Russia in this case if you think Russia is going to win.
You're always going to hedge your bets like China is doing if you think they might lose.
And that's very different from the being.
Like, you had in the UN, you had a resolution when they passed,
where they said that,
we're trying to sign on to one paragraph of the resolution
said that Russia was the aggressor.
You had Xi Jinping promise not to sell weapons to Ukraine.
You know, these are things that Russia,
China clearly hedging their bets because they probably have good intelligence
to the ground that says there's a chance that Russia could lose.
I'm so sorry.
I'm so sorry.
I have to interrupt here.
Xi Jinping was just in Moscow.
He was just there.
And the MOD, the Chinese Minister of Defense, went and talked to Putin in a private conversation.
Does that sound like they aren't on the same?
wavelength, I'm very confused because Xi Jinping doesn't leave China very often.
He went and had a mutual meeting with Putin that lasted days.
I mean, if you're not, you want to, there is no even hint of isolation there at all.
You know, Russia is in China, China, Saudi Arabia has moved away.
Yeah.
China's investment.
The Pentagon.
Everybody's talking at the same time.
Hold on.
Sorry.
so everybody's talking at the same time.
Sorry.
Okay.
So all I was going to say is...
Mickey, go ahead.
Oh, go ahead, Duncan.
Okay, I was just briefly going to say, to add on to Aden's point, uh,
China won't even respond to the Pentagon right now.
The Pentagon has made two efforts that phone calls with the Chinese,
you know, their equivalent to the Defense Department for the PLA,
and they won't even pick up the phone for the Pentagon.
So and before Mickey, you go, there's just this weird perspective that the pro-Ukrainian crowd tends to bring into these arguments where they're talking about NATO being this super aligned.
Everybody's on the same page.
when you look at this, does it not look like desperation at all? I mean, you're seeing them scrounge through every possible, you know, escalatory step. We talk about the Russian red lines, you know, they might not exist, whatever. Who cares? Keep pushing your luck. It might work out, right? But.
Sending these new things means that something's going wrong in your original plan.
You know, the plan was never a year and a half down the road to be sending your F-16s
and your limited production storm shadow missiles to Ukraine to continue this proxy war.
I mean, these things are not going well.
And there's another argument that's saying that the, you know, the Russians are being degraded heavily.
We have NATO command.
you know,
European command talking about how that's not true in,
in a,
you know,
in a hearing.
So there's,
there's no degradation.
The Russia,
we talked about the ISR capabilities and,
you know,
of Russia improving greatly.
Russia is becoming a sharpened knife.
So this whole conflict has not gone the way that NATO had expected.
if I may cancel that.
Just,
just,
just real quick.
Yeah,
yeah.
Yeah.
So when we're talking about F-16s being sent and everybody's on the same page, just because everybody's on the same page does not
you know, immediately mean that there is confidence in what is going on. You're talking about
the political leadership of these countries that is going, they're all switching. You know,
all of the European governments have flipped and they're rotating. Putin hasn't moved.
Xi Jinping hasn't moved. You know, and I'm not saying that they're going to move the same way
that European, you know, democracies are going to move. That it's obviously not
even comparable, but the European economies, Germany just entered a recession. This is desperation
in the form of unity. This is not cohesion working towards victory. And I think that that is a
very important thing that people need to get. Where I would respond to that is I think. Let me take
this.
Okay, go ahead, awesome. Go ahead.
Thank you. Thank you. Okay, yeah. So, so I understand the points being made here.
In regards to, so actually one of like these seminal issues with NATO over the last 20 years has been, you know, meeting budgetary requirements and ensuring that, you know, heavy industry was able to replace losses quickly.
And it doesn't matter what party the American, the U.S. president was from. Bush had this issue, Obama had this issue, Trump had this issue, and now Biden has this issue. There's been.
one singular event that has caused, you know, the Germans to actually invest in their defense apparatus,
that it's caused, you know, the French to invest more in that, that have caused the UK to take a serious look at it.
And it's the war in Ukraine.
So I really disagree with the idea that this is desperation.
Definitely some growing pains.
And like, look, Aden, as an analyst, you should agree with me on this.
If we look at production numbers this year versus like four years ago, it's actually quite higher.
And so, look, I think we're actually seeing a ton of unity out of the NATO block far more than we've normally seen that have, you know, had spats over budgetary investments in the past.
And for sure, you know, the UK has gone through a period of many different, you know, prime ministerial changes.
But, you know, Macron is still the head in France, despite his issues.
Because his election happened just before or just at the start of the SMO.
That's, he's in there for five years now.
that's not what the people of France
want. Well, I would disagree with that.
I mean, they elected him. You're just ignoring
massive protests that have been going on for weeks.
Beyond yelling at each other, we'll see at the next
French election, and then we can go from there.
But I do agree with Aden. And I know that might
surprise people, but I agree with him. Can
Can I just add something here because a few points have been made.
Somebody made the point about...
Hold on, Tracy.
Clacey, hold on.
I should be able to, I need to be able to respond to Austin.
We're having a debate here.
We can't have a bunch of people.
I'm part of the debate.
I'm not outside of the debate.
I fully agree.
I fully agree, Calisi, but it gets really confusing and it just gets completely derailed when we go back and forth.
