Monday, March 20, 2023

America's Involvement In Ukraine Is Aggravating Troubles At Home

A Ukrainian service member sits inside an armoured vehicle stuck near the frontline town of Bakhmut, in Donetsk region, Ukraine, February 25. REUTERS/Yan Dobronosov 

 Douglas Macgregor, The American Conservative: The Gathering Storm  

America’s self-inflicted trouble in Ukraine aggravates our dangerous trouble at home. 

The crisis of American national power has begun. America’s economy is tipping over, and Western financial markets are quietly panicking. Imperiled by rising interest rates, mortgage-backed securities and U.S. Treasuries are losing their value. The market’s proverbial “vibes”—feelings, emotions, beliefs, and psychological penchants—suggest a dark turn is underway inside the American economy. 

 American national power is measured as much by American military capability as by economic potential and performance. The growing realization that American and European military-industrial capacity cannot keep up with Ukrainian demands for ammunition and equipment is an ominous signal to send during a proxy war that Washington insists its Ukrainian surrogate is winning. 

Russian economy-of-force operations in southern Ukraine appear to have successfully ground down attacking Ukrainian forces with the minimal expenditure of Russian lives and resources. While Russia’s implementation of attrition warfare worked brilliantly, Russia mobilized its reserves of men and equipment to field a force that is several magnitudes larger and significantly more lethal than it was a year ago.  

Read more ....  

WNU Editor: Another must read commentary from Colonel Macgregor.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well Chris

Your response to this?

You were the one saying that the Russians were engaged in gratuitous human wave attacks. You also tried to say that the Russians were not engaging in recon by fire , attrition missions.


Here is Mc Gregor.

" Russian economy-of-force operations in southern Ukraine appear to have successfully ground down attacking Ukrainian forces with the minimal expenditure of Russian lives and resources. While Russia’s implementation of attrition warfare worked brilliantly."

What did you think? The earlier posts were all made up? Not hardly.

Anonymous said...

stop sniping, misfit

Anonymous said...

Not sniping . These guys come out with these assertions. The assertions are faulty. But the real point is this, when the test of time proves them wrong over and over again, they never admit they are wrong, they never apologies and most importantly, they never stop with thier incessant narrative that the Russians are evil bumbling idiots and the ukies are super genius saints.
Maybe when these guys start standing up and take responsibility for their actions , I will stop correcting them. That is the goal. Self correcting responsible individuals. Until that time, we move forward as past precedent dictates.

Anonymous said...

Oh btw , feel free to get back on track to the main point of this article. Russian vs Ukrainian successful tactics/strategy in the war.

As it has been pointed out that Ukrainian war operations have not fair too well recently and Russian attrition tactics are working.

Anonymous said...

"After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Macgregor appeared on three Fox News programs in February and early March to speak in support of Russia's actions. Three days after the war began, he said "The battle in eastern Ukraine is really almost over," and predicted "If [Ukraine] don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them." Macgregor said he believed Russia should be allowed to seize whatever parts of Ukraine it wanted. In his second appearance, he revised his prediction: "The first five days Russian forces I think frankly were too gentle. They've now corrected that. So, I would say another 10 days this should be completely over... " - wiki


MacGregor has been good at predictions

Ron said...

MacGregor, like all of the paid commentators on the various networks are right about some things and will be proven wrong about other things. For me, the bottom line is, Ukraine is still hanging in there, hasn't collapsed and Russia is still in their country attacking them. I'll see what happens tomorrow.

For me, none of that over there impacts me either way, yet. But the State of Kalifornia is making my life harder every stinking day.

Anonymous said...

Two million people less for Putin to abuse within Russia's borders than three years ago due to Covid, emigration and war

Roger29palms said...


