Aug 31, 2025
Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanielDavis… 1. Troop Requirements & Impracticality Ukraine has at least 1,000 miles of frontline (even more if Belarus is included). If troops were placed 60 feet apart, it would take 100,000 soldiers just to man the line. Accounting for rotations (on-duty, off-duty, training), a force of 300,000+ would be required. Realistically, once you add support personnel, the figure might be 600–700,000 troops. Europe cannot supply this: UK has ~30,000 deployable troops (≈10% of what’s needed). France could maybe provide another 10%. Italy would contribute nothing. Poland is preoccupied with its own defense. The US does not want to be dragged into direct fighting in Ukraine. Conclusion: A NATO/Western troop presence in Ukraine is not credible. 2. Historical Parallel – U.S. Army Post-Vietnam After Vietnam (1975), the U.S. Army was in disarray — poorly led, demoralized, and ineffective. It took about a decade (1975–1985) to rebuild the force. By analogy, Europe cannot hope to create a meaningful, strategic ground force in less than 10 years. Meanwhile, Russia already has a battle-hardened, modernized army with strong leadership and technology. 3. Neutrality as the Only Viable Model The Austrian State Treaty (1955) is held up as the model: Austria remained neutral, with no U.S., NATO, or Soviet troops stationed there. It worked for decades and even brought prosperity. Applied to Ukraine: the only sustainable solution is neutral status with external monitoring, not Western troop guarantees. 4. Competing Narratives Western officials (like Lord Ricketts, former UK National Security Adviser): Claim that Russia has “already lost” because: NATO expanded (Finland, Sweden joined). Europe is now more determined to spend on defense. Ukraine is set to become a pro-Western democracy. Speaker’s rebuttal: Says this is delusional: Ukraine is plagued by organized crime, trafficking, and corruption — not a model democracy. Russia is stronger now than before the war. NATO is in terminal decline — a “patient on life support.” The West needs an enemy narrative to justify NATO’s existence, but in reality, NATO has failed and Ukraine is destroyed. 5. Broader Critique of the West Argues that the “globalist project” is collapsing: Mass immigration into Europe has destabilized societies. Ordinary Europeans are increasingly rebelling, demanding deportations and stricter national sovereignty. Politicians pushing the pro-Ukraine/globalist line are “finished” once they admit failure. Suggests the real war is internal: defending European and American societies from decline, crime, drugs, and uncontrolled immigration — not fighting Russia in Ukraine. 6. Final Takeaways Ukraine cannot be “saved” militarily; Russia will dictate the terms because it is willing to fight and Europe is not. The Austrian neutrality model is the only realistic outcome for Ukraine. NATO is portrayed as obsolete, directionless, and doomed. The crisis in Ukraine is really a symptom of a broader collapse of Western/globalist policies at home and abroad.
canisgallicus 