igantic number isn't it because they're just continually going. So it seems to me that if the numbers we're looking at is hundreds, the low hundreds of drones, then Russia gets what it wants. Am I right? Somebody says they've done 1,500 missile strikes that Russia has and the missiles are just being a small percentage of the blow-up stuff they're sending over there. The exploding stuff.

All right so this doesn't look good. If I had to guess without having any military experience whatsoever, which I think I demonstrate every single day, I don't think that Ukraine could win without 5,000 drones. Suppose they had 5,000 Switchblade drones. Could they win? I mean if 5,000 of Russia's more important assets blew up I don't know. That feels like that would start to make an impact if they were the right assets at the right time. Suppose they used all of them to take out their supply lines. Would they just rebuild them as fast as they were being destroyed so it wouldn't make any difference? Maybe. But I feel like you could stop an army with 5,000 successful drone strikes if you took out the right stuff. Because remember it doesn't matter how much stuff Russia has. It only matters how many of it you have to take out to end the whole deal and that would be a much smaller number if you chose correctly.

So somebody is pointing out that my military expertise seems to be limited to how I feel and you are correct. But you agree with the basic idea right? The basic idea is that some number of drones is definitely not enough but some number of drones is definitely enough and it's definitely not 300. I don't think you have to be a military expert to know that right? That's definitely not enough. But is it 5,000? Now I don't know that. The answer to that question I don't know. I don't think anybody does right? So he says so you have no idea what you're talking about. Yeah I do. I know it's really hard to stop a Switchblade drone and I know that 300 is not enough and I know that logically some number would get you anything you want. So I mean that seems fairly straightforward. Now of course if Russia wanted to win badly enough it probably wouldn't matter how many drones there were. They would just level Ukraine.

Let's talk about this weird five-year lag between Trump sounding crazy and Trump being proven right. So I saw a tweet from Jim Jordan, Representative Jordan, and he said the CIA knew as early as 2017, five years ago, that the Trump-Russia collusion data was not technically plausible and was user-created. Both of those in quotes. So those are based on the actual investigation. That's not just Jordan's opinion. That's what the investigation has turned up so far. And I thought to myself, I wonder if that rule of thumb will hold that about five years from the time that Trump says something you find out that it was true.

Here are some of the other things. When was it that Trump first said Germany would be hostage to Russia's energy policy? Around five years ago. Now it's not when he first thought of it but it's when he first said it in public and got mocked. Let's say right about five years ago. How about the idea of making the United States energy independent? He was saying that around five, six years ago. About China being our biggest problem and needin