The discussion explores potential "Black Swan" events that could have a significant global impact, highlighting concerns about cybersecurity, geopolitical tensions, and economic vulnerabilities. Highlights: 🌐 Potential for a large-scale cyber attack, estimated to be bigger than the global illegal drug trade 💣 Nuclear threats from countries like Iran, North Korea, and Russia 🌍 Climate change affects 9 out of 10 Americans, and potential for food insecurity 💰 Vulnerability of the U.S. power grid and critical infrastructure to attacks 🇺🇦 Ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine involving drones and electronic warfare 🇮🇱 Aftermath of the October 7 attack on Israel and implications for the Middle East 🇮🇷 Iran's nuclear program and its relationships with Russia and China 🤝 Possibility of unexpected global alliances and realignments, such as between Trump and Xi 🇱🇦 Concerns about the situation in Los Angeles, described as worse than what's seen on TV
Key Insights:
🔒 Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities: The potential for a large-scale cyber attack, estimated to be bigger than the global illegal drug trade, highlights the significant risks to critical infrastructure and global systems.
💥 Nuclear Threats: Concerns about nuclear capabilities in countries like Iran, North Korea, and Russia underscore the ongoing geopolitical tensions and the risk of escalation.
🌍 Climate Change Impacts: The fact that 9 out of 10 Americans are affected by extreme weather and climate change suggests the growing urgency to address these challenges.
⚡ Power Grid Fragility: The vulnerability of the U.S. power grid and other critical infrastructure to attacks emphasizes the need for robust security measures and resilience planning.
🇺🇦 Ukraine-Russia Conflict: The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, involving advanced technologies like drones and electronic warfare, provides insights into the evolving nature of modern warfare.
🇮🇱 Middle East Dynamics: The aftermath of the October 7 attack on Israel and the implications for the broader region showcase the complexity and volatility of the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East.
🇮🇷 Iran's Relationships: Iran's nuclear program and its relationships with Russia and China highlight the intricate web of alliances and rivalries that shape global security dynamics.
🤝 Unexpected Alliances: The possibility of unexpected global alliances and realignments, such as between Trump and Xi, suggests the potential for significant shifts in the international order.
Are you seeing one screen or two? One screen? Okay, all right, then I do want to talk about Black Swan scenarios. But before I start, I was in LA Monday of last week through took the Red Eye home on Friday, and what's going on there is actually, in my view, worse than what's seen on TV, and the suffering and the damage and the tragedy out there is is really beyond. Was really unbelievable to see what's going on out there. So whatever you can do to help, we should all try and try and help out, because it is going to be really bad for the less fortunate out there. It's going to be a tough, tough battle back. So let's get into the Black Swan scenarios and political came out and they they surveyed 15 futurists and strategists for their thoughts on what might be lying in the weeds. For investors, obviously, these are things that may or may not take place and tend to be low probability events. I thought we just remind people the definition of a black swan event. The attributes are extreme impact you can rationalize after the fact that we should have seen it coming, and they are recognized around predictability. You know, the housing crisis, the.com bubble and the 911 terrorist attacks are three of the most recent examples for people look at. So I'm going to list the 15 for you in groups of five. So starting with the largest cyber attack in history. Cyber is big business these days. In fact, it's estimated to be bigger than the global drug trade, illegal drug trade business, and that's one that we'll touch on a little bit later. I think the idea of a secret deal to stop Iran is from the nuclear program. Is really Russia and the US make a deal for a five year pause on the nuclear program. It's done by Iran to stop Israel from attacking it. It's backed by the Saudis, who want to keep things settled down in the Middle East. Is the concept for this one sec session is on the march. I'm not going to spend much time on an outbreak of epidemic proportions. The concept is it starts as in a small rural area, builds up. Media goes into social media goes into disinformation mode about the diseases it spreads, and then back skeptics do not approve the emergency use authorization of an experimental vaccine that's developed. And that's that scenario. And then a Trump she alliance will emerge, which is what I will talk about more later on as well. So those are the first five. The next five. A market crash triggers a global crisis. While we have deregulation going on and government downsizing, we de prioritize scenario planning and malicious actors come in, target the financial markets and create a with this information and create a global crisis. Is the concept of that one, the next one, climate action becomes the norm. Obviously, nine out of 10 Americans now report being affected by extreme climate and extreme weather. So we'll touch on that one a little bit unexpected, global alliances and realignments with AI bringing rapid advances that could develop to developing areas like Africa and India. You can get big productivity boost coming through, which would be quite interesting. You also see some changes going on in the Middle East right now, which could lead to a very different kind of a setup there. And then you have the global infrastructure needs, whether it's due to weather or just advances in technology that are going to create new alliances around natural resources. The next one is that South Korea develops nuclear weapons, and that they've been working on that and announced that. And lastly, the military moves into an unvaccinated age that creates a competitive advantage for foreign competitors. The next, last five are a two state solution that the people of Bela rose could eventually see freedom, the loss of power, and that's actually the grid gets attacked or goes down and up ends American life. One that's real is the temptation to reach for a nuclear tool box becomes too hard for some leader to resist. And last. A decisive break through in quantum computing. So I'll just show the five groups of five again, and then I'll give you some thoughts on a couple of these. So the first five are here. The next five I
and the final five, and I'm going to touch on a couple of these, and then open it up for everyone to share their thoughts and what they think may or may not happen as we go forward, or what concerns them that's not on the list. So I think the one that's most interesting is that President Trump in chief, form an unexpected Alliance, and there's actually a good case for why this would be beneficial to both one President Trump, President elect Trump, tends not to like conflicts and wars. He likes to keep his money being spent on things more domestically oriented that could improve GDP wars tend not to be good for the brand of a president and not great for their party in the aftermath. On the other hand, President Xi has some big economic challenges, and could buy time to get them resolved and with us not making those economic problems worse and reopening their markets, and the European markets would be in their best interest as well. So that could be one that has big benefits, not just for each nation, but for the global system, if that was to come to pass, if only it were so I would put that one in that category. I think the three nuke issues that were put out there, two of them are negative. One would be a positive, which is the South Korea coming out with nukes, and the ability for leaders like in North Korea or Putin to resist the temptation, if push too far is a real threat and always present. I think the idea of a agreement with Iran and coming things down the middle east is one that would be quite appealing for the world, not a long term solution, likely, but certainly dialing things down the near term would be helpful all around I think the areas around a cyber attack and a market crash may be related. The world is in a bad spot right now with cyber and I think four things are about to make cyber attacks potentially worse. Gen AI is a perfect tool for hackers to create different personas and and false fronts that could easily do people in being the first one the second one is large. Language models can be very susceptible to attacks, from some of which there's no known solution for the third is Jen AI is being used to create codes, and some of which could introduce new security flaws that create new vulnerabilities. And then we could also have deregulation going too far, and that we don't protect ourselves as well as we should. I think you are seeing hacks on the Treasury and other government areas that could that have shown the vulnerabilities there. Recently, the US Treasury announced that. So this is not as black Spanish as people might think. And then the last one, I think, is the loss of power up ending American life and climate action becoming the norm. I think this power grid issue, and we saw this with some of the attacks, some of the sabotage on the sub sea cables that are going on, you could really up end the global system quite effectively with bad actors working this way. I think the pendulum swings both ways, and it's something that uses in times of last resort. But I think these are some of the scenarios that were thrown out. I would just add that the BCA research came out with five additional ones that they had. One would be more positive, which is China begins to reverse its economic policies really creating a big rally that stimulates their consumption. One, that's the same as true. Trump finalizes a nuclear deal with Iran. Three, that's a negative is Trump could turn his back on NATO. Four is the US could use military or economic force against Mexico, and the fifth one is other nations could stage a coordinated currency intervention. So mark with that, we'll open it up for comments and discussion from the group.
That was quick. Thanks, Steven, you're welcome. Can you
explain this? This session? Thing, what are the concerns about secession? Is
that you have these far right groups that are picking up, and they actually start to try and pull like minded counties from other states and create their own little worlds. Is the scenario behind that? It's not one that I spend particularly amounts of time focusing on because I think the bigger ones that that I highlighted are the ones that have higher concern to me and bigger impact. But I think it is a sign of the political fragmentation that's going on around the globe, on the splintering of society around those eight around those lines, I think, is really where it's coming from.
