February 17, 2026 • 13 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The talk station, a twenty eight to fifty five CARCD
talk station. Happy Tuesday. I always look forward to this time.
Special things go on on a Tuesday. Here the fifty
five caris some morning show, including this segment. Tune in
every Tuesday at this time to hear Daniel Davis with
a Daniel Davis a deep dive youtitle looking at the
Colonel of Daniel Davis breaking down the situation today in Iran,
(00:21):
the latest in Russia and Ukraine. Welcome back, my friend.
It's always great having you on the morning show, Sir.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Always a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Brian, if you don't mind, let's start with Iran. I
know we have talked so many times, and I share
your concern about launching a military strike on Iran. This
is regime change you've outlined many times, how unbelievably explosive,
no pun intended. This would be military bases at risk.
The Iranians have a lot of missiles, they can launch
a lot of targets close by they can hit. It's
(00:49):
going to be real chaotic, it's going to be very bloody,
and we're going to lose a lot of human life
doing this. And of course I back off and start
with the problem that Well, I would like to have
a declaration of war in Congress before we start dropping
bombs and entering regime change. But that pesky constitution is
always going to be in the background. But as I
read the Wall Street Journal today Jared Maslin reporting on
(01:09):
the economic situation going on in Iran, is it possible
that these long term sanctions, which are apparently seriously impacting
the Iranians might be the mechanism to go about bringing
about a resolution for this, Maybe getting some concessions from
the Iranians on missiles, maybe get them to concede on
the nuclear Enrichmond program. What we've been looking for, at
least what we say we're looking for, because basically their
(01:32):
currency has tanked. Shopkeepers can't sell goods at a profit,
people can't afford anything. There is a massive amount of
economic uncertainty because of that looming potential military threat. With
two carrier groups hanging out in their backyard. I mean,
there's a lot of pressure on them, But economically it
is a miserable situation going on Iran right now. Is
(01:54):
this maybe a pathway to a non warfare resolution of
the conflict. I hate to throw it at you that way.
But that's where I am this morning, Daniel.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well, I got we got to shut off, first of
all and say what is the conflict resolution terms that
we want? And you know, some people claim because that's
some of the terms that are being tossed around is
is no long range missiles, no support for the proxies,
and no nuclear Richmond. But I think that's just a canard.
I don't think that that's the issue at all. I
(02:22):
think that the reason why people are on the on
the side that we're saying that, and a lot of
that comes out of Israel, is because they know that
Iran can't apply abide by those so they're just using
that as reason to show then will when the fails.
Talking they're in Geneva today talking about that, then they
can say, well, we tried everything and now here we go,
we're going to have a regime change. To answer your
(02:43):
direct question about the economics, first of all, it's important
that Best went on before the Congress and explained that
the only reason that they're in such dire economic conditions
today is because we intentionally sank their currency for the
purpose of causing this riot that happened. So we're trying
(03:03):
to do that to bring them to that point. But
the answer is that Iran can't agree to those because
if they do, it's literal suicide and they have acknowledged such.
Because if they don't have long range missiles, they can't
defend themselves and they are utterly powerless to be completely
pulverized and destroyed by Israel or the United States in
a future day. So they can't do that. No matter
(03:24):
how bad the economy is. They will they will, I
mean eat sand if they have to, pardon the pun
but it is a literal life and death issue for them,
So there is no chance that they can agree to that.
And therefore I think we're pursuing the only option, and
there is which Mark Tiessen on Fox News last night said, Look,
this is the issue for Iran, and he said it correctly,
(03:46):
submission or destruction. And I think that's the intent, and
I think he's right on that. I think the idea
is horribly flawed because we're basically sating the conditions for
is the only option. But he's right, that's what we're
offering Iran.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Well indulge me for a moment if I may engage
in fantasy land here, Davis, this they can't capitulate. Does
that spring from the legitimate fear over Israel attacking them?
Does it spring from the religious fundamentalism against Israel Jewish
people generally speaking. I guess I know they instilled the
(04:20):
iatola back in what was it seventy nine? They have
a very fundamentalist religious order going on there. So is
that the predicate for it? Because here's where you need
to indulge me in my fantasy. Let's just say, for
the sake of discussion that they realize that they're over
a barrel economically, they realize that now maybe they're outgun militarily.
