Speaker 1: Eight, twenty nine to fifty five krc DE Talk station Tuesday.
Speaker 1: At this time we always do the Deep Dive with
Speaker 1: retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, talk military strategy, talk about
Speaker 1: Ukraine and Russia. Nothing to talk about today, is there, Daniel,
Speaker 1: Welcome back, my friend. Yeah, so little has been having
Speaker 1: it up. There is just We're gonna have to work hard,
Speaker 1: but I bet we can do it. I bet we can.
Speaker 1: You know, the we obviously are gonna be talking about this,
Speaker 1: this surprising and what I perceived to be phenomenally successful
Speaker 1: drone attack. I my the parallel I've drawn, and I
Speaker 1: know I'm not the only one that drew it. It
Speaker 1: reminded me a lot of the Israelis blowing up all
Speaker 1: the members of Hamas with the cell phones and the
Speaker 1: communication devices, well organized, planned in advance, and unbelievably well
Speaker 1: timed and successful. We had the same kind of thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, they from all reports, they planned this for
Speaker 1: the last eighteen months. They were able to secretly shuttle
Speaker 1: in these drones and these you know, prepared shelters that
Speaker 1: with the roofs that popped off on remote control. The
Speaker 1: drones launched in close proximity to the targets. And for
Speaker 1: for what I understand is for a couple one hundred
Speaker 1: dollars drone multiplied by a large factor, they were able
Speaker 1: to do about seven billion dollars in damage the Russian aircraft.
Speaker 1: That's pretty darn impressive. But does it mean that Ukraine
Speaker 1: will win the war? Headline and the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: op edps by Bernard Henry Levy drone attack shows why
Speaker 1: Ukraine will win this war. And something suggests to me
Speaker 1: that you're not going to agree with mister Levy on
Speaker 1: that one.
Speaker 2: Oh man, No, I definitely hadn't seen that one. We'll
Speaker 2: definitely go look forward after we get off the air here. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but that is that is sheer fantasy. But let's let's
Speaker 2: first of all focus on what happened, because you said
Speaker 2: and by all accounts, and I'm certainly in agreement, this
Speaker 2: was a spectacularly executed operation on its own right because
Speaker 2: it was done for such a long period of time,
Speaker 2: It was done with the cooperation of men any at
Speaker 2: least Sopar. It's been reported actual Russian citizens as well,
Speaker 2: people they recruited, et cetera, got to turn and to
Speaker 2: help Russia inside.
Speaker 1: Knowing what they were doing uh, and.
Speaker 2: Then to keep it all secret for that long, and
Speaker 2: then to have it on multiple locations hence the name
Speaker 2: spider web because it was all these different links to
Speaker 2: get together, and then to have the sophistication, the technological
Speaker 2: savvy to to be able to get through any kind
Speaker 2: of attempt to block signals, for example from the Russian side,
Speaker 2: to have it without being intercepted so that Russia didn't
Speaker 2: know what was going on. All that together was just
Speaker 2: really really successful. But then we have to get to
Speaker 2: the to the consequence of it, and other than being
Speaker 2: a real uh, you know, bloody eye or black eye
Speaker 2: for for Putin, it's not going to have any impact
Speaker 2: on the front line and the war that's going on
Speaker 2: were By the way, overnight Russia also continues to have
Speaker 2: significant progress going forward in the Sumi region. No one
Speaker 2: wants to talk about that on the Ukraine side because
Speaker 2: they want to bask in the glory of this. But
Speaker 2: the bottom line is what has this gain you? And
Speaker 2: so far I've seen that it has angered the Russian side.
Speaker 2: It has made more of the senior people in the Kremlin.
