Ukrainian Consequences: The New American War Model

[@jeromebarry1741]

Peter, one thing the large countries have learned in 2022 is that modern industrial war consumes resources incredibly quickly. For a nation to contemplate participating in war, it must prepare both in purchasing broad spectrum military resources but in manufacturing military equipment and in training citizens to operate within a suddenly mobilized war economy. This will be extraordinarily costly and difficult.

[@E4439Qv5]

Good lesson. War is costly.

[@thomasherrin6798]

Has Russia learned, not yet, but it will!?!

[@SuperBlooper057]

To be fair, that lesson was also learned in 1914.

[@markpukey8]

Does it cost more than $700,000,000,000 per year? If not, the US Dept. of Defense just needs to shift some priorities and stockpile the most appropriate weapons for 'sharing'. The money is already there! I honestly believe that the US can afford to support sides in every war that happens everywhere in the world for the next 20 years without raising our defense budget. Shrink the number of uniformed troops, close some bases, put a pack of peculating criminals in jail to reduce the waste and fraud... and boom, plenty of money.

[@sergeant64]

2014 USA (CIA) launched a coupe to remove the pro-Russian president. The problem is that if free and fair election is hold in Ukraine a pro-Russian president will sooner or later be elected. USA needs to have a central American policy in place (used in the 1950- and onward).

[@mann8098]

1)He meant to say Russia has nukes. 2) Only guy to talk light heartedly and optimistically about war. But it works. 3) This is the only time I see him get emotional ( for like 3 seconds talking about people accusing the U.S. of baiting Putin into war). 4) With Peter, you feel that you are getting inside / classified information. 5) He also does a good job (through his own loyalty) to make you question whether you fell for Russian propaganda and he helps you decide to root for a U.S. win.

[@mann8098]

@Anna Marciszak you make a good point. The blood being spilled is Ukrainian.

[@NeutroniummAlchemist]

@@mrmines2000 Because Russia is imperialistic. That means their foreign policy is that everything should be theirs. They will not stop until they are stopped. For whatever reason, we've decided to draw the line here and now.

[@NeutroniummAlchemist]

@@mrmines2000 Russia is incredibly fascist, to the point that they are recycling Nazi war propaganda from WWII almost word for word. They've even reused some posters of theirs with the words changed to Russian. Also, try going to Russia and saying anything bad about the government. Fascism isn't just an economic system.

[@mann8098]

@@mrmines2000 regarding China, Peter says that (to destroy it), the U.S. simply has to walk away. Not my words. So he would disagree with you. I frankly don't know because economics, history, war and geopolitics is not my area of expertise.

[@HBon111]

@@mrmines2000 I think in these off-the-cuff videos, Peter shows a few more of his biases. Disappointing, but understandable.

[@Tyrant_13]

Kurt Cobain on Ukrainian Consequences.

[@danmoritz3319]

Hopefully he doesn't hang out with a pile of drugs with a shotgun above his garage.

[@NathanWatsonzero]

That sounds like a great album

[@YiannissB.]

Rofl! Good one

[@jimbodimbo981]

Kurt’s dad surely?

[@NobodyJones]

Lolz

[@6williamson]

I recall the prescient words from the Wall Street Journal right before Bush invaded Iraq: "Sometimes people would prefer their own bad government to your good government" (at least in your eyes).

[@teddybearroosevelt1847]

Say that to a million dead Iraqis.

[@jayeisenhardt1337]

@@teddybearroosevelt1847 Which ones? The ones killed by a guy we backed? Or the ones killed as we had to have a talk with our boy? "prefer their own bad government" 100% I think most people would. Fix it yourself or be ruled by some foreigner? If one of your own is ruling you it's almost no difference to some, except people come out the woodwork to remove an invader.

[@Egilhelmson]

@@teddybearroosevelt1847 I think that the million Iraqis have already said that to us, much like the Cheyenne during the Morning Star (aka Dull Knife) Revolt, as was portrayed in John Ford’s last film, Cheyenne Autumn.

[@kelfeind]

Peter, love your books and these quick takes. Please think and explain why the Chechens aren't using this as a golden opportunity to break away from Moscow, and what could change their minds

[@nickratti5796]

Wondering the same thing and the only thing i can think of is bribery of Chechen powerbrokers. What are your thoughts?

[@IAmTheOnlyLucas]

This could be a real possibility if someone besides Kadyrov was in charge in Chechnya. He seems incredibly loyal to Putin. Perhaps they’d follow Azerbaijan’s example: make a move when Ukraine is overrunning Russian positions and Russia is too busy elsewhere to deal effectively with a situation in their southern reaches.

[@bullfrog5037]

Why would they do it now when this war is already a lost cause and Putin is about to lose what little credibility he has remaining? Nonetheless, the Chechens may soon take all of Russia. As faster than Russia's demography is collapsing, the Chechens are breeding like rabbits. As they fully intend to make Russia an Islamic totalitarian hellhole in the not too distant future.

[@stephendenagy3396]

Not yet, but VERY CLOSE!

[@death153278]

Kadyrov has already killed all his competition after the chechen wars ended. Special Battalions Vostok and Zapad have long been disbanded and the guys have either been killed off or already fighting on Ukraine's side. It can't just be a confrontation between grass-roots rag-tag rebels and Kadyrov's 10,000 or so soldiers. The only option is Kadyrov deciding to cut losses, but that'll only happen if he notices that the whole house is collapsing.

[@advisorynotice]

Ukrainians also managed to improvise and heavily use ingenuity to their benefit, sinking the Moskva, Ukrainian Special forces and Security Units operating inside of Russia and mostly in Kherson during the begining, people tend to forget that NATO gave up on Ukraine in the first week already until the defense of Kyiv happened and the Battle of Kharkhiv occurred (where mind you one of the most elite Russian units and 1 of the the two only Arctic Brigades was turned to rubble) the TDF especially operated very well, and we saw how ferocious the fighting was, but most importantly, the very rapid adaptation of the UAF to counter Russia, then the weapons started being leased and Poland ofc came in first since it's the closest, when the Battle of Mikholaiv was won, then the influx began and we saw the entire support chain strengthening slowly lowering the fear of provoking Russians.

[@SADBOY-kt2ik]

good analysys👌

[@DaveWhiteInYoFace]

Peter, you are doing such an incredible job keeping the world informed. Bravo sir! Hair looks great too.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

please. his predictions are already collapsing didn't even take a year. time to write an apologetica!

