00:02:07.680I'm not in the Russian general staff, but I think it's got about five key phases.
00:02:13.580I mean, we know that the run-up to the special military operation, Tucker, it was clear that there were so many warnings going back as far as 1996, and yet, unfortunately, we've ignored them all, notwithstanding the warnings not only came from Russia, but from some of our very best strategic thinkers, from George Keenan, back as far as 1996, and from John Mearsheimer in 2014.
00:02:37.840but when you get to the start of the war then it seemed to me as the war kicked off and I have to
00:02:43.580say I did not see the war coming I was involved in the offshore energy sector but as I got to
00:02:49.360understand it then the first thing that became obvious to me that this was not a war to or a
00:02:54.800special military operation to invade Ukraine and the answer the reason was simpler there weren't
00:03:00.240enough troops you know Ukraine is about the size of half of Europe and you're not going to do that
00:03:05.040with 190,000 troops. I cannot for a moment think that the Russian general staff advised Putin that
00:03:10.900they had enough troops to invade Ukraine. This was always about the Donbass. And I think the
00:03:15.400first phase of the strategy was really the use of military force to support a diplomatic engagement.
00:03:22.200And indeed, that diplomatic engagement actually went quite well. The Russians had opened
00:03:27.260negotiations with the Ukrainians after day one. And, you know, as we arrived in March,
00:03:34.880and they were ready to sign, as both sides were, an agreement which would have stopped the war.
00:03:41.920There was no NATO, neutrality for Ukraine, self-determination for the Donbass, but that
00:03:50.460was ready to sign. And it would have been signed, I'm almost certain, if it hadn't been for Boris
00:03:54.220Johnson, no doubt with Biden's support actually going across and persuading Zelensky to fight
00:04:03.360Russia and that he would have all the support he needed. So that's phase one. I think at phase two,
00:04:08.980when it becomes clear to Russia that they are going to have to fight and are likely to have
00:04:16.140to fight NATO because of what they're hearing, what you then see is what I would call militarily
00:04:21.600a withdrawal in contact so essentially what the russians were doing were recognizing that actually
00:04:27.240the kiev um attack and and the actions in the donbass uh were although diplomatic they would
00:04:36.220now need to withdraw to a line and what they did was they withdrew back to what's known as
00:04:39.840sorry vacant line and which was a defensive line um instructed by the general who was the
00:04:46.960expert in Russia in defensive lines. And that from about September onwards, they then moved
00:04:54.160into phase three after withdrawal, which is what I call attritional defense. And what that
00:05:00.840essentially means was meeting their two objectives. Their objectives were denazification and
00:05:05.380demilitarization, both of which were operational objectives. And the strategic objective, though,
00:05:11.220was clear, it was to preserve Russia's security. And what defensive attrition means is wearing down
00:05:19.820the men and materiel of the Ukrainian army. And goodness me, we helped them a lot in that,
00:05:24.740because we persuaded them to expend not one army, but two armies against that defensive line
00:05:30.760for not a single penetration. So you get to late 2023. And at that stage, I think what Russia does
00:05:39.160is they've started to, as the war got going,
00:05:44.040they started to mobilize and increase the forces.
00:05:57.880but really going on and starting to continue wearing down
00:06:03.800the men and materiel of the Ukrainian army.
00:06:06.660Don't forget, the Ukrainian army had no air superior.
00:06:09.160None of the things that you want fighting an offensive war, or indeed a defensive war, and moving slowly forward.
00:06:17.440I think as well, they were probably starting to clarify what it would be their ultimate objectives.
00:06:23.500And I remember saying, I think to Danny Davis about a year and a half ago, I thought their minimalist objectives would be to secure the Donbass and the four eastern oblasts, Crimea.