So let me and Austin just go out for a little bit.
When you go back and forth, that's a debate, right?
Like everyone's part of the debate.
So...
Aiden and I actually agree.
So some points were made earlier about China having to...
Let Austin finish off and then Aiden or Kallisi, you guys could choose who to respond to Austin.
Also, do you want to finish off?
By all means, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So actually something that I think Aiden and I might agree with here is that...
So I don't believe that there is complete isolation between China and Russia, right?
However, what I think has been made exorbitantly clear from a foreign policy perspective of the Chinese
is that they hate that the war is ongoing.
They want the war to end.
They do not care about the terms, really.
We kind of saw from their, like, their peace proposal there.
Because at the end of the day, you know, the war is bad for the global economy.
And the Chinese are definitely sort of, I mean, the entire world's feeling to hurt from that.
But the Chinese in particular acknowledge that.
If the Chinese were fully on the Russian side, we would be seeing, you know, weapon shipments.
And as far as I've seen, we haven't seen anything ranging from, you know, small arms to main battle tanks coming from the Chinese there.
I think the Chinese are more than happy to continue mineral trade predominantly with the Russians.
I think they, they're making a killing off of that.
And, you know,
look, I can't really fault them for, you know, voting in their best interest there.
But I think if the Chinese were taking aside on this, we'd see far more sort of material commitments beyond what we...
So here, I just got to respond.
So the Russians don't need material equipment.
Even the Iranian drones that were being sent are being produced domestically in Russia now.
So this is a very important thing to note is that China does not need to deliver financial aid in the form of direct financial aid.
Obviously, buying oil is, you know,
pretty helpful, but, and they don't need to provide military aid. The Russians aren't looking
for military aid anywhere. And the Russians are also not expecting the Chinese to be, you know,
in a direct alliance with them. That doesn't suit Chinese interests. The Russians know that.
This is the, this is what I want to.
turn back to is that the NATO unity that you're seeing is is a desperation unity. And it is unity still.
We are seeing them reach their defense spending quotas, you know, so on and so forth. But they're doing this out of desperation for this.
plan that did not go the way they wanted to. They wanted the Russian economy to collapse and the
SMO to not ever really happen in, you know, in that way. In my personal opinion. So the Chinese
don't need to directly support Russia militarily. They don't even need to, you know, openly
geopolitically say, hey, we support Russia and what they're doing.
They can just do it through their actions, like going to Moscow and having meetings.
So I think that that's very...
I think you're missing, I think when you're saying that Russia, so...
So I pulled up Cavali because he was the general Cavali, right, the one from, from U.S. European command, right?
What he's, his argument was, and this is what he said, is that the Russian military, which is true in this aspect, is that, and this is what he said, quoted.
Although it has been degraded, it is larger than at the start of the military operation than when Russia invaded Ukraine, when Russia invaded Ukraine.
But why is it larger?
Because they had to do a mass mobilization.
Like we're forgetting the mass mobilization Russia did.
This wasn't in Putin's plan, right?
Of course, of course.
And I fully agree with this.
I fully agree with what you're saying and the points you're making.
The issue is that Europe is now going to have a Russia that has a bigger military than before.
Right.
But a bigger military does not necessarily mean a bigger threat.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
They have this bigger military, so the degradation argument of the Russian military doesn't exist anymore.
That whole point is gone.
Oh, I fundamentally disagree with that, Aidan.
Okay, and I disagree with you.
But let me lay out specific examples.
Can I ask me, sorry, I've had my hand off for quite some time.
Where is this degradation that you're talking about?
The Russian BDB.
Okay.
We are looking at an extra 600,000 men.
It was Putin last September that said,
we are preparing ourselves for a 30-month war against NATO.
Have you been to Russia?
Do you know what Russia is like at the moment?
You could walk around.
I have been there.
I've been there for three months.
I'm sorry.
I've been there for three months from December until early March,
and I can tell you, Russia is existing perfectly.
It has low inflation.
Have you been to Ukraine?
I've been here for 16 months.
Ukraine is existing perfectly too.
Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Hold on, hold on.
Let's call that.
It has, wait a minute now, wait
it has increased this military-industrial capacity
by 400% since
2021. You just witnessed
Putin on an interview today
calmly saying, you haven't
seen anything yet, we are in position
and we are moving forward. I'd like to ask a few
questions. Can someone point to me?
The argument here is Ukraine ramps up
attacks on Russian territory. Wait
Where? Belgrade? They sent in about 150, 200 guys. 80% of them were neutralized within 36 hours.
What are you talking about? A couple of drones that were launched?
Guys, his greatest to Sean, and we killed two high-ranking officials.
Can you have a look at? Can you? Where is Ukraine actually winning?
David, let me answer to you specifically to what you're talking about. Hold on.
because this is exactly the point
that I was going to get
with Aiden in this conference.
Where is Ukraine winning all source?
Show me where it's winning.
David,
hold on.
Let me answer these points
point by point that you're bringing up.
Right?
Perfect.
So there's one way you can
Ukraine's military
has vastly increased as well.
That doesn't measure military strength and power.
Where has it increased?
It's gone to five mobilizations.
It went from 600,000 men.
It went from 600,000 men.
All sorts, please.
It went from 600,000 men to start for war.