Speaker 2: And by the way, there's lots of reports that there
Speaker 2: is a lot of debate within the upper echelon of
Speaker 2: the Russian Kremlin and their leadership that they want to
Speaker 2: respond much much stronger than Putin does. Putin still apparently
Speaker 2: is looking for some kind of you know, non provocative
Speaker 2: it's not going to escalate better phrase, it's not going
Speaker 2: to escalate it and get the NATO drawn in. But
Speaker 2: it's also strong enough. And apparently they haven't come to
Speaker 2: a conclusion because they haven't said almost anything about it.
Speaker 2: But yeah, it ain't gonna win the war for the
Speaker 2: Ukraine side, no matter what anybody wants.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I actually fully expected an almost immediate retaliation. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you read the same thing I've read
Speaker 1: where you get your sources, but they had a massed
Speaker 1: about fifty thousand additional troops on the border there the
Speaker 1: Russians did. I figured that they would just be unlea
Speaker 1: east into Ukraine and add to the already established zones
Speaker 1: that Russia is controlling right now.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, what we've seen though, is that Russia
Speaker 2: is very strategically minded and patient, and they have been
Speaker 2: from the outset and they have done things that issue
Speaker 2: near term setbacks in order to get something big later on.
Speaker 2: For example, in the Hiirson area, they willingly withdrew all
Speaker 2: their forces across the Dnepa River and surrendered all that
Speaker 2: territory to the Ukraine side because they calculated that they
Speaker 2: couldn't hold it, knowing that it would be a huge
Speaker 2: media victory for the other side and they would get
Speaker 2: the territory, but it would preserve combat power for later on,
Speaker 2: and it played out that way. Is that helped Russia
Speaker 2: win the Battle of Bakm later on. This place here,
Speaker 2: those troops have been there already. They're already part of
Speaker 2: this northern offensive that Russia has probably already started. So
Speaker 2: they're not gonna, you know, rush into a new fight here.
Speaker 2: It's different than the slow pace they have because they
Speaker 2: want to preserve their troops and maximize the firepower to
Speaker 2: inflict casualties on the Ukraine side. So they're not going
Speaker 2: to change that. The only thing that might come is
Speaker 2: maybe some big spectacular missile strikes into strategic targets where
Speaker 2: they haven't hit before, maybe in a Russnic missile, you know,
Speaker 2: something that literally no one can stop at this point.
Speaker 2: But there may not be any of that either. In fact,
Speaker 2: one of Putin's former advisors was went on the air
Speaker 2: almost immediately on a Western show and said that he
Speaker 2: didn't think there would be any because he said, look,
Speaker 2: this is like the one hundredth time a Russian airbase
Speaker 2: has been attacked in the last two years. It's just
Speaker 2: the first time it's had this kind of success. So
Speaker 2: it's embarrassment, but it's not going to keep the take
Speaker 2: their eye off the ball of what they're doing. Well,
Speaker 2: that could be how it's going to work out.
Speaker 1: The broader implications of the success of this attack kind
Speaker 1: of have me worried. First off, I guess we have
Speaker 1: to view this through the lens of how this illustrates
Speaker 1: the changing dynamic of warfare, much in the same way
Speaker 1: usage of drone over the past military conflicts we've been
Speaker 1: in since drones have been used sort of reduce the
Speaker 1: need for manned aircraft. I mean, if you can send
Speaker 1: a million dollar drone in with no man in it
Speaker 1: and it can successfully complete a bombing operation, that's a
Speaker 1: lot better use of your resources than sending in a
Speaker 1: multi billion dollar F thirty five that's got a pilot
Speaker 1: in it that you got to worry about saving their lives.
Speaker 1: So that's one component. But this has me a little
Speaker 1: more worried from a domestic standpoint, A lot of concerns
Speaker 1: about China grabbing up all this land around our military bases.
Speaker 1: And I think it will be pretty damn easy in
Speaker 1: a country is free and as wide as our country
Speaker 1: for them to oh, maybe get a whole giant drone
Speaker 1: fleet and launch it whenever the hell they damn well please,
Speaker 1: like for example, when the lights go out the day
Speaker 1: they invade Taiwan.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's not just China. And by the way,
Speaker 2: you don't even have to own any land, as Russia
Speaker 2: just demonstrated. You just take point truck and it just nick.
