While the United States is playing with fire and its
latest moves in Ukraine is likely going to find the
US and its NATO allies getting burned.
With the blessing of Joe Biden, Ukraine will now be
using US made weapons to strike inside Russia, the world's
heaviestly nuclear armed power.
All of this is happening while Russia is advancing deep
into Kharkiv, Ukraine's second largest city.
Unfortunately for the West, Biden's latest move is a stark
admission that America's efforts to defend Ukraine have painfully fallen
short.
But now things are getting much worse.
For more than two years, Washington has preached to the
world that it is only interested in helping Ukraine protect
itself, not launching a shadow proxy war against Russia.
That remains the main message now, but a harder one
for the US to maintain.
Last month, I brought in U.S.
Army Colonel Daniel Davis to reveal the truth on how
this war will end.
During our interview, Colonel Davis revealed that the lack of
manpower is Ukraine's biggest obstacle and the sooner the US
can bring Ukraine to the negotiating table, the better the
long term prospects for Ukraine and the entire W will
be.
Once again, I'm honored to welcome Colonel Daniel Davis back
to the show to help us all understand Biden's latest
moves.
He's going to reveal how this dangerously moves us closer
to a full blown out war with Russia.
But make sure you stay tuned to the end of
today's interview as Colonel Davis reveals how the 2024 U.S.
presidential election is playing a major part in the escalation
and continuation of this conflict.
Colonel Davis will also share his prediction on what will
happen to Ukraine if Donald Trump wins.
This is a fascinating chat for anyone who wants to
understand the truth of America's efforts in Ukraine.
Let's begin.
All right, well, everybody, I'm very happy to welcome into
the studio Danny Davis.
Danny, you are AUS foreign policy analyst, obviously 22 Bronze
Star Medal for your service for the United States military.
And Danny, just always really appreciate your insights.
And I really want to talk to you about today's
main topic here, which is the United States decision to
allow US missiles to be fired from Ukraine into Russia.
Danny, are we looking at the start of World War
3 here?
Well, we are dangerously close to that.
And and it's, it's shocking to me and very disappointing
that we're even brushing up against this possibility here.
Because here, here's the thing, SARS, in my view, there
is no possible upside to be able to expanding weapons,
long range weapons from the West in the United States
into Russia proper.
Because it's not going to knock Russia out of the
war.
It's not going to diminish their conventional capacity, but it
could cross red lines, which could cause them to finally
retaliate.
And we've been seeing increasingly strata comments from the senior
leaders from the, from the president of the country to,
to the minister of defense of their foreign affairs, to
the former Dimitri Medvedev.
I, I mean, a bunch of them.
And they're, they're just really being emphatic about what we're
risking here.
And it's just shocking to me that for something that
has, in my view, no upside potential, it's not going
to change the tactical or the the conventional dynamic, but
could risk escalation into a confrontation between nuclear superpower is
just unfathomable.
Yeah.
It doesn't really make sense.
I mean, why would you want to be firing US
missiles into Russia, which like he's just said, has the
most nuclear warheads in the world?
I mean, it's extremely dangerous.
And what I'm.
What I'm really trying to understand here is I'm trying
to understand Europe's position as well, Danny, because we saw,
you know, a few months ago, French President Macron, he
came out and said, I'm not going to rule out
putting, you know, boots on the ground in Ukraine.
What you saw almost immediately, Olaf Schultz from Germany just
said, no, we're not going to do that.
And now it seems that they're spitting away from that
and they keep going back and forth seems to be
a lot of confusion in Europe.
Well, there has been in fact, only just sticking with
Olaf Schultz for a minute.
I mean, he's, he's also variously said, absolutely, we're not
going to allow any of our Taurus missiles, any of
our long range missiles to be used on Russian territory.
Maybe.
And then they go back and say, perhaps it will
be.
And then there's just an equivocation across the board.
And, you know, when when Macron first came out with
that statement a couple of months back or whatever it
was, you know, he was when he was pressed on
it, he was like, well, I'm just saying maybe I'm
just, I'm just, you know, saying possibilities.
And then it's like as time went on, he's like,
no, no, actually, yeah, I think that's a good idea.
And so now that there's reports I saw earlier this
afternoon that some early contingents of French trainers are on
the ground already, and apparently some more are coming.
