Speaker 2: KRC the talk station.
Speaker 1: Happy Tuesday always made it extra special because now it's
Speaker 1: the time we get a Daniel Davis deep dive retired
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. Always a distinct pleasure to have
Speaker 1: you on the fifty five KRC Morning Show. Sir, welcome back.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me. Brian.
Speaker 1: Always a treasure to be here. I appreciate that, and
Speaker 1: I enjoy our conversations. Very enlightening and of course sometimes
Speaker 1: a bit sobering, most notably for those folks who continue
Speaker 1: to want to support Ukraine in the face of what
Speaker 1: appears to be growing disaster.
Speaker 2: I see.
Speaker 1: First sentence of this Russian forces conquer large Dontesk stronghold.
Speaker 1: Russian Federation forces have unstoppable momentum in the Dawnask region,
Speaker 1: with a string of victories and the noticeable weaking of
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian defenses. One Swiss paper Noya Zich Zaeitung, the
Speaker 1: military situation in eastern Ukraine has deteriorated sharply. Defense lines
Speaker 1: have collapsed in various parts of the front. I struggle
Speaker 1: to find really any good news for the Ukrainians at
Speaker 1: this moment in time.
Speaker 2: Well, there's not any. On the battlefield.
Speaker 3: I can assure you that because concurrent with that information
Speaker 3: there's also reports from the Ukraine side from their minister
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, from their Forstar General Serski, the guy in
Speaker 3: charge of their own forces, that they're saying, hey, we're
Speaker 3: not recruiting enough people even to meet losses. So the
Speaker 3: number of losses they have per month is not offset
Speaker 3: by the new people coming in. And what that tells you,
Speaker 3: aside from just that it's the numbers the net net
Speaker 3: is shrinking, it also tells you that they every time
Speaker 3: they get somebody with some experience, they get killed or
Speaker 3: taken off the battlefield and they come in with the
Speaker 3: fresh so they are constantly getting rid of all their experience.
Speaker 3: At the same time, you also have new reports that
Speaker 3: two additional brigades that newly formed brigades one was trained
Speaker 3: in France and one seven hundred people fled the battlefield
Speaker 3: before they even left and got to the front. Then
Speaker 3: they had another one on one fifty seventh brigade just
Speaker 3: this week also collapsed and went away before it even
Speaker 3: got to the front. So there's two new formations of
Speaker 3: the less than they're getting for replacements are falling apart.
Speaker 3: And then they fired a lot of these committee, they
Speaker 3: fired the ground forces commander for the Eastern Front.
Speaker 2: You see, the wheels are literally.
Speaker 3: Coming off, and the question is how much longer can
Speaker 3: they continue to function as a coherent unit.
Speaker 2: And I don't think it's that much longer, Well that
Speaker 2: much longer a months, weeks? How long is this gonna lae?
Speaker 1: I mean at some point that there's going to be
Speaker 1: east an absolute collapse, and an absolute then I would
Speaker 1: argue perhaps Russian victory across the board, or they're going
Speaker 1: to be forced to sit down a negotiation table and
Speaker 1: seed some of their land to get it resolved.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly the issue here. So you have a
Speaker 3: couple of different possibilities. One is like what happened to
Speaker 3: the Germans in World War Two. They were just methodically
Speaker 3: just pushed all the way to the west by the
Speaker 3: Soviet Union and they just continued to crumble, but they
Speaker 3: stayed at least coherent all the way through. The losses
Speaker 3: got bigger, got the losses got faster toward the end,
Speaker 3: but they just continued on until literally they just.
Speaker 2: Cease to exist in Berlin.
Speaker 3: Or you have what happened to the British and French
Speaker 3: in May nineteen forty, where the Germans, then on the
Speaker 3: positive side, broke through the lines, got in the back
Speaker 3: of their defenses and then the whole thing just collapsed.
Speaker 3: So overnight you had the entire army collapse. And so
Speaker 3: either of those two things are possible. Both are bad
Speaker 3: for Ukraine. Both are bad for Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Now with this, I would argue, anyxt maybe you should
Speaker 1: call it this way. This positive momentum the Russians are
Speaker 1: currently enjoying, does that suggest to you they're less likely
Speaker 1: to want to sit down and negotiate a resolution of it.