[@insenhellden]

Yes lies and propagabda your pepole were making problems on ukrane since victoria nuland whent there 9 year ago

[@Kenneth_James]

best hair in the biz right there

[@QuizmasterLaw]

@@secretname4190 in fact path dependency constrains international relations to predictable patterns. I did predict in a book in 2019 not to worry about a Russian invasion of Ukraine -- because Russia SUCKS at unilateral offensive wars. I was right, and an examination of history reveals that to be the case and a study of geography climate language religion and family structures in Eastern Europe shows why.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

@Marc van den Boogaard Russia failed at an aggressive war. Like I said back then: nothing to Worry about. Just a bunch of incompetent warriors to kill off, in service of a thoroughly corrupt regime who by that very reason is doomed.

[@johnbrewer1430]

The M777 and M142 HIMARS are pretty new, I remember them coming online before I retired in 2009. To be fair I was aware of HIMARS and had seen it in action, but I think it officially came online in 2010. I've also seen the MLRS, which is older but has some new capabilities. THAAD can be shot out of it. I saw it in action out in White Sands. Pretty cool. ( THAAD is NOT being deployed in Ukraine as far as I know.)

[@liberalhere3731]

The first russian IRBM launched into Ukraine will necessitate THAAD defense for Ukraine. We better be training Ukrainian troops on their use and maintenance requirements right now as putin has threatened/promised to use Iranian IRBMs. Iran and the American insurrectionist party just can't stop being a threat to world peace.

[@theprotagonist8755]

@@liberalhere3731 I'm really scared of insurrectionist that wear Crocs and carry an American flag. Haha

[@simonhibbs887]

@@liberalhere3731 The Russians have already been using Iskander extensively, it's a 'short range' ballistic missile, but that's just because the ranges are so low in ballistic missile terms that medium range isn't necessary. They probably have been using some medium range conventionally armed missiles, but they have (had) a lot more Iskanders.

[@liberalhere3731]

@@simonhibbs887 Okay, but I consider "'short range ballistic " more in terms of the Pershings A ballistic trajectory would put the Javelin into that class.

[@Craig-xw9jq]

We Aussies benefit in a sense from this position - AUKUS is very much along these lines at a strategic level

[@dagwould]

Australia would be dead easy for China to eliminate: half a dozen nuclear strikes, and no trade. No trade first: no medicines, no food, almost no clothing, equipment (no Bunnings), no more solar frolics...then a few bombs: all coastal cities via bombs in ships, a few ballistic strikes against our tiny military.

[@WhhhhhhjuuuuuH]

AUKUS is very different it's tech transfer as in no hidden kills switches and actually teaching how the tech works so it's domestically produced in Australia by Australians.

[@wisenber]

@@WhhhhhhjuuuuuH "as in no hidden kills switches" They're not hidden in Ukraine either, but they're very much present just as they are in Australia.

[@wisenber]

@@dagwould "Australia would be dead easy for China to eliminate" Which is why they have allies.

[@AlfaGiuliaQV]

Except the "UK" part is mostly for show.

[@thevoxdeus]

This conflict in Ukraine has been the preferred method since the dawn of the cold war, for the same reasons that it's so attractive in this case: lack of direct confrontation and therefore a reduced chance for nuclear escalation. The model only works though if you have a highly motivated force to support, and if you support them well enough that they have a real chance at winning. This works in Ukraine and it works in other conflicts where our ally is the defender and our strategic rival is the aggressor. There aren't too many cases like this and we shouldn't expect to see any more cases like this in the near future. Taiwan is the example many people will raise, but if China invades Taiwan the conflict is likely to be almost the exact opposite of the Ukraine war, fought almost entirely with ships, aircraft, and missiles instead of tanks, artillery, and drones. The nature of these weapons systems and the nature of naval warfare means we can't simply start providing weapons once a conflict breaks out. We either need to arm Taiwan heavily and pro-actively, or we need to be committed to putting our navy in harm's way in order to protect Taiwan from invasion. The Ukraine model won't work there. As for the near future of the US and its several military alliances, the lesson learned in Ukraine should be that modern warfare uses up a LOT of munitions, and in order to be prepared to fight and to support allies when they fight, we need to have much larger stockpiles of munitions or a more robust ability to build munitions as we go. If the US were forced to intervene to help South Korea fight off aggression from the North, there is some risk that we'd run out of 155mm artillery shells, for example. We've also got a severely depleted Strategic Oil Reserve right now, due to it being used up to manipulate an electoral outcome. American's role in the near future is to be the arsenal for the free world, but to be that, we need to have a lot more flexibility to ramp up production or to draw on deep, Soviet style reserves of equipment and munitions.

[@repo445-d4h]

The major roadblock to both of your end statements (either the deep reserve or the capacity to quickly replace spent assets) is the need to have a better manufacturing base at home that isn't dependent upon items/components from abroad. Which is going to be a hard sell because that will involve expanding the defense industrial base and restoring manufacturing jobs that were shipped overseas or have been trimmed down. Many of our current factories producing munitions and warfighting goods have been trimmed down to the bare minimum needed, and even then the definition of 'bare minimum' has been adjusted to be lower than it should be. I say this is going to be a roadblock not because of any lack of demand but because Corporate America doesn't have the skilled manufacturing personnel, or the appetite for paying them a wage that they'd accept, anymore. We've lost our factories to the alter of lowering overhead costs by offshoring factories, and we have culturally attacked trade jobs/factory jobs with such fervor that it has created almost a class schism between those that work in white collar jobs vs those that work blue collar jobs. All of which is going to be a major roadblock to overcome, if this is the path towards future strategic warfighting goals. I don't see any easy solution for increasing production domestically that doesn't have immense costs in either; retraining a workforce to manufacture what is needed, or building up automated facilities that can do most of what needed skilled tradesmen to accomplish.

[@nickolasbrown5928]

Taiwan would be different, but the same playbook can be used with some adjustments. To start, Taiwan is much smaller than Ukraine, but invading over land is comparatively easy compared to an amphibious invasion. That level of "crunchiness" would likely allow Taiwan time to repel early strikes, and the US has sufficient power to ensure the deliveries of ammunition & weapons systems can arrive safely, for the most part. In case it is worth mentioning, most young Taiwanese don't even consider themselves Chinese like some older generations, and they're the ones who would be fighting.

