Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Height sixteen fifty five kerrc DE talk station. Better a
few minutes late than never. Welcome to the inside scoop Ladition,
Oliver Lane Lennonbia chief to talk about. Well, you're up
on the brink of war. Welcome to the morning show, Oliver.
It's a pleasure to have you on.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm London story to delay, but glad to be on them.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Oh, like I said, better late than never, I was
just going on a little bit of a spleen vent.
We the United States of America have given Ukraine these
longer range missiles which have thus far been launched into
the interior of Russia. But it requires US Armie personnel
or military personnel to operate them, given the security clearance
and all the other information they need from the United
(00:43):
States military. So we are actively engaged in war right now.
What's the point of this when those missiles typically get
shot down by the the Russia's version of the Iron Dome.
And are we really on the brink of war with
this activity? Oliver?
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Well, there's so many things here to which we could
append allegedly. Indeed, you say that these missiles can only
be fired with assistance.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
From US troops.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
I do believe that to be true, but I don't
think we've ever had exact confirmation of that. However, that
is in line with what we know about the other
missile systems that have been given to Ukraine, for instance
by the United Kingdom the storm Shadow, a very potent
bunker buster missile, and also the Skulp Upper by the French,
very similar system, and in terms of them being shot down, well, a.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Lot of this we have to rely on Russian claims.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
And I was looking at yesterday almost like a classic
day in this conflict, where we have the Ukrainians on
one side boasting that they had these fantastic strikes against
Russian airfields, Russian military installations, but complaining of course that
the Russians are bombing civilians. Then on the other hand
(01:56):
from Russian state media, you have the boast that they
have struck successfully Ukrainian airfields and Ukrainian military installations and
complaining of course that Ukraine is bombing pavilion Pavilian places
in Russia as well. So we really do have to
rely and of course both sides of course saying those
(02:16):
stripes the enemy claims they were ineffective. We shot down
all the missals, we shot down all the drones, So
I think we do have to take with a pinch
of stalt the claim that Russia is shooting down all
of these missiles. Some inevitably will always get through and
attack ems.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
As it's called. The Army Capital Missile.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
System, which is what is now being fired into the
Russian interior, is a modern, sophisticated US weapon system, so
we will expect it to achieve some stripe. But you know,
you're talking about the escalation that we're seeing here allegedly,
what does this mean for us? And I think the
(02:53):
really sort of key thing to think about here is
how is Russia going to be interpreting this and how
do we feel about it, particularly in the light of
the US presidential election. I know, just a real change
in the tone of Russia's coverage of the Ukraine War
and the US involvement.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Of it as soon as the election results were in.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
And I know it's a bit kealy ready, and I
apologize to that.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
They used to call it kremlinology back in the Cold War.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Do you remember that?
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Yeah, long long time ago now, And I think, but
what I'm trying to divine is this, I think there's
an idea inside the Kremlin that actually the Biden era
is over, and even if Biden is doing stuff that
is not strictly logical or wise, like signing off on
these sticks, when actually for months and years, the very
(03:44):
clear Biden White House line has been this is dangerous
as an escalation, we probably shouldn't do this. And then
as soon as he loses the election, he changes his mind,
or whoever is in charge of Joe Biden changed their mind.
And I just wonder whether there's a view inside the
Kremlin which is okay, we just got to put up
with it for two and a half months, and then
we can speak to somebody who is saying, aka President
(04:06):
Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
You know, I think that's a very thoughtful and excellent
analysis because clearly, and in your riot, I mean you
sort of in passing reference something that we talk about
all the time here in the United States, which is
Joe Biden's not in charge of Joe Biden. Somebody has
made this decision on his behalf. Now is it designed
to screw around with in advance of Trump taking office,
(04:27):
mess with the upcoming Trump administration, which to me I
find absolutely immoral, horrific, and that anyone would do that
just to at as a measure of spite, put tens
of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people's lives at
risk just because they don't like the having lost the election.
