As contrasted with those guys "with the stuff to be made a a general", like that Mighty Medal Man Milley...
Posted on 03/22/2023 12:22:09 PM PDT by Cronos
...In multiple interviews, Macgregor has confidently predicted that the conflict will end with Russia "annihilating" Ukrainian forces and winning the war. One such interview, with Carlson, was aired on Russia's state-controlled TV.
..."The battle in eastern Ukraine is really almost over, all of the Ukrainian troops there have been largely surrounded and cut off. You have a concentration down in the Southeast of 30 or 40,000 of them, and if they don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them."
Macgregor added that he believed Zelensky needed to "negotiate the best deal he can get," even if that means surrendering parts of eastern Ukraine to Russian forces and declaring neutrality in Western Ukraine. Later in the interview, Macgregor claimed that Western media is working to "demonize" Putin and Russia, and added that the U.S. should stay out of the conflict—and avoid sending any aid to Ukrainian forces.
Days later, Macgregor appeared in an interview with Fox Business' Stuart Varney and claimed that Russian forces had been too gentle in their initial attacks.
"The first five days Russian forces I think frankly were too gentle," he said. "They've now corrected that. So, I would say another 10 days this should be completely over."
On Thursday, Macgregor told Carlson that he believes Ukrainians have already been defeated and that both nations "are very close right now to a ceasefire."
"The war is really over for the Ukrainians," Macgregor said
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Macgregor is a rather common type, as military history goes. He was superb in his role in 1991. But he wasn’t, apparently, suited for a larger role. This is the classic Peter Principle.
But that does not mean that all colonels, politics aside, are fit to be generals, or higher.
A colonel can be blocked both by politics and incapacity.
This is a true statement in the historical context, not just this place and time. Given Macgregors predictive track record lately it seems to me that his superiors in the 1990s likely saw his his limits, beyond his role of commanding a battalion.
Your opinion does not count. President Putin's opinion does count.
Of all the Ukie trolls, your posts are the most fictional and histrionic, with over-the-top baseless assertions trying to ‘prove’ that those you disagree with are blood thirsty monsters.
As far as being an expert is concerned, McGregor is right up there with Dr. Fauci. Yes, that’s sarcasm.
“Your opinion does not count. President Putin’s opinion does count.”
I voiced no opinion: I asked a question. I repeat it: What Russian autonomy (self-governance) did the US and NATO encroach upon?
That statement is like wearing a tattoo on your face that says "Russian propaganda stooge".
It has been disproven over and over again, and all the better propaganda posters have given up on it. Are you the new hire?
If so don't miss the pelmeni in the cafeteria on Monday, I hear they are really good.
https://www.crisisgroup.org/content/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
The docs are archived at George Washington University.
Lots of information to prove what has been posted here many times. I suggest you read them to understand how wrong you are, but suit yourself.
The fact that the United States, NATO and the EU since the fall of the Soviet Union have progressively been expanding a military alliance right up to Russia's border is an existential threat to Russia, so says President Putin.
It is not just President Putin's opinion, because our western leaders have called for the destruction of Russia for almost twenty years. Wait, didn't we do that once with the fall of the Soviet Union? You bloodthirsty NeoCons are never satisficed.
I was one of those guys who helped bring down the Soviet Union. Once was enough.
Yes he sucks
You on the other hand are a magnificent bastard
Let's look at the map
The blue areas are recovered areas.
Remember that Russia is the one that invaded and went straight for a decapitation move - which failed. The move to take over what Putin calls "novorossiya"
This also failed.
So it is clear that Russia lost its plan A (decapitate and create a vassal state), plan B (make ukraine landlocked) and plan C (take over all lands each of the Dnieper)
Russia does not have the capitals of Kherson or Zaporizhia and its hold on Donetsk is stuck. It controls most of Luhansk.
Russia is not winning
Ukraine has won A, B and C - of course it has lost lives and money, but it is still alive, that's a win
=====================================
MacGregor like many was wrong including me to a degree
Being wrong once or twice or thrice is fine. MacGregor has been consistently wrong - constantly "predicting" that Ukraine will fall in the next few weeks. And he has been wrong over and over again - after his failures in June he is Harold Camping.
