Transcription
Welcome back everybody to Neutrality Studies. Today we're talking again to David Pine, a former US Army officer and deputy director for the task force on national and homeland security. David, welcome back.
>> Hey Pascal, great to be on.
>> Great to have you back and we want to start with Iran and we will work ourselves toward uh Russia in just a moment. We are speaking on my Monday morning, June the 29th, your Sunday evening, the 28th. Um, as things stand now, what is your interpretation about the seriousness of the memorandum of understanding that was signed about 10 days ago and the the the process that has been going on, which some described as a peace process, but by now really looks more like a very phony um Israeli type of ceasefire situation where neither side really uh didn't didn't really stop the kinetic phase of the war. What's your interpretation?
>> Well, I do think that I think it was Chaz Freeman that called it a a ceasefire with Israeli characteristics, namely, you know, a ceasefire that that really isn't really isn't enforced. It's not really uh adhered to. Um but uh I I think that this memorandum of understanding I think it just the fact that the very fact that Trump um essentially uh capitulated to all of virtually all of Iran's peace terms it it demonstrates how desperate he is to end the war. uh and I think and you wouldn't know that from the last two or three days uh with the tit fortat uh US and Iranian uh missile strikes uh which which was resolved and you know maybe breaking news uh where you're at uh there that those attacks have now been halted and both sides have agreed to meet uh for technical uh nuclear negotiations on Tuesday uh but I think that President Trump um you know he he made a course correction and he hasn't done a very good job of adhering to it but for uh for nearly two weeks he did and he articulated a very strong uh you know foreign realist foreign policy um justification for doing that namely that uh if the war didn't end if the straight of Hormuz didn't reopen we could be facing a global uh depression within within a matter of several months to a year and he also uh talked about how um you know Iran is you know they have the right to selfdefense heads. Um they have uh you know he doesn't have a problem with them having missile capabilities because every other country around them does uh that they they can uh continue to enrich up to uh 3.67% for uranium for nuclear energy purposes. And uh you know he really talked about Iran being a normal country which is something that foreign policy realists like you and I uh knew the whole time but apparently it was news to him. Uh, you know, the neocon perception of course is that Iran is the Islamic Republic of Iran is a is uh their leaders are crazy, they're suicidal, they're irrational. Uh, this war has proven uh none of that to be true because Iran had um, you know, five different ways that could have escalated the war, including, of course, hypersonic and supersonic missile attacks. They could have sunk multiple US Navy warships, destroyers, perhaps even USS Abraham Lincoln. and they chose not to utilize they chose not to escalate to that level. And uh just in this in these these rounds of strikes uh you know Iran uh all they did is took out uh you know the Singaporean tanker Ever Lovely's um you know bridge windows. They shattered the windows but they did so in a deliberate way to avoid any crew casualties. Uh then President Trump overreacted by striking, you know, four Iranian targets. And then there was another round, you know, I Iran attacked Bahrain and uh another ship in the straight um uh then maybe Japanese. I'm not sure. And then >> I believe >> was also Singaporean the second one, >> I think. So, but uh yeah. Okay. Anyway, it was not a US flagship. It was a third country flagship. Yeah, >> exactly. So it's a third country neutral ship. Uh they've been very careful not to strike at uh at the US itself uh or or US military bases. Uh my is my understanding. uh because they have uh you know they they kind of have a baked in you know 400 to 500 billion reasons uh not to restart a full-scale war with Iran in that we we uh committed to providing them 300 billion dollars worth of a reconstruction fund that uh is financed you know not by US taxpayers but by uh other you know private companies and investors. Uh and then another uh you know freedom up of course their 100 to 200 billion worth of frozen assets which I thought was 100 billion but according to Vice President JD Vance actually he's heard maybe as high as 200 billion. So um I think Trump has he's invested overall in in trying to end the war and sure the strait uh remains open at least technically. uh it was obviously when there's these types of attacks um you know the shipping goes down to almost nothing whether uh you know whether Iran says it's open or not uh so essentially was closed temporarily by by this round of US uh US missile strikes uh but hopefully we'll be reopening again uh tomorrow um but uh I I I what I'm trying to say is I think I'm over you know overall still hopeful uh because there's so much incentive on both both sid decides to uh you know to adhere generally to the peace terms. Uh but I wouldn't be surprised to see uh you know further US escal escalatory attacks in the near future because President Trump is is so unhinged. You know he's so irrational. has kind of this bipolar foreign policy that we've discussed on your show where he can go from one extreme to the other but ultimately his greatest fear is that he will be as he stated uh the next Herbert Hoover and uh you know have a second uh depression in in the United States that causes him to leave office with 25% approval rating.
>> Hey, just a very quick note. The best way to support this channel is by signing up for my free Substack. You can also help with a paid subscription there or you can get some of our new merch on neutralitystudies.com links below. See you there.
