Title: Ukraine Drone Strike on Russia
Show: Daniel Davis / Deep Dive
Date: 2025-06-03
URL: https://youtu.be/OjWJyN0gmqo
Duration: 30:00

---

[00:01] In the continued aftermath of the Ukraine drone strike deep inside of Russia on their strategic bomber fleet, we're still trying to find out exactly what happened. What are the consequences? What is the relation to the ship with this and the peace talks that are going on in Istanbul or that did happen in the immediate aftermath and then where things are going now. Part of the question that we also have to answer is how did Ukraine do this? Is this some spectacular Ukraine only operation that took care of this? Was it as some say it was the the British the

[00:33] MI6 that was doing it or others are actually saying no the US CIA also had some involvement here? It's going to be hard to parse some of this stuff. But we're going to talk to somebody today who has a a pretty good idea about how some of these things work and that is a first time guest on our show, John Curyaku, a former CIA intel analyst and operations officer and CIA whistleblower. First of all, John, a delight to have you on the show today. Oh, thanks for having me. It's so much fun. And uh I'm sorry that it's been so long since we've seen each other. Yeah, it has. We were talking just before we

[01:03] came on air here. It was actually a baseball game at Washington Nationals uh in 2019 that that we had during the championship run. So, it was the last of the heyday. So, that was a good time at the park. Not quite as good now, but uh anyway, that was good. Well, listen, I I a lot of people don't know who you are. uh because it's the first time you've been on our show and I wonder if you can talk a little bit because uh you've always been kind of a hero of mine because of the courage that you took in the past when some people know on our channel anyway that that I did some

[01:34] whistleblowing stuff in 2012 with the Afghanistan war but that has been like about 4% of the courage it took you because it cost you something something really serious and I wonder if you could just kind of tell briefly about your story. Thank you. Well, I spent 14 almost 15 years with the CIA and uh then went to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee uh staff as the as the senior investigator. But after I left the CIA, I blew the whistle on the agency's torture program. Uh to make a very long

[02:04] story very short, uh the Obama administration came after me, charged me with five felonies. I was finally um forced to take a plea to violating an obscure law. Only the second American ever ever charged with uh violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. And I did 23 months in a federal prison. Zero regrets. I'd do it again tomorrow if I had the opportunity and the the the necessity for doing it. But here we are. We find ourselves uh whistleblowers

[02:36] outside looking in. Well, but but let's let's get to that. I mean what what is it that you discovered and and what did you do uh you know first of all within the system right I um I was the chief of CIA counterterrorism operations in Pakistan and I led a series of raids that resulted in the capture of somebody named Abu Zuba who we believed at the time was the number three in al-Qaeda. Uh Abu Zuba was turned over to a secret CIA team taken to a secret prison and he was tortured mercilessly. He was the

[03:07] first one of our high-value targets to be tortured. And um the CIA did things that were not approved by the Justice Department, not approved by the president. Uh the torture extended to other prisoners, at least 14 that we know of. Several were killed during the torture sessions. And so I went on ABC News and I said that the CIA was torturing its prisoners. I said that torture was official US government policy. And I said that the torture had been personally approved by the president. Now, oddly,

[03:38] interestingly, the Bush administration never charged me with a crime. In fact, they closed the case against me, concluding that I had not committed a crime. But the Obama administration secretly reopened the case, charged me with five felonies, including three counts of espionage. I have five kids at home, and so I'm looking at 45 years. They offered me 30 months. I'd served 23. I took the deal and that's that is a profound press. Uh

[04:09] and and what what was the reason uh that the Obama administration came after you when the Bush administration against whom you directly accused didn't Right. Well, the reasons really are severalfold. Um number one, I had a a real and dangerous enemy in uh in John Brennan. At the time, Brennan was the deputy national security adviser. Of course, he went on to be the CIA director. Brenn and I, we've known each other for 35 years. We've always hated each other. Brennan was one of the

