Col. Douglas McGregor's article print was too small.

I got a request for a bigger format. Here it is. Same material as I posted earlier. Side-by-side is better for seeing the correspondence between what he wrote and I answer, but this is easier reading and the text allows you to copy and paste for comments. Moreover, the hyperlinks will work. Graham

Until it decided to confront Moscow with an existential military threat in Ukraine, Washington confined the use of American military power to conflicts that Americans could afford to lose, wars with weak opponents in the developing world from Saigon to Baghdad that did not present an existential threat to U.S. forces or American territory. This time—a proxy war with Russia—is different.

This is an old rhetorical trick – assume the premise.  The west did not confront Moscow with an existential threat. 

Putin ginned up an “existential threat” as a pretext for his invasion.  It was so unprovoked that Zelensky (and I) could not believe it would happen even days before the war began.

Implicit is this statement is the assumption that the West started it.  While this is true of Saigon and Baghdad, it was not true in Chechnia, Georgia, Transnistria, Crimea or here.

Contrary to early Beltway hopes and expectations, Russia neither collapsed internally nor capitulated to the collective West’s demands for regime change in Moscow. Washington underestimated Russia’s societal cohesion, its latent military potential, and its relative immunity to Western economic sanctions.

What timeframe is McGregor discussing?  I do not recall these expectations at the time the war began.

Absolutely to the contrary, Washington and the west expected Ukraine to collapse.  McGregor is making up history.

As a result, Washington’s proxy war against Russia is failing. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was unusually candid about the situation in Ukraine when he told the allies in Germany at Ramstein Air Base on January 20, “We have a window of opportunity here, between now and the spring,” admitting, “That’s not a long time.”

McGregor assumes the premise.  Logical fallacy of petitio principii.  Begging the question.  The west is fighting, but did not start this proxy war.

I think he is taking Austin out of context.  He does not discuss what happens if Ukraine misses this “window of opportunity.”

Alexei Arestovich, President Zelensky’s recently fired advisor and unofficial “Spinmeister,” was more direct. He expressed his own doubts that Ukraine can win its war with Russia and he now questions whether Ukraine will even survive the war. Ukrainian losses—at least 150,000 dead including 35,000 missing in action and presumed dead—have fatally weakened Ukrainian forces resulting in a fragile Ukrainian defensive posture that will likely shatter under the crushing weight of attacking Russian forces in the next few weeks.

Would help if we had a link to this quote.  I can find none.  Here is a link to an account of his stepping down.  I could find no link to quotes question Ukraine’s ability to survive.  He has been resolutely supportive of the war – my wife followed him more than any other source.  Hard to believe he would do a complete about face.

I have not seen these figures from non-Russian sources.  They simply don’t make sense.  Russia has been the attacker, and the rule of thumb is that attackers lose 2-3 times more soldiers than defenders.  Second rule of thumb is that Russia has historically been very wasteful of its soldiers.  See quotes from Eisenhower, Napoleon, others.

Nobody else sees a crushing Russian attack over the next few weeks.  From where?  Using which assets?

Ukraine’s materiel losses are equally severe. These include thousands of tanks and armored infantry fighting vehicles, artillery systems, air defense platforms, and weapons of all calibers. These totals include the equivalent of seven years of Javelin missile production. In a setting where Russian artillery systems can fire nearly 60,000 rounds of all types—rockets, missiles, drones, and hard-shell ammunition—a day, Ukrainian forces are hard-pressed to answer these Russian salvos with 6,000 rounds daily. New platform and ammunition packages for Ukraine may enrich the Washington community, but they cannot change these conditions.

There are no links to back up these claims. 

Ukraine says that Russia is down to about 15,000 artillery rounds per day. 

Ukraine’s modern artillery is significantly more accurate.  Even if the 6,000 figure is real, it has to be put into context.

A dig at war profiteers.  Yes, people are making money off this war.  But armaments such as HIMARS do change the conditions.

Predictably, Washington’s frustration with the collective West’s failure to stem the tide of Ukrainian defeat is growing. In fact, the frustration is rapidly giving way to desperation.

Petitio principii once again.  There is no defeat.  Ukraine is, on balance, gaining ground. 

Ukraine is giving way only in Bakhmut.  It is strategically unimportant.  I have called it “rope a dope” (thanks, Cassius Clay).  Letting Russia exhaust itself in pursuit of a small-value objective.

Michael Rubin, a former Bush appointee and avid supporter of America’s permanent conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan, vented his frustration in a 1945 article asserting that, “if the world allows Russia to remain a unitary state, and if it allows Putinism to survive Putin, then, Ukraine should be allowed to maintain its own nuclear deterrence, whether it joins NATO or not.” On its face, the suggestion is reckless, but the statement does accurately reflect the anxiety in Washington circles that Ukrainian defeat is inevitable.

