Posted on 11/19/2022 7:09:32 AM PST by Timber Rattler
Macgregor: DefSec Austin Making Last Ditch Effort To Fight “Ukraine Fatigue” While Milley Wants A Negotiation
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date November 14, 2022
Ret. Lt. Col. Douglas Macgregor assesses the Russia-Ukraine conflict with Tulsi Gabbard as host of ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ on Monday: “I think [Defense] Secretary Austin is making a last-ditch effort to fight back against Ukraine fatigue. The truth is, Europeans are tired of pouring money into this, they’re tired of sending equipment into a black hole. He is going to have a tough time making any inroads. And one of the big reasons is that General Milley, our Chairman of the Joints Chiefs decided to leak his personal advice to the president in “The New York Times.” And he said the Ukrainians have probably accomplished all that they reasonably can and now is the time that they really need to start negotiating.”
“What Milley was really saying in so many words is Ukraine is in a lot of trouble,” Macgregor said. “They have no power, no electricity, no energy of any kind. No fuel. Increasingly not enough food and not enough water. And they’ve taken horrendous casualties, over 100,000 dead and hundreds of thousands of wounded. They’re in very bad shape.
And the second part of the message is you better start negotiating because the Russians are preparing for a winter offensive. Which is going to be devastating and be designed to finish the Ukrainian armed forced and the regime. So, one the one hand, you’ve got the administration say[ing] let’s send more money to this losing proposition. And people are tired of it. Then on the other hand, you have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs say[ing] the game is almost up, so let’s negotiate.”
Oh wait!
Didn't Larry say that the Russians were planning a massive battle for the city and would destroy the Ukrainian Army (yet again)?
“He certainly beats any strategy and opinion coming out of your neocon piehole.”
So who was right on Kherson falling Timber or Larry?
Heh, not much to negotiate until the Russians leave Ukraine.
Can you point to any prediction made about the war in the last six months by Col. Macgregor that has come true?
You seriously lack much needed humility.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
Col. Douglas MacGregor is a Trump favorite.
November 12, 2022 Responsible Statecraft
Macgregor, a West Point graduate, is an acquired taste: outspoken and controversial. He has flagged reporters with his statements about immigrants (we need martial law at the U.S.-Mexico border), Iranians (we need to look for areas where we can cooperate), Afghanistan (we have no business being there) Iraq (we should have left, long ago), and Syria (we should get out immediately). Those views aren’t to everyone’s liking, but they’re especially controversial in the military, whose staid stance on foreign interventions does not countenance the kind of dissent in the upper ranks that Macgregor represents. Macgregor, it is said, has refused to “stay in his lane,” has been too outspoken, too vocal, and not really a team player.
Yet, senior military officers quietly admit that in terms of sheer intellect, no one quite matches Macgregor. Several years ago, I asked a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer to name each of the services’s most creative thinkers. His answers were entirely predictable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of those in uniform, except when it came to the Army. He didn’t hesitate: “It’s Doug Macgregor,” he said. “He’s the best thinker they have, living or dead.” Retired Gen. Tommy Franks would probably disagree.
Franks, the former commander of Operation Iraqi Freedom, brought Macgregor (then still in uniform), to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa in the run-up to the Iraq War in early 2002 to brief his war planners. Macgregor took a roundabout, but effective route, in getting there: he had briefed Newt Gingrich on his own war plan for Iraq, and Gingrich was so taken by what he had to say that he recommended him to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who insisted that Franks hear him out.
Macgregor’s appearance in Tampa is now a part of Army legend. The U.S. military can take Baghdad with 15,000 troops, Macgregor announced to the room of uniformed experts. The statement stunned Franks, as did Macgregor’s advice on “Phase IV” (postwar) operations — which had not been mentioned in his briefing. Why wasn’t it there? Macgregor was asked. “The reason it’s not there,” Macgregor said, “is because we’re not going to need it. We’re going to turn the governing of Iraq over to the Iraqis, then we’re going to get out.”
Whereupon Mike Fitzgerald, one of Franks’ most senior planners, got up from his seat and left the room. “I think it was at that point that Doug’s career ended,” a fellow West Point graduate says. That’s probably true, but only in part.