You know, there is a lot of talk on the internet on whether or not this memorandum of understanding is actually whether whether Trump and his team mean it as in yes, this is the the policy we want to pursue or if it is just another one of these diplomatic uh uh you know this diplomatic games in order to mislead the other side because one thing that it did lead to is that it is kind of taking away the leverage that Iran had by by basically closing ing off the straight up hormuse and we see how Iran is currently uh actually signaling that they are not giving that up that they are at any time uh are willing to reclose it right to get to get that leverage back and to um signal to the United States the is not going to save your main um is not going to uh save your main problem or to solve your main problem right uh but at at this at the same time though as you correctly said the United States was willing to sign it and this itself is was a huge kind of um you know public admission to people like us right to the entire commentariat that things really didn't go the way that they were supposed to go when the uh when this operation was announced on 28th of February uh this year. Um so overall your assessment is though that he does want to uh to sc to uh wind down the war and that that the fear of a depression is big enough to actually also overwrite the neocon tendencies which there still are within his administration. I mean Rubio and the others Hexath uh and even the Zionist elements within the administration especially Hexath. So you you're of the opinion that the the the desire to avoid a a fullscale 1929 type of uh economic depression is overriding these other tendencies. Right.
>> Yeah. Exactly. That's why I don't think the war will escalate be uh you know beyond these uh you know relatively minor tip for protat um military strikes which you know President Trump he has this opinion that you know uh if uh Iran does any attack then he'll hit them back twice as hard to teach them a lesson but the problem is there's no military solution there's the war itself proved that uh you know that Iran uh essentially has conventional escalation dominance so they don't have nuclear escalation dominance we you Obviously we have nuclear supremacy over them. Uh whatever nuclear arsenal they have is is very modest uh at best. Uh but they have uh the ability to uh retain indefinite control of the straight of Hormuz the Persian Gulf. The US Navy, the mightiest conventional naval force in the world was unable to dislodge them. There's not, you know, if President Trump were to give the orders today, uh the best he could do is set a bunch of ships that would get sunk, uh land airborne troops on Car Island, uh you know, take control of the island, but then they would be subjected to, uh, you know, Iranian artillery fire and and all kinds of um, you know, drone strikes. So, uh, uh, I think he he's finally realized and admitted with thisou that, uh, you know, there is no military solution. He forgets that uh obviously uh because he has temper temper tantrums. Uh but ultimately I think um you know the the realist uh view is going to become increasingly dominant with regards to IRA within the within the White House uh for the reasons that we've discussed.
>> So you don't think it's a ploy uh like a Minsk type of agreement in order to gain more time to to strike another day. Uh a lot of people also think that you know maybe this is going to be a break for half a year a year but then we will continue because overall you know this this type of the kinetic phase of the war basically started last year didn't during the 12-day war right and then it took a break and then it became full scale again and now it's being uh being put on hold again although the big problem the US now has is that of course this is now a two-way tango right the other side is also deciding whether or not they want to uh to seize with the violence. And I interpret what's happened over the last couple of days with the tit for tat exchange that Iran just said like no no no if you don't live up to theou including Lebanon then we're going to just start the kinetic phase again. Period. So you you take your your little uh Israeli dog back on its leash. Okay. And you you drag him out of of Lebanon. Do you think the United States is going to be forced to do that now?
>> Well, I think that uh I mean I think that President Trump is under heavy pressure from Iran to uh you know to obviously to ensure that Israel um aderes to the ceasefire. The problem is it's not enough. Uh Iran has clearly stated that they want to see not just a ceasefire. They're now demanding a full uh uh Israeli um IDF withdrawal, military withdrawal from uh from Lebanon, southern Lebanon. And and uh obviously the ceasefire does nothing of the sort. you know, it's basically uh agree it's an agreement where Lebanon effectively sees indefinite control of 20% of its territory to Israel. So, um yeah, I'm I'm I'm not sure exactly how that's going to play out. Uh but I think that uh you know, obviously Iran can use that to justify reclosing the strait um suspending nuclear uh negotiations, nuclear deal negotiations, but uh I'm not sure that they're they're going to do that. And I definitely don't think that they're going to initiate uh direct military strikes against the US or Israel because thisou is so good. It's so good from the Iranian perspective. It's it's an admission of victory uh on the Iranian side and defeat on the US side strategically. and uh you know it gives them all the funding they need to reverse every all the the entire maximum pressure campaign that President Trump has waged potentially all the sanctions that we've levied on Iran last nearly half century you know we're committing to uh for the US to directly purchase Iranian oil uh you know it's just it's just a stunning reversal of US foreign policy uh and an admission of defeat on the part of the white house so that's that's uh I don't think there's any reason or logical u explanation that would that one could could surmise that this is some kind of deceptive measure on the part of the US government to uh you know to buy time to rebuild our our you know missile arsenal or anything of that nature. I think President Trump has been uh he's reportedly been uh desperate to get out of the war since at least Marchuh 21st. Uh so this is you know he he's been trying to get uh uh Iran obviously to accept his Maxwell's peace terms and when he you know he finally realized that that was never going to happen uh around June 11th and that he signed the agreement officially on June 17th at the hall of vers uh hall of mirrors at the the palace of Versailles uh which I you know which is very ironic because of course that's where uh the treaty of Versailles was was signed where Germany surrendered uh on the on the basis of a 14-point peace plan presented by Woodrow Wilson and of course Iran's peace plan was also 14 points uh and it was you know an armistice initially as well um but um yeah this is going to be a rocky road um but but I uh I remain overall hopeful I I certainly have lost my respect to President Trump because you know he just is so inconsistent you know initially he was he was very consistently pro peace uh anti-war for and uh you know courageously America first and he he's just shown with this war that he's uh really uh under uh you know massive influence and control uh by Netanyahu but not completely because obviously if he was completely under Netanyahu's control uh this deal would never have been signed.
