The President’s Daily Brief – Situation Report | October 4, 2025

Main Theme

This episode, hosted by Mike Baker, centers on two major global security issues: the potential U.S. provision of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine (a significant escalation in military aid amidst the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war), and the evolving situation in Gaza as the IDF presses its offensive and international ceasefire talks gain steam. Expert guests include George Barros (Institute for the Study of War) and Bill Roggio (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies).

1. Tomahawk Missiles & U.S. Intel for Ukraine

[00:12–34:46]

Discussion Overview

• Potential Game-Changer: The Trump administration is considering supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles, capable of striking up to 1,500 miles, including targets deep within Russia—such as Moscow. This would mark a major escalation beyond the previous Biden administration's reluctance to provide long-range offensive weaponry (e.g., ATACMS limited to ~200 miles).
  • Request came from President Zelensky; confirmed "under serious review" by retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg.
• New U.S. Intelligence Support: In addition to missiles, the U.S. will reportedly provide Ukraine with specific intelligence targeting Russia’s energy infrastructure—refineries, pipelines, and power plants—aimed at depleting Russia’s economic capacity to sustain the war.

Key Points & Insights

Strategic Importance & Russian Reaction

• George Barros on Tomahawks:
  • “There’s long been a strong operational requirement for the Ukrainians to interdict important Russian military objects that are … deeper, further away [in Russia]. Tomahawks would be a positive development…” [02:36]
  • Example: Iranian drone factory in Tatarstan, Russia; Ukrainian drones can sometimes reach but lack the payload needed for decisive strikes.
• Shift from the Biden Era: The Biden administration drew the line at ATACMS, citing escalation risks. Tomahawks massively extend Ukraine’s strike range.
• Barros on Escalation Fears:
  • “I’m personally not concerned about escalation—Ukrainians have been conducting operations in Russia … It’s just a continuation of geography of conventional war fighting, not escalation on the ladder so to speak.” [04:31]
• Measured Russian Response:
  • “The Kremlin seems to be trying to persuade Washington not to send Tomahawks with a new tactic … talking about restoring relations. It’s not the classic ‘catastrophic threat’ rhetoric.” [05:57]
  • “If the tactic for the previous administration was: ‘You’ll ramp us up the escalation ladder’ … the new tactic is, ‘we want to establish relationships, and this will be detrimental to that.’” [07:00]

NATO, Hybrid War, and Western Messaging

• NATO taking a harder line: ready to shoot down any Russian drone or jet crossing into member airspace, per Trump.
• Host (Mike Baker): “It does seem that there is this heightened tension … we’re pushing Putin into a corner … not that he doesn’t deserve it, but … I’m not sure where that off-ramp is.” [09:13]
• Barros on Russian Provocations:
  • “It is the Russians who are drawing themselves into closer risks of having war in Europe … investing a tremendous amount in their own defense … preparing their own population for war …” [10:18]
  • “Europe is waking up. They’re finally starting to invest in defense.”
• Turkish Precedent: When Turkey shot down a Russian jet over Syria, Russia “was very well behaved around Turkey for quite a while.” [10:18–13:27]

U.S. Domestic Debate & Policy Clarity

• Messaging Problem: Baker and Barros noted that U.S. administrations have struggled to clearly define their goals for Ukraine, fueling public skepticism and opposition.
  • “One thing I think the current administration doesn’t do a very good job at is messaging … they don’t explain their actions very often very well.” [13:27]

2. U.S. Intelligence Sharing and the Strategy of Striking Russian Industry

[17:43–34:46]

Expanding Intelligence Support

• U.S. announcement of sharing specific targeting intel on Russia’s energy infrastructure is a new degree of openness.
• Two hypotheses, per Barros:
  1. Operational: U.S. has “bespoke and meaningful intelligence” to help Ukraine’s strikes do “irreparable damage.”
  2. Messaging: Move may be more about signaling than about operational change.

Effects on Russia’s Energy Sector

• Barros:
  • “There’s widespread gas shortages in several regions … Russian energy revenues are projected to go down drastically—from about 40% of Russia’s federal budget to ~20%.” [20:48]
  • Still, this “dampens” but doesn’t cripple Russia’s war effort.

What’s Needed for Ukraine to Prevail?

