The Duran Podcast - Escalation insanity or 5D chess with Daniel Davis / Deep Dive (Live)

Episode Date: November 26, 2024

Escalation insanity or 5D chess with Daniel Davis / Deep Dive (Live)

Okay, we are live with Alexander Mercuris and Colonel Daniel Davis from the excellent show and YouTube channel Deep Dive. Mr. Daniel Davis, how are you doing? Thank you for joining us again. Doing all right. Thank you for joining us again on the Duran end. Where can people find you? I already mentioned the name of your channel, but give it a shout out again. Yeah, the Daniel Davis Deep Dive, if you top that into YouTube, it should take you right there.

It's on we also are on Twitter and some other places. I can't remember where we're at, podcasting, etc. We've actually branched into that as well. So, yeah, anywhere they top that, Daniel Davis deep dive in, they should be able to find us, and we'd be grateful to have them.

Yeah, I saw that you are now on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. So that's awesome. Congratulations. Thank you. Appreciate that. Fantastic shirt, by the way. Yeah.

Do you like my stuff? Where can I, where can I get one? you think it's right below the screen. I think there's a link to the Duran Shop. And more importantly, there is a link to Daniel Davis Deep Dive in the description box down below. And I will add the links to follow Daniel Davis Deep Dive as a pin comment when the live stream is over. Thank you to everyone that is watching us on all the platforms. Thank you to our moderators. Let's get started, Alexander. Daniel Davis, we have a lot to cover. So let's begin. Let's begin indeed because events are taking very, very dramatic turns in the conflict in Ukraine at the moment.

I know you've been following it very closely, Colonel Davis. So we have someone who understands war. There's been some extraordinary articles appearing in the British media. There was one about two or three days ago on the BBC, which talked about the real possibility that the Ukrainian front lines might collapse. We've had another strong article today in Reuters, which doesn't say quite that, but it does talk about a very, very grim military situation. And we have a very frightening escalatory pattern starting to develop with missile strikes against Russia itself. The Russian Defence Ministry has confirmed two more attack and strikes today. and they're talking about retaliation.

And of course, we had the revelation that the Russians have this very powerful missile, the Orrashnik, which they demonstrated in this attack against the Nyehprok power plant, the NEPRO missile factory. So very dramatic, very frightening, very worrying news. Now, I'm going to start, since you're a person who understands these things better,

I think that, you know, most of us, where are we in the wall? I mean, I've been looking at the events on the battlefronts, certainly in southern Donbass, as far as I can see, things are moving much faster than they were. There was comments about that on the BBC, as I said, on Royces this morning. But what is your general sense of the state of the battle? Yeah, there's additional information out also this morning from Julian Rupka, who I know you respect quite a bit.

He actually published a video this morning, about a 20-minute video. I'd recommend anybody to go watch. it because obviously he's he's not entirely neutral he's he's honest and he's accurate but he's not entirely neutral he's always said that he cares about the ukraine side uh and that should tell you something when you watch this video because there's a section in the beginning especially to where he shows that in the southern uh eastern front in the donbos area uh in the donetsk area i think specifically uh there has been something like a collapse of the the ukrainian forces and one of the things that stood up to me the most about that is

not just the speed with which the Russians are moving. He showed several videos that depicted a lightly armored or unarmored Russian vehicles, it taken part in this large movement that would otherwise ordinarily just be, you know, sitting ducks to be hit, but they're effectively driving. They're not being hit. They're going into the operations. And then, of course, there are some tanks as well. But then they go into, he shows that there's one area where they go into a well defended Ukrainian position, which got his attention and definitely got mine, because unlike some of the other things that had happened earlier in the middle part of this year, where you may recall, actually early in the summer, when the Russians made this unexpected push into

the Kharkiv area and a lot of the problems where there was no defenses in the area and they were, you know, they hadn't even been built, et cetera. Well, in this area, there was some very elaborately defended trench lines. And he showed some video of them. But he said the problem is, that there were not enough Ukrainian men. So the Russians just swarmed into the place and took it over, and there weren't enough Ukrainians to defend it. And this was a well-defendant area, but that shows that their manpower is lacking.

Then he went in to talk about the Kursk area, and he talked it's 40% has already been taken off, and the Ukraine side is just losing manpower. But then he also pointed out that the Russians are gaining manpower and that they have entire new brigades to bring into the fight when some of the other ones that have been hit hard, have been rotated out. that doesn't occur on the Ukraine side.

So everywhere you look on the tactical battlefield, things are falling apart for the Ukraine side. And I know you and I've been talking about this for months, really, on back and forth on each other's show, that there's a risk that the thing could physically collapse at some point, and we may be nearing that final breakpoint now. Is that your feeling? Because can I just say somebody who's been in battle,

and I don't think there's any substitute for having actually been in battle, by the way, to understand war. That has been the absolute conclusion I have come to. As somebody who's been in battle, is that your feeling that we are moving now towards a point of maybe let's not use the word collapse because I don't even know quite what that means actually, but at least a point of crisis, a point when the Ukrainians are starting to run out of options and they're not really clear any longer what they can do with the resources that they have. Yeah, they are already out of options, but they have been tenaciously

fighting on forward anyway. And, you know, a lot of this legendary courage from the Ukrainian side, which is completely legitimate and valid and true. And it has been. But that's also a negative because that means you continue to fight when you probably shouldn't. And it just gets more people killed. And there's a, I can talk to some of that graphically. There was a piece in the New York Times, I guess it was last month, definitely last month. that showed the graphic on a table how much territory Russia had been taken by the month and this actually going back 24 months. But from June of this year on forward, you saw almost a doubling of the amount of square

kilometers taken by the Russian side up until a then record since 2022 when that came out in October that I think it was somewhere around 500 square kilometers had been taken. They said that was the most they'd taken in any month since early in 2022 when the initial invasion happened. and now then the news out this morning in the New York Times is that that has already been exceeded. So now it's 600 square kilometers still with a full week to go. And as you saw or as I told you in the Rukk of a piece there, there was, I think it was 70 square kilometers in five days, had been lost just in five days.

And he contrasted that with the Ukrainian in 2023 that took them three months to take 12 kilometers and now then Russia took that in basically five days of recent fighting. That's going to continue on. It's happening also in the Kupiansk area and the Kursk area. They just don't have enough reserves to stop the flow anywhere. And every time they take them from one place to put it to another, that place starts to go down. And so everywhere you look, the pace is increasing, which leads to the conclusion that at some

point it's inevitable, it must result in a break in the defense. Can I just ask a historical question? I know you're from Texas. The one war I have studied in some detail is the war between the States, the American Civil War. Does this not have some resemblance in the sense that the South,

the armies of the South fought with extraordinary courage, incredible resilience, but ultimately they were just overwhelmed by the fact that the North had far superior resources? And isn't this something like what we're seeing now? I know that you're from Texas, I think. So, I mean, doesn't this have something of that resemblance to you? That ultimately, there are two similarities.

One is the American Civil War to whereas the North just finally under Grant just said, we're going on a scorched earth and we're just going to literally annihilate everything in our path and just shoot it like locusts coming on farmlands, et cetera. And they just methodically moved past. and there was nothing that could be done. The South didn't want to negotiate for the longest time. And so they said, okay, as long as you want to fight, we'll keep going down because they had the superior resources.

There was literally nothing the South could do to stop that. The other similarity is in the latter stages of the Second World War when you had the Russians. I'm sorry, yeah, the Russians that were moving against the Germans. The Germans had lost millions of men. You know, all their great guys had long since been killed and they're good leaders. And you just can't replace those. with putting another person in a uniform, and they had the,

it's called the Folk Sturm, where they were literally just putting anybody in a uniform, looked like the Germans, but they could never again fight like them, and all they did was lose slowly. And that's what I see happening right now, is that, and I don't know, we talked about this too many times,

but there were negotiations on the table with the Minsk agreements. We can go back that far, December, 2021, April, 2022, November 2020, and then this past June, all of them had been rejected, And instead they keep fighting. And all of its result is not changing the outcome because the outcome has been known from almost the beginning. But it is increasing the cost for the Ukraine to lose.

