A thirty on a Tuesday.
It is that time a week I always look forward to having a nice, in depth conversation about some of the more problematic topics in the world. It's time for the Daniel Davis Deep Dive with retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. Welcome back, my friend. Always a pleasure. I always look forward to this segment.
You know, so in a while, I really do. Can't wait to see what we do today. I know, and you know, I was looking down at the topic lists. I'm going, oh, jeez, you know, I mean, the world's fallen apart, and that's what you and I talk about from a military standpoint, and I certainly appreciate your insight in this regard. But it was just yesterday my son brought over a video of this intense explosion in the
Tartis region. Apparently the Israelies dropped a bunch of bombs and it looked like and my son and the immediate rumors on the Internet were swirling that looked like maybe a small nuke had gone off. And when you're talking about World War three starting now, the Russians, of course have nukes. We know the Israelies do we know the Iran probably do or in any event, then I see your headline with this Putin the West pushing us to our red lines, and when you're dealing with a nuclear power,
that red line certainly could potentially involve nuclear weapons. So I am very interested in hearing what you have to say about this one. Yeah, there was interesting because there was almost dueling statements made by Trump and Putin at nearly the same time yesterday, both kind of laying out their positions, and you know, Putin is for his side, was saying, hey, you know, I just don't get why you guys don't believe us and you keep pushing towards
our red lines. He's talking about the continued use by the Body Administration of these long range weapons inside of Russia two hundred kilometers deep inside.
Trump, for his side, also made.
Reference to the same thing, and he said, I don't think it's a good idea, and I think.
We need to stop.
And it's it's actually encouraging from a certain perspective that you have both leaders talking about the same thing, because they both want to get this thing over with three different reasons. And honestly, I don't care what their reasons are. As long as we end this war and return to some sort of stability in Europe, that's good for America.
All right, let me tap your sort of political analysis on this, which seems to be what this is. You and I have been over this before. Those whatever those missiles are called atcams or the longer range ones, which you and I agree and everybody in the NO agrees, requires some United States military high level Sir authority approval to help use or otherwise operate and fire them. So we've got boots on the ground inside Ukraine launching missiles into Russia. That all sounds bad. We know they're not
going to accomplish much. You've already talked about how they can be shot down by Russia's you know, version of the drone system, and they have. They come at an amazing They're millions and millions of dollars of pop. This isn't like throwing a drone at something. So with all that in mind, what in the hell is Biden trying to accomplish by even allowing them to be used or having our people operate them.
You know, honestly, it's all we're left with his speculation because the Biden administration officially just says this is to help Ukraine defend itself. You know that blanket they've been using on stuff forever, which means nothing. It doesn't really answer the question. Okay, ye'all get it, they'd want to defend themselves, but why this particular and why this particular
time win? It doesn't gonna it will not cannot change the outcome of the war itself, but can possibly expanded and escalate it.
I there's no good answer.
I mean, some of the things are that they want to maybe tie, they want it to escalate, They want Russia to react in a strong way so that the war expands, and then Trump can't come in on twenty January, and it seeks some kind of negotiated settlement to end the content.
Uh. You know, I think that there's.
Still some people and this is hard to believe in the Body administration, and I know this for a fact, actually still have a fantasy that the war can be won if only they get more time, a little bit more money, some more ammunition, et cetera. And I can assure you from a military perspective, there is exactly zero chance of that happening. And all it's going to do is increase the cost in personnel, blood and treasure for the Ukraine side to lose because it's already baked in the war.
His concluded, Well, and I just the pivotal way still, same war, same conflict that the I don't know if you had seamless whether there's any credibility to it, because we talked before about North Korea sending some troops there, and in your estimation, they were there to get some you know, on the ground, real training, to the extent they end up with a shooting war, uh with with South Korea or something because most of their military has
not been engaged and engaged in actual combat. But that the North Koreans that were there actually ended up firing upon and taking out some of the Russian troops. I hate to have to laugh at that, but I don't know if you saw that or whether there's any credibility to that reporting.
You know, you just have to take everything with a grain of salt, because especially in this war, there's so much intentional misinformation where various sides change things, they publish one video and claim it's something different, or even some things are doctored and manufactured in ai.
Type of deal. Whatever I'll just tell you that it's very conceivable. It could be absolutely.
