Tucker Carlson, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, The Ukraine War

[Estro Felino]

Is this a serious question? Because if it is, I've seriously overestimated your intelligence.

Absolutely serious question.
Well... so many Ukrainians died and keep dying for this president's sake.
Is it worth it?
I don't think so.
If he had renounced those four regions, and given them to Russia, so many Ukrainians would be alive, today.

But Ukrainians are fleeing Ukraine. They are escaping to Western Europe, where they are welcomed.
Soon VZ will run out of soldiers.

 

[lukethethird]

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. What do you suppose a leader would be willing to compromise on to save his nation? How much do you suppose is acceptable? Fair question.

Well, who put that little small fry up to taking on Russia in the first place? Why did Z let them do that?

 

[EconGuy]

Well, who put that little small fry up to taking on Russia in the first place? Why did Z let them do that?

You seem to be the man who knows, why don't you tell us?

 

[Estro Felino]

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. What do you suppose a leader would be willing to compromise on to save his nation? How much do you suppose is acceptable? Fair question.

No...they are mutually exclusive.
Because if you are ordered to carry out an agenda by supranational entities, the latter couldn't care less about the safety of your nation, but could be interested in using Ukrainian soldiers as human shields against Putin. Cannon fodder.

 

[lukethethird]

You seem to be the man who knows, why don't you tell us?

OK, who is supplying Ukraine and who are the cheerleaders?

Why does Z let them do that?, I don't know. Was a gun put to his head, was he bribed, does he hate Russians more than he loves all of Ukraine?, I have no idea, I do not know.

 

[Stevicus]

Americans are victims, because I am afraid it deals with taxpayers' money.

And I heard that besides this public money, there are incredibly rich characters who bribe Zelenskyy to induce him to spread the lies that Ukrainians are winning, because that's how you convince the American people that this war is winnable by the West.

They're also saying that, if the West does not help Ukraine by sending aid, munitions, and equipment, Ukraine will lose. Zelensky has been quite an advocate in his ongoing appeals to the West for aid. He's traveled to multiple countries, including the U.S. He's been to the White House, he's spoken before Congress. A lot of Americans are sympathetic to Ukraine, and many still remember the bad old days of the Cold War when Russia headed up the "evil empire." (Of course, Russophobia was a thing even before the Bolsheviks took over in 1917.)

On the other hand, a lot of Americans are hurting too, and no doubt some might be wishing the government would be as generous towards them as they appear to be towards Ukraine. The government has responsibilities to its own people as well, and if those responsibilities are not fulfilled, then the voters will likely remember that at the next election. People will vote based more on their own personal situation and station, not on what happens with Ukraine.

Right now, the state of America's democracy is somewhat...fragile. Our political leaders need to be careful. They need to be wise and prudent. They need to be circumspect and consider the big picture and America's long-term future.

At this point, we've committed ourselves to helping Ukraine, but in the final analysis, if the Ukrainians and Russians want to keep fighting each other, there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.

I think both countries are essentially losing. In fact, the video posted upthread by that McBeth guy said as much, projecting the outcome of "who would end up losing more."

On a practical level, does Ukraine, under the current circumstances, have the wherewithal to defeat the Russian forces and expel them from Ukraine to their pre-2014 borders? Can they do this, assuming that they continue to get aid from the West? If they can't do it, what then? Do they just keep fighting until they run out of people?

As for Russia and Putin, I just don't know. Putin is clearly a zealous Russian nationalist, but he's operated his government more like some kind of mob boss than anything else. The thing that keeps him in power is that the West opposes him and has imposed sanctions on Russia, so he ends up appearing as the defender of Mother Russia from the Western imperialists, and the people rally behind him. Russia is still mostly intact, at least in terms of their infrastructure and industries, and the sanctions might produce some hardship, but the Russians are used to that. They still trade with China and other countries, too.

In other words, Russia is in a far better position if it comes down to a long-term war of attrition with Ukraine. Of course, some people might hope that something happens to Putin, perhaps an overthrow or possible arrest - or something else. Russia might get a more reasonable leader.

But other than that, the West will have to decide what to do, while still trying to keep the home folks happy at the same time. Uphill battle.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is not my fault you have no ability to support your claim

Which claim? I was responding to YOUR claim that the Russian invasion wasn't that severe, and I DID support my argument against your claim - with a list of Russian war crimes.

.. and no ability to refute sound argument to the contrary with anything other than some moronic analogy that makes no sense.

