Although the eyes of the world are currently focused on the Olympic Games, that hasn’t ended the conflicts occurring all over the globe.
Today marks day 895 of the Ukraine War, and Prime Minister Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week unveiling the first of the F-16s, which are already in use.
Over in the Middle East, Israel and the United States are on high alert for retaliation from Iran after the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.
Both Ukraine and Gaza are still under fire, and Hezbollah are ramping up their drone attacks on Israel.
Mick Ryan is a retired Australian Major General, now an academic and strategist, and has written a book covering the lessons of the Russia-Ukraine war and the strategies adopted within: The War for Ukraine: Strategy and Adaptation Under Fire.
He joined Mike Hosking to give his insight on the global conflicts and where they’re likely to go from here.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Time for catch up with one of the best military
minds going. It's officially day eight hundred and ninety five
of the Ukraine War. Just this week Zelenski, of course,
has got the first of the F sixteens. Meantime, Israel
in the US on hire alert for some sort of
retaliation from Iran. Mcryan's thirty five year Australian Army veterans
turned strategist and all three's got a new book out
by the Way, The War for Ukraine Strategy and Adaptation
(00:20):
Under Fire. It's out next week. Mcran's with us out
of Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Good morning, it's good to be with you.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Let's start with Ukraine. If sixteen's they've arrived, do you
think they'll make a difference.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
They'll make a small difference, but they're not going to
win the war for Ukraine. They are a technological step
up from its current fleet of former Soviet aircraft, but
they're in very small quantities at the moment and will
take some time to build up to ninety aircraft they've.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Been promised, and of course they're lacking pilots.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
That's the key determinant, and how quickly they can be
deployed the planes will probably arrive quicker than the number
of pilots they got, And pilots are a problem because
they've got combat missions to fly, they've got English to learn,
and it takes a while to train them on the
F sixteen, all of which slows things down.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
So I've been reading your quote in Quota the other day.
Russia's more dangerous now in your view? What's changed? If
you want to put it this way? Are they a
better side now?
Speaker 2 (01:19):
They're certainly not the better side. They're the more brutal side.
But they have learned over the last two and a
half years from their battlefield experiences. The Russian army that
exists to now exists now did not exist two and
a half years ago, so they've improved their ability to fight.
But more importantly, the Russian nation has improved its mobilization
(01:41):
and industrial capacity to fight this war over the long term.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
So the capacity you talk of are the suggestion being
they can simply grind this out. They will forever be
able to make more stuff to explode than the Ukrainians?
Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (01:55):
They will certainly be able to do it for a while.
But as a wise person once said, no tree grows
to the sky. No country can fight and take this
many casualties forever. So even the Russians have a limit,
and the whole aim of NATO's strategy needs to be
to ensure we find that limit and beat them.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
And what's your assessment of NATO's strategy and how it's
changed in the last year or two.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Well, I think they've improved over the last two and
a half years. Certainly there's great unity in NATO. They're
doing a lot in the provision of equipment, minisitions and
training and intelligence the Ukraine. But the next step absolutely
has to be embracing the defeat of the Russian military
in Ukraine. At the moment, it's defending Ukraine, so there's
(02:43):
elite to be had there and with that must come
the resources to throw the Russians out of Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
And how does that happen, especially if the Republicans win
in October.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Well, it's going to be pretty hard. But NATO countries
in Europe are stepping up their capacity to build things,
built munitions and to support Ukraine. They have done over
the last two and a half years. There's a couple
of laggards there, but most have at least hit the
two percent of GDP and some are exceeding that. So
(03:14):
if the Republicans do get elected, and that's by no
means assured, it will be much more difficult for Ukraine.
But at the end of the day, Trump may find,
if he is elected president, that it's in his interest
to help Ukraine, not into them. We shouldn't discount that possibility.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Has the result changed in the Ukraine from the people
that is.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
No, I don't think so. I mean there's a deep
fatigue and weariness among Ukrainian people. I mean people talk
about fatigue with the war. In Western countries, we have
absolutely nothing to be fatigued about. But the Ukrainians do.