And every day we wait for negotiated settlement, it just means more. Ukrainian people are unnecessarily killed. And probably the end result will be less Ukrainian territory that stays under key of control. Do you not feel frustrated? Because I have been reading you, I've been following what you've been saying and writing about this wall, from right from the beginning. And it seems to me that the outcome that we're seeing, it's not obviously followed exactly any particular pattern,

but it has followed very, very closely what you were saying would happen, that ultimately Ukraine had difficulty. It was all but impossible to see a Ukrainian route to military victory. And that, it seems to me, is increasingly what we see, what we're seeing now. And yet, every day, for weeks, for years rather, we have had this chorus of people in the West, in London, in Washington, in Brussels, in Berlin, talking that we must go on

supporting Ukraine until they achieve whatever it is that their objective is, which Zelensky has described in the most, I think, idealistic utopian terms. frustration is not even as much as that they say we're going to keep supporting them until, as you said, until they have achieved. They don't even go that far. They just say for as long as it takes, never defining what it is. So no one even knows really what the objective is other than just keep fighting. And I mean, I can just look at battlefield math. I can look at the history of warfare. You can just count. And it's and it was self-evident from the beginning that there was no valid path for Ukraine ever. And just to kind of give you a sense of my frustration, I want to say it was on

about the 14th day of the war. Somewhere in the second week, early part of March, I went on CNN, was on with Wolf Blitzer and was given this assessment. I was on with another guest. And the first thing I said right away was what the Ukraine side should do right now is seek a negotiated settlement on the best terms available and in this war right now. And that took him aback because at that time, of course, everybody was saying, well, here comes Hitler Part 2, and everybody has to stand against him. And, you know, they're like, wait, they're resisting. They haven't lost Kiev and all this kind of stuff.

And I said, there's no path to victory here. This is what they should do to limit the damage here and get out of this with as little as it can be. Now, what happened next was that the producer in my ear said, hey, we need you to stick by because we may come back to you later in this segment. So they went to commercial break after that. And the next one was going to be a certain U.S. ambassador that would come on. and what they didn't know him and what Blitzer was that my mic was or my earpiece was still on. And those two guys said, did you hear what that lieutenant colonel said?

What is his problem, man? He's like this defeatist kind of guy and he's ready to just surrender to the Russians. And that was their mentality then and it's at least on the elite side has never changed. But let me ask Mr. Blitzer and that certain ambassador, how many Ukrainian people are dead today that were alive on that day? How much territory did Kiev own on that? day and how much less do they own today, how much less are they going to own tomorrow, etc. Those are the questions that I want to put a mic in their face and say, now you tell me how brave and smart you were back then to continue supporting a war that rationally could never

have been what from the beginning. This is not anything new. And yeah, I'm frustrated. Okay. Let's talk about these military, these missile strikes on Russia. What are they intended to achieve in military terms? Because I haven't understood it. Nobody has explained to me what these military strikes are intended to do. I mean, are they going to defeat the Russian army? Are they going to change the entire situation on the war? If not, what purpose do they actually serve? I mean, nobody's explained this properly to me. Is there any kind of military, sound military logic for doing this thing? Sound military logic. That's the standard right there. A couple of things.

Number one, there is no valid military utility in having these long-range weapons. And you don't need any more evidence to prove that than to see, we'll just take a single day, the 17th of November of this year. Ukraine reported, this is not even the Russians, I don't just leave them out of the equation in terms of information. Ukraine reported that 120 missiles were used by the Russians against Ukraine all over the country. And they hit a bunch of stuff. that was along with a number of drones as well.

Most of those were, the drones were shot down, but some got through and it interrupted their air defense systems, whatever. And a majority of those missiles struck and they hit their targets. And it hurt, command centers, energy systems, et cetera. And it hurt, but obviously it wasn't decisive. There are from resources that I've got in the U.S. government here, somewhere between 50 and 100 total A-Tacom's missiles that we have and less than half of that many storm shadow missiles that are even available in the inventory, meaning that the best that you could do

was match what Russia did on one day, which was part of their two-year campaign of long-range missiles, which have exceeded 6,000 so far. And you see that in this relatively small country that has almost no, certainly no good air defense, very limited capability, it still hasn't knocked them out of the war. So the idea that, let's say that there's a total of 150, let's give them the benefit of the doubt Storm Shadow and A. Tackams and maybe scalp as well, that that was to do anything militarily in about six to eight weeks before the administration coming in that's designed expressly to say we're going to end the war. I mean, it is self-evidently the answer is nothing. But there is a huge risk that it could escalate the conflict. So that means, for my assessment, one of two things

is true. Either there is an exceptional and an unbelievable delusion among some of the senior leaders in the West, and that's writ large, not just the United States, not just UK, certainly I have to add France into that, that they're incredibly delusioned that they actually think that somehow it can, despite the evidence before, or they don't think it's going to and make a difference, but they want it to escalate the war so that before Trump comes in, then we have an escalated war that now he's obligated to just keep fighting. Now, I hope it's not the second one, because that would imply that there are some incredibly immoral

and egregiously bad leaders that could literally threaten all of our lives with a nuclear escalation if it gets that far, and it could. Although the former is not too much more comforting, at least maybe you don't have the moral degradation, but you have this incredibly dangerous, elite crust that's overall going on in the Western right now that could still get us inadvertently drawn into this war because Putin has been very clear and very measured in what he's done so far. But the fact that after he has fired his arrestnik and after he has lowered his nuclear

threshold, we launch another round, apparently two more today. We're basically begging Putin or threatening him by saying, I don't believe you. I don't think you are going to escalate. I'm calling your bluff. And that is just, I cannot tell you how radically irrational that is. What did you think of the irrational? I mean, what was your assessment of this? I mean, we don't know very much about it. We don't know exactly what kind of a system it is.

I've heard various, I think you spoke, I watched you, having a very, very interesting discussion with Theodore Postal, who had some very, very interesting and I thought plausible theories about what it might be. But to me, whatever it is, I mean, whether it's a glide vehicle or an evolution of the Blava, ICBM, the sea-launched one, whatever it is, this looks like an awesome missile. How do you say that a government, a country, a leader that possesses weaponry like that, a bluffing? I simply do not understand. I mean, it seems to me that is extraordinarily dangerous thinking.

But what is your feeling? Yeah, it goes way beyond dangerous. It's reckless. It's not even a gamble because a gamble, maybe you get lucky and you hit the number and you get a bunch of money. This is reckless because there is no possibility of an upside. There is no action that the U.S. or the West can be taking here that leaves them in a better position than they are today or that they were before. the long range missiles were authorized in the first place. So it's all negative and the question is how negative is it going to be?

And a lot of it depends on what Russia does because I think as you mentioned at the outset of the show, they've already publicly said there will be a response to this. And I think that because the only hope I have is that Putin is a rational actor and he does see that Trump is, you know, heading in there and that he is willing to talk. Trump is as opposed to the current administration and that things will probably change on that. Maybe he can get by. So he, as opposed to the next step being firing what Putin also said, by the way, in the immediate aftermath of the first strike, he said, we reserve the right to strike outside of Ukraine in the militaries of anyone who is responsible for this. And now that we've called his bluff. I doubt that he will do that next because I think that he still wants to preserve the possibility of limping into January 20th to avoid a huge escalation that would be catastrophic for everyone.

we'll see what that happens. But then that implies that whatever he does, and it'll do something, that then we don't overreact to that again and go, aha, I told you that evil wicked, Vladimir Putin dictator guy, he'd see what he's doing. We can't trust him.

We have to respond in kind. And then there'll be people saying that, you know, you just keep crawling up that escalation ladder. And again, there's no good into it. It's only bad. And I worry about what's going to happen next.

I could I just say I think you're right I think what Putin is going to do he's certainly going to react I think he's going to limit it the Russians are going to limited to Ukrainian territory for the time being I personally think they're going to wait and hope that when the new administration comes when President Trump is inaugurated then we can turn a new leaf and leave this very very dangerous period behind us I think that is what the Russians are going to do so some of the very very very I will tell you, though, that that that's a, that's a probability, but not a certainty, because from what I understand from multiple sources that inside the Kremlin, Putin is under enormous pressure from his own inner circle.

And he's not this dictator that we think. He actually has some limitations of power. And I'm told by two complete separate sources that there is increasing pressure on him to strike to say, all right, we've had our bluff called one too many times. it's time to do something next. So I will carve out that there's a possibility that Putin, for his own internal reasons, may be forced to do something. But again, we'll have to wait and see. But I worry about that factor as well. I think you're absolutely right about that. I mean, again, there is a Russian public opinion, which is very, very angry.