While Macgregor retired soon after his Tampa appearance, he did so only after talking with then-Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki. Macgregor told Shinseki that the Army needed to get lighter and faster, cutting away its logistic tail and its top-heavy officer corps. Shinseki not only agreed, he was planning his own Macgregor-like series of reforms. But the talk with Shinseki wasn’t the first time Macgregor had made his mark. Shinseki’s immediate predecessor, Army Chief of Staff Dennis Reimer, required his senior staff to read “Breaking the Phalanx,” Macgregor’s 1997 book on how the Army should fight. Reimer helped to put Macgregor’s innovations on the map. This is where we need to go, Reimer told his staff.
And then there’s 73 Easting.
Arguably, none of Doug Macgregor’s later influence would have been possible without the Battle of 73 Easting (named for its map coordinates — its “phase lines”), which is still studied by armored officers as one of the most significant, and most lopsided, tank victories in the history of American warfare. The battle took place on February 26, 1991 — when elements of the U.S. 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, under Macgregor, took on the tanks of the Tawakalna Division of Saddam Hussein’s vaunted Republican Guard. Macgregor expertly maneuvered his tanks through the enemy lines — directing his tank leaders, one of whom was H.R. McMaster, through the enemy lines. Macgregor lost one man killed, but his tank squadrons destroyed dozens of armored vehicles. The battle had a deep effect on Macgregor, who remembers talking with one of the Iraqi prisoners after the battle: “Why do you not go to Baghdad now?” the prisoner asked him. “You have the power. Your army rules the heavens and the earth. Do you think we love Saddam?” In the years that followed, the Iraqi prisoners’ words haunted Macgregor. The road to Baghdad was open — but America didn’t take it.
Ironically, in one of those odd twists of history, Macgregor’s role as the commander of his tank squadrons is often ignored, while McMaster is remembered and celebrated. Then too, as any senior Army officer will testify, Macgregor’s outspoken and often too-public critique of his own service hurt his chances for promotion. Macgregor questioned everything: why are we staying in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? Or Syria? Why are we prosecuting these endless wars? Doug Macgregor had lots of time to ponder these questions, particularly during Operation Iraqi Freedom, as his kinsman and fellow officer, McMaster, was adding to his laurels during the Anbar Awakening, where he performed brilliantly. Macgregor, meanwhile, was sidelined and marginalized, with a position at the National Defense University.
And so, it seems the McMaster-Macgregor narrative was set. McMaster got his stars, while Doug Macgregor went on to a career as a military historian. McMaster became the acolyte to greatness (the up-and-coming friend of David Petraeus), a controversial president’s national security advisor (one of the “adults in the room”), a gruff-voiced patriot (warning us incessantly of looming threats in Russia, China, Iran, etc.), and all-around “team player.”
Macgregor has always shrugged this off: his old friend deserves his stars, deserves his praise, and has proved his courage. Team player? It’s true: McMaster has been so fitted to his uniform that he looks like a throwback, a latter-day Patton. He’s the quintessential team player in a service that prizes staying in your lane, that rewards teamwork. And Macgregor? Oddly, and ironically — and for all of his outspoken views on ending America’s endless wars, Doug Macgregor has also been a team player.
He’s just been on the wrong team.
The most relevant piece of news in this article is reference to snow on the ground and approaching winter. A hard freeze will be the trigger for the massive Russian offensive.
A neocon narrative won’t save Zelensky and his clown show who have brought almost certain destruction to Ukraine.
Russia remains a strong, independent and industrial powerhouse with plenty of natural resources and positive cash flow. The lights are out in Ukraine and the electric trains in Ukraine ain’t goin’ anywhere. Only the flood of American money keeps the farce going. If American money stops, Ukraine folds immediately.
The U.S. government has authorized almost $100 billion for Ukraine’s government. The crooks in Washington DC might want to consider sending $25 billion to California as the budget there is that far in the hole. Many of the people in California, are at least American citizens.
“Ukraine will need to take the peninsula and then Russia will come to reality and drop its demands.”