00:06:32.960and their maximum objectives might be to go further,
00:06:36.400might be to go to secure the whole of Novorossia,
00:11:08.860are being guided by a military strategy, and the Western operations are being guided by a political
00:11:13.600narrative and with objectives that change quite a lot. I think the initial objective, and it depends
00:11:21.640which particular party on the NATO side you're talking to, but the initial objectives were
00:11:28.220possibly to break up Russia. There's a very interesting RAND study written in 2018, I think
00:11:34.080it is which is called extending russia um the um russian intelligence chief budenov actually um
00:11:41.600in a on youtube um video which is on youtube talked about the need to actually have a war with russia
00:11:47.760to actually help them get into nato i think there's also what i would call um lag in thinking
00:11:52.960because a lot of the um the uh um people who were proposing the extension the expansion later without
00:12:01.840thinking through the consequences did not anticipate this. I'm certain they didn't
00:12:07.500anticipate it because they weren't ready. You know, another great failure of NATO,
00:12:12.500I'm afraid to say, they were not ready for the war. I mean, if they had thought it through and
00:12:17.720said that if we keep doing this, then Russia will respond, then actually they would either
00:12:23.640have made defensive preparations or they wouldn't have done it. I think we can say with a high
00:12:29.740degree of certainty that they they did not think it through so i think there's some lag in there
00:12:34.320and i think there's also i'm afraid to say and i think this is probably more european than um
00:12:39.080than the united states although you will know better than the united states there's a high
00:12:43.540degree of russophobia which i find it very very difficult to understand i think it's in part our
00:12:48.900press it's in part the narrative that we've built it's in part the nature of spin in modern western
00:12:55.500politics where you know an event kicks off and people spin to to help those parties that are
00:13:04.820in power stay in power and what that means is that the population generally start speaking start to
00:13:11.760get deceived i don't think they're lied to but they're deceived because they're presented with
00:13:16.240one side of the story now that really matters in war because in war you need to be able to look at
00:13:21.760all sides of the story, which is why I penned the article, The Coming War with Russia, because
00:13:26.520nobody seemed to have thought of what that war might like. It's very difficult to understand
00:13:30.840fully, though, the motivations. But I think within those factors, Tucker, you probably got the answer.
00:13:39.800I understand why the European populations are Russophobic, because the propaganda has played
00:13:46.540upon their best qualities. Russia is seen as the aggressor. Ukraine is the underdog. I think
00:13:52.840Europeans in general root for the underdog. That's a sign of their decency. It's also allowed. You're
00:13:58.480allowed to hate Russians because they're white. So you don't have to feel guilty about painting
00:14:02.620them as animals. You're not racist when you do that. I understand all of that. And they just
00:14:08.460don't know any better because Europe is a biosphere in its media. Like no outside information comes
00:14:14.940in, right? Of course, same in the United States. What I don't understand is the motive of the
00:14:20.180liars. Like, why do European leaders seek a war with Russia? Why do American leaders seek a war
00:14:26.460with Russia? I mean, these are not stupid people, and yet they are hell-bent on destroying their
00:14:32.240own countries in the service of this war against a country that doesn't need to be our enemy. I
00:14:36.700mean, it doesn't make any sense. If I had to answer the question in one phrase,
00:14:44.940It's the lack of the ability to think strategically.
00:14:48.800There is a wonderful American general who I studied when I was writing on strategy called
00:14:54.360André Beaufort, and he said that in war, the loser deserved to lose because his defeat
00:14:59.380will be a consequence of inadequate strategic thinking, either before or during the conflict.
00:15:05.460I think that the institutional lag in entities such as NATO, which had done badly in
00:15:14.500afghanistan i was in afghanistan and let's face it nato lost um so the idea that nato could prevail
00:15:21.440over russia having lost against the taliban it's just extraordinary thinking but it's it's in nato
00:15:27.540i think as well that the advice um within the um the establishment i'm i used to call call them
00:15:35.540the elites but i've now realized that they're not elite because elites about high performance
00:15:39.740Whereas we're not seeing that within the establishment. So I think the establishments have what I can best describe as a sort of institutional lag and sort of blink of thinking. And we see that in many ways.
00:15:56.140And when you look across the broad nature of the strategic context in which we're operating, and if you can be bothered to listen to what the Russians have been saying, then, you know, the logic that they present is, I find it sort of unequivocal.
00:16:13.120I may have listened, of course, to your interview with Vladimir Putin and, of course, Leveroff, and there was almost nothing that I could think of that I disagreed with.
00:16:22.580The problem, though, the West is not interested in listening, it seems to me.
00:16:26.460And so I think this is more about incompetence, and it must be incompetence on the Europeans.
00:16:32.960that, you know, there might be within the neocons
00:16:35.780and certain elements of the sort of neocon-like establishments
00:16:40.660in the West, in the E3 in Britain, Germany, and France
00:16:43.960that is determined to break up Russia.
00:16:47.920But it's obviously impossible, it seems to me.
00:16:51.840You know, when you hear Kaya Callas saying that.