[04:40] godfathers of the torture program. So, he had it out for me for going public. Uh, he said that I had aired the CIA's Dirty Laundry in public. And Barack Obama, let's face it, Barack Obama had a Nixonian obsession with National Security Leaks. Between 1917, when the when the Espionage Act was passed into law and 2009, three Americans were charged with espionage for speaking to

[05:10] the press. Just under Barack Obama, eight people were charged with espionage for speaking to the press. I think that says it all right there. Yeah. Well, uh, God bless you for doing that because without that, we would never know and and the the what has always troubled me and I can only imagine for you is that, you know, Brennan had flat out lied in baldface that we don't do that that's not American policy, etc. And then even with confronted with it um actually with a number of things that were later proven

[05:42] to be completely bald-faced lies. I think the Snowden uh leaked revealed some other things that had been and to and he didn't serve 23 months in a federal prison. No, he got rich. Yeah. Yeah. Love to see that uh come to justice one day. And just like he seemed to wait around for you, we'll see if maybe in the future somebody else wants to bring some justice. Love to see. I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful. And and I think if anybody's going to do it, it's going to be this president right now.

[06:12] Well, I'd like to see this president give you a pardon is what I'd like to see right off the bat. So, get that off the table. Well, thank you. I I applied for one and uh you know, I'm hopeful. I've got some really fantastic support in in Tucker Carlson, Judge Npalitano, Dr. Phil, uh the former head of the uh or the current head of the Make America Great Again Foundation, the former US attorney in in Utah, who who said that my case was the template. These were his words, the template for the Democratic

[06:44] Party's policy of lawfare. And so I I'm I'm hopeful that I'll get a fair hearing in the White House. Well, for if it's worth anything at all, add us on to that list because we are in your corner as well. I appreciate that you have done. Well, let's get into to what's going on right now uh in the in the US uh sphere or at least in in the way that we're associated with what's going on because uh as people are aware certainly who've been watching our show here that there was a a big high-profile attack inside

[07:16] of Russia on some of their strategic bomber fleet. Gary's showing you some of that video there. Uh just in terms of the operation itself, it was reported that it was uh 18 months in the planning. uh lots of uh really high high techch uh high state craft or spycraft I guess is probably a better term operations. It was they never were discovered they conducted this all the way through got it into deep inside of enemy territory etc. But now then in the aftermath there's some questions about

[07:47] how did Ukraine pull it off. If you ask Voodimir Zalinski he's pretty clear where it happened. Europe together with America has better weapons than Russia. We also have stronger tactical solutions. Our operation spider web yesterday proved that Russia must feel what its losses mean. That is what will push it toward diplomacy. And when Russia takes losses in this war, it's obvious to everyone that Ukraine is the one holding the

[08:19] line. Not just for itself, but for all of Europe. So some have have interpreted that to mean yeah and in fact we were doing this with Europe not only for Europe and we had some help in that. What is just your assessment from the outside about and actually let me ask you two separate questions. First of all just in terms of the execution of this operation how do you view it as someone who's formerly in the CIA? This was a brilliant operation. Brilliant. Whether you favor the Ukrainians or favor the Russians, a

[08:50] whole lot of planning went into the successful execution of this operation. Uh you think of it this way, this had to be well actually the Ukrainians said this was 18 months in the making. So not only did they have to smuggle these drones across the border into Russia, they had to cross all 11 time zones and get them prepositioned. You have to do that with human beings. So this is this is a clandestine activity. What we the CIA used to call an operational act but

[09:22] but it's multiple operational acts to get these things in place and ready to launch and then have the whole thing commanded from uh Keefe. Very very impressive operation. Now, I'm going to disagree with with President Zilinski in that the only people who do these kinds of largecale operations and then don't tell anybody about it are the Israelis. And most of the time the Israelis do inform us either minutes before the

[09:53] operations are launched or as the operations are being launched. There is no possible way. There is no possible scenario by which the Ukrainians didn't either inform the Americans and other Western allies that this operation was in play or didn't have the Americans and possibly the Brits helping them to do this operation. It's there are too many moving parts. It's just too complicated. They couldn't do it on

