Posted on 06/18/2022 3:00:56 PM PDT by Cathi
After lying for months, the media are preparing the public for Ukraine’s military collapse. It is long overdue.
The Western media did everything in its power to give the Ukrainian defense the appearance of far greater strength than it really possessed.
Russian errors were exaggerated out of all proportion to their significance. Russian losses and the true extent of Ukraine’s own losses were distorted, fabricated, or simply ignored. But conditions on the battlefield changed little over time. Once Ukrainian forces immobilized themselves in static defensive positions inside urban areas and the central Donbas, the Ukrainian position was hopeless. But this development was portrayed as failure by the Russians to gain “their objectives.”
Ground-combat forces that immobilize soldiers in prepared defenses will be identified, targeted, and destroyed from a distance. When persistent overhead intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets, whether manned or unmanned, are linked to precision guided-strike weapons or modern artillery systems informed by accurate targeting data, “holding ground” is fatal to any ground force.
This is all the more true in Ukraine, because it was apparent from the first action that Moscow focused on the destruction of Ukrainian forces, not on the occupation of cities or the capture of Ukrainian territory west of the Dnieper River.
The result has been the piecemeal annihilation of Ukrainian forces. Only the episodic infusion of U.S. and allied weapons kept Kiev’s battered legions in the field; legions that are now dying in great numbers thanks to Washington’s proxy war.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
Who could have seen this coming?
You mean, they’ve been lying? What’s warfare coming too these days?
The Ukes should have emulated George Patton - “ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!”
This will not age well...
The article is from Douglas MacGregor, who is unabashedly pro-Russia, and is seen by many of his contemporaries as a hot-head and a loose cannon (which probably explains why he was passed up for promotion from colonel to brigadier three times in a row, thus pretty much ending his military career). He said the USMC is obsolete and its existence is no longer justified; ditto on the Army’s airborne corps. He has called for the summary executions of illegal border crossers.
This guy is a darling of late-night radio talk shows. There are many on FR who swear by him (hence his attributions on FR). I, however, am not one of them. Though I don’t summarily dismiss him, I do remain very skeptical of anything he says.
No, I refuse to believe it. Our institutions would never lie to us like that.
/s
None of this would be happening if the Russians had just stayed home.
L
Joining ranks with honorable truth-tellers like Billy Mitchell, as opposed to corrupt sycophants like our current Sec Def.
None of this would have happened if Ukraine had abided by the Minsk Accords, which they signed, then promptly broke.
Minsk looks a whole hell of a lot better than what “The Ukraine” is going to wind up with now.
But this is the price Ukrainians are paying for having its corrupt oligarchy selling out to our own corruptocrats.
Gee, who was the “Big Guy” in charge of U.S.-Ukraine policy back then?
Who had a son raking in 80 grand a month for his natural gas expertise, from 5,000 miles away?
And still the foolish freepers cheering on Ukraine continue to post their rah-rah crap. Critical thinking skills are in short supply everywhere, it seems.
He’s just a Putin puppet (along with 80 million or so other Americans).
Whatever is going on there is none of our business. If Ukraine wants American weapons they can pay cash for them.
Those people have been killing each other for 500 years. They’ll be killing each other for the next 500 years.
That being said I’m philosophically in favor of as many Russians getting their **** scattered to the four winds as possible.
Lord knows they’ve earned it.
L
Oh, I have nothing but contempt for Lloyd Austin.
But I disagree with your comparison of MacGregor with Billy Mitchell. Mitchell was a true war hero, and he was very forward-thinking. He ruffled the feathers of his superiors because they were cemented in the past (and their careers depended on remaining in the past); and Mitchell committed the ultimate sin against egos with his insubordination (hence, his court-martial and demotion back to colonel).
Anyway, as anyone who served in the military knows, it is common knowledge that true advancements in military strategic thinking generally only come after a cataclysmic wake-up call. As was the case with Mitchell, and air superiority, and carriers, and a place called Pearl Harbor. Air power changed war more dramatically than anything in history, far more than the long bow or artillery in their times, both of which were revolutionary (though artillery is still a potent weapon if used to its full advantage).
Unlike Biden, Hoover did not sell out his country for personal bribes.
No president in US history did that.
Benedict Arnold did in the American Revolution.