>> Yeah. The question to me is of course what Iran will make out of the the current development because you know Lebanon is of course um part and parcel of uh point number one of the 14 peace plan. Now if the United States starts arguing that it has no control over Israel and Israel and Lebanon came to a to a separate understanding then well point one is already broken right. So does Iran then does is that where Iran starts because next thing will be that maybe point number two point number three will be broken and maybe the 300 billion are not dispersed maybe it's going to be even less and maybe you know in the end the the question to Iran must be about verifiability right and they set theou actually up in a way that it's verifiable you can see whether or not the United States will follow what it promised and if it doesn't follow some points then well probably the the from the Iranian side the question then is Well, are we just going to go back to uh uh to to the kinetic face in order to to uh demand that theou is being followed or not? And your interpretation is that the rest of theou is still good enough for Iran to not do that, but but at some point the United States will need to live up to a couple of these points, right? Or did it already live up to a couple of them? Um, for example, the troops are troops and ships being withdrawn at the moment from the vicinity of Iran?
>> Well, Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, has stated that his sources are saying that uh the order for a US military withdrawal has has already been issued and that there there's some evidence of that. There's been a withdrawal of of some air assets and perhaps some naval assets as well um uh down from from the levels of of just two weeks ago. Uh but obviously uh you know we're going to maintain as as vice president JD B stated we're going to maintain a robust uh air and naval presence. We we uh basically sent half of our air force and half of our navy uh deployable navy naval assets to fight this war and uh you know that was insufficient to defeat the Iranians. Uh you know Iran uh the winner of our war is is the side that controls the area uh that remains in dispute and Iran is in total control of the Persian Gulf and the Syri. So they're the clear winners uh in this war. They've and they retain uh you know 70% of their missile force according to US intelligence uh 90% of their underground missile launch and production facilities and anti-hship coastal defense um uh missile sites. So uh you know they they really have a very uh you know robust military capability uh to threaten their neighbors and to compel them to essentially to establish a new Iranian sphere of influence uh that extends beyond the Gulf and and into some of the Gulf uh Gulf states particularly if the US uh you know decides to pull a lot of its forces back given that Iran has destroyed uh 13 to you know destroyed or rendered in inoperable 13 to 16 U military bases.
>> Do you think these military bases will eventually will eventually be withdrawn from the from the Gulf?
>> Yes. The price tag on some of those rebuilding I think uh our US fifth fleet headquarters in Bahrain is I think it's around $5 billion. I mean it's just just huge uh huge amounts of investment that we would need to to rebuild those. Obviously, uh, President Trump's defense budget is, uh, is 1.5 trillion. Uh, but that's very, very much up in the air. It's, uh, it doesn't have bipartisan support whatsoever. It's unlikely to pass in its current form. Uh, certainly, I think we'll see, uh, significant increase in military spending, but not near quite near that level. Uh, but there's also, you know, there's a price tag that we have to pay. So, it's not just uh, you know, funding new military capabilities. It's rebuilding what we've lost. And that's that's in terms of you know rebuilding uh the the half or so almost 50% of our uh conventional uh missile arsenal including offensive um missiles and also defensive missile defense interceptors uh in these bases. I think that some of them likely will be rebuilt, but I think essentially what I'm hearing is that the US plans to re locate most of our military assets out of range as far out of range of Iranian missiles as possible. So Bahrain is much too close to to Iran. That will never be a US military a functional US military base again. Uh I don't I don't see the prospects for any manned combat ships uh US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf at any point in the future because I think that Iran's control of the Persian Gulf will be indefinite. Currently we only have these 24 foot drone boats, you know, autonomous drone boats. I mean that you or I could probably purchase uh you know for uh 30 $30 $50,000. So uh that's a very you know it's it's a very telling um uh situation where you know the US Navy has suffered one of one of its biggest defeats in its history uh from a country that uh you know Trump claims that we sunk their navy, destroyed the air force, you know destroyed all their missiles, destroyed their nuclear capabilities. So essentially, if if President Trump were were correct, we could just go in the Persian Gulf and retake it over and reopen the straight uh without negotiations with Iran at all and uh you know, not worry about any of their military capabilities. But obviously Trump is has been very misleading in his in those kinds of statements.