But they understand that as and as hard as it
(03:56):
is to fight this war, being occupied by Russia would
be arskey worse. All the evidence is there from two
and a half years of Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
All right, So I ring you in a year, where's
the war rat do you think?
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Ah, you can't predict these things. Unfortunately, my hope would
be that we've beaten Russia and kicked them out of Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
All right, let's move to the Middle East if we can.
How worried, are you that this goes regional?
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Well, in some respects, it already is. You have Israel
fighting a war on multiple fronts in Gaza, on its
northern border in the West Bank, and its southern frontiers
with the Huthis, so it's already surrounded by a ring
of fire. Iran has already attacked it once directly and
has been attacking it indirectly for decades. So in many
(04:47):
respects it's already a regional conflict. But it's the level
of violence is beneath the threshold that we are able
to deal with. The danger we face at the moment
is that Isra Iran, working with Hesbela and others, might
do something that might see the situation become far more
combustible and far more difficult for both Israel and countries
(05:11):
like the United States to deal with.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
And as we talked this morning, Iran has not responded.
So I suppose three things they could do. One they
can do nothing. Two they could telegraph what they're going
to do, like the drones a few months back. Or
three they can go out all out what's your core.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
I don't think they can say there's nothing to see
here this time it happened in the capital of Iran
and was a pretty significant loss of face for the
Iranians and for Hesbelah to be quite frank so, I
think we will certainly see a response. I think it
will probably be more significant than what we saw earlier
(05:48):
this year, but whether they'll be more successful this time
remains to be seen.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
The fact that the Israeli has got three key people
Lebanon and Iran under protection, what is does that tell
you about the sophistication of what the Israelis are about.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
It tells me they're pretty good at finding people they
need to deal with. They made it very clear after
seven October they were going to find and bring to
justice every person involved in the seven October attacks. We
should know from previous promises of this time from the Israelis,
particularly after the Muny Olympics, that they deliver on those
(06:24):
kind of provinces.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Is there anything from your observation, that anyone anywhere can
say or do that can affect Netanyahu and what he
wants to achieve, good or bad.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
It's hard to imagine anyone external to Israel having a
significant influence on him. I think we've seen that since
October last years that Netta Noahu will do what's in
his best interests. Even a majority of Israelis seem to
think that he's not doing things in the best interests
of their country.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
All Right, the Pacific, let's deal with that, orcus, What
do you know of it? What do you think of it?
And what should news even do about Pilartoo.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Well, WUCAS is a very important arrangement between Australia, the
United Kingdom and the United States. Pillar one, as you know,
is the nuclear powered attack submarines. They will be an
important capability into the future. But Pillot two, I think
(07:22):
has a lot of potential beyond the three countries that
are currently part of Aucus, the R and D at
different universities and establishments in the three main countries, but
potentially in places like Cana, Japan, Korea, or even New Zealand.
I think could be a very interesting collaboration in the
years and the decades ahead.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Do you see us in the sticky position? I mean,
in other words, if we joined Pillar two, is that
pro American and anti Chinese?
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Well, you know, at the end of the day, China
is doing a lot of things that are against all
our interests in our region and beyond. They are helping
invade a sovereign, prosperous, democratic country. They've threatened to do
exactly the same to Taiwan. They are threatening nations in
(08:10):
the region like the Philippines and others constantly. So at
the end of the day, you know, China has a
threat to the system that exists in the Western Pacific
at the moment, and we need to ensure that we
deter them from doing anything that could tip us into
some catastrophic war.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
And what about Australia. Are they doing enough?
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Well? I think we're doing a lot. You know, the
National Defense strategy and the defense budget does a lot.
But is it enough? My sense is probably not. We
probably need to spend at least another percentage of GDP
to not only afford these submarines and everything else we
want to buy, but probably expand the size of the
(08:54):
Australian Defense Force to cope with all the different contingencies
that it now has to prepare for.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
And in general, how worried about China are you in
the region. I mean, I asked the question, correct me
if I'm wrong, But you said the other day that
Australia will need to at some point look at a
national service type operation which strikes me as being sort
of from another time another.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Eight well, it's from this time, in this age. There
are many countries where having a national service scheme is
entirely unremarkable. Many democracies have had them for decades and
it's something that's embraced and supported by the citizens. Whether
it's Singapore or Korea or Taiwan, or countries in Scandinavia,
(09:34):
and even in parts of Europe, this is an uncontroversial theme.