So, is there any analysis about what happens if America, I mean, if California, splinters into a Jefferson state and California State and whatever? Is there any, any something, you know, if the seventh world's largest economy splinters into multiple states.
Yeah, no, they didn't do that kind they didn't go into that deep. Because I think when the future is throw this, some of these out there really not looking for the real specifics that you're looking for, or that we would look for, is from a pure economic perspective on something like that. Some of the other ones, they'll be you can put better numbers too.
Okay, thanks, Adam. Adam, then Michael,
good morning everyone. Steven, thank you for the for the optimistic presentation today, I'll be sleeping well tonight. Um, curious about two things. Did they specify what kind of secession is movements? I mean, are we talking about the usual Catalonia and and the Basque? That's one thing. The other thing, I'm curious about the details and how, why Bela Russian freedom came up, right? It's entirely plausible, but I'm curious as to where that came from.
I'll get you your second answer. First, the Belarus one, let me go back here is
Atlantic Council.
I'm sorry that's from the McCain institute in Arizona state. And the view is a that it's a people driven toppling of the champions goes government, and that the President Elect in exile senses a weakness and tries to take advantage. And in Russia and in Russia and tries to take advantage of it is really the element of that. The success is one. I tell you, I blew mostly through that one, so I didn't spend as much time on it, so I'm not as prepared to really focus on that one. So I apologize.
Okay. Thank you. Stephen, you're welcome. Michael,
oh boy. So first a comment was 2008 really a black swan event. There were plenty of people in the lead up to it talking about the issues that caused it. So I'm not sure I call it a black swan. A lot of people ignored it because they were making money off of what led up to it, um, largest cyber attack in history. I don't see that as a Black Swan. This is, no, this is in my wheel house, yeah, and you know us networks are just riddled with folks who have intruded, right? So it's just, it's waiting to happen. And actually, last night, I was on ver rissons website. One of the things I like to do, because I'm frugal, my wife says I'm cheap, is I was looking at their certified refurbished phones, and I noticed that some of the phones that they're selling to people are actually end of life in terms of getting updates and getting specifically security updates. And I find that unconscionable. Now, the one black swan, and I'm not sure if it's really a black. One that has not been mentioned is food instability on a global basis, that is loss of agricultural production, which will lead to political instability. So those are my comments,
Michael, when you talk about food, food and food instability. Are you talking about water as well?
Water is one factor. But basically, even in the US, product, agricultural productivity has been declining, and when we look at other parts of the world again, due to climate issues, geo political issues, availability of food, and available food, it costs that people can afford. For example, in Africa, is a huge issue. So I see that coming down the pike.
If I, if I can make a quick comment Stephen regarding Michael's Black Swan thing. What is the definition of Black Swan. I mean, he has a good point regarding the cyber attack. I think everybody's aware of that possibility, and it becomes increasingly likely with the weaponization of of cyber by the Russians, by us, by everyone, the Israelis are, are, are particularly good at it.
So I agree that most, most black swan events that are on this list by definition, are not black swan events. They're gray Swan events because the definition is as a high impact event that's difficult to predict under normal circumstances, but in retrospect, appear to be inevitable. So I think Michael's right. A lot of these are predictable. So it gets a little squishy, and how they how they look at it, but I think the other element is it's the extremity, it's the degree of the impact that becomes unpredictable. So the housing crisis, that we had, housing crisis in and of itself, wasn't, uh, unpredictable, that it took the system down the way it did, and that there was vulnerabilities in the system that nobody really understood, like the derivative exposure to the degree that it became a problem. I think that's where you get into some of these. So I agree with you that a nuclear event would not be a surprise when you have people like the president, the head of North Korea, or Putin with his back against the wall. I think the food issue Michael raised is a real one, and I think that is one that people should be spending a lot more time worrying about. I don't know how we deal with a
lot of these.
Adam. Adam, just Jonathan and Wanda,
thanks, Mark, Stephen. I appreciate your power points. They're always very provocative in terms of your intellectual capacity. Thank you for Ray just was on 60 minutes talking about the Chinese embedding cyber bombs in our utilities infrastructure, so I was hoping maybe you could unpack your concern about the grid going down a little bit more. Thanks.
Yeah. I mean, without, without anyone embedding into our grid, our grid is so outdated that the vulnerabilities just from neglect are extremely high in our grid system. We actually did a project with the with the consulting club at Cal Berkeley on the power needs of this of the US. And it's alarming how bad we are right now. Without intrusion, you get intrusion into the system, which is, Michael said, is they're already there, and it's just a, it's a waiting to happen. I think a lot of why it's not being more aggressive ly taken down is, I think we have the same ability to take other countries down as well. So it's kind of one of those things that you have to be careful what you do to somebody, because they could do it back to you. Because if I had to guess, and maybe someone with a more defense background, like Michael could tell you that everything they're doing we're doing the same, whether we're doing it as well or not, it's a different story,
not quite the same. One of the issues is we are a target rich. Environment compared to many other countries, right? So it's, it's not symmetrical, yeah,
we're less controlled, controlling and protective. Wanda,
Thank you, Steven. So there are three nuke scenarios on your list. And first, the comment about food and water. We have and we, that's royal global we, we have structural problems with the food. And that's given that's not Black Swan. So the black swan would be we run out of food for whatever reason. And on that note, what I did not see was bio attacks. Bio war for so question to you, should we feel comfortable about the state of the science, state of the art that there is enough mitigation in space, because the leader weird, those may reach out for nukes, And they may reach out for bio war first. So I'd like to take you know your take on that. Should we sleep better, not thinking about the next uncontrolled and I'm not talking about pandemics, but something far more you know, design as a war for and then my comment in a discussion about cyber, indeed, cyber is to cyber attacks are to happen. But again, I tend to think about black swans in terms of, you know, perhaps I read too many of the science fiction movies, but the whole financial system will be taken down by the cyber attack. That's the Black Swan, as opposed to individual stock exchange or individual global bank. So there is the magnitude of the impact, but I'm curious about your take this bio war far.
I actually think that a lot of the stuff we spend our time worrying about, including some of these things, are so low probability that they're interesting to throw out, and they are. Some of these do become real, and you have to think about the implications of them. But I don't spend a lot of time thinking about that. What I'm worried about is what Peter Boris was mentioning earlier, that we don't get our rates under control, that we don't get the deficits under control, that we don't get debt under control, and that, if you move the 10 year above 5% what that does the ability of the markets to move forward this year? I think these are things to keep in the back your mind. But I think a lot of the stuff we worry about is has a mutually short destruction element to it. So I think that's that's one of the things that why don't spend a lot of time worrying about that? I'm worried more about the things are going to impact our lives over the next three to five years that have a higher probability. So I'm pretty optimistic about things. I think the the rate move is not that we've seen the US as a sign of a healthy economy, not a negative. If it stays in the, you know, four and a half to 5% range, I think that's healthy for us side of a strong economy. I don't think it's going to be great for all the stocks in the market. I think the difference between 450 and five is the number of the 493 that gets has a good year, versus the as we're looking for, a burning out of the market. The higher the rate, the small that number of the 493 does well this year. So I think those are for me. I think those are the things I would worry about, and then the conflicts that are at hand right now. But what we don't spend a lot of time on is, what if we actually start to get peace in the Middle East? What if we get some things locked down? Mark,
so Steven, it's at 1130 and that is a segue of sort. So I'll let the people with the hands up ask their questions. But we have a speaker of like institution. Can I call you Colonel opposite hook? I want to plant the seed that what you're going to speak in a few minutes. You want to just introduce yourself. You don't mind. You have to unmute though.
