reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- The conversation opens with a discussion of escalating dynamics in the Ukraine conflict as a new year begins, focusing on how the rules of war have shifted over the past four years, including the depth of NATO involvement and when actions cross into direct war. The speakers note that political leadership has largely been exempt from the war, but Russia has had opportunities to strike Ukrainian leaders that have been avoided, raising questions about future targets and the diplomatic path. - Speaker 1 argues that the political leadership has indeed been outside the war, and that voices inside Russia are growing more critical. They challenge the Western portrayal of Vladimir Putin as a dictator, suggesting Putin has restrained destruction that could hit the West, and asserting that the West and Zelenskyy have grown comfortable with exemptions. They warn that continued escalation could lead to a nuclear conflict with Europe at risk due to its geographic compactness, citing the potential fallout from attacks on American nuclear bases and the broader geopolitical consequences. - The discussion moves to the potential consequences of Western strikes on energy infrastructure and frontline energy targets, including refineries and civilian vessels. The speakers examine how Russia might respond if its assets are attacked at sea or in the Black Sea, and the possibility of Russia forcing Ukraine to lose access to the Black Sea through strategic military actions. The analysis includes a few provocative specifics: British and European actors allegedly orchestrating or enabling attacks, the role of third-country-flagged ships, and the idea that reflagging to Russian flags could be treated as an act of war by Russia. - The dialogue delves into the operational dynamics of the Mediterranean and Black Sea theatres, noting incidents such as sunflowers and other oil cargo damage, the Caspian transit company's facilities, and the implications for Turkish oil revenue and Western economies. The speakers argue that Western powers are drawing in broader international actors and that the war could expand beyond Ukraine, potentially dragging in NATO ships and submarines in a conflict at sea. They warn that if escalation continues, it could trigger a broader, more destructive war in Europe. - The conversation shifts to the likely trajectory of the battlefield, with Speaker 1 offering a grim assessment: the Donbas front and the Zaporozhye region are nearing collapse for Ukrainian forces, with Russian forces dominating missile and drone capabilities and outmaneuvering on three axes. The analysis suggests that within two to three months, upper-river-front areas, including the Zaporozhzhia and surrounding Donbas fronts, could be fully compromised, leaving only a few large urban pockets. The absence of civilian protection and the encirclement of cities would accelerate Ukrainian withdrawals and surrender, while Russia could enhance pressure on remaining fronts, including Donbas and Sumy, Kharkiv, and Dnieper regions, as weather and terrain favor Russian movements. - The speakers discuss the impact of collapsing command posts and morale, likening the abandonment of Gudai Poia to a sign of impending broader collapse, with open terrain making Ukrainian forces vulnerable to rapid Russian breakthroughs. They suggest that strategic fortifications will be overwhelmed as the front line collapses and supply lines are severed, with a predicted sequence of encirclements and city sieges. - The US role is analyzed as both a negotiator and strategist, with the assertion that the United States has long led the proxy dimension of the conflict and continues to influence targeting and weapons delivery. The discussion questions the coherence of US policy under Trump versus Biden, arguing the conflict remains a US-led enterprise despite attempts to reframe or outsources it. The speakers describe the US as hedging its bets through ongoing military support, budgets, and intelligence cooperation, while insisting that Ukraine remains a core objective of US hegemony. - A critical examination of European Union leadership follows, with strong claims that the EU is increasingly tyrannical and undemocratic, sanctioning dissidents andSuppressing speech. The dialogue condemns the deplatforming of individuals and argues that the EU’s leadership has undermined diplomacy and negotiated peace, instead pushing toward a broader confrontation with Russia. The speakers suggest that several European countries and elites are pursuing escalating policies to maintain power, even at the risk of deepening European instability and economic collapse. - The conversation ends with reflections on broader historical patterns, invoking Kennan’s warnings about NATO expansion and the risk of Russian backlash, and noting the potential for the EU to fracture under pressure. The participants acknowledge the risk of a wider conflict that could redefine global power and economic structures, while expressing concern about censorship, deplatforming, and the erosion of diplomacy as barriers to resolving the crisis. They conclude with a cautious note to prepare for worst-case scenarios and hope for, but not rely on, better circumstances in the near term.