Speaker 2: Russia is a lot more restrictive than the US in
Speaker 2: terms of movement, though it's actually much more open than
Speaker 2: people think, and you saw the results of it there.
Speaker 2: But of course here you can literally drive anywhere in
Speaker 2: our country. And I actually worry not as much about China,
Speaker 2: though that certainly is a big one on the front
Speaker 2: of the list. But you know, something like we talk
Speaker 2: about getting into a conflict with the cartails in Russia.
Speaker 2: In Mexico, we talked about sending in the special forces,
Speaker 2: like there's never going to be any consequence. But now
Speaker 2: we see that the opportunity here is so easy to
Speaker 2: do in so low cost. I fear that others may
Speaker 2: see what happened here and draw obvious conclusions. So I
Speaker 2: think that it's kind of like the genies out of
Speaker 2: the bottle here, and man, we better be figured out
Speaker 2: some kind of defense against this stuff as best we
Speaker 2: can right now.
Speaker 1: Well, we saw that nut job throw a milotov cocktails.
Speaker 1: Obviously for political reasons he hates the Jews and wants
Speaker 1: to kill all of them or something Looney Tunes like that.
Speaker 1: But also in the context of comments from the border
Speaker 1: security folks about the two million in god aways that
Speaker 1: we had no interaction. We don't know who they are,
Speaker 1: we don't know what they represent. Are they political? Are
Speaker 1: they perhaps cells that have formed and are just waiting
Speaker 1: for the orders to launch any particular given attack. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a real problem for our country in a going
Speaker 1: forward basis.
Speaker 2: Yes, it always That's one of the reasons I've always
Speaker 2: been such an advocate, no matter who's in the White House,
Speaker 2: that we need to have our secure borders. I've always
Speaker 2: said to whatever your immigration policy is, y'all figure that out,
Speaker 2: and whatever the Congress and the system of governments or
Speaker 2: whatever we agree to. Whether everybody likes it or not,
Speaker 2: and they definitely won't, it doesn't matter. But whatever the
Speaker 2: law is, abide by it and enforce it so that
Speaker 2: we keep ourselves safe, so that whatever the decisions are,
Speaker 2: we don't get anybody in like you're talking now, where
Speaker 2: we don't even know who they are. And that's just
Speaker 2: an existing and a prevailing vulnerability of our country that
Speaker 2: we still have to some degree to this day.
Speaker 1: All right, and let's turn briefly back to Ukraine for
Speaker 1: part Company today, Daniel Davis. They still have a shortage
Speaker 1: of manpower that has not solved. The problem hasn't been
Speaker 1: solved in the week since we've talked last week. So
Speaker 1: that's the ongoing issue for Ukraine. I mean, successful drone
Speaker 1: strikes or not, they've got to keep guys on the
Speaker 1: front lines, and they have to have the hardware and
Speaker 1: equipment to be able to fight with the remaining people
Speaker 1: they have.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and that's why the headline like the one
Speaker 2: you sided in the Wall Street Journal is embarrassing and
Speaker 2: just humiliating because it doesn't even talk about what's actually
Speaker 2: going on the front line, which I mentioned in the
Speaker 2: Sumi area, it's continuing to going forward. Another point to
Speaker 2: make on this big strike here is that the consequence
Speaker 2: of that also have to be considered. In Russia, a
Speaker 2: lot of them are calling this their pearl harbor moment,
Speaker 2: that you know, they got this strike and whatever. And
Speaker 2: then there's in the news I saw this morning before
Speaker 2: coming on your show is one of the writers in
Speaker 2: one of the op eds of a military review in
Speaker 2: Russia said, this has been our pearl harbor. Now it's
Speaker 2: time for our midway. So they do want some kind
Speaker 2: of a big strike in return. And as we've pointed
Speaker 2: out on your show many times, and you just address here,
Speaker 2: the man power in balance alone, plus all the weapons,
Speaker 2: ammunition and everything else is still irrevocably and decisively on
Speaker 2: the Russian side. So these formations on the front are
Speaker 2: going to continue on, no matter what happened five thousand
Speaker 2: kilometers from the front.
