Tuesday, December 27, 2022

Zeit-Fragen 12/27/2022

 Article written in German, can be translated to English on the website.

Zeit-Fragen 12/27/2022

Washingtons Stellvertreterkrieg gegen Russland
Verantwortlichkeiten und Konsequenzen, auch für Deutschland

Interview von Maike Hickson (LifeSiteNews) mit Colonel Douglas Macgregor*

MowMag.com 12/19/2022

 

Mowmag.com 12/19/2022
Article printed in Italian, translated to English

US Colonel Macgregor:  “Ukrainian collapse is inevitable”. And on the sanctions: "They do not lead to a reasonable result"

by Roberto Vivaldelli
December 19, 2022


"President Putin has no need to employ nuclear weapons in a conflict that Russia is clearly winning and which will end sooner rather than later through offensive military action." To say it is Colonel Douglas Macgregor a veteran of the army of the United States of America. As a military man, he doesn't like half measures: "It's only in the West, where people are systematically fed misleading and false information about the true state of affairs in Ukraine, that anyone thinks President Putin would do such a thing."

“There's no doubt that Ukraine 's fatigue is starting to take its toll on the Washington community. It's not just a question of money. It is the recognition that Russian combat power is getting stronger with each passing day while the Ukrainian one is weakening. No, speaking to Mow is not Professor Alessandro Orsini or even an emissary of the Kremlin, but Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a veteran of the United States Army, proposed in 2020 by former President Donald Trump as US Ambassador to Germany (an appointment that was then blocked in the Senate by the Democrats). 

The Colonel, now a commentator for Fox News, comments on the statements of the US Chief of Staff, Mark Milley, according to which «the chances that a Ukrainian military victory – understood as the expulsion of the Russians from all of Ukraine including Crimea – happen soon is not high, militarily». Words supported by a recent New York Times investigation, according to which, after almost ten months of conflict in Ukraine, war aid from the United States and NATO allies may have reached its limit, and from an exclusive report by Foreign Policy which underlines how the weapons donated by the West to Kiev are no longer sufficient to allow for a victory for Ukraine.

«Milley – explains Colonel Macgregor – leaked his advice to the president to the New York Times because he is deeply concerned that the inevitable collapse of Ukraine under the weight of Russia's upcoming winter offensives will result in pressure on Washington to commit the forces of US land to act in western Ukraine». However, Macgregor observes, « the American ground forces are not prepared for such an eventuality and Milley knows it. He reveals how fearful Milley is of what President Biden might ask of US forces in Europe in the future ». All this happens as the Ukrainian Defense Minister, Oleksii Reznikov, has sounded the alarm about a new possible major offensive in Ukraineby Russia in early 2023. According to Reznikov, in fact, although Kiev is now able to successfully defend itself against Russian missile attacks, evidence is emerging that the Kremlin is preparing a new broad offensive. Meanwhile, the Russian bombing of Ukrainian infrastructure is, according to Macgregor, potentially lethal for Kiev: " The damage to the electricity grid and fuel distribution in Ukraine is fatal," he underlines.

However , the Colonel rules out the hypothesis that Russian President Vladimir Putin could use an atomic warhead : «President Putin does not need to use nuclear weapons in a conflict that Russia is clearly winning and which will end sooner rather than later, through offensive military action. It is only in the West – he accuses – where people are systematically fed misleading and false information about the true state of affairs in Ukraine, that anyone thinks President Putin would do such a thing. Even more contemptuous is his judgment on the European Parliament's decision to designate Russia a "state sponsor of terrorism": "These offensive actions combined with the sanctions make a reasonable outcome nearly impossible . First, there is a loss of trust. The admission by Merkel – who said in a recent interview that everyone knew it was a frozen conflict, that the problem had not been resolved, but it was precisely this that bought Ukraine precious time – it has simply reinforced the perception in Moscow that none of the current Western European or American political elites can be trusted. Second, why should Moscow bother listening to what Washington or its closest allies are saying?'

Life-Site: Exclusive U.S. colonel explains America's role in provoking Russia-Ukraine Conflict 12/29/2022



EXCLUSIVE: US colonel explains America’s role in provoking Russia-Ukraine conflict

'Washington’s proxy war with Russia is the result of a carefully constructed plan to embroil Russia in conflict with its Ukrainian neighbor.'

Mon Dec 19, 2022 - 2:15 pm EST
Maike Hickson


Colonel Douglas Macgregor (see bio at end of this article), who was picked in 2020 by President Donald Trump as a senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense, has given LifeSite News a trenchant and thought-provoking interview (see full text below), in which he argues that the United States has sought to provoke Russia by pushing “Ukraine’s development into a regional military power hostile to Russia.”

In the interview, Macgregor also points to the 2014 Maidan coup that toppled the officially elected pro-Russian Ukrainian government, in turn establishing a pro-American government. “The Maidan coup allowed Washington’s agents in Kiev to install a government that would cooperate with this project,” the West Point graduate and scholar with a PhD in international relations told LifeSite.

See below an interview with Colonel Macgregor from one month ago that presents a completely different perspective from that of all western media and governments regarding the conflict in Ukraine.



Macgregor’s statements are in line with an Open Letter to President Joe Biden that LifeSite published in May of 2022, which too argued that the U.S. was involved in setting up a new pro-American government in Ukraine in 2014.

The text, which was signed by conservative journalists such as Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec, Jack Maxey, and Judge Andrew Napolitano, stated about the events in 2014: “At that time, a telephone conversation of your [Biden’s] collaborator Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State under President Barak Obama) revealed how she discussed which leaders should be placed into the new government in Ukraine. The transcript of that conversation also exposed your own direct involvement in this interference with a foreign nation state.”

Macgregor, who served in the U.S. military from 1976 until his retirement in 2004, argues that the U.S. “badly miscalculated” the Russian military strength and that its policy against Russia is actually harming U.S. allies in Europe.