And there is also, there are also people in the Kremlin who are definitely saying, you know, we can't just continue to absorb this in the way that we have been. But I still think that his own personal calculus is try to see this thing through for the next two months. Totally agree. That's my guess. That is my guess. Now, that brings us to what happens. After the next two months, do you think that there is an understanding among some people in the United States, people who might be in the new government, in the new administration, about quite how dangerous the situation is?

because it seems to me we're getting very discordant messages. People like Mr. Gorker talking about pressuring Putin to do X, Y, Z, which I don't think is going to help us very much. Others seem to be much more realistic about what can be done. What is your feeling? I mean, obviously this is difficult because none of us really knows, and I think it's fair to say none of us is talking to Mr. Trump every day. But you know, you're closer to the scene than we are. What do you think the balance within the administration, the new administration is going to be? Well, I'll tell you, I don't have any access to Trump himself, but I do have a number of sources, we'll just say, that are on the inner circle.

And there is some confusion even among them and some uncertainty as to exactly what the intent is. And ultimately, it's going to come down to what Donald Trump himself says, because you mentioned Sebastian Gorka and some of the, just absurd nonsense that he said a couple of days ago about, you know, all the support we've given so far will be peanuts compared to what we'll do if Putin doesn't give in to Trump's demands. Look, Trump doesn't have a strong hand here. Not anything, no ding on him, but he's been handed a really weak hand in comparison to the strong hand that Russia has.

So you understand that on the negotiating side, that's not going to pressure Russia into anything because they can completely ignore the incoming administration, do whatever they want on the battlefield. But then you look at other people like. the incoming national security advisor, Mike Waltz, who is saying something's good. And then something's almost not so good where he was on Fox News, I think on Sunday.

And he said, hey, look, there's a lot of risk of escalation here. And it is in our interest to get this thing wrapped up and get off the table. So certainly that's a positive thing. But then he oddly in the same interview said that, you know, we're hand in glove with Jake Sullivan head down to this. And I'm like, you don't want to be hand in glove with that guy. That's what we're trying to break out of.

of because he's been the one that's been continuing the war. So it's unclear what he meant by that. Maybe he meant just the transition is going hand and glove. I hope that's a charitable interpretation. I hope it's the right one. But then you have some other people like Tulsi Gabbard, for example, in the national, you know, the director of national intelligence, which is one of those vital positions because, you know, she is in the president's ear on all these issues.

And I can tell you from personal experience, she is absolutely, I think, the best selection of this entire cabinet. is sharply focused on ending this war. So that's a good sign and that's a good thing. But ultimately, whether it's, you know, Gorka who's got one Trump's era or Tulsi Gabbard, who's got the other one, it's the guy in the middle who's going to be making the decisions. And that's a role of the dust to figure out what he's going to do. Anyway, it's interesting that he's picking people like Gabbard and others who do seem to want to bring the war to an end. I mean, You never saw that with the current administration that we have.

We've never seen any kind of moderates. So I think it's a point always to remember. What do you make of the US's European allies? And I mean here specifically our government in London, my government in London, I should say, which seems to be straining at the leash to get Britain into terrible trouble. That is my own sense of what they're trying to do. I mean, what do you make of all of this? I golly, just puzzlement because, look, you have Fizzo or Bon, who are sharply focused,

who are right there closest to the Russian in Europe, and they understand what needs to happen to get this war over. They recognize there's no benefit to continue in this war and a great risk and continue it, and they are outspoken in that direction. And then you have way over on the other side, you have Kier-Starmer, you have Manuel Macron and they seem to be detached from reality. And I mean, why in the world they want to get together and say, we're actually considering putting British and French troops in Western Ukraine while

they are eager to say, yes, use to scalp, yes, use to storm shadow missiles. Sure, even though they know that there's only like a handful of them, a tiny number, and they know, they have to know that they're not going to have any strategic impact at all. yet, then you have the, I think it's the British Armed Forces General, the highest-ranking guy saying, we're ready to fight tonight. We can do it all. And we can take, you know, and I'm like, okay, have you looked at your org chart lately? I just, you correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's roughly 168,000 total men in the active British forces, which when you actually get the fighting number of troops in there, it's probably a division, a couple of two

or three divisions, maybe, not more than that. And don't have a lot of recent combat experience to say. So I'm not sure what these guys are actually thinking they're going to accomplish here when the Russian side is 500,000 bigger than it was in February of 2022 and battle hardened and they actually have capabilities. They have new weapons of war they didn't even have back then. They know how the fight on the ground. I mean, it would be a foolhardy thing to actually get involved with the Russia right now. So why in the world they're doing anything besides You know what? Trump's come in. He's talking about a negotiated settlement. Let's just get behind whatever he's doing now. Let's get this thing off the table and start moving on with whatever's next. That's what makes sense. And they're not doing it. I don't get it. Absolutely. Can I just say that is what British governments of the past would have done. They would have always wanted to work with the Americans with someone like Trump to try to establish peace in Europe. That was the consistent policy of British governments throughout the Cold War. They tend to.

to see themselves as a moderating force on the Americans, if anything, not as a radicalizing force. And I find it very odd to understand this. I mean, even Margaret Thatcher, who is often considered a very hardline figure in terms of relations with the Soviets, as it was then. She was a person who always counseled moderation, negotiation, looking for ways to stabilize the situation in Europe. people in the United States getting frustrated with Britain. I think I've asked you this question once before. But there is an article, which I've just recently read by Anato Levin, a very well-known academic and analyst here, in which he was saying that we're playing a very dangerous game in Britain by doing what we're doing, not just with the Russians, but with the Americans as well, in the sense that Trump might not be happy

that we're trying to escalate this thing just a few weeks before he takes office. Well, yeah, it's puzzling to me for that reason as well because Biden lost, Harris lost, so they're not going to be in power, you know, a month and a half from now. So when you know the guys coming in has articulated here's where he's going,

why are you trying to double down over here? Because, I mean, what is he? Trump is not one that says, okay, well, I like it if you did what I want, but cool, if you want to do your own thing, that's fine. I mean, he doesn't take that very well. And so Trump has a long memory, too. He doesn't forget things. And if you're doing something that undermines what he has stated is about to be American government policy, I just don't see what's going to happen because, I mean, you would almost expect that Starmor, and he's been emphatic in his talk about continuing to support, et cetera. I mean, is he going to go on like a literal 180 all of a sudden on January 21st?

I mean, I don't know what he's going to do, but I can't see how he would maintain his current position after Trump is inaugurated because then that would put the two sides like this. So I'm truly and puzzled and wonder what his positions or what his action is going to be. So what is the general plan of all at this escalation, both from the American side, both from the Biden administration side? from the British side and the European side. I mean, there's all this wild talk sending troops to Ukraine. I think you, by the way, you've answered whatever question I was going to ask there

because clearly this is, when even the Estonian Defence Minister is saying this is not a wise idea for the British and the French to be talking about it. It says something exactly. Anyway, there's talk about sending troops. There's talk about, well,

there's fact of sending missiles. Even some talk in the Uy York Times, which I cannot believe about supply Ukraine with nuclear weapons of all things. I mean, which I think, I mean, that must be a lunatic fringe coming up with that. I would like to believe that. This delusional as our leaders are, they're not that crazy. I mean, to hand that guy. I mean, he's been trying to draw us into the war from day one.

I mean, literally from day one, he's been trying to draw us in. So I can't see there's any possibility that would ever happen. But, you know, the bigger picture is you see. Washington Post was reporting this morning that Biden is basically just like has a bake sale on and like everything must go and he's like everything they have. They're trying to get it out the door

before January 20th. And the only thing I can figure, well, similar to the two things earlier. One is that he says, okay, I think what Trump is doing is wrong. We should have continued to help him. And so now then, before Trump comes in and turns off to spic it while I still have control, I want everything out the door so that they can get it and defend themselves.

meaning that he is not rationally understanding that it doesn't matter, that it won't change anything. And if, golly, if the whole year of 20, 23 didn't prove that in profound ways, I don't know what the last, you know, month and a half is going to do you thinking that somehow,

in light of everything that Julian Ripka shot talked about this morning, that somehow that's going to make any difference. When they don't have the men, it doesn't matter how much stuff you give them, how many weapons and money and anything else. But that seems to be what's driving, Biden right now. I just don't think he's thinking it what it's going to mean. He's just like, well, Trump's going to turn off the spigot, so throw it out the door. And then, of course,

the only other plausible explanation is, you know, the nefarious one that they want to expand the war. So before Trump gets in and then he'll have to keep fighting. But, you know, that's, yeah, I don't know, one of those two. I mean, I mean, none of that, neither of these is rational, seems to me. And the first one, not rational, plausible, not rational. And the first one, I mean, it sounds to me like making decisions from anger. And I'm going to make a guess that even more in war, you do not want to make decisions in anger. As we say in England, decisions made in anger are repented at leisure.

