reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Stanislav Krapivnik, a former US army officer from Donbas, returns to discuss the escalation of NATO-Russia proxy warfare, the role of drones, and potential strategic escalations. The conversation centers on how Europe is contributing to deep strikes in Russia, especially against energy installations, and the resulting danger of a broader conflict. Key points and claims, as presented: - Drones and deep strikes: The EU, through its defense alignment, aims to overwhelm Russian air defenses and threaten strategic assets, including nuclear-capable targets, by using long-range drones. The objective is to degrade Russian defensive systems and the production rate of missiles, potentially opening the path to strikes on radars, early warning systems, strategic assets like bombers, and even nuclear submarines in port. - Nuclear war risk: The interviewee asserts that by mid-to-late summer there could be a zone of possible nuclear war if ground warfare arises or escalates due to Western actions. He notes that Russia’s anti-aircraft and early warning capabilities are limited to manageable scopes, with occasional corridors allowing strikes in, and that Europe’s current strategy could push the conflict toward a nuclear dimension. - Deterrence and first strikes: The discussion contrasts U.S. first-strike doctrine with other nations’ second-strike assurances. The speaker argues that in a blinded Russia, the logic for targeted first strikes becomes stronger for the other side, while lamenting that Europe’s leadership might be pushing toward a nuclear exchange. He cites studies suggesting that as few as 47 key targets could collapse the U.S. in a nuclear context, highlighting the fragility of a high-tech economy under nuclear disruption. - European psyche and policy: There is criticism of what the speaker describes as a mass psychosis in Europe, where warnings about striking Russia’s early radar or deterrent systems are dismissed in favor of defending Ukraine. The rhetoric suggests deep political and media reinforcement of pro-Ukraine narratives, with limited space for risk discussion about nuclear consequences. - Energy installations and economy: While drone strikes have targeted oil facilities, the speaker notes that most damage has been to storage facilities rather than critical infrastructure like pipelines or refineries. Refineries are large, and damage to some vessels can take longer to repair. Russia’s production has not been significantly reduced, but the attacks are accelerating a shift of energy facilities eastward toward Asia, while Europe faces higher oil prices on the spot market and potential disruptions to gas routes like TurkStream and Caspian Pipeline Authority, with broader economic impact on Southeastern Europe and Turkey. - Russia’s response and drone modernization: The Russian military has reorganized its drone capabilities, forming dedicated drone battalions and establishing new schools to standardize and professionalize drone operations. The move encompasses reconnaissance, kamikaze, bombing, and supply drones, with adjustments after initial disorganization. Ukrainians reportedly helped inspire and provide drone countermeasures, and Russia’s modernization integrates drones with air defenses. - Zelensky and Victory Day threat: The possibility of Zelensky threatening to strike Moscow’s Victory Day parade is discussed. The guest suggests Zelensky would want to be at the head of such a move, while acknowledging the uncertainty of who controls decisions in Kyiv and the level of Western involvement. The parade’s downscaled format is noted, but the broader question remains whether such a strike could occur. The guest asserts that Russian deterrence may have been eroded, and Western actors might not take credible deterrence seriously until an incident occurs. - Africa and Mali: Russia’s activities in Africa, especially Mali, are described as significant. Mali’s leadership under Asimi Goata is navigating between Western and Russian influence. Russian forces, including elements from the former Wagner group now under the Russian defense ministry, are described as rebuilding Mali’s military and supporting a campaign by jihadist groups. The situation includes rapid, mobile “flying columns” that can cause chaos but lack staying power against organized defenses. Russian drones and aviation (including ME-20 aircraft) are reportedly effective, and Mali is moving toward energy and resource development, including three nuclear power plants proposed by Russia to Elektrify the country. France’s position is framed as colonial, with Mali’s uranium, gold, and other resources creating strategic interest. Burkina Faso’s involvement and regional dynamics involving Niger are cited as part of a broader, expanding conflict network across Africa. - Global frontlines and war risk: The guest argues that multiple frontlines are forming—Ukraine, the Persian Gulf, and Western Africa—and that they could merge into a single broader conflict if not stopped. He asserts that the West is driving this escalation, and he characterizes Western public sentiment as often indifferent to Ukrainian casualties, focusing instead on political or financial gains from the conflict. - Frontline realities: On the ground, Ukraine has tactical successes but limited staying power due to heavy casualties and supply problems. Russian forces are reportedly stronger in Donbas, Kherson, and Sumy, while Ukrainian forces face difficult conditions, including open fields and heavy artillery advantages for the Russians. Drone warfare has prompted reorganized Russian drone corps, with improved training and standardized units. The discussion ends with a warning that the conflict has global implications, with fronts expanding and risks of a broader, possibly world-scale war if not curtailed. The interviewee emphasizes that the West’s actions are fueling escalation and that African theaters, particularly Mali, are becoming an integral part of the wider confrontation.