Speaker 0 says that Russia's strategy is to collapse morale within Ukraine and the will to fight. We've been in discussions with them about defensive weapons to be able to protect their grid, and ongoing technical conversations about the specific equipment they need, but ultimately, if that equipment is ultimately destroyed a week later after it's installed, that remains a problem, and that's been the history the last two or three years.

Two top Ukrainian officials are visiting the Biden administration to request the easing of restrictions on the use of U.S. weapons against targets inside Russia. Currently, Ukraine can only use U.S. weapons in a limited area across the border. Andrey Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, and Rustem Umarov, Ukraine's defense minister, will present a list of priority targets deeper inside Russia. President Zelensky believes lifting restrictions on long-range strikes will help end the war sooner and more fairly for Ukraine and the world. A Ukrainian lawmaker stated that easing restrictions is important to change the course of the war.

There was no policy decision to stop sending weapons to Ukraine. A review of stockpiles caused a temporary pause of certain munitions. During the review, some shipping slowed down, but didn't stop. The review has occurred, and there's been no change to the posture of providing what is available. Ukraine needs Patriot batteries, which are available in multiple European countries, including Spain and Germany. Some countries that have ordered Patriot batteries and are about to receive them could defer shipment to Ukraine instead. These are defensive weapons that would help with missile attacks, but not drone attacks.

Ukraine is hitting legitimate targets and the U.S. is supporting that. Ukraine will not be safe unless Crimea is at a minimum demilitarized. The speaker will not prejudge how Ukraine chooses to deal with Crimea in the short, medium, or long term. The U.S. recognizes Crimea as Ukraine.

How can the UK further support us during this challenging time? I’ve been assessing our anti-air capabilities to ensure we can expedite their delivery to you. We're exploring a defensive alliance with a nuclear power, and it would be beneficial if the UK could be that partner. We’re eager to assist in negotiations. President Zelensky is interested in having the UK involved, especially given the lessons learned from the Minsk agreement, which lacked UK and US participation. There’s a strong desire to discuss a security alliance and other related topics in these negotiations.

The speaker says Ukraine is a bigger, more powerful country, and mentions that Vladimir called after the tanker was seized. They state that the Russian ships involved were a submarine and a destroyer, which both left very quickly when they arrived. They took over the ship, and the oil is being unloaded right now.

Ukraine could complicate Russia's plans to deliver weapons if they could install up to 17 batteries without issue. However, it is not confirmed if there will be 17 batteries. The delivery timetable is unknown, as is whether nations will release them now. It's also uncertain if Ukraine has enough trained personnel to operate 17 batteries, despite having trained people for the batteries already provided.

Zinczynski expressed anger over the recent attack on Odessa and pledged to defeat the Russian threat. The reason behind Russia's continuous assault on Odessa remains unclear, with speculation about Graham's involvement. However, it is uncertain how Zinczynski plans to counter this relentless onslaught.

Is it possible to enforce a NATO ban on interference and close the skies to Russian aircraft? Two points: First, we're sending advanced anti-air missiles that outperform Stingers, capable of operating at night and effectively countering Russian aircraft. Second, I want to understand how Ukraine plans to address the challenge of not being able to fly, especially since a no-fly zone would apply to both sides. Given Russia's significant artillery and missile capabilities, one of Ukraine's few advantages is its ability to target these from the air.