>> No, I mean, it has become completely totally obvious by now that uh most of the things that he said about how the United States looks at Iran are completely mistaken, right? So uh we don't we can completely discard that. But on the other hand, what we cannot what we cannot discard is of course the future kind of uh strategy that there will be a future future strategy by the Trump administration and uh and the administrations beyond. There's no there's no reason to think that there won't be. um one of the men actually right now whose personal political fate is on the line because you know Donald Trump's kind of he's now over 80 and he this is his second term. I mean for all intents and purposes this is going to be the last two and a half years of his uh of his office right but the man who still has skin in the game is the person now negotiating um Vice President JD Vance and when the Iran war started I kind of wrote him off because I thought this is this is it. I mean the MAGA base is gone and the the America first thing is something that a very substantial part of that base doesn't believe anymore. I think including you became very disillusioned with uh with the way that that that Trump went about it. But Vance is of course directly connected to that. But Vance is also the most anti- neocon and anti- uh if there's an anti-ionist faction within the the current administration, it would be him. And um what what what do you think are his chances to somehow extend his political life beyond his configuration?
>> Honestly, I think they're excellent and they've only improved with uh Trump's decision to end the war on on uh unfavorable terms with Iran because, you know, he has really gone on I mean, he's done dozens of interviews over the past couple weeks uh defending this peace deal. Obviously, it's not it's not a great peace deal in terms of the the specific terms, but uh strategically it does make the most sense. uh really the US has no alternative. It's essentially the best alternative out of out of the bad alternatives we have to choose from. Um and uh you know he really was uh the voice of peace uh we know from uh the New York Times and other articles, investigative reports uh you know telling Trump this you know he had a bad feeling about this. He laid out all the risks risks all of which have come true from closing the straits to depleting our missile arsenals to uh you know Iranian missile strikes and our allies, destruction of US military bases which ironically was was the the rationale that uh you know Trump and Rubio started the war is that we had to prevent attacks on our on our uh military bases when in fact uh our our entry of the war is what guaranteed their destruction. So, uh, that was a really foolish decision that was, uh, very self-defeating on the part of the White House. Um, but, um, you know, I think what this, you know, what this war has shown is that you had voices like Sean Hannity and even Lindsey Graham, you know, hardened neocons, Zionists, uh, that really just went with the flow. You know, President Trump did a 180 degree flip-flop where he's like, we're going to destroy Iran. You know, we're going to fight this war indefinitely until Iran is obliterated. uh you know now he's saying Iran deserves you know nuclear enrichment and missile you capabilities and self-defense capabilities and uh it's okay if they control the straight as long as they don't charge a fee you know all these types of consu uh consiliatory statements and uh Sean Hannity and especially Lindsey Graham who said that you know this the very terms of this agreement that were released on May 23rd in in the press he said would be a disaster for Israel you know you know raises the question why did we start the war in the first place? And now he's basically kissing Trump's butt and saying, "Uh, yeah, this is the this is the old this is the best option."
>> Lindsy is Lindsey Graham. Did he now turn around? Actually, because the last time I heard from him was last week when he was still saying that, oh, if they if they don't open the straight and we're going to obliterate them and you know, I mean, with what weapons but but okay, fine. I mean, the the um he was he was still doing this bombastic kind of speech. So did he by now actually say like no Trump is doing the right thing?
>> He did. Yeah. He said he trusted he trusted Trump uh in the peace process and u he supported it. So uh he
>> what happened? How how how did anyone constrain Graham because that that guy's a loose cannon.
>> Well, I think uh Lindsey Graham has become, you know, really just kind of a a Trump cultist essentially. Uh you know, he's he just goes with the flow for whatever Trump Trump said. I think that there was behind the scenes talks that President Trump said, you know, look, this is what this is what's happening. I don't care if he criticized me. Um, I'm doing this and I, you know, he he wouldn't release the terms of the agreement to the Israelis. I'm sure the Israelis had, you know, covert sources that they were able to get get their hands on the terms. He wouldn't release it to the Senate. You know, obviously had many Senate neoon Republicans that were uh very opposed to it. Uh, he made sure he signed it. he announced it and signed it electronically on the exact same day. So uh and the terms of course were publicly released by the White House on Wednesday, which is the day just mere hours before he signed it um in Paris at the G7 summit. So um
>> and you know if you put if you put it this way, I mean it might actually have been important that he was outside of Washington that you know he that the others wouldn't interfere, right? that he actually had the leeway of saying like, "Okay, give it to my desk now while I while I'm out of of of of that circus and and Graham cannot jump into my office before I do it." Do do you think something like that is possible, think about or just coincidence because he was at the G7?
