Daniel Davis 烏克蘭完了 為國防工業提供了豐厚收入

NATO risks World War III in Ukraine — while lining the defense industry's pockets
北約冒著在烏克蘭爆發第三次世界大戰的風險——同時又為國防工業提供了豐厚的收入

"烏克蘭完了" 美國陸軍上校揭露美國對俄戰爭失敗的真相
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj7qBp3TR8s&ab_channel=

2024年5月12日

丹尼爾·戴維斯上校再次加入節目，報道烏克蘭戰場的最新情況。 美國政府剛剛向烏克蘭追加了 610 億美元，但其中大部分資金將留在美國。 我們討論為什麽這場戰爭失敗了，俄羅斯在人員和彈藥方麵都擁有最大的優勢，最後我們反駁了普京想要入侵和攻擊西歐的理論。

美國正在投資烏克蘭的失敗

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4649865-america-is-investing-in-ukrainian-failure/?

作者：丹尼爾·戴維斯 Daniel L. Davis 中校 - 05/08/24

2023 年 4 月 13 日星期四，155 毫米 M795 炮彈在賓夕法尼亞州斯克蘭頓的斯克蘭頓陸軍彈藥廠的製造過程中儲存。（美聯社照片/Matt Rourke）

拜登總統上個月末大張旗鼓地簽署了 950 億美元的對外援助計劃，聲稱這“將使美國變得更安全”。 這將使世界變得更加安全。” 盡管許多烏克蘭支持者慶祝該法案的通過，但仔細審視相關事實應該會緩和一些興奮情緒。 雖然這筆現金可能使烏克蘭武裝部隊（UAF）能夠繼續戰鬥，但不太可能改變最終結果。

從數字來看，烏克蘭永遠不可能贏得戰爭並奪回所有失去的領土。 如果基輔不迅速尋求以最佳條件進行談判解決，烏克蘭最終可能會遭受徹底失敗。

如果你認為，在我們在阿富汗經曆了整整兩個十年的可怕戰略災難之後，我們不會急於重複我們的缺陷，這是情有可原的。 但你就錯了。 正如一位同事最近對我打趣的那樣，美國的外交政策似乎陷入了“雙倍下注”模式，即我們不承認錯誤，然後糾正它們，而是簡單地忽略錯誤，並加倍下注導致失敗的相同政策要素。 第一名。
這種不健康的傾向在烏克蘭得到了充分體現。 現實情況是，美國本可以通過冷靜和成熟的外交手段避免這場戰爭。 盡管歐洲各國首都和烏克蘭領導人擁有代理權並且並非沒有罪責，但華盛頓毫無疑問在與俄羅斯和烏克蘭有關的戰爭與和平問題上發揮著主導作用。

我們本可以堅持要求烏克蘭和歐洲盡一切努力執行明斯克協議的條款。 盡管俄羅斯確實在履行其義務方麵拖拖拉拉，但正如德國前總理安格拉·默克爾所承認的那樣，西方顯然從未打算讓烏克蘭遵守這些條款，而隻是利用該協議作為基輔建立和訓練其軍事力量的掩護 。

我們本可以在 2021 年 12 月與基輔和莫斯科合作，找到足夠的共同點，達成協議，防止俄羅斯入侵並保持對話。 弗拉基米爾·普京的開放要求顯然超出了西方任何人所能接受的範圍，但這就是任何談判的目的：雙方從自己的最佳立場開始，然後通過談判達成雙方都能接受的妥協。 普京的提議甚至沒有被接受。

俄羅斯常說的不可談判的議題是烏克蘭加入北約，這將使軍事聯盟來到莫斯科的家門口。 普京公開提出談判一個月後，北約秘書長延斯·斯托爾滕貝格明確予以否認，他表示北約堅持 2008 年承認烏克蘭的聲明，並表示他將繼續“幫助烏克蘭加入北約”。

戰爭剛開始六周，土耳其主持了烏克蘭和俄羅斯之間的會談，也有可能通過談判達成解決方案。 在那次會議之前，弗拉基米爾·澤連斯基公開表示，他將考慮滿足普京的主要要求：中立。 3 月 29 日，雙方似乎即將達成協議以結束戰爭。 但由於仍不明朗的原因，澤倫斯基幾天後急劇改變方針，這筆交易宣告失敗。 2022 年 10 月，澤倫斯基簽署了一項法案，隻要普京繼續擔任總統，就禁止與俄羅斯進行談判。 從那以後就沒有進行過任何認真的討論。