[10:23] their own. So you you what do you say to those that say no this is this just how good the SBU is they can they can get that done. What is it lead you to believe it had to be uh either the help with somebody else uh or that they would have said something? Well, you're going to need things like like imagery for example. You're going to need things like like um logistical assistance. You can't do everything yourself. Not when you're a small country at war against a giant nuclear

[10:57] power. You have to have some kind of help. And if if you're the United States providing billions and billions of dollars in aid, then by God, you want to be consulted about these things. You don't don't want to read about these these operations on the front page of the Post of the Times. That's just not the way it's done in that world. Well, in fact, on that point, what is what does it tell you that at least as of the last time I checked earlier this afternoon, uh Trump had not made any comments about this, which I found a

[11:27] little unusual because he loves to comment on everything here. Uh and when specifically asked Caroline Levit yesterday afternoon was specifically asked about the United States and what we thought of it and what the president thought about it and she said, "I'll let the president ask for answer for himself." And so, what do you make of his silence on this? His silence tells me that we were in on it. If if we had been cut out, he would be furious and maybe even a little bit embarrassed and he would have been just beating Zilinsky

[11:58] about the face and head in the media and he hasn't been. He's been silent and to me that says that this was that we were at least consulted and that this was possibly a joint operation because his silence just you know protects the operation. it it protects the relationship, you know, sources and methods as we used to say at the agency. So, I would think that if we had been cut out, if the president had been embarrassed by not being consulted, he would be jumping up and down in front of t TV cameras uh today and yesterday. And

[12:28] that hasn't been the case. And just kind of in the larger I guess world where all this stuff is going on here. Uh you know the president about a week or so ago was just blasting the Russians because they were firing missiles and uh drones etc into Kiev. They were in in Odessa. They were having a lot of actions down there etc. But then uh number one he didn't say anything about the Ukrainian missiles and drones that were going in the other direction even during that time and now hasn't said anything here. It it it's I'm

[13:01] unclear what his play is here because I on the one hand it's like he's trying to shame Russia, but you can't shame Russia. They they can't be shamed for this. No, they can't. But then but then sometimes he's also had harsh words to say about Zillinsky as well. So, uh what is your take on what the president is actually trying to get accomplished here? Well, Danny, I I think he's very serious about wanting to get the two sides to the negotiating table in Istanbul. He has said repeatedly that he's willing to

[13:32] make the trip if it will make a peace deal more likely to be approved or even to be negotiated in the first place. And uh the the Ukrainians say fine, that's great. The Russians say it's not necessary yet. There is no peace deal, so let them work out some of these details first. you're right that the Russians cannot be shamed. Um, and I think he understands that he's already been president for four and a half years. So, I think he understands the Russian mindset. I think he understands Vladimir Putin. Um, at the same time, I

[14:04] also think that the president really believed that he could use the bully pulpit to push the two sides together and he's been stiff armed by Vladimir Putin. He doesn't appreciate being stiff armed. So, I think that allowing these Ukrainian um offensive operations to to go forward is one way in which the Trump administration can try to nudge the Russians to the negotiating table. You remember, I mean, we were kids, you and

[14:35] I, when this was happening, but I'm sure you've studied it. uh when the US and the North Vietnamese began to negotiate peace in the Paris peace talks, peace during the the Vietnam War, that's when some of the fiercest fighting took place. And it's because both sides wanted to get a leg up that they could then negotiate away in Paris. And I wouldn't be surprised if if both the Russians and the Ukrainians have come to that conclusion here that maybe you step up operations now and then you can

[15:05] negotiate it away later in Istanbul. But you know there's it's a complicated because you mentioned that that President Trump doesn't like to be stiff armed by Vladimir Putin but he's kind of being stiff armed by Zalinsky as well. As a matter of fact, so this is the second uh direct conversation between Russia and Ukraine, of course, in Istanbul. Uh here is uh the lead delegate for the Ukraine side, Umarov, and coming out talking about what they want to accomplish. And as you do, this kind of sounds like that Umarov thinks