True as talked about that it could also be misinformation by somebody on the Ukraine side who wants to just cast dispersions whatever.
Honestly, either way, it makes no difference.
Because there's such small numbers we're talking about here, it's not going to be either help Russia or hurt Russia. That's why I think that the most likely scenario is that the North Korea wants to gain experience for inst troops.
Because it's not. In fact, it's actually.
Being inconvenient for Russia because they have this language problem. They have somebody who doesn't have combat experience. It's difficult to do command and control. So it's a headache for the Russian side. It's not a help.
Yeah, it's not a good opportunity for a journeyman apprentice program basically.
No, right, yeah, yeah, you might want to rethink that program. Now.
Is this use of these missiles and our provision of these missiles and our operation of these missiles in Russia and the concern we have is that these self defeating arrogance that you wanted to talk about, or is this are we pivoting over to something else.
Yeah, that was something else.
That was that was because of a magazine, Foreign Affairs, what has been the premier foreign policy magazine in America for decades. Mitch McConnell published this piece in there that said, basically that all of the world's problems are we don't have anything to do with them. They are all these bad guys in China, in North Korea, in Iran, and certainly in Russia, and and you know, in the Middle East, a bunch of.
Bunch of pizza.
All these bad things that are happening are all just because we're too weak.
We need to spend.
Not just a lot more on defense when you spend a lot more, and we need to forget about diplomacy, we need to go with.
Hard power, etc.
And I just just took that apart and said, this promisey first, and this diplomacy free foreign policy has.
Been an absolute disaster for America.
That has cost us in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Syria. It's been a disaster in Syria and Libya, et cetera, Africa, you name it.
Everywhere we've tried this, it.
Has been disastrous results and it is time to jettison that. But these guys want to double down on it, and I think it's a terrible idea.
Well, you know, if they want to double down on it, As we've talked many times before and others have observed, you better damn well have an endgame. You better, dan will have a strategy. Why would you want to enter any given situation in conflict or war? You better know how to get from point A to points and what point Z is, and that point Z is a good place to be, and that you've got an effective strategy
to get there. It always seems to me we're in these ready fire aim situations or it's just like will we go in and we're like, wait a second, why are we here again?
Well, listen, I'll tell you what worries me is that there may be an objective and it may be cash. Because that is the one thing that you're right. It is strategy free. It doesn't say here will be the outcome, here is the method to get there, here's here's the means of getting it done.
So you have an in state, a means, and a path to get there.
None of that except that it all goes down to we need more defense money and a lot more I mean, he emphasized a lot more, nine hundred billion dollars, way more than what is it like the next ten nations in a row, and he's saying that's not enough.
And I'm saying, look, don't be stupid, because.
You're saying, we want to do things that have been demonstrably failed more. And then somehow he thinks that's gonna end up with which he doesn't explain how it's gonna end up better for the United States, but that's what he's claiming. And that's that's why I'm so aggravated about it, because guys who serve in uniform like I did, are
the bill payers for this. And that's one of the things I pointed out in that show there that there have been tens of thousands of Americans killed and wounded in these absurd wars that most of which didn't even need to be fought. Hundreds of thousands more killed in Moody six trillion that we fought in all of these insurgent wars, you know, since the mid two thousands, and no talk about any of the cost to us for these failed policies.
But I am, well, I'm glad you do, and I share your concern on that. And I tell you what, as a starting point, if we're gonna go down Mitch McConnell's path, how about we start with a pentagon and a defense spending that can pass an audit? Can we can we just start there?
Can I give you an amen on that one? Yes, Daniel did. That's a good place to start.
If you can't even tell me how you're using nine hundred billion and now you want another one hundred billion, I mean, come.
On, man, As my dad used to say, I got two words for you, and they eate. Happy birthday, Daniel Davis, deep dive always a pleasure, my friend. We'll talk to Actually, we will se you next time. Yeah, next time. It'll be next year. I'm off after Friday, the balance of the year, God bless you. Merry Christmas, I'm hoping, or a Happy New Year or hippie Honeger, whatever the hell you celebrate, Daniel, I hope it's a great celebration. A wish in early happy New Year, and we'll hit the
ground running after the first same to you. My friend, looks a forty fifty five car. See the talk station stick around. We're gonna be talking Gastro health doctor Kevin Cronley on colon cancer. That'll be next to be right back