stand is that a lot of these european countries, whether we're looking at france, whether we're looking at germany or great britain, had been hesitant. and earlier this week, we saw them waffle on whether or not they were actually going to announce that they also were going to approve the use of their long range weapon systems against the sovereign territory of the russian federation. now of course we have heard news breaking on november 21st. that british storm shuttle mission missiles have indeed been used. so we are, we're entering very tenuous times for europe, the end of european nations. europe is facing a lot of the similar crises that we face here in the united states and even more directly, they are in the proximity of the russian federation. so they'll have to deal directly with the consequences of these actions and they're already feeling the effects of the sanctions. the west has imposed on russia as well as the efforts to sever russian energy from europe. but now we're entering

a phase where the conflict could become much more direct and rushes into. the very 1st thing was mentioned that they have the means and capacities to strike the targets directly without the effective, without the effectiveness of us insight missile systems coming to bear. so rush, i think, is clearly trying to demonstrate to the west that you do not once to provoke this. and i think that's where we see a big divergence is. russia has very clearly been orienting its economy. it's logistics in a very a market pace in order to be able to deal with the realities of a war time economy. and i just don't think that what we've seen from the major european states has been in proportion. so once again, they are using ukraine is this battering ram. that is putting the full complement in a very, very dangerous situation. and of course we have heard russia in the past. talk about if it's sovereignty, if it's legitimate interest,

if it's core strategic interest or threatened the use of potential nuclear weapons or, and the wesley stick all of these things very, very seriously. but again, we are in a situation where the bite in ministration is really using this time, the slammed up period in order to strengthen the algorithm for the war and prevent the trump administration from actually taking actions that could be escalate. so i know we'll probably talk a little bit more about that, but i wanted to mention that as well as some excellent points in there, john, the use top diplomat has said western powers gave authorization for cube to use long range missiles against russia. but we haven't gotten confirmation from washington. i'm wondering why do you think that is, especially when it's clear that you probably would not be able to use these attack him missiles without the us as support? well, i think that one thing is clear from the 2024 elections is that donald trump,

that a clear mandates to in the words, this is something that he ran out and it was one of his major points was that he was going to be the candidates to bring peace, that he was going to end of the one ukraine and at multiple points, he decried the blood, shed the loss of life on both sides of the war. so the american voters very clearly made their opinion heard in the 2024 november elections, where donald trump dot only one the electoral college. but he won the popular vote, which was the 1st time a republican nominee is one of the popular vote since 2004, which is a major achievement. and it was by far the best that he performed in each of his 3 presidential election bits. so the by the administration is clear on one hand in the democratic party is as well that the american people are not wanting to continue this war. we actually saw in recent days that the bite and ministration was announcing that it was planning to forgive $4700000000.00 in loans that it's

given to the ukrainian government. so as it's doing this, it is also now involving itself directly in deeply, in a conflict with russia where long range us missiles again, are being used. but instead of coming on saying this directly, which would definitely add a fuel to the fire, provoke, further diplomatic disputes with other allies and generator response from the domestic population here at home by the administration. and us officials are trying to kind of keep this out of mainstream headlines, which will be unavoidable, of course, if the conflict escalates. but i think that's this is in line with the strategy of what we call the deep state in general, is to quietly march us toward war into a deeper involvement, financial entanglements and military entanglements. with the governments in ukraine and its crusade against the russian federation. to and again, i think that we're seeing a conflict in the trump administration, the developing trump administration itself. there are,

of course people that trump has nominated the cabinet positions that have been outspoken against viewing this war in the us is involvement and weapons systems being sent into ukraine. but on the other hand, there's also a number of republicans, both in congress and among the potential cabinet picks that have been long supporters not only of the war and ukraine, but uh for people like marco rubio, have never found words that they didn't like. and there are, there are others as well uh, who have been very strongly in support of the ukraine warranty. yes. as an involvement there. you know, i'm looking at people in particular like michael waltz, who is been picked as a national security advisor. and he actually earlier this year criticize the bite in ministration for not doing enough in terms of sanctioning russia. he was talking about the half hearted sanctions that divided administration was waging. and the need to send an even stronger message to vladimir problem. so i think the internal political dynamics are very complicated here in the united states,

but it all fits in with this broader efforts to try to quietly walk us into war with as little backlash as possible. so john furnished officials, so if we hop across the pond, have said the country is prepared to respond to any threat to its national security from russia. but recently the u. k. defend secretary john healey said the state of the british armed forces was quote, far worse than we thought. so why then would they still be supported supporting an escalation in this conflict, putting their own citizens potentially at risk? so there's a number of issues at play here. one is this legacy of the british to continue to be a of what you always say over confidence in their own military, in their own military capabilities. there is a little bit of historical continuity here, of course. but the other important issue is that many of these european countries, the united kingdom included feel that the united states will,

their power will come to bear in the events that their security is threatened. uh, but i think that there is a miscalculation happening here. again, the american people are not strongly and supportive war, and our congress has had to walk us slowly into this war in ukraine. when of course, there are interest among our political and economic lead that have wanted this war with russia for some time there threatened, of course, by the sovereignty and independence of the russian federation. and these new relationships that are merging with the multiple, the world. and the british officials and political leads are kind of facing the same crisis as we are here in the united states, where you have a number of people here. so i'm included, who are increasingly advocating the responsibility to the british people. we've seen this year a number of riots occurred throughout britain and response, migration, and response to other issues. but this all stems from the fact that our political

