Transcription
When the US went in, they went in with the idea of murdering and destroying the state. And if Iran doesn't act provocatively, they will be pecked to death, meaning they can't allow the US to get what it wants. The US has to understand that at a certain point when they start going after the world's infrastructure, all bets are off. This is not about, well, we can't get anything through the strait. It becomes there is nothing to get through the strait, which is a death nail for the US economy.
Russia is already preparing the legal structures for a war. They're preparing the military structures, the factories, the industries, and all of that stuff, believing that Europe is going to cross the line. The Russians aren't going to stop. This is existential. Within the course of 3 months will be the fall of Dumbbas. Period. That's not going to end the war. If they hit something in Russia that has a mass killing and that missile is related to one of the European countries of America, yeah, it can go to a nuclear war. The military, the population of Russia itself is looking at Putin as if he is weak because he is not necessarily defending Russia and he's putting restraints on the military. The only thing that they're going to do is to push Putin into a position where he is going to have to fulfill the wishes of the population of Russia, which is to decimate Ukraine and potentially Europe. Period.
>> World War II is already happening. >> This is a house of cards and it is in the process of collapsing right now. You're going to see an economic crash the likes of which we've never seen.
Hi folks, Canadian Prepper here. I'm back today with Jamarl Thomas, political analyst and host of the Jamarl Thomas self-titled podcast here on YouTube, former host of Fault Lines in Washington DC. He covers politics, media, war, and geopolitics from an independent perspective. And you know, there's few YouTube podcasters who are what I call two-way players. You know, I don't know if you watch baseball, but you know, they're pitchers who can also bat. They're people who can ask the questions and keep people engaged in their interviewing, but also provide interesting monologues. Uh there's a lot of podcasters on here who are great interviewers, and I seldom tune in when they do their monologues. But with Jamar, I gotta say, man, you got some interesting insights of your own and you're also a great interviewer. So, it's great to have you on the channel. I'd strongly encourage people to go and check out your YouTube channel. You have an eclectic panel of guests and I don't know how you get so connected with all these people, but every time I tune in to your channel, there's somebody new on there talking about a different topic. So, incredible stuff. So, I commend you on your podcast, but thanks for coming aboard today. How are you doing?
I'm doing well and thank you for that. That was very I I appreciate that.
>> So, what is your take on the Iranian situation? If you ask me the response that we just seen to what was a pretty widespread bombardment of numerous targets across Iran, it seemed like a rather tepid, lackluster response from the IRGC. The Iranians had a significant amount of time to muster a response because of course there's been a you know 6 to 8 week low in hostilities >> and for a lot of people this seemed like it was not proportionate. Uh what was your read on this whole situation? Like do you think that this was a measured response and was it calculated? Is it still perhaps ongoing? What's your read on it?
The war never stopped, right? Like just because there was a law in the fighting, the war never stopped. Um I accept people who are saying that Iran has won the war. But I think those people, they're being triumphalists and the war isn't over. Like if I'm a grandmaster and I'm playing somebody who's weaker than me and that person gets the better of me, that doesn't mean I stop playing. In fact, I'm not letting that guy get an easy win. I'm doing everything in my power to test and test and prod because I think that guy is going to mess up at some point in the middle of that contest. And I read it like that from the US. The US with a certain level of incompetence and hubris attacked Iran believing that it was going to be an easy win for some reason, a country of 90 million people and they got stopped in doing so. The US had to pull out of it because for all intents and purposes, and I'm I'm this is a bit of wood to chop, but I'm trying to give context and why I'm thinking the way I'm thinking about it. The US had to stop. The memorandum of understanding was a humiliating document to sign. But the document was never going to be honored any more than mints agreements were honored or any more than the Istanbul agreements were going to be honored or pick any other random agreement that the US went with. um even though they weren't necessarily going to go with it was a stop gap because the US needed to agree for it stocks in regards to oil and energy because Trump has spent the last three months jawboning that the war was going to be over in order to keep oil markets down and releasing the US strategic energy reserve for the last several months. So basically he's in a war. We're running dry in regards to that oil. The straight of is closed. The US can kill a lot of people in its attacks. It is flamboyant at murder, but winning a war is different than murder, right? Like you can kill a lot of people. It doesn't mean you win the war. And so for the US and its attacks, yes, the US had the ability to attack and yes, it had the ability to kill people. No, it didn't have the ability to win the war. And the reality of it is when Iran took the straight of moose, what started off as military campaign in order to destroy the Iranian state and to basically crash the state wasn't about nukes. It was never about nukes. That nonsense was used for Iraq. I'm shocked that people believe that nonsense going for Iran. Iran should have had a nuke. It was um a political malfeasance for them not to have a nuke. But I guess that's besides the point. My main point is that the US had to stop because the energy issue. Iran used the strait as a weapon that was effectively war booty. So now if you notice the fight, it's not over destroying the state. The fight is now over the war booty that Iran took, which is the straight of moose. and the fight for Iran to maintain that as a weapon versus the US who's trying to take that back as a weapon by creating a quarter for ships to go through to get around the leverage of the straight of formoose. So that is what these strikes are about now. Iran is going after ships because the US is trying to use those ships to get around the leverage that Iran has been able to create with the strait. Iran has limits, right? It's not a superpower in the way that people think of superpowers. It doesn't have infinite resources in a way that the US could just make money out of thin air. So they are going to have to fight the war in an asymmetric way with the idea of maintaining leverage while also exerting attacks on various bases that are around. You're right. It's never going to be proportional. It's not but they don't need it to be proportional. It's expected that the US will get far more let's say bang for the buck in regards to the things and the targets that they hit. The issue for the US is that the economy is going to crack. Trump, like, let's be very clear, right? If Trump had a military solution to the Iran issue, he would have used it. They opened a military campaign by murdering a bunch of kids, killing people. It's not an issue for the US. So, it's not that. The issue is the economy. JD Vance said as much. She was like, "Hey, we needed to fill the coffers of the world. We needed to fill our coffers back. We've been using too much oil. This is an issue for us." I don't know how the issue has gone away if that if that makes sense. Meaning yes, Iran needs to be able to control the strait. That is their weapon. That is the thing to which they're using. The US needs to pry that away from Iran. That is the thing that the US is trying to do at this point. If the US can't do it, then regardless of how many people the US murder, they lose the war. So that's so it doesn't I guess my point is it doesn't have to be reciprocal in regards to the scale of the attacks. I agree with you. Iran is attacking military targets that have been hit for the last god knows how long, which is a thing unto itself, by the way. That's a new norm. Those bases hadn't been hit and the idea of an American base being hit was outrageous, which is why they never hardened those places, which is why those people had to leave and go into hotels as they were being attacked. So, you're right, the attacks are not going to be proportional. Iran does seem to be fighting in a box, meaning they're limiting what they do for this notion of a longer war, knowing that the US cannot get into a longer war of attrition.
