Russia continues to throw troops into a meat grinder in Ukraine
'Since 2022, Russia has suffered more than 700,000 casualties in Ukraine,' former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in January. 'Now, that's more than Moscow has endured in all of its conflicts since World War II — combined. Russian casualties in Ukraine now surpass two-thirds of the total strength of the Russian military at the start of Putin's war of choice. In November 2024 alone, Russia lost nearly 1,500 troops a day.'
In this week's video, Thom Tran, an Army veteran and stand-up comedian, walks viewers through the story behind those numbers, whether Russia's military is truly crippled, or if its 'quantity over quality' approach to manning and equipment suggests that it can keep going.
Each week, on Tuesdays and Fridays, Task & Purpose will be bringing in military veterans to host segments on different topics. These videos will range from breakdowns of tactics and doctrine to explainers on new tech and weapons systems from a rank-and-file perspective.
If you enjoyed this week's video, please hop on over to our YouTube channel and follow the team there. And if you have suggestions for future topics our video team can cover, please hop in the comments and let us know.
Navy fires commanding officer, command master chief of expeditionary security squadron
The Marine Corps has settled the debate over the size of a rifle squad
Leg day: Army cuts down on number of paid parachutists
Navy commissions its newest submarine, the USS Iowa
Why veterans are the real target audience for 'Helldivers 2'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
31 minutes ago
- New York Times
New Reports on Russian Interference Don't Show What Trump Says They Do
The Trump administration in recent weeks has released a series of reports intended to undermine the conclusion reached by intelligence agencies before President Trump's first term that Russia had favored his candidacy in 2016 and sought to improve his chances of winning. That assessment, an unclassified version of which was made public in January 2017, has long infuriated Mr. Trump. In disclosing the reports, he and his team are proclaiming that President Barack Obama and his team torqued the intelligence analysis process to deliberately discredit Mr. Trump's election. The administration has coupled that case with overheated and attention-grabbing claims. Mr. Trump has accused Mr. Obama of treason, and his top officials have made criminal referrals about national security officials under Mr. Obama — all as the administration is trying to distract supporters who are angry about its broken promise to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Still, even if the administration's use of the reports is wildly overstated, some of the information has not been made public before. It provides some messy details about how the intelligence community assessment was hurriedly produced during Mr. Obama's final months in office. The assessment said that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had ordered a multifaceted information operation targeting the U.S. presidential election, including by hacking and releasing Democratic emails and by seeding social media with messages promoting Mr. Trump and denigrating his rival, Hillary Clinton. The assessment also attributed three motivations to Mr. Putin. Two have not been seriously challenged: He wanted to undermine public faith in democracy and to damage Mrs. Clinton, who until election night was widely seen as the next U.S. president. But Mr. Trump and his allies have long chafed at the third asserted goal — that Russia also hoped to help him win. Their case seeking to undermine the assessment has focused on the unusually rushed and tightly controlled process to complete the document, in which senior leaders like John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, and James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, played a more direct role than would is typical. And their criticism has focused on two main elements. One is the role played by the so-called Steele dossier. The dossier, a compendium of later-discredited claims about Trump-Russia ties compiled by a former British spy, was part of a Democratic-funded political opposition research effort. The other is how the intelligence agencies used information from a well-placed U.S. mole in the Kremlin, whom the C.I.A. later spirited out of Russia. The Dossier The government had already warned the public before the 2016 election that Russia was behind the hacking and dumping of Democratic emails. In early December 2016, after Mr. Trump's surprise victory, Mr. Obama directed the intelligence community to produce a comprehensive analysis of Russia's election meddling, drawing on all available sources of information. The terms of that mandate appear to have led the top officials overseeing the process to include material that might otherwise have been excluded. The Steele dossier is an example. It had been known that the F.B.I. thought the dossier should be used because the standard was to draw on all available sources, while C.I.A. analysts objected because the sourcing for the claims was then unknown. Ultimately, agency leaders negotiated a compromise and put a summary of it in an annex appended to the assessment. Mr. Brennan has publicly said the Steele dossier material was not incorporated or used in the assessment itself because of the C.I.A.'s concerns. In 2017, he told Congress that the dossier 'was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done.' The newly disclosed material complicates that narrative. For one, it showed that Mr. Brennan internally defended appending a summary of the dossier to the assessment after C.I.A. analysts resisted the compromise, too. For another, the material has revealed that the classified version of the assessment alerted readers to the existence of the annex. It did so in a fourth bullet point under the judgment that Mr. Putin aspired to help Mr. Trump's chances of winning. 'For additional reporting on Russian plans and intentions, please see Annex A: Additional Reporting from an F.B.I. Source on Russian Influence Efforts,' the bullet point said. Mr. Trump's allies have argued that this sentence means the information from the Steele dossier was incorporated into the assessment itself. 