Daniel Davis Deep Dive

Mike's article:America’s Military Is in Big TroubleU.S. leaders are marching the armed forces down the path of self-destructionhttps://www.theamericanconservative.c... In an interview discussing his article "America’s Military is in Big Trouble", historian Michael Vlahos argues that the U.S. military is in a state of hidden decline following decades of perceived supremacy. He criticizes American political leaders across administrations (Biden, Obama, Bush) for repeating the mantra that the U.S. has “the most incredible military,” while ignoring deeper structural weaknesses.Vlahos introduces the concept of "peak war"—a moment of maximum military effectiveness and psychological triumph that breeds complacency. He explains that after decisive victories (like Desert Storm), militaries often lose touch with what made them successful. This complacency prevents recognition of decline until it's too late.He contrasts this with defeats, like Vietnam, which can shock a military into reform and improvement. He notes that Russia's poor initial performance in Ukraine triggered internal military reforms, making their forces much more formidable today—possibly at or near their own "peak war" moment.Vlahos also outlines four major ways a peak power loses its edge, starting with:The rise of a rival power: The dominant military often underestimates emerging competitors (like China), allowing them to catch up or surpass. He recalls a visit to China in 2013, where he noticed growing confidence in Chinese military circles—a sign the U.S. was being outpaced in naval strength.His central thesis: Victory creates blind spots. Without the humility to reassess, a dominant force is at risk of decaying from within while new challengers rise.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Danny argues that Russia has consistently offered diplomatic terms throughout the conflict, but each time the West has refused, prompting Russia to escalate and tighten its demands. They suggest Russia’s core goal is securing its national security, with “denazification” being difficult but less central than ensuring strategic stability.The minimum Russian objective is seen as reaching and holding the Dnieper River. The maximum could include pushing west of the river, potentially cutting off Odesa without directly storming it—effectively isolating and shrinking Ukraine to a “rump state.” Russia would then contain what remains of Ukraine rather than occupy it, leaving Western-aligned Ukrainians and ultranationalists isolated from the rest.This would represent a reverse containment strategy against NATO, reminiscent of George Kennan’s Cold War doctrine—except now it’s Russia seeking to isolate and outlast a declining West. Russia is increasingly disengaged from Europe economically, and instead, it is deepening alliances with countries to the East and Global South (e.g., China, India, Iran, BRICS).Militarily, Russia is described as advancing methodically but effectively, avoiding costly urban combat where possible and instead seeking to encircle and exhaust Ukrainian forces. Specific examples include recent Russian gains near Chasiv Yar, Kostyantynivka, and advances near Kupyansk and the Kherson front. Russia is employing a fluid, adaptive strategy—likened to a leaking dam—probing for weak points in Ukraine’s defenses and advancing steadily once they appear.The analysis projects that Russia is likely to continue this approach until it secures its desired territorial and security outcomes. While it's unlikely the war ends in weeks, the speaker expects that by this time next year, Russia will have broadly achieved its goals, barring unforeseen changes. The West, meanwhile, is seen as failing to adapt, possibly facing economic and strategic decline as a result.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Western Diplomacy Destroying Itself w/fmr Ambassador Chas FreemanSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this discussion, Professor John Mearsheimer argues that the West appears to be preparing for a prolonged or "frozen" conflict with Russia, even after the Ukraine war ends. He emphasizes that Russia's core demand—security from NATO expansion—doesn’t seem unreasonable and there's no evidence Russia intends further territorial expansion into Europe. Yet, the U.S. and its allies refuse to recognize or accommodate Russia’s security concerns.Mearsheimer and the host both express discomfort at finding Russian narratives more coherent than their own government’s. They believe the U.S. is headed for a humiliating defeat in Ukraine and, rather than accept it, will double down—looking for ways to undermine Russia and regain leverage. This refusal to accept defeat raises the risk of re-escalation, especially in flashpoints like the Arctic, Kaliningrad, Belarus, Moldova, the Black Sea, and the Baltics.Asked what President Trump could do differently, Mearsheimer says even if Trump tried to reverse course and negotiate a peace deal with Putin that accepted Russia’s demands, it would be nearly impossible to get Ukraine, Europe, or the U.S. foreign policy establishment to agree. However, one “less bad” option would be for Trump to broker a deal with Russia, withdraw U.S. military support, and leave Ukraine and Europe to accept or reject it on their own terms. While this could de-escalate the war, Mearsheimer doubts Trump would actually follow through or succeed in overcoming institutional resistance.