The discussion centers on the U.S. military buildup in the Middle East amid tensions with Iran and the broader regional dynamics driving the potential conflict. Key points include: - Military posture and numbers: The 82nd Airborne Division and 5,000 U.S. Marines are traveling to the region, with CENTCOM confirming roughly 50,000 U.S. troops already there. President Biden previously acknowledged that American forces were “sitting ducks” and that an attack was imminent. The hosts note that ground forces are arriving by Friday, with the Marine Expeditionary Unit from the Pacific on station soon, and reference a pattern of rapid escalation around Fridays into Saturdays in past conflicts. - Public reaction and political stance: Representative Nancy Mace says she will not support troops on the ground in Iran, even after briefing. The panel questions what powers she or others have to restrict presidential war powers, noting a perception that both parties are in lockstep on war funding. - Open-source intelligence on deployments: There is a reported flow of special operations elements—Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, Task Force 160, 75th Ranger Regiment—into or toward the Middle East, with multiple flights of SEACEs and C-17s observed in the last 48 hours. The discussion emphasizes the significance of such ground-force movements and their possible outcomes. - Iranian messaging and claims: An IRGC spokesman claimed that if the American public knew the true casualties, there would be outrage, and that “all American bases in the region have effectively been destroyed,” with American soldiers “hiding in locations adjacent to these locations and they are basically being hunted down.” - Expert analysis on negotiations and off-ramps: Doctor Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute argues that an off-ramp would require behind-the-scenes talks and cautions that the 15-point plan reportedly leaked to the Israeli press is not a basis for serious negotiation. He suggests a diplomacy path could involve sanctions relief and restricted military actions, but warns the public leaks risk undermining negotiations. - Israel’s role and objectives: Parsi states that Israel has aimed to sabotage negotiations and that Netanyahu’s objectives differ from U.S. aims. He suggests Israel desires a prolonged war to degrade Iran, while Trump’s objective may be to declare victory and withdraw. The panel discusses how Israeli influence and regional actions (Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon) relate to U.S. strategy and regional stability. - Saudi Arabia and other regional players: New York Times reporting indicates Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman privately lobbied Trump to keep the conflict going and even push for boots on the ground. The Saudi position is described as complex, with the foreign ministry potentially opposing war tones while MBS may have privately supported escalating the conflict. The guests discuss whether Saudi wealth is tied to the petrodollar and how a potential Iranian escalation could impact the region economically and politically. - Iran’s potential targets and escalatory capacity: Iran could retaliate against UAE and Bahrain, which are closely linked to the Abraham Accords and Israel. Iran’s capacity to strike urban centers and critical infrastructures in the Gulf region is acknowledged, and the discussion underscores the risk of significant disruption to desalination plants and strategic assets. - Propaganda and public perception: Iran released a viral video portraying global victims of U.S. and Israeli actions; the panel notes the messaging is aimed at shaping U.S. domestic opinion and demonstrates the intensity of propaganda on both sides during war. - Two emphasized “truths” (from Parsi): first, there has been a misperception about the efficiency of Iran’s missiles due to media censorship and selective reporting; second, U.S. and Israeli interests in the region have diverged, calling for a reassessment of national interest over coalition pressures. - Additional context: The conversation touches on U.S. military readiness, enrollment trends, and the broader historical pattern of wars shaped by executive decisions and external influences, including pressure from regional powers. The discussion ends with thanks to Dr. Parsi and an invitation for future conversations.