I just hope that is not the case, but it
sort of seems that way. But if you're looking at it,
(04:48):
as you point out, from the Kremlin standpoint, kremlinology great
line from the past. If you're looking at it from
Putin's standpoint, it would be wise to just say, all right,
all right, all right, we can manage this situation. Will
take a wait and see approach. If they shoot some
missiles at As, we'll try our best to knock him
out of the sky. But this war is not going
to go away anytime soon. So let's just take a
(05:09):
wait and see approach. Because Donald Trump has promised he's
going to solve it, and let's see what he proposes.
Because I presume any resolution of this war, and Oliver
correct me if you think I'm wrong, is going to
be at least some land concessions to the Russians.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Well, that's definitely an option that's on the table. And
there's been all sorts of discussion, a lot of inks
bill over what President Trump's options might be, but the
fact is past and future President Trump really hasn't shown
his hand in terms of what his plan is to
bring peace. And of course I think it's fair to
say that actually he won this election in part on
(05:49):
a platform of peace, which is I think it's a
great thing actually for America that people will actually vote
on something.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
It's so fundamentally important as that.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
But he hasn't told us what the plan is, and
there's clearly a good reason for that. But in terms
of where it could go, yes, of course there's a
discussion of a territory slot, and that being the case,
I hate to say it, like I hate to see
my friends lose, but Ukraine is kind of running out
of time on that because I think it's dangerous what
(06:20):
they did counter invading Russia. There's no doubt that is
really bruly escalatory. And when I thought they'd done it,
I went ooh, criky, where's this going to go? But
in terms of having it, when the negotiating table finally
comes and Presidents Trubb be sitting at ahead of that
table and Presidents of Lengthsky is sitting opposite President Pussin,
(06:41):
I guess.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
May may or may not happen.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Having a few hundred square miles of Russian territory in
your hand is going to do you some good.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
Fair enough, fair enough. From a military strategic standpoint, I
don't know that it's doing the Ukrainians much good. But
in a in a treaty and in a resolution standpoint,
may provide enough leverage that they can save some face
giving up some territory in Ukraine, most notably the territory
that's occupied by people who are predominantly leaning Russia. Anyway,
real quick here, I guess the other component of the
(07:13):
fog of war, which you very clearly pointed out in
terms of are we really hitting that? Are they really
hitting this? We don't know. It just seems to me
that after all this time, the Ukrainians are going to
run out of young men fighting the war, and that
seems to be one of the biggest challenges that they
have right now. Absent fresh boots on the ground, how
are the Ukrainians going to maintain the battlefront?
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Well, this is a real problem.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
And if you look at the Russians having suddenly invited
their friends in North Korea ye join the battle, I
guess it's a problem that they're facing as well. So
Ukraine I think approached this war when it started quite rationally,
and it's a cruel decision for any politician to have
to make. But when they started, I mean, we're going
(08:00):
to call it conscriptions as conscription, but it's I think
it's close enough for us to use that as shorthand
when they started bringing people into the military by hook
or by crook at the beginning of this war, they
actually started much further up the population pyramid. I believe
even now, the average age of the Ukrainian soldiers in
their late thirties or early forties. And when you see
(08:21):
those photographs of active units in the field, a lot
of them are grizzled, bearded old men. And they've never
really made a comment on this as such in terms
of explaining their thinking, and I'm aware of but looking
at it from the outside, I strongly suspect this is
because they have an understanding that Ukraine has a finite
number of young men, as frankly all western countries do.