- The discussion centers on whether European actions against Russia amount to a NATO-wide escalation and could lead to direct confrontation with Russia outside Ukraine, given recent attacks on Russian energy infrastructure and civilian ships in the Black Sea, including a Russian oil tanker in the Mediterranean with reports of drones launched from Greece. Putin reportedly vowed retaliation, and the guests consider how European and U.S./NATO support for Ukraine factors into this dynamic. - Daniel Davis argues that a segment of the Western alliance wants a conflict with Russia, framing it as peace on their terms from a position of weakness. He says there is little consideration for Russia’s security requirements or a mutually acceptable peace, and that ignoring Russia’s security concerns has driven the current cycle of escalation. He notes that Western actions since 2021–2022 have ignored the Russian side and pursued war aims on Western terms, contributing to a deteriorating situation and increasing casualties on the Ukrainian side. - Davis contends that Russia has been reticent to respond to many provocations with significant actions outside Ukraine, implying that Moscow has avoided a full-scale escalation that could threaten NATO. He predicts that Putin will respond to Western strikes on Russian targets, possibly increasing pressure on Odessa and other civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, with a tit-for-tat pattern as Russia leverages its greater capacity to hit Western shipping and infrastructure. - He asserts that since 2023, the West’s approach has not reversed the battlefield dynamics; sanctions, intelligence inputs, and heavy weapon transfers have not pushed Russia out of Ukraine and have allowed NATO and European stockpiles to deplete while Russia continues to build up in key categories (missiles, air defense, logistics). He claims Europe’s commitment of large sums to Ukraine will further strain their economies and shorten their stockpiles, potentially weakening Western readiness for a wider conflict. - The guest stresses that Russia’s strategy appears to be “go slow” in Ukraine to maintain pressure without triggering a broader European or NATO intervention, while building up stockpiles to prepare for a possible expansion of war if needed. He notes that Russia has generated a stockpile advantage in missiles (including Oreshniks) and air defense that could be decisive in a broader conventional war. - The discussion covers Oreshnik missiles, with Davis explaining Russia’s aim to maximize production and use if needed, not merely deter. He argues that Western air defenses would be ineffective against such systems and that Russia’s broader stockpiling and production could outpace Western depletion. He suggests Russia’s buildup is intended to enable a decisive move if NATO or Western forces escalate, and that the West’s capacity to sustain prolonged high-tempo combat is limited. - Both speakers discuss Odessa as a likely target if Russia deems it necessary to retaliate against Western support for Ukraine, noting that recent strikes on bridges, trains, and energy facilities in the region indicate growing Russian intent to disrupt Ukraine’s rear and logistics in the event of a front-line escalation. They consider whether Russia could seize Odessa if Western concessions are not forthcoming, and whether European leaders would respond decisively if Russia moves against Ukrainian ports. - The hosts warn that Western rhetoric about a “just and lasting peace” may be misaligned with Russia’s goals and that the risk of a broader conflict—potentially involving nuclear considerations—exists if provocations continue. They caution that if the conflict widens, all sides—Russia, Ukraine, Europe, and the United States—could suffer heavy losses, and express concern about the potential for miscalculation as new weapons systems and security arrangements come into play before the year ends.

I would like to discuss our collaboration with you and President Zelensky's team. We aim to have a diplomat engage with you regularly in the coming days or weeks. If a peace deal is reached that satisfies Ukraine, Britain is ready to explore all options to support you, including a presence in Ukraine. Currently, we have troops in Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania, and we’ve maintained a training team in Ukraine since 2015. We are open to considering various options moving forward.

Britain is a major and fast supporter of Ukraine, providing diplomatic, economic, and military aid. It was among the first to supply weapons after Russia's illegal attack and the first to sign a new security partnership. Britain is the first to announce a multi-year funding package for Ukraine, allocating £3 billion annually for as long as needed. This support is crucial because Ukraine faces challenges on land despite successes in the Black Sea. The multi-year commitment aims to encourage other nations to do the same. Supporting Ukraine is vital for its territorial integrity and for broader European and British security. Failure to adequately support Ukraine could lead to a more dangerous world if Putin achieves a victory. Investing in Ukraine's security is an investment in Britain's own security and prosperity.

Recent discussions in the UK and US suggest that Ukraine may be allowed to strike deep into Russian territory using Western long-range weapons. This marks a significant escalation, as Ukraine currently lacks the capability to effectively use these systems without NATO support. If NATO countries decide to proceed, it would mean direct involvement in the conflict, fundamentally altering its nature. The delivery of thousands of precision missiles to Ukraine raises concerns about potential Russian retaliation, which could lead to a broader conflict involving nuclear weapons. Putin has warned that such actions would be considered a declaration of war. The situation is precarious, with the risk of escalating tensions leading to catastrophic consequences, including nuclear warfare. The urgency of the moment calls for heightened awareness and preparation for potential global instability.

Russia is summoning the US ambassador to hold the United States accountable for attacks on Crimea, threatening punishment. This follows reports of Putin threatening US territories, according to Russian news. Russia is requesting dialogue with the US to discuss nuclear war and de-escalation. Russia is considering changing its nuclear doctrine to allow preemptive attacks if threatened. Putin also says Russia will potentially deliver weapons to North Korea and other US enemies due to the US, Ukraine, and Russia situation. This news comes as US members of Congress are reportedly saying this is an overdrive.

