Avsnitt
-
The presentation explores whether U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance are using a "good cop, bad cop" negotiation strategy with Russia over the Ukraine war or if there is simply a shift in how negotiations are being handled.
Key points include:
Vance’s Position at the Munich Security Conference
Vance suggested that the U.S. has economic and military leverage to pressure Russia.
However, he provided no details on an actual peace deal and instead focused on democracy and free speech in Europe.
His speech signaled a departure from the typical stance of seeing Russia as the biggest threat.
Lindsey Graham’s Aggressive Stance
Senator Graham took a "bad cop" role, advocating for heavily arming Ukraine with F-16s, tanks, and long-range missiles.
His approach assumes that overwhelming military aid will deter Russia, despite Ukraine’s ongoing heavy casualties and loss of experienced troops.
The presenter criticizes this position as unrealistic and detached from battlefield realities.
War Realities and U.S. Perspective Shift
Some U.S. officials, like Pete Hegseth, acknowledge that restoring Ukraine's pre-war borders is unrealistic.
The presenter argues that Russia has already won the war and that continuing to fight will only increase Ukraine’s losses.
Western leaders still struggle to accept this, leading to prolonged conflict.
Ukraine’s Reaction
Ukrainian President Zelensky expressed concerns that Trump could negotiate a deal that compromises Ukraine’s position.
Zelensky invoked the 1938 Munich Agreement (associated with appeasement of Hitler) to warn against a settlement that benefits Russia.
He insists he will only negotiate with Putin if the U.S. and EU are involved.
Western Delusions About Russian Losses
The presenter disputes claims by figures like General Jack Keane, who argue that Russia is suffering massive losses and will weaken in 2025.
He argues that Western analysts exaggerate Russian casualties while ignoring Ukraine’s far greater struggles.
Overall, the presentation suggests that while the U.S. is signaling a shift in approach, unrealistic perspectives and political agendas continue to prolong the war. The speaker criticizes Lindsey Graham’s call for more military aid as futile and argues that the war is already decided in Russia’s favor.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
The presentation discusses President Donald Trump’s approach to negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts, including John Bolton and former British Commodore Steve Jeremy, argue that Trump has effectively "surrendered" to Putin by adopting negotiation terms that align with Russia’s interests before formal talks have even begun.
Key points include:
European Shock & Strategic Failures: Many European leaders and U.S. officials express surprise and concern over Trump’s stance, but analysts argue that this reaction stems from a long-standing strategic miscalculation by Western elites. NATO and Western leaders have consistently misjudged the situation by pushing political narratives rather than military strategy.
Negotiation Reality: Critics claim that Trump’s administration has made preemptive concessions to Russia, but analysts argue that the U.S. has no real leverage. Ukraine is losing the war, and continued NATO support has not changed the balance of power. Trump’s approach signals a recognition of this reality.
Ukraine’s Role in Talks: Some European officials insist that Ukraine must be central to negotiations, but analysts argue that Russia and the U.S. hold the real power. Every time Ukraine and its allies rejected previous negotiation opportunities, their position weakened, and the conditions offered by Russia worsened.
NATO’s Future & European Security: Trump’s administration signals continued NATO support but focuses on strengthening deterrence rather than direct military intervention. Some warn that this could lead to a renewed Cold War-style arms race with Russia rather than a constructive security framework for Europe.
Long-Term Consequences: The discussion highlights the failure of NATO’s expansionist policies since the 1990s, arguing that ignoring Russia’s security concerns has led to the current crisis. The challenge now is not just ending the war but reshaping Europe's security architecture to avoid future conflicts.