If you don't understand that you cannot justify an invasion on the basis of the invasion "not being as bad as other invasions" then you're not making a moral argument.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I just cited The Washington Post and Newsweek

Saying that the "invasion isn't that bad". While ignoring all of the other reports of war crimes.

but I appreciate you recognizing them as spreading propaganda,

No, selectively spreading information in such a way designed to ignore the aspects of it that make Russia look bad is lies and propaganda.

Plus, all of the other lies and propaganda you have spread. Like the lie about 14,000 Russian-speaking Ukrainians being killed by the Ukrainian government (which is explicitly a thing Putin himself claimed), or the Maidan protests being a US-backed coup.

I thought you would never come around. I don't care if you stick around or not but you really need to calm down.

Again, don't patronise me. My emotions are in check and my facts are on point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have exposed nothing but your blind patriotism to an imperialist regime. Why don't you read something credible for a change?

The following explains what took place regarding the Maidan coup;

America’s Ukraine Hypocrisy​

https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy

"The extent of the Obama administration’s meddling in Ukraine’s politics was breathtaking."

"One can legitimately condemn some aspects of Moscow’s behavior, but the force of America’s moral outrage is vitiated by the stench of U.S. hypocrisy."

Which has literally nothing to do with justifying or excusing this current invasion by Russia. A single opinion piece written in 2017 in a libertarian think tank says literally nothing about the current conflict.

Also, when have I ever once argued that America doesn't meddle with other countries? I'm not an American. I'm not a patriot. Nor am I a fan of America.

Thus, you have again laid bare that you have no arguments against imperialism, you just have arguments against America.

 

[lukethethird]

Which has literally nothing to do with justifying or excusing this current invasion by Russia. A single opinion piece written in 2017 in a libertarian think tank says literally nothing about the current conflict.

Also, when have I ever once argued that America doesn't meddle with other countries? I'm not an American. I'm not a patriot. Nor am I a fan of America.

Thus, you have again laid bare that you have no arguments against imperialism, you just have arguments against America.

That article written in 2017 rebutts your nonsense about the Maidan coup.

You really do need to calm down.

No one is justifying or excusing this invasion, you are simply being hysterical.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That article written in 2017 rebutts your nonsense about the Maidan coup.

It says basically nothing, other than that western leaders supported the protesters. At no point does it make any concrete argument or claim of any specific meddling. It's just the Nuland phone call, which was LITERALLY NOTHING, and provides not a single shred of evidence nor any substantiated claims. It certainly doesn't support your claim that Maidan was a US-backed coup.

Try harder.

No one is justifying or excusing this invasion, you are simply being hysterical.

You've repeatedly done so. And these allegations of my hysteria are desperate.

Are you going to apologise for calling me a patriot for a country I neither like nor live in?

 

[EconGuy]

You've repeatedly done so. And these allegations of my hysteria are desperate.

Just call it what is is....Gaslighting.

Are you going to apologise for calling me a patriot for a country I neither like nor live in?

Asking for an apology on the internet? You'd sooner get a refund from the Nigerian prince that's been talking everyone's money (spam email joke).

I can't say I've ever understood disliking a "country". Maybe that's shorthand for a nation's policies, people, geography. I dunno. America is a wonderful place filled with a lot of really great people, but it has problems like every other nation. We're under attack, but the attack is subtle and a lot of people here don't see it and other refuse to look.

 

[lukethethird]

Just call it what is is....Gaslighting.



Asking for an apology on the internet? You'd sooner get a refund from the Nigerian prince that's been talking everyone's money (spam email joke).

I can't say I've ever understood disliking a "country". Maybe that's shorthand for a nation's policies, people, geography. I dunno. America is a wonderful place filled with a lot of really great people, but it has problems like every other nation. We're under attack, but the attack is subtle and a lot of people here don't see it and other refuse to look.

Gaslighting, now that's desperate.

I love America, I'm just not a fan of US foreign policy, nor am I a pentagon bootlicker.

 

[Estro Felino]

They're also saying that, if the West does not help Ukraine by sending aid, munitions, and equipment, Ukraine will lose. Zelensky has been quite an advocate in his ongoing appeals to the West for aid. He's traveled to multiple countries, including the U.S. He's been to the White House, he's spoken before Congress. A lot of Americans are sympathetic to Ukraine, and many still remember the bad old days of the Cold War when Russia headed up the "evil empire." (Of course, Russophobia was a thing even before the Bolsheviks took over in 1917.)