You. Okay, thanks. Well, good morning, thanks, Mark and Thanks Ivan. I'm not sure if she's on there or not, but Okay, so I'm I'm retired. My name is ambassador. Do I'm an immigrant from from from Lebanon. That's just way. So you can try to identify my accent. Born and raised in Lebanon, came to this country at 20 or 21 years old. After experiencing the Civil War slash the Syrian invasion, there was occupation back 76 and then you have the Israeli occupation back 82 so under 83 came to the States to, just like everybody else in the world, want to make money and be engineer or doctor. I tried a year in college and decided to join the army. US Army. I was enlisted for a paratrooper, and then I went to OCS, became an officer and served 33 years in the military, a lot, most of it back the army sent me back to the Middle East, about 15 years of that back in the Middle East, whether go for one gal for two, be a diplomat in Saudi Arabia. U, A, E, Oman so and I'm now retired in the Washington, DC area, Alexandria. I do a little consulting on the side. I do some TV appearances just talk about Malaysia affairs and r v had at har Rob and I do consulting on the side, whatever, public sector, private sector, and also stay engaged in what's going on DC and the Middle East affairs. So that's the quick uh, in general for me.
Thank Thank you very much. If you can stick around, we're going to allow Scott Adam and Eddie ask their questions that they had up. But okay, and then we'll talk the most, I don't know we the the theme has been black swans. Black Swans just the whole pause for the moment, and then we'll circle right back. All right. Scott, Yeah,
appreciate it. Mark, thank you. I look forward to hearing more of your story. Mr. De hook, it sounds exciting. So on the subject of Black Swan, not entirely my my sweet spot, but it seems to me that there's kind of a very insipid, ly slow Black Swan occurring when it comes to the subject of food security on the global scale. And that is the the chem, ag companies that tend to dominate our big farming. This is a huge issue in the US. It's something that we've dealt with, you know, all over the United States, in the depletion of the soil as a systematic approach to selling more fertilizer, including soil amendments and water will be the next target, as well as bad soil does not retain water. Industrial Hemp, as many of you may know, is my side passion, and why, I think that it is a critical addition to our supply chain in the United States, as it can supplement a lot of issues that we're having as it protects. Yeah, it'll
be quick. I just want to know how many side habits or side passions you have.
I have. I have a few, but this one's been consistent. We'll
come back. What's your question? Yeah. So
the question I would have, you know, to Stephen, would be more online with, how do we, you know, take advantage of the the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of both the US currency as a standard, as well as the creep of crypto currencies into states, and then the issue of secession in itself, is an economic one in that same regard. And I'm just suggesting that it would be worth investigating the work that we're doing at our non profit, the SCF, in so far as adopting local, regional currencies, digital, but not crypto, in the effort to Yeah,
it's a big one. You and you and Tim Draper should get a room. I
know Tim, but he's not receptive to things that are not profitable. I
wonder why? Funny, the capitalists are like that. Yeah,
Stephen, do you want to address that quickly before I go to Adam and Eddie? I'm not
even sure how to be honest with you, I think it's a topic for another group. All
right, okay, do that there. Maybe Eddie you first, because Adam spoken a few times, which I appreciate.
Thanks, guys. So, so black swans for me are always super interesting. I studied in the Erasmus, significant amount of them. The hard part is that it's the the non computability of the probability of rare events are very difficult, because they're by definition, rare, and they have also an out size effect, which is very hard, very hard to predict. And somehow and sometimes they're even related in many ways. The term originally, interestingly enough, was coined by the Romans, who actually didn't think Black Swans existed until late 17th century. Dutch, by coincidence, don't kill me. Mariners saw black swans living in Australia, and then they had to amend the term black. Response to a event that was extremely unlikely but could happen. My question is, and it has also to do with the doomsday clock. I don't know how many of you guys are familiar with that. Every year, I think the nuclear atomist Association comes with a doomsday clock statement, which states, sort of the, you know, if you like, a degree of risk of the societies under based on nuclear threats, based on climate change threats, which you just heard about, you know, one of the climate change threats, and there's, there's, there's a couple more, obviously, because of the weather related events, etc, bio threats, Bio Hazard threats and sort of advanced technologies that if you, if you add them all up, it seems to most people that has this, this, these threats have of combined ly, at least increased significantly over time. And Steven, you're a somewhat of a connoisseur and predictor of public markets. It To what extent does this combination, even if it's hard to predict and hard to calculate, have an effect on the equity markets? To what extent is that sort of priced in? And to what extent are Is it maybe even by design, not priced in because most of these events, one, one could argue, have a significant drop in the equity markets as a result. It's
interesting, when you think about all the nuclear stuff, I think some of that is priced in because of you know, you've, we've been at war for the last several years, and that threat spin back there from Putin if he loses the war all along. So I think there, I think some is priced in, but not, not a lot. I think what's less priced in is the positives, like the one of President Xi and Trump doing something positive together, when you have the two leading economies switch from fighting each other to maybe working together, that could have a big impact on a positive way on the economy that's not really focused on, I think if you know, we'll hear from the Middle East in a minute for and thank you for your service. But I think that that that has the potential to be a much more positive thing if we dial down the conflict in the Middle East, even if it's for a little while. So I think a lot of the positives aren't priced in. I think the I think if we have the grid going down for an extended period, I don't think you can price that into the system right now. So I think there'll be, you know, both of the low probability of really good things and low probably really bad things coming out of out of it, and then. So I think some, I think some of the conflict stuff is priced in, though, Eddie, because how could you not, you know, you look at the head of North Korea. Do you think that he that that's in the stable hands? So I think that's why I would look at that. And
more and more governments move to autocratic forms of governing. Yeah, you know, has the direct line to increase risk of conflict.
And then, as Adam has written about in his letters in the past, the the Russian state, the old USSR states that have nukes throughout, that we have to deal with as well. So there, there's potential in there that's real. So that's
Adam. Can you? Can you segue us back to the Middle East?
Well, what I'll do kind of, I'll make it very quick. It's on the nuclear issue. At the end of 2024 I listed a bunch of books that I had read over the years, and one of them was called command and control. That was, that was recommended to me by Bruce Blair. He was a professor of nuclear war at Princeton, and it highlights a number of accidents that have taken place in the united states with nuclear weapons. And when you think about the United States being the premier steward of nuclear weapons. We, we've, we've had several accidents that could have been catastrophic. One in particular, where the detonator did not go off because it was failed. That's it. So when you think about that and think about how nuclear weapons are being managed by, let's say, North Korea, Pakistan and others that may get those nuclear weapons. Their command and control systems are not up to snuff, and we have accidents, maybe something. To sleep. Sleep on maybe
Stephen, that is the segue, unless you want to comment on that. No,
I think we segue right? I'm interested to hear the take as well, and just thanks for the service of all the time you spent taking care of our country. Much appreciated.
Okay, thank you. So, okay, the ball in my car. Well, again, thanks very much for being here. So let me since you guys started with the black swan theme here, I think you probably agree with me that October seven, what happened in Israel that is a black swan in the region. Nobody was expecting it. Yes, the intelligence communities, probably United States and Israel, Israel were expecting it, but no one was expecting it to be at that level. Nobody expected Israel. For the first time in history, the war is going inside Israel proper. All through history, all wars Arab Israel. Wars were on Arab territories. This one was on Israeli territories. That's something new. The other thing also was not expected is to have independent internally displaced Israelis. You always have displaced Arabs and internally and also refugees. But this is was the first time of history, history of Israel, you have independently displayed displaced Israelis. So that was a black swan in the that is going to change the region for a long time. This is people say, equivalent of 911 for for Israel. So on, Israel fine itself now has to to reassert its deterrence, reasserts the security against the Persians and the Turks and the Arabs. So you have the Turks also at the same time. They want to bring back the Ottoman Empire times expand and find their own niche in the region. The Iranians also already started. You know, they were controlling four Arab capitals. It was Sana bag that Lebanon and Syria. They just lost two of them. Lost Lebanon and Syria now, but they still control other two capitals. They want to bring the Empire back into the region, and Israel wants to reself again. The kingdom of Israel maybe expand a little bit. And they have the Arabs in the middle of all this trying to find their way. They're not as politically powerful, not military powerful, and they know if they, if they align with Israel, Iran is going to see that as a threat and is going to fight back. And if Israel aligned itself with the Iranians, the Arabs, and they going to see a threat, and the church will see that threat. So this, this October seven, kind of brought everybody into this, this dichotomy right now, and and obviously United States in the middle of it. So it's by demons. Was fully committed, committed to defend Israel, and maybe, but not to a certain point now the next black mean, next Black Swan. It will be with the new administration, right? You have Trump administrations coming in. Still lots of unknowns. How would they deal with Iran, for example, how will they deal with how would, how much they would willing to support Israel and the current Israeli government. Also, there's a lot of issues inside Israel. So the whole, the whole thing, the whole Middle East, is in the flux, in the change, I mean, October seven is also changing what the sack speaker agreement did back in the early 1900s that was the creation of by by happens that just drawing lines in the sand grid, all this artificial borders, whether it Lebanese borders, or Syrian or Jordanian Iraq is and all that, and also in the Gulf region. So that's that's being reshaped. So, so it's, it'll be interesting to see how this military success by Israel and also the United States help. How would that be translated into a political success, and perhaps continuing, continue the normalization with the with the Arab states, especially with Saudi Arabia. I mean, Saudi Arabia is willing to do that. I know in from my time being in Saudi at the State Department, worked on the on that normalization during the first Trump administration, Saudis are on board. They wanted to do it, but they they really stuck with the Palestinian issue. They have to. Israel has to find a way to give, give them, not necessarily a state, I think, the but as some kind of dignified exit out of this dilemma of Arab Israeli issue or Palestine Israel issue, so that we'll see how how creative the new administration will be. So I think we'll just wait and see. I'll stop here. I think it's best to get some questions there, if you and I. All provide some answers, as I see it,
well, if there are questions, go ahead. Adam,
yeah, I'll make it very short. Abbas, how would you describe the relationship between Russia and Iran. Is that a stable, durable relationship, or is it one of convenience?