Each side has it's extremist commentary. After reading the ker-nal's commentary I keep thinking of Russia's ability to prevail despite what appears to be tremendous costs in men and material as shown and written in many sources.
As many commentators here have said they thought the Russian military was a sure thing when first putin let the dogs of war out. Too many videos show otherwise even if one accepts the fact the cameramen's lens is on one side of the battle when the bullets are flying.
Is it not true Russia's vehicle losses are the opposite of what the world expected?
I often think some of what I am reading and seeing is subtrafuge used to confuse the enemy, the losses are so extreme. As if I'm getting greatly slanted viewpoints. Is Russia really dusting off old equipment because the once feared newer equipment will be pulling tillage equipment come planting time in Ukraine's grainlands?
This colonel writing this is simply not convincing me of what is going on over there. Too extreme. Maybe this is why he didn't recieve a star in his military career?

Pardon the spelling> At my age I've had it with english language spellings,
my inability to remember them, and the intra-ka-sees of the shift from pencil and paper to a typewriter, then to the last "upgrade to my rich computing experience" microsoft operating system {#11} I likely will ever experience. Hopefully.

Roger in the twilight years.

Anonymous said...

@1:14

I am not impressed with Col. MacGregor's analysis. I think he brings up some relevant points, but he seems to be living in a fantasy world. His predictions do not match reality, and he has not updated his stance after evidence proves him wrong.

After the initial Ukrainian defeats of Russia in March, there was still relevant reasons to doubt the long term outcome. So MacGregor brought up some salient points in late spring and early summer that indicated doubt on future Ukrainian success. However, his analysis seems to be influenced more by his political views than the facts on the ground.

I completely disagree with @9:35 that MacGregor has been good at predictions. His predictions have been terrible. While he does bring up relevant points, he has not gotten the war in Ukraine right. I believe his analysis is not based on actual evidence, but what he wants to believe based on his ideology.

If you look at his June article in the American Conservative, he was very pessimistic. The Ukrainians were being destroyed, and he linked to (dubious) websites (who used RT, a Kremlin propaganda outfit) that Ukrainian to Russian KIA ratio was 20 to 1, and therefore the defeat of Ukraine was inevitable. (All future evaluation of MacGregor should bear in mind that his claims that the Ukrainians have lost several armies is based on this fatuous statistic that has nothing backing it up.) While I believe the period early summer was probably the worst KIA ratio for Ukraine in the war, I don't believe it was ever 20 to 1. And I don't believe the ratio before this time or after this time has ever been against Ukraine. Yet this seems to be the basis for MacGregor's belief that Ukraine has had its army destroyed several times over that he keeps repeating. In fact, rather than being destroyed, the arrival of HIMARS began a huge shift in Ukrainian fortunes and in September the Ukrainians had their huge victory in Kharkiv. MacGregor's June analysis was clearly incorrect.

That didn't dissuade MacGregor in his analysis. In an October article at the American conservative he repeated his argument that Ukraine was basically being destroyed and was doomed. Several weeks later Russia abandoned the right bank of the Kherson River, and the Ukrainians scored another major victory.

Yet MacGregor seems to have learned nothing from this and keeps repeating his claims from early Spring as if there has been nothing that has proved him wrong. At no point does he seem to have ever considered why his past pronouncements were wrong. At this point, I consider him useless as someone to follow. The fact that Russian capabilities now seem very degraded based on what they were before while Ukrainian capabilities (despite their heavy losses) have increased (at least relative to the Russian army) is ignored.

The best analyst of the war I've seen has been Michael Kofman (he does a podcast at War on the Rocks and been interviewed many places found on YouTube). He has consistently been the best analyst. Very sober. He points out where Ukraine is weak and needs to do better. If his interviewer is a bit too euphoric on Ukraine's chances, he always corrects them. Currently he rates Ukrainians' chances as "cautiously optimistic."

We are going to know by the end of August who is right. If Ukraine's counteroffensive (likely to happen by late spring/early summer) is successful and liberates crucial territory, then we'll know MacGregor is full of it. If it doesn't happen or has mediocre results, then MacGregor will have been vindicated.

Chris

Anonymous said...

Chris,

I (9:36) was being sarcastic. I did not use a sarc tag (/s), because I quoted him verbatim form last spring and summer and those prediction have flopped.

I thought is was evident that I was sarcastic, but i had my doubts since the troll(s) left my remark alone.

Speech teacher always taught that when you fail to communicate your point the failure is yours. So yes, I failed in communicating in that post.

Anonymous said...