They don't want to get into a war period, end
of story, because of all the loss of life. Fine,
(04:41):
let's just say theoretically you could get them to enter
into something like the Abraham Accords, where we want you
to be a nice, let's play together neighbor. Like other
countries who had a predisposition to be against Israel, they've
come into the playground. They're enjoying the benefits of a
comfortable relationship without having to wage war. Listen, that could
be you we don't want to what attack you? We
don't want to kick anybody out. We just want you
(05:02):
to not bomb us anymore and live in peace and harmony.
I know it's a pipe dream, but if you could
convince them that, then they wouldn't be giving up anything.
They could still control their country. They just wouldn't be
engaging in proxy wars and fundamental funding terrorism. I know
I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Well, here's the problem with that. Iran wants to do that.
They are pleading with anyone who will listen, to include
this morning, on some some of the shows that are
coming out of the Middle East today. That's why they're
going to Geneva to talk. They still want that very
outcome and they are pleading with President Trump to get it.
(05:38):
The problem is Israel doesn't want that, so they do
because for what lack it or hate it. Israel has
apparently decided that the Net and Yahoo on down. It's
not just him, but they said they cannot live with
Iran existing. So the only thing they would be satisfied
with is the destruction of Iran. And look, Iran doesn't
live to attack other countries. Despite that's what's claimed all
(06:00):
the time, when you look at the actual record, they
never launched any attack directly into Israel until twenty twenty
four in response to what they were attacked, Meaning from
nineteen seventy nine up until twenty twenty four, they had
never attacked Israel directly. So this idea of death to
Israel and death to America and all that kind of stuff,
that is a political slogan because they have been attacked,
(06:22):
especially since twenty ten forward by Israel into Iran. So
it's a defensive measure and that's the reality of it.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Well, and of course the argument Israel would make, and
I suppose we along with Israel since it's such a
good friend of ours, is that, well, okay, maybe you
haven't directly attacked Israel, but has Baal and Hamas and
these other terrorist organizations, have you just basically waging a
proxy war using those chuckleheads as your military force?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Right? Absolutely, yes, And that is what a lot of
people claim. But they claim the opposite or the contrary
to that too, and they say that you have been
attacking all of these places here, and we have to
raise these up because like a lot of this happened
in response to Israeli incursion into Leven, and that's where
Hazbola came from. Not just out of nowhere. They came
in as a response to the Israeli incursion, and that
(07:08):
came up, and then the hoo Thies. Of course, they
were attacked by Israel and Saudi Arabia, of course, and
that's one of the reasons there too. So to them,
it's a matter of chicken egg kind of thing. And
both sides think that, well, ours originated first, and then
you came and did this other thing after, etc.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
And vice versa.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
And so you have a situation right now where both
sides have profound distrust from the other side, and something's
got to change if we're ever going to live in peace,
and both sides have to accept the existence of the other.
That means Iran has to accept the issue existence of Israel,
and vice versa. And right now I don't see either
party willing to do what's necessary, and so war seems
(07:45):
to be the only thing left.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
If the United States refocused its effort on Israel, saying listen, Israel,
your hardline stance on eradicating Iran is just it's a
non starter. Look what's happened here, Look what we're doing.
And I would argue, at least I think Daniel Davis
from my perspective, if that were, if this military action
were to occur, and apparently we're going to be involved
with it, we risk destabilizing the Middle East in so
(08:09):
far as wrecking the progress we made with the Middle
East Abraham Accord countries, because I have a feeling that
they don't want this conflict to start either.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
You are one hundred percent spot on correct. That is
exactly right. If the United States just used its leverage
on Israel to say, look, I get it, y'all hate
each other. I can understand that. But we're not going
to get into a situation where the US military, a
third of our entire US Navy is a raid right
now and a good portion of our air power throughout
(08:39):
the Middle East to do what Israel wants to do
in Iran. And we're talking about taking the lead, even
not even cooperating, and we are going to be the
ones that take the line's share of casualties. And we
should not take these casualties on something that may not
even succeed, because understand that Iran to succeed has to
just not be destroyed. All they've got to do is survive. We,
(09:00):
on the other hand, have to have a victory, so
our standards are much much higher and much more difficult
to achieve. We should not risk that because it would
destabilize the region. And you are also right on the
fact that I'm talking to Saudi Arabi u a e Qatar,
all these people who have in the tea with Iran
said that they would They don't want the instability that
(09:21):
would come along with that. So yes, there is a
lot of room to do exactly what you said, and
that's what President Trump should do in my view.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Okay, it sounds like a logical and reasonable step or
measure to take before we go into a full on war.
