Speaker 1: Hey, thirty fifty five KRCD Talk Station Final Online Daniel
Speaker 1: Davis Deep Dive. Just search that you'll run right into
Speaker 1: my next guest. Every Tuesday we get a deep dive
Speaker 1: with Daniel Davis, retired Lieutenant Colonel Dan Davis. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to the fifty five carse Morning Show, my friend. It's
Speaker 1: a pleasure to have you back on. Always a pleasure
Speaker 1: to be here. Thanks Brian Hey, real quick man, I
Speaker 1: knocked an eye. I don't have a bucket list, but
Speaker 1: if I had one, what I did yesterday would have
Speaker 1: been on it.
Speaker 2: I took a day off.
Speaker 1: I was invited out to Camp Adderbury in Indiana, and
Speaker 1: I was able to train with Navy Seal Teams two
Speaker 1: and three, at least some of the members, twelve or
Speaker 1: fourteen of them were there, and we shot on a
Speaker 1: range fifty BMGs and for the first time of my life,
Speaker 1: I was able to shoot beyond I think my the
Speaker 1: farthest distance I've ever shot on a range that was
Speaker 1: probably like three hundred yards. I was hitting them at
Speaker 1: thirteen hundred yards. We were using oh I yes, sir.
Speaker 1: We were using MK two eleven rounds, the ones that
Speaker 1: explode the explosive fifty col rounds, so there was no
Speaker 1: doubt in your mind when you hit the target because it.
Speaker 2: Would literally blow up. I had the best time.
Speaker 3: Man.
Speaker 1: Those guys are awesome, those Sealed Team guys. I said,
Speaker 1: you know, if we had, if our American military was
Speaker 1: filled with the guys that I met yesterday, we'd have
Speaker 1: nothing to worry about.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: You know. I mean a lot of people go to
Speaker 3: Hawaii or Europe for vacation and you go military training.
Speaker 2: So, wow, you're really dedicated. Oh I was. No.
Speaker 1: I'm just I got a good friend. I'm lucky to
Speaker 1: be in the position I'm in that I got invited
Speaker 1: to this because I have a retired lieutenant colonel who
Speaker 1: is a sniper trainer, and he was there apparently trained
Speaker 1: you pretty good. Oh my god, it was amazing what
Speaker 1: I learned yesterday. Anyway, I had to get that out
Speaker 1: of my system because some of my listeners don't know
Speaker 1: why I went a vacation and I took a vacation day.
Speaker 1: It was awesome anyway. Sadly timing terrible because of the
Speaker 1: most recent assassination attempt on Trump, but we don't want
Speaker 1: to focus on that today. With Daniel Davis want to
Speaker 1: talk about Putin and apparently you're mentioning that he has
Speaker 1: increased his army size though one and a half million.
Speaker 1: I saw Wall Street Journal article today and again the
Speaker 1: fog of war is acknowledged, but headline one million are
Speaker 1: now dead or injured in the Russia Ukraine war. So
Speaker 1: frightening figures in that journal reporting. Yeah, and that's a
Speaker 1: little odd.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you. I'm not sure where they get their
Speaker 2: numbers from.
Speaker 3: I know, you know, because because nobody neither side, of course,
Speaker 3: publishes real numbers, they and then they both exaggerate the
Speaker 3: opposite side numbers.
Speaker 2: But you know, most of the West.
Speaker 3: I was looking for some information early this morning before
Speaker 3: we came on and see a lot of the Western
Speaker 3: people saying, oh, yeah, Russia loses about a thousand people
Speaker 3: every day they do these meat grinder attacks. By some accounts,
Speaker 3: they say they've lost six hundred thousand dead on the
Speaker 3: Russian side, and you know, and I just keep scratching
Speaker 3: my head. I'm like, one, where where are you guys looking?
Speaker 3: Because I see no actual evidence of meat grinder attack?
Speaker 3: So cold word base you just flood the zone with
Speaker 3: troops and they just get slaughter, but they keep coming, etc.