I mean, I think at this point of convenience, I mean, remember those relationships between countries, unless there is any, just like United States have a defense treaty with Japan or other countries. Those no treaties. It's a transactional and it's typically, it's very transactional, transactional. At this point, I'm surprised they actually reach to that level where Iran is supplying Russia with nukes, with missile technology, and supporting them that way. At the same time, I think also, Russia is not only helping the Iranians and simple technology and how to improve on their missile systems and our accuracy of the systems, also indirectly supporting it was supporting the Assad regime or supporting the Houthis in Yemen. So it is a transactional and and depends think what's going to happen now with the Trump administration, how much pressure we're going to put on them, on Ukraine, but, but the transaction also meaning, with the right price, Iran will give up working with Russia. The same thing with the right price, Russia will give up working with Iran. But it is, it is concerning, because you have not only Russia and Iran is working together. You also have China there, so that that block that's working together under the table through exchange of, you know, oil and other commodities, sharing intelligence. So that is a concern. The United States has to will still continue looking at it. Remember the top FOs of United States is Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorist organization. So it is a concern, but it's transactional.
Well, China, China is the China is the underwriter, both political and financial, for that relationship, because they are the second largest economy in the world. Without that, Ukraine could not continue this war, and Iran would not be able to sell what they're selling, the oil, in particular to China as they are.
One thing about China, obviously, they are already in all over Africa, and they are going into the Middle East. The Saudis and the Gulf states there are giving them a lot of contracts, and they are moving in one for two reasons. One is they need to move forward, and China is there to help. And the West is kind of slowly moving in, especially for example, in Iraq. I mean, I know the when the Iraqi prime minister came here to DC, he basically came here also to talk to the private sector. And his call, I need more American to come to Iraq, I meaning the Prime Minister, we they gave a lot of contracts for the Chinese because they need to move forward. They need to build the roads, they need to build the refineries. They need to do that. And Western countries are moving in because of security, and they're worried about their investments, and that's creating problems. So China has taken advantage of it, and the US is not moving in to help, even though the prime minister of Iraq was basically saying, I am willing to give the American companies a sole source. You don't have to compete. Just come and do business in my country. And the same thing in the Gulf. In the Gulf states, they wanted more Americans, but it just stuck between that United States and China, and they're, I don't think they're happy with especially when it comes to security. They know for sure, nobody will bail them out. But United States, even though they buy whatever they buy from Russia or China, then they're not expecting China to commit, you know, blood and treasure to support them like United States.
Yeah. Well, the drivers are different. For the private sector, it's profit, as Scott McIntyre accused, or Tim Draper of being a capitalist, but in and with the Chinese, it's that's not their driver. They're not expecting a financial return on those investments when they build infrastructure in Peru, for example, and in Latin America and Iraq, that's not what they're looking for. They're looking for political influence. And that's the big difference. And these are state companies that are going in there, state Chinese companies,
true. And then the the, I'm sure, the also normalization. And that's a big thing of the also probably the Trump administration, and the big price always Saudi Arabia. I mean, I'm optimistic, then the dialog will continue, but we'll see if, if they were able to put the Gaza issue somewhat on a low boil between the Palestinians and the Israelis, perhaps we see the more Saudis will perhaps start some kind of normalization talk, because the Saudis need it for their own vision. 2030, MBS Amman, he knows that to bring Saudi Arabia to become a global player, you have to have some kind of normalization with Israel, otherwise you're not going to be a normal player. You can continue to spend money, continue to spend money, but you'll not be able to attract foreign investors. And that's the ultimate price for the Saudis is, how do I, at the end of the day, attract foreign investors to come in my country and build and invest, versus continue to use their own money to bring people in to just, just do some contracts and do some things. So this is the ultimate price. Is bringing foreign investors to live and work and without normalization with Israel, without the tap and into the Israeli technology. Israeli. Know how an Israeli, you know Silicon Valley type, Valley type business will not be able to move forward.
Thank you, a boss,
okay? Thank you,
Bill, you got a question and then Michael, yeah,
no about thanks. So much interesting. And I'm interested in your thought. So thus far, the Israeli response to October seven, while it's been forwardable, has been held back, not only by by the US administration, but also by factions, you know, inside Israel, not only politically, but also on the military staff. Kind of interesting that they've been divided as well with with the transition over to Trump, it seems as though there could be a possibility that, if you will, sort of the shackles might come off, and Israel may take advantage of an opportunity to really clean up Hamas in in Gaza, and perhaps also strike hard for Hezbollah. Do you? What do you? What do you think the possibility is of that kind of inaction as as a way of really removing the threats, and a movement towards peace in that direction?
But I think Hamas has already decimated. I mean, there's nothing, nothing left in there, maybe just strains of ideology, some of these, you know, Hamas, 2.0 it's just new generation. Might somebody might take the mantle, like the brother of ya San Noir. Now, supposedly he is. He took over the organization. But they're not the Hamas that before October seven, by no means. I mean, they're, weak in by at least 90% you have those remnants. And then Israel can control that. They have to control the message first. They have to control the political ramification of what they did in Gaza. Try to see how, you know, you break it, you own it, right? You have to fix it. So they have to fix that Gaza somehow bring some kind of stability to add some kind of rebuild some of it, bring some hopes to them. That's, I think, the challenging. But Hamas as an organization is completely gone. Same thing in Lebanon. I mean Hezbollah. I mean what Israel did in the last year is unprecedented. I mean, really, and you give, you give credit to, obviously, the political leadership, to give the net and Yahoo, but you also give credit to the intelligence community and also the military, and it's also even the US military. Without the US military support, Israel will not actually be able, been able to do all that, protect itself and do all the military operations, and also protect Iran. Remember, for the first time ever, Israel Iran face each other, face to face, those all this muscles came from from Iran to Israel. Without us help, I don't think Israel would would have been able to defend itself, only solely by itself, without the help of the, you know, regional countries, any United States. So as well as pretty much military is gone. They lost the all the leadership, most of their equipment in country the lost the line of supplies that comes from the Q on through Baghdad, through Damascus, that's gone. Assad regime is also gone. So they're basically militarily also decimated, and also politically our marginalized right now. Now you have a president of Lebanon that he's not a friend of Hezbollah. The new president of Lebanon, and they just appointed a another, the prime Sunni prime minister, and he is also a friend of is not a friend of Hezbollah. So it's so basically Hezbollah is, is very much contained. But then Israel has to take advantage of, like I mentioned earlier, has to take advantage of this military success to political success. How do you actually normalize the relationship now with Lebanon, how do you make that ended once and for all? Maybe demarcate the borders have some kind of things to do it. So that means that's the two of your FOs already gone. Hezbollah Hamas, as said, Is he was somewhat a friend and foe, but now on the new Syrian government, they're saying the right things, but Israel is not really taking all that to the bank. They still have to worry see which way, which direction they're going. But again, it's what the next step is. Maybe if United States, or the Trump mean, the Trump administration and net on Yahoo government, they have to be smart to capitalize on all that when in the political form. Somehow, I don't know what the formula is, but has to be some kind of normalization. Include Lebanon into the and perhaps Syria. Thank you.
