Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanielDavisDeepDive?ref=seller-platform-mcnav A broadcast discussion w/Dr. Gilbert Doctorow about recent statements by President Trump, Russian policy under Vladimir Putin, European sanctions, and the Ukraine war. The excerpt jumps between quoting Trump (a Friday statement), analysis from the guest, and reflections on European political dynamics and military planning. Core points Tomahawk missiles debate Trump repeatedly insisted (in a statement last Friday) that the U.S. “needs tomahawks” and many other weapons for Ukraine. The guest argues that this rhetoric made Trump appear bold, but in practice the deliveries of Tomahawks are not going to be carried out. The guest says the threat that Russia made (presumably to retaliate if such weapons were supplied) was effectively meaningless because the weapons wouldn’t be sent. Scale and consequences of funding €145 billion (figure cited) could keep Ukraine fighting for “three or four more years.” The guest warns this will enable buying mercenaries, drones, and other materiel—contradicting claims that Ukraine lacks manpower. This sustained funding, the guest claims, is partly intended to give Europe time to rebuild military capacity. Motivation for pushing long-range weapons The guest suggests Zelenskiy (referred to as “Zilinski”) frames requests for long-range missiles/tomahawks to pull NATO directly into the war. The claim: asking for long-range systems increases the risk of NATO becoming a direct party. Effectiveness of drones vs missiles Ukraine has been causing significant damage inside Russia using drones (with British intelligence help), hitting refineries and infrastructure—so the guest argues long-range missiles aren’t strictly necessary for that effect. Assessment of Putin The guest criticizes Putin for oscillating between hardline rhetoric and cautious, conciliatory tones. He accuses Putin of a kind of appeasement (“peace in our time”) and fears Putin may be yielding to softer voices in Russia’s debate. The guest uses strong language (calls Putin’s recent behavior “cowardice”) and fears Putin could become a “Gorbachev 2” (i.e., leader seen as capitulating or losing resolve). Nonetheless, the guest supports dialogue over confrontation and acknowledges the value of talks—even while criticizing Putin’s current posture. European readiness & public attitudes Europe is reportedly increasing defense budgets (in part due to Trump’s pressure). The guest warns that public elites, comfortable upper classes, and some policymakers are naïve about the human cost of a large-scale mobilization or draft. Anecdote: at a Brussels dinner, a defense official’s deputy (an HR-type) said Belgium can’t easily raise forces because most budget goes to pensions/salaries; some elites expressed a romanticized view that a draft would be “good discipline” for youth—guest finds this alarming. Trump: “We need tomahawks… a lot of other weapons.” (stated last Friday; repeated). Guest on confiscation: The legal framing is a “subtle turn” to make confiscation appear legitimate—practically it’s seizure and redistribution. Guest on Russian threat: “We will not fight you in the trenches. We will obliterate you.” Guest on Putin: At times giving a “Chamberlain” — “peace in our time” — tone; risks being “Gorbachev 2.” Implications & warnings emphasized by the guest Prolongation of the war — Large, slow-distributed funds could intentionally keep Ukraine in a prolonged conflict (3–4 years), with western resources sustaining that fight. Escalation risk — Supplying long-range weapons could pull NATO farther into the conflict and raise the risk of direct confrontation with Russia, with nuclear rhetoric creating existential dangers. Domestic European vulnerability — Europe’s political and budgetary limitations make rapid, sustained mobilization costly and socially destabilizing; elites may be underestimating the human cost. Questionable motives — Some of the public case for rearmament and certain weapons is driven by industry and political signaling rather than pure strategic necessity. Concise takeaway The conversation argues that recent Western rhetoric about supplying long-range weapons (Tomahawks) to Ukraine is politically dramatic but practically unlikely, while Europe’s move toward confiscating Russian assets and increasing military spending risks prolonging the war and escalating it toward catastrophic levels. The guest is critical both of Western decisions that might intensify the conflict and of Putin’s inconsistent approach, warning that all sides are playing dangerous games with uncertain and possibly dire outcomes.