When asked about the driving force behind this war-mongering policy of confrontation with Russia, by way of Ukraine, the book author advises that one should look to “names of the members of the World Economic Forum,” indicating a connection of this war to Great Reset machinations.

Another video interview below titled, ‘The complete destruction of Ukraine is unavoidable.” Again, a total contradiction to western media and Biden administration propaganda. This interview took place on Dec.8.



Macgregor sees a natural alliance between Europe, especially Germany, and Russia, and even calls upon Europe to reassess its own alliances for the sake of avoiding yet another world war. Explaining this, he writes:

The two world wars were destructive episodes that should never have occurred. There is no reason to repeat past mistakes. Berlin must now confront the reality that Washington’s strategic interests and the strategic interests of the German Nation are not identical and adjust its relations with Washington and Moscow appropriately. If Berlin adjust its foreign policy along these lines, Berlin can once again restore stability and prosperity to Europe.

As it seems, this military expert and senior advisor dares to argue outside of the mainstream media’s narrative about the Russia-Ukraine conflict, in regards to both its causes and its development. He runs a YouTube channel on which he comments almost daily on the real developments of the war, countering the talking points of CNN and other channels.

Dec. 8/22 Interview with Dr. Michael Vlahos. Recorded December 8th – Odessa falls and Ukraine becomes a landlocked country.



My husband, Dr. Robert Hickson, a former professor of the Air Force Academy and the Joint Special Operations University, much appreciates Colonel Macgregor’s outspoken and honest interviews, which are so needed in a time where propaganda seems to reign the public discourse. May this voice be heard, for the sake of the preservation of world peace.

Full text of the interview below:

LifeSite: Who in your eyes is the main guilty force behind the escalation of the Ukraine conflict?

Macgregor: Washington’s proxy war with Russia is the result of a carefully constructed plan to embroil Russia in conflict with its Ukrainian neighbor. From the moment that President Putin indicated that his government would not tolerate a NATO military presence on Russia’s doorstep in Ukraine, Washington sought to expedite Ukraine’s development into a regional military power hostile to Russia. The Maidan coup allowed Washington’s agents in Kiev to install a government that would cooperate with this project. PM Merkel’s recent admission that she and her European colleagues sought to exploit the Minsk Accords to buy time for the military building in Ukraine confirms the tragic truth of this matter.

LifeSite: In light of today’s situation, how would you describe the importance and the consequences of the 2014 coup that took place in Ukraine with heavy involvement of the U.S.?

Macgregor: See the response above.

LifeSite: How could the conflict be resolved peacefully and diplomatically, what would be aspects of an agreement between the conflict parties?

Macgregor: Washington and its allies in Western Europe badly miscalculated. They believed that Russia’s economic weakness made an effective Russian military campaign to destroy Ukrainian military strength impossible. Russia’s initial performance assumed that Washington and its allies would recognize the seriousness of the matter and acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security interests in Ukraine. Once it became clear that Washington was determined to not only preserve its strategic military control of Ukraine with the goal of utterly destroying Russia, Moscow changed course. Moscow now treats Ukraine as a theater of war, not as a brother Slavic Country. The war will only end on terms that Moscow creates. As President Putin says repeatedly, ‘Only Moscow is the guarantor of Ukrainian territory.’

LifeSite: Who is the driving force that tries to prevent a peaceful resolution of the conflict?

Macgregor: The names of the members of the World Economic Forum is a good place to start in your search for the answer to this question.

LifeSite: You seem to argue that the U.S.- pushed escalation of the conflict in Ukraine is harming the United States’ relations with Europe. Could you explain your position?

Macgregor: When imposing sanctions, it is always important to avoid sanctioning yourself. Russia is not isolated. In fact, Russia enjoys an unassailable geographical position with access to markets, goods and services that the United States cannot obstruct. Thus, Washington’s allies, as well as, Americans, are now the victims of Washington’s thoughtless and arrogant financial and economic policies.

LifeSite: There are some voices who claim that the Ukraine war actually has helped the U.S. economy by increasing weapons production and gasoline sales to Europe. Would you agree with this assessment or what would you say about who benefits most from this war in Ukraine?

Macgregor: Military sales do not enhance the economic health and well-being of any economy. Investments in military power are sunken costs. The resulting equipment has little salvage value. Whenever a Nation-State builds more military power than is necessary for its own defense, it deprives other economic sectors of the capital they need to grow and prosper. This was President Eisenhower’s argument in 1953 when he said, “Security cannot exist without prosperity. Americans deserve both.”

LifeSite: Do you consider Russia to be a military threat to Europe, or do you think the German-Russian economic collaboration was beneficial for Europe?

Macgregor: Russia was not a threat to Europe when the war in Ukraine began. Washington’s proxy war has compelled Moscow to reexamine its assumptions about Russian security. From now on, Russia will maintain larger and more robust high-end conventional forces with the goal of securing itself from future Western attacks. For most of the last 300 years, Berlin has been Moscow’s natural partner in commercial trade and regional security matters. The two world wars were destructive episodes that should never have occurred. There is no reason to repeat past mistakes. Berlin must now confront the reality that Washington’s strategic interests and the strategic interests of the German nation are not identical and adjust its relations with Washington and Moscow appropriately. If Berlin adjusts its foreign policy along these lines, Berlin can once again restore stability and prosperity to Europe.

A German-language version of this interview will appear in the Austrian Catholic newspaper Der Dreizehnte.

Colonel Macgregor bio as written on Jay Dyer website:

“Col. Douglas Macgregor is a decorated combat veteran, the author of five books, a PhD, and a defense and foreign policy consultant. He was commissioned in the Regular Army in 1976 after 1 year at VMI and 4 years at West Point. In 2004, Macgregor retired with the rank of Colonel. In 2020, the President appointed Macgregor to serve as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Defense, a post he held until President Trump left office. He holds an MA in comparative politics and a PhD in international relations from the University of Virginia.