On the other hand, a lot of Americans are hurting too, and no doubt some might be wishing the government would be as generous towards them as they appear to be towards Ukraine. The government has responsibilities to its own people as well, and if those responsibilities are not fulfilled, then the voters will likely remember that at the next election. People will vote based more on their own personal situation and station, not on what happens with Ukraine.

Right now, the state of America's democracy is somewhat...fragile. Our political leaders need to be careful. They need to be wise and prudent. They need to be circumspect and consider the big picture and America's long-term future.

At this point, we've committed ourselves to helping Ukraine, but in the final analysis, if the Ukrainians and Russians want to keep fighting each other, there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.

I think both countries are essentially losing. In fact, the video posted upthread by that McBeth guy said as much, projecting the outcome of "who would end up losing more."

On a practical level, does Ukraine, under the current circumstances, have the wherewithal to defeat the Russian forces and expel them from Ukraine to their pre-2014 borders? Can they do this, assuming that they continue to get aid from the West? If they can't do it, what then? Do they just keep fighting until they run out of people?

As for Russia and Putin, I just don't know. Putin is clearly a zealous Russian nationalist, but he's operated his government more like some kind of mob boss than anything else. The thing that keeps him in power is that the West opposes him and has imposed sanctions on Russia, so he ends up appearing as the defender of Mother Russia from the Western imperialists, and the people rally behind him. Russia is still mostly intact, at least in terms of their infrastructure and industries, and the sanctions might produce some hardship, but the Russians are used to that. They still trade with China and other countries, too.

In other words, Russia is in a far better position if it comes down to a long-term war of attrition with Ukraine. Of course, some people might hope that something happens to Putin, perhaps an overthrow or possible arrest - or something else. Russia might get a more reasonable leader.

But other than that, the West will have to decide what to do, while still trying to keep the home folks happy at the same time. Uphill battle.

The problem arises when one finds out that Ukraine is just fighting against Russia just to obey the orders of Washington DC.
Do you find it impossible, improbable, likely or unlikely?

I mean that there are shady characters behind the scenes ordering Ukraine to fight against Russia and to disregard any peace proposal coming from Moscow?

I mean: that Ukraine has no free will.

 

[Sargonski]

Which claim? I was responding to YOUR claim that the Russian invasion wasn't that severe, and I DID support my argument against your claim - with a list of Russian war crimes.


If you don't understand that you cannot justify an invasion on the basis of the invasion "not being as bad as other invasions" then you're not making a moral argument.

I was not trying to justify the invastion on the basis of not being as bad as the others. .. you are building a silly strawman

My claim was simply that Vlad was a gentle Giant comparatively .. doesn't mean that war is not bad .. and that nasty things to not happen .. but on the Nasty Scale .. as measured by dead civilians .. this war is a cake walk.

You want to use a different measuring stick .. thats fine .. but it is not an argument against the measuring stick I used.. BUT .. by your measuring stick as well .. War Crimes .. this war is a cake walk by comparison.

2 nails .. sunk deep .. position crucified. Your nonsense narrative that Russia is engaging in terrible war conduct ... is a false narrative on a comparative basis .. you might have just as well said "All War is BAd .. Putin make war ... Putin Bad" .. OK Paddy .. we kind of all get that .. it is your claim that Russia is a bad actor on a relative basis that is a screaming falsehood.

 

[lukethethird]

It says basically nothing, other than that western leaders supported the protesters. At no point does it make any concrete argument or claim of any specific meddling. It's just the Nuland phone call, which was LITERALLY NOTHING, and provides not a single shred of evidence nor any substantiated claims. It certainly doesn't support your claim that Maidan was a US-backed coup.

Try harder.


You've repeatedly done so. And these allegations of my hysteria are desperate.

Are you going to apologise for calling me a patriot for a country I neither like nor live in?

Apologise to a Washington Pentagon bootlicker? Not a chance.

I love America, if you haven't noticed I am not a fan of US foreign policy, it's based on bigotry, it's despicable, and so are western imperialist shills.

 

[Copernicus]

OK dude . . just for you I tortured myself for a few minutes watching this person who not only looks like a moron - and who talks like a moron .. but is the real deal true blue moron ..

A "few minutes"???? Did it hurt much? Perhaps you could have tried sampling short stretches at various points in the video to sort of get a general idea without damaging your defensive shields beyond repair.