Putting words into somebody’s mouth.  Another rhetorical trick.

NATO’s members were never strongly united behind Washington’s crusade to fatally weaken Russia. The governments of Hungary and Croatia are simply acknowledging the wider European public’s opposition to war with Russia and lack of support for Washington’s desire to postpone Ukraine’s foreseeable defeat.

More blather.  Hungary (IMHO rightly) opposes the European Union's pressure to allow immigrants into Hungary, force the gay rights agenda on Hungary, and so on. Hungary is not supporting Russia in this war. It is simply not putting resources behind the effort to support Ukraine.

McGregor overlooks the solidarity of the rest of NATO. NATO has always been a fractious organization. It is more united on the question of Ukraine than any other issue I can recall.

"Foreseeable defeat?" Same logical fallacy over and over.

Though sympathetic to the Ukrainian people, Berlin did not support all-out war with Russia on Ukraine’s behalf. Now, Germans are also uneasy with the catastrophic condition of the German armed forces.

The catastrophic condition of the German Armed Forces comes from their having aped the political correctness of the United States Armed Forces. Germany has been preparing for war against Russia, and only Russia, since the Iron Curtain in 1949. The condition of its military does not matter, except with regard to its ability to withstand Russia.

Retired German Air Force General (four-star equivalent) Harald Kujat, former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, severely criticized Berlin for allowing Washington to railroad Germany into conflict with Russia, noting that several decades of German political leaders actively disarmed Germany and thus deprived Berlin of authority or credibility in Europe. Though actively suppressed by the German government and media, his comments are resonating strongly with the German electorate.

This is another question – whether European taxpayers should be supporting a proxy war against Russia. Would they be better off being isolationists, emulating Hungary? That's not the question McGregor asks, but it is a good question. They seem to have answered no, Russia is a threat that must be answered now.

The blunt fact is that in its efforts to secure victory in its proxy war with Russia, Washington ignores historical reality. From the 13th century onward, Ukraine was a region dominated by larger, more powerful national powers, whether Lithuanian, Polish, Swedish, Austrian, or Russian.

So what?

In the aftermath of the First World War, abortive Polish designs for an independent Ukrainian State were conceived to weaken Bolshevik Russia. Today, Russia is not communist, nor does Moscow seek the destruction of the Polish State as Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and their followers did in 1920.

Poland is not so sure of this. Antagonism between Poland and Russia goes back to just after the time of the Mongols.

So where is Washington headed with its proxy war against Russia? The question deserves an answer.

There is an answer. Washington is going toward a victory. Many in Washington and elsewhere had hoped that Putin would decide to cut his losses. He has not done so. The West has no alternative except to persevere.

On Sunday December 7, 1941, U.S. Ambassador Averell Harriman was with Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill having dinner at Churchill’s home when the BBC broadcast the news that the Japanese had attacked the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. Harriman was visibly shocked. He simply repeated the words, “The Japanese have raided Pearl Harbor.”

Harriman need not have been surprised. The Roosevelt administration had practically done everything in its power to goad Tokyo into attacking U.S. forces in the Pacific with a series of hostile policy decisions culminating in Washington’s oil embargo during the summer of 1941.

We did not goad the Russians.  There was strong opposition to joining NATO here in Ukraine. There was also opposition (count me in) to joining the European Union. Certainly there was no identifiable act by Ukraine that could serve as a casus belli.  Russia chose this war.

In the Second World War, Washington was lucky with timing and allies. This time it’s different. Washington and its NATO allies are advocating a full-blown war against Russia, the devastation and breakup of the Russian Federation, as well as the destruction of millions of lives in Russia and Ukraine.

Yes, this war will cost a number of lives. Perhaps 200,000 to date out of a total population between the two countries of 180 million. That's about 1% of the number of lives lost in World War II, just for context. Also, if one believes the contrarians (count me in again), about 1% of the number of people lost to date worldwide to the Covid jabs.

Washington emotes. Washington does not think, and it is also overtly hostile to empiricism and truth. Neither we nor our allies are prepared to fight all-out war with Russia, regionally or globally. The point is, if war breaks out between Russia and the United States, Americans should not be surprised. The Biden administration and its bipartisan supporters in Washington are doing all they possibly can to make it happen. 

The Biden administration has been a tool of the invisible puppet masters – call them neocons, the New World order, the deep state or whatever. There are certainly strong economic interests in the military-industrial intelligence complex supporting this war. Among other things, these parties had better make hay while the sun shines. After Russia collapses they will lose their raison d'être.