[@crescent4996]

America can no longer afford to be the primary protector of the Order in Europe, not when China is such a threat in Asia. European contributions to Ukraine have trailed off in recent months and the US has contributed twice or more as much in total financial and military support, despite Europe as a whole has almost as large GDP as the US. But too many countries in NATO have freeloaded, not even met their 2% spending targets, and this was certainly one reason why Putin was so emboldened to risk this war in the first place. Reports are that Germany has already began to walk back its pledges of 'Zeitenwende' or to commit to massive new spending. The US cannot want to defend Europe more than Europeans do.

[@buddermonger2000]

Though I'd say the lesson of industrial war consuming a lot of resources was learned long ago, it seems to keep being forgotten somehow. However, your statement overall does seem fairly insightful and I do think it's important to highlight how incredibly important it is to have the capacity to ramp up and down the production of munitions given how quickly consumables are depleted in war.

[@buddermonger2000]

@@repo445-d4h The good thing is that the American industrial base is actively being increased and fairly rapidly as industry is currently flowing back to the USA (largely due to automation). However the expense of re-training the skilled workers seems to overall be a very low bar so long as it is able to be brought in. Also while the missiles are largely private entities, the munitions plants are all government owned meaning wage in this case is less of an issue

[@SoApost]

Only works as a model if 1) the country fighting has high resolve and a disciplined command. 2) the invading country fails to take the capital city’s airport in day 1 para-assault.

[@timothymiddleton6651]

You misspelled white.

[@YouAreSoMadRN]

@@timothymiddleton6651 what do you mean?

[@siriuslot4708]

The 1st point is the most important. The Ukrainians chose to rather die than be ruled by Russia. Unless you can nuke them out of existence, such resolve can't be defeated by regular military means. You'll be fighting a war for the rest of your life.

[@spring9603]

@o0chipster0o Assuming that the country itself is really in command ;)

[@Stupidityindex]

@@timothymiddleton6651 Peak oil discoveries on this planet was a known fact in 1956. Peak oil production was simple math at that time. Aviation technology does not fly without stuff made in the age of the dinosaurs.

[@theamericandanceinstitute8143]

Peter, we've been watching your videos with great interest for about a year now. I am very grateful for the knowledge you've shared, as I don't know where else I can find it in such short, efficiently communicated videos, so full of information. My wife and I are donating to your cause today. Thanks for working as hard as you do and for sharing what you share.

[@mercster]

Glad to hear the American Dance Institute is on top of this geopolitical issue. 👍

[@lesseirgpapers9245]

He is an idiot. The US as created enemies out of ever ally. US can not last against humanity getting tired of the evil empire.

[@thomasjrusso9280]

Although Ukraine is vastly better off with the offered US aid than without it, it's still heartbreaking to see so much death and destruction that could be avoided if Russia were simply pushed out of Ukraine with better (longer-range) weapons. But it's clear that US interests lie in bleeding out the Russian Army for as long as it takes. And maybe that is in the best interest of Ukraine too - it's painful now, but the Russians won't come back later...

[@peterflohr7827]

Interesting thought... although a bit cynical.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The Russian military is bled dry. That's why they're sending the mobiks. We're afraid of nukes and thus use our weapons as escalation - when Russia hits hard we give Ukraine more tools. That sends the message that we're reacting to Russia rather than escalating the conflict.

[@martinoamello3017]

That thought was already stated by Lloyd Austin..The goal is to significantly degrade the Russian army till it can no longer threaten neighbors.

[@HBon111]

You think American politicos give an ounce of a shit for Ukrainian citizens?

[@spencervance8484]

@@HBon111 no. But for decades russia was considered a rival. Best to make sure it can never rival us again

[@falcon127]

GREAT JOB PETER, KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK AND TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF.

[@Rnankn]

I actually think it is the motive, not the method that is novel. Since WW2, American militarism was deployed largely for strategic interest, and that largely failed at its own stated goals, while incurring considerable cost in lives, resources and reputation. Now, the right motive matters to conflicts, and it changed everything. In Ukraine, there is moral decency in helping others who cannot defend themselves. The method is flexible. Ukrainians needed weapons and training for self-defense. In Taiwan regular navy and air forces would be employed. In WW2, it was a full mobilization, but the motive was to help, which is why it worked. Undeniably, America using its strength and capabilities in the service of others reflects well globally, and domestically is the only priority that isn’t polarizing. When the motive was strategic, the benefits for America were direct, and indirect for the jurisdiction in question - yet criticism was strong. When the motive is animated by moral principles regardless of strategy or method, the other country benefits directly, and America only indirectly. It works because doing the right thing, and helping others is consistent with democratic values. Even if it fails, even if it is costly, everyone sleeps a little more soundly.

[@TeaParty1776]

Even w/our chaotic foreign non-policy, nobody will tangle w/the US military.

[@keydupcustoms5038]

Yes they would. It’s called Afghanistan where we lost. The same would go if China or Russia invaded us. We would fight back. Except these days we don’t have enough Trannies to sustain the blood flow.

[@keydupcustoms5038]

Let’s be real. America OR THE CIA have been de crutching nations for commodities for decades. Coca Cola for instance. Yet alone upon its own people.

[@Rob_F8F]

The model could not work in either Korea or Taiwan where conflict would likely involve the participation of US forces in addition to provide ally forces with kill chain support.

[@prst99]

Yeah, he intentionally forgot that we have a tripwire force in South Korea. As for taiwan, sending supplies would require US Navy involvement to escort shipping and air delivery.

[@uhliuv]

@@prst99 but both already have missiles so i think the satellite intel will most definitely help them a lot

[@maninredhelm]

@@prst99 Yep, Taiwan doesn't have a friendly neutral neighbor like Poland to allow supplies across a land border. If China blockades Taiwan, the US either has to get directly involved or nothing is getting in.

[@prst99]

@@uhliuv yes. For both Korea and Taiwan, the US involvement will be more than in Ukraine. That doesn’t mean the US will need to go full force, since native forces are present and willing to fight.

[@JohnnyAmerique]

Which is why we need to arm Taiwan to a level which dissuades Xinnie the Pooh from trying anything stupid.

[@garybarr1045]

Excellent observations and conclusions. Keep up your work, Peter. It is very valuable.

[@tbone-spartacus3357]

Valuable for what? He pontificates and spins stories without critical information to support his hypotheses. This isn't how the US is going to fight wars in the future. This ONE war is bankrupting our economy and stripping out our own military resources. When, not if, China invades Taiwan, we won't have the resources to stop them. He's right about one thing. China isn't Russia. Their military coming out party is going to be the Invasion of Taiwan. They've been preparing for 20 Years. Zeihan is a 🤡🤡🤡.