Now.
I can't speak to the veracity of it, but the
report seemed to keep coming.
And I haven't seen denials coming out of Paris.
So we're going to see how that's going to work
out.
You also had the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Brown, who two or three weeks back also
said, yeah, I said, I kind of get the feeling
it's going to be inevitable at some point trainers are
going to go in there.
And yeah, I guess that's probably going to happen again.
It just kind of feels like this drift that there's
no coherent leadership being applied that says we're taking calculated
decisions that have desired outcomes or at least potential things
that are going to be a benefit to us.
It's like we're just just trust some of this and
see what happens.
And that's a dangerous place when you're talking about a
confrontation possibility between nuclear superpowers.
Yeah, I just, I, you know, and again, it just
baffles me as we're just keep prolonging this war.
And, you know, again, there's no there's always a problem
with the United States and our and our kind of
strategic move here.
You know, what is the long term plan here?
What is our exit strategy from again, this ever forever
war?
You know, you know, last time we spoke to any
was about a month ago.
And you had shared a very interesting insight that Zelensky
had said, you know, thank you for the 61 billion.
By the way, we'd like to get a 10 year
commitment from the United States.
So, you know, pony up, you know, we'd really like
like you to keep funding this this effort for a
long time to come.
So that's not a very positive, you know, the thing
that many Americans want to hear at this point of
the war.
And I want to kind of ask you another question
related to that.
What do you think about Putinci comments that he actually
had said, you know, Russia is willing to, you know,
find a ceasefire here and basically find a way to
end this war?
What did what did you make of those comments from
Putin?
Yeah.
That, that that continues a a long consistent string that
he has been saying since before the war that he
wants to negotiate his settlement, that he wants some kind
of a deal that guarantees the security of his country,
but also meets the needs of the Ukraine side.
So he's, he's not just saying it's got to be
a one way deal, but he does say that we
have non negotiable requirements here.
And as I have said since before the war started
and every time this comes up since, the longer Ukraine
waits to make a deal, the worse the conditions will
ultimately be.
And we're in that position now.
But it shows that, you know it, it shows the
the lie that the West keeps trying to make the
public, the Western public believe that, Oh my God, we
have to stop Putin here because otherwise he's going to
be rolling into Western Europe and we're all going to
be at war if he wins in Ukraine.
And he's showing the opposite, he said.
I don't even want to keep going from where we're
at.
I'm content with just stopping somewhere close to the lines
that we have so that I have some kind of
buffer between US and NATO.
And so he wants an independent Ukraine.
He wants a neutral, non allied Ukraine.
And he's willing to make a deal so they can
continue to be a country they can continue to have
their independence with, with the stuff that's remaining right there.
He does not have to even conquer all of Ukraine,
much less have any interest or capacity.
And that's important to go into anywhere into NATO.
So that fear that we keep saying why we have
to keep fighting is is exposes being untrue by Putin
insistence continually that he's willing to make a negotiated settlement.
And if we actually want to have something with it
has a positive outcome for our country and to be
able to have security for Europe and the lower the
chances of nuclear war, we need to change course here
and and take advantage of the opportunity to have a
negotiated settlement.
Yeah, absolutely.
I I think that's it's amazing how Western media has
really promoted this lie, like, as you said, that has
been now exposed because I guess that's what they've needed
to do in order to raise funds and to be
able to, you know, sell this war in a will
in a way, you know, they've got to sell that
to the public.
It's it's a battle between democracy and autocracy.
It's a battle between, you know, right and wrong.
And of course, you know, many people have said, you
know, Putin wants to, you know, recreate the state of
the Union.
You know, if if if you Ukraine falls, well, then
all the other former Soviet republics are going to be
next one by one.
He's going to start, you know, taking care of, you
know, just knock him out one by one.
I think he said an interesting thing though, though, is
the capacity, right?
I mean, even if he had the intent, he wouldn't
have the capacity to do so.
But also he doesn't have the intent either.
So it really fails on both cases there, doesn't it,
Danny?
It really does.
And and you know, everybody in the West loves to
say, all right, we're going to do this in in
black and white deal here.
Zelensky is a good guy.
He's all good.
He's like Churchill, Putin is all bad, he's evil, he's
like Hitler.
