Deep Dive Intel Briefing: What We Learned This Week 12/27/25 /Lt Col Daniel Davis

** NEW MERCH ** Jackets & Sweatshirts, Thermo Mugs!!
Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store
https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanielDavis...

WSJ report & diplomacy: The Wall Street Journal reported that President Zelensky is expected to travel to Mar-a-Lago to meet Donald Trump, aiming to “close gaps” in a peace draft. Claims that talks are “90% there” likely refer only to alignment between the U.S. and Ukraine—not with Russia, which remains the decisive obstacle.

Limits of Zelensky’s peace plan: While much of Zelensky’s 20-point plan is workable, the speaker argues it contains four “poison pill” provisions Russia will not accept and omits three non-negotiable Russian demands. Without changes, Moscow will not agree to a ceasefire or settlement.

Russia’s consistent objectives: Since before 2014 and throughout the war, Russia has been consistent: security on its western flank, no NATO membership for Ukraine, Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, “denazification,” and protections for ethnic Russians. Over time, territorial demands have expanded, but core goals have not changed.

Ongoing escalation: Despite diplomatic movement, Russia continues large-scale missile and drone strikes on Ukraine, heavily targeting infrastructure. Recent attacks reportedly knocked out power in Kyiv, underscoring Ukraine’s fragile energy system and limited capacity to absorb repeated hits.

Russian strategy vs. Western assumptions: Analyst Jacques Baud argues the West misreads Russian success by focusing on territory gained. Russia’s primary objective is destroying Ukraine’s military potential and manpower over the long term, not rapid territorial conquest. Attrition—not land—is the metric.

Long-term implications: Prolonging the war with continued Western support may inadvertently serve Russia’s strategy by accelerating Ukrainian losses and preventing recovery of military capacity for a generation.

European funding critique: Europe has agreed to a €90 billion loan to fund Ukraine’s government and military through 2026–27. Critics note that roughly $300 billion already spent over four years has not improved Ukraine’s position, making further funding unlikely to change outcomes—only delay them.

Risk of escalation: If European actions escalate (e.g., attacks on Russian assets, covert operations), the conflict could shift from a proxy war to a direct NATO–Russia confrontation, raising the risk of nuclear escalation and pulling the U.S. fully back into the conflict.