NATO and allies like the US, Canada, UK, and Turkey have long supported Ukraine with equipment and training. After Russia's invasion, support has increased with billions in weapons and aid. NATO's focus is on protecting allies and preventing further escalation of the war. Russia's aggression was anticipated, given past actions like the invasion of Georgia and annexation of Crimea. NATO has been preparing since Russia's first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, increasing defense spending and deploying modern capabilities.

Patriot missiles and batteries are being planned for Ukraine. A full complement of Patriots will be provided. Some are expected to arrive very soon, within days. Countries that already have Patriots will swap them out and replace them with new ones. Matt will coordinate with NATO. Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister, is visiting the secretary of defense, Pete Hackett, to discuss the Patriot situation. Norway is also involved. The deal is broader than just Patriots and includes missiles and ammunition.

Europe must quickly increase support for Ukraine as artillery shells, air defense interceptors, and drone production capabilities dwindle. Europe could use proposals and potentially collateralize frozen Russian assets to act fast. The speaker is concerned about the cutoff of intelligence streams from the U.S. and pressure on allies like the UK not to use US intelligence for their own weapons. The primary purpose of US intelligence has been to help Ukrainians see Russian attacks coming and have advanced warning. Key weapon systems require U.S. satellite queuing and the military GPS system to hit targets. Without these, more Ukrainians will die, and Europe cannot replace this capability quickly.

How can the UK further support us during this challenging time? We are focused on enhancing our anti-air capabilities and ensuring they arrive swiftly. We are exploring a defensive alliance with a nuclear power, and it would be beneficial if the UK could be that partner. The establishment of official British training centers in our country would be a great step forward. We are eager to support your negotiations, especially since President Zelensky values the UK's involvement, given past experiences like the Minsk agreement, which lacked UK and US participation. A security alliance is definitely a topic worth discussing in these negotiations.

Ukraine has biological research facilities that are at risk of being seized by Russian troops. We are collaborating with Ukraine to ensure that these research materials do not fall into Russian hands as they advance.

Okay, so sending in offensive equipment like planes and tanks would be World War III. That being said, the US will send 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. We have artillery, but honestly, it's not enough. We're basically out of money, so I'm sending Congress a supplemental budget request, so the Ukrainian people will be able to receive pensions and social support. This is the largest assistance package from the US to Ukraine yet: $3 billion in direct aid. The US will also send over a billion dollars in new aid, plus another $150 million in military assistance. The US locked down an additional $2 billion in military aid, and the total now stands close to $130 billion.

Patriot missiles and batteries are being planned for Ukraine. A full complement with the batteries will be provided. Some are expected to arrive very soon, within days. Countries that have Patriots will swap over and be replaced with the ones they have. Matt will coordinate with NATO.

Europe must quickly increase its support for Ukraine as artillery shells, air defense interceptors, and drone production capabilities dwindle. Europe could use proposals and potentially collateralize frozen Russian assets to act fast. The speaker is concerned about the cutoff of intelligence streams from the U.S. and pressure on allies like the UK not to use US intelligence for their own weapons. The primary purpose of US intelligence has been to give Ukrainians advanced warning of Russian attacks. Key weapon systems require support from US satellite queuing and the military GPS system to hit their targets. Without this support, more Ukrainians will die, and Europe cannot replace this capability quickly.

Europe must quickly increase its support for Ukraine as artillery shells, air defense interceptors, and drone production capabilities dwindle. Europe could use proposals and potentially collateralize frozen Russian assets to act fast. The speaker is concerned about the cutoff of intelligence streams from the U.S. and pressure on allies like the UK not to use US intelligence for their own weapons. The primary purpose of US intelligence has been to help Ukrainians see Russian attacks coming and have advanced warning. Key weapon systems require U.S. satellite queuing and the military GPS system to hit targets. Without these, more Ukrainians will die, and Europe cannot replace this capability quickly.

British warships are requested to assist in the Black Sea, particularly around Odessa. Currently, there are no plans to directly attack Russian ships or aircraft. However, support will be provided with various weapons systems capable of addressing threats in the region. Last year, the HMS Defender passed Crimea, highlighting illegal Russian behavior. Consideration is being given to deploying more weapon systems and entering the Black Sea soon. Discussions will take place regarding how close to Ukrainian waters, currently under Russian blockade, British forces can operate.