And making dangerous decisions, reckless decisions, because you're emotional. You feel that the other side is going to, the other man is going to make a mistake. So you're going to just give everything you've got to the European. And I think what's... compounding this from the elite United States side is that, let's see, I've heard at least for sure, General Jack Keene, Ben Hodges and John Bolton emphatically say throughout that don't worry about nuclear respiration. It ain't going to happen. Putin knows if he ever does that. He signed his own death warrant. He's not a suicidal. So forget about it. And I think they actually believe that. And so many people. And I was on Fox News a couple of days ago. And, and, and the anchor got into a debate with me about these things. He actually thinks that Russia is about to fall apart and that we're just handing over Ukraine to him by acknowledging reality.

And of course, I didn't have time in a three-minute interview to explain to him that we're in this position because of unrealistic policies for the last three years. And that goes back to before the war started. They just can't see that. And that's what worries me is that they may not recognize how serious these policies are if they're carrying. through because of Putin. And we're, it's so ironic, man, that we are counting on on prudence from Vladimir Putin to keep the world out of a nuclear escalation. And right now, that's probably the only thing holding us back. Daniel Davis, on that extraordinary insightful point, and by the way, very concerning one, you know, that we're counting on the leader of Russia to keep us alive.

And with that, I'm going to, I'm going to stop my questions there. Thank you for answering all my questions so thoroughly and fully. I'm going to hand over to Alex because we've only got you for a limited amount of time, and I know there's heaps of questions. We have 15 minutes to get as many questions into Colonel Davis as possible. So let's begin. Sparky says when I was in the U.S. Army in the 1980s in West Germany, I was fortunate to have officers like Colonel Daniel Davis. He represents the best in U.S. military leadership. That's from Sparky. I appreciate that. From A. Keen, would love to hear an assessment of how likely Russia is to hit outside Ukraine as the U.S. escalation continues. I believe the U.S. does not care how many Ukraine targets or people are destroyed.

So Russia is forced to strike, say Akrotiri and Cyprus, for example, thanks at advance. Yeah, or the missile base, missile interceptor base with the Aege's ashore in Poland, or with Ramstein Air Base in Germany, really any place. you can pick out half a dozen places in Romania as well. There is a genuine risk of that. We talked about this a little bit earlier in the show that the likelihood, my guess, my analysis is that the next round that Russia is going to do in response to what we did earlier today with the long-range missiles is it's going to be some target inside of Ukraine.

I still think, Alexander, that there's probably like a 90% probability that's the case, even with this pressure inside the Kremlin. But if there is an additional provocation after that, if that next round, whatever Russia does inside of Ukraine, doesn't put the brakes on. And then there's an additional strike. And especially if something, whether it's a storm shadow scalp or attack, if it hits something of substance inside of Russia and hurts and kills a lot of people, then I think that it's flipped over now. I think it's a 90% probability that the next Russian missile lands outside of Ukraine. Okay, sopy, soapy, orc says question for Colonel Davis, how long until the extent of U.S. operations inside Ukraine are known? It took 30 years for the U.S. ops inside Laos, Cambodia, etc., were known.

Now U.S. covert ops are known more quickly. Yeah, well, a lot of that depends on what happens next, you know, and how bad this ends up getting and whether Trump's able to come in and, you know, keep this thing off the press. precipice of, you know, at nuclear escalation, because obviously if something like that happens, I don't know that anybody's going to care to even find out, because it could get that bad. But if it doesn't, then, yeah, a lot of things get leaked these days, but just based on some of my own knowledgeable about things that have happened over the last couple of decades, you'd be surprised how strong the state is. And I don't say the, I hesitate to say the deep state because that has at least nefarious devil, but people in power, I'll put it that way, have a role.

remarkable ability to keep something secret. So it may be a long time before we find out. From Nikos, have you seen the show fallout in it? The oligarch elites cause nuclear war in order to reset the world and remake it in their image. We are seeing this in real life. Some of these people, as insane as it is, want a nuclear war with interviews pointing to this desire of a reset. Do you think we're seeing a reset? You know, I would like to just say that's movie stuff. That doesn't happen in real life. But look, given this like Alexander and I were bantering back and forth, some of these actions are either incredible delusions or they're taken intelligently by intention, knowing the risk, wanting the risk. I can't say,

I don't have any insider information on that. I don't have any access to know. So I can't say with any confidence what's going on, but I can just tell you from sitting back here and looking at all of these actions and see in what is known and the actions in light of that, I just can't negate that possibility. I've seen people say that that's the case that certain elements want to war, obviously as long as a bomb didn't fall on them, but in their family members. But I don't know why anyone would want to do that. What reset means? Because if you don't have a functioning world and a functioning economy and a global economy, you're not even going to be able to enjoy it. So I'm not sure what anybody thinks they would have, but the problem is if you get some delusional thinking

by people with power and money, all kinds of things that make no sense can come to pass. And so I just can't eliminate that as a possibility. All right. From Christoph, Oreznik seems to be a version of the Bulova sub-missile from 2019. Can you comment on this? Now, I'm not a missile expert. Some of my friends are, there's also some news reports out that it's a version of the RS 26 missile, which has been in development since at least 2008. I want to say, I think it was first tested in 2011.

But right now, we're just doing a lot of forensics from a long distance. And, you know, there was some allegedly some missile parts that were recovered by the Ukrainian side in Denepro after that missile was fired. And we may know a lot more after that. out. But right now, all I know is what's in the media press. Right. From Nuno Lucas, they say that the USA can supply nuclear weapons to Ukraine. Do you believe there is a possibility of this happening? No, categorically, I don't. No one's delusional enough, not to that level in the White House. And plus, it would be, I don't think that there's even legally a possibility of doing that. We've never even talked about letting any nation, even some of our staunch allies, have nuclear

weapons. I can't imagine any scenario, any scenario that someone is a loose cannon is Vladimir Zelensky is going to be given a nuclear weapon that could then rebound and blow up in our face and result in Washington, D.C., getting nuked and retaliation, et cetera. So no, I give that no credibility whatsoever. From Klaus Vatna, U.S. knows it can't win and the attackans have no strategic purpose. Bauer says the U.S. can win a limited nuclear war. Is that the goal? And why? And why is Is Trump silent? That second part is a bit of a head scratcher, I got to say. I thought he would have come out much stronger publicly, like right away at this because

it was like, hey, you're basically sabotaging what I'm about to come in and do. So I've been a little surprised that he hasn't said anything. Some of his incoming national security team have said a few things in the recent days, but it's not strong and it's not direct. you mentioned Sebastian Gorka who made that boneheaded comment over the weekend, I think, about, you know, yeah, we're going to put pressure on them. And, you know, it'll be peanuts compared to what has happened so far, whatever. That was dialed back. So I think Trump said, hey, just cool it a little bit because I saw him on an interview this morning and he didn't say any of those things and he was much more measured.

So again, it seems to me you kind of gave away an opportunity to really, I mean, put some pressure on the current administration by the American people, if nothing else, by saying, hey, stop doing this kind of stuff here, but he hasn't seemed to take it. And I can only guess why. Like I said, I do have some sources inside the Trump campaign, and they don't know either. They said Trump is his own man on some of these things, and he is kind of close to the vest on this one for some reason. And we don't really know. From Chili Pepper finally caught alive. What does Colonel Davis think of Matthew Whitaker and his history in the Balkans?

I have to admit, I'm not sure who Matthew Whitaker is. Because do you know who he is? No, no. No, I think he's the A. I want to say he was being considered for AG, but I'm not, I'm not sure either. Oh. The name, the name is. I'm so sorry.

You got to be. Yeah. Yes, no one question. I don't know. Anyway, we'll take a look. We'll take a look at exactly. From Matthew, surely they will take out the Ukrainian government. Do you think this is possible?

No. Davis. Who is they in this case? The Russians. The Russians in the next. No, no, I don't think so. I mean, well, okay, in the possible next ones, that's, that actually is. I mean, obviously they haven't done it up to this point by a matter of choice and decision, not because they couldn't. I mean, hardly anything in Kiev has been hit this whole time.