[@ka9dgx]

At 7:25 you say Ukraine has nukes... which is obviously a mis-statement, as Russia has the nukes that threaten Ukraine

[@Vzzdak]

Yes, fairly apparent that the statement was supposed to be, "Well, Russia has nukes, and if you put American special forces boots on-the-ground in Ukraine, then those nukes are likely to come into play."

[@EnteiIsDoge]

Probably just mixed up the two

[@sharpfocus5]

I took him to mean that nukes are part of the Ukrainian equation.

[@moritamikamikara3879]

Zeihan pulled a Biden lol.

[@BjornGevert]

Ukraine used to have Russian nukes, but Putin took them away a long time ago as part of some deal to not be invaded, something along those lines.

[@ksflyer7661]

Nice listening to a smart, realistic explanation of what's going on.

[@JustIn-mu3nl]

It's opinion, interesting regardless.

[@nvwlsnvwls2785]

I totally agree with you.

[@donkeideck1042]

The Iraq war lasted roughly 26 days, not much longer than Desert Storm, and certainly not long enough to cause national war fatigue. The real failure was the 20 years of "rebuilding" that followed. Bush and Cheney never said anything about rebuilding in the run up to war, then tried to act as if it was always understood that a weeks long conflict would require decades long clean up. -It didn't help matters to learn that there never were any WMD's in the first place.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

There were WMDs. Just not an active program to build them. Several US servicemen suffered lifelong injuries from contact with Iraqi nerve agents.

[@Gridlocked]

There were WMDs.

[@chillydawgg4354]

Pretty convenient for dick Cheney's halliburton though, how many trillions did they make off Iraq again?

[@rytjson4487]

Love listening to your take on everything

[@StereoSpace]

The (seemingly valid) criticism I've heard is that the Western Allies are providing Ukraine with the equipment they need to survive, but not the equipment they need to win.

[@c.m.bellman5721]

This is why I don't understand why Sweden hasn't given basically all we have to Ukraine at this point. We're gonna spend 2% gdp on defence now so might aswell empty our stores and fill them with 21st century weaponry. There's more to this....

[@kevincousino2276]

What equipment do they need to "win"?

[@instantsiv]

@@c.m.bellman5721Terrain and climate and pop density is dramatically different in the north. Russia hasn’t deployed much air assets in Ukraine because they’re saving that for the baltics. Sweden is saving that for themselves for that reason as well. Ukraine is a ground war… baltics will be more navy/air/special forces type engagement.

[@urbaraskpraetor3316]

Even surviving is good enough, because of the sanctions. In a year or three the russian economy will collapse, and their ability to actually fight the war dries up. Its possible that is even the us long term goal, break the russian economy so thoroughly that they won't recover for decades.

[@jacobc6556]

They can't win. They can't possibly conquer Russia and their demographics and infrastructure are irreparably fractured. The goal is just to use Ukrainians now to weaken Russia before their country collapses.

[@davidranscht2065]

Thank you Peter for what you do.

[@OCNewYorker]

Appreciate your work Peter … thank you!

[@fka8159]

Full of interesting, thought provoking bits. thanks for the video!

[@WApnj]

What.?? 07:21 please cite your source for that...

[@Lunaeus]

In regards to Ukraine vs Russia... Mike Tyson once said "it's hard to defeat an opponent who doesn't want to quit."

[@Pyriold]

Unfortunately that applies to both ukraine and russia at this point.

[@iamthemoss]

There is also another saying a vet once told me. It's hard to fight an opponent who's willing to cut off his own balls to get yours.

[@revan3841]

Also Tyson: Everybody's got a plan until they get hit in the face.

[@infidelheretic923]

“I didn’t hear no bell!”

[@timecone57]

If it is actually true, then It is criminal for usa to provide technical targeting and therefore fighting a undeclared proxy war. I’m american and don’t agree for this to happen. We need to stay out of this. We haven’t learned anything from Afghanistan and Iraq. Geez😢

[@sanyaolaleye8710]

works based on a fighting force well trained with existing capacity, and really motivated, this 3 factors needed

[@oveidasinclair982]

It's working out just like the end of Vietnam, it was 17 years before the US committed it's forces on a large scale. What is nice about Ukraine is that most of the military tech/hardware going to the Ukrainians is 30 old technology and it's still decades more advanced then what the Russians have.

[@boknow5506]

Well it's different because Ukraine will continue to upgrade basically be able to handle Russia without assistance and basically USA gets upgrades I know I know morally not great but needed so it's a win win and no I don't see USA forces except maybe NATO and NATO is lots even the British royal navy can handle Russia in Ukraine but worse case USA would totally take out Russia government and military and then leave basically more accurate

[@boknow5506]

Vietnam would go differently today and it's because we are more accurate and can handle things without a nuke basically all conventional and keep in mind that was 1.5 billion people and Russia is only 100 to 140 million and mass exodus and losses my guess it's close to a 100 million and live in two main places even tho massive land mass but today we are more efficient and effective than back then

[@g0679]

@@boknow5506 Got Run-On?

[@boknow5506]

@@g0679 run on meaning Russia soldiers have the runs or Putin she it stain sniff

[@boknow5506]

@@g0679 by the way USA control everything including phones and computers even in Russia and KZbin artificial intelligence program run right now basically it's built in and soon will be able to track all cars in another country Lada won't make it

[@PublicFreakout]

I like how the idea of a US proxy war using a distant country to weaken a geopolitical enemy is a revolutionary concept, here. The US does this all the time. And it’s hard to call Russia’s war of aggression the anathema of US morality when we just blew up Iraq in precisely the same way (the operative difference being that there was no NATO to help Iraq), and Libya after that (in the Libyan example, we used the “color revolution” model instead of a direct invasion).

[@nayphee]

It's like the move from on-prem IT equipment to using cloud services. It's a business model where you outsource the ownership and management of infrastructure to a third party on a subscription basis with active support. Only this is MaaS : Military as a Service.

[@bighands69]

Sort of but it really is just the US backing another country with equipment.

[@leitodamien3835]

PMC is the future

[@Herbaling]

Lmao, did not expect reference to IT industry here, but here we go

[@bh-zj4yt]

Thanks Peter. Happy Thanksgiving

[@jhwheuer]

Peter, your thoughts on the future of the Russian federation? Civil war, breakup? Along the lines of Yugoslavia….?

