What happens when slogans hit hard limits—terrain, production lines, and the law? We sit down with Larry Johnson, former CIA officer and counterterror veteran, to strip the varnish off three volatile fronts: Venezuela, Ukraine, and U.S. dealings with extremist proxies. The result is a bracing tour through ground truth that media sound bites rarely touch.

We start where few policymakers do: maps and math. Johnson explains why a push on Caracas would be a nightmare—triple‑canopy jungle, high mountains, and urban choke points packed with ambush sites. Helicopter assaults would meet thousands of shoulder‑fired missiles; coastal ground convoys would crawl through kill zones. Factor in support from Iran, China, and Russia, plus porous borders with Colombia and Brazil, and a quick regime change fantasy turns into a widening regional war.

Then we follow the money and the missiles in Ukraine. Requests for twenty‑five Patriot batteries collide with the industrial reality of a handful built per year and missiles costing millions apiece, fired in pairs against swarms that can number in the hundreds. Intercept math becomes strategy: even optimistic launcher counts leave most threats untouched, and maneuvering hypersonics challenge Patriot’s effectiveness. Johnson walks us through the war’s timeline—Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdiivka—and why a slower Russian mobilization now yields faster advances as trained manpower and logistics finally converge.

The final act asks the hardest question: what does it mean when Abu Mohammed al‑Jolani, Al‑Qaeda’s Syrian leader, is welcomed in Washington? Johnson traces a decades‑long pattern of U.S. support to radical Sunni groups, from Afghanistan to Chechnya to Syria, and links it to a bipartisan record of targeted killings that erode constitutional norms. If strategy ignores first principles—law, accountability, and the difference between optics and outcomes—blowback isn’t a surprise, it’s a certainty.

If you’re ready for clear, unsentimental analysis—terrain over talking points, production over promises—hit play, share with a friend, and leave a review with the one insight that challenged your view. Your take might shape our next deep dive.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The ground is moving under American politics, and the fault line runs straight through U.S. foreign policy. We unpack how the Israel–Gaza war turned into a domestic litmus test that hardens the left and the right while squeezing the center into brittle talking points. From Ben Shapiro’s attempt to fuse Tucker Carlson with conspiracism to Lindsey Graham’s faith-based pledges, we trace how gatekeeping and moral panic push audiences toward fringe figures rather than away from them.

We dive into a revealing Turning Point exchange where a young voter cites the USS Liberty and Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, challenging the reflexive “ally above all” stance. That moment, and the applause it drew, signals a generational shift: people are fact-checking old narratives in real time. On the other side of the aisle, a New York City mayoral race morphed into a referendum on Israel, with accusations of anti-Semitism failing to drown out arguments about law, policy, and proportionality. Media fireworks only highlighted how brittle the establishment case has become when confronted with footage from Gaza and plain-language ethics.

There’s a better path. We revisit a lesson from libertarian circles: when controversial voices are debated calmly and precisely, their appeal fades; when they’re erased or smeared, curiosity skyrockets. The same logic applies today. Let arguments breathe, confront genuine bigotry with clear principles, and stop outsourcing American politics to foreign policy dogma. If the goal is to de-escalate polarization, the strategy is open debate, consistent values, and respect for truth over team loyalty.

If this resonates, subscribe, share the show with a friend, and leave a review with your take on where the national conversation should go next. Your voice shapes what we explore next.

The ground is moving under American politics, and the fault line runs straight through U.S. foreign policy. We unpack how the Israel–Gaza war turned into a domestic litmus test that hardens the left and the right while squeezing the center into brittle talking points. From Ben Shapiro’s attempt to fuse Tucker Carlson with conspiracism to Lindsey Graham’s faith-based pledges, we trace how gatekeeping and moral panic push audiences toward fringe figures rather than away from them.

We dive into a revealing Turning Point exchange where a young voter cites the USS Liberty and Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, challenging the reflexive “ally above all” stance. That moment, and the applause it drew, signals a generational shift: people are fact-checking old narratives in real time. On the other side of the aisle, a New York City mayoral race morphed into a referendum on Israel, with accusations of anti-Semitism failing to drown out arguments about law, policy, and proportionality. Media fireworks only highlighted how brittle the establishment case has become when confronted with footage from Gaza and plain-language ethics.

