Daniel Davis Deep Dive

The presentation discusses the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war as it approaches its third anniversary. The main argument is that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is shifting his focus from resolving the conflict to financial dealings, particularly involving rare earth minerals and potential economic agreements with Donald Trump.

The discussion suggests that Zelensky is desperate, trying to offer financial incentives in exchange for U.S. support, while Trump has signaled that he wants Europe to take responsibility for Ukraine’s security. The panel argues that Trump is moving towards ending U.S. involvement by cutting financial aid and focusing on extracting economic benefits from Ukraine instead.

Additionally, they claim that Ukraine lacks the manpower, training, and equipment to sustain the war effectively and compare the situation to historical desperate military offensives, such as Germany’s Battle of the Bulge in World War II. They also dismiss the possibility of any negotiated territorial exchanges, arguing that Russia is in a strong position and unlikely to make concessions.

The overall tone is critical of Zelensky’s strategy, skeptical of Ukraine’s ability to win, and suggests that Russia is set to achieve its objectives, including potentially taking Odessa.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

*Please check out my appearance on Tucker Carlson's show:

Ukraine Is Selling American Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels. Col. Daniel Davis on How to Stop It.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5yb67wF53U

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's recently revealed "victory plan" prioritizes protecting valuable mineral resources over defending the Ukrainian people. The speaker suggests that Zelensky's focus has shifted from defending Ukraine or Europe to ensuring that the U.S. benefits economically, particularly under a potential Trump administration.

Key points:

• Zelensky reportedly told Trump that Ukraine's victory plan involves preventing Russia from exploiting valuable minerals, which could be used by adversaries like China, North Korea, and Iran.
• The speaker claims this signals a shift in Zelensky’s rhetoric from protecting Ukraine and Europe to prioritizing economic interests, particularly those of the U.S.
• The argument is made that Zelensky has continuously avoided negotiations that could have ended the war, instead opting to maintain his position of power.
• The presentation suggests that Russia is militarily positioning itself for a major breakthrough, which Ukraine is unlikely to withstand due to its thin defensive lines.
• The speaker believes Russia will not accept any settlement that does not include full control over the four annexed Ukrainian regions and will continue fighting until it achieves this.
• It is suggested that Trump’s administration might need to recognize this reality and negotiate accordingly, as Zelensky’s promises of economic benefits to the U.S. are unlikely to be feasible given the current battlefield situation.

The overall tone of the presentation is critical of Zelensky, portraying him as self-serving and unwilling to accept the realities of war, while arguing that Russia holds the strategic upper hand.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Trump's efforts to mediate negotiations between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the Russia-Ukraine war. It mentions that Zelensky has publicly proposed a deal with Trump involving a mineral partnership in exchange for security guarantees. Trump has expressed interest in securing Ukraine’s underground assets, particularly rare earth minerals. Analysts in the discussion argue that extracting these minerals is costly and time-consuming, making Zelensky’s offer more of a strategic move to gain immediate support rather than a practical business deal.

The conversation also shifts to military developments, particularly the fall of Toretsk, a strategic city in Donbas, to Russian forces, marking a significant loss for Ukraine. The discussion contrasts the devastation in Ukraine with that in Gaza and critiques Zelensky’s military strategy, especially Ukraine’s continued focus on the Kursk region, which some experts believe is a tactical trap set by Russia to divert Ukrainian resources away from more critical battlegrounds.

The overall discussion suggests skepticism about Zelensky’s deal proposal and highlights the ongoing challenges Ukraine faces both militarily and politically.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Danger at the Southern Border - Lt Col Daniel Davis

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Elon Musk:

Future wars will be drones + AI

The military industry needs to adapt fast

Starlink's capabilities in warfare

The future of humans and AI

AI should be truthful and curious

Human-piloted aircraft are coming to an end

The front lines will only be drones

How the industrial base can support Defense

Leaders should be competent in their field

Importance of trying things to be innovative

US Armed Forces’ central role in upholding civilizationTranscript

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Right now NATO could not win a war with Russia

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/nat...

In 2024, reflecting a popular Western belief, former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said: “NATO is the most powerful and successful alliance in history.” Yet just two years earlier in 2022, after a 15-year campaign, NATO was defeated by the Taliban, a rag-tag group of poorly armed insurgents.

How can NATO’s humiliating defeat and Austin’s view be reconciled?

Of course NATO was never the most powerful military alliance in history — that accolade surely goes to the World War II Allies: the U.S., Russia, Britain, and the Commonwealth nations. Nevertheless, after 1945, NATO did its job, did it well, and those of us who served in it were proud to do so.