Macgregor is widely known inside the U.S., Europe, Israel, Russia, China and Korea for both his leadership in the Battle of 73 Easting, the U.S. Army’s largest tank battle since World War II, and for his groundbreaking books on military transformation: Breaking the Phalanx (Praeger, 1997) and Transformation under Fire (Praeger, 2003). Macgregor’s recommendations for change in Force Design and “integrated all arms-all effects” operations have profoundly influenced force development in Israel, Russia and China. In 2010, Macgregor travelled to Seoul, Korea to advise the ROK Ministry of Defense on force design. In 2019, Transformation under Fire was selected by Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi, Chief of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), as the intellectual basis for IDF transformation. His fifth book, Margin of Victory: Five Battles that Changed the Face of Modern War from Naval Institute Press is available in Chinese, as well as, English and will soon appear in Hebrew.

In 28 years of service Macgregor taught in the Department of Social Sciences at West Point, commanded the 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry, and served as the Director of the Joint Operations Center at SHAPE during the 1999 Kosovo Air Campaign for which he was awarded the Defense Superior Service medal. In January 2002, at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s insistence, the USCENTCOM Commander listened to Colonel Macgregor’s concept for the offensive to seize Baghdad. The plan was largely adopted but assumed no occupation of Iraq by U.S. Forces. Macgregor has also testified as an expert witness before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees and appeared as a defense analyst on Fox News, CNN, BBC, Sky News and public radio. He is fluent in German.”

Tuesday, December 20, 2022

The American Conservative 12/20/2022

 


Washington Is Prolonging Ukraine's Suffering

Washington’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security interests in Ukraine and negotiate an end to this war is the path to protracted conflict and human suffering.



During a speech given on November 29, Polish Vice-Minister of National Defense (MON) Marcin Ociepa said: "The probability of a war in which we will be involved is very high. Too high for us to treat this scenario only hypothetically." The Polish MON is allegedly planning to call up 200,000 reservists in 2023 for a few weeks’ training, but observers in Warsaw suspect this action could easily lead to a national mobilization.

Meanwhile, inside the Biden administration, there is growing concern that the Ukrainian war effort will collapse under the weight of a Russian offensive. And as the ground in Southern Ukraine finally freezes, the administration’s fears are justified. In an interview published in the Economist, head of Ukraine’s armed forces General Valery Zaluzhny admitted that Russian mobilization and tactics are working. He even hinted that Ukrainian forces might be unable to withstand the coming Russian onslaught.

Yet, Zaluzhny rejected any notion of a negotiated settlement and instead pleaded for more equipment and support.  He went on to insist that with 300 new tanks, 600 to 700 new infantry fighting vehicles, and 500 new Howitzers, he could still win the war with Russia. Truthfully, General Zaluzhny is not asking for assistance, he’s asking for a new army. Therein lies the greatest danger for Washington and its NATO allies. 

When things go badly for Washington’s foreign policy, the true believers in the great cause always draw deeply from the well of ideological self-delusion to steel themselves for the final battle. Blinken, Klain, Austin, and the rest of the war party continue to pledge eternal support for Kiev regardless of the cost. Like the “best and the brightest” of the 1960s they are eager to sacrifice realism to wishful thinking, to wallow in the splash of publicity and self-promotion in one public visit to Ukraine after another.

This spectacle is frighteningly reminiscent of events more than 50 years ago, when Washington’s proxy war in Vietnam was failing. Doubters within the Johnson administration about the wisdom of intervening on the ground to rescue Saigon from certain destruction went into hiding. In 1963, Washington already had 16,000 military advisors in Vietnam. The idea that Washington was supporting a government in South Vietnam that might not win against North Vietnam was dismissed out of hand. Secretary of State Dean Rusk said, “We will not pull out until the war is won.”

By the spring of 1965, American military advisors were already dying. General Westmoreland, then commander of Military Assistance Command Vietnam, reported to LBJ: “It is increasingly apparent that the existing levels of United States aid cannot prevent the collapse of South Vietnam... North Vietnam is moving in for the kill... Acting on the request of the South Vietnamese government, the decision must be made to commit as soon as possible 125,000 United States troops to prevent the Communist takeover.”

The Biden administration’s unconditional support for the Zelensky regime in Kiev is reaching a strategic inflection point not unlike the one LBJ reached in 1965. Just as LBJ suddenly determined in 1964 that peace and security in Southeast Asia was a vital U.S. strategic interest, the Biden administration is making a similar argument now for Ukraine. Like South Vietnam in the 1960s, Ukraine is losing its war with Russia.

Ukraine’s hospitals and morgues are filled to capacity with wounded and dying Ukrainian soldiers. Washington’s proxy in Kiev has squandered its human capital and considerable Western aid in a series of self-defeating counter-offensives. Ukrainian soldiers manning the defensive lines facing Russian soldiers in Southern Ukraine are brave men, but they are not fools. The Spartans at Thermopylae were brave, and they still died.

The real danger now is that Biden will soon appear on television to repeat LBJ’s performance in 1965, substituting the word "Ukraine" for "South Vietnam":

Tonight, my fellow Americans I want to speak to you about freedom, democracy, and the struggle of the Ukrainian people for victory. No other question so preoccupies our people. No other dream so absorbs the millions who live in Ukraine and Eastern Europe… However, I am not talking about a NATO attack on Russia. Rather, I propose to send a U.S. led coalition of the willing, consisting of American, Polish, and Romanian armed forces into Ukraine, to establish the ground equivalent of a “no-fly zone.” The mission I propose is a peaceful one, to create a safe zone in the Western most portion of Ukraine for Ukrainian Forces and refugees struggling to survive Russia’s devastating attacks…

Disaster wrapped in rhetoric is not the way to save the people of Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is not a Call of Duty fantasy. It is an enlargement of the human tragedy that NATO’s eastward expansion created. The victims do not live in North America. They live in a region that most Americans can't find on a map. Washington urged the Ukrainians to fight. Now Washington must urge them to stop.