[@pyrioncelendil]

Third Chechen war as Kadyrov gets off the leash. Azeris present a persistent headache they can do nothing about. Kazakhs get positively mercenary in their future dealings in just facilitating Russian logistics through their territory. The elephant in the room is Russia lacking the military capacity to stop China from gobbling up Siberia, and they might actually just let it happen so that China is in a better position to prosecute a long naval conflict with the US. Russia's problem here is that their defeats are too fresh for them to advance past the reset point of the Lazerpig Loop: it'll be a while before everyone forgets how badly Russia botched it.

[@korayven9255]

@@secretname4190 He details it in his book. Russia as a nation-state probably breaks up as it will eventually lack the manpower to police its own borders. Either it expands or breaks up...and its current choice to expand isn't going so well.

[@nimmha6708]

@@korayven9255 In the second Putin see's "breaking up of Russia" in his calculations, we are ALL doomed. He literally said a world without the Russian Empire, wouldn't be worth to keep existing.

[@kastorasrider9180]

Winston Churchil once said that Britain will preveal in the WWII, because it will keep fighting even until the last drop of blood of their last indian soldier. That's is what the new go to strategy of the US abroad sounds like now.

[@schmetterling4477]

Neither Great Britain nor Ukraine chose to fight. There were forced to by a blood thirsty dictator. The US was supporting GB and is supporting Ukraine now. So, yes, the situation is somewhat similar.

[@winstonsmith8441]

We applied this same model in Vietnam with the "Vietnamization" of the war, and it was working until Congress cut off the funds. Politics will ALWAYS get in the way of tactical and strategic considerations.

[@jfb.8746]

I thought the same thing in my comment above. That model aint so new after all.

[@brucetucker4847]

But that was only after we'd been on the ground for five years and had tens of thousands of young men killed. That guaranteed that _any_ American involvement in the war, even just providing supplies, would continue to be contentious until it or the war ended. And there was never any strategy to bring the war to an end beyond hoping the enemy got tired of fighting before our allies did.

[@winstonsmith8441]

@@brucetucker4847 I think we were on the ground for 10 years.

[@brucetucker4847]

@@winstonsmith8441 Yes but the last half of that was after we had begun the process of Vietnamization.

[@doit9854]

One of the most eye opening about Ukraine's future success. Thank you!!

[@forgivemenot1]

Interesting, I would like if you could expand your thoughts on Syria now that Russia can’t really help them much anymore, such as how long you think the regime will last and what the fallout might be if it falls.

[@oportunis5252]

interesting that USA want to remove stable regime and put terrorists in charge. I guess nothing new they just repeat the same strategy as in Libya. See how great democracy is doing there now and this will be the future in Syria unelss they back off...

[@prometheusjackson8787]

There's not really any sign that the Syrian regime is facing any major challenges

[@ivancho5854]

From a geopolitical perspective is Syria important enough for anyone but direct neighbours to do anything about now that Russia isn't involved and can't be in the future? Probably not.

[@thomasherrin6798]

Turkey is the biggest player in Syria now, it does not have the money, but it has a big army, but perhaps it's waiting to see what happens in Ukraine first!?!

[@hydrolifetech7911]

Turkey has already started conducting airstrikes in Northern Syria and Iraq against rebels that it accuses of bombings in Turkey. It has also announced ground operations into both countries

[@jeremiah1059]

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours Peter.

[@roryinnes578]

One of the most important benefits to Western powers of the current conflict in Ukraine is the ability to cycle weapons that are reaching or exceeding their 20 year shelf life. The 20 year shelf life of advance munitions maybe conservative but it provides both an industrial and economic impetus to cycle the weapons through a third-party like Ukraine without the resultant body bags of a hot war or using ones own troops.

[@Bossnopoly]

Thank you for these. Really enjoy your work.

[@RickTheClipper]

One of the few times I absolutely agree with Mr. Zeihan! What I do not understand are the people in US that complain about the price tag. First and foremost, 80% of delivered weapons are close to the end of their shelflife, would have been thrown away in 2 to 5 years with high cost of dearming. The US shelves will receive the latest updates for all weapons. WIN WIN Producing the new stock generates new jobs in US, WIN WIN Lets face the facts, every Dollar spent now for Ukraine will save 1000Dollars in the future. Ukraine will reduce Russia to a military dwarf (except their nukes for sure). What price-tag does it have to be 100% sure from now on, that the second best army is NOT Russia? NATO gave 3-5 percent of its arms to Ukraien and the Ukrainians control the Russian army. Russia knows this, they will NEVER risk a confrontation with US or NATO on the battlefield. Can anybody image what a direct US-Russia conflict would cost in lives lost? If Russia does not lose this war, in some years they will attack Poland, the Baltics etc, even if the US leave NATO before, the economic impact of a devasted Europe will hit the US too. Last not least, we see the future of warfare, one $200k Javelin kills a tank at 10 times its price, a $100k Excalibur round does the same with an acceptable killrate. How many drones have the same value a soldiers life has? I'd prefere 100 lost drones be lost instead of one soldier

[@chriscarlin4907]

Saw 1 and this number 4....can I see number 2 and 3, please?

[@danieldpa8484]

Brillant as always Peter - and yes, nobody provoked Russia to attack Ukraine

[@668771]

He must have recorded this weeks ago, its NOT summer in Colorado. You would see his breath or full snow cover. Its almost December hahaha. When was this recorded?

[@davidcouper7445]

This model does also rely on being able to deliver arms to the war zone, that works in Ukraine which has a land border with friendly neighbours. Much more difficult to see it working with Taiwan which China could relatively easily blockade.

[@bighands69]

Taiwan is already armed to the teeth and any such delivery will be as a support to that.

[@MrCarlGW]

If China wants its navy to be at the bottom of the ocean, I suppose they could try a blockade.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Russia thought Odessa was easy to blockade. The Moskva got that Neptune double-tap.

[@tomkratman4415]

China? Blockade Taiwan? In the face of the US Navy? It is to laugh.

[@ivancho5854]

China could then be easily blockaded of oil from the Middle East by the US Navy. Or even the Indian Navy for that matter!

[@beckyconstantinides2546]

Thank you

[@jonathanbrooks6419]

The success of this strategy in Ukraine is dependent on the incredible determination and resilience of the Ukranian society and military. That's going to be a hard act to follow.

[@stevecrawford1826]

Peter, can you comment on the Military industrial complex and their input into the wars we have fought since WWII. Also on the Book War is a Racket

[@redrodlrowon]

The war on terror was not a failure Peter. It was a raging success for Americas for profit military industrial complex. Thank you for pointing that out.

