We're going to turn now to retired U.S.
Army Major Mike Lyons.
Major Lyons,
can you talk about your reaction to this?
Well, I mean, his message has always been
one of unified command.
I think he acts as a commander in chief.
And I think that message
is really for his troops.
I don't think it's for anybody else.
We see Russia obviously had a problem
with with the Wagner group
as a splintering.
Right now, it's not really taking
hold in Belarus.
So, again,
that message was the president's message
to his troops
as a counter-offensive keeps going.
If the measure lines
the Biden administration
has been asked to
and is now,
I think, taking more active consideration
of approving
the use
or sending over cluster munitions,
expressing people,
what those are,
why the Ukrainians want them,
and maybe why there is some reluctance
from the U.S. to send them. Sure.
Cluster munitions, dual purpose.
Improved investor
relations are
sub munitions within artillery rounds.
This is an artillery round similar
to the exact one
that I fired
when I was a battery
commander during Desert Storm.
And they provide much better effects
with regard to artillery effects.
We'll show you a quick video here.
This is an air delivered
cluster type munition
where as it falls to the ground,
you'll see it
airburst over the target
and then fire much of a wider spread,
give much more lethality
against anti-personnel and anti vehicles.
It is it is a type of weapon system
that though unfortunately has
has some cons to it.
It leaves a battlefield that is dirty.
There's things that
could happen on the battlefield
that the soldiers can't necessarily
come back over the over
the ground at the same time.
But however, for Ukraine's purposes,
what it will do is it'll improve
their counter-offensive
because it'll allow them
to get into dig in troops
and allow in to get vehicles
that are dug in
in the defenses
that Russia currently has.
We just talk about dirty for a second.
Dirty means that civilians and soldiers
can be injured
by with the munitions that are left over.
That's right.
And this is one of the things
that of other NATO countries
now have actually banned them.
They stayed in 2008,
a munitions treaty
that the United States is not part of,
but other NATO
countries have banned them
because these munitions, as you see,
are little
a little kind of things
that the children and other people
kind of pick up on the ground.
They don't always go off.
So that's why
they're considered dangerous.
However, they provide
much more lethality
than the regular field
artillery weapons that we have.
I want to ask you about another.
Ukraine has
long been pushing for a long range
missile capability.
The U.K.
sent them,
I believe, the storm shadow capability,
and they've utilized it to some degree.
The U.S.
has been very wary of sending
what are known as attack arms.
And part of the reason
is because of the on how much the U.S.
actually has in terms of
the weaponry itself.
The Wall Street
Journal reported on Friday
that they may actually be moving back
towards a direction of saying yes to that
I'm told
there's some caution on that
and we should maintain it.
However,
why do the Ukrainians want this so badly?
Why has the US been so reluctant
to give it to them?
Yeah.
Attack arms would be a game changer
here for
the Ukrainian military
with regard to their capability.
The 200 miles of range
that they give them long range attacks
that they don't have right now.
However, it's a high demand, low density
weapon system.
So we've seen the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs say
we just don't have a lot to give away.
We don't have a lot of these out
in our inventory
because of they're just not manufactured.
They're fired from the steamers,
the platform
that they already have there.
And if you look at a map,
what it would do
is it would allow Ukraine
to attack into places like Sebastopol
and then into Rostov.
And what it would do,
it would force the Russian command
and control and logistics supply lines
to go away from the front
and have to go back here
for their own survivability,
giving the Ukraine maneuver forces
a much better chance in order to succeed
as they go on their counteroffensive.
All right.
Major lines,
I'd love for you
to come over to the table
so we can talk a little bit more.
We're here
with obviously Shelby in Max Rose,
the Ukrainian president's
Lynskey said in a news conference
on Saturday
that he's afraid to lose
bipartisan support from the U.S.
following, quote,
dangerous messages
coming from some Republicans.
That's I want to start with you.
There has been a long shift
towards more sort of familiar language
about Russia,
and there's long
been sort of hostility
to spending overseas.
So is he right to be concerned?
He's absolutely right to be concerned.
But we've seen this
really strange
reversal of traditional
political positions.
Normally,
the Democratic Party has been the party
that has been more anti-war
in less interventionist.
Biden's messaging is back to the sort of
we support democracies no matter what.
Sure. And we support our allies.
It's been a very pro.
Nadeau
traditional preservation
of the world order message
and the Democratic Party.
It's an impressive
the degree to which they have remained
unified.
Conversely, the Republican side
is in absolute disarray over this issue.
With a very strong isolationist bent,
in fact,
driven by DeSantis and Donald Trump
at this point.
Yeah,
I think that's actually
a really good point,
because when you talk to Biden
administration folks in this space,
they are less
concerned about the House Republicans
kind of hemming
and hawing or shouting about Ukraine
and far more concerned
about the leading presidential candidates
driving more Republicans
outside of kind of the
small group of isolationist
and creating
major problems
because they are going to need
a new funding package
within the next couple of months.
How does that resonate
on the campaign trail?
Yeah, I think it's going to be
a really big deal
within the Republican Party,
partially because
there's kind of this war
within the party over
what America first means.
So there's kind of
the traditional version of America First,
which I've heard argued as America
First doesn't mean America only.
And then there is the America
First viewpoint where it is
quite literally America first.
And so it's
I remember reporting,
I think it was my second article ever
for some before
when we launched
about how back in October 20, 22,
which was well
before Trump actually announced
he was already getting people in his year
ear from both sides of the aisle
trying to convince him either
A, to support
Ukraine aid
or be to support cutting it off.
So clearly this has been brewing
for a really long time.
Major Mike Lyons,
I just have one more question
because Ukraine is in the middle
of a brutal counter offensive. Right.
And so this war
is not going to get any easier
as they try
and make their way towards the sea.
So what are we looking at
when we talk about
sending more vicious weapons
into what is turning into
one of the largest land wars
in Europe in decades?
Yeah, I mean, we're still having sent
really the offensive weapons.
They've just the weapons
they have are really defensive.
I am surprised
the counter offensive
even started, frankly.
They're doing it
trying to do a counter offensive against
what has historically been successful
no blitzkrieg, no air superiority.
You know, these kinds of weapons, the
the cluster bombs,
by that you mean both Russia
and Ukraine do not have air support.
So, you know, the Russians do know
the Russians do.
The Russians have
the Russians have still
tremendous advantage on the ground here.
Let's let's be sober,
not like helicopters, etc.
I mean, it's still been what it could be.
No.
And so until some of these other weapons
come the attack
arms, likely
the database tanks
in the next three months,
I think cruise survivability
is really important for the Ukraines.
They have
they have to hold off right now
and give themselves a chance to make sure
that when some or more of those weapon
platforms comes to the table to use them.