許多烏克蘭支持者聲稱，美國新的援助計劃將在一定程度上緩解嚴重的彈藥短缺問題，但對於現金和彈藥的注入將如何扭轉俄羅斯在戰場上的巨大優勢卻保持沉默。 為了讓烏克蘭有機會取得軍事勝利（定義為將俄羅斯趕出被占領土，回到 1991 年甚至 2022 年的邊界），支持者必須切實表明這種援助將如何扭轉普京在空中力量、防空方麵的優勢 、火炮彈藥生產、導彈、無人機、電子戰、軍事工業能力，尤其是人力。
但沒有人能繪製出這樣一張圖

反之，因為美國和我們的盟友都不願意放棄自己的大部分國防庫存和資金來提供足夠的資金來扭轉這種不平衡，而且需要很多年的時間才能嚐試增加所需的裝備數量 擴大產能。

毫無疑問，澤連斯基很快就會要求美國提供更多資金，因為目前的一攬子計劃可能會讓他們度過今年的難關，但不會再多了。 這不是烏克蘭應該指望的。 華盛頓經過長達六個月的政治角力才最終達成這項協議。 目前還不清楚是否還會有一項融資法案，更不用說未來幾年持續的現金注入了。

我們應該做的是告訴澤連斯基和北約盟友真相：我們不會繼續支持一項無法成功的政策。 如果我們明智且真正重視烏克蘭人的生命，我們就應該提供足夠的武器和彈藥，以堅守陣地——隻要基輔積極公開地尋求與莫斯科通過談判達成解決方案。 重點應該是認清現實，停止殺戮、對烏克蘭城市的破壞和更多領土的喪失，並為幸存者提供一個合法的未來機會。
如果西方和基輔繼續忽視現實，並堅持相信隻要有足夠的時間和金錢，他們就能贏得戰爭，那麽烏克蘭最終被提出投降條件的可能性就會上升到危險的高度。

丹尼爾·L·戴維斯中校是 Defense Priorities 的高級研究員和軍事專家，也是 YouTube 上“丹尼爾·戴維斯深度剖析”節目的主持人。 通過@DanielLDavis1 關注他

北約冒著在烏克蘭爆發第三次世界大戰的風險——同時又為國防工業提供了豐厚的收入

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4657428-nato-risks-world-war-iii-in-ukraine-while-lined-the-defense-industrys-pockets/?

作者：Douglas MacKinnon，意見貢獻者 - 05/11/24

2024年5月9日，俄羅斯軍人參加在莫斯科紅場舉行的勝利日閱兵式。俄羅斯慶祝二戰戰勝納粹德國79周年。首先，真正令人震驚的消息似乎無人關心：烏克蘭戰爭日益接近引發核打擊。

本周早些時候，獨立總統候選人小羅伯特·肯尼迪再次對這場即將發生的災難發出警告，他發帖稱：“烏克蘭局勢正處於災難性升級的邊緣。 華盛頓的軍事帝國主義者和他們在歐洲的走狗知道他們正在招致的危險嗎？ 他們執行外交政策就好像這是一場‘吃雞’遊戲。”

肯尼迪是噩夢般的正確。 這是我在本網站上多次強調過的一點。 無論是拜登政府、英國、法國還是其他國家的行動，西方一些人似乎有意讓弗拉基米爾·普京和俄羅斯人做出難以想象的事情。 為什麽？
撇開“我們必須團結一致反對普京”、“我們必須拯救烏克蘭人民”或“我們必須保護北約”等不斷變化的論點不談，這裏還有其他力量在起作用。 其中第一個：金錢。

