Do you think the narrative in Russia is that Putin is losing a war to poor and weak Ukraine or that he’s losing a proxy war with the wealthy and well armed United States?

Expand full comment

Thanks for this. Can we get a transcript?

Expand full comment

I think it's good to pick up the "proxy war" aspect too. America and Europe want to fight Russia. But they don't want to do it themselves!

So they stir the shit and try to get something going, effectively drafting East Europeans to fight wars for them.

Right now, here in Tbilisi, Kinzinger is trying to get the Georgians to push for wanting Abkhazia back.

He, like the rest of the US, couldn't care less about the Georgians, like they couldn't care less about the Ukrainians. That hundreds of thousands of them might die they consider of zero significance. Their sole ambition is to stir them up to get another front going against Russia.

Expand full comment

I listened to your Pro Ukraine podcast, but it feels so soft and superficial. How can your friend say that a nuclear weapon is not a big deal because other bombs has narrowed the magnitude of destruction, while Yesterday the fomer CIA director said that if Russia launches a nuke, Nato will attack directly Russia starting World war three.

Its the first time I listened to your podcast, really disappointed, your friend guest didnt mention why now the terrorist attack of the pipelines when Ukraine is “ winning”. At least you dont sound as Far left Fanatic like Cnn when talking about ukraine, but your assessments really leave a huge gap of insatisfaction.

You need to bring a Pro Russia or Anti Nato guest to counter your friend’s not out of the Nafo ukraine fantasy arguments.

Expand full comment

I´d be wary if people start talking about "miracle" weapons. The media likes to write about sexy tools. Today it is Himars, yesterday it was Switchblade, the day before it was Javelin, etc. I remember Robert Wright talking about switchblades as a "game changer". It was dumb. Switchblade has a warhead equivalent to a hand grenade, this is not a game changer.

I have a feeling that those who do not speak Russian or Ukrainian are missing large parts of what is happening on the battlefield. For instance, vast-vast majority of weapons that Ukrainians are using, are coming from Ukrainian/Russian/Soviet stock. But in English language media, you hear mostly about western weapons and it gives a false impression, that western weapons constitute a majority of weaponry. Not true. Far far from it.

If am reading Ukrainian sources, I see that they have considerably improved their ammo situation and this may have been the most significant event. They are still far behind Russia in this regard, but the gap is not as large as it was. But ammo is boring, ammo is not sexy and you do not hear about it from mainstream media.

I am not saying that Himars is bad. It is good and it has its impact, but lets not forget that Ukraine operates only 16 Himars platforms + 10 M270 launchers. It is a good addition, but looking at the size of Ukraine, let us not get carried away.

The situation on the battlefield is a complex topic, western weaponry has its role, but it should not be overestimated.

Expand full comment

my theory re annexation:

was planned before the recent setbacks. and was already in motion, and too difficult to stop within the Kremlin given the fear to criticize etc. because it involves explicitly arguing various unpalatable details etc.

this all, as the relevant battlefield galleries are recent

Expand full comment

Will you be hosting these podcast episodes on other platforms like Spotify as well?

Expand full comment

I agree with Hanania. Putin is going to eventually roll the dice in the face of defeat. Based on the conversation, it doesn't sound like there is much military advantage in using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It would possibly draw out a ferocious US conventional response in Ukraine leading to an even worse Russian defeat.

The more likely tactical nuclear weapon roll of the dice scenario is using it against Poland. Specifically, using the tactical nuclear weapon to destroy weapons headed for Ukraine. It would provide "some kind of proof" of seriousness to destroy the world. The US would not wish to retaliate with a nuke because it would mean climbing the nuclear ladder with the top being a destroyed world.

Another scenario to consider. If Russia were to use the nuke in Poland, I think the US responds with a limited conventional response and NATO stops sending weapons to Ukraine. After using the nuke would Russia be able to take the annexed regions and declare a ceasefire.

Expand full comment

Is there a transcript available for this?

Expand full comment

I think he’s overly dismissive that a million man mobilization wouldn’t do anything for offensive capabilities. It’s very possible they could continue to botch the implementations of it but if they do it properly it’s pretty crazy to think a million man army couldn’t take a lot of land

Expand full comment