>> Yeah, I know. I mean, I I think that he um he's known for some time. Uh he's had expressed fear since at least April that this uh could could be disastrous. Obviously, um the longer the war is continued, the worse the economic ramifications will be in terms of uh causing another recession. The uh the more seats the Republicans will lose in in the House and Senate. So, you know, just really was a losing proposition. Um there was just no prospects for victory. And this is something I stated article on the real war substack two weeks before the war broke out. I said there's just no there's no military solution uh or way that we can achieve any of Trump's uh stated war objectives. And I think that was proven true. He had like six different war objectives. Not one of them were achieved. The closest they came is you know sinking uh 11 all 11 of uh the Iranian Navy's uh surface combatants. Most of their submarines are still intact. Obviously, they have thousands of uh you know, fast missile boats with anti-hship missiles that have ranges of 35 to 40 kilometers that can blow holes in in takers and even US warships. So, um I just think that uh you know it came to a point where he knew that this this could be disastrous for his presidency and and he'd been trying to end it for three months and like you said maybe he got away from from the White House and felt uh more secure and essentially you know telling his allies that this is happening you need to support it. here are the talking points and you know vice president Vance obviously has led the way in that as well with Sunday talk shows uh over the last uh interviews over the last couple weeks and that's the thing about MAGA is MAGA is not MAGA is not uh ideological it's whatever Trump says it is and he's Trump state stated this so uh you know there there is some some America first uh ideologues in MAGA I was one of them uh obviously I'm not coming back to that uh But there's also, you know, some neocons. But they're they're all united by their support of whatever Trump says that's the best thing to do. So, uh, all all we need to turn around that ship is for Trump to chart a more realistic course. And he did that with theou and he also did that, you know, even though he started he started these these escalatory attacks on Friday, he ended them uh 48 hours later. So he both started the escalation and he ended it uh because uh Iran was the last country to uh to attack uh US allies uh um I think it was Bahrain and and uh Qatar uh and uh you know he he's like okay that's okay we'll let them have the last word that you know this isn't going anywhere it's just going to be daily daily missile strikes totat so uh he was wise enough to put an end to them with a a halt to the strikes Yeah.
So, does that then indicate that you know because it started by these tankers trying to go through the straight without actually paying the fee, right? Both of them tried to go through the basically the Albani part of the straight and the Iranians stopped that with their with their weapons and then in reply to that the US struck these uh these facilities and then the Iranians escalated back against the Bahrain and uh uh um Sorry was it UAE Qatar Qatari Qatar uh against the US facilities there right so did they by now is the conclusion that we have as of today okay no uh Iran is in control of the strait if they say you don't pass then you don't pass and the Trump now basically said okay fine fine it's it's been backing off is is that the conclusion
>> well Trump yeah so uh the word from a US official in the article I read just before this interview is that the the attacks will will halt be halted for now. So, uh, they're clearly implying that, uh, you know, the White House maintains leverage in terms of the flexibility to restart the attacks based on Iranian behavior. And you're you're correct that Trump is trying to circum you know, he's trying to circumvent uh, Iranian control of the strait by establishing an alternate channel along the Amani coastline. And, uh, you know, this Singaporean tanker, the Ever Lovely, um, you know, they they were hit by a drone, but they successfully transited through the straight. So essentially what Iran was doing was not trying to to really cause any serious damage against against uh the you know the ship but simply to uh to to serve as a warning shot because all they need to do really is is have these warning shots. The last time two US Navy destroyers tried to enter the Gulf uh uh last month, uh all they had to do was bracket it with uh you know, drones and missiles on each side of the ship uh to indicate that you know we you know we could destroy you, we could hit you if you want. This is you know this is strategic signaling that if you continue through the straight uh we will you know we will strike you. And so
>> yeah,
>> that message alone is enough to uh Iran believes to, you know, to compel the ships to to uh try to avoid getting struck and going through uh the channel that they've designated.
>> Yeah. And something that I yet need to learn is whether or not these ships actually had insurance or whether the insurance or some guarantee for insurance was provided actually by the US government, you know, which would m make it just exorbitantly uh expensive if that if that state of affairs was to continue. These are all the things that we don't know yet yet about. And of course, the strait needs to be open for massive numbers of ships to pass on a daily basis. one or two a week just won't do right. So the the Iranians by by threatening one ship they of course threaten hundreds of ships and if the if the insurance doesn't come back if the United States would need to step in that would be a completely uh completely disastrous course of action. So all of these things we don't know yet. Uh but your just to conclude this part of the of our uh discussion, your assessment is no no the United States is pretty serious about this because it is also pretty desperate.