I will accept your statement as your belief. I don’t mean this to be insulting, but even this fantasy won’t end the war. If the Russian army were to withdraw tomorrow, do you think that the Russian people would just shrug it off? Of course not.
And by the same token, if the current Ukrainian government were to accept the loss of territory and sue for peace, the Ukrainian military would likely seize power to prevent it.
So neither side accepts the other side’s conditions for peace.
It’s my simplistic view that we are at the point the the game of Risk! where one side just cashed in their cards and played out their hand. Now, the other side is cashing in for even more armies and another round of conquest.
Again, a simplistic analogy, but I’m asking - after the coming winter campaign from the Russian side, what will Ukraine have left to fight with?
And fight over? What will be left?
I ask again, can you point to a single prediction by Col MacGregor in the first six months of this war that has come true?
I don’t care. I don’t like neocon propagandists and I am sick of Ukraine.
” after the coming winter campaign from the Russian side, what will Ukraine have left to fight with?
And fight over? What will be left?”
________________________________
They are already (before the winter offensive) down to heavily relying on Polish troops.)
The khokhlys are coming to an end.
“From the last battles - we haven’t even seen Ukrainians. Only mercenaries. Mostly Polish. Sometimes English”.
(Military analysts say there are currently approximately 10,000 Polish troops dressed in Ukrainian uniforms fighting in Ukraine.)
The big unknown in all of this is the current size of the Ukrainian army. The Russian one is public. They started the war with about 200K and have since deployed another 300K into the fight.
Ukraine started with 200K and 900K in reserves. Plus they ordered the theoretical mobilization of all able bodied men which would be 8 million.
Did they get the entire reserve mobilized and now have a million troops? Have they gone past that and trained up members of the civilian population?
Even at lowest estimates Ukrainians outnumber the Russia forces 2 to 1.
Can Russia launch an effective offensive with those force ratios?
My prediction. Ukraine will seize Crimea in the spring. Putin falls from power (his regime will not survive the loss of Crimea).
“I don’t care. I don’t like neocon propagandists and I am sick of Ukraine.”
That’s fine. I can’t say your presence on these Ukraine threads will be missed.
Yep. 100k of their best troops are already killed or wounded or removed from the battlefield. They may have 300k fresh troops coming in but the quality of the troops won't be the same.
Actually, I have gone over this here on FR many times. Here is one of the most recent (3 weeks ago) posts I have made on this subject.
“why did it take Russia this long?”
______________________
Because this “war” has actually been two entirely different “wars.”
Unfortunately most freepers do not understand that Putin’s original mission for the “special military operation” was rather limited to the exact things he publicly specified. Independence for the Donbass (though still being in Ukraine) demilitarization (getting rid of the NATO equipment) denazification (despite ignorant freepers confusing some of the public in many countries being Nazis...including ours...with Ukraine’s government and MILITARY being controlled by NAZIs.) And, of course an agreement to never join NATO.
Most freepers do not even know that when early in Zelensky’s administration he tried to push back on them they openly threatened to kill him...he backed down. Most freepers also don’t know that we deliberately chose the Nazi’s (nationalists, Azov, etc.) to train and to send to the front in the Donbass because they were the most brutal and most likely to get the job done.
Any country that has Nazi brigades (and Ukraine has a lot of them) is a Nazi administration.
So, Russia planned a minimal kinetic action and openly made clear they would leave Ukraine once the mission was accomplished. Russia began negotiations with Zelensky, they reached a tentative agreement in March and Boris Johnson and Lloyd Austin paid visits to Zelensky to tell him that if he went through with the agreement they would no longer support Ukraine. But, if they stayed in the “war” NATO would provide all the weapons and money he needed. He chose their offer over Russia’s.
Russia continued the “operation” making slow gains with few casualties, killed an enormously large amount of Ukrainian soldiers and destroyed an enormous amount of military equipment.
When that happened NATO (read: the United States) realized Russia would win, couldn’t let that happen and escalated their monetary and equipment support, even bringing Ukrainians into NATO countries for training to NATO standards. Ukraine engaged in 7 mobilizations. And developing high paid mercenary programs to enlarge the force. And Mi-6 worked with Ukraine to go on a large counter offensive at multiple points. (They planned and trained for this for 3 months.) At that point Russia had 150,000 troops in Ukraine and Ukraine forces were up to 400,000.