Daniel Davis Daniel Davis Deep Die find his podcast wherever
you find your podcast, and of course tune in every Tuesday.
At this time, the Kremlin said, look, we'll hear will
halt airstrikes if Zelenski allows the vote, okay, for one
day during the vote, they will halt airstrikes. So it
(09:49):
doesn't seem to be much of a concession, and I
think it's a logical and reasonable thing for them to say.
But meanwhile, Selenski is asking for you the United States
to back security guarantees, and it sounds me like this
is putting the car before the horse, or vice versa.
Some are suggesting I think Donald Trump is suggesting, No,
we need to work out these land swaps. We need
to get the territorial discussions resolved in a discussion over
(10:12):
peace before we can entertain the idea of whatever, if
any security guarantee we're going to be providing in terms
of the negotiation strategy. I'm a little confused on that.
But if we are going to be providing some security guarantee,
I'm thinking, uh, okay, this looks like we're going to
have boots on the ground and we're going to be
trying to keep the peace between Ukraine and Russia on
(10:33):
a going forward basis. I don't want to bite off
that challenge. I think we're a little short on money
generally speaking, and military resources generally. Daniel Davis, so where
is this going if anywhere, sir, Yeah, where.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
It's going to is a military defeat for Ukraine and
a military victory for Russia. That's where it's heading because
the West at large, and primarily that means Ukraine and
Europe are almost guaranteed that's going to be the outcome
because they will not agree to the things that Russia
has been saying from twenty twenty two forward April twenty
twenty two forward what has to happen to bring this
(11:04):
war to an end, and they've never changed their conditions.
Number one is the territory that you mentioned. Number two
is what they call denocification, demilitarization and no NATO that
those are the things that they say are the core
causes of the war and that they have to be resolved.
Ukraine and Europe are saying we're not going to solve
any of those. In fact, we're going to have a
(11:25):
bigger army at the end than we did at the beginning.
Nobody's going to tell us anything about what's going to
happen with the governing. We'll have our own elections, but
we're going to have everything that we want and no
one's going to tell us differently. And then we want
security guarantees with European boots on the ground in Ukraine,
which is a complete non starter. That's why Russia went
to war in the first place to avoid ergo. They
(11:46):
will never willingly agree to that. So if you can't
even get past that first fundamental point, then the only
option left to Russia is to continue its military operation
until it eventually succeeds, and eventually they will just by
inertia and overall force of numbers. It's a math problem,
and Ukraine in Europe seem oblivious to it.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
I don't understand, and this has been the ongoing problem
you and I've been struggling with for a long long time.
Where's this magical new army going to come from? Daniel Davis?
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Yeah, you just look at the numbers. France and Germany
and uk are the primary people we're talking about here,
and if you took all and I mean all of
their deployable force, you might get sixty seventy thousand. And
are those countries going to completely denude themselves of their
defense capability by putting them on the ground in Ukraine?
I mean that's even theoretical that if they ever got
(12:38):
an agreement, but you see that even numerically, why would
they do that? And how would they afford that indefinitely?
I mean, where's the money going to come from it?
It's irrational even from their perspective. And yet that's where
we are.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Well, maybe as long as they had the United States
sitting military bases in their backyard, they'll expect us to
be their police force while they send their troops to Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Just the thought, well be over put the cubosh on
that in Munich for sure, thinking that this is the
reason why what value do we have being a member
of NATO if they don't even have an army to
defend themselves, or US pursuing to a defense treaty, it's
just a Daniel Davis always love talking with you man.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Every Tuesday. Here fifty five KRSD Talk Station, beginning at
ay thirty the Daniel Davis Deep Dive again search for
his podcast wherever you find yours. I always appreciate the
thought phone alist Daniel Davis my friend. We'll talk next Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Always my pleasure, Brian, see you next week.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Take care. He forty two Right now fifty five KRCD
Talk Station. Joe opened up the phone lines. You want
to call in and comment. Love to hear from you.