00:16:55.800Well, can I ask you, I was at a dinner with her
00:16:59.180not long ago in a foreign country with a lot of...
00:17:02.960foreign diplomats who are not mediocre at all. And she got up to speak and the feeling of contempt
00:17:10.480for her and bewilderment that someone this stupid could have a leadership position in Europe. People
00:17:16.120were shocked by just how unimpressive, how uninformed she was, how childish, how girlish
00:17:21.700she was. Everything was a kind of grotesque and dumb moral generalization, Hitler versus Churchill
00:23:46.240I don't think that's true because we can't afford to be.
00:23:50.100But anyway, that's the narrative that's being sold to the European publics.
00:23:57.480And the problem is that, of course, the Russians will be listening to this.
00:24:00.640Of course, they'll be listening to it.
00:24:02.320So I thought it would be a good idea to say, well, OK, well, if we're going to be ready to fight a war with Russia, what's it going to be like?
00:24:08.880And the first thing about the article was I said that let's not assume that Russia is going to wait doing nothing until 2030, until we're ready.
00:24:20.100So let's assume that because of the way that we're starting to promote attacks deep into Russia by the E3, that's Germany, Britain and France, providing weapons and weapons with significant warheads as well, 250 kilograms and significant range deep into Russia.
00:24:37.540Let's not assume that the Russians are just going to sit back and let this happen.
00:24:41.380So my starting point was to say, okay, well, let's assume that Russia attacks Europe or attacks certain elements of Europe.
00:24:51.820And what the Russians have said is they have not taken these attacks off the agenda, which is a warning.
00:24:59.780And it's a warning which we seem to be ignoring.
00:25:02.000So let's assume that the first attacks happen in September of this year.
00:25:05.540and my scenario and i should emphasize it's a scenario not a forecast so it's trying to make
00:25:12.700people think about what could happen so let's assume these attacks happen in september of this
00:25:17.660year and the russians destroy with hypersonic missiles the factories that are making drones
00:25:25.160and missiles in britain in france and in germany and the question then is what does europe europe
00:25:33.100do and of course the first thing europe does is it says okay well we're now going to invoke article
00:25:38.260five as all of a sudden people realize what article five really means i mean you've got nato
00:25:44.380which when i was serving in nato understanding nato force mediterranean we used to say that
00:25:49.860nato is still for no ability to organize it's slightly unfair um but actually nato isn't this
00:25:55.720great omnipotent coalition. People say it's the strongest coalition since in history. I mean,
00:26:03.460that obviously isn't true. The strongest coalition in history, as far as I can see,
00:26:07.680was the Allied coalition, the Second War with the United States, Britain, the Commonwealth,
00:26:12.540Russia, and China. That's the strongest coalition by far. So NATO invokes Article 5,
00:26:18.740and the three countries that have been attacked invoke Article 5. And they realise that suddenly
00:26:23.420that actually what Article 5 means is that an attack on one is an attack on all, but it doesn't
00:26:28.080mean that actually the whole of the NATO forces have to respond and people decide to respond
00:26:34.000as they think best. And in the article, I propose that Hungary says, no, we're not getting engaged.
00:26:40.720Spain says, no, we're not getting engaged. We don't think this is in our interest.
00:26:44.880I think other countries might equivocate. It's difficult to say, but countries like Hungary,
00:26:51.180for example, obviously won't. So at that stage, we suddenly see that this isn't all it means.