>> Absolutely desperate. Yeah. Trump obviously he paints every everything he says as a victory. You know he he claimed that theou which was I've I've assessed as a conditional conditional US surrender to Iran in fact was an Iranian unconditional surrender to the US. you know, so he he always spins it as a victory. Everything that happens, you know, he spins uh the US as superior uh to Iran, which essentially has proven to be uh a nearpure competitor or uh you know, a regional uh great power and but uh yeah, in fact uh he's I think he's he's committed to trying to uh to wind things down. Then let's shift gears a little bit now and talk about Russia because what another thing that's escalating at the moment is the drone war. And something that worries me deeply deeply is that right now we're seeing in Western media including the foreign affairs magazine um but also in in other corners we're seeing a narrative emerge in which the the western side is actually saying that they're winning and Ukraine is winning and the Putin is on his last leg. the foreign affairs literally uh published an an an issue with Putin drowning is and beware of the drowning man you know he's drowning and he's losing but he might lash out and whatnot and this to me looks very much like preparation for uh an escalation of the war actually that that can be very much provoked and all of these drone attacks into Moscow and whatnot are huge provocations that that elicit kind of a counter strike against NATO terrorist territory. How do you see what's currently happening in the Russia theater?
>> Well, I think certainly we have seen some success in terms of Ukrainian drone attacks on Moscow and on uh you know Russia's energy infrastructure, their oil uh reportedly reducing their oil output by up to 10%. So those are certainly uh victories on on the Ukrainian side. However, in terms of the actual battles battlefield, uh Ukraine, uh my assessment is that Russia likely has about four times more troops than Ukraine. Ukraine's lost a million dead soldiers, over a million uh another another million or so uh seriously wounded, unable to return to uh to combat service. Um and their army is is likely down around 150,000 to 200,000 at most. while Russia has uh by last report according to the Ukrainian uh general staff they have about 713,000 troops inside Ukraine. So the bottom line is um yes uh there have been uh you know Russian threats of conventional missile strikes and even nuclear strikes on uh EU countries for continuing to to provide Ukraine with uh obviously battlefield support in terms of offensive intelligence and drones and missiles. But ultimately uh Russia doesn't need to there would be no utility whatsoever for Russia to to engage in any direct kinetic strikes against the EU because uh the solution has always been for Russia to uh to stage a massive northern offensive to uh either take uh all you know all of northern Ukraine on the uh left bank of the Denipro River or else reinvade K itself. And it's interesting that Solinsky has made these threats against Barus uh which is been really foolish I think because obviously if Ukraine were to uh to engage in crossber attacks against Barus uh Russia you know Putin would be forced to send a couple hundred thousand Russian troops maybe even 300,000 to reinvade Kev and then the uh the war would be over within uh 30 to 60 days uh because that's always been the been the way to get Ukraine to capitulate. There's really two options. One of course is detonate uh you know a small scale nuclear weapon over Kee that doesn't kill any anyone but uh you know wounds several thousand but puts the fear of God in uh Voldemir Zalinski uh the dictator without elections in Ukraine. But the uh the more conventional way has always been a northern offensive uh could either invade through Sunumi or Chernhei Oblast or or Koblast itself which would force the uh the Ukraine Ukrainian army to evacuate all its positions in the Donbos region in southeastern Ukraine.
>> So overall, you are not too worried that the an escalation of the of the war might be might be imminent as you still think that the battlefield advantages with the Russians.
>> Uh no, I think an escalation of the of the war is is highly likely. I just think the escalation won't come through direct Russian kinetic strikes on on uh the EU. I think they'll they'll come on Ukraine. Uh there there have been several indications that Putin is is under uh much more serious uh domestic political pressure to uh you know to end the war with a victory a clear victory by the end of the year. So my assessment is that we're likely to see a massive Russian northern offensive. Um probably not to Keefe. I think it it would probably be Sunni and Cheriv once again would essentially force uh most um Ukrainian troops uh to flee across the other side of the river. I I don't think the Russians will go through Odessa. I know a lot of a lot of other analysts like uh Colonel Lex McGregor have been saying that the Russians want Odessa. I don't think they want that. I don't even think they want Keev. My Russian sources have been saying that the reason that Putin has not made another move on Keev like he was able to do at the beginning of the war that almost forced Sinsky to sign the Istanbul agreement until Putin uh inexplicably decided to withdraw all Russian military forces from uh the northern 30% of Russian occupied territory is that he fears that NATO would intervene directly militarily if he were to do so. if uh you know essentially if Russian troops were uh yeah were uh about to take control of the capital and were uh invading on uh that close to uh to NATO countries and so uh I think that I think that Putin is still reluctant to do that. I don't I don't understand why he's fearful to do that because I don't I think the chances of uh any direct NATO intervention are extremely minimal. President Trump has made clear that if Britain and France send troops into western or central Ukraine, they'll do so without article 5 protections. Uh meaning that the Russians could target and destroy uh kill tens of thousands of uh uh British and French troops and the US would stand by and do nothing except for send them more weapons.