>> You don't think the US can get into a war of attrition?
>> No, I don't. I don't think they have the we are not built for those wars. I mean, right now there are two wars that are taking place that the US is directly involved in. One is taking place in Ukraine. The other one is taking place in Iran. The US used massive amounts of armaments to attack Iran. I think it was like 50% of our stores of Jassoms, 50% of uh standoff munitions, um an ungodly number of air defense, etc. And this is after us using all of that stuff and giving that stuff over to Ukraine. Meaning there's going to be a shortage. We don't have the industrial base to maintain this notion of multiple wars on multiple fronts. And it's not like they building that stuff in, you know, they're giving it license apparently to build patriots um to Ukraine. But I guess my point is we have limits. They're real limits. It's not like the Second World War, right, where the US had this massive industrial base and we could fund the world and still um fund two militaries on two sides of the globe while also giving stuff to Stalin and Brits and the French and that's not where we are. That's not where we are. So no, I I think we have limits and I think those limits are being seen.
I guess the question is though are those limits if we have limits doesn't Iran have limits and yes >> if Iran is being throttled in the way it is with sanctions and having these sustaining these disproportionate attacks you know I often find sometimes the triumphilus as you call them will minimize the losses that Iran incurs and maximize the damage that they inflict and it it's kind of dehumanizing in a because it's like well you can like I heard George Galloway today tweet about the it was like a uh a tower uh control tower traffic control tower that was destroyed on the straight of Hermoose and I think and I like Galloway I have nothing against the guy but he said something to the extent of well they don't need that anyways it's like you know at what point you know what are they just going to be relegated to sticks and stones and like just gunboats you know trying to and radios like to administer the straight of her moves. Like at some point it does matter, right? Like we're not iron men. You can't just continue to, you know, destroy all of the infrastructure and expect like is is one Iranian left standing? Is that a victory? You know what I mean? Like I'm concerned that perhaps people are glamorizing the Iranian resistance uh to an extent which is potentially dangerous for that side.
>> They are. No, they are. It's a war. They have a side. I guess my thing is I ag I'm not trying to minimize the damage. The US is committed dam. Like I said, there's a difference between the US going and killing people and Iran hitting, you know, a a a satellite station at a base that I don't even know if the US cares all that much about and is probably going to leave at some point. There's a there's a disparity between these things, but they're fighting different wars. The US is fighting a war of pressure. How many people can we kill? How much stuff can we blow up? At what point does Iran capitulate? The problem is for Iran, this is existential. When the US went in, they went in with the idea of murdering and destroying the state. And if Iran doesn't act provocatively in this case, they will be pecked to death in the same way that Syria was pecked to death. Meaning, they can't allow the US to get what it wants. So, I'm not >> not downplaying it. I guess I'm trying to say that the US doesn't seem to have the capacity to stop the missile cities that are underground despite the bunker buster bombs and everything else. Those cities still exist. And Iran, a country three times the size of Iraq, has the military capability of continuing to control the strait, which is what it all boils down to. I don't doubt that the US can commit damage. The issue is the strait. And let's be honest, the issue is also if Iran decides we're going after Saudis oil fields, we're going after Qatar's oil fields. We're going after the UAE's oil fields. Okay, you're wrecking the world economy at that point. Meaning the US also has limits. If the US pushes this too far from the standpoint of the escalation ladder and Iran's response becomes that much more unhinged. Okay. Well, what does that mean to the oil market? What does it mean when Saudi Arabia can't just get through the straight, but there is no oil for them to give because Iran has effectively destroyed their infrastructure and Saudi Arabia has been helping with these attacks. So, all of these people are fair game. I hope you get my point. It's not that Iran can take whatever the US dishes out. It's more so that the US has to understand that at a certain point when they start going after the world's infrastructure, you know, all bets are off. This is not about, okay, well, we can't get anything through the straight, it becomes there is nothing to get through the straight, which is a death nail for the US economy. We also have limits.
This is usually the part of the video where we inject the annoying commercial, but this one is actually important. To commemorate Independence Day in the USA, the world's premier freeze-dried food producer is offering a limited time offer of 20% off all of their delicious 30-year shelf life food. You can use the coupon code Canadian Prepper for this exclusive offer. This company has years of experience stockpiling the US military's pantries, bunkers, and submarines. Don't miss out on this amazing offer. And now back to the video.
So we have the Iranians who are unyielding in their demands. We have the US who's continuing to apply pressure. The US must know that this mosaic infrastructure that they've developed in Iran, this decentralized leadership structure is not going to be phased at all by these attacks. Yes, they might, you know, gradually slice the salami, as they say, and chip away at Iran's capabilities, but they must know that this is a losing strategy. And the Iranians must also know that they're not establishing any form of deterrence here. Like the US is just going to continue to disproportionately attack just like Trump said, we're going to do 20 to1. So, if they attack us, we're going to attack them 20 times harder. they must know that what they're doing is not establishing any form of deterrence. So, it's like both sides seem to know that this is culminating into a much bigger conflict down the road at some point in the future. I I agree with you that they're trying to fill up the oil reserves. They know that the clock is sort of ticking in that respect. I mean, some accounts claim that the operational bottoms of the strategic oil reserve are going to be reached early August. Um yes, >> you know somewhere between August I guess and October depending on who you listen to. But regardless that there is the clock is ticking but it seems like both sides must realize that their approaches are not going to be sufficient in bringing the other side to heal. Do you think that this is going to eventually turn into a bigger conflict or is this just going to fizzle out? Is it just going to be a Syria where maybe few years down the road after Iran had slowly had its capabilities eroded away then there's going to be some, you know, descent into civil disarray or how do you view this?