00:26:57.040But the big issue, Tucker, is what does the United States do? Of course, we know that Rubio has been
00:27:04.020looking as if the United States are shifting back in to support these operations. But at that moment,
00:27:11.500I think there's an open question about what the United States do if it does, if it says,
00:27:15.600seize attacks into russia especially if those have been warned uh that the attacks are warned
00:27:21.240we've made no no response to them and my guess is that the america will not want to commit troops
00:27:27.620into uh mainland europe to fight and align a war against russia on european soil and for the for
00:27:34.200u.s troops to fight and die on the european soils i wouldn't if i were in the united states
00:27:38.340so you're then in the situation well now what do the europeans do and again just to develop the
00:27:44.820scenario i assume that europeans do the only thing they can do because their land forces are not
00:27:49.960ready is that they use air forces to respond to russia and that that doesn't go very well
00:27:56.440that actually they find that they're up against russia which got a lot of experience in air
00:28:01.420defense and one of my jobs in the navy was to be the captain of air defense destroyer and i was
00:28:09.180what was known as the anti-air warfare commander and i can tell you that we are in poor shape
00:28:13.780in europe in terms of being able to defend our skies we would struggle to respond to saturation
00:28:20.460drone attacks we've got extremely limited uh responses to to ballistic conventional ballistic
00:28:27.020missiles i'm a great fan of ted postel who is an mit professor on this he thinks that the um
00:28:33.780the patriot pack 3 systems are possibly looking about three percent effectiveness
00:28:38.780and when it comes to hypersonic missiles we've got no response whatsoever so suddenly we're
00:28:44.640making attacks that aren't very successful but in return I say that because the E3 have decided to
00:28:51.440respond to Russia's attacks that they then take the gloves off and use hypersonic missiles probably
00:28:58.420with conventional missiles to to do more damage and the thing that I would go after especially as
00:29:04.440an energy expert, would be to do the same thing that they've done in Kiev and in Ukraine,
00:29:09.940which is to surgically start to undermine our energy infrastructure. And I can tell you that
00:29:16.240a Resnick missile landing in a liquid national gas terminal or an oil terminal in Milford Haven
00:29:23.680or Rotterdam would do extensive damage. That would be bad enough. But unfortunately, of course,
00:29:30.520because of the sanctions we placed on Russia in the first place about four years ago,
00:29:36.820we've switched ourselves off from Russian oil, switched ourselves off from Russian gas,
00:29:42.420and that's 40% of our gas. We've also, of the particular products, we've switched ourselves
00:29:50.660off to Russian diesel, who used to provide us with 40% of Europe's diesel. Now, as an
00:29:56.580energy use expert if you can explain to me how you can run a modern industrial society without
00:30:02.260diesel then i'm all ears but i don't know how to do it and it's responded diesel is critical for
00:30:07.240farming for fishing for food logistics for construction for running the other two primary
00:30:13.820energy sources that's renewable energy and nuclear energy i could go on and on it is really is the
00:30:19.660critical field and we've switched ourselves off to it and of course having switched ourselves off
00:30:24.460and increased our prices in europe which of course is having an effect on our economies
00:30:29.500especially germans economy and we're now in the situation when the straighter for mose is closed
00:30:34.080and so we've got a second wham on top of the first wham so talk about being in a very very
00:30:41.020fragile position it's an extremely weak position not least of all because we import um about 12
00:30:48.000million barrels a day into oil into into the european region um norway is reasonably self
00:30:54.660sufficient in fact norway is completely self-sufficient and we get about 45 percent or so of
00:30:59.440our um hydrocarbons from the north sea although that's reducing but uh europe generally is
00:31:06.880extremely um extremely vulnerable so what you've got a situation which is that our energy
00:31:12.280infrastructure is being written down at a time when we have no no chance of defending our skies
00:31:17.440against it. And again, this is why I was trying to actually make the point to people who are
00:31:23.080prepared to think about what this wall might look like, because the economic consequences of this
00:31:28.160would be profound. Mathematically, there's a really close relationship between the use of energy
00:31:33.700and GDP. It's extremely close. It's close to one. It's perhaps sort of 0.99 or something.