It's now down to 400,000.
David.
Stop now.
Muting your point.
You're not going to finish.
David, let me finish.
This argument that a larger military automatically means you're more powerful is not a correct measurement.
Because Russia's military, if it would, Russia never wanted to do a mass mobilization as they didn't acknowledge.
That showed that they had deficiency.
They did not have the sufficient manpower to hold the lives.
That is why Kharkiv fell.
Russia did not have a favorable force ratio to defend it.
Mass mobilization is not indicative of military strength automatically.
You have to train them properly.
This is the argument that we're having, right?
So where have we seen Russian degradation?
Clear example, the Russian airborne units of VDV.
Absolutely decimated, right?
There's absolutely.
There's no argument.
Where are those statistics?
Show me.
Please.
We slaughtered on the Mosune.
We slaughtered on the motion.
For example.
The Russian naval infantry brigades, right?
Like, the elite aspect of the Russian military has been absolutely...
You're saying these words.
You're saying these words, all source, and there's no statistics to back it up.
Absolutely nothing.
There's no videos.
There's no video.
You're just pontificating.
You are pontificating words worship.
Right.
Sorry.
You're just throwing out these words and with no statistics behind them.
Show me facts.
Where has the VDV been deployed just the start of the war?
Where are the VDV now?
They're fucking dead.
We're not going to argue about the VDV right now.
I mean, I think, Aidan, I think you and I at least can agree that the Russian VDV,
prior to this invasion, the same VDV units that in January went to Kazakhstan to maintain
stability in the country after the mass unrest were absolutely decimated.
in Ukraine.
Like, we're not talking about the same VDV units.
Like, let's be an absolutely real.
Where are you making this up?
Are you writing this on your pillow at night?
Because where's your facts?
You're just, you're putting this out of your ass.
You're putting this out of your ass with no substance whatsoever.
Where's the VDV now?
I'm making very point here.
Hold on, Aiden, go ahead.
Aiden, please go ahead.
Yeah.
No, seriously, if you know so much words of BDV.
Can I make my points, please?
Okay. I want Aiden because I know,
let me go to Aden, then I'll go to you, Kalee.
But Aidan, please go ahead.
Yeah. And this is just the last thing I'll say because I actually have to leave.
So when you're talking about specific numbers, nobody knows.
We have propaganda numbers from both sides and we have propaganda from both sides.
Obviously, the VDV wasn't wiped out in the early days of the war.
But they have definitely taken attrition and losses as, I mean, any...
you know,
unit,
especially the units
that are being
overutilized
as the VDV was
in the beginning,
we'll take attrition.
so they're not the exact same guys.
I mean,
they're not,
not they didn't get completely white that is that I think that's a ridiculous statement um but they
they're not,
they're not going to be the exact same units that were in Kazakhstan the year before because they've
been a tritted and they've been replaced with new guys but usually when you are replacing
guys you know they're not going to be that the same quality but over time when they're around
experienced soldiers especially in combat uh we we had rumors we didn't know exact um locations but
the VDV were on the flanks of Bakhmut for a good little while there.
And then they were pulled back before the Ukrainian de-blocking operation began.
So...
The VDV are around.
They're just not being overutilized anymore.
And they have obviously been attritted, but they've had enough time to completely rebuild.
So are they the exact same quality force?
Probably not.
But they would be back to that relatively quick through combat experience.
So I'll answer that and then I'll go to you, Colise.
So again, so I just agree with that, A VDV in airborne unit takes a significant amount more time to train.
You can mobilize people.
Say you're...
I'm not saying mobilized because the losses that the VDV sustained were earlier on in the war.
They were reinforced and replenished over the last year and a half.
So yes, they do take considerable amount of time to train.
Are these guys coming in going to be the exact same quality, you know,
have the same communication through the whole rank?
No, but...
they are going to still be a formidable fighting force and I mean I don't just agree with
that yeah I localized military is still a threat of your brain like the Russian military
is numbers is a problem right in the last six months in the last six months
please points to a measure on the battlefront David David it's easy go ahead I'm
just about to leave David and then I'll let you go just that the the
The people that are being replaced in the VDV are not mobilized.
They did not just pull reserves up, give them, you know, three months of training and
throw them into a VDV unit.
The guys going into the VDV units are the best from other areas that can be brought in and,
you know, replenish the reserves and whatever.
So, you know, it's not mobilized.
But, yeah, I agree, Sauer, that there has been definitely attrition, but I wouldn't really...
give any more, you know, substantial weight to it than any other attrition that has happened to any other unit throughout this war.
And, you know, both sides are still fighting.
So obviously, replacements are coming in and the quality is remaining.
Go ahead, David.
I'd like to ask somebody just a point since last September, somewhere and along the battlefront where actually Russia has lost.
Nowhere. There is nowhere.
Again, I'm going to reiterate something in relation to back mood.
A private military...
A private military company
beat the best that NATO could
ferment in Bathmud.
It was more than private military.
We were killed regular Russian troops in Badmuth.
I did not interrupt you.
Sorry, you are an American national that boasts on your Twitter feed about committing terrorist acts inside Russian terrorists.
It's not terrorism.
It's war.
That's what you are.
And you have the neck to come in here.
I'd be watching yourself, you idiot.