Russia's been really moderate on that. A lot of people I know in Russia have been saying, why didn't you go after the, the Rada quite a long time ago or the presidential palace or whatever they call it there? I don't know. He hasn't so far. but if it keeps going in this direction, I know I've been seeing on Russian telegram channels, a growing course of people trying to put pressure on Putin to say,

hey, this has gone too far. It's time to take action here. And whereas I could have said in the previous times, really almost all throughout this war, that it was not in Russia's interest to do so, I now can't say that as much anymore. And now I think that the reasons for them to withhold themselves in the past is being deteriorated by the Ukraine side, by the U.S., British, France, etc.

And they're actually making him more vulnerable. And listen, there's also the risk that, you know, Zelensky's own people finally get, you know, so tired of this. I mean, we see already that there's so many people are protesting against all their family members being taken off the streets. And a lot of people have been, the guys who are recruiting them are being killed because people are tired of it and they don't want their loved ones. It's not at all unreasonable suggest that there could be enough anger rising up to see that they see what we see right here,

that they're being sent into a near certain death, a war that they know can't be won, and why do they need to keep sacrificing their lives? And it's not unreasonable that somebody may finally say, you know what, we're going to take care of this ourselves. And then there's also another group that has been reported widely since the war began, that if Zilinski ever talked about a negotiated settlement, these radical right people may take him out. So man, anywhere he looks, there is a potential risk to his life. I truly wonder if he'll survive this war in any capacity. Yeah. And M says, could you please ask Daniel, what are the likely British military targets for Russia? And does he think that's more probable than a retaliatory attack on the

U.S. because of the administration change? Thank you all three for the content. You know, I remember Alexander, when my wife and I had the pleasure of dining with you and your wife in London, along with Ian Proud and Ian Puddock, and your wife made this comment. She said, you know, if anything happens, they're almost certain to come after London before they come after Washington. And I think she's right. If there's going to be an escalation to that level, I would imagine that any number of British airfields or army bases or something like that or missile forces potentially could come under the strike. If Russia, like I described a second ago, if Russia's next move is in Kiev or somewhere inside Ukraine, and then the West still does more storm shadow or scalp or whatever, I think that it is increasingly

possible that Russia will say Article 5 or no Article 5, we're coming. And if they're going to hit somebody, it's probably going to be UK before it's going to be the U.S. Atadoulas, Dan, would you please speak with some of your friends and colleagues about the destructive force equivalent of these newly deployed Russian weapons? Rough estimates based on throw weight and velocity. Thank you. You guys are all aces, the real deal. Well, I would have to defer you to Ted Postal for that kind of detailed analysis, but I can just tell you from a operational perspective, you know, Putin has said, and we already knew this, that it's not just the Oreshnik. That's some new one.

They probably have some small number of them, but they got a lot of other things, a lot of similar vehicles. And we know that a lot of their IRBMs and ICBMs already can't be intercepted. Just like our stuff can't be intercepted by the Russian side either. And that's been long known by both sides. And that's been part of why we've had this deterrent and the balance between the two because we both know that each side can hit the other and they can't stop it.

So no matter what kind of missile it is, whether it's this one or something else, we can't stop the thing. And so it's going to be operationally effective. And now we know it's also accurate. Right. From Moon Dragon, will the U.S. supply Tomahawk missiles? I doubt that because that is an explicit nuclear-tip capable missile, and whereas the

ATACOMs are not. And I doubt very seriously, we have that many of them. I don't think we would let those go. And I haven't heard any serious consideration of it. Elsa says, Mr. Davis, is it the military training that helps you keep calm while dealing with the stupidity of Western governments. Well, and I'm afraid this will be the last question I can answer before I have to roll out. I mean, I like to think it was.

You know, I don't talk about this a whole lot, but in the early part of my military career, I was kind of a hothead, and I got myself into some real trouble going to detail of what it was. But I did get myself, and I was a little bit too brash and a little bit too cocky and was put in my place. And so in that terms, yeah, I think that my time in the military and in combat, that situation did teach me a lot about being calm around crazy things here, but, you know, you do the best you can. Colonel Daniel Davis, before you go, where can people find you? If you'd be so kind to go to Daniel Davis Deepdive on YouTube, just plug that in there anywhere

or nearly anywhere you get the podcast, Daniel Davis Deepdive, and you'll find us waiting for you there. All those links. You'll find Alexander there next week. Absolutely. That's right. Alexander will be on your show next week. Thank you very much for joining us, Colonel Daniel Davis.

Thank you very much for answering our questions so thoroughly and so well. Always an absolute delight. Thank you. Take care. All right. Alexander, let's go through the remaining questions. From Sparky, oh, clarification from Sparky, officer similar to Colonel Daniel Davis. Davis himself wasn't actually in my unit or chain of command. Thank you, Sparky.

For that, Sparky says, Israel has free. reign over the U.S. military at the Pentecost. They blink and bypass Austin by getting Israel to authorize the U.S. military to provide targeting for missiles fired into Russia from Ukraine. We don't know. We don't know the details of all of this. We will eventually find out, no doubt. And I hope the new administration, when it comes in, will provide us with that information.

There are apparently some uncertainties about how this decision was made, by whom, and who's implementing it and all of those things. But we can only guess, and I prefer not to guess about something like that. Christoph says, Oreznik covers all of Europe, but Putin said it will be deployed to the Far East. Shukotka borders Alaska, open Google Earth, drop a pin, and check the distance. It can also reach all of the U.S. now. Your thoughts?

Absolutely. Absolutely. I've heard that. And I'm going to make a guess that this is also going to be a system that the Chinese are going to get hold of, maybe not identical, but they will produce something very like it. We are looking at a worldwide global arms race, and that is a very dangerous thing. And I'm going to say this. The other thing, and we didn't discuss this with Colonel Davis. Maybe it's better that we didn't, but at some point, maybe we should get a naval person to do this.

Because I think the capability that has just been demonstrated basically brings carrier warfare to an end. I mean, there is no way that you can resist this kind of system. So if it's developed into an anti-carrier system, then, I mean, this is the end of the carriers, which is, of course, the main stay of the U.S. fleet, including the U.S. fleet in the Pacific. Sancho Rlaxo says, still unconvinced USA incoming Sarmat demo. Surprised. I don't know how that would be. Sarmat, of course, the most powerful intercontinental ballistic missile,

apparently ever developed. It's still in tests, but it's now very soon going to enter service. Jeff Bickford says, is it NATO and the Biden administration daring Russia to strike outside of Ukraine? Isn't Russia's response limited to Ukraine as things stand to Ukraine's apparent destruction? I think, this is my own guess. I think the people who are playing this game, it's an incredibly dangerous game, think that whatever, the Russians do they're going to come out the winners either way if the Russians don't react by attacking targets outside Russia they will say look this proves that the Russians are just bluffing that we can do whatever we want we can walk all over them we can supply any weapon we choose and then that just proves

that you know the Russians are just a paper tiger and we can move on and escalate for more Alternatively, if the Russians show that they're not bluffing and that they strike at some target in Europe, well, then we can turn the whole narrative against them. We can tell the Europeans, look, this proves that the Russians are aggressive and dangerous, and we can press forward with the rearmament programs that we want to pursue in Europe and cut the Russians out completely and perhaps escalate even further in Ukraine. on the logical basis that if we're fighting the Russians over there, that we can't fight them over here.

This is an incredibly dangerous game. I think he's faced on a whole series of massive misconceptions. It's the same people, remember, who thought that the original Russian invasion or SMO into Ukraine would turn world opinion against Russia and it didn't. And I think they're making exactly the same mistake because the party

that is engaging in the provocations is altogether obvious. It's obvious outside the collective West and to much of the population within the collective West as well. The problem is that these people think they're the smartest people in the world. talk to any leader in the collective west, any government official.

They think they are smarter than everybody. That is the problem that we have right now. Exactly. And they think they're 10 steps ahead of the Russians. Exactly. That's what they think. Exactly. Exactly.

Exactly. And nothing that ever happens seems to make them change their view about this. They have, as we say in Britain, a mighty high opinion of themselves. Even the small countries. Even the small countries in Europe, I come from one. Trust me, the leaders, they think they can outsmart anybody. Yeah. Anyway, Salila, thank you for that super sticker.

Let's see. Commando Crossfire says Russia gone too far with Hazel, just annex, stop the madness. Well, they might do. The one might follow. I mean, the one doesn't exclude the other. I'm going to say it. I mean, the use of these missile strikes with the attackings and the storm shadows are going to make Russian demands when negotiations come, even harder than they already are. Brockabilly, thank you for that super sticker.