00:31:40.860So what that means is when you take energy out of the system, then you are going to have a
00:31:45.740consequent effect which is similar in rough order of magnitude on your economy so if we take 10%
00:31:52.320of the world's energy away then surprise surprise don't be surprised if we get a global reduction
00:31:58.820in GDP of 10% and that's getting close to a depression indeed it's on the borderline of
00:32:04.020depression but going back to Europe it wouldn't surprise me at all if we're in a situation where
00:32:09.760were such an attack to happen then we would be in deep economic trouble
00:32:13.860and I think that would lead to deep political trouble as well. But again, it is a scenario
00:32:21.680and the point of the scenario was to help people really think about what such a war might mean
00:32:27.940and really make sure that we've done the risk assessment. Now, I developed it as a scenario
00:32:34.800because what I wanted people to think about was doing the risk assessment. At the moment,
00:32:39.160the europeans risk assessment of what they're doing as far as i can see is based on a guess
00:32:44.500and the guess is we're going to keep firing long-range weapons into russia and we're going
00:32:49.880to guess that the russians aren't going to respond and i think that's a very dangerous guess i mean
00:32:55.360people say the russians don't have red lines and i keep saying to the world just a second the russian
00:33:00.920told us that if we tried to expand nato into georgia or to ukraine and it would result in a
00:33:06.960war and indeed all our clever thinkers told us the same thing and surprise surprise when we did
00:33:12.140do that a war happened so russia do have red lines so i think it's wrong to have that guess
00:33:18.220and the way that risk management works i'm not a great fan of risk management it's used by the
00:33:22.840financial sector to do risk analysis and as far as i can see it doesn't work for them but what
00:33:27.380they do do they say if you're thinking about a risk have a think about uh the the um impact
00:33:33.380and the probability. Now, even if the probability is low of Russia doing what I've said, the impact
00:33:39.920is profound. So to me, that's a risk which you really need to work very, very hard to think
00:33:45.360through and to make sure that the population who you're exposing to that risk have been taken on
00:33:52.500board rather than just crack on without really thinking about it. So I think there needs to be
00:33:59.620in Europe a political debate about this and whether we're prepared to let our politicians
00:34:04.360lead us into a situation where we're exposed to this risk. And we've been here before in Europe,
00:34:13.580it was 1914, I should say, you know, the run, Barbara Tuckman's famous book, you know,
00:34:21.040The Guns of August, where we almost, we fell into the First World War. People thought it would be
00:34:26.040over in four months and four years later Europe was devastated. So let's at least try to do the
00:34:31.580thinking this time round and decide that if we are going to do these things and to poke the bear
00:34:37.720for ready for a war which we would lose anyway, let's at least have a public debate about that
00:34:44.760and see how the country feel about it and how the countries feel about it. Because I'm strongly of
00:34:49.080the view that actually if the country were exposed to what I'm talking about, the difference in terms
00:34:55.880of political support for it would be profound.
00:34:58.860I think the political support for it would fall away.
00:35:02.540It doesn't matter what the moral issue is.
00:35:04.720I happen to think that the moral high ground lies with Russia.
00:36:23.740If you want out, call 800-685-5696, 800-685-5696, or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Tucker.
00:36:35.860I think one disadvantage that the Europeans have is they don't understand how hated they are by the people planning these wars.
00:36:43.400I think it's true of all the wars the last hundred years.
00:36:45.460I think, at least in my country, the foreign policy strategists, the neocons who are driving all of this, truly hate Europe and would like to see it destroyed.
00:36:57.020The Israelis hate Europe, and Europeans can't seem to admit that to themselves.
00:37:03.740So let's say that the Russians did lob a hypersonic missile into Rotterdam or into the UK.
00:37:08.520everyone knows it's very obvious that that europe can't mount a conventional war against russia
00:37:16.260they would lose instantly the one thing they do have however is nuclear weapons so how much
00:37:20.640incentive would there be to use a nuclear weapon in response um it's a 64 000 question and i i
00:37:29.120actually cover that in the article um i think that what what we're talking about is that if
00:37:35.500either um britain or france the two nations with nuclear weapons chose to respond with nuclear
00:37:40.840weapons that essentially is committing national suicide yes i would expect the russians to to
00:37:47.260respond don't let's let's forget they've got nearly 5 500 nuclear weapons just short of that
00:37:53.780and uh you know i think britain's got sort of i think there might be 200 is those sorts of figures
00:38:00.000I think that a prime minister or a president of France who was prepared to use nuclear weapons to support a conventional war, which we were likely to lose in the first place, I think that would be a very – it's a suicidal call to make, so I cannot see it happening.
00:38:20.020Really? Because they cheered the destruction of their own energy pipeline. They abetted the invasion of their country by North and Sub-Saharan Africa. They're suicidal. That's what it seems as an observer.
00:38:33.280Yeah, I think it's suicidal by incompetence, but I would like to think that within the establishment, there are enough people who would, by this stage, especially if we were starting to go to war, have really started to think this through.
00:38:53.560I would also like to think that, and I'd be interested in your view on this, that there were Americans who were saying, this isn't very good.
00:39:01.380This isn't what we were thinking that we could help with the breakup of Russia.
00:39:50.040J.D. Vance is the only person I'm aware of in American national politics with any power at all, to the extent he has power, who would oppose this.
00:39:58.340But I don't see anyone other than J.D. Vance.
00:46:56.860And my strong sense, this is intuitive with some analysis to support it, but my strong
00:47:04.560sense is that we're on the edge of a crisis.