So of course you can't make a deal with Hitler
and you can't allow Hitler to stay in power.
The only acceptable outcome is for him to lose.
So that's the direction that we want to go in
there.
And then we we, we just ascribe to him hit
Larry and capacities and intent.
But then let's look back at that 19381939 Hitler had
these expansionist ideologies.
He was open about saying a lot of this up
my comp, of course, what he had been doing with
the Sudetenland and you know, with several other kinds of
actions that he had been having and reoccupying the the
area next to France, you know, lots of provocative actions
here.
He had a huge army, huge mechanized forces, huge Air
Force, huge Navy.
And he had this incredible industrial capacity that could make
good on, on the territorial acquisitions, on continental aspirations.
It was a legit concern.
None of that exists here.
Russia struggles to even incrementally move in the one country
that they're fighting on their border for two plus years.
They are have expanded their military so that they can
even have this incremental success that they've been having here.
But look how long it's taking them to take Bahmoud
to take Avdivka.
It was many, many months, nine months to take one
or both of those Now then they're the next biggest
one they're going to is a place called the chess
of Yar 12,000 people.
It's a village.
It's it's a large village in the best and it's
been many months since they've been trying to take that
and they're still just inching neighborhood by neighborhood in some
cases here.
They they've launched this operation north of Kharkiv city, city
of 1,000,000.
They move 10 kilometers in and stopped and they started
digging in there and now then they're fighting this battle
up north of Kharkiv as well.
So they don't even have the capacity at the moment
to even take Kharkiv City, which is which would require
probably several 100,000 more troops to even have a legitimate
shot at that.
Now that being said that the Ukraine army could collapse
at any moment because of this relentless pressure and things
could change pretty rapidly.
But you've seen that everything Russia has with all of
their economy almost completely put into a wartime economy and
certainly their military industrial capacity ginned up to to full
capacity.
And they can still barely take the east, the western
portion, I'm sorry, the eastern portion of Ukraine.
Now, by what possible rationale could you say now that
we're going to go into a 32 member block that
does have a Navy, that does have an Air Force,
that does have a space force and has nuclear weapons?
It would be irrational to the highest degree suicidal for
Russia to take one step into NATO and Putin knows
it.
He has no capacity to do it.
He has no interest to do it.
He won't do it.
The only way we get into a war is if
we continue to provoke by striking his territory.
Yeah, that's a good point.
And I want to you mentioned interesting there thing there
about the Ukrainian army.
And I want to talk about this specifically because you're
on the show about a month ago and you had
revealed a very interesting insight, is that the biggest problem
Ukraine faces right now is not so much a money
problem or even an ammunition problem, that both of those
can be solved, but relatively easily.
Certainly the United States can fund more money.
We just sent another $61 billion, although about half of
that does stay in the United States.
Funding the military industrial complex.
More than half.
Yeah.
Yeah, more than half.
And that's interesting point as well, right, Rebuilding all the
weapons that we've already sent.
So even the United States, we know we've depleted our
ammunition and our supplies are tremendously, you know, fighting this
war already to the point where we're probably a little
bit vulnerable now.
And hence why you've seen more than half of that
money now going back to, you know, staying in the
United States to rebuild.
But what about, you know, a month ago you said
Ukraine.
The biggest problem is actually men right there.
There's a lack of men on the field.
And there is really that is the biggest issue that
Ukraine is facing.
We're now a month later, has that situation improved at
all or does that just continue to be, you know,
the the biggest issue that's facing the Ukrainian army right
now?
Yeah, it continues to be the biggest issue by far
because even in this new operation here where the Russians
have launched into a limited incursion north of Kharkiv city,
you have Russia.
After they went to about 10 kilometers, there was physical
evidence that they had started bringing digging, digging information equipment
in, engineering equipment to to build up defensive entrench lines
and whatever, meaning that their intent was to go that
far and then stop.
Meanwhile, the Ukraine side predictably moved lots of reinforcements up
because they couldn't assume that Russia was only going to
go 10 kilometers deep if you know that threat to
their second biggest city.
So they moved multiple brigades.
I think I heard up to 8 brigades from elsewhere
in the country to do that.