You're posting on your Twitter face that you are committing terrorists.
Just a reminder, David.
David, I didn't mute.
I did, I did, I did, David, David, just to stop for the personal attack.
I do want to correct this in September.
He's on a person's attack.
No, wait, wait, wait, wait, but he has it on his Twitter feed.
Don't call, no, no, you, hold on, David.
All right, guys, I'm about to stop.
Everyone stop.
I'm about start removing people.
David, you called him an idiot.
I don't think he has, let me check his spy or he doesn't, he doesn't.
He doesn't call on his argument.
Mario, if I'm allowed to speak, I define that.
Ryan comes in here and he interjects.
He has on his Twitter feed for everyone here to check
that he is actually boasting about putting bombs and bridges
inside Russian territory.
Now, I would call that not being smart.
So let's go back to the legitimate military target.
David, I don't understand.
He's a soldier in a war, whether it's Russian or Ukrainian.
It's a legitimate target.
On Russian, there's clear, Mario.
It's on Russian territory.
Okay, Ryan, now I call them, can you stop with a person attack?
David, guys, stop calling each other idiot.
David.
I don't understand.
You are coming in a little bit broken.
Hold on, David.
I'm just...
Yeah, your mic is...
Russia invaded a country.
They should expect to get attacked, too.
I'm going to continue...
All right, David.
I'm going to stop you not because of the personal attacks this time.
Your mic is very, very crackly.
Something's happening with your...
I don't know if we're running into connection issues, but somebody's...
I don't know.
I just realized
also's can't hear me.
That's why
Alsos just speaking over me
nonstop.
Alsos,
I've just removed you
because you couldn't hear me.
I've just can't bring you back up.
So, David,
your mic is very,
yeah,
your mic is very bad.
Very bad, David.
Well,
there's five people talking over me.
Look, I'm just going to reiterate it again.
I'm referring to the topic.
David,
you're just speaking again.
Straight.
Stop! Your mic is bad. I'm telling you, man.
It is something happening with your mic.
Unmute again. Bro, stop unmuting because your mic is really bad, David.
I'm going to go to Patrick. Maybe you can make his point.
Patrick, I know you've got a good mic.
And then we'll go back to Ryan.
David, I'm going to bring you back up, but your mic is really bad.
So you've got to fix that.
Go ahead, Patrick.
Yeah, just a point of order before I make a point.
All source, did you say you posted evidence of Russia using depleted uranium in the nest?
Yeah, the top.
So, and Mario, sorry, you're right, I couldn't hear it.
Next time, just drop me automatically or send me a note.
Okay.
So, yes, Ozener, there was one specific note, the specific ammunition, the spinet in
two, and then Riber in English posted a picture of the specific system that was utilized
in Ukraine.
Again, but I don't think depleted uranium, like, I know people talk about it, but from a military
tactical point of view, like, these are systems that are widely utilized.
But all source, what you posted is not depleted uranium.
He uses a tungsten core.
Like, bro, you're wrong, bro.
Like you're posting just garbage.
No, those systems...
Okay, hold on.
I posted the...
I posted the...
I got your point.
I'll answer to that right now.
I posted something real.
Look up in the nest.
I posted the British Parliament.
It said they do not have evidence of under oath that Russia used depleted random, which I think Trump's what you put, which doesn't even have any depleted in a pro.
Sorry.
Yeah, so David, you're back now.
Your mic should be working or go to Calisi.
Yes, sorry, it actually is.
Look, I'm just referring back to the topic.
You're saying Ukraine is ramping up attacks on Russian territory,
where Belgrade and a couple of drones in Moscow.
Over the last nine months, we have seen the Russian advancement,
solidifying, putting mobilizations into place.
And going back to what all source said,
Since the start of the war, when Ukraine, we all agree, started with 600,000, is now down to less than 400,000, much less quality, much less personnel, after five mobilizations that they freely admit and currently removing men of
of young age and old, off the streets and throwing them straight,
what we used to call the meat grinder.
We've seen the PMC of Wagner,
totally destroying the best that NATO could provide,
75,000 dead and back mood.
Nobody is saying not,
and actually at the moment,
Ukraine still hasn't admitted that it has lost backmood.
Officially, it still has not admitted it.
Today, actually, I'll just read exactly what Putin said.
For the West Ukraine is about geopolitics,
while for us it is about the survival of the Russian statehood.
I've said this before in so many spaces. We have an opinion about how the status is on the ground.
What matters is where Russia thinks and believes and has acted upon. It has mobilized this military
industrial complex. I repeat again, 400% over 2021. It's throwing out tanks at 120 on the new
T90s, with another 120, 150 a month on the revitalized T70s, T80s.
It has over 1,200 fighter jets ready to go.
It has everything.
And we freely admit this.
Look at Colonel McGregor.
Look at open military sources.
These are not my opinion.
This is exactly what everyone should have in front of them.
What is happening inside Russia is that they are preparing for a full war against NATO.
Right.
And they have slowly and methodically with great precision, totally destroyed the Ukrainian army over and over again.
They've neutralized the standing of NATO and they are ready to act.
And something further else I can bring to this.
bring into this.
Several weeks ago, we were told by an entity in Moscow
what exactly is on the table from Russia.