Speaker 3: Do you think they're just going to keep at it? Well,
Speaker 3: this is the reality. They are definitely willing to have
Speaker 3: a negotiated settlement. They have been emphatic about that from
Speaker 3: the beginning. They're emphatic about it right now. But that's
Speaker 3: not the same thing that may be in the mind
Speaker 3: of Trump or his supporters, which is that they think
Speaker 3: that they can negotiate a good deal at the current
Speaker 3: line of contact that's going to be good for Zelensky
Speaker 3: and good for Kiev. That's just not in the cards,
Speaker 3: I'm afraid, Brian. What he's saying the Russian side is
Speaker 3: saying we'll negotiate for all the land that we want,
Speaker 3: which means land you haven't lost in battle yet, all
Speaker 3: of the administrative orders of those four provinces, and if
Speaker 3: they don't get those, and that of course that also
Speaker 3: includes and plads that Zelensky has to go.
Speaker 2: That's actually part of it.
Speaker 3: They said they won't sign a deal with him because
Speaker 3: he's exceeded his mandate and they said he's not legitimate.
Speaker 2: We need you guys to have an election.
Speaker 3: So there's somebody that we can negotiate or sign a
Speaker 3: deal with.
Speaker 2: And there has to.
Speaker 3: Be, of course, a declaration of no NATO, no troops,
Speaker 3: no peacekeeping troops, none of that stuff, or they'll just
Speaker 3: keep fighting until they win it.
Speaker 1: All right, And that's because they all the negotiation ships
Speaker 1: on their side right now. Now, to those out there
Speaker 1: that think this is a battle that's worth continuing to
Speaker 1: wage and somehow magically Ukraine's going to be able to
Speaker 1: bounce back and defend themselves, what do you perceive any
Speaker 1: existential threat or other threat to NATO or the European
Speaker 1: Union generally speaking, if Russia ends up taking over Ukraine completely.
Speaker 3: No, and that's what's been said, really from the outset
Speaker 3: of this war from the West, if they keep saying,
Speaker 3: oh my god, if.
Speaker 2: We don't stop him here, he'll come and roll here.
Speaker 3: No, there's the Russians don't have the capacity in my view,
Speaker 3: I mean, they don't even have the capacity if they
Speaker 3: had the desire.
Speaker 2: They don't have the capacity.
Speaker 3: To launch into a war in you in NATO because
Speaker 3: they know it doesn't even matter so much whether they're military.
Speaker 3: They're conventional military could defeat the West, and probably in
Speaker 3: the Baltics they could because the Russian army is now
Speaker 3: because we didn't end this early. Instead of the about
Speaker 3: one million it was in February twenty twenty two, it's
Speaker 3: now it's one point five million active duty troops now,
Speaker 3: troops that are sustained, they're trained, they've got the lot
Speaker 3: of combat experience, and their industrial capacity behind them is
Speaker 3: like a juggernaut. But they understand that if they go
Speaker 3: into NATO now, then you have Article five issues in
Speaker 3: three nuclear powers on the other side that could come
Speaker 3: into play, and Russia's not gonna want to say, hey,
Speaker 3: we fought this whole war to get security on our
Speaker 3: western flank and then we're going to take action that
Speaker 3: almost certainly would precipitate a nuclear response from the other side.
Speaker 3: They're not going to do that because it's not in
Speaker 3: their interest to do so, not because we have to
Speaker 3: trust them or anything else, it's just not in their interest.
Speaker 2: So if we bring.
Speaker 3: This to an end, then all this stuff gets off
Speaker 3: the table, and there's this ugly business of reconstruction and
Speaker 3: world that's gonna go. It's going to linger for a generation.
Speaker 3: But better to start that now than later on.
Speaker 2: With even more death.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, and I just have to observe it's
Speaker 1: taking Russia this long to get as far as they
Speaker 1: did in one single country. So compare that exactly the
Speaker 1: entire might of the United States and the entire NATO countries.