Next, so
I just wanted to respond to Adam's comment about China not seeking economic gain, but instead political influence. Many of those loans have clauses or contingencies that if the loan payments are not made, China takes over the port or the airport or the mine or whatever that infrastructure is, so there's
Michael. I took you on video because you're robotic.
I think the Chinese have Hi jacked him. We
used to say that right when we first started doing the started doing these Zooms.
Oh, wait, you didn't, you didn't hear what I was saying.
No, no, not
the end, not the end. Cut off, just
no. There's significant economic aspects to what China is doing. You know, for example, when they go into these large projects, they're bringing their own workers. The inputs are being purchased from China. So it's not solely political.
Well, any questions we can talk about that any day, any questions for the colonel Andrew,
yeah, thanks for your remarks. Very interesting to square the first part of our meeting today regarding Black Swans and to dove tail it with our border situation, to what extent in your mind has our country been infiltrated by some of the terrorist factions from the parts of the world that you've discussed today, and I'm thinking specifically of what happened in New Orleans with the radicalization as it appears, of one of our service men from for Prague. How big of a deal is this?
I mean, it is a big deal as an incident. You look at it, there is a guide from the inside, whether is influence or lone wolf, still is a big incident, and it has psychological effect, really, more than just have a influence on our political process or on the security of United States writ large. So I I know there are a lot of talks about lot of people came from many countries from through the open borders, and perhaps there are a lot of sleep sleeper cells here and there. But I think the big picture, they're not a big threat us is very, very strong, and when it comes to intelligence gathering, whether it's on the outside or also on the inside, United States, so you might see more of this. But again, the effect on it, I think it's all a psychological effect. It's just like a it's different. It's a criminal act too. So, but it will not, will not change drastically US policy, whether in the region or internally. So I worry about it, but I know. So I know a couple of people actually joining the Trump administration that we work in the counter terrorism effort. They're really focusing on this a lot. They're really usually our city people in the administration, whether it's state or DOD, their focus always overseas, and they do a lot of things there. But this on the Trump administration, they're really focusing a lot on on domestically as well, so you'll have more eyes on during the Trump administration. But again, if something happened, I don't foresee something big like 911 even though there's some of the conversation around that. But So again, it's a more of a psychological ramification than than political or security.
So these terrorist, purported terrorist camps that are rumored to be that exist in the US is not big on a scale.
I mean, I don't know how exact information, how big is those terror scam? If there is one shame on us, and we just who is actually saying there is one watching it and reporting on it? I mean, like, really, that would be like, that's that's wrong. I think that's that just doesn't make sense to me, that we know of a training camp in United States and we're just watching it. Usually, you watch one guy or a cell that try to operate under cover somehow. Usually we sit down watch them to figure out which way they're going, who's supporting them. But if you have physically have a, you know, fence somewhere in Wyoming or somewhere in Texas or whatever, with people in there doing this, burning tires are doing stuff like the al Qaeda type training, and when watching them, that's strange to me. Chas
a boss. Thank you for your service. Before I joined this call, I was watching the opening of the confirmation hearing for for Mr. Hex. And you know, my father was born in 1925 and God rest his soul. But he always said to me, and he was a high school, only high school educated man, a retired mailman, and he always said to me, the biggest vulnerability for the US was that the US would be destroyed from the inside out. And so my question to you is, as we think about the nomination of hex Seth, which is fairly controversial, I think relatively speaking, should we be concerned about the politicization of the military and the potential splintering that could occur within the military, and does our military have safe guards to, in effect, prevent the the whole the whole enterprise from sort of going off the rails as a result of having a leader that has ideals that may not necessarily be consistent with what we've seen historically from our military. And I think we've got the best military in the world, but as a as an insider with would certainly appreciate your perspective. Well,
thanks. That's, you know, good question, and and you're right. We not because I'm prime military or I'm American. We do have the best military in the world. I mean, for my experience in Europe with European military training or interacting, obviously, all over the Middle East, even the our allies or friends, they look at us, oh, like, how do you do that? I mean, how do you how do you motivate your soldiers to fight for the country, not only you in the military. We're not just fighting for the territorial integrity of United States. We're fighting about the idea of United States. We're fighting for the in the Vietnam in Afghanistan, in Iraq and all that. So people like said, how do you motivate your soldiers to do that, to give their life for somebody else? So in our case, I'm giving my life for the for the country, because the constitution for my friend, my buddy next to me, so on. So that concept there's no nowhere, nowhere, nowhere, nowhere in the world, but in the United States, and I think I see comfort too, even within United States, the civil military authorities, there is a big difference here. I mean, our civilians, military DOD civilians, most of our political appointees, they come with political package baggage, right? They come as Democrats, they come as Republicans. They do that. But overall, the military understand that. They know this. We are military for all America. I mean, you feel like you don't hardly ever you look at yourself as a Democrat or Republican. We know that the civilians we trust that we have a full trust, that trust has to be maintained when. You, once you break that trust, then we are we're in trouble, a trust between the military and their civilian leaders that has to be really somewhat maintained and work nourish and continue to move forward. So I mean, with again. So if that trust is gone, then we have a problem. But overall, the uniform, they, they do what they can when they when they volunteer as a in the military, volunteer because they want to serve, and within the serve. If you become, let's see an airborne soldier. You volunteer twice. If you go to be a special guy forces guy, you volunteer three times, be one, be a soldier, then jump on an airplane, went to be a ranger, when to be special forces or navy seals. So these guys are, are in there for the country, in there for the to protect the Constitution and follow whatever the commander of chief has to say. So I think the the fire fire wall is that civil military authority that that relationship has to be respected and maintained.
But I know some of you have a question, but I, as I recall your your journey is not, isn't little unorthodox. You start, you started about at a different point than you did last time. Do you mind sharing how you got, you know, to that time of enrollment in the US military?
I started initially talking about born and raised in Lebanon,
jump over a few things, yeah, okay, if you don't, if you know, yeah,
I just, you know, it's, it's a long journey. There's so many things, so many gates and things. But I would like to say, Yeah, I mean, be I'm an immigrant. I like to say I'm immigrant because, you know, it's being an immigrant in the United States is important to me, and I think that we need to keep this hope for all these people out there to come and share, contribute to the country. You don't see people going to China or Russia, right? Still, people coming United States and I and when I did again, I was almost 21 and I was part of the what's called the popular Liberation Army, which is the Druze militia of Lebanon during the civil war. Civil War started in Lebanon 75 ended in 1990 so I was a a km 47 carrying guy from the age of 14 to almost 21 and then the age of 17, I was commissioned, became like a lieutenant in the militia. And those militias had, we had tanks, rocket launchers, all that stuff. I was commissioned in Russia, in Crimea, and went to Russia for about six months training in Russia, just like we United States, we train a for bank, some of the countries, officers and so on. Russia had those training camp with, with, with classmates from Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia, PLO and also from Afghanistan. Russia was training the Afghan army. We were training the Mujahideen at that time. So different. So yeah, and then that's a 17 and fast forward, Israeli in vision. 8221 I was came by myself to the United States. I knew that, that for some reason I can tell you what's the whole I mean, there's a lot of things that changed my mind to come to immigrate, but his idea of being a civil war, so, no, no, I wasn't. Didn't like the idea of Arabism and socialism and all this isms didn't appeal to me. So came United States, and United States, I find that, you know, as military, I felt that to be part of this country, I learned that one of the war vocabulary I learned is veteran. I didn't know what a veteran means. What I learned is that you become a veteran and you have a special purpose. I mean special, you know, you get extra bonuses for employment and so on, and oh. And I said, Okay, let me join the arm for three years. And so I did join for three years as enlisted, went to go for one, came back, and I like what I was doing. I was lucky to, you know, go to OCS, lot of gates to go through do it. They commissioned, become an officer. And then I stayed in the served in the 82nd for about 10 years, and I liked it, and I kept, you know, doing that. And then became, moved to first infringe division, and then I became a foreign area officer, Middle East specialist. And to be a specialist, you have to get a master's. I was fortunate to go to Princeton and get my Master's in Middle Eastern Studies, and then allow me to work in the embassies as a defense attache and the countries, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and as defense attache, basically you're you're representing the Secretary of Defense of that country, and being there also as a Lebanese American or Arab American, and Ara. Country. Maybe the countries are on, like, how do you, how do you Arab American? How they? How do you get job? Like this, do they really trust you? Like, okay, this is America. It's not about if you have what it takes you do that. So that's also sometimes. I was interested to be that speaking, you know, in there. So I did a couple tour of the State Departments, which allow me to policy side a senior a senior advisor for the Assistant Secretary of State on Middle East affairs. So that gave me all the experience on the ground and now as a defense guy you know at the State Department, looking at the policy formulation a different policy in the Middle East, which is the whole Middle East, including North Africa and Israel. So that was interesting. Gives me a different look. Recently, I'm affiliated with the National Council on us Arab relations. It's an old NGO here in DC. It's a four year old organization. I'm one of the member of the board of directors. We do a lot of work too on policy related issues education. So also give me another access to DC and international community and government at the same time. So I know it's been a great so far. Well,
same here. I know you have a question, but Yvonne is the one who introduced us. Yes. Did you want to make
very but I am. I would love everybody else to ask the questions I have to be off camera because of my phone, my my, my Zoom says. I just wanted to ask you very briefly in your story, how you could be a militia of from 14 to 21 and be in Lebanon, and then, even though we have a very close relationship with the Druze, but you are also in in Russia. And how do you come to United States and get into the US military? Like, who let you in? Like, how did you what kind of clearance? Or do you just walk? I was a militia, and I worked good.