Speaker 2: I don't see any evidence.
Speaker 3: So in fact, it's the evidence of the contrary that
Speaker 3: Russia is the reason why they've been making such methodical
Speaker 3: progress over this entire calendar year has been because they
Speaker 3: don't want to put their troops at risk, so they're
Speaker 3: heavy with firepower, and then only after they've destroyed a
Speaker 3: lot of the fortifications, etc. Then they bring in the
Speaker 3: troops lower to move forward. Well, that tells you right
Speaker 3: there that the firepower is five or ten to one
Speaker 3: in favor of the Russians in certain parts of the front.
Speaker 2: And then they want to claim.
Speaker 3: That the casualty counts are the inverse, that Russia has
Speaker 3: ten times more than Ukraine, which just doesn't make any
Speaker 3: sense at all.
Speaker 2: It's just not rational.
Speaker 3: So I doubt that it's true, because if Russia was
Speaker 3: suffering that many casualties.
Speaker 2: They wouldn't be continuing to move. But the other side
Speaker 2: does seem to be working that way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, they acknowledge the sort of what you and
Speaker 1: I are I call the fog of war numbers here.
Speaker 1: I mean it's the one million reference is collectively both sides,
Speaker 1: and that's killed or wounded, and you and I both
Speaker 1: know there's a whole lot of wounded people in any
Speaker 1: combat situation, so just the numbers are just crazy. So
Speaker 1: where where are we on this? I would love to
Speaker 1: have some definitive understanding of where the United States thinks
Speaker 1: we're going to take this, because I'm becoming less and
Speaker 1: less convinced this is a worthy exercise, just because of
Speaker 1: the reality that there's a finite number of Ukrainians fighting
Speaker 1: this battle, and we can give them all the weapons
Speaker 1: in the world, but if they don't have people to
Speaker 1: fight against the Russians and they're increasing army size, it's
Speaker 1: it's simply a battle of attrition for the Russians to win, right, right,
Speaker 1: It really.
Speaker 2: Does come down to that simple.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's other things involved, but the fundamental you
Speaker 3: just mentioned is almost ironclad, especially in the history of warfare,
Speaker 3: and just in the logic of this war.
Speaker 2: You can look look at it when the Russian side
Speaker 2: has somewhere.
Speaker 3: Around thirty million more men of military age that they
Speaker 3: can draw and then the Ukraine side does. If you
Speaker 3: get into a war of attrition, which we are definitely in,
Speaker 3: then the side with the most inputs is the one
Speaker 3: that's gonna win. So if you have more men, if
Speaker 3: you have more ammunition, and if you have more industrial capacity,
Speaker 3: unless you just decide to quit one day, and neither
Speaker 3: side is because both sides are viciously committed to this.
Speaker 3: Then you see that one point or another, then the
Speaker 3: weight of all the inputs are certainly going to wear
Speaker 3: down the other side. And that's exactly what we're seeing
Speaker 3: on the front line. Now here's my big problem. I
Speaker 3: wish you were in the White House, because if the
Speaker 3: person in the White House came to the same logical
Speaker 3: conclusion you did, then this would probably be getting wrapped up. Instead,
Speaker 3: we are right on the threshold of potentially escalating the
Speaker 3: war because Zelensky is pleading and begging and cajoling trying
Speaker 3: to get long range weapons from the US, France and Britain,
Speaker 3: and the Russian side has said in the most emphatic
Speaker 3: terms they have.
Speaker 2: In the entire war that if you.
Speaker 3: Use long range weapons systems in our country and in
Speaker 3: the depth of our country, then we're going to say
Speaker 3: that is the direct involvement of the NATO countries and
Speaker 3: we will take appropriate countermeasures.
Speaker 2: And I know I've been seeing it all.
Speaker 3: Over the net that all these experts in the Western
Speaker 3: A saying he's just bluffing, he's never gonna do that.