Speaker 1: So I concur with your assessment on that as much
Speaker 1: tea leaf reading as we can do pivoting over your
Speaker 1: I like, generally speaking, Pete Heegsas's message, which is we
Speaker 1: are going to establish a military fighting force. Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: not an executive order getting rid of DEI and I
Speaker 1: have no idea what that has to do with killing
Speaker 1: people and breaking things, But I have a more optimistic
Speaker 1: positive view of the direction of America's military With Pete
Speaker 1: Pete Hegsath at the realm and the getting rid of
Speaker 1: DEI what's your perception on that one?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, in the like the eleventh hour, just
Speaker 3: before the vote was taken, there was a number there
Speaker 3: was senate debate and some of those who were against
Speaker 3: him were saying, look, there was why do you have
Speaker 3: to go up to this guy that's never been in
Speaker 3: charge of a big company. H He wasn't a general,
Speaker 3: so he wasn't in charge of a lot of troops.
Speaker 3: He was only a major and that was relatively low
Speaker 3: level in terms of the hierarchy of the army. And
Speaker 3: they said, why wouldn't you go after somebody that that's
Speaker 3: in the Republican Party, that's like has been, you know,
Speaker 3: in all of these kinds of categories. And they said,
Speaker 3: you know, like Mark Esper or like James Mattis. You know,
Speaker 3: those are the guys they had these past ninety eight
Speaker 3: to two, etc. And I'm liking, Okay, that's the last
Speaker 3: thing that we need right now. Those are status quo
Speaker 3: guys that don't want to change anything, that were very unsuccess.
Speaker 3: You may remember James Mattison actually left office and because
Speaker 3: he had a tantrum that Trump wanted to withdraw our
Speaker 3: troops from Syria, so he resigned over that.
Speaker 2: So he pushed back.
Speaker 3: Not only would he not support the president, he didn't
Speaker 3: have the foresight to see that that's not in America's interest, right,
Speaker 3: that's not the person. We need, somebody from the status
Speaker 3: quo who's been in the defense industry and all this
Speaker 3: kind of stuff. We need somebody with some fresh thinking.
Speaker 3: Now Hegseith doesn't come in with a great view. I mean,
Speaker 3: he's got some genuine skeletons in his closet and that
Speaker 3: has to be considered.
Speaker 2: But his focus and what he's saying.
Speaker 3: Anyway, and I give him. I'm going to give him
Speaker 3: the benefit of the doubt and give him a chance
Speaker 3: to say if he's going to action with his words.
Speaker 3: He says he wants to reform the military. Wants to
Speaker 3: bring the warrior ethos back, which as the warfighter that
Speaker 3: excites me. He wants to bring high standards back in
Speaker 3: one standard for everybody.
Speaker 2: You either meet it or you move out.
Speaker 3: The bottom line is what is going to make the
Speaker 3: army stronger or the military stronger?
Speaker 1: And that is the right focus. Well, and I think
Speaker 1: that will assist in large measure to get more people
Speaker 1: interested in enlisting, because I think all this woke ideology
Speaker 1: has really turned off a lot of very patriotic young
Speaker 1: people who otherwise might have signed up to serve their country.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I totally agree, that's that's part of what the
Speaker 3: what the at least what they're saying. I looked at
Speaker 3: one of the executive orders that talked about the de
Speaker 3: I stuff, and they're not saying they don't want any
Speaker 3: more equality or you know, opportunity anything like that. They're
Speaker 3: not saying this is against anyone. They're just saying they
Speaker 3: don't want something that basically gives quotas and saying that
Speaker 3: you have to have a certain amount of these categories
Speaker 3: in higher positions, because now then you're you're elevating people
Speaker 3: based on a criteria other than merits, other than do
Speaker 3: they deserve it or not. And the focus is not
Speaker 3: on making the military stronger, it's on making sure it
Speaker 3: meets DEI stuff, which is not the same thing. And
Speaker 3: so I want to make sure I hope they don't
Speaker 3: go too far with that where they you know, it
Speaker 3: goes back to where people are pushed down or certain
Speaker 3: groups are minimized, and they don't get a fair shot.