Sir Mug's game says Trump's invited Syrian Kurdish leader to his inauguration. Trump's pudding with golden apples, me scepto, me. crypto info, 600,000 Kurds in Israel. Well, we'll see. I mean, again, I'm not sure what Trump is doing with this. He did try to get the U.S. troops out of Syria. Maybe he'll try and do that again. We'll see.

Paul Walker says, The need to Hazel Grove assets in Syria and Falklands, as I told you so, then listen to the rhetoric change. Yeah, the rhetoric may indeed change, but we'll see what happens. we've still got these two weeks two months to get through before we get to that point two months is a very long time in this game yeah commander crossfire says at this point is russia as responsible for escalating the intention seems to be to face off the west not win the war in ukraine itself while the people suffer no i don't think so i i think that the russians

have shown repeatedly uh right back to 2014 to the original 2014 crisis that they have been willing to negotiate and to seek compromise. The problem is, and Putin alluded to this in his speech, his address to the Russian people a few days ago, the problem is that we have sabotaged that at every turn, and the result is, as Putin said, that the entire system of international relations has in effect collapsed. Given that that is so, inevitably,

when there is no trust, when there is no diplomacy, everything gets decided on the battlefield by force of arms. Lattermoreau says, I'm not sure what President-elect Trump thinks and wants to do considering that he said nothing so far about the escalation when he is now elected. I heard Gorka, though, with his threats. Right. Well, I'm going to take a different view. I think that Trump, but not for the first time is showing that he's a more intelligent and sophisticated politician than many people appreciate. I think if he came out in a post this, it would still continue. He's not the president. He's not in a position to veto what the president does. All he would do is he would put

himself in a position where Biden would be able to show to him, look, I'm doing all of this. You can't stop me and that's never a good position for a president to be in and at the same time he would crystallize opposition to him within on the part of the rhinos democrats those people who have been cheering this decision on and he would also open himself up to more attacks that he's too favorable too sympathetic to Vladimir Putin. All of this at a time when since he's only the president-elect, he can actually do nothing.

He has no constitutional authority at all. On the 20th of January, after he is inaugurated, he can stop all of this with just a pen. He can just scribble off an order, and the whole thing stops. Better for him to wait until he's got the power and the authority to make the decision stick. And if he doesn't... Well, then we're in a different situation.

Exactly. Then we're in a different situation. Klaus Batner says the DOD must have the right intelligence by now. it's not like the U.S. doesn't know that they will lose this. How can, how then can one understand their behavior? You know, you made a very good point because one of these New York Times articles, I forget which one, actually said so. They said that the U.S. intelligence community is now advising the administration that Ukraine has lost the war and that any weapon supplied to Ukraine cannot change the trajectory of events,

which makes this decision even less rational than it already looks. I mean, they're already being told by their own intelligence agencies who are, to be clear, very, very sympathetic to them. I mean, they back this administration. They don't really want to see Donald Trump coming. If even their own intelligence people are telling that the war is lost, what are they doing?

Paul Walker says On Monday 2 B-52s were intercepted by SU27s near Kaliningrad They seem to be poking the bear a bit too much Yeah, they're doing it all the time I mean there's been this aggressive game That's been played with the Russians

Along their borders for years now Before the conflict with Ukraine began Just to say I mean you remember This is before not this is after the 2014 crisis. But there was that British frigate that went incredibly close to Crimea. And the British said, we're only in international waters, which meant, of course, that they're not recognizing Russian authority in this area because they don't recognize Crimea as Russian. But the point was it was

still an incredibly provocative thing to do. So they're playing this constant game. And again, the Russians, Putin, have exercised immense restraint, but there does come a breaking point, and that breaking point is getting closer. Just to go back to the Matthew Whitaker question, Matthew Whitaker was the AG for Trump for one year. Remember in his first, in his... He was, he was, I remember.

From 2018 to 2019, but he's also been appointed as the US ambassador to NATO. Oh, that's okay. So that's the question with the Balkans. I don't know if you have anything to add to that, Alex. I don't know. I don't know what he had to do with it. Well, nothing yet.

Nothing yet. Nothing yet. Yeah. Well, the Balkans, the Balkans, I've discussed this many times in many places. As far as I'm concerned, the Balkans is an unexploded bomb, which has again been screwed together by NATO.

what they have done is that they have a powerful but resentful Serbia surrounded by unstable NATO protectorates, micro-states, Bosnia, Montenegro, Kosovo, others, with, of course, Serbia having reasons to be adversarial to all of them, with claims, in fact, against all of them. Anybody who knows the history of the Balkans knows that this guarantees an eventual return to war. Now, when we were in Hungary, Alex and I, one of the things we discovered is that the relations between Hungary and Serbia are getting to become very friendly. So on the border, for example, the Hungarians and the Serbs are undertaking joint patrols. And my own sense, this is something we will need to discuss more fully, maybe in a separate programme, is that even as, even as, the situation in the Balkans is explosive and unstable. Forces for restabilization outside the collective West are starting to appear.

So you have Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, which of course isn't a Balkan country, but still. Romania, we've just had interesting elections there. And they're clearly worried about the state of the region. And who knows, they might eventually find. the way through. From Hoffman Aviation, Alex, Alexander, is there a reason you haven't discussed

the project alchemy documents? That's the article from the gray zone, I believe, right? Or am I wrong? Yes. Yes, I think you're right. I'm not sure. Yeah. I think I... There's a reason. Yeah, I looked at that. I just haven't at the time to really... No, exactly.

I mean, we have been... It's great reporting, but... We are trying to keep up with the use at a time where the use is moving faster than I have ever known. I think what has happened over the course of this November. Oh, boy, no, over the last month, we had the bricks up in Kazan at the end of October. We've had the election in the United States. We've had a political crisis in Germany, a festering political crisis in France. We have obviously the war, the missile strike.

the Russian offensive. All of this going on, and that's not even including the Middle East, the fact that the Israelis' lord strikes against the Iranians, and the Iranians have launched earlier strikes against the Israelis. In Lebanon, in Bayru. Exactly, exactly. I mean, this administration in Washington is literally going down in flames. I mean, it's not a metaphor with them.

They are literally going down in flames. This administration has literally set the world on fire. It's not an exaggeration, yeah. Exactly. Matthew says, even if the Russians hit NATO, they can't respond. I believe NATO can't respond. I imagine Matthew means NATO. Even if the Russians get NATO, they can't respond.

I think you perhaps, right? I still wouldn't want to test it. I mean, I think that we may very well be forced into this position. The Russians may feel that they have no alternative. But then, of course, think what happens, if the Russians launch a strike on a NATO air base in Europe. I'm not going to start speculating about which one. I don't want to do that.

But if they do, then the whole narrative about the bluff turns on its head. Do we sit, does NATO sit back and respond and get exposed as a paper tiger? Or does it try to escalate in return? And what form would that escalation take? Just say. Viva, Las Vegas. Thank you for a super sticker. Jamila says West leaders are playing with fire.

Can no one tell them to stop before humanity ends? We're telling them to stop. People who are watching these programs are telling them to stop. The American people on the 5th of November told them to stop. The problem is they're not listening. And until they're changed, that will continue. They don't care. They don't care.

They don't care. Bear box said as much. She actually went on television. She said as much. She said, I don't care what people think. I don't care what the protest, whatever they do. I'm just going to go on doing what I'm doing. No, we're going to support Ukraine.

We don't care what the German people want. We're going to support Ukraine. That was what Bearbach said. That was like a year and a half ago, two years ago. Sir Muggem says in the finale, the Russians will make the Zelensky gang pay all the UN legal fees to make Donbass Crimea, etc, officially part of Russia. Well, they will exact, they will impose very, very harsh terms. What those terms are going to be, I'm not going to speculate. People are talking about his demands, the ones that he made in January being maximalist.

They are minimalist. I think the Russians are getting tough and harden on those positions. They should be taken as a starting point of what the Russians are going to demand, not the end point. Mad Marty says, do you see Putin raising the stakes in the Middle East, for example, by arming the Houthis with modern weapons? Jim Webb, that we did a live stream with a few weeks ago, suggested that that is happening already. he said, where did the Houthis acquire all this capability of using powerful missiles that can actually hit warships? How have the Iranians seen this enormous leaping capability that we've seen over the last year or so, this ability to strike military bases in Israel?