Well, now that they're trying to to launch local counter
text to try and drive Russia back out, but Russia
appears to have set this whole thing up to move
the thing down so that they can prevent Ukraine from
striking into Belgarod, which was a legit target for the
Russian side to do.
But I think the bigger issue is that they wanted
to draw in these reserves from Ukraine side because there
might not be any left anywhere else in the country.
And in the meanwhile, while they're trying to do a
counterattacks, that's that's the high troop.
It's expensive and troops to do offensive OPS like that.
And so Russia brings in these huge amount of firepower,
both missiles, FAB bombs and an artillery, of course, and
on top of the the, the infantryman.
And and so they're just exorbitating an enormous casualty count
on the Ukraine side of their final reserves.
Meanwhile, they're continuing to put pressure along the 600 mile
front in the eastern front.
And then a couple of days ago you had the
the the intelligence arm of the Ukrainian side say that
there were somewhere around 200,000, possibly up to 300,000 additional
Russian forces not yet engaged somewhere north of the country,
which they could come in maybe in the Sumi area.
Maybe they could double down on this penetration here and
overwhelm the the defenders in the the Kharkiv area.
Maybe they can go in the Kupiansku, possibly even hit
one of these weaker spots down somewhere in the line
of contact in the east.
If you do that, I don't know that Ukraine has
enough reinforcements left to bring to to stymie those additional
pressures.
They're at the breaking point in all these places and
Russia's a primary objective more than taking territory seems to
be to destroy the Ukrainian armed forces.
And if they do that, then of course, at some
point you have a break.
And then now then that the Russians can literally just
drive into the country.
They don't even have to fight their way in at
any point.
And that's different than the way the West fight.
So we say, OK, well, you haven't even gained any
more of this territory in the, you know, the last
five or six months.
So you're, you're not very good yourself.
And the, the jury's out on that.
I, I don't dismiss that possibility that they're not that
good of an offensive force, though they're better than the
Ukraine side.
But it's also possible that they're fighting that way intentionally
so that they cause casualties higher on the other side.
And if they could eventually just deplete them of manpower,
don't matter how many jets or bombs or anything else
they have, if they don't have the men to operate
the stuff, it's not going to matter.
And that may be the really the fulcrum of what
Russia's trying to do.
Right.
Let's talk, Let's switch gears here and go to Zelinsky,
because I've interviewed another very interesting US foreign Poly analyst,
David Pine.
And he had an interesting insight that he had shared
is the fact that he believes that Zelensky is actually
an illegitimate, an illegitimate president.
Now, he said that his term has since expired.
He has canceled the elections.
And, you know, now he is almost ruling like a
dictator.
I want to get your thoughts on that.
I mean, has, I mean, we often do see, you
know, when it when times of war that maybe a
presidential election would be canceled, although, you know, we have
seen instances where that has continued going on, you know,
as far as a presidential election.
Do you believe any of that?
You know, Danny, is that is that something, do you
think that Zelensky's credibility is really at stake here?
Everything depends upon the perception of the person you're talking
about here.
Now, the United States has said, oh, well, of course
they're in their their country is half invaded.
They couldn't conduct a, a fair election right now.
They're under martial law.
So of course they're not going to have a, a,
a, an election right now.
And we stand firmly behind them and they are committed.
As soon as that, you know, the conditions allow, they're
going to have a presidential election.
That's what we're saying now to a Western audience.
They probably go, OK, cool, makes sense.
So, yeah, he's still legitimate.
But the question is, will that continue to be the
case with the Ukraine side?
And that, of course, there's there's a whole perception battlefield
going on on top of the the physical battlefield right
now because Russia's doing everything they can to inside Ukraine
to delegitimize them.
Zelensky by saying, yeah, look, we had a presidential election
under war, same conditions, and yet our so-called autocrat actually
had the election free, fair and square and all this
and your guy didn't want to do it.
So who's the Democrat and who's the the autocrat?
Because you know, and you can see that that that
can make people go.
Yeah, that doesn't sound quite right.
So the question is going to be what happens next?
Because if if enough time starts passing, and especially if
Zelensky continues to not have success in the battlefield and
he keeps saying things that don't turn out to be
true, then this popular support is going to start to
road.
And I've already seen that it's been happening, especially over
the last several months, even before May 20th came when
when his presidential term ended, that a lot of people
in Ukraine are are getting fed up with the claims
of success and eventual victory when they see the opposite
on the ground.