(08:43):
We're experiencing a demographic.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Collapse all across the wear and I.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Suspect they looked at them and said, well, the guys who
still chance of having a family in the future, We're
going to call those up last, and I believe that
will happened, and that counts in Ukraine's favor in terms
of like the core of your question, let's be honest,
is how long do they really have to run with
this conflict until it's not just a matter of you know,
is Donald Trump going to stop stending missiles? Is the
(09:11):
European Union going to run out of money to keep
the war machine running? It's when are they going to
run out of bodies? Which is it's a horrible question
to have to contemplate. But this goes back again to
your your story of this or your point.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
About the fog of war, which is absolutely right.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
I cannot think of a conflict that I have covered
or researched in my time, either as a journalist or
was an academic before that where the fog war was
so great And actually we have very poor information.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
From both sides.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
In most wars you can rely on at least one side,
I mean small wars, not generally you do get one
your reliable picture of what's happening, and that's it's not
been so great in the Ukraine War.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Obviously, I don't feel like I can really trust anything
that Kremlin has to to say.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
I think you'd have to be mad to do so, right,
But also, like Ukraine is a is in a absolutely
generational wall.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
It is it is a it's a fundamental question whether
that country will continue to exist.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
So I don't exactly blame them for doing the propaganda
game that they've done, because they have to do that
to keep themselves on the wall.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
But my god, it makes it hard for the rest.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Of us and the rest of the world to really
have a clear understanding of like, really, how many casualties
have they actually had, how many of those were killed casualties,
how many could return.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
To the front line. You know, I don't want to
call it lies. That sounds very uncharitable and very unkind,
but we do not have a good picture.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Well, they've got to maintain some measure of propaganda to
keep the idea of continuing to give them arms in play.
Fascinating Oliver Lane, your wonderful job. I appreciate the time
you spent my listeners me and I recommend as always
people bookmark Breitbart b R E I T b a
art dot com for Oliver Lane, his writing and everybody
else there, keep up the great work. I look forward
(11:01):
to having you on the program again real soon.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Thanks coming on staff, appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Eight twenty seven Daniel Davis Deep dive.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
Come up next.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
We'll continue this war related conversation after these brief words.
Fifty five KRC
Height sixteen fifty five kerrc DE talk station. Better a
few minutes late than never. Welcome to the inside scoop Ladition,
Oliver Lane Lennonbia chief to talk about. Well, you're up
on the brink of war. Welcome to the morning show, Oliver.
It's a pleasure to have you on.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm London story to delay, but glad to be on them.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Oh, like I said, better late than never, I was
just going on a little bit of a spleen vent.
We the United States of America have given Ukraine these
longer range missiles which have thus far been launched into
the interior of Russia. But it requires US Armie personnel
or military personnel to operate them, given the security clearance
and all the other information they need from the United
(00:43):
States military. So we are actively engaged in war right now.
What's the point of this when those missiles typically get
shot down by the the Russia's version of the Iron Dome.
And are we really on the brink of war with
this activity? Oliver?
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Well, there's so many things here to which we could
append allegedly. Indeed, you say that these missiles can only
be fired with assistance.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
From US troops.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
I do believe that to be true, but I don't
think we've ever had exact confirmation of that. However, that
is in line with what we know about the other
missile systems that have been given to Ukraine, for instance
by the United Kingdom the storm Shadow, a very potent
bunker buster missile, and also the Skulp Upper by the French,
very similar system, and in terms of them being shot down, well, a.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Lot of this we have to rely on Russian claims.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
And I was looking at yesterday almost like a classic
day in this conflict, where we have the Ukrainians on
one side boasting that they had these fantastic strikes against
Russian airfields, Russian military installations, but complaining of course that
the Russians are bombing civilians. Then on the other hand
(01:56):
from Russian state media, you have the boast that they
have struck successfully Ukrainian airfields and Ukrainian military installations and
complaining of course that Ukraine is bombing pavilion Pavilian places
in Russia as well. So we really do have to
rely and of course both sides of course saying those
(02:16):
stripes the enemy claims they were ineffective. We shot down
all the missals, we shot down all the drones, So
I think we do have to take with a pinch
of stalt the claim that Russia is shooting down all
of these missiles. Some inevitably will always get through and
attack ems.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
As it's called. The Army Capital Missile.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
System, which is what is now being fired into the
Russian interior, is a modern, sophisticated US weapon system, so
we will expect it to achieve some stripe. But you know,
you're talking about the escalation that we're seeing here allegedly,
what does this mean for us? And I think the
(02:53):
really sort of key thing to think about here is
how is Russia going to be interpreting this and how
do we feel about it, particularly in the light of
the US presidential election. I know, just a real change
in the tone of Russia's coverage of the Ukraine War
and the US involvement.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Of it as soon as the election results were in.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
And I know it's a bit kealy ready, and I
apologize to that.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
They used to call it kremlinology back in the Cold War.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Do you remember that?