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Recent revelations from former Trump official Kash Patel claim that burn bags filled with classified documents from the FBI's 2016 Trump-Russia investigation were discovered in a secret room at FBI headquarters. These bags—used for disposing of classified material—were allegedly never destroyed and date back nearly a decade. Patel claims the room, hidden by former FBI Director James Comey and others, also contained computer hard drives and documents never seen before.Skeptics question the plausibility of these claims, raising several red flags:Why were burn bags never incinerated, despite standard government protocol requiring destruction within weeks?Why were they not discovered during the Trump administration or earlier in the Biden administration?Who would hide compromising material, rather than destroy it, knowing they'd lose access after leaving office?The timing of the discovery is suspicious, especially as it aligns with renewed political scrutiny around the Trump-Russia probe and whistleblower allegations. Former CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper responded in a New York Times op-ed, defending their roles and denying that the discredited Steele dossier was used in intelligence assessments. However, Tulsi Gabbard and other critics cite House Intel reports suggesting otherwise, claiming the dossier was included in both the main body and annex of the 2017 intelligence report.Bottom line: The story raises serious questions about internal FBI conduct, document handling, and the credibility of intelligence assessments—but also faces skepticism over its timing, evidence, and common-sense plausibility.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Trump has officially set a 10-day countdown — ending on August 9 — demanding Russia agree to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine, or face unspecified penalties. His announcement, made on Air Force One, was met with skepticism, especially from Russia, which responded with indifference, citing its economic resilience to sanctions.Commentator Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, criticized Trump’s approach as erratic and unserious, noting frequent shifts in deadlines and rhetoric. Johnson compared it to earlier hollow threats, such as the one aimed at Hamas in February. He suggested the new 10-day window may have been prompted either by worsening conditions for Ukraine’s military or pressure from neoconservatives around Trump.Johnson emphasized that Trump has little leverage over Russia, citing minimal U.S.-Russia trade, the ineffectiveness of further sanctions, and the unwillingness of countries like China, India, and Brazil to be coerced. He also pointed out Trump’s failure to take tangible steps toward peace — such as halting aid to Ukraine, appointing diplomats, or restoring Russian assets — and characterized Trump’s behavior as impulsive and performative, rather than strategic.Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov’s calm response suggested that Russia views Trump’s threats as largely irrelevant, underscoring Russia’s growing immunity to Western sanctions and its readiness to ignore U.S. political theatrics.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

a critical analysis of former President Trump's latest attempt to pressure Russia into a ceasefire in Ukraine by issuing another deadline — this time giving Russia until August 9 to comply or face new tariffs and sanctions. Despite his confidence, Trump himself acknowledges that these measures “may or may not” work, prompting confusion over why he’s pursuing them at all.The speaker argues that Trump’s plan lacks credibility for several reasons:Military and Strategic Realities: Russia holds overwhelming advantages over Ukraine in terms of manpower, industrial production, and territorial control. The idea that Russia could be coerced into a ceasefire favorable to Ukraine or the West is seen as detached from the battlefield reality.Repeated Deadlines: Trump has issued multiple ceasefire or peace ultimatums during his presidency — 1 day, 30 days, 50 days — none of which have produced results. Each failed deadline weakens his credibility.Russia’s Position: The Kremlin has consistently rejected unconditional ceasefires and insists any deal must include terms like Ukrainian neutrality, no NATO membership, and recognition of Russian control over annexed territories. None of these demands have changed.Sanctions Ineffectiveness: The West has imposed 18 rounds of sanctions on Russia since 2022, none of which have meaningfully altered Russian behavior. There is skepticism that more sanctions will be any more effective.Political Optics: If the August 9 deadline passes with no Russian change, Trump risks looking ineffective and out of touch — especially after promising he could end the war “in a day.”Lindsey Graham’s Role: Senator Graham supports Trump’s tough stance, comparing it to Trump's approach to Iran. However, the speaker dismisses the comparison as absurd, noting Russia’s far greater power and nuclear capabilities.In conclusion, the commentary portrays Trump’s actions as performative and strategically empty, likely to fail and only further damage U.S. credibility in the conflict.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this riveting discussion, Doug Macgregor, a decorated combat veteran and defense expert, critiques Donald Trump’s erratic Ukraine war strategies, accusing him of lacking geopolitical insight. He argues that Trump's personal relationships won't sway Russia, which views Ukraine as a critical threat. Macgregor highlights America’s aggressive foreign policies, warns of the dangers posed by provoking Russia, and critiques leadership failures in international negotiations. With sharp insights, he navigates the complexities of U.S. foreign policy and its implications for global stability.