The speaker seeks to expose a cover-up in Niger, revealing failures of the Biden administration. 1100 US troops are stranded, lacking basic supplies and facing hostility. The embassy is suppressing intelligence, hindering troop operations. The military coup in Niger, trained by the US, has led to strained relations and potential security risks. Troops are essentially held hostage, with no clear withdrawal plan. The situation is dire, with medicine shortages and Russian presence on the base. The speaker vows to fight for the troops and hold the administration accountable.

The Ukrainian military is reportedly selling about half of the arms received from the U.S. on international black markets, with some ending up in Latin American drug cartels. This includes dangerous conventional weapons that could threaten commercial air travel. Concerns are raised about the pathogens in biolabs in Ukraine and whether the Biden administration has a complete record of what's in those labs. There seems to be no intention to share this information with the Trump administration. The ongoing war in Ukraine is viewed as a potential source of global destabilization, raising alarms about its implications for the future.

The speaker claims the North Carolina National Guard is doing its best, but volunteers, including Representative Corey Mills, are paying out-of-pocket to move helicopters and supplies to people in need. The speaker states that Fort Liberty (formerly Fort Bragg) has many helicopters, but they haven't been authorized by Biden, Harris, or Secretary of Defense Austin to assist until today, a week into the crisis. The speaker asserts people are dying and running out of oxygen, medicine, water, and other supplies. The speaker questions why active-duty helicopters from the base have not been authorized to save lives and states that the White House is only now sending 1000 soldiers.

The discussion centers on the intensifying U.S. military actions and the broader strategic implications of potential escalation with Iran. The hosts describe visible signs of deployment: soldiers packing, mothers saying goodbye, and the looming possibility of an invasion or occupation in Iran’s Persian Gulf region. They question who in the White House is backing an operation described as complicated and risky, noting the earlier “Ishfaan operation” as an example of miscalculation when aircraft were shot down and rescue missions were needed. Captain Matthew Ho of the Eisenhower Media Institute joins to provide analysis. He argues the situation involves a “madman” and a “mad emperor,” making rational planning infeasible. If a deadline of 8 PM is met and Trump orders an attack on Iranian infrastructure, Ho believes the action would likely involve strikes on infrastructure rather than nuclear weapons, citing threats to Iranian infrastructure and past attacks on railways, bridges, petrochemical facilities, and pistachio warehouses. He predicts a broader bombing campaign targeting energy production and other critical facilities, followed by Iranian retaliation. Ho emphasizes that Iranian capabilities and sincerity in retaliation could lead to a dramatic disruption of energy production, plastics, fertilizer, and helium markets, potentially triggering a global depression due to cascading impacts on energy and supplies. Ho references previous warnings about a regional Iranian war with global consequences, noting that Iran’s response could be severe, especially if power plants and water treatment facilities are struck. He argues that such actions would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences, including hospital disruptions and harm to newborns in NICUs, and frames the potential escalation as a test of restraint and humility in U.S. leadership. He links the current trajectory to a broader pattern of American imperial overreach and questions the objective of the conflict. The discussion then shifts to J. D. Vance’s statements about tools in the U.S. toolkit that could be deployed, with the White House saying nuclear options are not intended. The panel explores possible non-nuclear options such as hypersonic missiles and the “mother of all bombs” (the 30,000-pound bomb), noting limitations like delivery from a C-130 or the risk of civilian harm when targeting infrastructure. Ho suggests past American bombings (e.g., Hanoi, 1944–45 Germany and Japan) as precedents but warns of the diabolical and long-term consequences, including healthcare and water systems failures, and the resulting human toll. The panel discusses the risk of broader regional involvement, including Israeli involvement. They debate whether smaller, more controllable nuclear weapons could be used, such as a dialed-down B61 warhead, potentially delivered via Tomahawk or newer missiles to target Iran’s nuclear sites (like Fordo or Natanz) while attempting to avoid wider fallout. There is speculation that Israel could be the more likely initiator of nuclear use given its regional calculus and endurance of Western support, though the U.S. and Israel are portrayed as entangled in a broader strategy of dominance in the Middle East. Tucker Carlson’s report is cited, with claims that Trump is considering nuclear options, prompting discussion about how officials might resist orders. The guests acknowledge the likelihood that many U.S. service members would follow orders, though there is concern about propaganda and the moral costs of war. They compare current events to the 1965 George Ball warning about escalation leading to humiliation or victory, and they frame the conflict as potentially signaling the end of the American empire amid ongoing geopolitical shifts. The conversation closes with remarks on American policy consistency, noting Obama’s Iran deal, Biden-era support for Israel, and the long-standing desire in Washington and Tel Aviv to confront Iran, culminating in the assertion that the war’s timing is aligned with a broader, decades-long agenda. The program ends with Captain Ho agreeing to continue monitoring developments as the deadline approaches.