Speaker 3: We don't want that, but we do want merit based promotions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're I mean, sexuality has nothing to do with it.
Speaker 1: You have the appropriate merit and skill sets to do
Speaker 1: any given job. So I'm with you on that all
Speaker 1: day long. And briefly, let's pivot over to Tulsi Gabbard
Speaker 1: National Intelligence. She's somewhat controversial. I know that she was
Speaker 1: in favor of Edward Snowden, wanted him pardon, and I
Speaker 1: person don't have an issue with that. I think the
Speaker 1: world is a better place for knowing what we know
Speaker 1: after the snowed and release, but also previously against reauthorization
Speaker 1: of FIZA section seven oh two, which I have judged
Speaker 1: a Polaitano on every Wednesday, and boy, that's something that
Speaker 1: he just finds absolutely an offense to the Fourth Amendment.
Speaker 1: But she's flipped her position on that and now is
Speaker 1: in favor of it. What's your take on Tulsa Gabbard. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's look at that part first. That's not accurate.
Speaker 3: That's what's being characterized in some parts of the media
Speaker 3: that she flipped on it.
Speaker 2: She did not flip on it.
Speaker 3: When you look bad, I've had I featured this on
Speaker 3: my show. When you look at what she said at
Speaker 3: the time she was against seven oh two, it was
Speaker 3: just seven oh two. She expressly said as a member
Speaker 3: of Congress when she voted against it was that we said,
Speaker 3: we need some of these provisions for our national security
Speaker 3: and our intelligence service definitely needed, but we need protections
Speaker 3: and reform so that we don't get into the Fourth
Speaker 3: Amendment parts.
Speaker 2: She has said nothing different than that.
Speaker 3: Now, what she has said in recent days was that
Speaker 3: there has been some changes that lessened her concerns about
Speaker 3: the Fourth Amendment part, but that keeps the issues for
Speaker 3: the security part.
Speaker 2: So she didn't flip.
Speaker 3: But she has so many enemies, Brian, I'm telling you
Speaker 3: because she is gonna faithfully say whatever the intelligence says,
Speaker 3: that's what gets put before the President of the United States.
Speaker 3: The deep I had to take to say deep stake
Speaker 3: the establishment. They don't want somebody like Gabbard in there.
Speaker 3: They want somebody in there like themselves that's gonna give
Speaker 3: what kind of They're gonna pick and choose what kind
Speaker 3: of intelligence goes to the president that fosters the.
Speaker 2: Opinion that, well, you have to use military force.
Speaker 3: They all they do is They want somebody that's like them,
Speaker 3: that's gonna keep saying force for force, military, military. They
Speaker 3: don't want somebody that may say, hey, sir, intelligence says this,
Speaker 3: so we actually don't need to use military power here.
Speaker 3: We can use other instruments of national military power. She
Speaker 3: is gonna faithfully do that. She's been consistent from the front,
Speaker 3: and she is always focused on what's good for America.
Speaker 3: I think she may be the best pick on the cabinet.
Speaker 3: How about that? Coming through loud and clear on that one.
Speaker 3: Daniel Davis Deep Dive. You can find his podcast online.
Speaker 3: Just search Daniel Davis Deep Dive. You run right into
Speaker 3: it and you can always tune in every Tuesday at
Speaker 3: the bottom of the eight o'clock hour for another edition
Speaker 3: of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive. Always great talk with you, sir.
Speaker 3: It's my pleasure. I'll look forward to another one next Tuesday.
Speaker 2: See you next week, Brian. Have a great week.
Speaker 1: It's a forty coun eighty forty one, I fifty have
Speaker 1: krcdtalk station and we're gonna learn about cervical cancer. It
Speaker 1: is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month. One of the great doctors
Speaker 1: for my cancer doctors OHC is going to join the
Speaker 1: program next and enlighten us about that what we need
Speaker 1: to look for and watch out for.
Speaker 2: Stick around, I hope you can.
Speaker 3: This is fifty five karc an iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 1: Are you dreaming of a smile that is as brilliant
Speaker 1: as it is natural