Deep Dive Intel Briefing: What We Learned This Week 12/13/2025

This week’s intel briefing covers a lot of ground, from potential conflicts in Venezuela to shifts in U.S. strategy regarding Russia and Ukraine, and a critical look at trust in governance. We’re breaking down the key developments and what they mean for national security and global stability.

• Venezuela Tensions: While no war has started, U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean is significant. Venezuela warns of defense against "imperialism," and any U.S. attack would be legally questionable with unpredictable outcomes.
• Russia-Ukraine Strategy Shift: A move towards pragmatic stability with Russia is noted, contrasting with Europe’s demonization approach. This shift is seen as beneficial for U.S. interests.
• Trump’s Pragmatism: The former president’s instinct to stabilize relations with Russia and push Europe toward self-reliance is endorsed as a way to improve U.S. safety.
• Erosion of Trust: A breakdown in public trust in governments and media is a major issue, hindering effective policy and strategic thinking, as highlighted by insights from John Mearsheimer.
• Modern Warfare Evolution: The U.S. military, particularly the Army, is criticized for being behind the curve in adapting to 21st-century warfare, despite some tactical advancements in drone technology.
• War of Attrition Realities: The fundamental nature of attrition warfare, based on manpower and sustainability, is emphasized, questioning the logic of prolonging the Ukraine conflict without a clear path to victory.

As of this broadcast, the drums of war in Venezuela haven’t started beating, but the U.S. military presence in the Caribbean is growing. We’re seeing a buildup of naval vessels, Marines, aircraft, and even hospital ships. Meanwhile, Venezuelan leaders are making it clear they’ll defend their country against what they call U.S. "imperialism." The speaker argues strongly that any U.S. attack would be illegal and unauthorized, both by U.S. and international law. The consequences? Unpredictable, to say the least.

While Venezuela’s military isn’t on par with the U.S., history teaches us that national will, the terrain, and legitimacy can sometimes overcome superior force. Think Vietnam or Afghanistan. A quick, easy intervention isn’t guaranteed. It offers little strategic gain for the U.S., risks American lives, and would likely cause significant harm to Venezuelan civilians.

There’s a noticeable shift in U.S. national security strategy, moving towards a more pragmatic approach with Russia, rather than outright demonization. Reports suggest Russia has reacted more positively to this strategic framing than to specific peace proposals. Critics, especially in Europe and among neoconservatives, are suspicious of any Russian approval, but the argument here is that stable relations with a major nuclear power are simply in the U.S.’s best interest.

Europe’s strategy of demonization and military buildup is seen as counterproductive, fueling arms races and reducing any influence over Russia. The speaker supports President Trump’s instinct to stabilize relations with Russia, prioritize U.S. security, and encourage Europe to take more responsibility for ending the conflict. The goal is to reduce the chances of conflict with other nuclear powers, like China, ultimately making the U.S. safer and more prosperous.

Drawing on insights from John Mearsheimer, a significant breakdown in public trust in governments and media across the U.S. and Europe is undermining democratic effectiveness. Policy elites are criticized for sticking too rigidly to party lines, particularly on issues like NATO expansion and Ukraine. This lack of critical thinking and strategic flexibility often leads to poor outcomes.

When people don’t trust what their government or the media tells them, the whole system suffers. This is especially dangerous for liberal democracies like the United States. The speaker recalls a debate with Jake Sullivan years ago about Ukraine and NATO expansion, noting Sullivan’s reliance on standard talking points rather than flexible, outside-the-box thinking. This adherence to the party line, even among talented individuals, can lead to flawed foreign policy.

We’re seeing a dramatic change in how war is fought, evident in conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israeli-Iranian war, and the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. However, the U.S. military, particularly the Army, is seen as lagging behind, still geared for 20th-century warfare rather than the realities of the 21st century. While there are some glimmers of hope, like the increased experimentation with drones in the Army, the strategic adaptation is slow.

The speed of modern warfare, with constant innovation in drone technology, electronic warfare, and counter-measures, requires flexibility and rapid adaptation. The side that can make changes on the fly, at scale, is the one likely to succeed. While tactical successes are happening on the ground, the strategic level needs a similar agility. The speaker points out that Ukraine, despite tactical skill, lacks the manpower to sustain long-term gains in a war of attrition.

John Bolton’s perspective on the Ukraine conflict, suggesting continued fighting rather than seeking a negotiated settlement, is critically examined. The core issue, as highlighted by Bolton himself, is that it’s a war of attrition. Historically, such wars are won and lost based on manpower, ammunition, supplies, and the ability to sustain combat over time. Technology changes, but these fundamentals remain.

Arguments that simply providing more money will change the outcome are dismissed. Without sufficient manpower, trained and equipped to the right levels, money alone won’t win. Russia, facing what it considers an existential fight, has significantly increased its military production capacity, a level the West hasn’t matched because the conflict isn’t perceived as existential by their populations. This fundamental difference in commitment and capacity is key to understanding the war’s trajectory.

There’s a concerning aspect where some elites seem to benefit from prolonging the conflict, pushing it close to direct confrontation with Russia without actually crossing the line into full-scale war. This keeps the military-industrial complex’s "gravy train" rolling, but it’s a dangerous game that risks wider escalation. The focus on tactical Ukrainian successes, while positive for morale, doesn’t change the strategic reality of a war of attrition where Russia has the manpower advantage.

Recent events, like the drone ambush on Russian vehicles, show Ukrainian capability at the tactical level. However, Russia’s vast manpower reserves mean they can absorb losses and continue their advance. The speaker emphasizes that without addressing the fundamental issue of manpower, Ukraine cannot sustain its gains, and territory lost is likely to remain lost. The hard truth is that continuing the conflict pointlessly sacrifices more Ukrainian lives and territory, leading to a worse outcome than a negotiated settlement now.