I mean, Iran has been around for 5,000 years, right? I don't think they're going anywhere. I mean that um I agree with you about the US thing. I mean, the US signed a memorandum for a reason. I mean part of it was a peace trap in order to kind of come up with a justification to um continue to strike at the point and to refill their coffers. So this was like I said was never earnest. I mean the first part of the memorandum is all wars stop right and Israel was included in the wars and Israel didn't stop the wars. So the US went into this with a particular plan. Um you must understand the US is functioning off of hubris. They are the idea of there's a reason that Trump didn't leave the first Ukraine war. a that he was involved it I mean the US was obviously involved in it but he didn't want to look weak walking away it would made it very clear that the US has lost this war and Trump was a president that lost it Trump is now engaged in as you point out a war that he can't necessarily win because again the US has limits if the US goes too far and Iran's response is just say screw it we're going after the oil fields it's not like anybody can do anything to stop them from doing that meaning they have the capacity If indeed this ratches up to a certain degree to say screw it all as long as that capacity stays there, the US's limits in regards to what it can do from the standpoint of its attacks. The US can do larger attacks if they want to. Hell, they can try to raise a million men. Those million men would get crushed. I think just because of the way warfare is today with drones and everything else and you know an eye in the sky, everything that you do is seen and that type of stuff. Um, look, I think the reality of it is both sides is kind of like water finding its level. the dynamics between these two have fundamentally shifted and changed. It seems like both sides are trying to find whatever that new level is. Think of it like um in the very beginning Iran wouldn't attack Israel, but for that matter, Israel wouldn't attack Iran directly either. They may kill scientists, but they weren't firing missiles into the place. For the longest time, the Iran wouldn't attack US bases. Like meaning it seems like there is a new norm being established in the way that these powers are engaging each other. If the question is how does this end, I have no idea. I don't know if this is just kind of drifting away of sorts, but Iran obviously believes that they are they have the whipand in this and that they have the high ground in dealing with the US. As you point out, their demands haven't changed. They haven't budged. They've had the same demands that they've had for months. And ultimately, it was the US that signed theou not Iran. The US was pushing for ceasefire within the first month of the war. So this is a hard one for me to to shake out. My model had it that the war was going to continue because I couldn't see how it stopped. And even now I don't see how it stops. My feeling though is that the US inevitably is going to get stuck with the issue of the economic issue where the economy is going to start hitting the skits. I could be wrong, but I think that's what it's ultimately going to boil down to. Iran is not necessarily going to budge and the US is going to have to deal with hard limits in regards to its economic circumstance created by the lack of energy. I mean the US if oil here went to $4.50 a gallon. This was in the middle of the war. >> Yeah. >> $4.50 for US is astonishingly high and everybody was obviously screaming at Trump stop. A the war is unpopular and B you're costing us money in doing so. And at some point jobs and all of those things are going to go with it. So, we'll see. I mean, I could be wrong on this. I don't think I am. I think ultimately what you're going to end up with is an issue of endurance where the US is going to have difficulty with the straight. If it can't open the straight, the US loses.
You know, it seems like if they wanted the straight to be open, why not just not provoke the Iranians by opening this Omani route and just letting oil flow? Like if like Vance said the other day that you know we just are you know the whole point of this thing is to build up our oil coffers then why not just you know play ball like a a good strategist would you know convincingly kind of go along with the scam you know he wouldn't like try to provoke along the way and you know um yeah >> it's all hubris it's imperial hubris like meaning it's an empire and empire is being humiliated by Ryan firing ships meaning it can't it's its projection to the world is all powerful. It's neaked aggression. It's these type of things. And so how does it look when a you lost the straight of something that wasn't part of the war the first time around and now Iran is openly controlling it in a way where they're firing at ships. Okay. Well, when they fire at the ship, what do you do as the US? Do you stand by and let them do it because it makes you look emasculated? It's that I think it's hubris. Why not even just avoid the Omani southern route alto together? And I mean because in terms of optics, Trump can spin anything as a win. You know, it could be a complete utter disaster and he could say we won and his base would believe him, right? So why not just if the goal really was to just okay, let's get to the elections. Let's build up as much oil as possible and then we'll do the big attack. Like the smart thing to do would just be, you know, if I was scheming on that side would be to just Yeah. let the Iranians control the strait for now and we'll claim that it was a victory and you know our base will believe us no matter what. Maybe there's going to be some criticism from, you know, some of the hardline Israeli Warhawks and other people, but you know, for now, we can play this game, but instead maybe, like you said, it's all hubris. It's hubris. It's not about competence. Good sense would have told him not to attack Iran. I mean, you can't get out the war with with a win, right? Like, meaning you thought you could do this attack and then all of a sudden this would just be quick. That's not the way that was going to work. And I don't know anybody who said that was the way it was going to work short of some kind of chicken hawk that that is just pro-war or some kind of rapid Zionist. No, they wanted to mitigate the leverage that Iran had at their disposal. Hence the Omani thing. Good sense would have said just let it flow. But this is not about good sense. This is about power and control.
>> How much of this do you think has to do with timing? Because you know when you go back in hindsight and you look at the timing of these flare-ups, I mean this flare up in hostilities happened right after the 250th Independence Day celebrations right after the funeral would was mostly complete. There was a few other big events that were unfolding that had been completed >> World Cup and other things like that. And so much of this seems to hinge on the election. Uh how do you think that is factoring into the decision-making process here?
I suspect uh the MLOU factored into the process in regards to the elections. I mean, I don't know how other people outside of the world may not know this but as the oil price goes so goes the president. The president is blamed for that right? And so if the oil price goes up, I mean we used to have presidents who said and the oil price is down >> because it costs so much. Everything is >> the whole it's the economy stupid thing.