NATO’s governments are divided in their thinking about the war in Ukraine. Except for Poland and, possibly, Romania, none of NATO’s members are in a rush to mobilize their forces for a long, grueling war of attrition with Russia in Ukraine. No one in London, Paris, or, Berlin wants to run the risk of a nuclear war with Moscow. Americans do not support going to war with Russia, and those few who do are ideologues, shallow political opportunists, or greedy defense contractors.

When U.S. forces finally withdrew from Southeast Asia, Americans thought that Washington would exercise greater restraint, recognize the limits of American power, and pursue a less militant, and more realistic foreign policy. Americans were mistaken then, but Americans and Europeans know now that Washington’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security interests in Ukraine and negotiate an end to this war is the path to protracted conflict and more human suffering.

Friday, December 16, 2022

Thursday, December 15, 2022

Redacted with Clayton Morris 12/14/2022




The U.S. is sending Patriot missiles to Ukraine in a last ditch PR move. Colonel Douglas Macgregor joins Natali and Clayton Morris to talk about Putin's massive oncoming offensive which will have three main goals.

Rumble:

Video Backup:

Saturday, December 10, 2022

Dr. Michael Vlahos interview



Dr. Michael Vlahos & Col. Douglas Macgregor: Is the war in Ukraine entering its decisive phase? Pt.1

Michael Vlahos and Douglas Magcregor meet in the library of the Army-Navy Club, Washington, D.C., to reflect on the war in Ukraine: Past, Present, and Future. Part 1

Go to Part 2:
Go to Part 3:


Dr. Michael Vlahos & Col. Douglas Macgregor: Why NATO strategic failure? A war of deceit, denial Pt2

Michael Vlahos and Douglas Magcregor meet in the library of the illustrious Army-Navy Club, Washington, D.C., the Imperial City, to reflect on the war in Ukraine.
 
Part 2 examines the strategic choices that have led to NATO strategic failure in Ukraine, conflict with Russia, and lays bare how deliberate deceit and denial have misled the American people.

Go to Part 1:
Go to Part 3:


Michael Vlahos & Douglas Macgregor What is to be done? Can a corrupted US military be renewed? Pt.3

In Part 3, we explore the many pathways to American military defeat and strategic failure, and how these have worked in concert, as they are now culminating in Ukraine.

Go to Part 1:
Go to Part 2: 

Tuesday, November 29, 2022

The American Conservative 11/29/2022

 


Washington’s Carthaginian Peace Collides With Reality

The Biden administration refuses to tell the American people the truth: Ukraine is not winning and will not win this war.

Douglas Macgregor

Nov 29, 2022
12:03 AM

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/washingtons-carthaginian-peace-collides-with-reality/

The national political and military leaders who committed America to wars of choice in Vietnam, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq, did so as a rule because they were convinced the fighting would be short and decisive. American presidents, presidential advisors, and senior military leaders never stopped to consider that national strategy, if it exists at all, consists of avoiding conflict unless the nation is attacked and compelled to fight.

The latest victim of this mentality is Ukraine. In the absence of a critical root-and-branch analysis of Russia’s national power and strategic interests, American senior military leaders and their political bosses viewed Russia through a narrowly focused lens that magnified U.S. and Ukrainian strengths but ignored Russia’s strategic advantages—geographic depth, almost limitless natural resources, high social cohesion, and the military-industrial capacity to rapidly scale up its military power. 

Ukraine is now a war zone subject to the same treatment the U.S. armed forces inflicted on Germany and Japan during the Second World War, on Vietnam in the 1960s, and on Iraq over decades. Power grids, transportation networks, communications infrastructure, fuel production, and ammunition storage sites are being systematically destroyed. Millions of Ukrainians continue to flee the war zone in pursuit of safety, with ominous consequences for Europe’s societies and economies. 

Meanwhile, the Biden administration repeatedly commits the unpardonable sin in a democratic society of refusing to tell the American people the truth: contrary to the Western media’s popular “Ukrainian victory” narrative, which blocks any information that contradicts it, Ukraine is not winning and will not win this war. Months of heavy Ukrainian casualties, resulting from an endless series of pointless attacks against Russian defenses in Southern Ukraine, have dangerously weakened Ukrainian forces. 

Predictably, NATO’s European members, which bear the brunt of the war’s impact on their societies and economies, are growing more disenchanted with Washington’s Ukrainian proxy war. European populations are openly questioning the veracity of claims in the press about the Russian state and American aims in Europe. The influx of millions of refugees from Ukraine, along with a combination of trade disputes, profiteering from U.S. arms sales, and high energy prices risks turning European public opinion against both Washington’s war and NATO. 

Russia has also undergone a transformation. In the opening years of President Putin’s term of office, the Russian Armed Forces were organized, trained, and equipped for exclusively national territorial defense. But the conduct of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine has demonstrated the inadequacy of this approach for Russia’s National Security in the 21st century. 

The opening phase of the SMO was a limited operation with a narrow purpose and restricted goals. The critical point is that Moscow never intended to do more than persuade Kiev and Washington that Moscow would fight to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, as well as the further mistreatment of Russians in Ukraine. The SMO was, however, based on invalid assumptions and was terminated. As it turned out, the limited nature of the SMO achieved the opposite of the outcome that Moscow desired, conveying the impression of weakness, rather than strength.

After concluding that the underpinning assumptions regarding Washington’s readiness to negotiate and compromise were invalid, Putin directed the STAVKA to develop new operational plans with new goals: first, to crush the Ukrainian enemy; second, to remove any doubt in Washington and European capitols that Russia will establish victory on its own terms; and, third, to create a new territorial status quo commensurate with Russia’s national security needs.

Once the new plan was submitted and approved, President Putin agreed to an economy of force operation to defend Russian territorial gains with minimal forces until the required resources, capabilities, and manpower were assembled for decisive operations. Putin also appointed a new theater commander, General Sergei Surovikin, a senior officer who understands the mission and possesses the mindset to deliver success. 