[15:37] he's on the upper end of the power dynamic and doesn't at all sound like they're getting close to a peace settlement. We've been telling Russia for a very long time, this war must end. and the whole world supports us in that. We're calling for a real work to end this war. The first necessary steps are clear to everyone. A ceasefire, humanitarian actions, and preparation for a leaders meeting. If Russia is serious about the

[16:08] ending the war, it will move forward on this. If not, international sanctions must follow. Okay. So, so obviously Russia is not going to do a ceasefire first. They've said that emphatically from day one. Have never said anything different. So, Umarov knows for sure that that's not going to get done there. And then if they don't, then we're going to going to sanctions. So, is this an attempt and I've heard some people suggest that it is for the Ukraine side not to stiff arm Trump, but to try and coers Trump into

[16:39] going back on trying to find a settlement and to instead getting back on their train with sanctions. Oh, I think absolutely. Yes. You know, we shouldn't underestimate Alto Murzalinski. He's not an idiot. Uh sometimes we like to portray him as one, but he really isn't. And with the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Poles, and a whole bunch of other allies quietly pushing Trump to keep up those Biden era uh programs, aid programs, military aid

[17:10] programs to Ukraine. I think that Zalinski probably has concluded that Trump can be manipulated at least in the short term. If the fighting is still as serious as it is with dozens of people being killed every day on both sides, it allows Zilinski to then go back to Trump and say, "You see, I would love to have peace, but the Russians are such ogres. They're killing our people. They're firing rockets at civilian areas. They're hitting apartment buildings and

[17:40] parks and hospitals. The Brits and French and Germans are with us. We know that you want to be with us, too. That that argument might have a little bit of weight right now. And and you know who else is it wants to pile on to that? Uh there's a whole group of people in the US led by uh Sydney Blu Sydney Blumenthal, Richard Blumenthal, and Lindsey Graham. And that's right, Gary, if you can pull this one up out of the car here. Uh Jack Keane was also pretty uh emphatic earlier today. So the

[18:11] leverage has got to be I think number one military assistance and give them the robust air defense systems and the other things they desperately need. Why is that? Because once Putin sees that the United States is still committed to Ukraine, he knows he can't achieve victory. The evidence is already right in front of us. We're 39 months into the war, Maria. 39 long months. That's how much time it took for us to defeat Nazi Germany. And Putin has not succeeded. He

[18:41] hasn't even taken the entire Dombas region, which is what he wanted to take in 2014. So, he cannot succeed if the United States is providing military assistance. He knows that for a fact. Second thing, let's issue the crippling sanctions. That is all part of the process. Yeah, there you go with those crippling sanctions again. But John, I got to ask you. We've had now nearly three and a half years of crippling sanctions, and it has had the opposite

[19:12] effect. Russia's economy is stronger than it was, not weaker. Ours is weaker than it was, not stronger. And Russia keeps going forward on the battlefield. So, come on, man. What gives? Yeah, Danny, I if there has ever been a lesson for the United States on sanctions, it has been this conflict. The the Russian The Russians have not been harmed by sanctions. Not in any way. There are gigantic Russian markets available in China, in India, all over the rest of the world. And the Chinese have had I'm sorry, the Russians have had no problem

[19:43] at all selling their oil and their natural gas and anything else they want to sell. Most of the world does not have sanctions on Russia. So, we can sanction Russia from now until kingdom come. It's not going to harm them in any way. Just like in Iran, the Iranians lack for nothing. nothing. They don't need us. They don't need Wall Street. They don't need American investment. They have Russian and Chinese investment and others. So, this ought to be a lesson to the United States that sanctions don't

[20:15] work. If anything, they harm only the poorest and most vulnerable in the target country. We need to do something else. Oh, I have an idea. Like maybe negotiations. We used to joke when I was in the CIA. We used to joke about the George W. Bush administration and how we had never seen anybody work so hard to not talk to our enemies. The situation was the same under Joe Biden. It It's hard to to think back on an administration where they worked so hard