>> Yeah. It's the economy stupid, right? Like if you have a baby and it needs baby formula, okay, in order to make that baby formula, it needs energy. In order to drive that baby formula to the shop, it needs energy. In order to get to the grocery store, it needs energy and you need energy to pick it up. That entire process hinges upon how much energy and how much does the stuff cost. And in America, we've been able to keep that number relatively low. If I'm in Europe, that number is ridiculous. I don't know what it is in Canada, but in the States, our energy costs this is usually much lower than the rest of the world. When you're looking at 450 with that number seemingly ready to go to five and six, that is breathtaking. And if you're the president that engaged in a war that I don't know 80% of the public, and if I'm not mistaken, that number is over 80%. disagrees with and the reporting on it is that you lost because the reporting in the US was Trump lost to Iran. Trump failed to Iran. Even when you talk to Israelis and ask them, the majority say Trump lost the war. Israel lost the war. It affects you as a president, I would imagine, right? In one sense, you need to stop it because you need the energy price to go down and you needed to go down as soon as possible, especially going into the midterms. I don't know how much the World Cup factored into it. I don't know how much the funeral faced into it. an argument can be made that seeing 20 million people on the streets for um Ayat Alhamdi after you murdered him that that's a you know a rebuke to put it mildly um from those populations be it in Iraq or for that matter especially in Iraq uh but also in Iran. So I don't the midterms definitely play into it. I don't know how much the funeral plays into it. I don't know how much the World Cup plays into it. I mean as you point out Trump could have just let the oil go through. He is the one that was moving the ships through at this moment. Basically daring Iran to try to maintain their control of the strait. So I don't know. That's a tough one. But the midterms definitely >> and likely possibly I should say coercing vessels to use that route because if I'm a captain of a ship and I could go through the Iranian route and there's not going to be any fees for 60 days, why wouldn't I choose that instead of going through that mineinfested, you know, southern corridor where there, you know, you're overseen by all of these aviational assets and missile defense systems and like, you know, where the risk is now that you know you're going to be struck, your ship will be struck if you use that route. So there must have been some strongarming going on there on some level encouraging these ships to utilize that route.
>> So Trump had said yesterday, he said a lot of things yesterday. I mean he basically said the ceasefire is over. These people are scum. And he also said something that I thought was kind of revealing. He said that he wouldn't go in and to get the nuclear dust until, and I think he kind of caught himself, which is rare for Trump, but he said, I we're not going to go in and get the nuclear dust, of course not, until they're eliminated. And so it's like that's kind of spelling out the future as to how this is going to go. Like they do plan at some point to confront Iran militarily. And a lot of people think it's implausible that the United States will ever put boots on the ground. And this is something I've never been able to comprehend. Yes, we're risk averse. Yes, we maybe don't have enough standoff munitions now. Maybe. I don't know. Who knows if that's not just a scop in itself. >> True. >> I'm not so convinced that they're not going to enter into a big war. I mean, this is the US's thing, right? This is if anybody is going to get ins sns sns sns sns sns sns sns sns sns sns snared in a quagmire war it's going to be the US. So why why are all these analysts now saying well you know we can't do it it's never going to happen you know people I respect and people I I think their sentiments are coming from a good place but I just I just can't wrap my head around how they think it's so implausible that the US is going to maybe not win like nobody's saying they're going to win. Nobody's saying it's not going to be in Afghanistan, but to think that to put it past them to try to attempt it, it just seems like it seems of course they're going to try to attempt. So maybe they're just waiting for a false flag. I don't know. Like to me the plausibility is very high that they are going to try to do something. I mean, apparently Iran has deployed, I'm not sure if you heard, rapid reaction units uh and special forces to the western border because the Kurdish attacks have intensified. So maybe they're going to still try to do something there. These guys are the masters of scheming and asymmetrical warfare in the sense that we had the pager attack, you know, we had the strike on Naza, the decapitation strike on Iran. I mean, if anybody can cook up a good scheme, you know, it's Skeletor. So, yeah, I I'm I'm very cynical with respect to how this is going to play out as you can see.
>> Um, I don't doubt what you're saying, right? Like I know a lot of analysts who would say the US would get strategically defeated. I think Colonel Wilkersonson even made the point the US would get strategically defeated if it tried to attack and fight Iran.
>> And I think the issue and the difficulty for the plausibility for for why some analysts may disbelieve it. I guess there are two or three things. One, warfare has changed.
>> And if you notice, the Israelis are having all sorts of hell dealt to them in southern Lebanon when they're on the ground in these fights. I mean, they've been complaining about drones, saying, "Oh my god, the drones are killing us."
>> That is true.
>> As we try to murder, you know, women and children, the drones are killing our people. This is outrageous. I guess my point is even in the Russian war, if you notice when they're fighting, they're fighting in these penny packets. Like they have like two or three people that are infiltrating and then try to come together after the fact and then move forward because they're in fishbowl. when you put a million people, a thousand people, a 100 thousand people, those people are ripe to get hit with a missile, artillery, or some other drone um storm just because everything on the battlefield is effectively seen. Now, I don't know if the same thing is true from standpoint of Ukraine uh from standpoint of Iran, but I would assume on some level that it's true. and just trying to get people to the location and get those people in numbers and get those people in numbers without being attacked and without being hit as those people gather in numbers like the way that we built up in Iraq just couldn't happen today. At least I don't buy it especially from the standpoint of Iran. So it also the war is so unpopular like 80% of Americans hate the fact that the president is doing this considered the president ran on the fact that he wasn't going to do this. So you are having to mobilize a country that doesn't want to mobilize for a war that you effectively started that you said you weren't going to start. Okay, you're dealing with a headwind. It doesn't mean that they won't do it, right? Or it doesn't mean that they won't try to put 20,000 troops in a particular location. They may do that. I don't put it past them either. I understand what these analysts are saying, but the reality of it is these analysts also got it wrong that the US was going to attack Iran thinking that this was be insane.
>> I agree.
>> And they did it anyway.
>> Exactly.
>> Yeah.
>> So I I don't put it past
>> and it would be a disaster, but I don't put it past
>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean there I guess uh you know I was talking with Mark over the weekend and he had the same understanding in Russia as to why Russia can't do much more than it's doing now is because they can't muster forces without being observed through all the ISR mechanisms,
>> right?
>> And I mean I guess by the way and they would use the Kurds. They tried to if you remember Donald Trump was like we gave all these money and weapons and never got to the Kurds or the Kurds never did the thing. They were trying to use a proxy force. the force that you're talking about is a proxy force.