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Yeah, long long time ago now, And I think, but
what I'm trying to divine is this, I think there's
an idea inside the Kremlin that actually the Biden era
is over, and even if Biden is doing stuff that
is not strictly logical or wise, like signing off on
these sticks, when actually for months and years, the very
(03:44):
clear Biden White House line has been this is dangerous
as an escalation, we probably shouldn't do this. And then
as soon as he loses the election, he changes his mind,
or whoever is in charge of Joe Biden changed their mind.
And I just wonder whether there's a view inside the
Kremlin which is okay, we just got to put up
with it for two and a half months, and then
we can speak to somebody who is saying, aka President
(04:06):
Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
You know, I think that's a very thoughtful and excellent
analysis because clearly, and in your riot, I mean you
sort of in passing reference something that we talk about
all the time here in the United States, which is
Joe Biden's not in charge of Joe Biden. Somebody has
made this decision on his behalf. Now is it designed
to screw around with in advance of Trump taking office,
(04:27):
mess with the upcoming Trump administration, which to me I
find absolutely immoral, horrific, and that anyone would do that
just to at as a measure of spite, put tens
of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people's lives at
risk just because they don't like the having lost the election.
I just hope that is not the case, but it
sort of seems that way. But if you're looking at it,
(04:48):
as you point out, from the Kremlin standpoint, kremlinology great
line from the past. If you're looking at it from
Putin's standpoint, it would be wise to just say, all right,
all right, all right, we can manage this situation. Will
take a wait and see approach. If they shoot some
missiles at As, we'll try our best to knock him
out of the sky. But this war is not going
to go away anytime soon. So let's just take a
(05:09):
wait and see approach. Because Donald Trump has promised he's
going to solve it, and let's see what he proposes.
Because I presume any resolution of this war, and Oliver
correct me if you think I'm wrong, is going to
be at least some land concessions to the Russians.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Well, that's definitely an option that's on the table. And
there's been all sorts of discussion, a lot of inks
bill over what President Trump's options might be, but the
fact is past and future President Trump really hasn't shown
his hand in terms of what his plan is to
bring peace. And of course I think it's fair to
say that actually he won this election in part on
(05:49):
a platform of peace, which is I think it's a
great thing actually for America that people will actually vote
on something.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
It's so fundamentally important as that.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
But he hasn't told us what the plan is, and
there's clearly a good reason for that. But in terms
of where it could go, yes, of course there's a
discussion of a territory slot, and that being the case,
I hate to say it, like I hate to see
my friends lose, but Ukraine is kind of running out
of time on that because I think it's dangerous what
(06:20):
they did counter invading Russia. There's no doubt that is
really bruly escalatory. And when I thought they'd done it,
I went ooh, criky, where's this going to go? But
in terms of having it, when the negotiating table finally
comes and Presidents Trubb be sitting at ahead of that
table and Presidents of Lengthsky is sitting opposite President Pussin,
(06:41):
I guess.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
May may or may not happen.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Having a few hundred square miles of Russian territory in
your hand is going to do you some good.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
Fair enough, fair enough. From a military strategic standpoint, I
don't know that it's doing the Ukrainians much good. But
in a in a treaty and in a resolution standpoint,
may provide enough leverage that they can save some face
giving up some territory in Ukraine, most notably the territory
that's occupied by people who are predominantly leaning Russia. Anyway,
real quick here, I guess the other component of the
(07:13):
fog of war, which you very clearly pointed out in
terms of are we really hitting that? Are they really
hitting this? We don't know. It just seems to me
that after all this time, the Ukrainians are going to
run out of young men fighting the war, and that
seems to be one of the biggest challenges that they
have right now. Absent fresh boots on the ground, how
are the Ukrainians going to maintain the battlefront?