I mean, quick thing. First of all, this is the beauty of United States of America, right? It's a welcoming that's that, that's, I can't do that if I go to Saudi Arabia or Russia, or anywhere else in the world you do in the United States. So that's I love. I love that United States. I hope that continues.
But they must have asked a few questions, yeah, but,
but, but, be in the i when a when you join as a listed guy, enlisted. You don't really need a high clearance. I needed a clear. As when, when you become an officer, and when you become an officer, before you become an officer, you have to be an American. Citizen, so you get so when I joined, I didn't even have this I wasn't even a citizen. I wasn't even eligible to have clears. At that time, my job was an airborne Scout, so I wasn't involved in anything technical. So my job didn't require not even a secret clear us, really. So that's, that's on the security side. That's all you need. And if you have the, I mean, if you have the proper you take some certain tests and, you know, you got medically qualified, you know. And also someone you have the right things, it's fine, you welcome. And then again, even under the Gulf War, with 2003 we united state. We have a shortage of linguist we open that also for a lot of Arabic speakers. And far see speakers say, come in. We'll, we'll give you a citizen to ship to. Some people didn't even have a green card, and we gave that because skill, skills needed. In my case, I just joined. I wasn't even a citizen. And then when you become a citizen, there is a, there's a process of of secure clearance. They go through, they ask you, yeah. They ask me question, have you been to Soviet Union? Yes, have you see all that in there? And they, you know, they pay people make a judgment call whether to trust this guy, to give him a clear answer or not. But within the years. I mean, I was a lot of top secret, you know, jobs, most, almost all of it the last 15 years, or at least, had access to it. Have no problem with it.
Well, Sam, here you. Thank you for that, for sharing same here you want to ask your question now. Sorry, absolutely
so thanks for you know, for the for that insight. I had a question about switch, is that you know which so Chas has left the call, but his, his earlier question had to do with so hex, right? One of the things that's been mentioned potentially is that if, let's say top admirals or generals, right, who, let's say don't, aren't, aren't politically compatible with a new, you know, with with with hex philosophy, they're kind of pushed out. And then other folks who are, let's say, more politically amenable, are promoted, right, you know, into those positions. And now potentially, could that create a schism in the military, right where now you start getting divisions? Who are, who start choosing, sort of, you know, 111, leader or the other. I mean, that's, that's the pre condition to sort of civil war, right? Where you get factions in the military actually, sort of not believing anymore that they're actually fighting for the country, whatever they think that is, right? They, they think that now, you know, the country is being taken over by threats from within or whatever. So what's the, what's the, what are the chances that, let's say, if the top bras is replaced to any degree with political appointees, right, that then that can cause a divergence in the military, which could then cause an internal civil war, you know, just, just between military units.
I don't think we'll get to that Civil War part of it, but I think, but again, there should be a divide between civil and military authorities, right? If you're a civilian and if a political appointee, that's fine. This is normal. We've been doing that for a long time. That's every president comes in and bring their crew from Secretary of Defense down to assistant secretaries and so on. But when it comes to military position, uniform positions, like the chief, German Chief of Staff, or division commanders, core commanders, this is has to continue to be a merit based appointments. And when they start appointing division commanders or or the chairman based on political affiliation, I think this is where you break that civil military authority, and then you're right, that'll be a it'll be a big problem in the military. Then, then those orders that comes from the from the three star or fourth star generals, are these orders based on a political decision, or these are based on protection of the Constitution in United States. You know, I joined the military to protect the Constitution United States to protect and the American people. I did not join the military to protect the president united states or his political appointees. So that's, I think, where the difference is. Thank you, Andrew,
you got another question. Yeah,
very quickly. I think he Seth is a Princeton grad, and he was, was he ROTC? My question is, if you're a foreign student at an IV or any university for that matter, can you enlist in ROTC programs?
Yes, I'm actually, when I was at Princeton, we had also an ROTC program at Princeton, some some IV leagues. Didn't like it for a while. It was off. It was on, you know, maybe some of the Ivy League, yeah, there's some of that all through the day years. But yeah, most of the Ivy Leagues, they do have ROTC program, and you can Yeah,
my dad was Dartmouth ROTC, and he was Army as well, and he, he taught me quite a bit about that process. Well,
thank you. Thank you.
I'm, I'm curious, you mentioned Hezbollah has been diminished. Yes, what about Iran today? And I was Stephen made a comment about this sort of multi lateral de taunt of sorts about to happen, and in the Saudis trying to promote some peace and basically cause a pause, and by the way, we haven't is that, Deborah, are you on? Is because there's also a little war in Ukraine.
I am. I'm sorry, I just actually saw your message. Yeah, I'm here. If you want me to talk for a moment or two.
Well, my I do want you to, and I do. So Deborah's in Kyiv right now. There's, there's another, multi dimensional, multi lateral thing happening with the Europeans and the US and all the rest. My question was going to be, what is Iran's capabilities? Guess, if you answer that, then we go to Deborah, because Iran's capabilities. Goes back to the other question about the relationship with Russia and Iran. And then it goes back to Ukraine. Just so you know, Deborah is with a fund called green flag, investing in Ukrainian related companies. They may not be in Ukraine today, but Ukraine has sometimes better capabilities in the US military. Well, I like your thought on that too. But if you could maybe segue it from Iran's capabilities, and then how that's might be how that relationship is playing out, because even Russia and Iran can't fight wars on all these fronts. So if you don't mind,
yeah, on Iran, I think the their strength or their their cards limited, but they do have one proxy card, right? This is something they've been playing for a while. And again, I mentioned earlier, they have and four different Arab countries now they just lost two. Basically lost, lost Hamas, in a way, but lost, lost the ass side regime, and also lost Hezbollah. They still have Iraq and still had Yemen, and Yemen becomes the last man standing, the Houthis of Yemen, because they're able to control this line of communication around the Red Sea. That's one card the other car they have that still playing, whether it's the nuclear part. I mean, they have a nuclear technology, even though, if Israel and United States decide to, perhaps, under the Trump administration, to do a nuclear strike against a nuclear program, they will be able to destroy most of it. They they'll be able, at most, to delay them to have a compound, because you can't, but you can't completely destroy the nuclear program, because they have the know how, they have the technology they can come back again sometime in the future. So that's the second big things, the capability they have. The third capability they have is their their ability to control their population. They still have the capability control anything happen within Iran, maintain that once, if they lose that, the Iran regime will be, will be finished. So those are three things are still there. They're playing them, you know, at the strategic level. And now, recently, now they have another lifeline, I call a lifeline to Russia. And have a life line to to China. And those life lines created big because Russia and China wants to control the United States in the middle. States in the Middle East, not because they like Iran, because because the US presence and their threat, so they use in Iran also as a proxy for them, so that that's what the Iran is, their situation at this point. And if that's answer your question, that's
that so good, good points. And then as it relates to Russia and Ukraine,
I mean Russia, Ukraine is a derivative of the relationship to Russia, right? So it's, again, Iran wanted this strategic depth, so that's why they're, they're working with Russians. Russian was also that line of support to because logistical support from them, they give them more, you know, drones and missiles and so on. This way will help. Will help. Instead of Russia using the old stock piles and produce things low, you know, domestically, they're using some of these, some of the supplies from Iran, to prosecute the war in Russia and Ukraine. That gives, gives Russia a long term logistical support, and then they can use their own domestic capabilities if need be in the future. So again, it's a transactional relationship for for Iran and also for for for Russia. But again, the the I think Russia will not be able to win the war and against Ukraine unless they do a full blown war, call out war against the Ukrainians. And I think they're not doing that. They're just piecemealing the war. And also, the same thing, the Ukrainians don't have the manpower, the capability to do a full blown war against the Russians. So that is a little stalemate, I think this point.