Russia is demanding that they are going to take everything east of Kiev
and the Black Sea.
And they are demanding an autonomous zone of Kiev
and the Western regions that will,
if they approve of them, go to the pre-1939 borders.
If that is on the board until October,
and do you know what else they're asking for?
The three Baltic states to remove themselves from NATO.
Now, those demands are on the table.
And Medvedev, what we said is five weeks ago in our group, I heard this from a partner
of mine who was an ex-German Air Force officer, East German Air Force officer, whose connections
in Rosteck and also into the government.
Last Thursday, Medvedev came out and said, all but the Baltic.
Everything I just said six weeks ago, they just came out and said it.
So all these little talks you're having about F-16s and Patriot Systems and Haimars and Stormshadows and are totally irrelevant.
Russia has the capacity to neutralise everything.
It has the greatest standing army that has ever had, this military-industrial complex is as good as 1942.
and it's demanding things that are on the table that NATO will have to succumb to.
And the one salient point is how far more are we going to go?
There's 80,000 men in the Zaporosia area thinking they're going to have a counteroffensive.
Badly trained, extremely badly trained and badly organized.
Where's the Luski?
Where's the head? He's still sitting with a piece of metal stuck on his head.
There's no chief of the army running around the place.
Zelensky himself is, what is he?
He's a sock puppet for the West.
He can't control the country.
And here you have Putin, possibly the greatest leader in the world at the moment,
controlling the greatest military army at the moment,
a superpower of 6,000 nuclear weapons plus,
and we're dancing around the question,
what the fuck are we doing antagonizing Russia?
Why are we doing this?
It's a nuclear fucking superpower man.
It has 6,000 nuclear weapons
of which everyone agrees they have.
And we're talking about this bullshit,
about these little assholes
talking about their F-16s and their
tanks and their what-nots.
It's irrelevant.
We're on the doorstep.
of a nuclear power that just said today with Putin said,
this is a fight for the motherland.
Do you want me to repeat what he's man said today,
the leader of Russia?
This is for the survival of the Russian statehood.
He said it today live.
I can put it up.
I mean, you've been saying that.
start of us the invasion.
Well, you better
fucking listen to, man.
This is not Iraq.
This is not Afghanistan.
This is not Syria.
This is not,
this is not,
this is not a third war of war.
I'll push it on to you,
but I do want to put again,
because David forgot
completely since September again,
Russia pulled out of Herzan in November.
So they lost her son after all.
Today is May the authority at 2023.
You bloody, what are you talking about September?
What did they lose?
I'm answering you right now.
Russia are now mobilized.
Russia are now the behemoth that we should all be aware of.
These are not too little.
When they conquer more than just Bachmood, I'll take them seriously.
They have.
Go ahead.
Yeah, so I find it...
David, your mic is...
Sorry, Colonel, before you go ahead.
David, your mic is horrendous.
Like, it's hard to keep you up.
Like, it literally hurts your brain.
You need to sort your mic out, please.
The next time you talk.
Go ahead, Colonel.
So the greatest military strategist commander in the world,
which obviously is Putin,
decided that he wanted to mobilize one year into a fucking war,
which is somewhat comical.
He didn't decide to mobilize before he decided to take Kiev in three days.
That's somewhat humorous.
The other thing I think that we should remember is, you know, it was just a couple weeks ago we're on this site where we all agreed when David had pointed out that the Patriot Missiles system was destroyed in Kyiv.
And there was a question asked by all source of Mario, and we all agree that, okay, well, if Russia attacks Keev again tomorrow, then there should be no defensive system and then Keev should be destroyed.
And lo and behold, guess what?
Keev was attacked the very next day.
The Patriot missile system didn't, didn't miss any of the systems or any of the inbound missiles.
And of course, you know, then David has acquiesced away from that position and, and,
And, you know, he always asked these questions and he always comes up with, you know, bolstering phrase.
I don't care what Vladimir Putin says.
Vladimir Putin also said it was little green men at first in Crimea.
He's also made numerous claims that have been 100% false.
We have to stop relying on what someone says to be somehow a fact.
And we have to rely on, no kidding, the facts in the battle space.
What is happening in the battle space?
I want to go to Kaleisi to respond.
Go ahead, Kaleezi.
I know you've been waiting.
Thank you all sorts. Yeah.
So I wanted to touch on some of the earlier points that were made because I think they're quite important.
Somebody here said, and I think it might have been Mickey who made some of these points, but apologies, Mickey, if it wasn't you, that because of Ukraine, the countries, the NATO countries have increased their military spending.
So NATO has grown. Actually, it wasn't because of Ukraine. It was because President Trump actually made them do it.
which was before Ukraine, it wasn't because of Ukraine.
And if you look at the military spending, between January 2022 and January 2020,
over that period of 12 months, the US gave just under, I think it was $46.5 billion.
Yes.
The next country was the UK, which gave $5.13 billion.
So all these European countries that you sat here and talked about,
about how profoundly they were all giving, Denmark gave half a billion,
so that's 500 million.
Norway, France, Italy, they were all roundabout the same, to be honest.
So the largest was the U.S.,
with 46.5 billion and the next largest was the UK with 5 billion.
So that puts that to rest.
