Posted on 10/19/2023 3:55:17 PM PDT by MeganC
On February 15, Russia’s RIA Novosti state news agency quoted retired U.S. Colonel Douglas Macgregor’s interview with the “Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom” program, streamed on YouTube that same day.
The Russian translation of Macgregor’s claim isn’t precise but represents his ideas accurately:
"We just don't have ammunition to send. We have reached the limit; our own reserves are rapidly coming to an end."
This statement is misleading and fits into the Kremlin’s anti-U.S. and anti-Ukraine propaganda targeting Russia’s domestic audiences.
In reality, for most categories of ammunition, the U.S. can provide support to Ukraine indefinitely. Only for two types of ammunition -- 155 mm artillery ammunition, which includes a wide variety of non-precision projectiles, and 155 mm Excalibur GPS-guided precision artillery shells -- the United States may have a shortage in the coming years if it doesn’t replenish.
However, the U.S. has already moved to increase munitions production to avoid shortages. Another way to prevent ammunition shortages is to purchase it from third countries. The U.S. military has already purchased Soviet-standard 152 mm and 122 mm artillery shells and 125 mm tank shells outside the United States.
According to the Pentagon, “Since 2014, the United States has committed approximately $24 billion in security assistance to Ukraine and approximately $21.2 billion since the beginning of Russia's unprovoked, full-scale invasion on February 24.”
Russian use of Macgregor’s misinformation
On December 15, 2021, when the United States was warning about an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Kremlin was denying any such plans, RIA Novosti reported it was unlikely that the Ukrainian army could withstand a Russian military invasion for more than three to four days. The agency quoted an article in The National Interest written by Macgregor and former CIA officer George Beebe:
“Under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to assume that Russian ground forces would reach their operational objectives along the Dnieper River in as little as seventy-two to ninety-six hours.”
However, the Russian troops were unable to reach their goals in the Dnipro River basin even by mid-March 2022.
As of January 2, 2023, Ukraine had liberated 40% of the territory that Russian forces occupied after last year's invasion.
RIA Novosti quoted Macgregor again on March 6 as telling Fox Business that the Russian army in Ukraine was being very careful to protect civilians:
“The colonel noted that the Russian side is trying to act as carefully as possible and minimize damage, unlike, in particular, the US army in Iraq. He also expressed the opinion that the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is inevitable, and President Zelensky is trying to delay it by any means.”
That claim was also false. Ukrainian and international authorities, including the United Nations, reported mass atrocities against Ukrainian civilians allegedly committed by the Russian troops, some of which potentially constitute war crimes.
Amnesty International, a London-based human rights group, reported on February 25, 2022, that the Russian army had carried out indiscriminate missile and bomb strikes on civilian targets in Ukraine. In just the first five days of the war, at least 102 Ukrainian civilians were killed (including seven children) and 304 injured, according to the United Nations.
On March 25, 2022, RIA Novosti quoted Macgregor as falsely claiming in an interview with the “Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom” YouTube show that a majority of the residents of eastern Ukraine were Russians. Calling the Russia-occupied regions of eastern Ukraine “these republics,” in language used by the Kremlin’s disinformation campaign, Macgregor said:
“These republics are fundamentally pro-Russian. And, in general, mostly Russians live in eastern Ukraine. … They should not be forced to speak Ukrainian, write Ukrainian, they are not Ukrainians.”
But the 2001 census, the last before Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, showed that most of eastern Ukraine residents are ethnic Ukrainians, with ethnic Russians the region’s largest minority.
This map shows the % of ethnic Russians in each region of Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/xyTbhGLyLj
— Samuel Ramani (@SamRamani2) May 27, 2021 The Voice of America asked the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to comment on Russia’s use of Macgregor’s erroneous forecasts and analysis in its domestic disinformation.
“Douglas Macgregor is a private citizen, exercising his 1st Amendment rights as an American, and so his views are his own and not representative of official U.S. or DOD policy,” DOD spokesman Lt. Col. Garron Garn said.
Macgregor did not answer Polygraph.info’s inquiry.
“Only in your imagination; all I originally observed is that you claimed Macgregor’s opinions are rooted in bitterness, per your quote here: ‘He is bitter towards his own country because he thinks he got short shrift because he was not promoted to Brigadier General. He is a spiteful, vindictive little man.’”
Nice try, kid. My exact comment was: “He’s been very pro-Russia and overly critical of the US and NATO since he retired.” All that is true. “He is a regular contributor to RT (Russian TV network), as is the discredited Scott Ritter...” Again, all true. “...(both of whom are very, very bitter men who hold a grudge against their own country).” Again, true. “The guy has been wrong since Day One about most everything regarding the Russo-Ukrainian War.” Once again, true.
You are assuming that I made a direct nexus between his pro-Russia positions (A) and his being bitter about being passed up for promotion (B); and that that nexus results in why he has taken the positions he has (C). I never said there was such a direct nexus, let alone that they resulted in C; you assumed that. But it could very well be true; or not. But the fact is that A is true, and so is B; but I never said that A + B directly results in C. But it could explain it. Call it circumstantial, or indirect evidence.