Speaker 1: Any hope of them sitting down, it sounds like every
Speaker 1: time we hear that they're going to sit down and
Speaker 1: have some sort of talk to resolve this, it never
Speaker 1: does happen or nothing becomes of it. Russia can tell.
Speaker 2: You, you know, Brian, one of the most puzzling and
Speaker 2: maddening things about this situation is they had the second
Speaker 2: face to face meeting between Russia and Ukraine yesterday and
Speaker 2: his denbul Both sides entered by giving positions that were
Speaker 2: further apart than they were the previous time that they
Speaker 2: both knew the other side would categorically reject. And that's
Speaker 2: exactly the way it turned out, because in the bottom
Speaker 2: line is neither side wants to negotiated settlement. And that
Speaker 2: sounds odd because you would think that the Ukraine's side
Speaker 2: does because they claim they do. The Russian they claim
Speaker 2: they do. But you see that the Russians is like saying, yeah,
Speaker 2: if you agree to all these draconian terms, right, we'll
Speaker 2: stop fighting today, which means they have to withdraw from
Speaker 2: their the territories where they still have some troops, et cetera.
Speaker 2: You know, de militarization, denoxification, all these things they won't
Speaker 2: do or we said, we'll just keep fighting. And the Nabenzia,
Speaker 2: their Uman Security Council UN ambassador specifically said that at
Speaker 2: the UN Security Council a couple of days ago. But
Speaker 2: on the Ukraine side, you're like, wait a minute, you
Speaker 2: don't have anything to gain by this. If the negotiations fail,
Speaker 2: the offensive will continue on. And yet they sabotage this
Speaker 2: so that there was no way the Russians would agree
Speaker 2: to it. And so we have to really ask, and
Speaker 2: it's an open question, what is the Ukraine in the
Speaker 2: Western European side trying to get done here?
Speaker 1: Uh? A real quick question, because I know we're out
Speaker 1: of time. If let's say, you know, uh, a miracle
Speaker 1: occurred in Ukraine said okay, okay, okay, uh, we'll agree
Speaker 1: to demilitarize. Who would preside over, who would do the
Speaker 1: oversight that would provide sufficient you know, satisfaction for the
Speaker 1: Russians that they did in fact e militari? Is that
Speaker 1: a UN function? Is that an ATO function is a
Speaker 1: function of the Russians looking over it? I guess I'm
Speaker 1: just curious to how that would work functionally.
Speaker 2: Russia actually has addressed part of that question by saying
Speaker 2: it needs to be neutral observers, not NATO, not Russia,
Speaker 2: but like the OSSEE or even other entities from like
Speaker 2: maybe the Global South or something like that. So they
Speaker 2: actually have some working level issue on that. But it's
Speaker 2: not gonna be US and NATO. It's not gonna be
Speaker 2: you know, Russia and Belarus, et cetera. But I mean,
Speaker 2: I hope we get to the point to where we
Speaker 2: have to worry about that, that the fighting stops.
Speaker 1: Actually doesn't sound like we're e anywhere near it right now.
Speaker 1: Daniel Davis. Good to Deve Die with Daniel Davis. Search
Speaker 1: for the podcast where if you get it, and always
Speaker 1: tune in Tuesday at eight thirty for another great discussion
Speaker 1: my friend. Until next Tuesday, have a great week. Always
Speaker 1: my pleasure. See you next week, Brough, Take care brother.
Speaker 1: Eight forty one fifty five KC detalk station stick around.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be talking with Steve from you know Santillation
Speaker 1: coming up.