and economic leads in the united states and in great britain respectively, are becoming more and more detached from the interest of the people themselves. and so i think that there is a disconnect. that translates when it comes to understanding the preparedness of their military, their preparedness of their population writ large to actually fight a war, their appetite to fight a war and then their capacity to do so. and again, it doesn't help that. the british have neglect their responsibility for their own population when they're trying to push us into a direct conflict that were fired by definition, the loss of life. all right, we're gonna leave it there. john miller, i'm the director of policy and research at dd o politics. joining us from boulder, colorado. john, thank you. thank you very much. all right, well let's recap what the arsenic is, according to the restroom president at the state of the art intermediate range, ballistic missile. it can travel at market 10, that's up to 3 kilometers per seconds. mr. put and emphasize the advance hypersonic

project. all can penetrate any defense. all right, there's across live now the former us army officer status love crypt. nick um, stuffs good to have you on the program with us. we heard from the russian president earlier announcing the use of that new hyper sonic missile. they are rusnick in this attack today on ukraine. i'm wondering if you can share your thoughts on that and what kind of message that is sending to the west. well 1st of all, it says very strong message to the united states, because let's not forget, it was under donald trump. uh, exit it. uh, the intermediate range here, and this looks pretty, that are good, a whole range of a category of missions. the very missiles are, what of this for with your and interestingly enough, the european vassals day setting up in the united states already been developing uh

its own intermediates, uh, hosting missiles, uh and it felt it was time to get out of the treaty on false pretense that price was developing its own russian withdrawn and turned around and develop a visual relatively quickly. and not just the make this a hyper sonic, this one that goes market. they're going to stumble. martin leaves us 3 kilometers per 2nd. your eyes just in case you how fast it goes by. it's 3 kilometers per 2nd . it has a range around 3000 kilometers. you can fire from us because it's pretty much anything in europe. it is nuclear capable. and it has um, or multiple launch its portion, well exactly how many words is there, but the reports up to 30, which we pretty much watch probably more than this look attorney, but normally uh, a more uh, very about uh, 11 words is on the top. it opens up and on vehicles live vehicles from

out there for going out from. yeah. not all the caring clear what is because there uh, often uh there used also is a deep voice. and that way any, the problem here is though, it doesn't matter what it is. absolutely no, and the most except for me, the, the s 5, the russian s 550. they can stop hypersonic news. so stuff, the pentagon said it received a warning about the russian missile launch. i think about half an hour before it took place. do you think that you crane was in any way prepared for an attack like this? you know, they were, they were also not sure exactly what actually because they were looking at the possible other missiles uh at 1st dismiss. this is the 1st show and emissions capability. now you're going to remember one thing, 2 years ago,

2 years ago the us, the end of the western airlines didn't believe that rusher had any i presented. this is the attitude was where rich rushes for. and there's no way they can develop it, which shows and absolutely no, it's number one of the russian economy, a number to a russian gave her billing uh any. so anything they saw, right of this, any test, any warnings. it's a good as oh, really advance each year. well, they can't say that anymore and haven't been able to say that ever since. and then you make them sit up and take notes. but it's one thing when you have a short range of cruise missiles, are i per site. now you have a medium range ballistic missile that is hyper sonic an entire way, not just the words coming in and in a downward ballistic or so the missile can't be stopped and can take out. it is a direct threat to everything in your if dad doesn't make the bridge, sit up and take notes. that means the people in england are absolutely entering

into your stivers pretty much it is in order to, you know, i'm not, or your stiver was elected, basically be a war prime minister. and he has a clue that's bigger enough to try to start on your accounting on the us backing them up. whether or not they're going to give that is a very big push. and once they've done the, in, in doing what they have done to really stick on, i, in the back of donald trump, will probably not forgive them for this when he comes into the office in the next 2 months. yeah, we've heard so much school to try rhetoric from western powers. it seems like they really are pushing for a direct conflict with russia. how prepared would they be to fight directly with russia? the 1st we know, 1st of all, what was the british queen of the seas of a smaller fleet about half a size and what was being with that in a very poor state in going to mount about 2 divisions worth of the inventory. it's

got to us, it's got $200.00 tags, challenge or 2 things on the on paper and may be about a $140.00 capable thanks on that that, that could actually run and spike uh, as opposed to be so stuck a scrap metal or a spare parts the rest of your business, much better. i mean, we're going to look at it realistically in 2022. when this conflict started, ukraine was the 2nd largest military in your after russian the, into the easily effect for west the going to easily run right through all of your is it actually nothing in europe that kind of stuff the freighting and knowing except for rush as well, of course we understand that the european, uh, the european midgets uh military which really all they are all major military. uh were uh cranking up the radians to be the battery structure. uh, not much as change at this point. uh, except that they be armed uh,

even for us now is to they are starting to pump up there is uh, but that's gonna still take year to 2 to 3 years depending on what on what type of industry are bumping up with st production or whether it's gone, gone, or shelf or not. they simply don't have the resources and it takes time even with the us and doubled its production of artillery shells 155 millimeter artillery shells. it only went up to $67000.00. so basically, less than a week's worth or would you bring in about 4 days worth of what rushing less than that? so let's do not prepare. they're not in any so any form prepared, draft more. we prepared the vermont, which used to be you, i'm sorry, the opponents. yeah. so people want to make it better. i'm not think. yeah. but that's not even a shadow of opponent spirit. i was in the 90 nine's. let's not forget it. the room is there said yes we decided germany or one city during.