So, you know, Jim Webb suggested that, as I said, the shadow of Moscow has fallen. And I think he's right. Life of Brian says, I'm curious as to what the state of political freedom is in Russia. I'm guessing it's not an open society and yet not the sort of place where every godfly gets poisoned. It is a very open society. I mean, you can get all the access to the, you might sometimes have to do a few tricks with the internet, but nobody's going to stop you. That's the nature of Russia. Russians are very well informed about what's going on in the world and they talk about it quite openly, quite freely.

and they have a very vibrant media, by the way, just saying, especially the, you know, not necessarily the big television channels, so they have very interesting talk shows, much more interesting talk shows than we do, by the way. So, no, I think Russians are very well informed, and in some ways it is a very open society. I use that word. I don't want to, I don't use it in the ideological sense

that the Open Society Foundation does. What I mean to say is, I think debate happens within Russia very freely. If you go to the Russian telegram channels, they criticize Putin there all the time. They criticize the Russian military all the time. It's very interesting to see. John Ski says the current situation in Ukraine mirrors what was happening in 1945 during the collapse of Germany's East Front. Check out the movie Cross of Iron intro. You're quite right. You're completely. I mean, Daniel Davis made exactly that point. And I think he's right about this. By the way, the German army never stopped fighting until the moment of final capitulation. There were still Germans fighting all the time. And the sudden the fighting was very fierce. But eventually they got ground down.

This A says Germany has accepted NATO places supersonic missiles in 2006, a terrible pressure to have U.S. Army in our country. Trump with his team of neocons seems like the same old story of U.S. wanting to control the world. Your thoughts? The hypersonic missiles in Germany is a very, very important story. Glenn Dyson and myself did an extraordinary program with Theodore Postal, in which he discussed how incredibly dangerous it was. I had to say I was so shocked after going through this into this program that it was one of the very, very few programs.

I had to take a long rest after to try and get over the feelings I had after hearing what Professor Postal had to say, you are absolutely right. And over the course of that program, Professor Postel, who knows more about this than, as I said, most vast majority of humanity. He said, what are the Germans doing? Why are they making themselves a target by hosting these weapons in this way and threatening world peace by agreeing to do so? Joanna says, is there anyone around Biden who can stop him from continuing to approve Ukraine

using the attackings in Russia? How many more do you think will be used? My own personal view is that there is absolutely no one around Biden who's advising him to exercise restraint. On the contrary, they're all the egging each other on and they're rejecting all advice, be it from the intelligence community that tells them that the war is lost or from the Pentagon, which they're openly now. I mean, the admiral who's in charge of the US Navy in the Pacific openly saying all you're doing is throwing away what's left are already depleted arsenals are fighting a war that is lost. I don't think there is a single person within the Biden team now

that is exercising any moderation whatsoever. I mean, there were always neocons, and they're even more neocons, and they're angry and frustrated and frightened neocons now, and they're just going to go on doing what they're doing. I don't think this is going to stop until Trump perhaps stops it. That puts a lot of pressure, a psychological pressure on the Russians to respond. We'll see what they do. One thing I would say is that so far, thank goodness, none of these strikes

has been particularly effective. Ralph Steiner says, under the New America and Trump's Maja, make America Jewish again, do you see the Yanks going into a full on? war mode against Iran and others. I think that it is more possible than getting into a war with Russia, much more so. And in a sense that I think that there are very strong anti-Iranian hardliners within the new administration. My instinct remains how this is a guess. The people will disagree is that Donald Trump himself does not want a war, not a war against Iran, not a war against China. not a war against anybody.

He knows perfectly well that if that happens, it would be the end of his administration and of the MAGA movement and whatever he is he's trying to achieve in the United States. Zareel says, I've been asking Alexander to leave London.

Speaking the truth and give peace a chance, thank you for that super chat. Ralph Steiner says, Lady Lindsay Graham says that any ally of the United States of America that arrested Netanyahu will be sanctioned and destroyed. Is that scary? It's just Lindsay Graham, I'm afraid.

I think that's any of who's ever going to be arrested. Straightforward is that. Commander Crossfire says, I can't even make out that. I can't make out any of the small flags. Sorry, Commander Crossfire. someone fought the Russians on U.S. behalf. Chechnya did the same.

That's a Georgia too. All found the mistakes in turning to the West and have returned to Russia. Is Ukraine next? Yes, possibly. I think there's a real possibility. I think that when the war is over, if the Russians are wise and they handle the problems in Ukraine cleverly, which I think they will, because they know the country. country very, very well. I think a genuine reconciliation is fully possible. I know I'm just about

the only person on planet Earth who thinks that, but that's what I do think. The Black Cat, thank you for that super sticker. Ralph Steiner says, when Americans are working three jobs and living in cars to pay for the bombs to exterminate the Palestinians, is that what they mean by doing God's work? I don't know whether that's what they mean. That's what they mean when they say by doing God's work. But you describe many of the problems Americans face very well. And I think many Americans say enough. Deal with the problems at home. One of the things during the election,

which I noticed really, really made a difference. It really cut through was when there was a storm. You know, we all remember the storm, and the Biden administration was setting a small amount of money, a couple of hundred dollars to each person who was affected. and went on sending billions to Ukraine, people were very angry, and they were right to people. Fuzzy Ball says, question for Alexander, is there any chance that Hungary and Slovakia leave the EU and join Bricks to have access to cheap Russian energy? When we were in Hungary, this came up repeatedly in our meetings with various Hungarian officials.

And without exception, they all said that there is no thought or plan in Hungary at the moment to leave the EU. And they gave us all kinds of reasons why that was so, basically that it's a landlocked country, that it has no real options but to remain inside the EU if it is going to trade successfully. And in other words, it was a pragmatic decision that reflected Hungarian national interests. However, they are aware of the Bricks. They did mention this. and they are obviously ready to work very closely with the bricks. And we met various officials, state secretaries,

from the economics ministry and the finance ministry, and by the way, the energy ministry. And they all told us about the fact that Hungary had been very successful in attracting investment, foreign investment into Hungary, with a particular emphasis. on getting investment from China. So they are aware of the bricks

and they're aware of the possibilities of erosion. Matthew says NATO can't respond with missiles as we all die. It can't deploy troops because they will get nowhere near Russia. This is all simply about money. Yes, I agree. I think Alex has discussed this in many places and many times. This is a grip and I think he's right. But the problem is, the people who are in,

charge in the West are very frightened. They're very angry. At some level, they do think that they're the world's, well, they do think that the world's cleverest people. They think they can still find some kind of a way to play this out, so that they come out on top and that they win and that the Russians lose. And this is the danger. What you are saying is rational. We are not dealing with fully rational people. Sparky says it's possible the hazelnut is a variety of the R30, which can fit in submarines in some configurations. So maybe it can be launched from submarines canceling intermediate range as a limitation. Well, you know, I've discussed this. I mean, I don't know what the R30 is, by the way. I'm not an expert on Russian missiles. But I do remember that some years ago,

the Russians were talking about a new submarine family, which there was. we're going to launch, which is going to be called the Lyca, which had ballistic missiles able to fire warheads that seemed very like them, the way that they were described to the Orschenic that we've just seen displayed. And of course, if they do that, then again, this is a major change in the balance of power. It's sea. And of course, it could potentially open the way to strikes against the continental United States. Peter N.H. says, what will NATO strike in Russia if Russia strikes in NATO? I'm not going to answer that question. I don't, I mean, I can make guesses, but I don't want to make guesses.

Fuzzy Ball says, how many Ukrainian troops are in Odessa? How susceptible is Ukraine to shock and all Russian attack on Odessa, permanently landlocking Ukraine? I don't know how many Ukrainian troops are in Odessa. General Sisky does not share that information with me. I'm sure that you can probably find some information about it on open source, but I haven't seen it. So I don't know how many Ukrainian troops are in Odessa. I think the Ukrainians will do everything they can to try and hold on to Odessa

for as long as they can. But if the battle ever gets to Odessa, I think the city will actually fall quite fast. Ralph Steiner says, Will Stommer's cunning plan to inheritance tax the farmers to the point that they'll then be sold to BlackRock, provide enough money to save Ukraine? No. I'm glad you brought that topic up, by the way. This isn't something that, obviously, we've talked about on the Duran, and it's probably too discreet a subject for us to do a whole program about. But one of the things about the budget is that the inheritance tax changes look like. like they're going to obliterate the farming community in Britain. Because of course they're the people with the land, you know, the big farms and all of that,

and they're going to be hammered. Stama doesn't like farmers. The Labour Party does the Labour Party, today's Labour Party hates farmers. Clement Attlee's Labour Party, the one that came to power in 1945, loved farmers. But this Labour Party hates them. Tabernak says, what could not be achieved on the field will be sought through negotiations. Do these tactical moves increase our negotiating position plus tariffs on Canada? No, I don't think they do. I think they do the opposite.