>> Yeah, I suppose one could make the argument that maybe they could still amass forces and use different forms of like misdirection. I know that um that has been something that has been done in Ukraine where they'll amass a force as kind of a fixing maneuver to attract attention to one place while they're really getting to do something elsewhere. But that still requires a significant amount of forces. And like you're saying, often times the the attacks by Hezbollah or Iran are are maximized by the the Iranian, you know, sympathizers, for lack of better terms. But in the case of Hezbollah fighting Israel, they are exacting a toll on on uh the Israeli forces with the FPV >> drones and all of those things. So the fiber optic type stuff. So yeah, the warfare has definitely changed. I don't know not sure if there's a way around that or I guess it depends on how I we really don't know how resilient the the Iranian ground forces are going to be up against the US. They've yet to hit at least officially acknowledged a US warship. You know, some people say, well, there was fires and maybe they did hit it, but you know, we don't have like an official confirmation of a hit.
>> They didn't sink it
>> and they certainly didn't sink it.
>> They did hit it.
>> So,
>> yeah.
>> Yeah. But I I will say, you know, to to I I like to kind of steal man these things because I'm just trying to get to the truth just like you. And I will say that I'm reminded of a of just how things work in nature in terms of how fighting a bully typically goes. It typically goes something to the extent of more often than not, you're not actually going to defeat the bully, but if you can make them realize that it's not worth it and that they're going to get scratched and that scratch might turn into an infection, you know, there's something in nature where like if you have a dog, a little dog can chase off a bear, you know, I mean, the bear knows that, well, maybe it doesn't >> consciously know, but if it came down to it, the bear could eat the dog no problem. But in nature there's this mentality that well if I get scratched you know I could potentially get infected or this could become a problem. So they often take the path of least resistance. So I guess what I'm saying is it is not unprecedented for a smaller uh less capable military force to defeat a superior one just by inflicting this this type of damage which could potentially amount to something down the road like you're saying something economic or otherwise. So yeah, there there is a a chance that Iran survives this. But if it's also true that Iran becoming a regional power is in some way economically existential for the US, then I think the US will go to whatever extent possible to see that that never happens.
>> I think they will try.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean again I think the US has limits. I mean like if you look at Yemen for example, Yemen is a really good example. So the US when Yemen was firing shots into the Red Sea at boats that were trying to go through, the US decided, okay, we're going to have a military campaign against Yemen. And obviously we're a superpower. We have a trillion dollar military and this is the poorest country on earth or close to it or something like that or in the region. And what happened? The US again, you could kill people, you could hit ports, you could do all that stuff, but the US was never able to completely degrade Yim uh Ansora's military capability. And the reporting was that the White House was pissed that they couldn't do it. meaning they did this over and over and over and they were trying to destroy the ability for um Ansar Allah to attack where they can then go after the various members of uh I guess leadership. They were never able to do it. The White House eventually just made a deal with Ansar Allah after nearly two ships got blown out of the sky and effectively said, "Okay, just don't attack our ships. We won't attack you and we'll call it a day." In which case, they left and >> yeah, >> they kept firing shots into the Red Sea. Meaning, you're right. It's not about I don't think Iran looks at this and thinks to themselves we're be able to bomb New York. I think what they're looking at it as we can make this painful and we can make this hurt and what we can do is put sanctions on you by effectively closing the straight of moose and letting you explain to your population why your oil will spiral to $8 a gallon. I agree with you. It's not about an outright win. That's why in the beginning I was saying the shots doesn't have to be reciprocal. It doesn't have to be equal. the triumphalist maybe making it like you know Iran has sunk five US ships doesn't need to do that like their strategy I strongly suspect is fighting within a defined space and knowing that they're going to take damage as they make damage to a point where ideally the US calls it quits at the very least calls it quits for this iteration >> in a similar way >> that's my thought I could be wrong >> yeah no I mean that that that's a good perspective in a similar way we have the situ situation in Russia where the Russian economy, you know, I know some people tend to minimize it a little bit, but every day there's another oil refinery that gets struck. Some of them it's always some of them it's tanks, you know, some of them it's at the actual finer components of the refinery that require required for it to function. I guess the question is how long can they sustain the damage in this war of attrition? And so yesterday, Rubio came out and said that we're going to help Ukraine attack deep into Russia. And >> they already were, >> right? And now it's official. >> That's not a change. That was normal policy. >> And Trump made the statement that we will have to escalate. It is an escalation, but we may have to escalate the war to end it.
>> Again, this is humorous. Yeah, it it's Could you ever have imagined, you know, going into this thing when Trump said that he was going to end the war in 24 hours that would be here that we would be here right now? I mean, I know I I did, but um are you surprised at all by Trump's pivot on on Russia?