'Counting On' Mr. Obama's mandate to take account of all available information also led the C.I.A. to draw upon some raw intelligence that it might otherwise not have seen fit to publish, or disseminate for analysts to use. The newly disclosed material shows that after Mr. Obama's direction, Mr. Brennan ordered a 'full review,' including the publication of any relevant intelligence that had been collected before the election but not disseminated. The C.I.A. then published 15 additional reports containing raw intelligence it had previously gathered. Three became support for the assessment's judgment that Mr. Putin's motives included wanting to bolster Mr. Trump's chances of winning the election. C.I.A. officials had previously held back each of those three, according to a newly declassified 2020 report by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, because of tradecraft concerns about the information within them. It said the assessment did not flag those worries. The most important of them was something the U.S. mole in the Kremlin had said: that Mr. Putin made public the hacked Democratic emails after deciding that Mr. Trump, 'whose victory Putin was counting on, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.' The 2020 House committee report said the statement had originally not been disseminated because analysts were not sure what the mole had meant or who specifically the mole had heard that from. The report criticized the assessment for interpreting that phrase to mean Mr. Putin hoped Mr. Trump would win, without flagging that its reading was disputed. Separately, a review of the procedures and analytic tradecraft that went into the assessment, commissioned by John Ratcliffe, Mr. Trump's current C.I.A. director, argued that the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. should not have put the judgment that Mr. Putin was trying to help Mr. Trump at 'high confidence' when only one source explicitly and directly backed that finding. But the review did not challenge the judgment itself as the best reading of the available evidence, instead praising the National Security Agency's view that it merited 'moderate confidence.' And the review acknowledged that analysts might infer support for the judgment from other evidence, including the public behavior of senior Russian officials and state-controlled media — and logic. 'Most analysts judged that denigrating Clinton equaled supporting Trump; they reasoned that in a two-person race the trade-off was zero-sum,' it said. 'This logic train was plausible and sensible, but was an inference rather than fact sourced to multiple reporting streams.' Contrary Findings The reports released by the Trump team are limited to evaluating the use of intelligence that was available in December 2016, and do not address subsequent developments. That includes Mr. Putin's statement at a news conference with Mr. Trump in Helsinki, Finland, in 2018, in which he said through a translator that he had indeed wanted Mr. Trump to win the election 'because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.' Others who have had access to the previously classified information and files from that period have reached different conclusions. John Durham, a special counsel appointed in Mr. Trump's first term who hunted for a basis to fault the actions of law enforcement and intelligence officials early in that investigation, already scrutinized the drafting of the 2017 intelligence assessment and did not criticize anything about it in his final report. And in a five-volume 2020 report, the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee — led by then-Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican who is now Mr. Trump's secretary of state and national security adviser — reached its own conclusion that Russia's motivations had included aspiring to improve Mr. Trump's chances of winning. Indeed, citing one aspect of the interference — the social media operation by a Russian entity known as the IRA — the Senate report suggested that the 2017 intelligence assessment's judgment was, if anything, understated. 'However, where the intelligence community assessed that the Russian government 'aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him,' the committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump, and to the detriment of Secretary Clinton's campaign,' the Senate report said. Overstated Claims The finely tuned distinctions and marginal questions raised by the newly available information in the documents sharply contrasts with the overstated and sometimes sensationalized claims Trump administration officials keep making about them. This month, when Mr. Ratcliffe rolled out his review, he also blamed the assessment for establishing a narrative that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia, leading to the inquiry led by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. 'They stamped it as Russian collusion and then classified it so nobody could see it,' Mr. Ratcliffe told The New York Post. 'This led to Mueller. It put the seal of approval of the intelligence community that Russia was helping Trump and that the Steele dossier was the scandal of our lifetime.' In reality, the Mueller investigation grew out of an F.B.I. investigation that began in July 2016, five months before the assessment, and its basis was a lead from the Australian government, not the Steele dossier. Mr. Ratcliffe also made a criminal referral of Mr. Brennan that accuses him of lying to Congress, leading the Justice Department to open an investigation. Last week, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, released an 11-page timeline and some underlying documents that misleadingly conflated different types of hacking. In a Fox News appearance, she cited the newly declassified existence of 2016 intelligence reports assessing that Moscow was not trying to hack into vote-tallying machines as somehow undermining the fact that Russia hacked and released Democratic emails to affect the election. Ms. Gabbard also said that the materials used for her timeline were proof of a 'treasonous conspiracy' by Mr. Obama and his national security team, and that she, too, was making a criminal referral. Mr. Trump reacted gleefully, reposting materials on social media based on her timeline and remarks, including a fake video of Mr. Obama being led off to prison. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump said, 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.' The next day, it came to light that Attorney General Pam Bondi had told Mr. Trump in May that his own name appeared in the Epstein files. Hours later, Ms. Bondi announced the creation of a 'strike force' to assess the information provided by Ms. Gabbard.