He should have razed Kiev when he was parked there attracting sappers
He was not capable of doing that -- his elite VDVD paratroopers were defeated and the armored column. He devastated Bucha, but could not even raze that
The fact is that Russia's military is not the 2nd most powerful in the world, but closer to the 20th. Russia is barely capable of capturing or razing a town like BAkhmut, so doing that to Kyiv was and is impossible
Furthermore, Kyiv is the "birthplace" of the Rus people - so Putin razing it would cause an uprising in Muscowy itself
=============================================================
Now it’s a grind down war that looks abysmal for Ukraine even by some uniparty accounts via western media -- it's a grind-down war, but preferable, in the Ukrainian people's eyes, to submitting to Moscow's rule
======================
But mark my words you guys will never admit defeat we know that --> why should Ukraine surrender to the invader? If your home got invaded by someone who said you had no right to an independent existence, would you, wardaddy, just roll out and submit?
================
CARRY COLONEL MACGREGORS JOCK STRAP -- bull -- MacDaddy is carrying Putin's jock strap
western propaganda
Dude - showing that Russia has performed abysmally and that MacGregor is a stooge who has been consistently wrong is far from propaganda - rather it is bursting your Putinist propaganda
Are you really claiming that Wagner PMC isn’t recruiting convicted criminals to fight Ukraine? This is hardly a secret you silly twerp.
>>Douglas MacGregor has been predicting an imminent defeat of Ukraine for a solid year now.
Perhaps Colonel MacGregor didn’t consider the possibility of the Biden Administration sending over $100 billion to Ukraine in financial aid and military weapons.
Have you wondered why the sudden turn-around from the “I will have more flexibility after I am reelected” Obama policies toward Putin, to the “Putin is a pariah” under the Trump and the subsequent administration? Me, too!
One action by Putin that is worth considering is his restoration of the Russian Orthodox Church. He signed a law that returned all church property confiscated by the Soviets. He also helped rebuild thousands of church buildings, with the assistance of vast sums of money from State-owned energy companies.
In other words, Putin is a friend of the Russian Orthodox Church. His betrayal of the communist ideal of marginalizing the Church has not gone unnoticed by the American media and other die-hard communists. Search for “putin + russian orthodox church” (no quotes) to read some of the divisive media propaganda on “how the RO Church assists Putin,” “how the war created a schism in the RO Church,” “how Putin weaponized the RO Church,” and so forth.
Mr. Kalamata
“The fact that the United States, NATO and the EU since the fall of the Soviet Union have progressively been expanding a military alliance right up to Russia’s border is an existential threat to Russia, so says President Putin.”
Nonsense. Russia has had five NATO members on its border for years; and yet, he never invaded any of them. He is soon to get a sixth (Finland). Why hasn’t he invaded Finland? After all, it has an 800-mile border with Russia. Finland (and Sweden) were declared neutrals until Russia invaded Ukraine. Then they rushed to join NATO. Why? Because THEY saw RUSSIA as a threat to THEIR existence.
Russia is a bully, and behaves as all bullies do: They attack those who are smaller and weaker than they, and then scream to the high heavens when their victims have the temerity to fight back. The LAST thing Russia wants is a fair fight; NO bully wants a fair fight.
Ukraine posed no existential threat to Russia. But Russia sure as hell poses an existential threat to Ukraine.
“It is not just President Putin’s opinion, because our western leaders have called for the destruction of Russia for almost twenty years.”
Link, please, your credible sources showing that “our western leaders” have called for the destruction of Russia. The West had a golden opportunity to destroy Russia not long after 1991. Just think about it: The USSR had just collapsed; the West — especially the US — was VERY powerful militarily compared to Russia, and had just come off a smashing victory over Iraq (a country the USSR had armed and supported). What better time to “take care of business?” Of course, the West had no intention nor any desire to attack Russia.
“You bloodthirsty NeoCons are never satisficed.”
Cram it, clown, with your “neocon” bullcrap. You don’t even know the definition of a neocon (because if you did, you wouldn’t slander me and many others on FR who want to see Ukraine prevail against a known international aggressor).
“I was one of those guys who helped bring down the Soviet Union.”
So was I.
“Once was enough.”
That makes no sense. Unless you are saying the USSR has reincarnated. Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that Russia WAS the USSR? Explain yourself.
You STILL have not answered my question about how the West has encroached on Russia’s autonomy (self-governance). The fact there are some NATO countries on Russia’s border is not encroaching on Russia’s self-governance. Their presence does not preclude Russia from operating as an autonomous, self-governing country.
You use words you don’t understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeWHviwLMy8
We have threatened Russia with Neocon insanity going back to 1992.
Here is some background on how Russia views our machinations:
https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/documents/RussianInvasionCrimeanPeninsula.pdfSummary
The Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was a crisis that heightened tensions between the world’s two largest nuclear powers—the Russian Federation and the United States. Despite explicit nuclear posturing, the episode in Crimea is often overlooked as a nuclear crisis, being instead considered a crisis between Russia and Ukraine. But when analyzed as a confrontation between Russia and the United States, the invasion of Crimea points to notable implications for the nuclear balance, resolve, and crisis management.