[@bighands69]

There was no similar attack to 911 when the war on terror started.

[@AntonAntinov]

Best information ever!!!!!!!!! Thanks Mr Zeihan.

[@gokalpbayramli]

Hi Peter, can you make a video about Turkey and its current position and strategy ... that would be very interesting! Thanks for sharing your insights.

[@teddybearroosevelt1847]

He has a few longer videos in which he does talk about Turkey. He thinks it’s a country with a lot of potential for the future.

[@kensommers5096]

As always very insightful Peter, I enjoy taking the time to share in your views of world politics thank you.🤠👍🇦🇺

[@ianleary5780]

Nicely done!

[@Moridin101]

I seem to recall that farming out wars to mercenaries didn't work very well for Rome.

[@garyspence2128]

Ukraine forces aren't mostly mercs. They're mainly the actual citizen/soldiers of the country itself. The general population, who have a vested interest in defense of the homeland. Makes all the difference in the world. Now Russia has a lot of mercs, like the Wagner hooligans, and one can see the difference, both in discipline and in effectiveness. Rome has been done for a millennia. Any comparison with modern day forces must be taken with a large grain of salt!!

[@QuizmasterLaw]

yes, but you know what DID work out for rome? "Our Roman Republic *by defending its allies* has got possession of the world." -Cicero We're in it to win it.

[@Moridin101]

@@garyspence2128 Ancient history aside, I was trying to make a point about how funding and arming a foreign military force to fight a proxy war on our behalf might backfire. Then it occurred to me that this is kinda how we started with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan with the Soviets, which bit us in the ass rather spectacularly. Apples to oranges perhaps.

[@Moridin101]

@@QuizmasterLaw Cicero lead to Caesar and thus the fall of said Roman Republic. It's a great ideal to have, but the example doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

@@Moridin101 your feelings don't drive international relations. powerful countries have many allies. powerless countries have no allies.

[@chriswindleydigitalsalesexpert]

Interesting Peter thank you ....

[@StephenGillie]

We've caught our longtime Cold War foe in a one-sided proxy battle. Like I've been saying for a while, the USA's new model of warfare doesn't even require us to have our own troops on the ground. Something tells me that someone in the US State Dept got mad in 2014, and foresaw a way to entrap Russia when they inevitably attacked Ukraine again. No doubt that Russia needed no bait to invade - it was inevitable, and the USA basically stuck our leg out to trip the inevitability. Edit: Hearing "Flobots - Handlebars" playing in my head again.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

I knew full well in 2014 Russia would try to grab more then all of Ukraine, it was only a question of how long till he would make his move -- and how much training and goods we could put into Ukraine before then. It's still a tragedy but could be worse. He really IS Hitler 2.0 Hitler minus genocide = putin btw i also knew he had no chance, none, even if he had succeeded in occupying all ukraine because guerilla war would have resulted savage vicious and deadly. Putin has no off ramp, no exit is possible. This ends with Putin dead or in the docket for war crimes -- and he knows i.t

[@Barnettdan99]

Thank you Peter

[@chapagawa]

The Ukraine model for US warfare is probably not applicable to Taiwan and maybe South Korea. Supply lines and personnel training lines from the West to Ukraine depend on a protected land bridge from Poland. Taiwan will probably not have that option, if operating on its own, to keep dependable, secure supply lines open to Japan, and without that, they will be starved for weapons and nutrition to hold out against China for long enough to drain down China’s Air Force and Navy resources.

[@bighands69]

Korea has a massive military stockpile. There weapons systems are far more advance than what the North has. Taiwan on the other hand has a storm rough ocean between them and China and a dense missile defence system and 1.5 million fighting force to defend their island. The only thing the US would have to do is supply aid. China would not be stupid enough to target the US navy in open seas warfare they would get mauled.

[@chapagawa]

@@bighands69 That is what I am getting at; China can shut down the air space and seas around Taiwan, there is no option for reinforcing as we see now. The enemy I am looking at for South Korea is not the North, but an attack by a larger force as with Ukraine meaning China. I agree that is not as high a probability as China and Taiwan, but with the focus on semiconductors, if China went after Taiwan, they may push North Korea to head south and throw in some Red Army forces as well.

[@instantsiv]

China doesn’t have the naval capability to land sufficient number of troops onto Taiwan. North Korea has the largest artillery stockpile aimed at Seoul which is one of the largest and densest cities in the world. Both scenarios require significant amount of time. China will be stuck in the first island chain trying to blockade outside support. It’s going to be like shooting fish in a barrel.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@chapagawa To shut down airspace the PLAAF would have to conduct extensive SEAD/DEAD operations. There would be dozens, if not hundreds of airframes and pilots lost.

[@chapagawa]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Agreed, it would be a messy affair on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, but China did just that in August with military exercises around all of Taiwan.

[@robertskimatalk3344]

As usual, you're on the money Zeihan!

[@joeljohnson3002]

Related to military data speed, I'd love to hear Peter's thoughts on the failure of JEDI (Microsoft) and the rise of ABMS/JADC2 (private industry). It will soon be instantaneous, not hours or minutes.

[@richardphilpott1225]

Could you recommend a few sources on this topic. Thanks.

[@joeljohnson3002]

@@richardphilpott1225 kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5aTl4VtZ6l6aqM

[@joeljohnson3002]

@@richardphilpott1225 kzbin.info/www/bejne/gpDOeIBugpZ0hs0

[@richardphilpott1225]

@@joeljohnson3002 on it, thanks again man.

[@joeljohnson3002]

@@richardphilpott1225 kzbin.info/www/bejne/iJSqhZmMoqmXgZY

[@freygallery]

Peter, Thanks again for another great update. I watch them all. One silly suggestion from a portrait photographer. When framing the background, big trees off to the side as not to appear to grow out of your head. Distraction!

[@FreeFallingAir]

Thank you, I found your insight of the geopolitical landscape of Ukraine and our foreign policy enlightening and put in layman's terms for us dirty uneducated masses too!;). The next few months and years will be interesting to say the least. The future is bleak (For Russia) however you look at it. Depressing imo, Take care.

[@alankwellsmsmba]

And yet as I view the new Western Front movie on Netflix, the future is better than it ever has been.

[@KillerBandaid]

Disagree 100%, the next couple of decades will be an amazing period for the US. We go through these phases, it's necessary. We are still so young, to the point that citizen can still tell when their family migrated here. Hell, we're only 2 human life times removed from the Civil War. Don't let the media outlets foul you.