• “You gotta invalidate Putin’s theory of victory”—i.e., consistently preventing even small Russian tactical gains. [21:53]
• Merely attacking energy infrastructure isn’t decisive; must halt the Russian army’s momentum.
• Host: “So is that … just the provision of more weapon systems?”
  • Barros: Not only more equipment, but new operational concepts. Russia advances now with small, dispersed infantry groups; Ukraine needs capacity to strike these “morselized” groups in the 25–100 km zone behind the front—requiring medium-range strike and better operational planning. [24:07–28:08]

Ukrainian Manpower and Equipment

• Barros:
  • Ukraine does face infantry shortages, but policy and vehicle constraints complicate rapid mobilization; new deliveries of Bradleys (armored vehicles) will help.

Prospects for Ukrainian “Success”

• Depends on definitions.
  • “If we define success [as] Ukraine taking back all its territory, I give you a different answer. If … securing a defensible frontline, robust security guarantees … that could [also] be defined as success.” [30:19]
• Clarity on Goals Needed: Barros criticizes past “vague” U.S. goals—“the previous administration refused to define what success means.” [31:06]
• Optimism? Barros is “optimistic” now that “self-imposed restrictions” are coming off, Europe is sharing more cost, and the West is more willing to target Russia directly. [33:15]
• Baker’s Cynicism: Host expresses skepticism, fearing “we’ll be asking these same questions in another two or three years.” [33:15]

Notable Quotes

• Barros: “The President [Trump] seems to see a strategy … The US taxpayer is no longer footing this bill, it’s being financed by Europeans. … We’re starting to push back against the Russians, take the war to Russia.” [31:06]

3. Gaza: IDF Offensive and Ceasefire Proposal

[37:56–51:15]

Situation Overview

• IDF (Israel Defense Forces) are conducting heavy urban operations in Gaza City—described as Hamas’ last stronghold.
• Unusual ceasefire proposal: backed by Trump, Netanyahu, much of the international community (European and key Arab states). Hamas’ response is pending.

Battlefield Realities

• Bill Roggio: Questions if this is really the “last stronghold.” Notes that Hamas, despite losses, remains an “effective fighting force” nearly two years after October 7, 2023.
  • “The IDF is not able to walk in and immediately occupy Gaza City … but I am surprised. In the past, the Israelis have never had time on their side. But in this one … the clock hasn’t run out on Israel, and that to me is surprising.” [39:09]
• Both Israeli military and political defeat of Hamas are needed; the former is possible but the latter is more complicated.
• U.S.-Qatar ties and their complicating impact: “Trump … gives Qatar a security guarantee … while it’s hosting Hamas.” [40:18]

Ceasefire Diplomacy

• Baker’s analysis: Previous “pragmatism” in keeping lines open with Hamas via Qatar now less justified after October 7th; complicated by Turkey’s and Iran’s regional roles.
• Eradicating Hamas militarily? Both hosts agree: full annihilation is unrealistic, but severe degradation and political isolation are real goals.
  • “You don’t approach it with that mindset [of eradicating], you’re trying to mitigate the risk … to minimize them, defeat them politically in terms of governance in Gaza, that’s a big win.” [43:33]

The Trump Plan

• Roggio:
  • “A lot of friends … question this [Trump] deal … 'Hamas will no longer be a terror zone.' Hamas would have to agree that it’s a terrorist organization and lay down its arms, which Hamas is never going to do.” [44:26]
  • “But if you get the Arab countries, Turkey to back this … that really isolates Hamas. It would make Hamas look like the villain.”
  • Political value: “If Hamas rejects this, that’s a massive political defeat … Qatar and Turkey could pressure Hamas. It would mean dissolution of Hamas.” [45:09]
  • “What comes next?” (who governs Gaza? Who serves as international peacekeepers? What about other armed groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PLFP, etc.?)

Iranian Influence

• Iran is Hamas’ ideological and financial supporter, but Roggio contends that “Gaza is one of the few places where the IRGC [Iran’s military] wields the least influence.”
• Challenges in stopping Iran’s indirect support—money and weapons.

Polycentric Terrorism Problem

• Gaza is a “terrorist alphabet soup”—even if Hamas agrees to ceasefire, other extremist groups may continue fighting.