在我們到達那裏之前，對於那些試圖“拯救烏克蘭人民和基礎設施”的人，我真的很遺憾地告訴你，你們失敗了。 雖然大多數媒體似乎不願報道該國的某些事實，但事實確實如此：數十萬男人、女人和兒童被殺或受傷； 該國的大部分基礎設施已化為瓦礫； 超過 600 萬烏克蘭人逃離了自己的國家。 那些鼓勵烏克蘭在距離戰場數千英裏的舒適和安全的辦公室裏戰鬥到最後一個公民的人需要拿出更有說服力的理由。

現在，回到錢。 4 月底，拜登總統簽署了另一項針對烏克蘭、以色列和台灣的援助計劃，金額高達 950 億美元。 但是，正如他們在深夜廣告中常說的那樣，“等等，還有更多。” 正如上個月報道的那樣：“烏克蘭和美國正在製定長期安全協議。”

“長期”到底有多長？ 根據風險投資家兼播客主持人 David Sacks 以及其他人的說法，“長期”大約相當於 10 年，成本超過 1 萬億美元。

顯然，對於我國和歐洲的許多國防承包商來說，烏克蘭已經成為不斷贈送的禮物。 但是，源源不斷的納稅人資金何時開始變得類似於“欺詐、浪費和濫用”呢？ 現在有些人肯定會這麽說，因為數億美元已經消失在烏克蘭的各個老鼠洞裏，而沒有任何責任。

接下來，湧入烏克蘭的數十億援助何時開始類似於世界上最大的龐氏騙局？ 這種古老騙局的一個定義是一種欺詐形式，用較新投資者的資金向較早投資者支付利潤。 除本例外，“較早”和“較近”的投資者並非出於自願

。 他們的各國政府正在為他們做出決定，因為他們將辛苦賺來的錢轉交給烏克蘭，或者很可能轉交給犯罪企業。
這種情況下的欺詐聽起來很像這樣：“我們現在必須通過提供數千億美國納稅人的資金來支持烏克蘭，這樣我們以後就不必派遣美軍了。” 哎呀，到底誰會命令這些軍隊去烏克蘭作戰呢？

回到肯尼迪的警告，我們現在似乎——在沒有任何人征求我們批準的情況下——就烏克蘭問題與普京和俄羅斯進行了一場核“雞”遊戲。 至少是瘋狂的傲慢。

正如 RFK Jr. 所言：“英國外交大臣戴維·卡梅倫最近表示，烏克蘭有權使用英國武器打擊俄羅斯。 作為回報，莫斯科警告英國大使，這將引發俄羅斯對倫敦的報複。” 《紐約時報》上周報道稱，美國秘密向烏克蘭運送了可以深入俄羅斯領土的 ATACM 導彈； 俄羅斯宣布使用戰術核武器進行演習並非巧合。
這些是否會讓你的血液變冷？ 它應該。

過去兩年與我交談過的專家中，沒有一個人相信烏克蘭能夠贏得這場戰爭。 揭發龐氏騙局、結束核“雞”遊戲並通過談判解決問題的時候早已過去。

到了某個時候，普京肯定會厭倦這個遊戲，直接開車撞上迎麵而來的車輛。 那麽這次爆炸的實際後果會是什麽？
道格拉斯·麥金農 (Douglas MacKinnon) 是一名政治和傳播顧問，也是羅納德·裏根 (Ronald Reagan) 和喬治·H·W·布什 (George H.W. Bush) 總統的白宮撰稿人。 布什，並在布什政府最後三年擔任五角大樓政策和通訊特別助理。

"Ukraine is Finished" US Army Colonel Reveals TRUTH About America's Failed War Against Russia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj7qBp3TR8s&ab_channel=

2024年5月12日

Colonel Daniel Davis joins the show again to report the latest from the battlefield of Ukraine. The US Government just sent an additional $61 Billion dollars to Ukraine, however the majority of that money will stay in the US. We discuss why this war is failing, the supreme advantage Russia has with both men and ammo, and finally we disprove the theory that Putin wants to invade and attack Western Europe.

America is investing in Ukrainian failure 

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4649865-america-is-investing-in-ukrainian-failure/?

by Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, opinion contributor - 05/08/24

155 mm M795 artillery projectiles are stored during manufacturing process at the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant in Scranton, Pa., Thursday, April 13, 2023. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

To great fanfare, President Biden signed the $95 billion foreign aid package late last month claiming it was “going to make America safer. It’s going to make the world safer.” While many Ukraine supporters have celebrated the bill’s passage, a closer examination of relevant facts should temper any excitement; while this cash may enable the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) to continue fighting, it isn’t likely to change the ultimate outcome. 