The coming offensive phase of the conflict will provide a glimpse of the new Russian force that is emerging and its future capabilities. At this writing, 540,000 Russian combat forces are assembled in Southern Ukraine, Western Russia, and Belarus. The numbers continue to grow, but the numbers already include 1,000 rocket artillery systems, thousands of tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, plus 5,000 armored fighting vehicles, including at least 1,500 tanks, hundreds of manned fixed-wing attack aircraft, helicopters, and bombers. This new force has little in common with the Russian army that intervened 9 months ago on February 24, 2022.

It is now possible to project that the new Russian armed forces that will evolve from the crucible of war in Ukraine will be designed to execute strategically decisive operations. The resulting Russian force will likely take its inspiration from the force design and operational framework recommended in Colonel General Makhmut Gareev’s work, If War Comes Tomorrow? The Contours of Future Armed Conflict. The new military establishment will consist of much larger forces-in-being that can conduct decisive operations on relatively short notice with minimal reinforcement and preparation. 

Put differently, by the time the conflict ends, it appears Washington will have prompted the Russian State to build up its military power, the very opposite of the fatal weakening that Washington intended when it embarked on its course of military confrontation with Moscow. 

But none of these developments should surprise anyone in Washington, D.C. Beginning with Biden’s speech in Warsaw effectively demanding regime change in Moscow, the Biden administration refused to see foreign policy in terms of strategy. Like a stupid general who insists on defending every inch of ground to the last man, President Biden confirmed the United States’s commitment to oppose Russia and, potentially, any nation state that fails to measure up to globalism’s hypocritical democratic standards, regardless of the cost to the American people, whether in terms of their security or prosperity. 

Biden’s speech in Warsaw was hot with emotion and mired in the ideology of moralizing globalism that is popular in Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin. But for Moscow, the speech was tantamount to a Carthaginian Peace plan. Biden’s “take no prisoners” conduct of U.S. foreign policy means the outcome of the next phase of the Ukrainian War will not only destroy the Ukrainian state. It will also demolish the last vestiges of the postwar liberal order and produce a dramatic shift in power and influence across Europe, especially in Berlin, away from Washington to Moscow and, to a limited extent, to Beijing. 

Tuesday, November 15, 2022

Jay Dyer 11/15/2022



Great Reset, Russia, Ukraine & Western Geopolitical Strategies - Col Douglas Macgregor

"Col. Douglas Macgregor is a decorated combat veteran, the author of five books, a PhD, and a defense and foreign policy consultant. He was commissioned in the Regular Army in 1976 after 1 year at VMI and 4 years at West Point. In 2004, Macgregor retired with the rank of Colonel. In 2020, the President appointed Macgregor to serve as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Defense, a post he held until President Trump left office. He holds an MA in comparative politics and a PhD in international relations from the University of Virginia.

Macgregor is widely known inside the U.S., Europe, Israel, Russia, China and Korea for both his leadership in the Battle of 73 Easting, the U.S. Army’s largest tank battle since World War II, and for his ground breaking books on military transformation: Breaking the Phalanx (Praeger, 1997) and Transformation under Fire (Praeger, 2003). Macgregor’s recommendations for change in Force Design and “integrated all arms-all effects” operations have profoundly influenced force development in Israel, Russia and China. In 2010, Macgregor traveled to Seoul, Korea to advise the ROK Ministry of Defense on force design. In 2019, Transformation under Fire was selected by Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi, Chief of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), as the intellectual basis for IDF transformation. His fifth book, Margin of Victory: Five Battles that Changed the Face of Modern War from Naval Institute Press is available in Chinese, as well as, English and will soon appear in Hebrew.

 In 28 years of service Macgregor taught in the Department of Social Sciences at West Point, commanded the 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry, and served as the Director of the Joint Operations Center at SHAPE during the 1999 Kosovo Air Campaign for which he was awarded the Defense Superior Service medal. In January 2002, at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s insistence the USCENTCOM Commander listened to Colonel Macgregor’s concept for the offensive to seize Baghdad. The plan was largely adopted, but assumed no occupation of Iraq by U.S. Forces.




Tucker Carlson Tonight 11/14/2022

 



with Tulsi Gabbard

Never-Ending Funding for Zelensky

Defense Secretary LLoyd Austin to Host 50 Nation Virtual Meeting to Discuss New Round of Ukraine Aid

Biden's Plan for Ukraine:  Another Blank Check





Thursday, November 10, 2022

Redacted with Clayton Morris 11/10/2022



Why is NO ONE stopping this? U.S. now provoking war with China

Over the past 24 hours both Taiwan and the U.S. say China is closing in on an invasion. Why is the U.S. actively trying to provoke a war with China? Col. Douglas MacGregor joins us to discuss. Also new data on excess deaths is troubling. We'll look at the latest data from the U.S. and U.K.  




Thursday, November 3, 2022

Real America with Dan Ball 11/2/2022

 


W/ Col. Doug Macgregor, 

U.S. Boots On The Ground In Ukraine?


Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom 11/3/2022

 





Will Biden Gamble on a Ukraine Coalition?



The American Conservative 11/3/2022

 

Will Biden Gamble on a Ukraine Coalition?

The Washington establishment is considering a risky and ill-defined intervention in Europe.

by Douglas Macgregor

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/will-biden-gamble-on-a-ukraine-coalition/

When Napoleon Bonaparte began his 1812 campaign to conquer Russia, he led the largest “coalition of the willing” in history. In addition to its French core, Bonaparte’s army of more than 400,000 consisted of Italian, Dutch, German, and Polish soldiers. They were at best unenthusiastic. Frankly, other than the French, only Napoleon’s Polish allies were truly eager to march on Moscow.