[@qdav5]

This model works in Ukraine because Ukrainians are highly motivated to defend their country and they have good leaders to organize their war effort. It would work in Taiwan for the same reasons. Syria has neither of those things, so it would not work there.

[@ferdomravec1520]

Isn't that a pity? Since the Ukrainians nation declared quite undeniably they are willing to embrace democracy and general western values, something that Afghanistan and Iraq didn't. US have a chance here with the usual intervention to recreate the success on the scale of west germany, south korea and japan. I understand the fatigue, but this time I would say it is worth it.

[@Wolf-Spirit_Alpha-Sigma]

I agree. The one time it's actually worth to intervene, they stand behind. We will see how will this escalate, because to defeat an invading country you usually have to conquer it...

[@tipskulhiso6763]

Why 18 yr? How do you know the number?

[@DanCapostagno]

This reminds me of what I was thinking when we were still in Afghanistan and Iraq. I had been reading a TON of Byzantine History and I couldn't help but draw a stark contrast between what they did and what we were doing at the time. The Byzantines were wealthier than Crassus and had an incredible military: the most trained men, the best equipment, arms, and technology. Yet they didn't throw this at every group of barbarians that came their way, if for no other reason than it takes a lot of electrum and TIME to fully train and equip such specialized troops. So what they'd do (after simply trying to buy their allegiance fails) is find the barbarians' local enemy and make them the same offer. Had we approached Afghanistan the same way, we'd have armed the local groups yearning to be free of the Taliban with ex-Soviet arms funnelled in through their ethnic cousins in the Stans, and maybe even logistical support from Iran, all of whom would have a more vested interest in securing their own backyard from a regime that had been a tool of the ISI to point a dagger at THEIR throats.

[@bighands69]

The Byzantine's where no where near as powerful as what the US is today relative to their world. They were a shadow of the Roman Empire but they still had tactics that would enable them to move chess pieces around the board when need be. Even the Venetians were capable of doing that because their rich trade economy enable them to buy armies. The main difference between them and the US is that the US has a monstrous standing army that could be made 10 times larger in a major war if need be. What caused the venetian fall was that their mercenary armies were not loyal to the homeland and could be bought by other interested parties.

[@DanCapostagno]

@@bighands69 I think the Vietnamese, the Taliban, and the Ukrainians have shown that being powerful on paper does not always translate into success in your objectives. Hell, even the IRGC can project power in their region more effectively.The Byzantines lasted from the Constantine I in 312 to Constantine XI in 1453, a period of roughly a millennium. Meanwhile we've only lasted a couple hundred years, nearly halfway through the lifespan of the Roman Republic...so let's not injure our hands from patting ourselves on the back too hard.

[@ivancho5854]

Perhaps it is useful for the US to fight some small wars not to "win" them, but rather to keep it's military and military industrial complex active. Think of it as exercise. Just a thought.

[@darbyheavey406]

The SOF-Air Power model was used to great effect in the early stages of the Afghan War but thePentagon reverted to the hearts and minds strategy that worked so well in Vietnam.

[@crawkn]

The element missing from this analysis is automation. As semi-autonomous robotic battle systems become the norm for leading-edge militaries, the necessity to find a willing and capable semi-autonomous army of humans who are compatible with U.S. needs and requirements ... usually problematic ... will wane. Regimes will change, but without direct U.S. involvement. It will be something like "you work out your local problems, and try not to get on our radar again." Strategy for nuclear powers will be harder.

[@michaelhenault1444]

When will the Death Star become fully operationalized?

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

Very interesting presentation that makes sense. Except for one caveat; the U.S. population is changing quickly. The U.S. military has turned a corner that I doubt it will ever be able to correct. The Woke disease has affected the military as the population has shifted its bias to non-white participation. In the past, the core of special forces and the military itself has been white males that come from more rural areas and share a sense of American military tradition. This population has shrunk significantly, while also reacting to their rejection in society. The effect on the military has been that the armed forces are having trouble recruiting. They cannot fill their ranks the way they once could. This is going to affect things a great deal in the future. But this might be another reason why your model will be the reality. But a return to the old style of U.S. involvement, boots on the ground, etc., is probably never going to return. We are Rome in 375 CE.

[@az-tl3mh]

Not true, the recruiting troubles are due to a new electronic medical records system implemented at MEPS, so many would be recruits can no longer hide disqualifying past and present medical conditions. This has shrunk the number of "qualified" significantly. The job market for entry-level jobs, with rising wages and more places offering $15 wages also is giving younger people an attractive alternative (unlike when I signed up when my state's minimum wage was $7.25)

[@monolith94]

@@az-tl3mh if you think the left wing politics isn’t turning people off then you’re drinking the kool aid

[@az-tl3mh]

@@monolith94 looool

[@az-tl3mh]

@@monolith94 you're not a veteran yourself, i take it?

[@manlyadventures]

The newest system we have sent is 25 year old….stinger 40 years, javelin 30ish, Himars 20-25 depends on rockets, canons 50-20 years depending on model,

[@vernearase3044]

Now _this_ was great and original content.

[@mtfine]

Brilliant as usual.

[@robertgarcia3486]

Is there a video on BRICS coming soon?

[@richlisola1]

I would love to see a new American Peace Model-As opposed to ravaging the world with war. Why do we need a war model for the next twenty years? This country was founded on avoiding foreign entanglements, not a voracious war policy for overseas. I’d love to see the army for once deployed for actual defense, preferably at the Southern Border-The United States doesn’t have a Defense Department, we have an imperial office. And one day we will truly bleed for targeting other countries rather than guarding our own land and shores.

[@doodystreams]

I enjoy your take on GEO-Political issues.

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

Soros wrote a paper in '93 that specifically predicted the US deploying Eastern Europeans effectively as cannon fodder in its future strategic goals

[@effthegop]

I just discovered Peter Zeihan and what impresses me most is that he seems to speak straight from his brain. He might have a few notes stashed behind the camera but his speech patterns and inflections show he is just straight up talking about things he knows and understands very well.

[@davidweihe6052]

Always distrust the Glibs. It doesn't mean that they are wrong or evil, just that it is too easy to trust what they say without verifying them. I worry that he is preaching a good future to North America and both he and I just coincidently live there, and it is thus too easy for either of us to fall into complacency.

[@effthegop]

@@davidweihe6052 Glibs?