Speaker 3: And I'm telling you there is no reason to risk
Speaker 3: finding out if that's true or not if he's going
Speaker 3: to expand because look, those things, those missiles, they won't
Speaker 3: change anything. There's not enough of them. It would take
Speaker 3: months long, sustained long range bombing campaign to have a
Speaker 3: difference at the front line.
Speaker 2: We don't have that many missiles.
Speaker 3: Secretary of Defense last week admitted, we don't have that
Speaker 3: many attackums missiles. So why start something that could spawn
Speaker 3: an expanded war if it can't even help all the way?
Speaker 1: Well, doubling down on what you just said, going back
Speaker 1: to my time yesterday at camp out and spending time
Speaker 1: with men in uniform, we're short on all kinds of
Speaker 1: military equipment.
Speaker 2: It's across the board.
Speaker 1: We are in a sorry state in terms of preparedness
Speaker 1: generally speaking.
Speaker 2: Is the conclusion that I reached.
Speaker 3: Well, that certainly matches what I'm seeing elsewhere too. I mean,
Speaker 3: not only are we sending all this stuff to Ukraine,
Speaker 3: we're also sending just huge planeloads of shiploads of stuff
Speaker 3: to Israel almost on a daily basis, not almost on
Speaker 3: a daily basis, And at the same time the Congress
Speaker 3: is saying, yea, let's send more stuff out to the
Speaker 3: Indo Pacific in Taiwan as well, And you just have
Speaker 3: to ask the question. We can't even recruit enough people
Speaker 3: to man all of our ships in the Navy. We're
Speaker 3: having to decommissionships because we don't have enough troops and
Speaker 3: we don't have enough ammunition of various categories. While you're
Speaker 3: just giving it out to everybody and risking war with Russia.
Speaker 2: But Brian, I'm just telling you.
Speaker 3: If you succeeded and we actually got into a war
Speaker 3: with Russia because of this situation here, we don't have
Speaker 3: the men, we don't have the material, we don't have
Speaker 3: the industrial capacity to fight sustained.
Speaker 2: War air go.
Speaker 3: We could lose a war if we fought against the
Speaker 3: Russia or China right now.
Speaker 2: That's the harsh truth.
Speaker 1: Well, in two real quick observations. In order for Ukrainians
Speaker 1: should they get long range missiles, I think Putin is
Speaker 1: kind of on the right track because I believe you
Speaker 1: are going to confirm what I'm going to say here.
Speaker 1: To operate those long range missiles requires technology links to
Speaker 1: secure systems that the Ukrainians do not have access to
Speaker 1: and do not know how to use, so it require
Speaker 1: American direct involvement to be able to launch and hit
Speaker 1: targets in Russia.
Speaker 2: Am I right on that?
Speaker 3: That's why Putin made that comment last Friday. He expressly
Speaker 3: acknowledged that, and then subsequently you've had senior British and
Speaker 3: American officials acknowledged that's true. So yes, it's not just
Speaker 3: misinformation by the Russian side, it's acknowledged by our side
Speaker 3: and self evidently true.
Speaker 1: Daniel David, Steve Daiber. I wish we had longer to talk.
Speaker 1: We are sadly out of time. Always enjoy these conversations,
Speaker 1: as troubling as they may be for some of my listeners,
Speaker 1: this is just the carshold harshold reality that we're dealing with,
Speaker 1: and somebody needs a plan to get this done and
Speaker 1: over with because I think, you know, it wouldn't just
Speaker 1: be Vladimir Putin's army. The second point I want to make,
Speaker 1: they are joining forces and working collectively with the Chinese
Speaker 1: and other enemy powers of ours, so.
Speaker 2: We would be in a real big shoo career.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you're absolutely right, Daniel Davis, deep dive search
Speaker 1: for them online. You'll run right into them and we'll
Speaker 1: look forward to next Tuesday in another discussion, my friend.
Speaker 2: Next time, take care brother. If I care? What is that?
Speaker 2: Suseette Low's camp. Get in touch with Suette Low's camp.