By the time Bonaparte’s multinational force reached Moscow, paralyzing cold, ruinous battles, exhaustion, disease, and poor logistical planning reduced the original invasion force to less than half of its original strength. It was not long before Prussia and its North German allies defected to the Russians while the remainder (minus the Poles) deserted or died on the march home. 

Today, the Biden White House appears to be considering the use of a multinational force aimed at Russia. The NATO alliance is unable to reach a unanimous decision to intervene militarily in support of Ukraine in its war with Russia. But as signaled recently by David Petraeus, the president and his generals are evaluating their own “coalition of the willing.” The coalition would allegedly consist of primarily, but not exclusively, Polish and Romanian forces, with the U.S. Army at its core, for employment in Ukraine.

All military campaigns succeed or fail based on strategic assumptions that underpin operational planning and execution. Without knowing the details of the ongoing discussions, it is still possible to raise questions about the coalition’s proposed operational “purpose, method, and end state.” 

First, what is the aim of the coalition? Is the aim to expel Russian forces from Ukrainian territory? Is the aim to reinforce Ukrainian defense lines and achieve a ceasefire for negotiations? Or is the coalition merely a device to drag the rest of the NATO alliance into a war with Russia that very few Europeans will support? 

Second, what will U.S. air and ground forces do if they are decisively engaged from the moment they cross the Polish and Romanian Borders into western Ukraine? The Russian High Command will no doubt identify the U.S. military component as the coalition’s center of gravity. It follows that Russian military power will focus first and foremost on the destruction of the U.S. warfighting structure together with its space-based command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.

Third, is Washington building a “coalition of the willing” for political reasons or because it anticipates a resource-intensive commitment and needs regional allies to share the burden? Since it is unlikely that conventional U.S. military power would defeat conventional Russian military power on its own, can the U.S.-led coalition assemble the diverse military capabilities required to dominate Russian forces with enough striking power to compel a change in Russian behavior? Equally important, can U.S. and allied forces protect Europe’s numerous transportation networks, as well as air and naval bases, from Russian air and missile attack? 

Fourth, will the coalition’s conduct of operations be subject to limitations deemed essential to allied partners? Differences of opinion always exist on questions of how to fight the opponent, how far to move, and just how much to risk. Lack of clarity about specific objectives can have serious consequences. In other words, how much unity of command can U.S. military commanders really expect from their allies in war and will the demand for unity of command outweigh purely national interests? It is useful to remember that Moscow enjoys complete authority over all its forces including those of its partners and allies. Russian unity of command is absolute. Moscow is not compelled to cope with diverging preferences and opinions from coalition members.

Finally, Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of NATO insists that Ukraine’s failure to prevail in its war with Russia would be interpreted as a defeat for NATO. Would heavy losses inflicted on U.S. ground forces in a confrontation with Russian military power not also signal Washington’s defeat? How rapidly could U.S. and allied forces replace their losses? Would severe U.S. losses raise the specter of a U.S. nuclear response? When does support for Ukraine put NATO’s security and survival at risk?

Washington’s recently announced reiteration of strategic ambiguity regarding the “first use of nuclear weapons” raises additional questions. Spokesmen for the Biden administration indicate that the president will not follow through on his 2020 pledge and declare that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies. 

Instead, President Biden approved a version of the policy from the Obama administration that permits the use of nuclear weapons not only in retaliation to a nuclear attack, but also to respond to non-nuclear threats. President Biden’s decision is at least as dangerous and destructive to American and Allied goals as was the Morgenthau Plan: a plan to deindustrialize Germany that, while rejected, probably lengthened the war against Nazi Germany by at least half a year. Does anyone in Washington, D.C., really believe that this new policy makes a nuclear war with Russia less likely? 

Military strategy is about the relationship of means to ends. National political and military leaders are preoccupied with means and think too little about ends. It is not enough to be a good technician, today’s political and military leaders must be serious strategists, acutely sensitive to the limits which America’s strengths and weaknesses impose on strategic choices. 

The cost to Americans and Europeans of escalating the conflict should not be underestimated. The president and his generals must appreciate how injurious military failure would be to an American society already weakened by 20 years of self-defeating deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. American military morale is at a low point. Recruiting for the U.S. Armed Forces, especially the ground forces, is harder than at any time since the 1970s. American economic performance is fragile. Europe’s economic outlook is bleaker still. 

In his fight with Russia, Bonaparte not only badly misjudged his opponent, but he also grossly misjudged his allies. President Biden and his generals should not make the same mistakes in Ukraine.


Wednesday, November 2, 2022

Redacted w Clayton Morris 11/2/2022




Warnings this is about to get much worse, Putin readies for NATO attack

Col. Douglas MacGregor joins Redacted with the very latest warning signs of NATO and multinational forces mounting for an invasion of Russia. Putin continues the mobilization of forces. 




Backup Video:

Tuesday, November 1, 2022

Global Research, 10/30/2022

 


Eight Months into Putin’s war. A New Era. For Ukraine, The European Union, and the World

Interview with Col Douglas Macgregor 

By Michael Welch

“It’s very clear now that groups of Russian forces numbering over five hundred thousand have assembled in Western Russia, southern Ukraine, and in Belorussia. So an offensive, a major conventional what we would call “high end conventional” offence is coming in November and December!”

– Col Douglas Macgregor (from this week’s interview)

Audio Only

Friday, October 28, 2022

The Other Side of Midnight with Frank Morano 10/26/2022

 


On tonight’s edition of the Other Side of Midnight: Col. Douglas Macgregor, retired U.S. Army Colonel, former senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense, author, and a senior fellow at The American Conservative to discuss the Russia-Ukraine war.