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Well, this is a real problem.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
And if you look at the Russians having suddenly invited
their friends in North Korea ye join the battle, I
guess it's a problem that they're facing as well. So
Ukraine I think approached this war when it started quite rationally,
and it's a cruel decision for any politician to have
to make. But when they started, I mean, we're going
(08:00):
to call it conscriptions as conscription, but it's I think
it's close enough for us to use that as shorthand
when they started bringing people into the military by hook
or by crook at the beginning of this war, they
actually started much further up the population pyramid. I believe
even now, the average age of the Ukrainian soldiers in
their late thirties or early forties. And when you see
(08:21):
those photographs of active units in the field, a lot
of them are grizzled, bearded old men. And they've never
really made a comment on this as such in terms
of explaining their thinking, and I'm aware of but looking
at it from the outside, I strongly suspect this is
because they have an understanding that Ukraine has a finite
number of young men, as frankly all western countries do.
(08:43):
We're experiencing a demographic.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Collapse all across the wear and I.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Suspect they looked at them and said, well, the guys who
still chance of having a family in the future, We're
going to call those up last, and I believe that
will happened, and that counts in Ukraine's favor in terms
of like the core of your question, let's be honest,
is how long do they really have to run with
this conflict until it's not just a matter of you know,
is Donald Trump going to stop stending missiles? Is the
(09:11):
European Union going to run out of money to keep
the war machine running? It's when are they going to
run out of bodies? Which is it's a horrible question
to have to contemplate. But this goes back again to
your your story of this or your point.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
About the fog of war, which is absolutely right.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
I cannot think of a conflict that I have covered
or researched in my time, either as a journalist or
was an academic before that where the fog war was
so great And actually we have very poor information.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
From both sides.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
In most wars you can rely on at least one side,
I mean small wars, not generally you do get one
your reliable picture of what's happening, and that's it's not
been so great in the Ukraine War.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Obviously, I don't feel like I can really trust anything
that Kremlin has to to say.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
I think you'd have to be mad to do so, right,
But also, like Ukraine is a is in a absolutely
generational wall.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
It is it is a it's a fundamental question whether
that country will continue to exist.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
So I don't exactly blame them for doing the propaganda
game that they've done, because they have to do that
to keep themselves on the wall.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
But my god, it makes it hard for the rest.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Of us and the rest of the world to really
have a clear understanding of like, really, how many casualties
have they actually had, how many of those were killed casualties,
how many could return.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
To the front line. You know, I don't want to
call it lies. That sounds very uncharitable and very unkind,
but we do not have a good picture.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Well, they've got to maintain some measure of propaganda to
keep the idea of continuing to give them arms in play.
Fascinating Oliver Lane, your wonderful job. I appreciate the time
you spent my listeners me and I recommend as always
people bookmark Breitbart b R E I T b a
art dot com for Oliver Lane, his writing and everybody
else there, keep up the great work. I look forward
(11:01):
to having you on the program again real soon.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Thanks coming on staff, appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Eight twenty seven Daniel Davis Deep dive.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
Come up next.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
We'll continue this war related conversation after these brief words.
Fifty five KRC
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Monster: BTK
'Monster: BTK', the newest installment in the 'Monster' franchise, reveals the true story of the Wichita, Kansas serial killer who murdered at least 10 people between 1974 and 1991. Known by the moniker, BTK – Bind Torture Kill, his notoriety was bolstered by the taunting letters he sent to police, and the chilling phone calls he made to media outlets. BTK's identity was finally revealed in 2005 to the shock of his family, his community, and the world. He was the serial killer next door. From Tenderfoot TV & iHeartPodcasts, this is 'Monster: BTK'.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.