And it's only in countries of Australia and New Zealand
America where it's become a political football. National service is
about taking eighteen year olds and joining them to their
society by having them serve their community. Doesn't all have
to be military. In fact, it's very small proportion of
(09:55):
them will be military. You can have them drive ambulances,
you can have them plant trees, you can have them bushfires.
That the principal aim of a national service scheme is
to have eighteen year olds learned that there's more to
life than them and I'm pretty sure most people in
the community wouldn't see that as a bad thing.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
And you see that happening in the not too distant
future in a place like Australia, and I'm assuming if
it happens in Australia could be looked at here.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Well. I think we need to talk about it very seriously.
Whether it happens or not is a political decision, but
we would be very foolish as a country to it
not at least not have a conversation, to have a
debate about the merits of such a system.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
What's your observation of the world. I mean when we
ask this all the time, don't we Is the world
a mess?
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Or?
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Historically speaking, it's actually no worse than it's ever been.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
No, I think we are in a bit of a
different era at the moment. We're seeing alignment of four large,
increasingly aggressive authoritarian powers China, Iran, Russia and North Korea,
who have been very open in their stated in common
belief that the days of the Western system that Australia
(11:04):
and New Zealand have benefited from are coming to an
end and that they want to offer a different form
of global system to many countries in the world. Now,
I would propose to you that they're probably not going
to offer as something that's as prosperous and as liberal
and as democratic as what we've experienced for our short histories.
(11:27):
And it's in our interests to push back on those
who would like to see a more disconnected and a
darker world.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
All right, Always good to catch up with you, M Gowell, Mcryan.
The book by the Way, The War for Ukraine's Strategy
and Adaptation under Fire that's out next week. A couple
of pieces of reading I did for it. What Australia
can learn from Ukraine's long range strike weapons. He's arguing
Australia needs to make more sort of low brow stuff
instead of buying this high end stuff all the time.
Now the one Russia is more dangerous now than when
(11:55):
it first invaded. So if you're interested in the sort
of thing, you can look those up and have a
bit of a reef.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
Newstalk SETB from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Time for catch up with one of the best military
minds going. It's officially day eight hundred and ninety five
of the Ukraine War. Just this week Zelenski, of course,
has got the first of the F sixteens. Meantime, Israel
in the US on hire alert for some sort of
retaliation from Iran. Mcryan's thirty five year Australian Army veterans
turned strategist and all three's got a new book out
by the Way, The War for Ukraine Strategy and Adaptation
(00:20):
Under Fire. It's out next week. Mcran's with us out
of Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Good morning, it's good to be with you.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Let's start with Ukraine. If sixteen's they've arrived, do you
think they'll make a difference.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
They'll make a small difference, but they're not going to
win the war for Ukraine. They are a technological step
up from its current fleet of former Soviet aircraft, but
they're in very small quantities at the moment and will
take some time to build up to ninety aircraft they've.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Been promised, and of course they're lacking pilots.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
That's the key determinant, and how quickly they can be
deployed the planes will probably arrive quicker than the number
of pilots they got, And pilots are a problem because
they've got combat missions to fly, they've got English to learn,
and it takes a while to train them on the
F sixteen, all of which slows things down.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
So I've been reading your quote in Quota the other day.
Russia's more dangerous now in your view? What's changed? If
you want to put it this way? Are they a
better side now?
Speaker 2 (01:19):
They're certainly not the better side. They're the more brutal side.
But they have learned over the last two and a
half years from their battlefield experiences. The Russian army that
exists to now exists now did not exist two and
a half years ago, so they've improved their ability to fight.
But more importantly, the Russian nation has improved its mobilization
(01:41):
and industrial capacity to fight this war over the long term.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
So the capacity you talk of are the suggestion being
they can simply grind this out. They will forever be
able to make more stuff to explode than the Ukrainians?
Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (01:55):
They will certainly be able to do it for a while.
But as a wise person once said, no tree grows
to the sky. No country can fight and take this
many casualties forever. So even the Russians have a limit,
and the whole aim of NATO's strategy needs to be
to ensure we find that limit and beat them.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
And what's your assessment of NATO's strategy and how it's
changed in the last year or two.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Well, I think they've improved over the last two and
a half years. Certainly there's great unity in NATO. They're
doing a lot in the provision of equipment, minisitions and
training and intelligence the Ukraine. But the next step absolutely
has to be embracing the defeat of the Russian military
in Ukraine. At the moment, it's defending Ukraine, so there's
(02:43):
elite to be had there and with that must come
the resources to throw the Russians out of Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
And how does that happen, especially if the Republicans win
in October.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Well, it's going to be pretty hard. But NATO countries
in Europe are stepping up their capacity to build things,
built munitions and to support Ukraine. They have done over
the last two and a half years. There's a couple
of laggards there, but most have at least hit the
two percent of GDP and some are exceeding that. So
(03:14):
if the Republicans do get elected, and that's by no
means assured, it will be much more difficult for Ukraine.
But at the end of the day, Trump may find,
if he is elected president, that it's in his interest
to help Ukraine, not into them. We shouldn't discount that possibility.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Has the result changed in the Ukraine from the people
that is.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
No, I don't think so. I mean there's a deep
fatigue and weariness among Ukrainian people. I mean people talk
about fatigue with the war. In Western countries, we have
absolutely nothing to be fatigued about. But the Ukrainians do.
But they understand that as and as hard as it
(03:56):
is to fight this war, being occupied by Russia would
be arskey worse. All the evidence is there from two
and a half years of Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
All right, So I ring you in a year, where's
the war rat do you think?
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Ah, you can't predict these things. Unfortunately, my hope would
be that we've beaten Russia and kicked them out of Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
All right, let's move to the Middle East if we can.
How worried, are you that this goes regional?
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Well, in some respects, it already is. You have Israel
fighting a war on multiple fronts in Gaza, on its
northern border in the West Bank, and its southern frontiers
with the Huthis, so it's already surrounded by a ring
of fire. Iran has already attacked it once directly and
has been attacking it indirectly for decades. So in many
(04:47):
respects it's already a regional conflict. But it's the level
of violence is beneath the threshold that we are able
to deal with. The danger we face at the moment
is that Isra Iran, working with Hesbela and others, might
do something that might see the situation become far more
combustible and far more difficult for both Israel and countries
(05:11):
like the United States to deal with.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
And as we talked this morning, Iran has not responded.
So I suppose three things they could do. One they
can do nothing. Two they could telegraph what they're going
to do, like the drones a few months back. Or
three they can go out all out what's your core.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
I don't think they can say there's nothing to see
here this time it happened in the capital of Iran
and was a pretty significant loss of face for the
Iranians and for Hesbelah to be quite frank so, I
think we will certainly see a response. I think it
will probably be more significant than what we saw earlier
(05:48):
this year, but whether they'll be more successful this time
remains to be seen.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
The fact that the Israeli has got three key people
Lebanon and Iran under protection, what is does that tell
you about the sophistication of what the Israelis are about.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
It tells me they're pretty good at finding people they
need to deal with. They made it very clear after
seven October they were going to find and bring to
justice every person involved in the seven October attacks. We
should know from previous promises of this time from the Israelis,
particularly after the Muny Olympics, that they deliver on those
(06:24):
kind of provinces.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Is there anything from your observation, that anyone anywhere can
say or do that can affect Netanyahu and what he
wants to achieve, good or bad.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
It's hard to imagine anyone external to Israel having a
significant influence on him. I think we've seen that since
October last years that Netta Noahu will do what's in
his best interests. Even a majority of Israelis seem to
think that he's not doing things in the best interests
of their country.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
All Right, the Pacific, let's deal with that, orcus, What
do you know of it? What do you think of it?
