Replies

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...:-)