Ukraine Russia DEADLY HOLDING PATERN /Lt Col Daniel Davis

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

Danny & Patrick argue that Europe’s new $90 billion loan to Ukraine (2026–27) merely extends a failed status quo. After roughly $300 billion spent over four years, Western support has not produced better outcomes: Ukraine has suffered catastrophic losses in territory, population, and infrastructure, while prospects in 2026 are worse than in 2022. Additional funding, the argument goes, will only delay an inevitable outcome rather than change it.

The speaker warns that European escalation—through actions like attacks on Russian assets or officials—risks turning the proxy war into a direct nuclear standoff, which would almost certainly pull the United States back in. While U.S. leaders (including Biden) have been cautious to avoid direct conflict, prolonging the war increases the risk of miscalculation and accidental escalation.

On costs and outcomes, the speaker contends that Ukraine has paid an unbearable price—mass casualties, destroyed cities, and unrealistic postwar plans (such as an 800,000-person army). Russia, while suffering significant losses, is portrayed as militarily stronger than in 2022, with expanded forces, vastly increased industrial output, and rapid technological advances (especially in drones, missiles, and munitions). By contrast, Western militaries are described as improving only incrementally and lacking recent high-intensity combat experience.

The conclusion is that Western spending has backfired: it has weakened Ukraine, strengthened Russia, and left the West worse off. The speaker urges ending the war quickly to avoid further losses and escalation.

Politically, the speaker criticizes Zelensky as holding unrealistic, maximalist positions disconnected from battlefield realities, and questions why President Trump continues meeting him without a clear U.S. end state or strategy. Trump is depicted as wanting the war to end but lacking a concrete plan, making repeated meetings largely performative unless the U.S. sets firm terms and refuses to underwrite what the speaker sees as a known failure.