We're witnessing an unprecedented influx of weapons into Ukraine, but their final destinations remain largely unknown. Despite concerns about weapons potentially falling into the wrong hands, the priority is ensuring Ukrainian forces have what they need to fight. NATO countries are on high alert, balancing support for Ukraine with preventing a broader conflict with Russia. The war in Ukraine has tapped into deep emotions, drawing in foreign volunteers. However, the rise of paramilitary units raises concerns about governmental control on the battlefield. Logistical challenges, corruption, and bureaucracy hinder the delivery of supplies to the front lines. While the US and Europe are sending aid, there's debate on whether enough oversight exists to track where the weapons end up, both now and in the future, and whether a half-way approach to the war will be effective.

The signing of these documents marks the end of French presence in Niger. The last troops depart as supporters celebrate. The relationship between Niger and France has deteriorated since the July coup, leading to the withdrawal of French soldiers. The military takeover has disrupted long-standing relations with many countries, including France. The French have moved their military hardware to France and Chad, leaving behind structures that will be occupied by troops from the United States and Germany. Restoring democracy is seen as a way to normalize relations with the international community. The French departure from Niger concludes decades of political, economic, and defense engagements.

The Biden administration is flying migrants from South America to the United States, regardless of documentation, aiding human trafficking. Most lack documentation.

A squadron commander from North Carolina contacted the speaker via Instagram with a surprising claim. According to the commander, a North Carolina National Guard unit loaded a C-17 aircraft full of supplies intended for hurricane victims. However, the supplies were allegedly only for a photo opportunity for Kamala Harris. The C-17 was never sent to deliver the supplies. The squadron commander, an 06, reached out to the speaker to share this information, stating the intention was always just for a photo op.

The speaker highlights a big story he says is not being covered by the Pentagon or CENTCOM. He notes Israel’s war on Iran is in its tenth day, and says CENTCOM confirmed the seventh American soldier killed in this war, but asserts that “the KIA numbers are … not accurate.” He questions how many Americans have actually been wounded, pointing to a dispute over the casualty figures. He cites sources claiming that the number of medevac helicopter flights in the past seventy-two hours has been flying around the clock, “stocking up medical facilities in many of the outlying countries,” including the Dubai area. Based on these sources, he estimates the injured at “well over a 135 soldiers,” noting that this is “the most conservative number possible.” He adds that some estimates from different outlets and sources suggest “well over a thousand,” but he states his figure as the conservative estimate. The speaker suggests that the large number of flights allows wounded personnel to be transported to floating hospitals and aircraft carriers, which function as massive triage centers, enabling authorities to “keep it very quiet.” He asserts that flights land on the aircraft carriers as part of this process. He mentions reports from Stuttgart, Germany, where there is a major NATO and US base, and notes that Germany is where Netanyahu fled to, though he is unclear whether Netanyahu is still in Germany or has returned to Israel. He claims American wounded are being treated inside Germany and says he would like to know those numbers. Finally, he urges a brave Pentagon reporter to ask questions about this, implying that these numbers and movements are being concealed.