Help save me for the rest of the
The talk station, a twenty eight to fifty five CARCD
talk station. Happy Tuesday. I always look forward to this time.
Special things go on on a Tuesday. Here the fifty
five caris some morning show, including this segment. Tune in
every Tuesday at this time to hear Daniel Davis with
a Daniel Davis a deep dive youtitle looking at the
Colonel of Daniel Davis breaking down the situation today in Iran,
(00:21):
the latest in Russia and Ukraine. Welcome back, my friend.
It's always great having you on the morning show, Sir.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Always a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Brian, if you don't mind, let's start with Iran. I
know we have talked so many times, and I share
your concern about launching a military strike on Iran. This
is regime change you've outlined many times, how unbelievably explosive,
no pun intended. This would be military bases at risk.
The Iranians have a lot of missiles, they can launch
a lot of targets close by they can hit. It's
(00:49):
going to be real chaotic, it's going to be very bloody,
and we're going to lose a lot of human life
doing this. And of course I back off and start
with the problem that Well, I would like to have
a declaration of war in Congress before we start dropping
bombs and entering regime change. But that pesky constitution is
always going to be in the background. But as I
read the Wall Street Journal today Jared Maslin reporting on
(01:09):
the economic situation going on in Iran, is it possible
that these long term sanctions, which are apparently seriously impacting
the Iranians might be the mechanism to go about bringing
about a resolution for this, Maybe getting some concessions from
the Iranians on missiles, maybe get them to concede on
the nuclear Enrichmond program. What we've been looking for, at
least what we say we're looking for, because basically their
(01:32):
currency has tanked. Shopkeepers can't sell goods at a profit,
people can't afford anything. There is a massive amount of
economic uncertainty because of that looming potential military threat. With
two carrier groups hanging out in their backyard. I mean,
there's a lot of pressure on them, But economically it
is a miserable situation going on Iran right now. Is
(01:54):
this maybe a pathway to a non warfare resolution of
the conflict. I hate to throw it at you that way.
But that's where I am this morning, Daniel.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well, I got we got to shut off, first of
all and say what is the conflict resolution terms that
we want? And you know, some people claim because that's
some of the terms that are being tossed around is
is no long range missiles, no support for the proxies,
and no nuclear Richmond. But I think that's just a canard.
I don't think that that's the issue at all. I
(02:22):
think that the reason why people are on the on
the side that we're saying that, and a lot of
that comes out of Israel, is because they know that
Iran can't apply abide by those so they're just using
that as reason to show then will when the fails.
Talking they're in Geneva today talking about that, then they
can say, well, we tried everything and now here we go,
we're going to have a regime change. To answer your
(02:43):
direct question about the economics, first of all, it's important
that Best went on before the Congress and explained that
the only reason that they're in such dire economic conditions
today is because we intentionally sank their currency for the
purpose of causing this riot that happened. So we're trying
(03:03):
to do that to bring them to that point. But
the answer is that Iran can't agree to those because
if they do, it's literal suicide and they have acknowledged such.
Because if they don't have long range missiles, they can't
defend themselves and they are utterly powerless to be completely
pulverized and destroyed by Israel or the United States in
a future day. So they can't do that. No matter
(03:24):
how bad the economy is. They will they will, I
mean eat sand if they have to, pardon the pun
but it is a literal life and death issue for them,
So there is no chance that they can agree to that.
And therefore I think we're pursuing the only option, and
there is which Mark Tiessen on Fox News last night said, Look,
this is the issue for Iran, and he said it correctly,
(03:46):
submission or destruction. And I think that's the intent, and
I think he's right on that. I think the idea
is horribly flawed because we're basically sating the conditions for
is the only option. But he's right, that's what we're
offering Iran.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Well indulge me for a moment if I may engage
in fantasy land here, Davis, this they can't capitulate. Does
that spring from the legitimate fear over Israel attacking them?
Does it spring from the religious fundamentalism against Israel Jewish
people generally speaking. I guess I know they instilled the
(04:20):
iatola back in what was it seventy nine? They have
a very fundamentalist religious order going on there. So is
that the predicate for it? Because here's where you need
to indulge me in my fantasy. Let's just say, for
the sake of discussion that they realize that they're over
a barrel economically, they realize that now maybe they're outgun militarily.