Ukraine’s removal of Yanukovych from office saw Russia take immediate military action to invade and occupy the Crimean Peninsula. In response, the United States sought to maintain Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The crisis held a grave importance for Russia, which viewed it less as a fight against Ukraine and more as a confrontation with the West over ground that held deep military, national, cultural, and symbolic significance. Russia’s military gains on the ground were maintained throughout the crisis under its threats to use nuclear weapons or deploy nuclear weapons to the peninsula. Meanwhile, despite public disagreement among US policy and military leaders, the United States’ responses remained diplomatic and economic.
While the United States had overall nuclear superiority, this did not translate into greater resolve or victory. The Russian Federation not only viewed the confrontation with greater gravity and had the advantage of proximity but also maintained nonstrategic nuclear superiority (at the time, the United States had 180 nonstrategic bombs, while Russia had around 2,000 nonstrategic warheads).3 The deterrent potential of this nonstrategic nuclear superiority was buttressed by a military doctrine for first use in response to conventional force, demonstrated through nuclear exercises and leveraged during the course of the crisis through nuclear threats, allusions, and the movement of dual-use weapons on the Crimean Peninsula. These findings suggest that the academic community should consider nonstrategic nuclear balance and the perceived plausibility of first-use threats in addition to overall arsenal balance in future studies of nuclear crises.Finally, for the policy community, the crisis in Crimea suggests that Russia will be willing to brandish its nonstrategic nuclear weapons in combination with its first-use policy to deter the United States in future crises. While Crimea might not have been viewed as a vital national interest to the United States, were this a NATO nation, that calculation would likely have been different. Future strategy development, war games, and national security exercises should account for Russia’s nonstrategic nuclear arsenal and how it is leveraged to threaten and intimidate the United States and its allies. The United States needs a strategic approach to deterring aggressive Russian revisionist actions in the future, and that approach needs to account for the threat of nonstrategic nuclear weapons.
“Here is some background on how Russia views our machinations:”
Wow, did you even read what you posted?
This is an important part: “Ukraine’s removal of Yanukovych from office saw Russia take immediate military action to invade and occupy the Crimean Peninsula. In response, the United States sought to maintain Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The crisis held a grave importance for Russia, which viewed it less as a fight against Ukraine and more as a confrontation with the West over ground that held deep military, national, cultural, and symbolic significance.”
Let’s break that down. Russia INVADED AND OCCUPIED Ukrainian Crimea — and illegally ANNEXED it! That is a clear aggression and act of war. What was the US’s tepid response? It sought to maintain Ukraine’s territorial integrity. So did the UN and pretty much the rest of the world, as the Russian invasion and occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea was roundly condemned.
It goes on to say that Russia had military, national, cultural, and symbolic significance. That is laughable, except for the military significance; because to Russia, EVERYTHING is militarily significant. National? Not at all; neither side recognizes any national relationship to the other. Cultural? Again, they are two separate and distinct cultures. You do know, I have to assume, that Ukrainians have hated Russians for generations, especially since the Holodomor? And, Symbolic? In what respect?
What Russia craves is Ukraine’s natural resources and Black Sea harbors and ports. Russia doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Ukrainians (as evidenced by the Holodomor).
The article you cited is by physicists who have an obvious anti-nuclear agenda; and at that they are highly critical of Russia. Why? Because Russia has openly threatened to USE those nukes, both tactical (theater) and strategic.
The article says, “Russia’s military gains on the ground were maintained throughout the crisis under its threats to use nuclear weapons or deploy nuclear weapons to the peninsula. Meanwhile, despite public disagreement among US policy and military leaders, the United States’ responses REMAINED DIPLOMATIC AND ECONOMIC.”
It is very clear who the aggressor is in this matter, and it is NOT the West.
Russia is a bully, and always has been. And bullies everywhere hate it when one of their victims has the temerity to fight back. And Russia cries FOUL! if someone on the side gives the underdog some resources that will help it to defend itself against the aggressor.
We poke the Bear constantly. All I am saying is that we must stop poking the Bear. I have no desire to destroy Russia like you and your ilk. We should have formed an alliance to stand against out true enemy going into the future, China.
When someone says they will nuke you if you don't mend your ways, I listen. I find it odd that you side with Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, the WEF and all of the Globalists wanting to destroy our nation.
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.