There’s a better path. We revisit a lesson from libertarian circles: when controversial voices are debated calmly and precisely, their appeal fades; when they’re erased or smeared, curiosity skyrockets. The same logic applies today. Let arguments breathe, confront genuine bigotry with clear principles, and stop outsourcing American politics to foreign policy dogma. If the goal is to de-escalate polarization, the strategy is open debate, consistent values, and respect for truth over team loyalty.

If this resonates, subscribe, share the show with a friend, and leave a review with your take on where the national conversation should go next. Your voice shapes what we explore next.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Responsible Statecraft tends to have a more common sense approach to the profligate spending on the part of the American defense establishment.

The retirement of the entire ICBM arm and cancellation of the Sentinel successor would save enormous amounts of money wasted on very vulnerable strategic assets.

It’s time to consider a complete reappraisal of the three arms of the nuclear response in IRBMs and ICBMs and reduce them over time to zero and then to decide on the disposition of the bomber launched gravity bombs and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The drone technology emerging now and the concomitant stasis of the aforementioned weapons systems makes them incredibly vulnerable left of bang.

A complete reappraisal is in order to rely completely on the much more secure Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) fleet option.

Given that its budget is soaring towards $1 trillion per year, and that it wastes untold billions on overpriced components and excess bureaucracy, there’s no question that the Pentagon can find money to reinvest in other priorities. But a better approach would be to apply a good portion of the savings to reducing the department’s top line.

Cuts in overall spending could come from the reduction or elimination of dysfunctional, overpriced, or dangerous weapon systems like F-35 combat aircraft, the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, or heavy, vulnerable fighting ships like a new generation of aircraft carriers. It could save billions. It could also clear the way for the development of more reliable, effective replacements that are simpler to operate, easier to repair, and more relevant to the most likely conflicts of the future.

Eliminating ICBMs from America’s nuclear arsenal would be a particularly smart move. Not only is the cost of the new system growing at an alarming rate – an 81% increase in projected costs in just a few years time – but independent experts like former Clinton administration defense secretary William Perry have pointed out that they are among the most dangerous weapons possessed by the U.S. military.

The time is now to consider retirement and reduction of nuclear assets in the US inventory.

Read the rest:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-budget-200-billion/

Threats are easy. Supply chains, deterrence math, and real endgames are not. We dive into the rising talk of U.S. strikes on Venezuela and why public saber-rattling can lock leaders into dangerous escalations they can’t control. From leaked authorizations to carrier movements in the Caribbean, we lay out the likely playbook, the unintended consequences for regional stability, and how regime-change logic keeps generating the very problems it claims to solve.

We then pivot to Ukraine to unpack a quieter crisis: dwindling Western stockpiles. It’s not just bombs; it’s interceptors, artillery shells, and the industrial base needed to sustain a modern war. Reports of low Patriot interception rates highlight a brutal truth—air defense is a volume game, and the West is running low. Even if funding appears, production capacity can’t magically expand overnight, especially as Washington juggles commitments in Europe, the Middle East, and possibly Latin America. The longer the gap between promises and deliveries, the worse Kyiv’s leverage becomes at any negotiating table

Finally, we tackle Israel’s prison rape scandal and the political focus on optics over accountability against the backdrop of a thin ceasefire in Gaza. Too few aid trucks, ongoing strikes, and mass displacement reveal a humanitarian pipeline that isn’t meeting minimum needs. When leaders prioritize messaging over remedies, the cycle of violence resets. Through listener Q&A, we pressure-test scenarios: Wagner in Caracas, missile ranges, funding mechanisms, and what lessons from the war on terror should guide policy now. The throughline is clear: align ends with means, choose negotiation over spectacle, and stop pretending scarcity is strategy.

Like what you heard? Follow, rate, and share the show. Your support helps us cut through the algorithm—what’s the one policy you’d reverse today?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download