00:47:09.000And the reason I say that is if you take, it's not 20 million barrels per day, and let's
00:47:13.260just stay with oil for the moment, not natural gas, but just taking oil, which is the critical
00:47:19.140resource for almost all of the others.
00:47:20.940If you take 20 million barrels of oil out of the Strait of Hormose, in fact, it's 13, then sooner or later that has to show up.
00:47:30.440Now, what I was surprised with is how long it's taken.
00:47:35.640And, of course, when you start to see what's going on, you start to see what's happening.
00:47:39.700It takes, from the closure of the Strait Formos, it takes about two months for the ships, which are travelling at 12 knots, which is about the same speed as a bicycle, you know, to get to the United States and to places like Cushing.
00:47:54.840It takes about a month or so to get to Europe.
00:47:59.160So firstly, you've got all the ships which had left were still moving.
00:48:03.940The inventories, of course, were significant.
00:48:06.360There was a bit of an oil glut at the time.
00:48:07.960So those have been largely drawn down as far as I can see.
00:48:12.100The Strategic Petroleum Reserves as well have largely been drawn down.
00:48:17.120I think Cushing is now, the American Strategic Petroleum Reserve, I think is pretty low.
00:48:21.820A figure I have in my mind, you may know this better than me, is about 20%.
00:57:22.020The whole of the energy markets are run by the market.
00:57:25.800so there is no single entity can say well we need to do x y and z to sort this out you know you can't
00:57:30.900just say well we need to actually um run more tankers few the straights for most because if
00:57:36.160the shipping companies say well we don't like the look of that thanks we'll wait until it's ready
00:57:40.220um so there are a whole load of issues here which are really run by the market and there i think
00:57:45.940there's nobody who really understands the thing itself and even if they did understand there's
00:57:51.600nobody who can actually press a button and press five or six buttons to make the whole thing work
00:57:56.260again properly. Again, I'm hearing the same thing from other analysts. And I listen to this like a
00:58:01.640book. And I don't say that I've got the answers, but what I do say is that you take this amount
00:58:05.800of energy out of the system, it's bound to have economic consequences. It's a mathematical
00:58:10.960impossibility that it won't. And in a globalized economy, no nation can have real sovereignty.
00:58:17.080Of course, you can't act independently on behalf of your country because you're not in control of your country because you don't control its economy.
00:58:24.720So, yeah, no one kind of thought about that, obviously, in the post-war era.
00:58:30.880So let me just ask you a final question, which is how long are these two conflicts likely to continue?
00:58:37.380Do you see hope of resolution in Eastern Europe or in the Middle East?
00:58:41.800um i think if i take um the middle east first i've got a strong suspicion and i can't say for
00:58:49.640sure that as the continued closure of the straits comes home to the united states and that as the
00:58:57.980midterms go as i think it's almost impossible to avoid now badly and i suspect that that will
00:59:04.240create a very different political atmosphere in the united states if you've got very significant
00:59:08.420and price increases, and you're seeing lots of damage being done to the global economy.
00:59:14.060So my suspicion is that that's the thing which might bring the Iran war to a closure. I can't
00:59:22.540say for sure. The interesting thing as well will be to see the extent to which,
00:59:30.120if were the situation to be improved between the United States on the one hand and China and Russia
00:59:35.600On the other hand, both China and Russia could actually have a hand in helping to bring that war to a close.
00:59:43.180What's for sure is that unless the United States is willing to deploy significant land troops,
00:59:51.340and when I say significant, we're talking tens, hundreds of thousands,
00:59:54.880because nothing else is going to make a difference, then the war cannot be mum militarily.
01:00:00.060And we know, I don't think I'm overguessing to say that there's no political appetite in the United States to deploy land forces into the Iranian war.
01:00:10.560I think as regards to the Russia-Ukraine war, that's a more difficult one to call.
01:00:16.700My guess is that what Putin will be thinking about will be about the coming economic crisis in Europe.
01:00:24.780because one of the things that he could be saying to himself is okay i could respond um by as the
01:00:32.560europeans start to ratchet up pressure on me but actually i can see what's coming so by the time
01:00:38.120this economic crisis hits europe and at that stage the europeans will be recognized finally
01:00:44.000that they simply can't afford the weapons and they're actually because they're actually tipping
01:00:48.500into recession i mean arguably germany's already in recession i think both britain and france