4. Hamas’ Probable Ceasefire Response

[55:18–59:36]

• Roggio’s Prediction:
  • “I think Hamas is ultimately going to reject this deal. … Hamas wants a temporary ceasefire that allows it to remain in power … it’ll return with some type of counterdeal … and I’ll suspect we’ll be back to square one.” [55:18]
• Baker’s Analysis:
  • “Hamas’s currency is dead Palestinians … the longer the conflict, the more sympathy Hamas gets, which is absurd.”
  • “I don’t think Israel cares [as much] anymore … their timeline to act is much longer than ever. I wonder if Hamas has misread this.”
• Roggio:
  • “For Hamas, dead Palestinians in Gaza is a feature and not a bug … I think Hamas believes it can still run out the clock on Israel … that someone, Trump or internal Israeli politics, will eventually pressure Israel to stop …” [57:16]

Trump’s Role and U.S. Posture

• Trump’s approach seen as “transactional”—not always literal or consistent; difficult to predict follow-through.
  • “Is he going to let the Israelis continue or turn around and put the clamps down on Israel? Flip a coin on that one.” [57:16]

5. U.S. Military Policy & Culture

[61:27–66:49]

Reaction to Military Leadership Speech

• Topic: Recent speech by the Secretary of War (and Trump) to U.S. Senior Officers at Quantico, signaling a shift in military policy and culture—less focus on DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), more on “military standards.”
• Roggio’s View:
  • “We have not won a war since the beginning of the 21st century … Clearly what we’re doing isn’t working.”
  • “Secretary Hep and President Trump want the US military to be a fighting force, not a social experiment. I’m firmly behind this.” [62:27–64:25]
  • “If you were a veteran … I don’t know how you can’t support these initiatives.”
• Baker’s Agreement:
  • “Nobody gives a [expletive] what your gender is on the battlefield. You gotta perform. … If a guy can’t meet [the standard], too bad; if a woman can’t, too bad. That’s just the way it is.” [64:25]
  • Both speakers share an old-school, “no-nonsense” tone, poking fun at themselves as “the two old guys in the Muppet Show balcony.”

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps

• On Tomahawks:
  • “Tomahawks would be able to take that [Iranian drone] factory offline, which is a necessary thing…” – George Barros [02:36]
• On Russian Escalation:
  • “This would just be a continuation of the geography of conventional war fighting. It would not be an escalation on the latter.” – Barros [04:31]
• On Russian Positioning:
  • “It is the Russians who are drawing themselves into closer risks of having war in Europe.” – Barros [10:18]
• On Ukrainian Success:
  • “…If Ukraine can exit this scenario with robust security guarantees to ensure that this never happens again, then that … could also be defined as success.” – Barros [30:19]
• On Hamas’ Calculations:
  • “For Hamas, dead Palestinians in Gaza is a feature and not a bug. This is what Hamas … wants ...” – Roggio [57:16]
• On US Military Standards:
  • “We’re either a social experiment as a military or we’re a fighting force.” – Roggio [62:27]
  • “Nobody gives a [expletive] what your gender is on the battlefield. … If you can’t meet the standard, too bad.” – Baker [64:25]

Takeaways for Listeners

• Ukraine: The U.S. may be on the cusp of providing Ukraine with vastly more destructive weapons—along with actionable intelligence—potentially changing the war’s trajectory and strategy.
• Russia: Moscow’s rhetoric has shifted; risk of “World War III” is played down, as the West appears less timid and more confrontational.
• Gaza: The IDF’s urban war in Gaza continues, with a high-stakes ceasefire proposal on the table. Hamas is unlikely to accept a deal that ends its own power, and festering regional complexities remain.
• US Military Policy: The Trump administration’s shift away from DEI towards a focus on standardized, tough military capability is polarizing, especially among veterans.
• Cynicism vs. Hope: While there are small reasons for optimism, all guests and host agree that both wars—Ukraine and Gaza—may have long, unresolved futures.

Timestamps – Important Segments

• Tomahawks for Ukraine & U.S. intel: [00:12–17:43]
• Operational effects, Russian response: [02:36–13:27]
• Defining success in Ukraine: [21:53–34:46]
• Gaza war update & ceasefire politics: [37:56–51:15]
• Ceasefire deal: will Hamas accept?: [55:18–59:36]
• Military standards debate: [61:27–66:49]

Overall Tone:
Direct, analytical, occasionally cynical, but rich in expert insight and candid assessment of the military and political state-of-play in Ukraine and Gaza. Mike Baker’s wry sense of humor lightens the gravitas of complex and sobering topics.