That is the theory, at least the explanation some people are giving for what's happening. I don't think it's the real reason, by the way, but it's the explanation. It's going to strengthen Ukraine's negotiating. It's going to weaken Ukraine's negotiating. hand. It's going to make the Russians feel that they need to take an even tougher line. So since it cannot achieve any military objective, it cannot by definition strengthen Ukraine in any conceivable way. Now, about the tariffs, this is a massive question. I did a program this morning with Jeffrey Sachs, which you'll be watching soon on the Duran. He seemed to think that

the tariffs were a bad idea. I know others who think otherwise. I think it's a topic we'll discuss in a proper program. Alex and I, on what you've ran, when we have a clear, a still clearer understanding of what Trump exactly it is that he intends to do. Sir Bug's Game says inviting Kurdish leader designed to enrage Turkey and others in the region, kind of interesting from Trump. Yes, it was. By the way, the other one. I've had a very interesting telephone call with Putin, which I discussed in my latest program. Elliot says, would a Russian response in the EU trigger Article 5?

Well, against NATO, well, again, triggering Article 5, what does that exactly mean? Article 5 says that if one party's attack, my country's attack, that will lead to consultations. That's all it says. It doesn't actually say that they're all obliged to come to the defense of that country that has been attacked. So what does it mean? Now, does it mean that if, say, Britain is attacked, France, Germany, Italy, and all the others have to go on the attack against Russian?

Who knows? Ralph Steiner says, with an absolutely smashing majority, the British people elect to Kirstammer to unparalleled power. Why do the British people love this man like Caesar? Well, they don't. because the answer he's one of the most unpopular prime ministers as ever beat. And I've discussed the election in many, many places. The landslide is a mirage. This is a very unpopular government in only one or third of the vote on a very low turnout in the election.

The size of the turnout is simply a product of the very strange electoral system we have in Britain. in fact only one person in five amongst the electorate voted for kirstama and the labor party sparky says fun fact matthew whittaker is just as dim-witted as he looks listen to an unrehearsed interview with him and tell me i'm wrong well given that he's vanished without trace so that during that entire period in the trump first trump administration which we were following with microscopic detail. He managed to be AG and I don't even remember him.

That tells you that he's not the sharpest, tells me that he's not the sharpest knife in the draw. Zareel says this administration started World War III. Yeah. Well, they're trying to. They did the best. They did the best.

Cactus Ray, thank you for that super sticker. Klaus Vadenas says, it could be that Putin only hits main targets in Ukraine while stepping up in Dombas until 20th of January. That's probably what will avoid the World War. Yes, I think the other thing he might do is that he might start coming after Westerners in Ukraine,

Western military people in Ukraine, which, of course, he's got every capability of doing. I think there's been a policy of not going too much against Western military people, but I think that may change them. Stephen G. says the real question is, what are the odds of NATO troops going into Ukraine? I think they're very small, actually.

I think that even Stama and Macro understand that the public opinion would never agree to it. I think they're spreading the story that that's what they're going to do because they think that's going to unsettle the Russians, which is not, by the way. The problem is, that's what I think,

but I cannot be sure. And these people are dangerous, and they can always do things which are reckless and dangerous as well. So I just want to say, I think they won't do it. I'm not sure they won't. Liz A says a big thank you

to you both. Without you, I would be living in German MSM Nirvana, German politicians going against all citizens who criticize them. Absolutely. The media in Germany, by the way, is terrible. It's worse even than in Britain.

And that's saying something. Yeah. This place says, I find it hilarious that people and governments in the collective West claim that Russia is in a free society. In the same breath, they have their Gestapo arresting people for telegram and Twitter posts. Well, I completely agree. Yeah. Phantom of many topics says at some point, Alex, you need to stop insulting president of China with your continued mispronouncing of his name. It is Xi Jinping, like girl, not she, like you say, what?

does it matter? The way you say means bad word. I think it's directed at me or whoever we're trying. We're trying. That's all I can say. We're not trying to insult anybody. We're trying our best. Josh Woods says, if Russia fires

a second non-nuk or Erezhenik into another Ukrainian target, would it serve anything to further pressure NATO and Ukraine into peace talks? It depends on the target. Short answer. I mean, if it hits a target, let's say the surface-to-air missile missiles are the Jolenei airbase in

Kiev. And I'm not picking targets for the Russians. I want to make that clear. But let's say all those Patriot launches are destroyed, which they would be, by the way. And Western technicians are killed. They would notice it. Sir Muggs game says, hands off Jeremy Clarkson's farm. No storm, stormfeudor, stormer, you towed.

Well, I think Jeremy Clarkson probably can play, or rather when his heirs probably would be able to pay, the new inheritance tax. Many, many farmers in Britain are not particularly wealthy people. In fact, they're not wealthy people at all. Ralph Stammer says, the old World War I and World War II Anglo-French alliance, armies will land where on the Crimean Peninsula? Are the British lads ready to show the Russians what for?

Well, that's the, I think I'm glad you brought that up, because, of course, the British and the French who sent expeditionary forces to Russia twice, once during the Crimea war, and once during the Russian Civil War, after the First World War, after the Russian Revolution. It didn't turn out well in either case, just saying. Even the Crimean War, which people think is a victory, it wasn't exactly a defeat, but it was a humanitarian disaster. It precipitated an economic crisis in France, and it produced one of the most powerful anti-war speeches ever delivered in the British Parliament from the British MP John Bright, who spoke about the angel of death hovering over Britain

and he said one could almost hear the beating of his wings. This place says U.S. has 37 trillion black hole. Lindsay Graham, U.S. establishment and Black Rock openly want Ukraine, then Russia. This has to be to cover their positions with real assets. Everything since 2008 has been to this end. Yeah, I agree with that this is a point that so many people are making. And of Lindsay Graham, rather incredibly, firm to. Yeah. Sophisticated caveman says at the rate the Russian army is moving now,

it'll take years for them to get to the Deneeper. What will change on the ground to speed their advance? No, it's not true. I mean, they're moving very fast. They gained control of 285 kilometers just last week. I mean, they are advancing very fast. They're breaking through all of the defenses. And once the major defense lines are broken then it's an open route to the deeper yeah this is from yesterday's live live stream oh i see they'll probably they'll probably be there by by i'm guessing by the new year sometime in the new yeah yeah this is from yesterday's live stream right when we ended the show this this came in happens often from rajesh any thoughts on where are the wonder weapons called the f-16s it took two years to deliver and they have not yet been seen

would have thought that after the F-16 debacle, the West would be rather more careful about talking up its weapons. I don't know where the F-16s are. I'm guessing the Russians do. They could be another potential target. And Commander Crossfire says Afghanistan should take after Chechnya, we could see an Afghan golden age with the embrace of Russia. Russian delegation there now. Peace here at last. Indeed, headed by Selgei Shoygu, who was the former defense minister and is now Secretary of Russia's Security Council. And he is in Afghanistan. So all that effort, all that, all those attempts way back in the 80s to push the Russians out of Afghanistan, which led to all the results that we know and the Russians are bad. All right. Alexander, final thoughts as I do a check to make sure we got all the questions.

absolutely brilliant live stream altogether amazing guests incredibly knowledgeable about this thing and a real expert can I say when you

listen to an expert somebody who understands what they're talking about about battle in this case you always know at least I always find that you do and wonderful questions

from the viewers as always thank you Timothy for that super chat and Rockfinn. Thank you to everyone that's watching us on locals. Article 4 is the consultation article, not Article 5, Alexander, of the NATO. Well, I know, but Article 5 doesn't mean that you must immediately go to war.

That's a point that's being discussed on locals right now. Thank you to everyone that's watched us on Rock Finn, that is watching us on Rockfin, on Odyssey on Rumble and on YouTube. Thank you to our locals community, the durand.locals.com. And thank you to our moderators as well. Let me just make sure we got all the questions, Alexander. Yep.

Spartan Warrior Queens, Ariel, Brett T. Jordan, Peter. And I hope I didn't miss anybody. Thank you to our moderators. Thank you to Daniel Davis. Colonel Daniel Davis. I will have the links to Daniel Davis deep dive in the description box and as a pinned comment as well. I think that's everything. Take care, everybody.

Thank you very much. Good day.