Overall, the presentation portrays Trump’s approach as a stark acknowledgment of geopolitical realities, signaling a shift away from prolonged Western involvement in Ukraine while focusing on broader NATO security measures.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
The presentation discusses the U.S. stance on the Ukraine-Russia conflict under the Trump administration, particularly through statements made by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Key points include:
No Betrayal of Ukraine – Hegseth rejects claims that the U.S. has abandoned Ukraine, emphasizing America's significant financial and military support ($300+ billion). However, he stresses that the U.S. is invested in securing peace rather than prolonging the war.Trump as a Mediator – The argument is made that only Trump can bring together global powers to negotiate peace, a contrast to previous U.S. administrations that have been accused of unrealistic policy approaches.Criticism of Western Leaders – The speaker criticizes figures like former UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace, who accused the West of betraying Ukraine. The argument is that Western policies have actually prolonged the war, causing unnecessary Ukrainian casualties.NATO and Ukraine – Hegseth declares that NATO membership for Ukraine is not a viable option, aligning with Russia’s long-standing demand. This is framed as a pragmatic approach to peace rather than empty Western rhetoric.Reality Over Ideology – The presentation argues that Western leaders have ignored military and geopolitical realities, leading to unnecessary suffering. It contends that morality has no place in war, which is dictated by manpower, industry, and strategic advantage.Security Guarantees Without NATO Troops – The U.S. will not send troops to Ukraine, and any peacekeeping force should not be NATO-affiliated or covered under Article 5. European nations could contribute, but the U.S. will not be directly involved.Shifting U.S. Policy Under Trump – The Trump administration’s approach is portrayed as a necessary course correction, prioritizing realism and military deterrence over ideological commitments.Overall, the presentation argues that previous Western policies have worsened Ukraine’s situation and that Trump’s administration, through figures like Hegseth, is offering a more pragmatic path to ending the war.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
Trump's Truthsocial today:
I just had a lengthy and highly productive phone call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. We discussed Ukraine, the Middle East, Energy, Artificial Intelligence, the power of the Dollar, and various other subjects. We both reflected on the Great History of our Nations, and the fact that we fought so successfully together in World War II, remembering, that Russia lost tens of millions of people, and we, likewise, lost so many! We each talked about the strengths of our respective Nations, and the great benefit that we will someday have in working together. But first, as we both agreed, we want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine. President Putin even used my very strong Campaign motto of, “COMMON SENSE.” We both believe very strongly in it. We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s Nations. We have also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately, and we will begin by calling President Zelenskyy, of Ukraine, to inform him of the conversation, something which I will be doing right now. I have asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of the CIA John Ratcliffe, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, and Ambassador and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, to lead the negotiations which, I feel strongly, will be successful. Millions of people have died in a War that would not have happened if I were President, but it did happen, so it must end. No more lives should be lost! I want to thank President Putin for his time and effort with respect to this call, and for the release, yesterday, of Marc Fogel, a wonderful man that I personally greeted last night at the White House. I believe this effort will lead to a successful conclusion, hopefully soon!
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
The presentation argues that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is under increasing pressure as the war with Russia continues. It suggests that Zelensky is becoming more desperate and that his recent proposals, including potential land swaps, signal a shift in his stance. The discussion highlights how the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. could further diminish Ukraine’s chances of sustaining the war effort, as Trump has signaled a desire to end U.S. support.
John Mearsheimer, an international relations theorist, contends that Russia will remain firm on its demands: recognition of annexed Ukrainian territories, Ukraine’s neutrality (no NATO membership), and demilitarization. While Russia insists on these conditions, it is unlikely to push hard for "denazification" (regime change), though it does not recognize Zelensky as a legitimate leader.
The analysis suggests that without U.S. support, Ukraine is at a significant disadvantage and that Russia will likely continue its military campaign. The possibility of a ceasefire or peace agreement seems unlikely since the West is unwilling to accept Russia’s demands. The discussion also critiques Western security guarantees for Ukraine, arguing that true neutrality—similar to Austria or Finland during the Cold War—would be a more viable long-term solution.
Ultimately, the presentation portrays Russia as having the upper hand and suggests that Ukraine may be forced into a disadvantageous settlement or risk further territorial losses.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Heth gave a speech in Europe outlining a shift in the U.S. stance on the Ukraine war, acknowledging that restoring Ukraine's pre-2022 borders is unrealistic. His comments suggest a growing recognition of battlefield realities, which has unsettled Ukrainian officials but reassured many in the U.S.
Former Colonel Doug McGregor analyzed the speech, interpreting it as a potential move toward ending the war through negotiation. He noted that the U.S. is echoing Russian positions, emphasizing that NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table and ruling out American troop deployments.
McGregor was skeptical of Ukrainian President Zelensky's recent offer of rare earth minerals to the U.S., suggesting that key deposits are in Russian-controlled territories. He also criticized past Western diplomatic efforts, particularly the Minsk agreements, as deceptive maneuvers used to buy time for Ukraine to prepare militarily against Russia.
The discussion concluded that Russia, having strengthened significantly despite Western efforts to weaken it, is unlikely to accept any ceasefire without solid security guarantees. McGregor advised that negotiations should be conducted discreetly to avoid media interference, drawing parallels to past Cold War-era diplomacy.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
The presentation discusses the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war as it approaches its third anniversary. The main argument is that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is shifting his focus from resolving the conflict to financial dealings, particularly involving rare earth minerals and potential economic agreements with Donald Trump.
