Douglas Macgregor: "kyiv is doomed to certain defeat"

• PABLO PARDO

  Correspondent

  @PabloPardo1

  Washington

Updated Saturday, April 23, 2022-00:31

• Share on Facebook

• Share on Twitter

• send by email

Comment

• Russia 'Satan 2', Putin's secret weapon

31 years ago, in southern Iraq, the last great battle between tanks in history took place.

On the US side, some 300 tanks and armored vehicles participated;

for that of Iraq, about 400. The US suffered six deaths and the destruction of an armored vehicle.

Iraq, 1,000 dead and the loss of all his equipment.

In that combat, Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Macgregor stood out.

Leading a force of 19 tanks and 40 armor, Macgregor took his chances in a minefield attack in which, in 23 minutes, he managed to destroy more than 70 Iraqi tanks and armor without suffering a single casualty.

Macgregor thus became one of the most influential soldiers in the United States and the world.

When the US returned to war against Iraq in 2003, it based its attack in part on the Macgregor doctrine of a flexible Army made up of small mobile units.

One of his books is required reading in the Israel Armed Forces.

Macgregor, who hung up his uniform nearly two decades ago with the rank of colonel, was on the verge of being named National Security Adviser by

, who nominated him as ambassador to Germany, although opposition from the Senate - including fellow Republicans in the president - blocked his appointment.

In the tumultuous weeks following the 2020 election, Trump made him

Today, Macgregor is one of

's biggest supporters in the Ukraine conflict.

He is a regular contributor to Fox News television star Tucker Carlson, who has said the US does not support Russia "maybe because that is a Christian country" and that "I want Russia to win."

Contrary to most analysts, the retired colonel maintains that Russia is winning the war in Ukraine, as this email interview makes clear.

All experts, including you, predicted a quick Russian victory in the Ukraine.

As a soldier, what accounts for the surprising outcome of the war to date? The Russian forces did what we did not expect in the West.

They advanced on a very wide front, 500 to 800 miles, using Battalion Tactical Groups [BTGs] of about 700 soldiers each.

Those units were instructed to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties while identifying, isolating and attacking Ukrainian ground forces primarily with artillery linked to reconnaissance drones.

The process was supported by missile strikes by Russia's air, ground, and naval forces that annihilated Ukrainian command and control.

That approach slowed down the pace of operations,

but it managed to prevent the Ukrainians from launching a counteroffensive at the operational level.

All counterattacks were at the initiative of local commanders.

At the same time, Ukrainian forces have been forced to move to urban centers or withdraw to the fortifications they have built in southeastern Donbas.

So the opening phase of the war permanently gave Moscow the initiative over Moscow and doomed kyiv to certain defeat.

To date, NATO has been climbing higher and higher in Ukraine.

Despite its threats, Russia has not reacted.

Is Moscow bluffing?

Russia has managed to destroy much of the equipment shipped through Poland before it reached the Ukrainian forces.

Nevertheless,

the danger of significant Russian missile attacks on military installations in Poland is real if that country becomes a permanent 'sanctuary' from which the Ukrainians can organize, train and equip their forces. What do you think the new phase of the war, in Donbas? The so-called "New Phase" was planned from the beginning by Moscow to finish off the Ukrainian forces in the South-East of Donbas.

Currently, 51 Battalion Tactical Groups currently surround around 60,000 Ukrainian soldiers.

Those BTGs are supported with large amounts of heavy artillery, tactical ballistic missiles, and aircraft.

This phase will eliminate any and all operational forces that Ukraine has left.

What scenarios do you envision for the end of the war? Given Washington's determination to prolong the conflict to harm Russia, the original goals of neutrality for Ukraine and autonomy or independence for the two secessionist republics [both in Donbas] and recognition of Crimea as part of Russia are being abandoned for new targets.

What are those goals?

Probably among them is the permanent partition of Ukraine along the Dnieper River line, with Odessa and the Black Sea coast in Russian hands.

It is not clear whether Moscow will retain the territory of kyiv on the eastern bank of the Dnieper, but the territory to the north, east and south of Kharkiv will definitely be separated from the Ukraine we know today. You predicted that the population of eastern Ukraine would not be hostile to Russia.

Mariupol, however,

Despite being a Russian-speaking city, it has not given up.

Kharkiv, neither.

Why? Most Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine are sympathetic to Moscow.

However, Russia made a serious mistake when it announced early on that it would not permanently seize Russophone areas.

Contrary to Western media reports, many Russian-speakers in the area went over to the Russian forces, but others did not because they feared execution by the SBU [Ukrainian intelligence service] when Ukraine recaptured those areas.

Once the partition goes live, this issue will be quickly resolved.

Donald Trump nominated him ambassador to Germany, although his appointment was blocked by the Senate.

How do you assess Chancellor Olaf Scholz's policy in this crisis? Scholz, like most European politicians,

it does not lead public opinion, but follows it.

If it had refused to participate in this kind of 'Hate Russia Festival' and rejected calls to react to alleged Russian war crimes for which the evidence is weak, it could have put Berlin in a position that would have allowed Germany forge peace between Moscow and kyiv.

That was the role that Bismarck played in Europe.

The war in Ukraine was Berlin's opportunity to demonstrate its real independence from Washington and its willingness to build security and stability with Russia in Europe. Macron has also been accused of being excessively appeasing towards Russia. He is another European politician who is going where the wind blows, so always try to be on both sides.

This kind of behavior has worked for decades,

but given the trajectory of European society, from now on it will fail.

In the first weeks of the war, you said that Russia was "too nice."

What I meant when I made those statements is that Moscow was "restrained" in its use of force, not "overly friendly."

But my reasoning is based on 5,000 years of military history.

If the defender takes little damage during the initial phase of the conflict, he may conclude that the attacker is weaker than he thought and fight harder and longer. After the massacres north of kyiv and the bombing of civilian facilities, such as the Kramatorsk railway station, can it be said that Moscow has changed tactics? In the war,

it is best to hit hard and leave the defender with no hope of success from the first minutes of the attack.

As for the accusations against the Russians, I recommend that the authorities and the press treat these reports as baseless accusations.

Until an investigative team from a neutral country examines the sites and the evidence, no one should come to any conclusions.

Finland provided excellent equipment in the Balkans in the 1990s that frequently quashed early assumptions of guilt.

Now something similar is needed.

The truth about what has led to this tragic conflict and what is happening on the ground is missing from most discussions in the Western media.

That is why I urge Europeans to pay attention to Swiss Army Colonel Jacques Baud's assessment of the conflict.

Spain is in a position that allows it to see the events in Ukraine from a more objective position.

It would be a serious mistake for the Spanish Government to rush to judgment.

Precisely, what can a medium-sized country like Spain do in this crisis? Spain's security role in the periphery of Europe and in the Mediterranean is essential for the security of Western Europe, and it would be unwise to put it at risk by a conflict that does not involve the vital strategic interests of Spain.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more

• Ukraine

• Russia

• USA

• Iraq

• Germany

• Europe

• Poland

• berlin

• Senate

• Finland

• Israel

• Ministry of Defence

• NATO