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Says His Supreme Court Win Helps Obama—'He Owes Me Big'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump says former President Barack Obama "owes" him "big" after a Supreme Court ruling in 2024 on presidential immunity. Newsweek reached out to the office of Barack and Michelle Obama via online form Friday for comment. Why It Matters The president and former president have been in a public feud this week after Trump accused Obama and his team of committing "treason," alleging the former president manufactured intelligence regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Obama's office responded to the accusation in a rare statement, saying in part, "Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," Obama's spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush said. "These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio." The Supreme Court's ruling last year on presidential immunity has broadened the limits of legal protection for presidents, both sitting and former, in relation to their official acts. The decision has had immediate effects on ongoing legal cases involving Trump and has sparked debate about its far-reaching implications. What To Know When asked by a reporter if the Supreme Court ruling would benefit Obama and cover what Trump is accusing him of, the president responded, "It probably helps him a lot. Probably helps him a lot, the immunity ruling, but it doesn't help the people around him at all." The president added, "But it probably helps him a lot ... he's done criminal acts, no question about it. But he has immunity, and it probably helps him a lot." Trump then concluded by saying, "He owes me big, Obama owes me big." On July 1, 2024, the High Court ruled 6-3 that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their "core" constitutional acts while in office. The ruling stemmed from criminal charges against Trump related to his actions during and following the 2020 presidential election. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that this immunity is essential for the executive branch's independence, and even former presidents are entitled to a presumption of immunity for official acts. President Donald Trump can be seen calling on a reporter during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Oval Office at the White House on July 22 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by... President Donald Trump can be seen calling on a reporter during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Oval Office at the White House on July 22 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) More What People Are Saying Roberts, in the ruling: "It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution." Roberts continued: "And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party." What Happens Next For future presidents of both parties, the immunity standard is likely to serve as binding precedent, making it harder to hold a president criminally liable for actions deemed official. Although Trump signaled that the ruling protects Obama, there is no current investigation that has been announced by the Department of Justice into Obama or his administration over actions during the 2016 election.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Maxwell attorney says he hasn't spoken about pardon with Trump team
An attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex offender and associate of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, said he has not talked to President Trump's team about a potential pardon. 'We're going to take one day at a time. I know that's very cliche, but it's true, because things are happening so quickly,' Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus told reporters on Friday after he and Maxwell met for the second day in a row with Justice Department officials. 'We haven't spoken to the president or anybody about a pardon just yet,' he added. 'And listen, the president this morning said he had the power to do so. We hope he exercises that power in the right and just way.' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche spoke with Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, in Tallahassee, Fla. The first meeting, which lasted for over five hours, was on Thursday. Oscar Markus, the lawyer, said earlier on Friday that Maxwell completed a 'thorough, comprehensive' interview with Blanche. 'No person and no topic were off-limits. We are very grateful. The truth will come out,' the attorney said in a statement. Blanche has not commented about the Friday meeting with Maxwell. Trump said on Friday morning that he has not thought about pardoning Maxwell, who is currently appealing her case to the Supreme Court. 'It's something I haven't thought about it. I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about,' the president said. 'I certainly can't talk about pardons,' he later added. Blanche's second day of interviews with Maxwell comes as the administration has faced immense pressure from Trump's base and political opponents to release more documents regarding Epstein's case. The president suggested that the media turn its sights on others, including former President Clinton, who have been linked to Epstein as well as former President Obama, who has made the news in recent days after the administration's release of intelligence relating to Russian interference in the 2016 election. 'And people should really focus on how well the country's doing, or they should focus on the fact that Barack Hussein Obama led a coup, or they should focus on the fact that [former Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers from Harvard, that [former President] Bill Clinton, who you know very well, and lots of other friends, really close friends of Jeffrey [Epstein] should be spoken about,' Trump said. 'They don't talk about them, they talk about me,' he added. 'I have nothing to do with the guy.' Trump also insisted that he had never gone to Epstein's private island. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 in jail while awaiting trail, the medical examiner at the time found. The cause of his death was reaffirmed in a joing FBI and DOJ memo from earlier this month, which also added that the disgraced financier did not keep a so-called 'client list.'