Thursday, October 27, 2022

A Neighbor's Choice 10/26/2022



https://aneighborschoice.com/col-macgregor-nato-clueless-in-ukraine-daniel-mcadams-on-elons-arrival-at-twitter-hq/

Col. Macgregor: NATO Clueless in Ukraine, Daniel McAdams on Elon’s Arrival at Twitter HQ

October 26, 2022/ /by David Gornoski

Col. Douglas Macgregor returns to the show to discuss the US army’s recruitment crisis, the use of extremists in foreign wars, secret influence operations against American dissidents, the “coalition of the willing” against Russia, the coming Russian offensive, and more. Also in the show, Daniel McAdams calls in to comment on Elon’s Twitter takeover and the future of free speech on the internet.

Tuesday, October 25, 2022

Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom 10/25/2022

 


Playing at War in Ukraine

Congress should signal its readiness to invoke the War Powers Act, while demanding that the Biden administration broke peace



Backup Video:


Monday, October 24, 2022

The American Conservative 10/24/2022

 


Playing at War in Ukraine

Congress should signal its readiness to invoke the War Powers Act, while demanding that the Biden administration broker peace.

Douglas Macgregor
Oct 24, 2022
1:00 PM

David Petraeus on September 22, 2021 in New York City. (Leigh Vogel/Getty Images for Concordia Summit)

As the astute author Hunter S. Thompson noted, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.” Weird is indisputably the condition in Great Britain, where Liz Truss, an arguably empty and talentless prime minister, is out—and was, it seemed for a moment, very nearly replaced by her vacuous predecessor, Boris Johnson.  

Weirdness, however, is not foreign to American politics. An indicator of just how weird Washington is becoming is the apparent interest in General (ret.) David Petraeus’s recent suggestion that Washington and its allies may want to intervene in the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev. 

According to Petraeus, the military action he advocates would not be a NATO intervention, but “a multinational force led by the US and not as a NATO force.” In other words, a U.S.-led Multi-National Force on the Iraq model composed of conventional ground, air, and naval forces. 

Petraeus does not explain why U.S. military action is needed. But it’s not hard to guess. The intervention is designed to rescue Ukrainian forces from defeat and presumably compel Moscow to negotiate on Washington’s terms, whatever those terms might be. 

Admittedly, the whole business seems weird, but Petraeus’s suggestion should not be dismissed. Not because Petraeus’s military expertise warrants consideration—it doesn’t. Rather it merits attention because Petraeus would never make such a recommendation unless he was urged to do so by powerful figures in Washington and on Wall Street. And as Jeffrey Sachs tells Americans, globalist and neocon elites clearly want a direct armed confrontation with Russia.

For Petraeus, it is business as usual. He rose through the ranks by checking with everyone in a position of authority above him before doing anything. Seeking permission to ensure no one in authority is offended (like a “coalition of the willing”) is key to promotion. It works well in peacetime, or during wars of choice against weak, incapable enemies that present no existential military threat to Western forces. But Ukraine is not Iraq nor is the Russian Army an Iraqi-like force, or mounted on “technicals”—pickup trucks with automatic cannon.

These points notwithstanding, Petraeus’s suggestion confirms two critical insights. First, the perilous state of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Absent the foreign fighters and Polish soldiers fighting in Ukrainian uniform, Ukraine has little left to withstand the Russian winter offensives. The series of Ukrainian counterattacks over the last 60 to 90 days have cost Ukraine tens of thousands of lives, human capital in uniform that Kiev cannot replace.

Second, it is the 11th hour. The Russian sledgehammer scheduled to fall on the Zelensky regime in the November or December timeframe, or whenever the ground freezes, will crush whatever remains of Ukrainian forces. 

In other words, Petraeus’s real message is that the only way to prolong the life of the Zelensky regime is for Washington and its coalition of the willing to intervene directly before it's too late. The usual war hawks in the White House, the Pentagon, the CIA, and on the Hill probably assume that a quiescent American electorate will buy the argument that the commitment of U.S. forces in Ukraine without a declaration of war could facilitate a face-saving deal with Moscow. 

It's dangerous and stupid to think so, and Americans should reject this notion, but it’s not unreasonable to assume this deluded thinking is prevalent inside the beltway. George F. Kennan, American diplomat and historian, insisted 30 years ago that, “We [Americans] tend to overemphasize military factors at the expense of political ones, and in consequence, overmilitarize our responses.” The result, Kennan argued, is Washington’s chronic failure to relate the development and use of American military power to attainable ends of national strategy.  

In Washington’s halls of power, the “going in” assumption always presupposes certain conditions: a subservient Congress that will ignore its responsibility to invoke the War Powers Act, unconstrained financial resources for military action, and senior military leaders ready to comply with whatever dumb idea the politicians in charge advocate. For Petraeus and his peers there is also the high probability that some tangible reward is promised in the form of future appointments or financial gain.

The questions of how much ground combat operations in Eastern Europe and Ukraine would demand in terms of U.S. manpower, logistical infrastructure, ammunition, medical support, and evacuation are relegated to secondary consideration. For example, in the 11 months after the landings in Normandy, when the U.S. Army was sustaining 90-100,000 casualties a month, the divisions that landed at Normandy replaced 100-300 percent of their fighting strength.

The commitment of U.S. ground forces to battle combined with the dispersion of U.S. military power at the end of a 5,000-mile lifeline across Ukraine, an area the size of Texas, will unavoidably weaken and dissipate the attacking army’s fighting strength. Finally, Petraeus’s critical assumption that President Putin wants to avoid a larger war is no doubt valid, but this assumption should not be interpreted to mean the Russian military opponent will treat U.S. bases in Western Europe or U.S. warships transiting the Atlantic as inviolate. Moscow enjoys escalation dominance, not Washington.

As noted at the beginning, weirdness in politics is not a new phenomenon. Then again, Petraeus’s remarks signal something far more troubling than mere weirdness. The intellectual and professional caliber of America’s senior military leaders is deplorable. In his landmark work, August 1914, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described Aleksandr Samsonov, the Russian general who at the beginning of the war was renowned as the leading strategist of the Russian Army: “The truth was that his forehead was solid bone, his mind moved at a snail’s pace, and the thoughts that passed through it were worthless.” Solzhenitsyn’s words were harsh, but not inaccurate. 