The second thing I was going to say is coming back to the, I think it was, Patrick was asking about the depleted uranium.
I think if Russia had used it, it's just common sense, given the way that the media is being controlled and the media narrative, it would have been all over the mainstream media.
You wouldn't have had to look at how to find an article on it, really.
It would have been everywhere.
So that's the other point I'll say.
And then I think some points about China distancing itself from Russia.
China's increased its investment into Russia,
and Chinese businesses have replaced Western ones that left Russia.
Even the CNN covered it in an article.
To the extent, to the extent that I think it was 40% of the mobile market
was Chinese in Russia prior to the Ukraine conflict, now it's 95%.
of the mobile market is Chinese in Russia.
So the EU this month have said that they want to sanction Chinese businesses for aiding Russia.
And, you know, this is why, right?
So, and I can forward these articles if you want the receipts to Suleiman and all sorts.
But this is why the West is so desperate to control the narrative,
because this is why people can come onto spaces and make this kind of nonsense about Ukraine helped people increase their NATO spending.
And, you know, Russia has distanced itself from China.
But, you know, you can control, like, you know, our governments can control it, but the truth is out there.
And even CNN reported on this, by the way.
So those were the points I wanted to make.
That's it. Thank you.
So, Kleece, the only pushback I would say, so, so I, you're, so, so that specific one and I'll
made it from Patrick.
So that specific variant is toxic to all I, but people mistake it's tax on all right.
But people mistake it's tax on all right.
However, and I'm going to keep on researching because I want to get the specific one
right to make sure.
The people who freaked the hell out about depleted uranium is when Britain announced that they were giving to the Ukrainian.
So it was Russian media that freaked out about depleted uranium.
I'm a tanker.
Like I fought in American tanks.
I studied Russian tanks.
This idea that Russia that has one of the largest tank formation in the world that we studied extensively on.
did not use depleted uranium when they have a vast arsenal of depleted uranium that both modern
militaries it's a normal tactical you might disagree with it you might think it's terrible
that's fine but guess what it's not illegal militaries use it because it's a necessary tool
to penetrate thick armor of hemie armor equipment russians have extensive depleted uranium and this idea
they didn't use it if they did it then they're stupid of course
course they did. It's part of their tactics. We study the Russian. Taxone oil was an attempt to
replace depleted uranium, but tons of oil, they still provide their studies from the NIA,
NIA, they have not users in Ukraine. What are you talking about? They have not users in Ukraine.
Okay, all right. Russia is the largest tank formation in the world.
Does not have...
Where's your proof?
Go ahead.
Hey, all sources.
Do you mind if I...
Where's your proof?
Just say...
Okay, so by that logic, you could say
Russia's use nuclear weapons for sure because they have...
No. Dude, depleted uranium and nukes are not the same.
Like, this is what people don't understand.
All right.
Depleted uranium has specific...
Show your evidence.
Show your evidence again.
You've lied already once tonight.
Show your evidence.
David.
David.
Let me explain to people when we talk about depleted uranium.
Because it's like, like,
Like, I studied this.
Literally, what am I, whatever your name is?
Whatever your name is.
David, David, you got to fix your mic, David.
I'll have, if it continues like this, I'll have to remove you.
Your mic is horrendous.
Hey, Mario, can I jump in?
It's not worth, all sorts.
It's not worth getting your nickers in a twist over this.
Okay, you lost the debate.
All right.
Okay, you know what?
Patrick, Patrick, you, if, okay, if you honestly believe for a second,
that Russia that had one of the largest stockpiles of depleted uranium rounds because of how they operate their tanks from the T-72s to T-80s to the T-90s, right?
That they did not use depleted uranium.
Then that begs the question.
of either absolute incompetence of the Russian military,
because that's what you need to penetrate thick armor,
that the Ukrainians also have available.
They have used it.
We've seen the documentation evidence of those tank rounds penetrating thick Ukrainian armor.
Where is the documented evidence?
So let's move away from those.
Let's get Michael's final thoughts on this,
because we do, you know, the space did go over what,
you know, we thought we'll do a two-hour space today.
But Michael, quick final words, man, I know you came in late.
Yeah, yeah, sorry I missed the bulk of the spaces.
Yeah.
Here's a fall for that.
Actually, Michael, I mean, can I ask you a question to end it with?
I don't know why Suleiman's biggest highlight of the space was criticizing.
So I know what your thoughts are in Zelensky and Putin.
But what Suleiman wanted to make a big deal out of is
Zelensky not being in Ukraine as Bakmuth fell when he was in the G7 summit.
So I said, look, you don't have to like Zelensky, you don't have to like Ukraine, but that's a very weak argument to be, to make.
If Zelensky wasn't in Ukraine when Bakmuth fell, what are your thoughts on this, Michael?
Do you agree with Slamand?
This is a big deal or he's got other things to do?
I mean, it wouldn't occur me to make that particular argument because it seems like the chief role of Salingki since the invasion was launched been to basically be a,
public sort of PR operator going around and rallying support for Ukraine using a whole variety
of different propagandistic methods and that's what he's continuing to do. So would that
objective be advanced more by just sitting around and twiddling his thumbs in Bakhm?
Instead of going to the G7 and, you know, twiddling the thumbs of Rishi Sunak. I'm not sure.