The discussion suggests that Zelensky is desperate, trying to offer financial incentives in exchange for U.S. support, while Trump has signaled that he wants Europe to take responsibility for Ukraine’s security. The panel argues that Trump is moving towards ending U.S. involvement by cutting financial aid and focusing on extracting economic benefits from Ukraine instead.
Additionally, they claim that Ukraine lacks the manpower, training, and equipment to sustain the war effectively and compare the situation to historical desperate military offensives, such as Germany’s Battle of the Bulge in World War II. They also dismiss the possibility of any negotiated territorial exchanges, arguing that Russia is in a strong position and unlikely to make concessions.
The overall tone is critical of Zelensky’s strategy, skeptical of Ukraine’s ability to win, and suggests that Russia is set to achieve its objectives, including potentially taking Odessa.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
*Please check out my appearance on Tucker Carlson's show:
Ukraine Is Selling American Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels. Col. Daniel Davis on How to Stop It.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5yb67wF53U
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's recently revealed "victory plan" prioritizes protecting valuable mineral resources over defending the Ukrainian people. The speaker suggests that Zelensky's focus has shifted from defending Ukraine or Europe to ensuring that the U.S. benefits economically, particularly under a potential Trump administration.
Key points:
Zelensky reportedly told Trump that Ukraine's victory plan involves preventing Russia from exploiting valuable minerals, which could be used by adversaries like China, North Korea, and Iran.The speaker claims this signals a shift in Zelensky’s rhetoric from protecting Ukraine and Europe to prioritizing economic interests, particularly those of the U.S.The argument is made that Zelensky has continuously avoided negotiations that could have ended the war, instead opting to maintain his position of power.The presentation suggests that Russia is militarily positioning itself for a major breakthrough, which Ukraine is unlikely to withstand due to its thin defensive lines.The speaker believes Russia will not accept any settlement that does not include full control over the four annexed Ukrainian regions and will continue fighting until it achieves this.It is suggested that Trump’s administration might need to recognize this reality and negotiate accordingly, as Zelensky’s promises of economic benefits to the U.S. are unlikely to be feasible given the current battlefield situation.The overall tone of the presentation is critical of Zelensky, portraying him as self-serving and unwilling to accept the realities of war, while arguing that Russia holds the strategic upper hand.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
President Trump's efforts to mediate negotiations between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the Russia-Ukraine war. It mentions that Zelensky has publicly proposed a deal with Trump involving a mineral partnership in exchange for security guarantees. Trump has expressed interest in securing Ukraine’s underground assets, particularly rare earth minerals. Analysts in the discussion argue that extracting these minerals is costly and time-consuming, making Zelensky’s offer more of a strategic move to gain immediate support rather than a practical business deal.
The conversation also shifts to military developments, particularly the fall of Toretsk, a strategic city in Donbas, to Russian forces, marking a significant loss for Ukraine. The discussion contrasts the devastation in Ukraine with that in Gaza and critiques Zelensky’s military strategy, especially Ukraine’s continued focus on the Kursk region, which some experts believe is a tactical trap set by Russia to divert Ukrainian resources away from more critical battlegrounds.
The overall discussion suggests skepticism about Zelensky’s deal proposal and highlights the ongoing challenges Ukraine faces both militarily and politically.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
Danger at the Southern Border - Lt Col Daniel Davis
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
Elon Musk:
Future wars will be drones + AI
The military industry needs to adapt fast
Starlink's capabilities in warfare
The future of humans and AI
AI should be truthful and curious
Human-piloted aircraft are coming to an end
The front lines will only be drones
How the industrial base can support Defense
Leaders should be competent in their field
Importance of trying things to be innovative
US Armed Forces’ central role in upholding civilizationTranscript
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
Right now NATO could not win a war with Russia
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/nat...
In 2024, reflecting a popular Western belief, former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said: “NATO is the most powerful and successful alliance in history.” Yet just two years earlier in 2022, after a 15-year campaign, NATO was defeated by the Taliban, a rag-tag group of poorly armed insurgents.
How can NATO’s humiliating defeat and Austin’s view be reconciled?
Of course NATO was never the most powerful military alliance in history — that accolade surely goes to the World War II Allies: the U.S., Russia, Britain, and the Commonwealth nations. Nevertheless, after 1945, NATO did its job, did it well, and those of us who served in it were proud to do so.