>> No. I mean, Trump never stopped. This is not a change in policy. It was always this way. Meaning, Trump was always prosecuting the war. There was never a stop. There was never a pause. the energy sector attacks were specific from the standpoint of the US policy. I mean, we tried to murder um Putin at Valdai. Like, so this never stopped. And in fact, my annoyance was always with Putin pretending and the Russians pretending as if the United States was some kind of third party actor when it was obvious that the United States was directly involved in the war effort and directly involved in planning and plotting what they were doing regarding the war. I mean, the shots that they were doing, the satellite imagery that was necessary for some of these attacks, attacking the um the bus and the school, those things weren't done purely by Ukraine. All of those things were being done with the assistance and the help and the guidance of the US, particularly the CIA, not to mention MIS6 and whatnot, but in my case, from the standpoint of the US, the CIA, meaning nothing that Rubio and Trump said changes anything. And I point out the level of hubris in this because nothing that they're going to do is going to change what Russia does because from the Russian point of view, the battlefield is where all of this stuff matters. Yes, you can make your um hits, you can make your print prick strikes, you can create situations where they may need oil, but it's a war. And I don't know any war where one side believes that it's going to get away without necessarily getting bloodied in the context of that war. The objective is can you accomplish your military objectives? The answer is yes. They've just taken Constantinfka. Leman is going to fall. Slaviance chromators is the last line of defense in dumbass or the last major line anyway. Everything else is just step. So the reality of it is what's happening on the battlefield within the course of let's say 3 months will be the fall of Dumbbas period. That's not going to end the war. I hate to tell people that but that's not going to end the war per se. The Russians aren't going to stop. This is existential. There is nowhere else for the Russians to go. Ukraine is literally on their border. All of NATO is literally pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into killing Russians. There is nowhere else for the Russians to go. So from their point of view, this is existential. What the Europeans and the Americans need to be concerned about is that Putin is the weak one in this. That the military, the po population of Russia itself is looking at Putin as if he is weak because he is not necessarily defending Russia and he is putting restraints on the military. The only thing that they're going to do is to push Putin into a position where he is going to have to fulfill the wishes of the population of Russia, which is to decimate Ukraine and potentially Europe. Period. Like itself. If if this was 50 years ago, this would have been a Kasa's belly for Russia to hit any of these ger these European capitals. They've isolated themselves to Ukraine because they need assert force distribution to be localized and focused in a particular way. And let's be honest, they need to build up the military structure and the legal structure to have that fight with Europe because Russia is assuming that there will be a third world war. So I the only thing just to just to put a pin in it, the only thing that they're going to do is not bring Russia to the negotiating table. They are going to have Russia to unleash look at what they've been doing in Kiev for the last three days. You don't you don't think that Russia knew or didn't know that the weapons factory was in Kiev? They just didn't hit it because it was in the middle of Kiev. They're hitting it now. There's a change. So, they need to be careful what they wish for. That's all I would say. Europe is playing with fire.
>> So, you think that Don Bass is going to fall in the next few months?
Yes. Yes. Yes. By the end of the year or in the beginning of next year, Dumbass will fall.
>> That's I I keep uh hearing the date deferred there.
>> Oh, I'm not giving a date. Just to be clear, I'm not giving a date.
>> I'm just saying.
>> Yeah. I I remember back in >> back in 2022, there was a guy named Douglas Madaga who said that the war was going to be over in a few months and that the Russians were going to steamroll through the Dombass and here we are 2026.
>> Ritter said that too, by the way. Ritter said that too.
>> Yes, that's true.
>> Um, no, I'm not I'm not giving a date. I'm just saying the speed of the Russian advance seems to be increasing regardless of what the Europeans are saying.
>> Okay. And these cities seem to be fallen. And the fact that Slaviance Chromator is the last fortress city. There is, you know, I mean, yeah, they're going to take Zaposia.
>> And >> you think they're going to take the the city of Zaposia?
>> They'll have to unless there's a deal.
>> Yeah.
>> Meaning, I don't think, here's the thing. I think Putin is immenable to a deal. If they could give him a deal where he thinks Russia is safe, he would most likely take that deal. If that may include zeroia, but I don't know. I mean from my point of view the war is not going to stop. If we assume that the fall of the Donbass is a foregone conclusion, the question is what happens after that? Cuz Ukraine is now securing 130 billion if you factor in the 70 billion yesterday of which 30 billion of that was the 90 billion loan. Something to the extent of, you know, just a lot of money they're getting from the EU, right? They're going to now apparently be licensed to produce uh Patriot Patriots >> which you know even Zalinsky laughed at when Trump said that because they clearly don't have the industrial integration in order to do that. So Europe is clearly preparing for something because now NATO apparently I heard this morning is permitting its fighter jets to shoot down aerial targets over the Baltic states. So that's an escalation. Ukraine is attacking tankers in the Black Sea. There's just so much escalatory uh events unfolding. And so what happens after the Dawnbass falls? Uh Gilbert Doctoro, a man who is somewhat notorious in some circles, claims that the fall of the Dawnbass will not be the end of the war and that if Putin doesn't start taking decisive action, there is risk of potential fracturing uh within Russia, Russian society. I'm not sure how you view that, >> but uh what do you think?
Okay, two questions.
>> What happens after the fall of the Dawnbass? And is Putin really uh under a significant amount of pressure?
>> What happens after the fall of the dumbass is the war continues? The war continues. I I people wave the Ukraine flag and they're like, "Oh, we support Ukraine and everything else." Nonsense. The Europeans don't care about the Ukrainians. The eur the Ukrainians for the most part are um cannon fodder. It's almost like in a military thing where a guy says, "Hey, I'll stay behind so you guys can escape." That's Ukraine. It's that guy. It's Bob. Bob is giving his life to the tune of like a million people in order to allow Europe to get more prepared for war or for that matter to allow the Europeans to attack the Russians in a one-way direction. Meaning Europe doesn't care about Ukrainians. Ukrainians are dying in the war. They are being eaten alive. You have a population that is effectively in a death spiral with like a million men that have been killed in this war from the Ukrainian side. Europe is going to use as many Ukrainians as possible because the goal in this is not to save Ukraine. It's to kill Russians. That was always the goal. You can go back to 2008 in the Burns memo where he pointed out uh we are going to this basically pushing NATO is going to create a civil war on Russia's doorstep. A war they don't want to get involved in, but they would have to because it's happening on their doorstep. Meaning they knew they always knew and they did it anyway. The war is not going to stop with dumbass because Europe doesn't really care about Ukraine. As long as there's one Ukrainian that's willing to take a bullet, they're going to throw that Ukrainian out there to take that bullet. Which gets into an interesting question of well, how does Russia stop the war if indeed the war is not going to stop with dumbass? Any rump state that you end up with is another rump state that you can use the dump weapons, military, terrorists, etc. in order to try to go into these areas to create havoc and chaos. Meaning the war is not ending anytime soon. Um, I hate to tell people that, but that's true. The other thing, unless there's a deal, but the deal would have to come out the blue.
>> Well, they they keep talking about like this Cordon Senate terror where they're going to create this buffer zone, this safe zone, but I mean, how does that work when Ukraine has drones that can go 2,000 miles?
>> Exactly.
>> You said it all. Hence, Gilbert Doctor Dr. Um, and his point of saying Putin is too weak and the public is on that page. Like I don't know about the internal dynamics of Putin being dethroned for uh weakness. I don't know if that's the case. If Dr. is saying that and he knows some kind of intel, fair enough. U Putin's approval rating right now is pretty significant. It's still what 70s something.