Yeah.
I got to do a Mario and I've got to take this back because when I called him a clown, I was disrespecting all clowns.
So von Clownowitz, I do apologize, bro.
But here's the point that I wanted to make and just listening to a little bit of this.
I could not be any less interested in this point at joining sides between like dueling,
pro-war partisan propaganda tsunamis between like the russian and ukrainian side it's like
the most tedious painful unresolvable debate in possibly the history of mankind or at least
the history of twitter spaces here's what here's something that i do think is reconcilable and
resolvable at this point the i think unavoidable conclusion of the bide administration
is engaged in a campaign of systematic deceit on the American people.
I can't prove whether the grievances of the people of the Dombas
versus depleted uranium, whatever.
It's impossible to prove anything along those lines with certitude, right?
But the Biden administration keeps using a demonstrably untrue line
to justify its public...
support or to publicly justify its position on Ukraine, which is one of incremental, incessant,
inelectable escalation, right? The U.S. does not support any attacks inside Russia.
So even just today, the Wall Street Journal quoted to a State Department spokesperson saying,
quote, in general terms, whereas a general matter, the U.S. doesn't support this.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is fervent in its
unwavering support for the foreign military force that is constantly launching military-style attacks inside Russia.
So on the one hand, the Biden administration wants to claim that it has this, like, critical distance from Ukraine and waging warfare increasingly inside Russia proper.
But it also wants to make abundantly clear to everyone that the key sponsor of Ukraine.
So, Michael, didn't the U.S.
So, Michael, didn't they, didn't the USA, do not use U.S. weapons inside of Russia, not weapons in general?
Nominally.
Well, I mean, they conflate various things.
When this line first started being presented as a justification for U.S. policy,
it was actually last May and June.
When Zelensky was going on American media outlets saying,
look, we have no interest in attacking Russia.
This is all about preserving our own territorial integrity.
He just repeated the same line last month or earlier this month with Olaf Schultz.
in Germany, where he's saying, look, yeah, we're not interested in attacking Russia.
We're not doing it.
So he's stating untruths that then get leaked as contradicted by U.S. officials to the New York Times
where they have to run and funnel some sort of revelatory information through the New York Times, as usual,
saying, oh, well, gee whiz, it turns out that Ukraine, rather, did actually do that drone strike on the Kremlin that they...
enthusiastically rejected that they had done at the time, but we have the inside information,
and we just want to let you know that lo and behold, they're the ones who actually did do it,
because they've done every attack that they denied at the time that they did,
and yet we're still supporting them while simultaneously claiming we don't support the attacks
that they're doing inside Russia. Well, if you didn't support the attacks that they were doing,
that you wouldn't be the chief sponsor of the entire war effort. It's the most duplicitous
public presentation of the U.S. role that I can recall probably since Vietnam, because during the Vietnam War, especially the early stages, what did they say?
Well, of course, we're not going to be the aggressor and attack North Vietnam.
And then what did Kennedy do and then Johnson do in private?
They authorized more and more aggressive incursions into, guess what?
Yeah, North Vietnam.
Yeah.
without the public approval of the of the American taxpayer because they were the ones on the hook for it.
So in conclusion, while you can't reconcile these dueling propaganda wars among the pro-Russia and pro-Ukraine partisans,
you can reconcile, you can resolve that there's a fraud being perpetrated upon the American taxpayer,
which is the chief sponsor of the war at this point.
Also, any final quick words as we wrap things up?
Yeah, so no, no, no, so because I'm...
No, no, no, you're obsessing over that depleted uranium.
Vince too uses the plate uranium.
So...
I mean, also, just take it Patrick's match you, bro.
You guys, you guys, I'm...
No, Vince two uses depleted uranium and...
He's too blacked you all.
It's silly.
If you want, we can create a space after this.
Yeah, go.
We can call it and I'll bring.
We'll talk about Saba and Heat Round.
Yeah, yeah, you go.
You go.
You go do that.
Mario, can I ask Michael Tracy a question?
No, man, definitely not, Patrick,
because I know that will lead to Michael reading us.
Michael will answer.
Hey, you're silencing me.
In more less than 30 minutes.
Yeah.
By the way, I brought, also, let me.
Let me, let me.
Let me, now, actually,
Oh, no.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
Now, I was gonna go to, uh,
to something irrelevant,
but I'll let you make your final comments and I'm going to do something with,
with a speaker I brought up.
Don't talk about uranium all source because that's a cheap job after Patrick destroyed you.
Now,
okay,
spent two users to play to uranium.
I like
I like
Silly wants
to encounter
also Sully's
got a random
goofy picture
of himself
and also
he's got a tank
because he worked in tanks
you know what?
No he was
he's a president
He's all the way
around
I'm going to do
everything
Sully is a president
and a tank expert
some little nerd hiding in his mom's basement.
Like, we just don't know who he is.
True. That's a good point.
That's great, Sillyman.
Hold on. You know who it is.
Silly, hold on. You know who he is.
You know who I am, dude.
What's what you're talking about?
Okay, these are my final comments.
These are my final comments. So, these are my final comments.
So this is the issue, right?
We did the space because of a specific event on Moscow where we had, you know,
the drone attack, right?
This is not the significant event.