And and I think the longer time goes, the more
that's going to erode and the more that the psychological
operation from the Russian side is going to start to
have its impact on the Ukraine people.
Yeah, I think you're spot on there, Danny.
And I wanted to also ask a question in regards
to the the timing of everything here, because I think
what's what, you know, as you know, we have a
very important election coming up in November, November 5th, huge
day for America.
We're we're going to we're still waiting to see exactly
how that's going to pan out.
Obviously, a decision coming for Donald Trump.
He is the front runner right now, certainly for the
GOP, but also for, you know, the entire presidency is
leading Biden in the polls currently.
I want to get your thoughts on the timing of
this.
And is there anything related to the funding of this
Ukraine war, the continuation of this war and kind of
tying this into the election?
Is there a correlation between the US presidential election and
the ending or, or the continuation of this war?
Yeah, 100% there is.
And, and it's not hard to to see when you
start looking at it.
Biden has, has based his presidency on succeeding for the
Ukraine side, on defending them as long as it takes
is, you know, the mantra he's been saying from from
the beginning.
And and he keeps saying that Russia can't win, that
Ukraine will eventually prevail no matter how long it takes.
We're going to continue to do that.
We're we're going to continue to give them everything they
need.
And if in between now and the election, he suddenly
says, actually, you know, we've we've re evaluated and Ukraine
can't win, so we're going to have we're going to
seek a negotiated settlement.
You, you know that he would be just crucified politically
in the public where they would say everything you said
was wrong, everything you tried was wrong.
You said the same thing in Afghanistan.
Look how disastrous that thing, you know, worked out.
It was a terrible, now you've done it here.
You can see where that would respond.
With a lot of people, they recognize that the, the
Biden team does.
So they're going to do everything in their power not
to do that.
So they, I think they have a strong incentive to
want to drag this thing out past August, November the
5th.
Then you might see them go, you know what, now
we're rethinking that depending on how the election goes.
But that's just terrible because they're also taking a big
gamble in that, a couple of big gambles.
First of all, they're gambling that the Ukraine army can
remain viable between now and then.
Then they see, you know, this incremental progress here.
And they're saying, OK, they can do that for, you
know, 5 or 6 months, no problem.
And they've done it for 2 1/2 years.
So you just project that or see how long they've
done it and you see how much territory they've got.
And you're like, yeah, you can, they can do that.
I'm sure that'll be fine.
It's it's not a linear calculation because there's this unknown
quality that I can't even predict about when an army
breaks because, for example, you had the almost the opposite
situation happened in 1940 in France where the Nazis were
attacking into a combined Franco, British and and French army
huge the the land power on the continent.
By all accounts, the French army was the dominant force
and it's especially joined by the British force.
200 and something thousand I think there was for the
British alone and and they had these intricate plans of
course they had the national line, but they had all
of these plans have been rehearsing for years.
They were ready for the Russians, the Germans, sorry, they
they came across where they were expected at first until
they came across where they weren't expected in territory they
didn't expect.
And they made this armored penetration into the rear of
this organization.
And once the the the tanks moved in from the
rear and they just started literally driving through the French
countryside, it unhinged everything in the entire army collapsed overnight.
And that's the best it was on the conference continent.
Now imagine this one has been, you know, as as
weathered all of this stuff for so long here.
If Russia does finally breakthrough somewhere, you can see where
the similar thing could happen, where they could say it's
lost.
Now we we can see that everything has failed and
now all the sudden they're in the rear.
There's no more point In the end, people could collapse.
I I can't predict that because they could also just
say doesn't matter.
We're going to keep fighting no matter what.
So it's it's impossible to know, but the probability grows
the longer this goes because the psychological harm to these
kids that have been fighting all this time is, is
just horrific.
And they're going to be paying for this for generations
to come no matter what.
And I'm talking the survivors here.
But you just don't know when it's going to break.
And I think that the the Biden administration's gambling that
it's not going to happen in between now and the
end of the election, which could absolutely just hand it
to to President Trump or former President Trump.
And that's one gamble.