>> The military is still making gains.
>> Do you think that's real?
>> Actually do think that's real. I don't think people have if the people who have issues with Putin, it's not about like when people look at the military situation and complain about it, their complaint is not about making a deal. Their complaint is Putin is too weak, >> right?
>> Like if you look at the polling and they would say, you know, we want to decimate Ukraine. That's because the Russians are saying Putin is too weak in this not um
>> maybe even not Putin is too weak, but Putin is too nice. Is that a nicer way of putting it? more euphoria.
>> I would say weak.
>> I would say weak.
>> You say weak
>> because this is about protection.
>> Yeah.
>> Like this is about like the loss of deterrence.
>> Yeah.
>> Can you imagine in the Soviet era if the United States was given weapons to a country to fire into the Soviet Union?
>> Yeah. We >> imagine what would happen.
>> We wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
>> We wouldn't be having the talk.
>> We might. We might. But it'd be around a campfire and we'd all be wearing like tribal garb like steampunk.
>> Right. to be loin cloths and whatnot.
>> Yeah, I guess that's my point, right? It's this loss of deterrence. Europe has lost its fear. And I get in the very beginning of all of this that the objective had to be, okay, we're not prepared to fight NATO. So, you're forced to fight in a box. You're forced to build up your military. You can't expand it beyond the boundaries of Ukraine. All of that is true, right? So Putin was dealing with hard real limits that I imagine he still believes are there. So does it get to a point that the calculus change? It might. And Europe is getting very provocative which is a problem because this is kind of like we're sleepwalking to a war. Russia is already preparing the legal structures for a war. They're preparing the military structures for the war, the factories, the industries and all of that stuff. They're preparing for that, believing that Europe is going to cross the line. It's not that they're going to cross the line. They believe Europe has gotten very comfortable with firing missiles into Russia. I mean, what was it? Margarita Simman.
>> She was they asked her, "How close are we to a third world war?" And she said, "We are this close to what did she call it? Imminent."
>> And you get Pescov who came out and was like, "This is no longer a special military operation. This is a war." Peskov doubled down on that. Now they could say that he just said it off the cuff. He doubled down on it. Peskov is not talking out of turn. Simmen is not talking out of turn. These are warnings that are going out to Europe. You are playing with fire. So I and maybe weak is not the right word. Diplomatic, willing to make agreements and deals. Uh but again, if you push him, the fact that we have the special military operation at all is because he was pushed into a corner. He will come off fighting. worse come to worse. I just don't think he wants to.
>> It amazes me how flippantly both Europe and Russia to an extent talk about a potential war with each other. And they view it, it seems, in a conventional sense like we need to mobilize for World War II. I mean, what does that even mean? You know, because obviously the elephant in the room is that it would likely go nuclear. And so, >> you know, I've always thought, you know, when they're talking about mobilizing armies and manpower for a war with Europe, which is just probably going to go nuclear, I mean, is that just to lock things down when, you know, after the bombs drop? Is it just, you know, cuz it's it's strange to watch Europe talk about, yeah, we're going to have to confront the Russians and we're going to send, you know, these brigades of of forces to the Baltics. And it's like, what do you what do you imagine this war is going to look like? I mean, it seems like either people are very delusional or there's some unwritten agreement that we don't know about that they're going to keep it at a level of conventionality, which >> doesn't make sense because there's no more nuclear treaties. There's no more, you know, open sky treaty, no anti-bballistic missile.
>> There's a part in the book, Threebody, where the guy says something. He says like, I always believe that there's somebody who is at a table that's untouched. Like when everything falls apart, that there's one table that is completely untouched, like that somebody has a hand on a tiller. There is no hand on the tiller. These people are lunatics. They're psychopaths. And they think that nuclear war is so big that both sides tend to use it to throw around threats of sorts. It's like you don't want this and I don't want this. Um, so don't test me on this because this is what may happen. Like they both sides do that. But let's be very clear though, this is not the Russians. Like Russia didn't knock over the government of Ukraine. Russia didn't put all of this military and everything else into Ukraine from standpoint of the West using it as a typical sphere. Putin had been standing out there like a preacher begging people to come to Jesus in regards to coming up with new security architecture of Europe because Europe and the US decided we want Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. All of these things were red lines. They understood these things were red lines. Even this idea of not moving an inch to the east and they moved all the way to the border of Russia. Russia has been invaded multiple times to the tune of tens of millions of people dead. They have a right to be itchy about their borders and this was understood. So it's not like, oh my god, we can't believe why the Russians are acting like this. If the United States was in Russia's position, we would have decimated Ukraine. We wouldn't have thought twice about it and we wouldn't have apologized for it. It wouldn't have been these are our countrymen. We would have annihilated Mexico if Mexico was pulling this nonsense where you get um let's say Warsaw packed countries putting in military and armaments and CIA or whatever they're using for their um special intel in intelligence and Mexico is like we're going to take back Texas or we're going to invade or you got Mexican troops on the border with with um Warsaw pack gear. Oh yeah, >> we would have destroyed.
>> And by the way, Cuba missile crisis, it was the same thing, right? Soviet Union's putting weapons in Cuba. The US said this is outrageous. The US was willing to end the world because of it. So what Russia's doing, it's not like, oh my god, I can't believe they're doing that. It's what we would do and wouldn't think twice about it. So I just want to put that in context. This is not the Russians that are egging this on.
>> Yeah.
>> This is like there's this is clearly coming from a particular direction. I know what Europeans say. They're wrong. They're just wrong. They're diluted. From the other point, yeah, it can go to a nuclear war. I mean, for whatever particular reason, Europe has gotten into this exceptionalist mindset that they are somehow superior even though they have no swords to back up this level of superiority and they are completely and fundamentally dependent upon the United States, which is where this comes in. The blank check, this belief that the US is going to come in and save Europe's ass the moment that they get pulled into the fire where they realize they're going to get eaten alive in a conventional war. The Russians have been killing and dying for the last 5 years. They have gotten proficiently good at the killing part.
>> Europe would get eaten alive.
>> Especially without Ukraine. Like Ukraine is the bull work. They are the the strongest military in Europe really.