Quisling did in Norway during WWII.
No other instance comes to mind, but I’m sure they exist. But not in the USA.
Months ago, MacGregor repeatedly, wrongfully said that the Russians would stop the Ukrainian Army within days. He’s incompetent and loyal to Russia.
Don’t Let Russia Fool You About the Minsk Agreements
CEPA
Kurt Volker
December 16, 2021
https://cepa.org/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/
[Excerpt:]
1. There are two Minsk Agreements, not just one. The first “Minsk Protocol” was signed on September 5, 2014. It mainly consists of a commitment to a ceasefire along the existing line of contact, which Russia never respected. By February 2015, fighting had intensified to a level that led to renewed calls for a ceasefire, and ultimately led to the second Minsk Agreement, signed on February 12, 2015. Even after this agreement, Russian-led forces kept fighting and took the town of Debaltseve six days later. The two agreements are cumulative, building on each other, rather than the second replacing the first. This is important in understanding the importance, reflected in the first agreement, of an immediate ceasefire and full monitoring by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including on the Ukraine-Russia border, as fundamental to the subsequent package of agreements.
2. Russia is a Party to the Minsk Agreements. The original Minsk signatories are Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Russia is a protagonist in the war in Ukraine and is fully obliged to follow the deal’s terms. Despite that, however, Russia untruthfully claims not to be a party and only a facilitator — and that the real agreements are between Ukraine and the so-called “separatists,” who call themselves the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics (LPR and DPR), but are in fact Russian supplied and directed.
3. The LPR and DPR are not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The signatures of the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics were added after they had already been signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. They were not among the original signatories, and indeed Ukraine would not have signed had their signatures been part of the deal. There is nothing in the content or format of the Agreement that legitimizes these entities and they should not be treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controls the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine.
4. Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. It has regular military officers as well as intelligence operatives and unmarked “little green men” woven into the military forces in Eastern Ukraine. The LPR and DPR forces are by any definition “illegal armed groups,” that have not been disbanded. The ceasefire has barely been respected by the Russian side for more than a few days at a time.
5. Russian-led forces prevent the OSCE from accomplishing its mission in Donbas as spelled out in the Minsk Agreements. It is an unstated irony in Vienna — understood by every single diplomatic mission and member of the international staff — that Russia approves the mandate of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine when it votes in Vienna, but then blocks implementation of that same mission on the ground in Ukraine. Because Russia is a member of the OSCE, and the SMM wants to preserve what little access it has to the occupied territories, the mission is guarded in what it says about ceasefire violations and restrictions on its freedom of movement. Privately, however, they acknowledge that some 80% of such violations and restrictions come from the Russian-controlled side of the border, and those that occur on the Ukrainian side are largely for safety reasons (e.g., avoiding mined approaches to bridges.)
6. Ukraine has implemented as much of Minsk as can reasonably be done while Russia still occupies its territory. The agreements require political measures on Ukraine’s side, including a special status for the region, an amnesty for those who committed crimes as part of the conflict, local elections, and some form of decentralization under the Ukrainian constitution. But the form of these measures is not specified, and Ukraine has already passed legislation addressing every point. It has passed – and extended with renewals – legislation on special status and amnesty, and already has legislation on the books governing local elections. It has passed constitutional amendments. The Minsk Agreements do not require Ukraine to grant autonomy to Donbas, or to become a federalized state. It is Russia’s unique interpretation that the measures passed by Ukraine are somehow insufficient, even though the agreements do not specify what details should be included, and Ukraine has already complied with what is actually specified to the degree it can.
What is lacking in Ukraine’s passage of these political measures is not the legislation per se, but implementation — which Russia itself prevents by continuing to occupy the territory. For example, international legal norms would never recognize the results of elections held under conditions of occupation, yet that is exactly what Russia seeks by demanding local elections before it relinquishes control. Moreover, the elections would not be for positions in the illegitimate LPR and DPR “governments” established under Russian occupation, but for the legitimate city councils, mayors, and oblast administrations that exist under Ukrainian law. Who would vote in such elections? Ukrainian law says all displaced citizens should vote. But would Russian occupation authorities allow this? These are matters for resolution under international supervision – not for Russia to dictate terms.
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.