>> But so what is the position of the United States at the moment? Last year, August, Anchorage and the the Russians for the longest time actually talked about the uh spirit of Anchorage. Foreign Minister Lavoughov only recently said that spirit is now uh conclusively dead and gone. But what is the US approach? It seemed as if though there had been an understanding in Anchorage and the Russians were waiting for that to be realized and again it didn't it didn't materialize obviously for for them. Um, what is what is Mr. Trump doing? I mean, he started his whole campaign was about ending the Ukraine war, and of course, it's far from being from from being ended. We're waiting for the next phase of escalation. What what's your assessment there?
>> Well, as I've always stated, I think that the solution has is is has always been to send JD Vance to uh you know, to meet with the Russians and hammer out a a bilateral peace deal, essentially a separate piece that would not involve Ukraine or EU countries between the US and Russia on on mutually acceptable terms, minimally accept acceptable, the Kremlin. Uh and that could be done in 24 to 48 hours. uh President Trump would just need to give the word and then once that agreement was signed uh he would he could has the ability to essentially force Silinski to to implement it uh by cutting off all US military assistance including uh offensive uh maybe even defensive intelligence assistance uh and most importantly Starlink access.
>> so but the fact that that's not happening the fact that for one and a half years that hasn't been happening because that is something that he could do indeed I mean this is what we thought Anchorage would be about, but it turned out not to. That doesn't that tell us that for all the possibilities that a president has to do things with the strike of a pen, apparently the the apparatus in the White House and the the wider political uh world of Washington doesn't allow that to happen.
>> Yeah. And we've seen that. You're absolutely right. So, basically, Marco Rubio said the spirit of Anchorage is dead. uh that the US has reversed its position and no longer supports the return of uh uh the uh 20% of of Western Donetsk that's still under Ukrainian control back to back to Russia as part of a deal. So he he stated that, you know, we're no longer a we're not a neutral mediator. We're not pretending to be neutral mediator. Obviously, the US was never a neutral mediator. we've always been uh fighting on the Ukrainian side and pretty much going all out and doing so uh with Russia or uh Trump actually h has uh you know signed an agreement with Ukraine to supply them with I think 3,800 um you know long range uh air air launched uh cruise missiles that could could strike uh deep inside Russia uh fired by F-16 Ukrainian F-16s that are piloted by uh you know former US US Air Force combat pilots. So that's still I I I haven't seen that there have been any deliveries on that but there clearly has been a shift uh back to the neocon side with regards to uh you know US support for Ukraine. Now granted that the amount of of US military assistance going to Ukraine has overall decreased uh by about 80%. you know, we currently only give them about 12 billion a year. Biden's last year in 2024 we gave them 61 billion. So um you know and and it's all it's all through third party you know we don't give any you know theoretically we are not giving any direct military aid to Ukraine. It's it's all being funneled through NATO countries. Of course that that doesn't make a difference. You know that's just window dressing Trump trying to say that uh we're not uh you know giving them massive amounts of money and arms anymore. But ultimately uh you know the outcome of the war is baked in. It's uh you know Russia's Russia could have won the war if they if Putin had had uh not ordered the the withdrawal of uh all Russian forces from northern Ukraine from March 20 uh 26 uh 2022 to April 4th. the war would have ended April 9th with the signing of the Istanbul agreement because Zilinsky would have no choice with uh Russian you know Russian armored columns uh 2 miles from uh the city of Kee and surrounding Ke from three different sides on both sides of the deeper river.
>> Yeah. Although you know the winning the war in my view for Russia always meant to come to a political agreement with Ukraine and with the west in order to create some form of security structure. I mean the the war is not over unless it is over for good. Um so the the whole the whole um Istanbul affair was about forcing an agreement that would then both sides would then be forced to live up to and for Ukraine it would have been a a verifiable form of neutrality right that that they don't join NATO period but we are very far away from that and it seems to me that the longer this is this goes on we are now in the fifth year the closer we get to the to what Hillary Clinton pitched at the very beginning in in February 2022 which is let let's make this into another Afghanistan for the Russians, right? Let's prolong the war as long as possible. And as Jaz Freeman, the sentence that he coined, fight to the last Ukrainian and just make sure that Russia constantly has to bleed. And as we are seeing now, the Russians are bleeding while the Europeans are trying to rearm. How successful that is going to be is another question. But the Europeans have time to rearm while the Russians are bleeding. So if you look at this from the perspective of there maybe being a bigger war by 2030 or 35 or whatnot, it's uh it doesn't look very good for Russia. And I I suppose that that parts of the Russian establishment actually do understand that.