So maybe that's over to you, Deborah, how you see the dynamic in your part of the world? Sure.
So just very quickly, I am in Kyiv. I have actually lived here for more than 10 years. I'm American. Wall Street background had come over here first in 2007 so I've sort of been working and watching this space for quite a long time. Right now, I have a US based VC fund, and we're investing in Ukrainian founded new defense technology. So actually, I spend an awful lot of time both looking at the new technology, but also sort of talking to the soldiers and about what's sort of happening out on the front line. So I'm coming at this. I'll call it more of a tactical than big strategic viewpoints, but a couple things in light of this conversation that I'll mention, and also, actually just a big thank you to everybody who's kind of joined in this has actually been a fascinating conversation. So one, I think that some of the relationships that Russia has with Iran, with Hezbollah, with Hamas, they are absolutely transactional. But I think there's also an element of Russia looking to sort of so chaos and discord. You know, when Hamas invaded Israel on October seven, there was not a single Ukrainian who did not recognize the tactics that they used to actually breach a lot of the defenses, and these were almost identical to what Russia had used when they invaded Crimea 10 years ago. So you know, it's not just the transactional of Shahad, not Shahad missile technology. It's also sharing of tactics. It's this. It's kind of the terror element of what they are doing. It's the stealth element. So I think that's important to recognize one of the things that we are seeing here on the ground that I think that is sort of worth flagging. You know, there is an awful lot of money going into this new defense tech in the United States. There was a 3 billion. Million dollars invested into US Defense tech companies, just to let you know when most of that technology shows up in Ukraine to be tested. It fails. It is not being built for the very heavily electronic warfare GPS denied environments that are sort of the hallmark of this war. And I think the US really needs to Silicon Valley and the Defense Department as well need to kind of get out of their own head space that just because it's expensive and just because it's really sexy, it's working because it's actually not. One of the things that I think Ukraine obviously has the battlefield advantage of is they are out there on the front line. They understand what the Russians are putting forward. They understand that ever escalating electronic warfare tactics that are happening and they're able to respond to them in real time. And the US actually really does need to be able to step up its capabilities to iterate much more quickly. Defense Department absolutely needs to pick up its capacity to be able to cure more quickly. And I know they keep talking about this, but you know, even if you talk to the guys in the diu, the needle has not moved very much. So I think these are actually issues that the US needs to be watching in this space, in terms of where this all goes Ukraine, just like everybody else in the world is waiting for the inauguration and see what happens. But Ukraine is also not sitting around waiting. They really have, sort of, at some degree, recognize that they need to continue to be able to do as much supporting, you know, support themselves for the weaponry that they use. Ukraine had no, you know, two or three drone companies before the war started. There's now more than 700 I'll call them companies, because they're not all investable. But 700 producers of drones. They produce 1.4 million drones in Ukraine last year in Ukraine without the use of Chinese technology, because they've been stripping out the Chinese technology for more than a year and a half now. So you know, Ukraine has been able to step up its own production of what it needs. And I think that that's something to just watch going forward. The last thing I'll throw in is the Europeans more than the Americans, recognize kind of how this war is unfolding. And they spend more time on the ground here. They're more interested in this new technology. They are starting to buy Ukrainian technology. When you talk to people in the you know, in the United States, they're like, oh, it's not our war. It's so far away. But the problem is, these technologies are actually going to end up making their way to the US. In the last 24 hours, I saw a news story that a Russian from Wagner mercenary group of Russia was caught coming across the border with a drone into the United States. So the potential for the use of these drones the way they're being used in very terrorist like manner in Ukraine, it absolutely has the potential for being used in the United States and in Western Europe, and it's not meant to drag anybody into the war. It's this sort of subtle hybrid war that the Russians have been doing, and they've been doing for full length of this war. And it's really, I think, just sort of an escalation in pushing what the boundaries are with the, you know, with Europe and the US. So I have
comments and questions, but I'm curious, Colonel, if you have any thoughts on what Deborah just shared?
No, that's interesting. I mean, the Ukrainians are learning on the fly as they go. I mean, what the technology is, not just the technology piece is this, tactics, techniques, procedures that they're learning day by day. This kind of stuff you can you can learn that in the lab, you have to be on the ground really doing it and and they're the only one now doing it right now. And it's interesting about the building them without any Chinese technology. That's actually very interesting. I mean, this is smart, and that's so the good things. But again, the you the drone warfare, it gets you so much. I mean, you can't win wars with it. So at the end of the day, it's all about boots on the ground. It's about like infantry fighting. You go in there and occupy territories. But it's so it's it's good, while it's good, but it's not decisive on the battlefield. Yet, I
completely agree with you, and I'm not saying drones are going to replace the traditional soldiers, nor traditional artillery. The thing is, is you have to recognize, I think that it's important to recognize, is that it is now both components and one of the things, especially with soldiers, and I actually talked to an awful lot of ex US service men, a lot of them coming out of the special forces, who come here to see what's happening. They go out to the front lines, all of them, without exception, come back completely floored, saying we would not last out here for two days. We have not been trained how to fight against drones. We have not been equipped with electronic war, you know, with the detection for drones coming in, every Ukrainian soldier now wears devices that notify when there's drones coming in. So there is absolutely, you're right that it's all of these pieces of it. It's no single thing, but it's something that I think the US. If, if I had my magic happy wish it's that the US was paying more attention to this, particularly as it comes to soldiers and boots on the ground. I agree.
So, yeah, it's interesting. We give the Ukrainians the US kit, but we need to have some Ukrainian elements in our kit. Sounds like the guess the one thing though, the Russians are learning on the on the run too, right? So they're picking up skills that that we don't have. I'm this may be beyond your pay grade, but what I'm just so curious. I've been hearing what I guess, two things. One is, how can the Russians sustain this, just economically? I learned I was listening to a podcast that over 450 billion of off balance sheet financing via Russian banks has been propping this up that no one's been paying attention to. And that's the house of cards that might fall and they've been maintaining this. But, you know, I mean, the Russia on the street doesn't, maybe necessarily feel it, which is interesting, no,
well, they do. They have got tremendous inflation right now. You know, the ruble has been falling against the dollar. It's actually at the lowest point since before the war. Private mortgages now are up at around 30% and the housing market is starting to collapse because of this. And you're absolutely right, and I think that that is a potential Black Swan, just sort of an internal economic collapse. You know, I'm not. The sanctions have been slow and grinding, but they've been, you know, some of
a black swan for Russia. But what? I don't know what color it'd be for us. What replaces, what replaces a Russia? What does regime change look like?
Well, I think that if you're talking about from sort of inside, I don't know that, that if, you know, if Russia sort of crumbled from within, if the oligarchs and the siloviki around Putin at some point said, That's it. No more. We need somebody else in here. It's just hurting too much economically, I don't know that you would necessarily see somebody who's terribly different from Putin. You know, he they may not be as aggressive, but, but you're, you're, you're not going to get some grand democratic reformer in there, again, that I'm pretty confident of.