Since the Berlin Wall’s fall, though, its record has become tarnished. Satisfactory in Kosovo. Humiliated in Afghanistan. Strategic failure looming in Ukraine. Are we really sure NATO is up to the job of defending democratic Europe from a supposedly expansionist Russia in the doomsday scenario of a conventional NATO-Russia war?

The doomsday NATO-Russia war scenario is the defining way to explore this question. “Amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics,” and our strategic analysis needs to start all the way back in NATO’s logistics rear areas, then work forward to a future line of battle on the continent of Europe.

First, unlike Russia, no major NATO nation is industrially mobilized for war, as evidenced by the fact that Russia is still outproducing NATO on 155mm shells for Ukraine. Which, incidentally, gives the lie to the view that Russia is poised to take more of Europe — if we in NATO truly believed this, we would all be mobilizing at speed.

More importantly, it is not clear that NATO could mobilize at the speed or scale needed to produce the levels of equipment, ammunition, and people to match Russia. And certainly not without a long build up that would signal our intent. This is not just about lost industrial capacity, but also lost financial capacity. Of the largest NATO nations, only Germany has a debt to GDP ratio below 100%.

Second, to have the remotest chance of success in this doomsday scenario of a NATO-Russia war, U.S. forces would need to deploy at scale into continental Europe. Even if the U.S. Army was established at the necessary scale — with a 2023 establishment of 473,000, under one third of the current Russian Army, it is not — the overwhelming majority of American equipment and logistics would have to travel by sea.

There, they would be vulnerable to Russian submarine-launched torpedoes and mines. As a former underwater warfare specialist, I do not believe that NATO now has the scale of anti-submarine or mine-warfare forces needed to protect Europe’s sea lines of communication.

Nor, for that matter, would these forces be able to successfully protect Europe’s hydrocarbon imports, in particular oil and LNG so critical to Europe’s economic survival. Losses because of our sea supply vulnerability would not only degrade military production, but also bring accelerating economic hardship to NATO citizens, as soaring prices and energy shortages accompanying an outbreak of war rapidly escalated the political pressure to settle.

Third, our airports, sea ports, training, and logistics bases would be exposed to conventional ballistic missile attack, against which we have extremely limited defenses. Indeed, in the case of the Oreshnik missile, no defense.

An Oreshnik missile arriving at Mach 10+ would devastate a NATO arms factory, or naval, army and air force base. As in Ukraine, Russia’s ballistic campaign would also target our transport, logistics, and energy infrastructure. In 2003, while I was working for the British MOD’s Policy Planning staffs, our post 9/11 threat analysis suggested a successful attack against an LNG terminal, such as Milford Haven, Rotterdam, or Barcelona, would have sub-nuclear consequences. The follow-on economic shock-waves would rapidly ripple across a European continent, now increasingly dependent on LNG.

Fourth, unlike Russia, NATO nations’ forces are a heterogenous bunch. My own experience, while leading the offshore training of all European warships at Flag Officer Sea Training in Plymouth, and later working with NATO forces in Afghanistan, was that all NATO forces were exceptionally enthusiastic but had very different levels of technological advancement and trained effectiveness.

Perhaps more contemporarily important, other than a handful of NATO trainers forward deployed in Ukraine, our forces are trained according to a pre-drone “maneuver doctrine" and have no real-world experience of modern peer-to-peer attritional warfighting. Whereas the Russian Army has close to three years experience now, and is unarguably the world's most battle-hardened.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The presentation summarizes a controversial proposal by former President Donald Trump regarding the Gaza Strip. Trump suggested that the U.S. should take control of Gaza, clear it of unexploded weapons and debris, and redevelop it into an economically thriving area. He framed it as a real estate-style project that would provide jobs and housing, arguing that returning to the current system would only lead to continued conflict.

The proposal was met with strong international backlash. Critics viewed it as unrealistic, dismissive of Palestinian sovereignty, and lacking an understanding of the region’s history and political complexities. Many, including Arab nations and Palestinian groups, rejected the idea of displacement and U.S. control. The backlash prompted a White House clarification that the U.S. would not send troops or pay for the redevelopment, instead stating that it aimed to work with regional partners.

Overall, the idea was widely condemned as impractical, destabilizing, and likely to increase regional tensions rather than resolve them.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump Threatens to Obliterate Iran w/Dr. Sumantra Maitra

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.