The discussion opens with breaking news: President Trump announced that thousands of US forces stationed in Germany would be removed, prompting claims that NATO may have taken its last breath. In the same hours, Iran struck multiple targets across the Middle East, including oil infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates, with oil facilities in the UAE reportedly on fire. Iran also claimed US Navy ships were hit by multiple missiles, while CENTCOM denied the strikes occurred, though Iran maintained they did. British coverage through state media reported that a US warship turned back from the Strait of Hormuz and that two missiles hit a US warship near Jask Island after warnings were ignored; this is contested, with independent verification not established at that moment. Colonel Daniel Davis, host of The Deep Dive with Dan Davis, joins to discuss NATO, the US force presence in Africa, and the Hormuz situation. The NATO piece centers on the move to pull thousands of troops out of Germany, described as an affront to NATO structure and raising questions about whether NATO is effectively finished. Davis notes it followed French Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s remarks that the United States has no strategy, which Trump reacted to with threats to withdraw troops. He explains that pulling out could take six to twelve months due to the logistics of moving equipment and posts, and suggests the Pentagon might prefer redirecting troops eastward to Romania or Poland rather than home to the US, though Davis doubts that would happen. He argues the purpose would be to have Europe bear more responsibility for its own security, but stresses that a coherent plan with allied coordination would be required. He says NATO’s relevance began to fade after the Soviet Union’s disbandment in 1992, with the alliance failing to improve US national security and becoming a drain, and he predicts NATO may be replaced by something else, though the future shape remains unknown. He criticizes a knee-jerk, emotionally driven approach to the issue. Speaker 3 (Natalie) references Trump’s “Project Freedom,” criticized as potentially Orwellian in branding, and notes Trump’s shift from offering to escort ships through Hormuz to presenting a humanitarian-guiding service. Davis counters that CENTCOM initially stated it would not escort ships due to lacking the capacity, yet later posts suggested some ships and resources were out in support of the operation, and that two American-flagged vessels were claimed to have moved through the Strait of Hormuz (though Iran disputed this). The administration’s mixed messaging, the possibility of staging or false-flag actions, and the reality that 2,000 ships are clustered in the Persian Gulf are highlighted. There is concern that Iran might be provoked into attacking ships to justify further military responses, potentially escalating tensions and oil disruptions. The conversation then returns to the broader implications: the oil infrastructure attacks, the uncertain status of vessel movements through the Strait of Hormuz, and the risk that escalation could push global oil prices higher, with projections of spikes to $150–$175 per barrel or higher if the conflict intensifies. Davis notes that the situation could trigger broader economic pain, including energy lockdowns and disruptions in fertilizer, farming, and related supply chains, unless a diplomatic solution is found, which he implies is preferable to more military action. Finally, the discussion turns to Operation African Lion, where two US soldiers are missing and a search-and-rescue operation is underway. Davis questions the purpose and benefit of continued US involvement in Africa, arguing that similar interventions have occurred for years without clear American national interest or clear outcomes, citing Somalia as an ongoing series of airstrikes (61 in 2026 so far) without a lasting solution. He emphasizes that bombing and troop deployments have not solved the fundamental conditions and warns that continued military engagement risks reputational damage and ongoing costs. The segment closes with Davis reiterating concerns about perpetual intervention and the need for reconsidering strategic aims. The broadcast ends with the hosts inviting viewers to subscribe and share the program.

The speaker expresses frustration over the lack of life-saving supplies reaching Gaza, where children are dying from malnutrition and dehydration. Urgent delivery of food, water, and medicine is crucial to saving lives. Gaza civilians are in desperate need of these supplies to prevent further tragedies.

The Ukrainian military is reportedly selling about half of the arms received from the U.S. on international black markets, with some ending up with drug cartels in Latin America. These weapons include dangerous systems that could threaten commercial air travel. There are concerns about the pathogens in biolabs in Ukraine, and whether the Biden administration has a complete record of what's in those labs. It appears they do not plan to share this information with the Trump administration. The situation in Ukraine is seen as potentially more destabilizing than anything in recent memory, raising significant alarm about global security.

Не меняют нерадивых командиров, проблемы с поставками оружия. Танкисты не удовлетворены Абрамсами, танки не подходят под условия. Проблемы с горючим, солярой. Покупка минометов, но проблема с минами. Нет ясной коммуникации и понимания. Translation: They don't replace careless commanders, issues with weapon supplies. Tank crews unsatisfied with Abrams, tanks not suitable for conditions. Problems with fuel, diesel. Purchase of mortars, but issue with mines. Lack of clear communication and understanding.

US-supplied Abrams tanks in Ukraine face challenges in muddy fields and against drones. Tanks are concentrated in one area where Ukraine is losing ground. Despite gratitude, issues with maintenance and lack of suitable shells persist. Ukraine faces a different kind of war than these tanks were designed for. They are not equipped for the current conflict and wish for more support. Ukraine questions the effectiveness of these tanks in their evolving battle.