Russia came to the realization that this wasn’t a Russia vs. Ukraine war. This was a Russia vs. NATO war. Since that point they have been readjusting to the new reality.
If they were able to take 20% of Ukrainian territory with very minimal forces, obviously their advantage is likely to be much greater when they have approximately 500,000 troops involved. They have expanded their arsenal extensively including the items I mentioned earlier...and brought in 800 new tanks, 11 strategic bombers. 800 planes and helos. They are planning for a big campaign.
And the nonsense about Russia’s mobilized troops being so inferior is wrong. These newly mobilized troops are all former troops who were on Reserve classification. And, even more important than that is that Ukraine forces have been decimated. The kill ratio throughout this “war” has been 10 Ukrainians for every one Russian. Ukraine is down to conscripting 16 yr. olds and 65 year olds and they are in the process of registering women.
If you have been following this saga I am sure you realize that just in the last week Russia has knocked out much of Ukraine’s energy system.
The foreigners who are “getting out of Dodge” are making the right call. Ukraine is not someplace anyone will want to be when the ground freezes in November.
______________________
When MacGregor (and Ritter, too, for that matter) said that Russia was grinding Ukraine down and the war would be over soon they were talking about the first war...the war against Ukraine. And they were right!
Now we are in the second war...the war against NATO and Russia has been preparing for it for months. NATO (read: us) has been escalating continuously and this Macgregor video outlines that we have now threatened Russia with bringing in 90,000 troops (U.S. and Polish.)
Both MacGregor and Ritter still believe Russia’s victory is assured unless nuclear weapons become involved. Russia has depleted huge quantities of NATO’s armory, leaving many NATO countries below defense capabilities WITH NOTHING LEFT TO SEND TO UKRAINE. Italy’s new president has decided not to take part in Phase 6 contributions and will just complete the aid her predecessor promised. Even the U.S. has run out of the weapons they previously sent and are now reduced to buying broken weapons from Eastern European countries and letting out contracts for repair and refurbishing so they can be sent to Ukraine. We are sending Hawk missiles (system began in the 1970s) but they will all have to be refurbished. So this refurbished and repaired equipment will not come until next year. The new stuff is being ordered from MIC and that will come between next year and 2024.
In October alone Russia killed 13,000 Ukrainian troops while losing 1,300 of their own. Ukraine is now actively conscripting women (a post on Telegram showed the notice of a pregnant woman) So Ukraine has run out of man power and Russia is increasing to half a million. You do the math.
Just today a member of Kiev’s city council suggested that residents should go away for the winter. He said it was going to be a very bad situation there (no electricty, no heat, limited water and sewage.)
I understand that most freepers only get limited, censored, manipulated info on this war. Ergo, they are clueless. The bottom line is Russia is currently winning even with their small force on the front line. To date, there have been approximately 10,00 KIA (including both separtists troops and Wagner and Chechen fighters) and Ukraine has had over 105,000 KIA.
It will be interesting to see if the U.S. can entice Russia to call off their upcoming campaign. For the sake of the Ukrainian people I hope we find a way to negotiate a settlement before that campaign happens.
“My prediction. Ukraine will seize Crimea in the spring. Putin falls from power (his regime will not survive the loss of Crimea).”
I think Putin being ousted after the defeats get to embarrassing is likely.
My worry is that he will be succeeded by someone like Prigozhin who promises a grand plan for winning the war, and the thing continues to grind on for years under a second Czar.
Again still no predictions that have come true. Anything from the Colonel or for that matter Ritter that they predicted that has come to pass?
Has everyone seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekeq4szDmJo
Video of Vladimir Putin Singing ‘Blueberry Hill’ to Hollywood Celebrities Resurfaces
In 2010, a number of A-list celebrities attended a children’s charity benefit in St. Petersburg, Russia and were in the audience when Putin took to the stage to sing a rendition of “Blueberry Hill” by Fats Domino.
Maybe it was the Glenn Miller or Gene Autry version…
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.