UKRAINE NEEDS TOMAHAWKS to PROVOKE & ESCALATE / Lt Col Daniel Davis & Ian Proud

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

Ukraine’s progress has stopped.

No meaningful advances have occurred since the summer incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, which has now been reversed.

Russia’s slow advance:

Moscow is making very gradual territorial gains, deliberately minimizing its own casualties while inflicting high Ukrainian losses.

Tactical adjustments:

Russia is using small units (sometimes just a few vehicles or motorbikes) and heavy reliance on artillery, glide bombs, and drones to attrit Ukrainian forces.

Ukraine’s constraints:

Lacking manpower and heavy weapons, Ukraine cannot launch any large offensives; massing troops would invite devastating Russian strikes.

2. Zelensky’s Strategy and the Tomahawk Debate

Zelensky is portrayed as seeking U.S. Tomahawk missiles to escalate the conflict, hoping to provoke a severe Russian response that could draw NATO closer to direct involvement—something described as “a doomsday scenario.”

From his perspective, escalation might appear to offer a path to renewed attention and support; from the critics’ view, it risks catastrophic consequences.

Russia, by contrast, is described as “fighting for time, not land,” seeking to wear down European financial and political will to keep funding Ukraine.

3. Europe’s Role and Risks

European NATO countries are seen as reluctant to intervene militarily, despite occasional airspace incursions and rising rhetoric from Poland and other states.

The speaker claims Russia is content with a “slow, grinding war” that drains Europe’s finances and morale.

This approach allegedly aligns with Putin’s long game: letting Europe “implode upon itself” as economic and political fatigue set in.

4. Zelensky’s Public Messaging

Zelensky’s recent remarks before meeting President Trump emphasize:

A “prepared agenda” combining military and economic measures.

Sanctions coordination with Britain and other allies.

The claim that stronger sanctions and Western arms like Patriots and Tomahawks can “lay a long-term foundation for peace.”

The commentators reject this entirely, saying such actions would not bring peace—only provoke Russia to escalate further with superior weapons.

5. Critique of Western and European Leadership

Zelensky is accused of spreading “propaganda” and being motivated by self-preservation (“when the war’s over, he’s out of a job”).

European leaders—Scholz, Macron, Sunak, von der Leyen, Rutte—are described as politically trapped:

They invested too much political capital in Zelensky’s success.

Admitting defeat would be politically disastrous, so they continue the rhetoric that Ukraine can win, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Their continued public optimism is viewed as a stalling tactic, “kicking the can down the road” until after future elections.

This, the speakers say, reflects herd mentality and fear of political fallout, not strategic logic.

6. Predicted Outcomes

The analysts foresee the war lasting into 2026, since neither side (especially Europe) is ready to face reality.

As financial and military strain grows, nationalist parties across Europe—such as France’s National Rally or the UK’s Reform Party—could gain power.

If nationalist governments rise and reject the current EU line, the European Union itself could fracture, especially if France were to leave.

The end result, they warn, could be a European “death spiral”—economic, political, and institutional decay driven by denial of military realities.