[@davidweihe6052]

@@effthegop Glib people, rather than those like George HW Bush, as an extreme case. Beware the silver-tongued devil, in other words.

[@michaeltichonuk2176]

Excellent points, all.

[@relativityboy]

The audio is off balance. About 75% right channel. When listening in headphones it's not a great experience.

[@tcn9939]

To be honest. America realized Russia/Soviet was a treat long ago. Coming out of WW2 as the "only" industrialized country still renaming ment enormous boom to the economy. But the US was still a net importer of fossils/energy. The soviet's how ever were quickly exporting their way to overtake the US as nr1. (With Europe falling under their influence). Heavily relying on imports was the cause for much to come. Helping us in Norway get oil/gas in the late 60's was strategic. We could take away 20% of the share soviet had in Europe. In 1971 it became apparent that the US dollar needed to be the world's standard (On 15 August 1971, the United States terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold) because ever since the US could print as much money as they wanted to cover their enormous trade deficit and military budget. Many wars in the middle east later for control over oil (to not relive the shortages of the 70's and their impact on the economy), and money spent on making sure globalisation was a thing (By military naval force) brings us to another chapter. In the early 2000's the US could start getting gas (shale) in its own backyard (The US has the world's 4th largest gas fields), prognosis showed self sustainability in energy by 2018 (Became a nett exporter in 2017) This means no more reliance on Russia for its fuel/oil. That's when the proxy war began with securing Europe gas from Azerbaijan, the US was there to produce the gas, that pipe needed to go through Georgia to get to Turkey and Europe. So the US wanted them in NATO. That means Russia's only option was occupation in 2008. The pipe was built however. Next on the plan was Ukraine. A lot of gas was found inlands and around Crimea. Chevron/Shell/Exxon got 10 billion dollar deals for 50 years in 2013. Ukraine is estimated to have as much gas as Norway, and they have 1/3 of the storage capabilities of the entire EU (So Putin cant stop gas as pressure point), with pipes already there for exports. That means another 20% of Russia gas could be taken away. Makes one wonder why vice president Joe was in Ukraine 6 times and his son worked in gas there? Its a win/win for the US with wars from Russia on its neighbours. Russia took Crimea in 2014 after their pro russian puppet was gone. And then we wait. Until Ukraine wants to join the EU. And we now have a full blow war there. In the third quarter of 2022 the US had 17% of the European market of gas. The US with its low energy prices now compared to EU are building all the production it needs to become a major exporter again. An Mr Zeihan here is talking about the end of globalisation, with US not making sure the waters are "pirate" free anymore. Taking back the chip manufacturing and relying on close neighbours for manpower and trade. Thats kind of suspicious to me, the "moment" the don't need fossils anymore then the world trade has to stop. With Russia's gas frozen in the tundra and pipes bursted it will take decades before EU has access to cheap gas again, Germany will be crippled after using 500 billion on just replacing Nuclear and losing all their industry. By that time most of companies will have left for the US. If China falls (like Zeihan has predicted) the whole european economy will crash, might even turn into full-blown war. Going back to a time where the US flourished because every means of production was with them. That's my analysis on current and past events. Found your interviews mind opening. Getting rid of not only 1 super power (Russia) with pressuring their income, but stopping trade to cripple the other (China) after Russia collapses and takes Europe with it.

[@maxpuppy96]

I love Peter's analysis.

[@zmatt890]

Am I hearing 7:25 correctly?

[@mpetry912]

excellent insites, thank you Peter !

[@GameTamer100]

Love seeing how Peter’s hair is looking each day. Wake up excited about it.

[@PaulHirsh]

Glad to hear your take on Mearsheimer.

[@snyc6542]

Peter never met a kid he didn’t want to drone. 😂

[@justwhenithought]

Ukraine is basically a flipped Vietnam model - we had boots to fight on the ground in to help South Vietnam; the Russians sent weapons and advisors to North Vietnam. Now we're doing the opposite, which is definitely a better option for us.

[@seaneustace9838]

We have a fully funded Social Security system in the United States. Workers are forced to put 12 to 14% of their income away over time horizon of 40 years in the private sector. This would make anyone a millionaire. And though this is funded fully in the United States, we are continuously told by our politicians that it is on the verge of bankruptcy, even though the average person gets very little over what he puts into it out of it, and again in the private sector it would’ve generated a huge amount of money. yes we are constantly told we have to wait till we’re 70 or pay more taxes in order to save the Social Security system, which is fully funded by revenues, which are separate from general taxes. So this funding problem is a make-believe problem that does not actually exist! Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. They have to sell you this shit because they want to steal more and more of your money to throw at the military industrial complex. Well Europeans enjoy great retirements while America picked up the cost of NATO and these other stupid anti-Soviet bureaucracies that I’ve been around decades longer than the Soviet union itself. I don’t think the boomers want to lose their Social Security check and as a Gen X her I am absolutely tired of this BS and I am willing to cut the military budget by 90%. I am happy with the Coast Guard a couple militias and a tax incentive to get everyone to own a gun, don’t want to go to war with Russia don’t want to engage in the broader world. We’re rich men get rich at the expense of the working class in the United States since Reagan, the middle class is got poor and poor, as the wealthy have got wealthier and wealthier. It’s time to take the welfare queens with the fruit salad on their chest and put them in the streets!

[@flyairguy8825]

I guess what I'm asking is it seams like we used the same method with different results

[@jeffwood6863]

More great information. Thank you.

[@wheresmyeyebrow1608]

Zeihan making videos up in the rockies reminds me of Jackson Crawford making his Old Norse videos there as well lmao I wonder if they'll ever bump into each other

[@williamolliges2622]

“Guidance counselor for active militants in the area.” Classic Green Beret mission statement predating Green Berets themselves bask to OSS and probably before that.

[@rebeccaaldrich3396]

As always, great information!

[@teacherjoedeveto]

What do you think will be the role of drones in the future? Not only for attacking, but also for defensive purposes?

[@MrAsgeir93]

And how could you see Turkeys perspective of Kurds changing and why? Interesting point. But please elaborate.

[@rpgbb]

The fact that some Americans can acknowledge that Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t work, makes America a very strong country. To admit they have made mistakes. Impossible in China, Russia or as a matter of fact Japan, India or Turkey

[@markswinson6536]

Loved the piece. Spot on. However, you stated at 7:25 "Ukraine has nukes." ???????????

[@walterbates1654]

Feeding the KZbin algorithm. Informative video. Thanks.

[@kimmogensen4888]

You live a really nice place Peter, the nature is 😃