2:13

Respectfully disagree with your analysis and if McGgregor is living in a fantasy world, Kofman is defiantly in the Twilight Zone.

HIMARS is a weapons system , not a pool of trained personnel. These two items are not equal in any sense. The Advent of HIMARS, 777s or even tanks and BFVs will help, but they cannot replace trained, experienced soldiers. The arrival of HIMARS does not bely the fact of the horrendous casualty rates of the Ukrainian army or replace experience.

You seem to imply that arrival of HIMARS has been a equal replacement for dead soldiers. The Interview with the Ukrainian Battalion Commander and prior reports before him ,of the ugly casualty rates, support

Key point: McGregor's analysis of " three Army destruction / army Turn over" is correct.

In this war, You can replace equipment, with the largess of the west. But the replacement of trained personnel especially experienced combat planners and fighters with years of experience is even more difficult. Zelinski's creation of a current "press gang" Army is a recipe for failure. If it was not for the US and Nato helping with the planning process and not even mentioning equipment replacement, the Ukrainians would have lost months ago. Prediction...Zelinski is betting on these new US trained formations that the US is creating for him. The consequence is, that the reports coming from the from Ukrainian sources is true: those kids and old men currently fighting are being used for cannon fodder to buy time.

You don't like the Russians and keep pulling for the Ukrainians no matter how bad they screw up or failing? Great, you can live in that positive Ukrainian propaganda world. Reality and will prove you wrong time and time again.

The reality is that no matter how the Russians have failed in this war, they are still advancing. They get pushed back and advancing again, get pushed back and then advancing again. There is a pattern here that Macgregor sees.

The Russians have their own problems as we have all seen. But here is the truth . The Ukrainians have had some success but they do not have the combat power to do much more than they already have. Will that improve in the future? That is a matter of pure speculation. A large part of it, truly depends on Russian incompetence / or other words lack of competence in destroying logistical networks and delivery of new equipment.

The other the proof that stands out.

If the war stopped right now. It would definitely be a Russian win. Not an over arching, complete win, but a win. Currently, The Ukrainians are no longer in control of a large part of their territory and will probably never recover their old borders.

Time will tell if any of this changes.
The Problem with McGregor and his analysis. He is an American trained officer. His perspective of combat is an American one based on INITIAL American victories in in the last 50 years. He is an inheritor of SHOCK and AWE strategy. Bombing them into nothing , then roll over them with overwhelming force. For some reason the Russians have not come near this type of conduct. That is why McGregor is flummoxed at the reality of the Russians not achieving thier combat goals.

Anonymous said...

Who is going to believe 8:37? I won't. Chris is anonymous, but he has a consistent handle and therefore a brand. 8:37 could be anybody.

Russia has only made gains 2 ways. First, was strategic surprise at the out set of their war of aggression. In a good world , it would get Russia kicked out of the UN. Second Russia took Severodonetsk via prodigious expenditure of artillery shells. Nothing else.

Russia took Soledar by modified human wave tactics.

Their only impressive thing has is their expenditure of ammunition, which is considerable. Their skill in tactics and logistics are abysmal.

Trains are still running in Ukraine and the latest shipment of cruise missiles was blown up. Railroad tracks have been repaired by now after the cruise missile debacle. Additional rail cars have been procured, but someone somewhere in Russia is going to be missing 10 or 20 or more. The lost rolling stock will not be measurable.

Anonymous said...

Ok you believe what you want. time will tell. Facts are not going to change and you have not even begun to address the core issues discussed.

BTW do you have any film or pictures of mass wave attacks? In the last 6 months I have heard people talk about those on this blog. No one has produced any photographic evidence of these by the Ukrainians or Russians. ....that is.. evidence of the attacks or even a mass of bodies lying in a field after being cut down..
Maybe thins in another case of russians having no tanks, or russians fighting with shovels


" but he has a consistent handle and therefore a brand. 8:37 could be anybody."

So could you, that does not make that guys arguments any less valid.

Go back thru the blog....who has been right?.

Re read this above posts again. That individuals has valid points.

Anonymous said...

T-55s. It has come to T-55s. Almsot anything will kill those.