I think boss wants to avoid this question.
Russia is such a such a confident to itself. I mean, it's also amazing that they still hold it on despite what's going on politically and the war and economic like, you
know, we talk about the Iranians maintaining like information control. They they've mastered it. It's
exactly the same in Russia. It's exactly the same. You know, if you think about where this war is being fought. It's being fought on the land, air, sea, those are all very clear. It's also being fought in space. I don't know how much you're paying attention to this, but the Russians very regularly jam GPS deny commercial airliners flying through Scandinavia, across the Baltic states. Happens, you know, the lower perimeter of Russia. So this is happening in space as well. Cyber War is continuing. Ukrainians have some of the most extraordinary cyber defenders in the world right now, because the Russians continue to hit critical infrastructure, banks, energy, grid, things like that. But the last piece is the information. It's propaganda war. It's who is winning the narrative of what is happening. And quite frankly, I think Russia is winning hands down. I mean, Russia controls the narrative still, both inside as well as outside. So New Year's
Eve. I spent eight years in Russia. New Year's Eve. You know, we all watched Australia fireworks, and that's it, sort of officially begins. I happened to tune in to or TE, you would have never known it this because he Putin, he would just did this five hour television marathon, and he said, you know, basically, you know, and of course, it's, it's a celebration of of everything Rus Russian imperialism. They're going to protect ourselves. But you know what I thought? I thought the former prime minister of of England, Boris Johnson, he actually came out and gloves off, I don't, because he's the only guy you can talk about to the Russians about this is the your this is a myth. It's you're you're failing, you're falling. You would never know that, but you might be right, debor, that it's like, you know, whispering. And people know because, because some people, I know that, they go, it's band a tree. So it's, it's something's happening internally, but you just don't feel it out. We don't see it. Sorry. Bill and Andrew with question hands. Race.
Thanks. De, really, really interesting, kind of similar question that I asked earlier, I guess a Do you think that Ukraine's can come out of this in good shape be What do you think it's going to take for them to push the Russian stack to the point where they can get out of the kitchen?
Yeah, those are great questions. So coming out of this, one of the things that I know is a little bit hard to understand from the outside, but the fighting, you know, is contained. It's 600 kilometers to the east of where I am right now. Every single night we have air alarms last night, there were ballistics. Didn't hit Kyiv, it hit su me. I can tell you exactly what the sound of an Iranian Shahad sounds like, because I hear him on a pretty regular basis. So it's not that it is only out on the front but the Ukrainians realized very early on that maintaining economic strength was one of the most important things they can do, because if they were economically weakened at the end of this, that they would have nothing to stand on. So they have made a fierce focus on keeping the economy running. And in fact, last year, their agriculture exports were the same as they had been in the year before the war. So you know, there is still a huge amount economically that's happening. So there is that foundation the East is essentially, it is a war zone, and it is flat, and a lot of this, you know, territory that Russia wants to claim, it is unlivable, and it is going to be unlivable for a very, very long time. There are certain cities that are going to be kind of the argument points back and forth between Russia and Ukraine. The Russians would very much like Kharkiv. There's no way Kharkiv is going to go to Russia. They every single person in Kharkiv will die fighting the Russians before they ever give up that city. That's actually largely essentially true in Kherson, although right now, the Russians do have the Western or it's the eastern side, I guess, depending on how you look at it, the eastern side of Kherson, because the river runs through it. So there are going to be important city points that are argued over. But I think that at some level, Ukrainians understand that some of this, this land, there's just nobody going back to but the places where there are still Ukrainians who are still fighting this. This is not about land. This is about the people who live there. You cannot understand the brutality of the stories that are told and shared every single day by people who have been out there, people who have suffered through this. How awful the Russians have been to Ukrainians, particularly Ukrainian citizens right now, every single day, there are, there is Russian telegram channels that show Russians hunting, and I'm they call it human Safari. And they fly from the eastern bank of Kherson over to the western bank that is Ukrainian territory with drones. And they just drop drones on people who are going to the bank, driving their car to the kids to school. This is all out there. It's video taped. It's all available on telegram channels that the Russians very proudly post this on. So when the Ukrainians are fighting and being very firm about something, it's not about the land, per se. It's about the people who were there and being able to get as many out. But
backing up, the question is, like, you know, where, how many days away from from Trump, and he talks about in these fast solutions, and you mentioned that the Europeans get it more the Americans, well, the Europeans don't pay for it. Yeah, they're gonna, they're gonna get it. They got to pay for it. Or do they, or do you end up having NATO, or some, what's the term that they're using that Zelensky likes, and I don't know if the Russians will go for it, but we have basically a five trigger with, with whether it's Brits, you know, Scandinavians on the ground, like, what is, I don't know what, what the solution will be. The Middle East, seems like we've never found a solution, right? I don't know what the solution is here.
Well, I think, you know, to the there's a couple things that the Ukrainians are looking for. And Zelensky says this again and again. You know, if there is some kind of a line drawn, they absolutely want iron clad Western guarantees for security going forward. You know, after Russia invaded in 2014 there was the Budapest Memorandum that, in theory, froze the line. It was never honored. It, you know, continued. There was fighting that continued for 10 years or eight years, until they actually invaded. So one of the things Ukrainians are going to be looking for is very you know, concrete guarantees that if Russia even moves two steps into the territory that is Ukraine, that there will be additional help. The other thing I can tell you, from what I'm seeing in kind of this new defense tech, Ukrainians are building up their defense sector as fast and furious as possible. Possibly can. They are never again going to be in a position where they have to go begging for weapons from somebody else to help defend them. They understand that this is, this is a, you know, cultural, national imperative going forward.
Yeah. But remember, the Biden administration recently announced that Ukraine will be part of NATO. This is the road for NATO. I mean, that's that's the plan. Now, when Trump comes, obviously this is political decision. There might change. But just on this NATO road, I remember, I was in station with the First Infantry Division late 1919, 8999 2000 and I did twice go to Ukraine, what we used to have, what's called Partners for peace exercise, and we work with the East European countries, or former European countries, including Ukraine, to bring them the military to a standard where to join the NATO so this NATO thing, road for the Ukrainians started back in 1998 99 and still, like today, was still, it's amazing that we're still talking about it. So we in the military were working together us on the Ukrainian military back then, as back as 1999 to bring it up, to bring them up to the NATO status, to join us. And yet, unfortunately, looked us today, 2025 and the still is not there yet.
Yeah, no. I mean UK some of the things that Ukraine is doing. It's now like all of the weapons that are being certified in Ukraine now actually are all NATO standards. And so, you know, there have been huge amounts that have moved forward, and Ukraine is also absolutely in line for EU accession. So there's all of this that's happening, you know, in terms of standardization, normalization with EU standards, economically, politically, all of these things as well that are happening.
And you have the last question,
quick pivot, not germane to Russia or Middle East. I want to get the Colonel's opinion on the prospect of Greenland and the Panama Canal. Is that a much larger from a national security perspective. I mean, I
it is, you know, this is, this is different. This is different times. I mean, if it is a national security issue for United States, you don't just go by and buy on occupied territories, right? You go on, you get a political discussions. You just got to go through, you know, international organizations that do things, yeah, the idea of just saying this, some people might like it, if you like, you know, some people, obviously, they're not going to like it. But it's, I think the Trump is using that as a tool. He knows he's going to talk about it. That's something, yeah, before he gets to the political table, discussion table, he he wants to come from a position of strength, and that's how, one way, how is, is doing that, I think, to come from from a position of strength, and that's
okay. Well, on those notes, thank you everyone. Thanks. Thank you a boss, and for your service, we will. We will be back in touch. And maybe my ideas on on that but and Deborah, thank you when I got to see you in a more animated way, which is good,
I like talking about this stuff, especially to people who care and are interested to see
a fund manager that you know there's a raise on Detra for what you're doing, so I get it. Okay. Well, thank you
everyone. Thanks for the opportunity. Everybody. This was great of us. Thank you so much. No thanks. Deborah, thanks Mark. Yvonne.
Everyone appreciate it. Take
care. Bye, bye.