By the numbers, Ukraine will never win the war and retake all its lost territory. If Kyiv doesn’t quickly seek a negotiated settlement on the best terms available, Ukraine may ultimately suffer an outright defeat. 

You would be forgiven for thinking that after the horrendous strategic disaster that was our two-full-decades-in-the-making defeat in Afghanistan, we wouldn’t be in a rush to repeat our flaws. But you would be mistaken. As a colleague recently quipped to me, American foreign policy seems stuck in the “double down” mode, whereby instead of acknowledging errors — and then correcting them — we simply ignore the mistakes and double down on the same policy elements that led to failure in the first place. 

That unhealthy penchant is on full display in Ukraine. The reality is that this war could have been averted with sober and mature diplomacy by the United States. Though European capitals and Ukrainian leaders have agency and are not free from guilt, Washington unquestionably drives the train on matters related to war and peace vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine. 

We could have insisted that Ukraine and Europe did whatever it took to implement the terms of the Minsk Agreements. While Russia certainly dragged its heels on implementing its obligations, the West, as admitted by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, apparently never intended for Ukraine to abide by the terms, only using the agreement as cover for Kyiv to build up and train its military forces. 

We could have worked with both Kyiv and Moscow in December 2021 to find enough common ground to come to an agreement to prevent a Russian invasion and keep dialogue alive. Vladimir Putin’s opening demands were clearly beyond what anyone in the West would have accepted, but that’s what any negotiations are about: each side starting with its optimal position and then negotiating down to a mutually acceptable compromise. Putin’s offer wasn’t even entertained. 

Russia’s oft-stated non-negotiable was Ukraine joining NATO, which would bring the military alliance to Moscow’s doorstep. One month after Putin’s public offer of negotiations, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg delivered a clear repudiation when he said the alliance stands by its 2008 declaration to admit Ukraine, and that he would continue to “help Ukraine to move towards a NATO membership.” 

A negotiated settlement was also possible barely six weeks into the war when Turkey hosted talks between Ukraine and Russia. Heading into that meeting, Volodymyr Zelensky stated publicly he would consider meeting Putin’s main requirement: neutrality. On March 29, it appeared both sides were near a deal to end the war. But for reasons that remain murky, Zelensky sharply reversed course days later and the deal died. In October 2022, Zelensky signed a bill prohibiting negotiations with Russia so long as Putin remains president. There haven’t been any serious discussions since. 

Many Ukraine supporters claim that the new U.S. aid package will provide some relief from severe ammunition shortages, but remain deathly silent on how this infusion of cash and ammunition will reverse the huge advantages Russia has on the battlefield. For Ukraine to even have a shot at military victory (defined as driving Russia out of occupied territory back to the 1991 — or even 2022 — borders), advocates must show, tangibly, how this aid will reverse Putin’s advantages in air power, air defense, artillery ammunition production, missiles, drones, electronic warfare, military industrial capacity and, above all, manpower. 

But no one can chart such a course, because neither the United States nor our allies are willing to part with major portions of their own national defense stocks and funds to provide enough to reverse the imbalance, and it will take too many years to try and grow the required volume of kit by expanding capacity. 

Zelensky will no doubt soon ask for more U.S. funding, as this current package might get them through this year, but no more. That’s not something Ukraine should count on. It took six long months of political wrangling in Washington to get this deal out the door; it is unclear there will even be one more funding bill, much less sustained cash infusions for years into the future. 

What we should do is tell Zelensky and NATO allies the truth: we’re not going to keep backing a policy that can’t succeed. If we are wise and truly value the lives of Ukrainians, we should offer to supply enough weapons and ammo to try to hold the line — as long as Kyiv actively and publicly seeks a negotiated settlement with Moscow. The point should be to recognize reality, stop the killing, the destruction of Ukrainian cities, and the loss of more territory, and give the survivors a legitimate chance at a future. 

If the West and Kyiv continue to ignore reality and cling to the fiction that with enough time and money they can win the war, the chances rise to dangerous highs that Ukraine will eventually be presented with terms of surrender. 

Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow and military expert at Defense Priorities and the host of the “Daniel Davis Deep Dive” show on YouTube. Follow him at @DanielLDavis1 

NATO risks World War III in Ukraine — while lining the defense industry's pockets

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4657428-nato-risks-world-war-iii-in-ukraine-while-lining-the-defense-industrys-pockets/?

by Douglas MacKinnon, opinion contributor - 05/11/24

Russian servicemen attend the Victory Day military parade on Red Square in Moscow on May 9, 2024. Russia celebrates the 79th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. 

First, the truly alarming news next to no one seems to care about: Day by day, the war in Ukraine is tipping ever closer to triggering a nuclear strike.

Earlier this week, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. once again waved the warning flag on this pending cataclysm, posting: “The situation in Ukraine is on the brink of calamitous escalation. Do the military imperialists in Washington and their lackeys in Europe have any idea the danger they are courting? They are conducting foreign policy as if it were a game of ‘chicken.’”

Kennedy is nightmarishly correct. It is a point I have stressed several times on this site. Be it the actions of the Biden administration, the United Kingdom, France or others, some in the West seem intent in daring Vladimir Putin and the Russians to do the unthinkable. Why?

Leaving aside the ever-malleable arguments that: “We have to stand as one against Putin,” “We have to save the people of Ukraine” or “We have to protect NATO,” there are also other forces at work here. First among them: money.

Before we get there, for those trying to “save the people and infrastructure of Ukraine,” I am truly sad to report that you have failed. While most in the media seem averse to reporting certain facts in the country, this much is true: Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children have been killed or wounded; much of the infrastructure of the country has been reduced to rubble; and over 6 million Ukrainians have fled their nation. Those encouraging Ukraine to fight to its last citizen from the comfort and safety of their offices thousands of miles from the battlefield need to come up with a more convincing rationale.

Now, back to the money. Toward the end of April, President Biden signed yet another aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, this one to the tune of $95 billion. But, as they used to say in the late-night commercials, “Wait, there’s more.” As reported last month: “Ukraine and US working on long-term security agreement.” 

How long is “long term”? According to venture capitalist and podcast host David Sacks — as well as others — “long term” would equal approximately 10 years and cost upwards of $1 trillion.

Clearly, for a number of defense contractors in our nation and in Europe, Ukraine has become the gift that keeps on giving. But when does a never-ending supply of taxpayer money begin to resemble “fraud, waste and abuse”? Some would certainly say now, as hundreds of millions of dollars have already disappeared down various rat holes in Ukraine with no accountability.

Next, at what point do the billions and billions of aid pouring into Ukraine begin to resemble the world’s largest Ponzi scheme? One definition of that age-old scam is a form of fraud that pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors. Except in this case, the “earlier” and “more recent” investors are not doing so of their own volition. Their various governments are deciding for them, as they take their hard-earned money and turn it over by the billions to Ukraine or, quite possibly, criminal enterprises. 

The grift in this case can sound very much like this: “We have to prop up Ukraine now by sending hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, so we won’t have to send in U.S. troops later.” Gee, and just who would be ordering those troops into combat in Ukraine?

Going back to Kennedy’s warning, we now seem to be — without anyone asking for our approval — engaging in a game of nuclear “chicken” with Putin and Russia over Ukraine. Insane hubris at the least.  

As RFK Jr. posted: “British Foreign Secretary David Cameron recently stated that Ukraine has the right to use British weapons to strike Russia. In return, Moscow warned the British ambassador that that would provoke Russian retaliation against London.” The New York Times reported last week that the U.S. secretly shipped ATACM missiles to Ukraine that can strike deep into Russian territory; not by coincidence, Russia announced training maneuvers using tactical nuclear weapons.

Does any of that make your blood run cold? It should.

None of the experts I have spoken with over the course of the last two years believe Ukraine can win this war. It’s long past the time to blow the whistle on the Ponzi scheme, end the game of nuclear “chicken” and enter into a negotiated settlement.

At some point, Putin is sure to tire of the game and drive straight into the oncoming vehicle. What then will be the literal fallout from that explosion?

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.