[20:46] to not talk to our enemies. So maybe if we talk to them and let the diplomats do what they're being paid to do, we might accomplish something that sanctions have been unable to accomplish. Now, let me ask you a question here kind of related to that in terms of especially back to the decision maker in the United States of of President Trump. One wonders how much how much accurate information he's being given by I mean, let's just say the CIA since that's what you have some

[21:16] experience with in in accurately assessing what the balance of power between the two sides is in all the areas you're talking about logistics, diplomatic, manpower, etc. everything that goes into what makes a nation state have the power to fight and win a war. And obviously it's off the charts in the favor of the Russian side. Uh but sometimes I get the idea that that Trump hears things like uh well let me give you an example. So, uh, the UN ambassador for Russia, Nenzia,

[21:46] ambassador Nenzia went on the UN Security Council just a couple of days ago and said that, "Hey, by the way, we'd love to do diplomacy, but if not, yeah, Gary, if you hang on, sorry, if you can play Nenzia, as long as Kiev tries to prolong the war and provoke Russia by striking residential and civilian infrastructure on our territory, We will continue our special military operation and destroy objects associated with the military

[22:17] potential of the KV regime and no new anti-Russian sanctions, arm supplies to Ukraine or other hostile steps towards Russia will prevent the inevitable military defeat of the Zalinski regime. The choice is now up to Ukraine. Peace as a result of negotiations or inevitable defeat on the battlefield with different conditions for ending the conflict. So you could say if you're Trump just you say all right I got Zalinsky here talking that they're going to win and they just need all this support here and that they can turn the tide etc. And

[22:48] then I got the the Russian side over here with Nenzia in this case saying that no we either going to take what we want on negotiations with this 12-point plan they put out which is basically terms of surrender or we're going to win on the battlefield. Now Trump just looking at the two of this and and any any American for that matter can go well they're both just you know grandstanding etc. But if you look at the power dynamics behind one can back up the words and one can't. So if that was the case then you would not want to play a

[23:19] general they're trying to balance things out but you would tell this side dude you guys got to get off the table here or get off your butt and get to the table or I'm going to walk. I mean how do you see that part? Yeah, I have to agree with you. One of the things too that we're not talking about, when I say we, I mean Americans and and especially American policy makers, is that the the Russians have a virtually unlimited supply of ground troops that they can just throw into the into the meat grinder. um not just

[23:49] Russians and there have been huge losses on the Russian side and that's because of Russian military strategy but North Koreans and Bellarussians and some reports indicating Chinese who have volunteered to go to Russia or go to the front lines and fight on behalf of Russia. Ukraine is a much smaller country. They can't keep this up forever. The Russians can keep it up forever and Russia is a nuclear power. So I'm going to make a guess here or make a prediction. It's not going to be very bold or creative, but what we're

[24:20] going to see in the end is that the Russians keep uh the disputed territories, the Donbass, Donets, Gluhans, Keron, they're going to keep Crimea. Uh Ukraine will never ever be a member of NATO. Uh they they'll likely join the European Union eventually, maybe even on a fast track. But I think that the that the Russians are going to get 90% of what they want. What the one thing they might not get is probably the least important and that's what the

[24:50] Russians are calling dennazification of the Ukrainian regime. Um the Ukrainians always argue that there are no Nazis. There may be a handful of neo-Nazis, but not in any positions of power. I think the Russians repeat that for propaganda purposes. I think they'll probably be willing to negotiate it away. But what would they have to get in order to negotiate that bait? because it seems to me like one of the biggest uh difficulties for the Ukraine side is and Zillinsky so far been categorically against this is that they would have to

[25:22] withdraw from significant portions of the southern three of those territories and agree to give that up and agree to some kind of demilitarization or according to what Nenzia said in in additional comments they'll go they're going to keep fighting until they get it one way or the other. Those are big asks. Those are big asks and those are unacceptable for the Ukrainians. I think that's going to be one of those uh one of those things on the negotiating table that that they're going to that the both sides are going to be stuck on. It's going to require a lot of uh patience