The discussion highlights the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza, focusing on mass starvation, restricted food access, and systematic violence. Both President Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer have publicly expressed concern, with Starmer going further—announcing the UK may recognize a Palestinian state if Israel doesn’t cease hostilities.Genocide scholar and Israeli-born Professor Omar Bartov (Brown University) states the destruction in Gaza surpasses that of Hiroshima. He describes deep personal and professional distress, noting that even as a former IDF soldier, he finds the current war nearly impossible to watch. He also fears returning to Israel due to potential legal risks for criticizing the government.Bartov explains that Israel severely restricted food aid, initially blocking all humanitarian entry after October 7. Under U.S. pressure, it later allowed limited food distribution through a newly created Israeli-American-backed "humanitarian" group. However, only four distribution points were established (down from 400 by the UN previously), requiring long, dangerous journeys—favoring young, strong individuals and excluding the most vulnerable like children, pregnant women, and the elderly.He strongly criticizes the system’s design: food is dumped and left for crowds to fight over, likened to feeding wild animals. The Israeli military reportedly uses live fire and tank/artillery rounds as "crowd control" when people rush the food drops, resulting in over 1,000 civilians killed—including the most desperate.Bartov argues this isn’t a failure but intentional policy. Prime Minister Netanyahu admitted the food distribution scheme was designed to forcibly move Gaza’s population southward. The placement of food points reflects this aim, making it logistically impossible for people to remain in the north. According to Bartov, this amounts to forced displacement by design—largely unreported or under-explained in mainstream media.Ultimately, Bartov claims that the purpose of this food system was not to feed but to weaponize hunger and displacement, while U.S. and international complicity has enabled it.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Trump abruptly shortened his original 50-day Ukraine ultimatum to a vague 10–12-day deadline, which many view as erratic and unserious. Analysts suggest the ambiguity reflects either a lack of a real plan or a deliberate attempt to appear unpredictable. While Trump claims the goal is an unconditional ceasefire, such an outcome is seen as unrealistic given Russia’s consistent rejection of similar proposals.Russia appears largely indifferent to the new deadline, continuing its operations as usual. Commentators speculate the U.S. may be planning some form of military or strategic move behind the scenes—perhaps more sanctions, a surprise Ukrainian operation, or even a leadership change in Ukraine.Zelensky responded enthusiastically to Trump’s comments, reaffirming Ukraine’s willingness to work with him and blaming Russia for obstructing peace. However, observers argue Zelensky is detached from geopolitical reality, especially regarding the ineffectiveness of sanctions, which have not meaningfully harmed Russia’s economy.Analysts also stress that the U.S. can no longer rely on surprise tactics or goodwill diplomacy—Russia, like Iran, has learned not to expect sincerity from Washington. Ultimately, Trump’s shifting ultimatums and threats of broader sanctions—including against allies like India and China—are seen as desperate and diplomatically incoherent. His strategy lacks a consistent framework and may backfire internationally.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.