The second gamble, which we kind of alluded to the
first year is that we keep just poking Russia here
and there and keep launching things into Russia and that
that that Putin, Ryabkov or or Dimitri Medvedev, they, they
none of them mean what they say and they don't
escalate and they don't strike Western targets, which could just
catastrophic and throw everything.
And then an election is the last thing we need
to be worried about right now.
Absolutely.
There's a very big, very big risk.
You know, obviously we have two major nuclear superpowers potentially
going head to So again, you know, US, China, both
nuclear superpowers and other conflict that we want to make
sure that we avoid.
And it just, it is a sad thing.
I think when you're looking at it from a political
perspective, knowing the Biden administration, I mean, you have to
play the game, right?
It's all about getting elected.
It's all about, I think you'd really hit the nail
right on the head when you said, you know, we
really can't get them to a negotiated settlement at this
point because it essentially admits that we were wrong for
the last 2 1/2 years.
So although like you, I agree with you, getting the
Ukraine to the negotiating table as soon as possible will
be in the best long term interest of Ukraine.
As each day passes that whatever settlement is going to
eventually happen will get worse and worse.
The conditions are gonna get worse and worse for Ukraine
unless they settle now.
But essentially, you know, they're gonna try to prolong this
for as many months as possible.
But ultimately it is a big risk because Ukraine army
could collapse.
Russia could just win this war, you know, you know,
within the next couple of months.
And then like you said, this could just completely backfire
on the Biden administration.
And, you know, ultimately, it's just more bad news for
Ukraine.
So I really want to thank you so much, Danny,
for your insights today.
I want to give you the last word here because
I, again, I just really appreciate your insights educating us
all.
And just tell us your last final thoughts about Russia,
Ukraine, anything else you'd like to tell our audience as
we continue to monitor, you know, this story that's been
dominating for the last few years?
Yeah.
You know what?
It just anguishes me to to hear you say out
loud that the political realities prevent the US from doing
what makes sense and what's right and that they're going
to try to take this gamble because it it would.
And when I'm going to say this out loud, it
just sounds really horrible because it is.
Is that the US political leaders are, are prioritizing their
political outcomes with the physical life of thousands, 10s of
thousands of Ukrainian people.
And, and I, it just breaks my heart and I,
and I just finds it, find it abhorrent that we
are not willing to do the right thing.
Because I, I can't imagine that that the many in
the body administration to senior levels don't recognize everything that
I've said and can just count.
And they can just see the realities on the battlefield
and think that the wisest thing to do would be
to close this off right now, limit the damage and,
and set the United States up, Western Europe and even
the remainder of Ukraine up for success going forward to
start the rebuilding.
That's what ought to happen.
So then you have a, a real chance for a
success out of the ashes here as opposed to continuing
to go down to condemn 10s of thousands, maybe even
hundreds of thousands more people to unnecessary death before this
thing is finally comes to the conclusion that it has
to anyway of negotiated settlement.
And I, I just wish that and I pray that
somehow somebody is willing to stand up and have the
political courage to do that.
I just don't see a lot of evidence of it.
I do I do have a follow up question to
that.
Do you think, what do you, what is your prediction
for if Donald Trump were to emerge victorious and he
becomes the next president in, you know, January 2025?
How do you think he would handle this?
And do you think that we would?
I, I believe that most of the evidence that I've
seen is that he will seek a negotiated settlement at
the soonest possible moment.
I, I think that's the one of the first thing
she's going to do.
I don't see any expectation that he would just continue
the fight on.
I think that he'll he'll try to bring to an
end.
OK, very good.
Well, Danny, again, I want to thank you so much
for your time and everybody.
If you haven't already started following Danny, I want you
to give his YouTube channel a follow.
He does putting out some incredible content.
Danny, I want to thank you for being a friend
and and someone that we can trust as we try
to, you know, see through all of these crazy storylines
and kind of cut through the BS of of traditional
media because a lot of times, as we know, that's
not being reported accurately.
But that is why we invite experts like yourself on
the show and why we're committed to talking geopolitics.
So if you haven't already started following him, make sure
you check out his YouTube channel.
We're going to put the link to that down in
the description and the pinned comment down below.
So, Danny, thank you so much for being here and
everybody go give him a follow.
And thank you for spending time with us today on
YouTube.
We can't wait to see you in our next video.
Always my pleasure.
Thank you.
You got it.