Weltwoche: There are several points that I don't want to leave unchallenged. You say that the Russians "simply did not want to kill very many people when they went in.” The countless attacks on civilian targets and the bombardment of cities like Mariupol, which the Red Cross described as "apocalyptic," prove that the Russians are not holding back from killing children, women, and the elderly indiscriminately. In your enumeration of Putin's war aims, you also forget to mention that Putin's openly declared intention was to decapitate the government in Ukraine, which he falsely claimed was run by fascists. He obviously did not achieve that goal. Further, you claim that "the Russians were crushing” Ukrainian forces. In truth, the Ukrainians defended themselves with determination, from day one. The Russian troops were forced to retreat and reorganize in the east of Ukraine. Finally, it is important to keep one fact clearly in mind: Putin attacked a sovereign state under threat of using nuclear weapons. There has never been a similar blatant violation of international law in the modern history of Europe.
The response to which was basically that Americans are hypocritical to appeal to international law, yet which did not address the actual charges here.
Other statements of note:
there was never any interest in Russia in...initially, in capturing, permanently occupying any territory. That has changed. The Russians now see no alternative but to remain where they are in Eastern Ukraine — to annex or incorporate those territories in some fashion into Russia, to hold the ports in the areas from which Ukrainians would normally export grain, and to retain control of 90% of Ukraine's industrial base, which was formally Russian, anyway.
"formally Russian" by conquest of an unstable country, while the premise that there was never any interest in Russia in...initially, in capturing, permanently occupying any territory is questionable at the least.
Meanwhile, he dismisses a primary argument of pro-Putin apologists, and of Putin himself, which is that of NATO being a military threat, which invading countries only serves to promote by justify the need for NATO.
Weltwoche: Russia has been saying for years that it sees NATO’s enlargement as an existential threat. If the alliance is as weak as you say, Russia has nothing to fear, has it?
Macgregor: I think that NATO is weaker than ever.
I think the United States has been confused for a long time. This government is probably more confused than almost any other we've had, but we don't have a clear, unambiguous, strategic framework from which we operate. There is no clear, unambiguous, end state for anything that we embark upon. I have watched NATO from the inside and have seen it being extremely dysfunctional.
That the United States has been confused for a long time is certainly the most accurate statement.
I understand the points you are making. However, as someone who has followed MacGregor throughout this conflict I have found that basically he is a man of few words. He doesn’t have a lawyer personality. He doesn’t elaborate; he doesn’t debate. He usually answers questions with a sentence or two.
This interviewer in a diatribe threw six different “counter arguments” challenging MacGregor’s statements all in one question. In other words he was hostile...:-)
First he took issue with MacGregor’s assertion that Russia was avoiding civilians (which almost any objective analyst of this campaign will admit Russia certainly has.) “bombardment of cities” “Red Cross described as ‘apocalyptic’” “intention to decapitate the government in Ukraine which he falsely claimed was run by facists.” Challenged that “the Russians were crushing Ukrainian forces.” “attacked a soverign state under the threat of using nuclear weapons” Etc., etc., etc.
If it had been me I would have taken him on over every one of his inaccurate accusations (the interviewer obviously gets his info from the mainstream media and showed clear bias...:-) Let me know if you would like me to respond to each of the interviewers inaccurate assertions. He did not want to hear MacGregor’s views; he wanted to challenge MacGregor with his views.
MacGregor just addressed the last argument in his long winded attack...that this was a blatant violation of international law by reminding the annoying ignoramus that the same could be said for all of the U.S. invasions.
Personally I found every statement MacGregor made accurate with the possible exception that he rated Germany higher than I think is warranted. But, then I follow this conflict intensely. The interviewer gets his talking points from CNN...:-)
The fact that Putin changed his plan once he determined that Zelensky (because of reneging on the initial agreement and then the Bucca false flag episode) could never be trusted to live up to any agreement he might sign so Putin realized that Russia would have to stay there if they had any hope of this problem ever be solved.
The Russians have said that they believe this whole proxy war by the U.S. was a deliberate attempt for regime change and to weaken Russia. It is not surprising that once they understood that they made the necessary changes in their initial plan.
And I found the interviewer’s attempts to challenge Putin’s believe that NATO was a military threat to Russia silly. Of course it is a threat. As the Rand Plan spelled out we wanted to destabilize Russia and affect regime change. We said so ourselves.
I have noticed that keyboard warriors who are anti-Russia seem to believe that they get a vote on what Russia does. But, of course they don’t. Russia is a large, powerful nation and they will act in their best interests. Other states obviously know that and would be wise to try to work constructively with them instead of attempting to provoke them.
Never poke the bear...:-)