[25:52] and a lot of talk. Uh but that's okay. Back back to that power dynamics though. But the Russians don't have to give in, right? I mean, they can just do fighting and then they're going to lose it one way or the other. I mean, that's that's how I see it. Do you see it any different? No, I think you're exactly right. The only thing that the that the Ukrainians have going for them on on this issue is that the the Russians have no interest in occupying Ukraine. They have no interest in occupying Kev, right? They're only interested in those areas

[26:23] of eastern and southern Ukraine that are ethnically Russian where people speak Russian and for the most part they want to be a part of Russia. They're not I don't think there's any danger that the Russians are going to take the whole of the country and push all the way to the border of Poland. That's not what the Russians are interested in. So I think one of the 12 points was that they wanted uh the change in the laws on the Ukraine side that would protect Yeah, that one right there that would protect all the full protection of rights, freedoms, and

[26:54] official language status for the Russian speaking populations in Ukraine. And uh that actually hearkens back to the Minsk agreements which the Russians complained was never put into effect. That was one of the key parts of the Ukraine obligations under the Minsk. It was never executed which the Russians say was one of the big problems here which they will now insist upon uh with this 12point peace proposal. So the question is uh to you where do you see this going? Because you have these you know categorical rejections of those key

[27:24] components on the Ukraine side. the threat and the promise rather that Russia will keep fighting if they don't get them. Where does this go and where does that leave President Trump? Well, I think that this upcoming uh meeting in in Istanbul already has failed before it started. I I don't think President Trump's going to go to Istanbul. He he mentioned again this morning that he's willing to go. He's willing to bring the two sides together. He's not going to go because they're not even close enough to be willing to sit at the same table. So,

[27:55] I think that this is a this is a loss. I think the fighting is going to continue. It's going to be ugly because the weather is good and it's warmed up. So, it's much easier to maneuver. Uh it's much easier to to keep fighting and pushing. So, I think we're going to keep going through this for weeks, maybe for months before there are are real and substantive meetings about uh trying to wind things down. And what if I guess in the intervening period uh because especially in the the northern part of this uh this new front that that Putin

[28:26] has opened up in the Sunumi area they're starting to make some pretty big chunks uh pretty rapid succession. So um especially along with the the pressure on the unrelenting pressure on the entire eastern front and even a little bit in the northern part with Kiank and Kkefe areas uh it's not clear that the Ukraine army can continue to hold out against that that two months from now they would be in even as good a position as they're in right now. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. Yeah, I'm I'm still I used to have a I used to have a radio show every day on Sputnik and um

[28:58] and I had a TV show on RT. So in the interest of transparency, uh I used to work for the Russians quite happily and um and I'm still a I'm still a member of these list serves that they have. So they're constantly constantly talking about these issues. And this this situation in in Sunumi, I think has surprised a lot of Russians with the relative ease with which the Russian military has been able to uh to move. And I think that that's a message to the Russian leadership that the Ukrainians

[29:29] are under more pressure than they're admitting to in public. And that if the Russians keep up the pressure, even if they're not making huge strides, they can put enough pressure on the Ukrainian government that it's the Ukrainians who then demand to go to the negotiating table. Not the Americans, but the Ukrainians because they're just not going to be able to take it anymore. Yeah. I mean, that's historically. You mentioned the the Paris meetings in Vietnam War uh or the the Korean negotiations to get to the armistice. I

[29:59] mean, that's kind of how it was with that. Until the pain level got up high enough for one or both parties, there wasn't going to be any decisions made. But when it did, that's what finally drove them to uh to negotiate it. And we'll see how this works out. Well, listen, I really appreciate you coming on today. It's it's been a pleasure. Pleasure. We'll have to get together on another baseball game pretty soon. I can't wait. I can't wait. Looking forward to it. It'll be great. Thanks ever so much and we appreciate you guys uh being with us today and uh we will see you on the tomorrow on the next

[30:29] episode of the Daniel Davis deep dive. [Applause] [Music]