You see, kid; you assumed facts not in evidence, jumped to conclusions, and rushed to judgment. Learn how to argue, kid.
They’re not going to get that. Russia won’t give up the Crimea and Ukraine doesn’t have the strength to drive them out.
On the contrary. Russia doesn’t have the strength to “drive” Ukraine out of Ukraine. Including the large Ukrainian city of Zaporizhia (800,000 people) that Putin has insanely decreed part of Russia despite the fact his invading army has never occupied it
Maybe it’s time for Dear Leader Putin to “give up” his genocidal fantasies and imperialist war of conquest? That has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and the biggest war in Europe since WW2. Putin can end his mass murder and end the war tomorrow. Yet he won’t. Ask yourself why that is.
“On the contrary. Russia doesn’t have the strength to “drive” Ukraine out of Ukraine.”
That’s right, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Ukraine can’t drive the Russians out.
“Putin can end his mass murder and end the war tomorrow. Yet he won’t. Ask yourself why that is.”
He won’t and that’s that, so stop the wishful thinking. We have to be realistic and push for peace negotiations.
Given the original article, it is quite implicit that you were tying Macgregor's alleged bitterness over not getting promoted to why he comes across as habitually pro-Russian. Because why *else* would you ascribe character attributes about Macgregor (beyond sheer pettiness) unless you believed them to be relevant to the subject matter?
(For example: if someone were to hear about a guy involved with a controversial topic, and then immediately opine "yeah, the guy's got a temper", practically anyone listening in would logically conclude that they were trying to tie the guy's temper to the controversy in question. Because why bring it up otherwise?)
This is when I asked the following: He retired from the Army in 2004. That’s an awful long time to hold onto a grudge about a promotion. (But seriously, what evidence do you have that Macgregor’s views on Russia-Ukraine are tied to not getting promoted to Brigadier General?)
To which only then do you respond regarding Macgregor being pro-Russia, a contributor to RT, an irrelevant aside about Scott Ritter, him allegedly holding a grudge against his country, and him being wrong about everything regarding Russia/Ukraine.
The reason I assumed your retorts were tying Macgregor's pro-Russia stance to him being bitter about being passed up for promotion was because that's what your answer was to my question as-is.
If you didn't think, much less know, that Macgregor's pro-Russian stance is tied to him being bitter about the lack of promotion from Colonel...then why would you bother responding with all of that to my original question? You could have simply said "I don't think that, actually. I just wanted to say that I think Macgregor is a bitter and vindictive man for no particular reason."
I suppose it is what it is though. You can continue to opine about proper argumentation while condescendingly calling me 'kid' (as though that does anything to actually support your argument...which I'm sure you'd know, being such a learned practitioner) in the comfort of your own home.
Have a blessed evening.
“If this is so, Ukraine can demand peace negotiations from a position of strength.”
Generally it is the losing side that demands peace negotiations, or the side that lacks confidence in its ability to effectively prosecute its fight. Conversely, a winning side generally demands unconditional surrender.
I don’t think either side is currently in any position to realistically demand either (though one or both might have rumblings about one or the other).
But — and I’ve said this from the beginning of March, 2022 — Ukraine wins by not losing.
“This was literally from your first post on this thread: ‘He has his fan boys here on FR. He is bitter towards his own country because he thinks he got short shrift because he was not promoted to Brigadier General. He is a spiteful, vindictive little man.’”
He IS bitter about that. His subordinate received the promotion Macgregor coveted, and that Macgregor thought he deserved.
You, however, are trying to say that I established a direct nexus between that bitterness and his pro-Russia, anti-West positions: I claimed no such nexus. However, as I mentioned, an argument could certainly be made that there is circumstantial and indirect evidence to support such a nexus (though whether or not it is convincing evidence is up to whomever considers it).
BTW: I refer to you as “kid” because you argue as one.
Time for that one to cry himself to sleep after a warm Ensure pudding.
Putin won’t stop warmongering so we must surrender Europe to the Russian brand of genocidal Nazism? That’s a very weak position and will never Make America Great Again.
Agreed. Goddamn Irish can go home.
“Putin won’t stop warmongering so we must surrender Europe to the Russian brand of genocidal Nazism? That’s a very weak position and will never Make America Great Again.”
We’ve heard this nonsense for almost two years now. “You’re a Putin puffer”; “You’re a Putin stooge”; “You’re an appeaser.”; “You support murdering Ukrainian babies.” Just because most of us want the war to end and don’t think we should be involved.
Putin is a pimp, like Tattaglia.
China is Barzini.
It’s “nonsensical” to think that surrendering to Russia politically, economically, morally and militarily now is going to end its warmongering. History shows us that quite the opposite will happen in reality. America will be weakened, Putinists will emboldened, Russia’s economy will be invigorated the fruits of stolen Ukrainian land and one party state Russia will continue its revanchist wars of choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.