>> And so if they collapse >> and if they're getting eaten alive, what's going to happen to the other Europeans >> or worse if they get integrated into the Russian army and then they turn around and start marching the other way? Yeah, I agree with you about your statement about Mexico and that analogy because I think if even our pain tolerance is so low that if even one drone was fired from Mexico on behalf of Russia say you know into one of our refineries I think you know the response would be you know the pearl clutching that would happen there. So, I guess the question is how much can Russia take because they're moving nukes into Finland. They are now openly going to be supporting deep strikes into Ukraine, something Biden didn't even do. They're going to be playing defense, closing the skies over Ukraine. At what point they're not is the What's the breaking point?
>> That just to be clear, that's not going to happen. I don't care what they say.
>> That's not going to happen.
>> Like mean because imagine what it takes to do that. So what does that mean? They're going to get involved into the war to close the skies of Ukraine and Russia is going to start blowing up whatever they use to cover the skies of Ukraine because they're doing the attacks in Ukraine. Russia's already said if you're in Ukraine, you're fair game.
>> Yeah. I I guess my question is like what is the breaking point of like how do we falsify you know that that argument that well Russia can endure and can sustain this attritional war into perpetuity but at some point there has to be a situation where they're forced to do something differently. Now Mark claims that he can't really do much differently. He claims that they can't even really saturate the Ukrainian airspace with more drones simply because of the limits of target selection and you know uh those types of things. So he claims that they can't do anything more than nuke or target a NATO country and that of course would be escalatory. So I guess you know the question on everybody's mind should be okay at what point is is Russia pushed too far? Do you have any visualization of what that might look like? I don't know because I would have already been pushed too far, >> right?
>> Like like the idea of flying like drones from Finland or from the Baltic states into Russia is outrageous.
>> And you know, Russia had warned them once before basically saying, "Look, we know that you are doing this on your territory. We will hit you and the fact that you're a NATO country is not going to protect you from being hit. Be aware." So they put out their warnings. Putin gave that warning once before, effectively saying if you are using missiles to fly and hit Russia, you will be fair game and you will be a direct party to the war. Up to this point, that has been the red line that has been put down on that particular issue. That was the issue where Biden backed away and all of this other stuff. I don't know. I mean, you would have thought that they would have already hit that line, but Putin is longsuffering like Jesus.
>> Well, I I I just I don't I don't have an answer for that. I don't even know if Mark has an answer for that. I think Mark's thing is, I mean, obviously Russia has all sorts of sci-fi weapons that can fly around the world and create tsunamis or take out satellites in space.
>> They haven't used that stuff yet because it's to your point, I guess would have been overly escalatory. But there will come a point if they hit something in Russia that has a mass killing and that missile is related to one of the European countries of America, I think all hell breaks loose. But I don't know what that point is.
>> That's a great response. very humble response. I have to ask finally, what are you doing where you're living? You know, you obviously more than anybody else. You know, you can see the way the world is going. You can see that we're run by lunatic psychopaths. Um, and it seems like we're inexraably hurtling towards disaster on multiple dimensions.
>> So, what are what is a person like you doing uh to prepare for this eventuality? or or you just kind of like take as take it as it comes.
>> I live my life. I mean, from my point of view, the stuff is mechanical. Like if you're looking at it like um during Napoleonic era, for example, where Napoleon marches into Russia and then runs back on the rail with his military being smashed or with um the battles before that where you got um all of these European cities just fighting back and forth, the French and English, etc. this seems to be just what they do and for whatever particular reason they can't break that that mold. I mean even the US and the way the US behaves we're just a British colony ultimately like we are functioning in the similar way as many of those other states were functioning in these kind of waring traps. Um, at some point that has to stop and either it stops from the standpoint of a war where, you know, we just destroy and kill everything or we become more rational human beings when we get to the brink and we look into the oblivion and back away from it. I'm hoping the latter. From my point of view, it's a mechanical process because the ship kind of goes the way the ship goes. Um, so I'm living my life. I I if it all goes to hell, it would all go to hell and fire and
>> Well, I would encourage you to in the very least have a bugout bag. I have a feeling you're going to survive the apocalypse. I just have this I have a good intuition about people. I think you're going to survive some way somehow.
>> You got that energy, you know, that's going to carry you through somehow. Um, but maybe just pack a bugout bag just in case.
>> What's a bugle bag?
>> You don't know what a bugout bag is?
>> Oh, no.
>> No, I don't. I honestly I don't. What's a bugle bag? you're going to learn something.
>> You know how there's like I think there's 12 different main critical infrastructure that supplies that allows a society to function like there's water works, there's the electrical grid, there's heating, there's, you know, banking, all these things. A bugout bag tries to approximate that on a micro scale. So like if you had to get out a dodge really quickly, you would have all the things in that bag that you needed to survive. I see
>> for a short period of time.
>> I see. So, it's sometimes called a 72-hour bag. It's just to, you know, because we get so conditioned to living in the urban beehives that we forget that we're organic beings that require all of the vital elements to sustain life like water, food, you know, medicine, protection, coffee, absolutely, caffeine. Um,
>> so it's just, you know, having an awareness that, you know, all of these systems that we take for granted could someday
>> just collapse and fall apart because we're run by lunatic psychopaths who
>> are don't necessarily have the best interests of humanity in mind. So, it pays to be prepared, I guess, for that.
>> It does. That's not a bad idea. I I just had never heard of the term buckle. Well, uh, maybe I'll have to send you some stuff. I'll get your address after and I'll I'll
>> I'll get you started.
>> I'm down.
>> I want you to survive, man. I need you guys to survive. So,
>> all right. Well, thanks a lot. And guys, go check out Jamal Thomas podcast. Always interesting guests and uh, like I say, interesting monologues as well as interviewing styles. So, thanks a lot for coming out, man. And, uh, look forward to doing it again.
>> Absolutely, man. Thank you for this. I appreciate it. always enjoy these talks.
>> The best way to support this channel is to support yourself by gearing up at canadianpreparedness.com where you'll find high-quality survival gear at the best prices, no junk, and no gimmicks. Use discount code prepping gear for 10% off. Don't forget the strong survive, but the prepared thrive. Stay safe.