This might be on the cards, right? That that once Ukraine is completely exhausted, well, they're just going to enlarge the war to the entire continent. Are you how do you see that that fear?
Well, I think the very fact that Putin has refused to take Kyiv when he easily could have done so anytime in the last two years indicates to me that he has no intention whatsoever of, uh, you know, of fighting a direct war with with NATO. I think he's, he's, uh, understandably concerned about that. I think Russia would win win such a war, but it it could do so at great cost and and so Putin is very rational and restrained. Uh, you know, he's really turned out to be one of the more moderate politicians and leaders in in Russia. There's so many more hardliners like Dimitri, uh, you know, Medvedev that that, you know, probably would have used nuclear weapons certainly on Ukraine by now and the war would have been over on, uh, Russian, you know, in terms of an unconditional Ukrainian surrender to the Russian Federation.
So, um, I think that, uh, I really do think that, uh, you know, I don't want to say the EU is safe from Russian Russian strikes, but I think that the strikes would most likely be, you know, counter-space, uh, Russia taking out Western satellites, uh, massive cyber attacks, probably not massive at first, but but major Russian cyber attacks. We haven't seen that. That would that was something I was thinking that would likely happen against Ukraine, um, initially to to take, you know, ensure that Russia defeated them within a few weeks because that's what US intelligence was predicting at the time.
Uh, so, um, you know, clearly, uh, Putin has been forcing, uh, the Russian military to fight with a one hand tied behind its back and that's why this war has taken so long to fight, uh, because he has been, uh, very reticent to, uh, you know, to win the war too decisively, fearing NATO military, uh, intervention potentially. Um, but on the other hand, Russia has been very successful over time in bleeding the Ukrainian army dry. So their their demographics and their manpower is is almost virtually exhausted, uh, because Russia, according to the estimates that I've seen, it has, uh, incurred, uh, you know, 4.5 times less military casualties than they inflicted on the Ukrainians.
So, you know, in the West, we hear the exact opposite. It's, you know, Ukraine is, you know, despite the fact that they're outnumbered, you know, five to one or four to one, uh, you know, ten to one in artillery, twelve to one in fighters. I mean, just across the board, um, you know, we're we're told that Ukraine has has killed far more Russians than Ukrainians. And the truth is the exact opposite. The administration knows that they they don't have a clear picture of Russian casualties, but they certainly know that Ukraine has lost a million dead and a million seriously wounded and that defeat is inevitable.
And, you know, President Trump had a private meeting that was, uh, was leaked, uh, uh, to the press, uh, that he had with Zelensky and he was very profane and he he threw, uh, the map of the Donbas on the floor and told Zelensky that he needed to accept Russia's very reasonable peace terms, uh, or else Ukraine would be destroyed. You know, he'd be ousted, uh, right down the line. And then he walked out of that meeting, uh, repeating Zelensky's talking points that, uh, you know, we shouldn't we shouldn't give up the Donbas region. You know, that's only 1% of Ukraine's territory.
So President Trump, you know, he he shows that he's, um, he's got some some level of political courage. You know, in private meetings. Obviously, he's cussed out, um, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu, but then he's, you know, when he comes out of the meeting, he he really has, uh, not, you know, demonstrates very little political courage. And that's really the problem is that the neocons, uh, you know, he's appointed like six neocons that are just hardcore Zionists, hardcore warmongers, uh, that want to perpetuate the Ukraine war, that want to keep fighting the Iran war. And so he's kind of boxed himself in because all the advice, you know, all the advice he's getting outside of JD Vance, with Tulsi Gabbard gone, it's essentially this JD Vance at the cabinet level that's telling him he needs to pursue a more restrained policy that's, you know, makes us safer and more secure instead of fighting all these endless unnecessary wars in in Ukraine and Iran.
Yeah. For for us, for as encouraging some of these developments are, especially when it comes to the talk about peace, and that talk is like completely different from then the realities that have been materializing, unfortunately, but overall, the the neocons are anything but gone from the administration. They're deeply entrenched and as people on the Dan usually say, they have no reverse reverse gear, unfortunately, and we're not, we we shouldn't expect that to happen anytime soon. Um, so the realities of the battlefield and of the capabilities will probably decide what's going to happen.
David, um, people want to follow your work, where should they go? Uh, yeah, the real war Substack is is, uh, where I where I post my more substantive deep dive articles and that's at dpne.substack.com. Once again, dpne.substack.com. Then I also post daily, uh, multiple times daily at, uh, Lonx America.
I will put links in the description box below. David Pine, thank you so much for your time today.
Thanks, Pascal. Always a pleasure.