In this video, the speakers discuss the impact of communication in the ongoing war in Burkina Faso. They mention that while the majority of the population understands the situation and the suffering caused by terrorism, there are some locals who denigrate their own armed forces on Western media platforms. They emphasize the need to change colonial mentalities and combat the spread of false information. The arrival of Russian media is welcomed if they present the truth about the war, but any media spreading propaganda will not be tolerated. The speakers also mention that some national media outlets may face censorship if they continue in a certain direction. Overall, the goal is to provide the population with fair and accurate information.

US-supplied Abrams tanks in Ukraine face challenges in muddy fields and against drones. Despite gratitude, the tanks are not effective in the current war. Crews struggle with maintenance issues and lack of proper ammunition. The tanks are not suited for the type of warfare Ukraine faces. The situation highlights the mismatch between the tanks and the conflict. Ukraine may wish they had not received the tanks. The crew would ask the Americans for different support. The tanks, relics of past American power, are now inadequate in a rapidly changing world.

Border patrol is present at the No More Deaths camp in Arizona. A group, including politicians and veterans, is touring the area, which they claim is linked to cartel trafficking. The camp is located about 10-12 miles north of the Mexico border. Tensions rise as individuals question the camp's operations, suspecting it aids in human and drug trafficking. Camp representatives insist they are a humanitarian group, directing inquiries to their media team. Disputes arise over property rights and the nature of their activities, with accusations of providing aid to illegal activities. The situation escalates as both sides exchange confrontational remarks, highlighting the ongoing controversy surrounding the camp's true purpose.

The speaker recounts a phone call with Lieutenant General Pyot Pyot and General Flynn, where they discuss the urgent need for the National Guard at the Capitol. However, General Pyot expresses concern about the optics of having the National Guard present. The speaker emphasizes the dire situation and the denial of assistance, leading to frustration. They mention the shooting of Ashley Babbit and the delayed arrival of the National Guard at 6 PM. The speaker also highlights the fact that resources were sent to protect the homes of other generals but not theirs. They suggest that this systematic denial of support raises suspicions and could lead to conspiracy theories. The conversation ends with a discussion about the lack of intelligence and the politically charged nature of the situation.

The discussion centers on alleged child sex abuse within the United Nations and how it is handled internally. The second speaker asserts that many UN employees, including those at the UN, treat child sex abuse as “a cost of doing business.” They state that French peacekeepers were abusing children in the Central African Republic, with children as young as eight years old being forced to perform sexual acts in exchange for food. This claim is described as despicable and the opposite of the UN’s mission. The second speaker further contends that, according to their account, anyone involved in cover-ups of child sexual abuse “without exception, has been promoted.” In contrast, those who report abuses or attempt to stop them are said to have been fired or resigned. They claim the UN has spent more than 3,000,000 US dollars on silencing them personally. A broader critique is offered of the UN’s stance on whistleblowing, summarized by the assertion that “the UN's position on whistleblowing, whether it's this, child's excuse, or anything, is destroy the whistleblower.” The first speaker appears to challenge whether such allegations are being spoken about publicly by someone within the organization who knows about ongoing abuse, implying fear of job loss as a deterrent to speaking out. The second speaker presses the point with a direct personal inquiry, noting that an assistant secretary general is “not speaking out about someone he knows who is raping multiple children because he's worried he's gonna lose his job,” and asking, “Yeah. What's his name?” Overall, the exchange attributes a systemic pattern of abuse and retaliation to silence whistleblowers within the UN, highlighting specific alleged incidents in Central African Republic involving French peacekeepers and a broader accusation that reporting abuse is penalized while cover-ups are rewarded.

Some stories are challenging to report, especially regarding attacks on intelligence, military, and state department personnel. These incidents have occurred in over a dozen countries, revealing common patterns in the types of injuries sustained. Evidence suggests that a foreign adversary may be responsible for these attacks. The affected individuals are part of a highly vetted group, entrusted with sensitive government secrets. Acknowledging that US personnel are being targeted while on assignment sends a concerning message: no one is safe.