Since the Berlin Wall’s fall, though, its record has become tarnished. Satisfactory in Kosovo. Humiliated in Afghanistan. Strategic failure looming in Ukraine. Are we really sure NATO is up to the job of defending democratic Europe from a supposedly expansionist Russia in the doomsday scenario of a conventional NATO-Russia war?
The doomsday NATO-Russia war scenario is the defining way to explore this question. “Amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics,” and our strategic analysis needs to start all the way back in NATO’s logistics rear areas, then work forward to a future line of battle on the continent of Europe.
First, unlike Russia, no major NATO nation is industrially mobilized for war, as evidenced by the fact that Russia is still outproducing NATO on 155mm shells for Ukraine. Which, incidentally, gives the lie to the view that Russia is poised to take more of Europe — if we in NATO truly believed this, we would all be mobilizing at speed.
More importantly, it is not clear that NATO could mobilize at the speed or scale needed to produce the levels of equipment, ammunition, and people to match Russia. And certainly not without a long build up that would signal our intent. This is not just about lost industrial capacity, but also lost financial capacity. Of the largest NATO nations, only Germany has a debt to GDP ratio below 100%.
Second, to have the remotest chance of success in this doomsday scenario of a NATO-Russia war, U.S. forces would need to deploy at scale into continental Europe. Even if the U.S. Army was established at the necessary scale — with a 2023 establishment of 473,000, under one third of the current Russian Army, it is not — the overwhelming majority of American equipment and logistics would have to travel by sea.
There, they would be vulnerable to Russian submarine-launched torpedoes and mines. As a former underwater warfare specialist, I do not believe that NATO now has the scale of anti-submarine or mine-warfare forces needed to protect Europe’s sea lines of communication.
Nor, for that matter, would these forces be able to successfully protect Europe’s hydrocarbon imports, in particular oil and LNG so critical to Europe’s economic survival. Losses because of our sea supply vulnerability would not only degrade military production, but also bring accelerating economic hardship to NATO citizens, as soaring prices and energy shortages accompanying an outbreak of war rapidly escalated the political pressure to settle.
Third, our airports, sea ports, training, and logistics bases would be exposed to conventional ballistic missile attack, against which we have extremely limited defenses. Indeed, in the case of the Oreshnik missile, no defense.
An Oreshnik missile arriving at Mach 10+ would devastate a NATO arms factory, or naval, army and air force base. As in Ukraine, Russia’s ballistic campaign would also target our transport, logistics, and energy infrastructure. In 2003, while I was working for the British MOD’s Policy Planning staffs, our post 9/11 threat analysis suggested a successful attack against an LNG terminal, such as Milford Haven, Rotterdam, or Barcelona, would have sub-nuclear consequences. The follow-on economic shock-waves would rapidly ripple across a European continent, now increasingly dependent on LNG.
Fourth, unlike Russia, NATO nations’ forces are a heterogenous bunch. My own experience, while leading the offshore training of all European warships at Flag Officer Sea Training in Plymouth, and later working with NATO forces in Afghanistan, was that all NATO forces were exceptionally enthusiastic but had very different levels of technological advancement and trained effectiveness.
Perhaps more contemporarily important, other than a handful of NATO trainers forward deployed in Ukraine, our forces are trained according to a pre-drone “maneuver doctrine" and have no real-world experience of modern peer-to-peer attritional warfighting. Whereas the Russian Army has close to three years experience now, and is unarguably the world's most battle-hardened.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
The presentation summarizes a controversial proposal by former President Donald Trump regarding the Gaza Strip. Trump suggested that the U.S. should take control of Gaza, clear it of unexploded weapons and debris, and redevelop it into an economically thriving area. He framed it as a real estate-style project that would provide jobs and housing, arguing that returning to the current system would only lead to continued conflict.
The proposal was met with strong international backlash. Critics viewed it as unrealistic, dismissive of Palestinian sovereignty, and lacking an understanding of the region’s history and political complexities. Many, including Arab nations and Palestinian groups, rejected the idea of displacement and U.S. control. The backlash prompted a White House clarification that the U.S. would not send troops or pay for the redevelopment, instead stating that it aimed to work with regional partners.
Overall, the idea was widely condemned as impractical, destabilizing, and likely to increase regional tensions rather than resolve them.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
-
Trump Threatens to Obliterate Iran w/Dr. Sumantra Maitra
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
- Visa fler