In Ukraine going forward, Washington’s path is clear. Congress should do its duty and signal its readiness to invoke the War Powers Act, while also demanding that the Biden administration broker peace, not expand the war.

Wednesday, October 19, 2022

The American Conservative 10/19/2022

 



War and Regrets in Ukraine

Washington may regret its role in the war in Ukraine.


Douglas Macgregor
Oct 19, 2022

Of the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger, former national security advisor and secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, said, “We should never have been there.” Before long, Americans, even the politicians inside the Beltway, will reach the same conclusion about Washington’s Ukrainian proxy war against Russia. 

No one in the White House, the Senate, or the House consciously set out to turn the proxy Ukrainian war with Moscow into a contest of “competitive societal collapse” between Russia and NATO. But here we are. No one imagined that the Biden administration and the bipartisan war party would drive Americans and Europeans into a political, military, and economic valley of death, from which there is no easy escape. Yet that is precisely what is happening.

For the moment, Washington remains blind to these developments. Whether in print, radio, television, or online, the narrative is clear: despite horrific losses—at least 400,000 Ukrainian battlefield casualties including 100,000 soldiers killed in action—Ukrainian forces are winning. Moreover, the narrative says, America’s financial and economic dominance will ultimately overwhelm the deceptively weak Russian economy.

The Ukrainian-victory narrative admittedly benefits hugely from Western media that actively “tune out” opposing views and depict Russia and its armed forces in the worst possible light. The fact that nearly half a century of the Cold War conditioned Americans to think the worst of Russians certainly helps. 

Yet there is also a measure of “true faith” at work, a condition of national narcissism, inside the Beltway that believes Washington can control what happens thousands of miles away in Eastern Ukraine. The message resonates in Congress because it rests on a critical strategic assumption that American citizens have yet to challenge: that American national power is limitless and unconstrained—as though a series of strategic failures, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, never happened.

Given that American politicians are always more preoccupied by domestic affairs than foreign policy, members of Congress are quick to adopt the “true faith.” This faith explains why for the last eight years members thought a future war with Russia was a low-risk affair. Ukrainians would provide the cannon fodder and Washington would provide the expensive weaponry and munitions. 

Predictably, Washington’s governing strategic principles are unchanged from previous U.S. interventions around the world. Muddle through: masses of soldiers—in this case Ukrainians advised by U.S. and allied officers—and huge infusions of cash, equipment, and technology can and will permanently alter strategic reality in America’s favor. 

The stupefying air of self-righteousness the Biden administration assumes when it attacks erstwhile strategic partners such as Saudi Arabia or delivers moralizing lectures to Beijing’s leadership, or when its media surrogates express contempt for the Russian state, is downright dangerous. Political figures in Washington are ready to indulge any transgression if it is committed in the name of destroying Russia. They do not view U.S. foreign policy in the context of a larger strategy, nor do they comprehend Russia’s capacity to hurt the United States, a bizarre judgment of Russia’s actual military and economic potential. 

The result is a toxic climate of ideological hatred making it hard to imagine a contemporary U.S. secretary of State ever signing an international agreement renouncing war as an instrument of U.S. national policy, as Secretary of State Frank Kellogg did in 1928. But as one of Shakespeare’s characters in the Merchant of Venice warned, “The truth will out.” 

The ongoing buildup of 700,000 Russian forces with modern equipment in Western Russia, Eastern Ukraine and Belorussia is a direct consequence of Moscow’s decision to adopt an elastic, strategic defense of the territories it seized in the opening months of the war. It was a wise, though politically unpopular choice in Russia. Yet, the strategy has succeeded. Ukrainian losses have been catastrophic and by November, Russian Forces will be in a position to strike a knockout blow. 

Today, there are rumors in the media that Kiev may be under pressure to launch more counterattacks against Russian defenses in Kherson (Southern Ukraine) before the midterm elections in November. At this point, expending what little remains of Ukraine’s life blood to expel Russian forces from Ukraine is hardly synonymous with the preservation of the Ukrainian state. It’s also doubtful that further sacrifices by Ukrainians will assist the Biden administration in the midterm elections.  

The truth is Moscow’s redline concerning Ukrainian entry into NATO was always real. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea were always predominantly Russian in language, culture, history, and political orientation. Europe’s descent into economic oblivion this winter is also real, as is support for Russia’s cause in China and India and Moscow's rising military strength.

In retrospect, it is easy to see how Congress was beguiled by the denizens of think tanks, lobbyists, and retired generals, who are, with few exceptions, people with a cocktail level of familiarity with high-end conventional warfare. Members of the House and Senate were urged to support dubious strategies for the use of American military assistance, including reckless scenarios for limited nuclear war with Russia or China. For some reason, U.S. politicians have lost sight of the reality that any use of nuclear weapons would overwhelm the ends of all national policy.  

It is not the first time that American political leaders misjudged the true nature of a situation. In 1969, Kissinger advised President Nixon against de-escalation on the grounds that keeping U.S. troops fighting in Vietnam remained one of Washington’s few bargaining weapons in its negotiations with Hanoi. Kissinger was wrong. Washington gained nothing at the negotiating table with Hanoi by sacrificing more Americans in Vietnam after January 1969. 

In view of Ukraine’s bleak prospects of ever regaining lost territory and its deteriorating strategic health, Ukraine’s future now rests in Russian hands. For Washington, there is a morally responsible and practical answer: Kiev should stop the bloodletting and make the best possible peace with Moscow it can. Unfortunately, for Washington this solution is unthinkable. 

As long as Washington delivers cash, military assistance, and equipment to Ukraine, Kiev will fight its unwinnable war, and Washington’s ruling political class will profit from the transfer of cash to the Pentagon and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base. But Washington, its NATO allies, and Ukrainians will gain nothing of strategic value, while Russia is likely to grow stronger. That is a development Washington will regret.