And what should news even do about Pilartoo.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Well, WUCAS is a very important arrangement between Australia, the
United Kingdom and the United States. Pillar one, as you know,
is the nuclear powered attack submarines. They will be an
important capability into the future. But Pillot two, I think
(07:22):
has a lot of potential beyond the three countries that
are currently part of Aucus, the R and D at
different universities and establishments in the three main countries, but
potentially in places like Cana, Japan, Korea, or even New Zealand.
I think could be a very interesting collaboration in the
years and the decades ahead.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Do you see us in the sticky position? I mean,
in other words, if we joined Pillar two, is that
pro American and anti Chinese?
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Well, you know, at the end of the day, China
is doing a lot of things that are against all
our interests in our region and beyond. They are helping
invade a sovereign, prosperous, democratic country. They've threatened to do
exactly the same to Taiwan. They are threatening nations in
(08:10):
the region like the Philippines and others constantly. So at
the end of the day, you know, China has a
threat to the system that exists in the Western Pacific
at the moment, and we need to ensure that we
deter them from doing anything that could tip us into
some catastrophic war.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
And what about Australia. Are they doing enough?
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Well? I think we're doing a lot. You know, the
National Defense strategy and the defense budget does a lot.
But is it enough? My sense is probably not. We
probably need to spend at least another percentage of GDP
to not only afford these submarines and everything else we
want to buy, but probably expand the size of the
(08:54):
Australian Defense Force to cope with all the different contingencies
that it now has to prepare for.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
And in general, how worried about China are you in
the region. I mean, I asked the question, correct me
if I'm wrong, But you said the other day that
Australia will need to at some point look at a
national service type operation which strikes me as being sort
of from another time another.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Eight well, it's from this time, in this age. There
are many countries where having a national service scheme is
entirely unremarkable. Many democracies have had them for decades and
it's something that's embraced and supported by the citizens. Whether
it's Singapore or Korea or Taiwan, or countries in Scandinavia,
(09:34):
and even in parts of Europe, this is an uncontroversial theme.
And it's only in countries of Australia and New Zealand
America where it's become a political football. National service is
about taking eighteen year olds and joining them to their
society by having them serve their community. Doesn't all have
to be military. In fact, it's very small proportion of
(09:55):
them will be military. You can have them drive ambulances,
you can have them plant trees, you can have them bushfires.
That the principal aim of a national service scheme is
to have eighteen year olds learned that there's more to
life than them and I'm pretty sure most people in
the community wouldn't see that as a bad thing.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
And you see that happening in the not too distant
future in a place like Australia, and I'm assuming if
it happens in Australia could be looked at here.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Well. I think we need to talk about it very seriously.
Whether it happens or not is a political decision, but
we would be very foolish as a country to it
not at least not have a conversation, to have a
debate about the merits of such a system.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
What's your observation of the world. I mean when we
ask this all the time, don't we Is the world
a mess?
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Or?
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Historically speaking, it's actually no worse than it's ever been.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
No, I think we are in a bit of a
different era at the moment. We're seeing alignment of four large,
increasingly aggressive authoritarian powers China, Iran, Russia and North Korea,
who have been very open in their stated in common
belief that the days of the Western system that Australia
(11:04):
and New Zealand have benefited from are coming to an
end and that they want to offer a different form
of global system to many countries in the world. Now,
I would propose to you that they're probably not going
to offer as something that's as prosperous and as liberal
and as democratic as what we've experienced for our short histories.
(11:27):
And it's in our interests to push back on those
who would like to see a more disconnected and a
darker world.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
All right, Always good to catch up with you, M Gowell, Mcryan.
The book by the Way, The War for Ukraine's Strategy
and Adaptation under Fire that's out next week. A couple
of pieces of reading I did for it. What Australia
can learn from Ukraine's long range strike weapons. He's arguing
Australia needs to make more sort of low brow stuff
instead of buying this high end stuff all the time.
Now the one Russia is more dangerous now than when
(11:55):
it first invaded. So if you're interested in the sort
of thing, you can look those up and have a
bit of a reef.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
Newstalk SETB from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.