They don't want to get into a war period, end
of story, because of all the loss of life. Fine,
(04:41):
let's just say theoretically you could get them to enter
into something like the Abraham Accords, where we want you
to be a nice, let's play together neighbor. Like other
countries who had a predisposition to be against Israel, they've
come into the playground. They're enjoying the benefits of a
comfortable relationship without having to wage war. Listen, that could
be you we don't want to what attack you? We
don't want to kick anybody out. We just want you
(05:02):
to not bomb us anymore and live in peace and harmony.
I know it's a pipe dream, but if you could
convince them that, then they wouldn't be giving up anything.
They could still control their country. They just wouldn't be
engaging in proxy wars and fundamental funding terrorism. I know
I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Well, here's the problem with that. Iran wants to do that.
They are pleading with anyone who will listen, to include
this morning, on some some of the shows that are
coming out of the Middle East today. That's why they're
going to Geneva to talk. They still want that very
outcome and they are pleading with President Trump to get it.
(05:38):
The problem is Israel doesn't want that, so they do
because for what lack it or hate it. Israel has
apparently decided that the Net and Yahoo on down. It's
not just him, but they said they cannot live with
Iran existing. So the only thing they would be satisfied
with is the destruction of Iran. And look, Iran doesn't
live to attack other countries. Despite that's what's claimed all
(06:00):
the time, when you look at the actual record, they
never launched any attack directly into Israel until twenty twenty
four in response to what they were attacked, Meaning from
nineteen seventy nine up until twenty twenty four, they had
never attacked Israel directly. So this idea of death to
Israel and death to America and all that kind of stuff,
that is a political slogan because they have been attacked,
(06:22):
especially since twenty ten forward by Israel into Iran. So
it's a defensive measure and that's the reality of it.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Well, and of course the argument Israel would make, and
I suppose we along with Israel since it's such a
good friend of ours, is that, well, okay, maybe you
haven't directly attacked Israel, but has Baal and Hamas and
these other terrorist organizations, have you just basically waging a
proxy war using those chuckleheads as your military force?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Right? Absolutely, yes, And that is what a lot of
people claim. But they claim the opposite or the contrary
to that too, and they say that you have been
attacking all of these places here, and we have to
raise these up because like a lot of this happened
in response to Israeli incursion into Leven, and that's where
Hazbola came from. Not just out of nowhere. They came
in as a response to the Israeli incursion, and that
(07:08):
came up, and then the hoo Thies. Of course, they
were attacked by Israel and Saudi Arabia, of course, and
that's one of the reasons there too. So to them,
it's a matter of chicken egg kind of thing. And
both sides think that, well, ours originated first, and then
you came and did this other thing after, etc.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
And vice versa.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
And so you have a situation right now where both
sides have profound distrust from the other side, and something's
got to change if we're ever going to live in peace,
and both sides have to accept the existence of the other.
That means Iran has to accept the issue existence of Israel,
and vice versa. And right now I don't see either
party willing to do what's necessary, and so war seems
(07:45):
to be the only thing left.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
If the United States refocused its effort on Israel, saying listen, Israel,
your hardline stance on eradicating Iran is just it's a
non starter. Look what's happened here, Look what we're doing.
And I would argue, at least I think Daniel Davis
from my perspective, if that were, if this military action
were to occur, and apparently we're going to be involved
with it, we risk destabilizing the Middle East in so
(08:09):
far as wrecking the progress we made with the Middle
East Abraham Accord countries, because I have a feeling that
they don't want this conflict to start either.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
You are one hundred percent spot on correct. That is
exactly right. If the United States just used its leverage
on Israel to say, look, I get it, y'all hate
each other. I can understand that. But we're not going
to get into a situation where the US military, a
third of our entire US Navy is a raid right
now and a good portion of our air power throughout
(08:39):
the Middle East to do what Israel wants to do
in Iran. And we're talking about taking the lead, even
not even cooperating, and we are going to be the
ones that take the line's share of casualties. And we
should not take these casualties on something that may not
even succeed, because understand that Iran to succeed has to
just not be destroyed. All they've got to do is survive. We,
(09:00):
on the other hand, have to have a victory, so
our standards are much much higher and much more difficult
to achieve. We should not risk that because it would
destabilize the region. And you are also right on the
fact that I'm talking to Saudi Arabi u a e Qatar,
all these people who have in the tea with Iran
said that they would They don't want the instability that
(09:21):
would come along with that. So yes, there is a
lot of room to do exactly what you said, and
that's what President Trump should do in my view.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Okay, it sounds like a logical and reasonable step or
measure to take before we go into a full on war.