This attack in Moscow, in the grand scheme of thing, is absolutely not going to determine the war one favorite way of another.
What is going to determine the outcome of this for is the Ukrainian counteroffensive.
That is what everybody's awaiting, and that's what everybody is expecting.
And it's both the Ukrainians, the West, and the Russians.
We're all expecting this.
There's been extensive reporting on this.
That is going to be an important aspect of this.
So the West is just passively sitting by and waiting for something to happen without actively participating it, like an innocent bystander?
No, I think, no, I don't think also said that.
I think also the West plays a key role in the counter offensive, I'm sure.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, when we see Leopard 2s, you know, this is going to be great.
We're going to see Leopard 2s in the battlefield blowing up T-72s.
Like, and trust me, as a tanker, that French kiss.
So, um...
That is going to be one of the main aspects of the war.
It's a counter offense.
Now, the question is, I don't think it's going to be the end of it.
That's not going to be the end all, right?
I think that is that is a threat.
I think Russia will continue to do it.
We're in for a long war.
So it's a perpetual war.
Yes.
Not a perpetual.
We're in for a long wall.
And the only loser is, actually, there's a lot of losers, but it's not the military industrial complex.
It's the Ukrainian people.
How about American taxpayers?
It's the working class Americans who are struggling.
It's the people in the United Kingdom who are struggling to even put their lives.
It's the entire world.
I think no one.
The only...
While the military industrial complex is bagging cash.
and the mainstream media as its arm is perpetrated.
By the way, I brought up, John, I brought up, John, and hold on, Mickey, you disagree with Sleman's comment about the only the military industrial complex benefiting?
Of course I do, but if I open and start making good points, he's going to mute me again and kick me up to space.
What do you disagree on that point?
Go ahead, Mickey.
Stop screaming, bro.
I'm not also.
I'm not going to.
Yeah, I disagree with that point.
I just think, you know, this idea that this is all driven by...
I think it's fair to say that, like, people,
there's people capitalizing in this war.
I think that's fair.
Yeah, I think he didn't say that the military-industrial complex...
is causing this war, is playing a role in this war,
and plays a role in the war continuing.
I know he believes that, but I'm saying he's not saying it.
I think he's saying that they're the only ones.
They're the only ones who are benefiting.
Yeah, he says, yeah, yeah, he says there's the only ones benefiting.
Do you agree with that statement?
Because no one else benefiting.
You know, China strategically, you could say,
is benefiting as, as the West.
Yeah, that's my only.
The West, yeah.
Usually, China is hugely benefiting from this war.
China is able to go into Russia and acquire assets at,
at bargain basement prices.
They are a huge benefactor of this war.
If anyone is coming out, quote, unquote, on top in this horrible incident, it is certainly...
Does I mean, Suli, does that mean...
Does that mean, you're right?
I mean, that makes it worse.
China is benefiting and the military industrial park complex and the average American...
Ah, we got it, man.
You're not running for president, trying to get, getting votes.
If you run for president, Sule, I will be your vice president, but you better not leave the country of any war.
Yeah, yeah.
Silly, so does that mean...
I am a president.
Okay, Sully, Sully.
Okay, okay.
I couldn't call him a clown, so I didn't attack my clown.
Okay, you're done, jokes and screaming.
So what I want to say is that you said military industrial complex benefits from this war,
and then you made a story about how they play a key role in the war starting and continuing.
Does that mean China plays a key role in the war starting and continuing since they benefit tremendously as well, Sully?
Because I know how your brain works.
Yeah, no, no.
So they get an own intentional benefit because they didn't cause the war.
So they are benefiting.
But military industrial complex is intentional, not unintentional, yeah?
Of course it is, bro.
Who's supplying the weapons?
Who's financially benefiting?
They're the whole show.
China's financially benefiting as well.
You think Raytheon on Lockheed Martin and basically have not had a civilian significant?
I'm not saying they did or they didn't.
I'm just seeing how your brain works, how simplistic it is.
Like, at one plus two, you connect the most silly obvious dots and try to make the conclusions
from them.
You create yes, they're suffering and you look at the complexity, you look at who benefits,
who wins in this war and who is financially benefiting.
That's actually rule number one.
You're very smart.
John, you know, I brought you up as I wrap up the space for a reason.
I saw your request.
And the reason I brought you up, and I don't even know if you're a person, but you have an account called John, so your name is John, J-O-N.
Your username is John's Great, J-O-N-S-Great, no profile photo, and I don't think you've got any followers, you just retweet random people.
How do you expect to come up?
What gave you the guts to request to speak and do you expect us to accept you?
When we know nothing about you, no bio, no name, nothing at all.
Just curious.
You did come up, but for obviously different reasons.
Now you don't want to speak, John.
Yeah, I have to say anonymous.
I can't dock myself.
Okay, so what makes you a great speaker on this panel on this topic?
Oh, nothing at all.
I just wanted to say, hey.
Okay, cool.
John, I love you, that's all.
Let's get, and let's get, he's out.
He's out.
I removed him, bro.
I removed him.
Attack Mario.
Oh, no.
Okay, okay.
And also, I just want to give you the final word.
What do you think about today's space and about the war moving forward?
Final quick words, Alls, Sos.
Yeah, no, so, but sorry for the, I think that my.