Daniel Davis Daniel Davis Deep Die find his podcast wherever
you find your podcast, and of course tune in every Tuesday.
At this time, the Kremlin said, look, we'll hear will
halt airstrikes if Zelenski allows the vote, okay, for one
day during the vote, they will halt airstrikes. So it
(09:49):
doesn't seem to be much of a concession, and I
think it's a logical and reasonable thing for them to say.
But meanwhile, Selenski is asking for you the United States
to back security guarantees, and it sounds me like this
is putting the car before the horse, or vice versa.
Some are suggesting I think Donald Trump is suggesting, No,
we need to work out these land swaps. We need
to get the territorial discussions resolved in a discussion over
(10:12):
peace before we can entertain the idea of whatever, if
any security guarantee we're going to be providing in terms
of the negotiation strategy. I'm a little confused on that.
But if we are going to be providing some security guarantee,
I'm thinking, uh, okay, this looks like we're going to
have boots on the ground and we're going to be
trying to keep the peace between Ukraine and Russia on
(10:33):
a going forward basis. I don't want to bite off
that challenge. I think we're a little short on money
generally speaking, and military resources generally. Daniel Davis, so where
is this going if anywhere, sir, Yeah, where.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
It's going to is a military defeat for Ukraine and
a military victory for Russia. That's where it's heading because
the West at large, and primarily that means Ukraine and
Europe are almost guaranteed that's going to be the outcome
because they will not agree to the things that Russia
has been saying from twenty twenty two forward April twenty
twenty two forward what has to happen to bring this
(11:04):
war to an end, and they've never changed their conditions.
Number one is the territory that you mentioned. Number two
is what they call denocification, demilitarization and no NATO that
those are the things that they say are the core
causes of the war and that they have to be resolved.
Ukraine and Europe are saying we're not going to solve
any of those. In fact, we're going to have a
(11:25):
bigger army at the end than we did at the beginning.
Nobody's going to tell us anything about what's going to
happen with the governing. We'll have our own elections, but
we're going to have everything that we want and no
one's going to tell us differently. And then we want
security guarantees with European boots on the ground in Ukraine,
which is a complete non starter. That's why Russia went
to war in the first place to avoid ergo. They
(11:46):
will never willingly agree to that. So if you can't
even get past that first fundamental point, then the only
option left to Russia is to continue its military operation
until it eventually succeeds, and eventually they will just by
inertia and overall force of numbers. It's a math problem,
and Ukraine in Europe seem oblivious to it.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
I don't understand, and this has been the ongoing problem
you and I've been struggling with for a long long time.
Where's this magical new army going to come from? Daniel Davis?
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Yeah, you just look at the numbers. France and Germany
and uk are the primary people we're talking about here,
and if you took all and I mean all of
their deployable force, you might get sixty seventy thousand. And
are those countries going to completely denude themselves of their
defense capability by putting them on the ground in Ukraine?
I mean that's even theoretical that if they ever got
(12:38):
an agreement, but you see that even numerically, why would
they do that? And how would they afford that indefinitely?
I mean, where's the money going to come from it?
It's irrational even from their perspective. And yet that's where
we are.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Well, maybe as long as they had the United States
sitting military bases in their backyard, they'll expect us to
be their police force while they send their troops to Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Just the thought, well be over put the cubosh on
that in Munich for sure, thinking that this is the
reason why what value do we have being a member
of NATO if they don't even have an army to
defend themselves, or US pursuing to a defense treaty, it's
just a Daniel Davis always love talking with you man.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Every Tuesday. Here fifty five KRSD Talk Station, beginning at
ay thirty the Daniel Davis Deep Dive again search for
his podcast wherever you find yours. I always appreciate the
thought phone alist Daniel Davis my friend. We'll talk next Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Always my pleasure, Brian, see you next week.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Take care. He forty two Right now fifty five KRCD
Talk Station. Joe opened up the phone lines. You want
to call in and comment. Love to hear from you.
Help save me for the rest of the
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.