OK .. "Fact Checking" -- This means you better have checked the facts yourself right ? am I not right ??

Not if you start a logic chopping exercise in which you attribute some narrow meaning to the expression. It is usually about how likely a claim is to be true or false, given publicly available information.

So Paddy McDoodle challenges Paddy McGreggor's 400K dead number. The first thing he does is say historically casualty ratio is 3-1 so if 400K dead should be 1.2 million wounded .. and goes on from there .. assuming that this assumption holds for this war .. giving no support for what the actual ratio is .. or if it would be expected to hold given the conditions in this war .. conditions described by all sides as a "meat grinder" .. "war like we have never seen before" said the NATO talking head... MacGreggor stating in one of his talks .. Ukrainian casualties being left on the field .. as retrieving them is too dangerous ..

Regardless -- this is a "Fact Check" which means you should be doing just that .. and he didn't .. you don't make such assumptions in a Fact Check.

That starts at roughly 6:35 in the video. There is no "actual ratio", because neither side actually releases casualty figures, as McBeth points out. He actually showed a document that cited the 3:1 ratio but did not say where that document came from. In my experience (which has involved working with security analysts like him), this kind of assumption is exactly what all intelligence analysts engage in when evaluating claims like the one MacGregor made. He simply pointed out that MacGregor's 400,000 claim would therefore result in Ukraine having only about 100,000 troops left. That's absurd.

but the fun continues .. he supplies a number from a British Tabloid 17,000 KIA .. with no substantiation of where this number came from.. how was derived .. and why this propaganda mouthpiece should be believed ? No analysis of stuff like the daily casualty figures given individually for each battle taking place. .. I watch these updates .. can find many of them . .. and they give what both sides stated Russia and Ukraine .. and the numbers sometimes match .. often do not .. but is somewhere in between .. and there are people that add these numbers up .. 500 dead a day is not uncommon .. sometimes more .. for regular days .. when surging is more. 17,000 KIA gives us 34 days of War .. but, the war has been going on for much longer than 340 days .. or 10 times that amount ... just to give you an indication of how absurd that number is.

but no effort to "Fact Check" .... which would have to invovle estimates given from many sources .. including methods of how was calculated or obtained ..

He just said the The Guardian (not really a tabloid) is usually more accurate then other public sources on the dead-wounded ratio (actually it was 17,500 dead), but he said he thought the number too low. He came up with roughly 100,000 as a more accurate number of overall Ukrainian wounded, many of which would have gone back into battle and possibly be wounded again, inflating those numbers.

Obituaries .. number of graves dug .. Doug says satellite images show a massive graveyard with 120,000 holes .. waiting to be filled. .. major construction project. -- or from daily combat estimates .. or from monthly - updates .. like this from the Russian MOD

Russian MOD estimates Ukraine's counteroffensive casualties​

Kiev has lost some 66,000 troops and 7,600 pieces of heavy weaponry in three months, Defense Minister Russian MOD estimates Ukraine's counteroffensive casualties

That is more than 17,000 dead in 3 months .. clearly .. someone is a complete idiot . so far we have narrowed it down to either .. Moron Fact Check guy .. or Doug and the Russian MOD.

You use the Russian MOD in an RT article as a source? And you take MacGregor's "120,000 holes" claim at face value? McBeth is not the one who is a "complete idiot". Anyway, McBeth's rating of MacGregor's 400,000 dead claim is "extremely unlikely to be true", and I think he made that case very well. And you missed a lot more analysis of MacGregor that was even more devastating by not continuing to watch, but I understand that your defensive shields must have been overheating at that point.

200,000 Russian troops have been "liquidated" in the full-scale invasion of Ukraine launched by President Vladimir Putin nearly 15 months ago, according to figures released by Kyiv's military.

How Russia lost "200,000 soldiers" in Ukraine

The staggering losses have damaged the "organizational integrity" of the Russian Armed Forces, Pavel Luzin, a Russian political analyst, told Newsweek.

www.newsweek.com

I chose Newsweek because they have been such hard core propagandists. .. The casualty ratio varies greatly but in general it has been ridiculous 5-1 often 10-1 .. which means that if there are 200K Russians "Liquidated" we are looking at over 1 million ukrainian soldiers liquidated .. which of course is ridiculous -- what we expect from the Kyiv MOD.

.. Sorry friend ... but your boy McDoodle is a moron ... or a CIA Team member.. helping out with the ganda

So now you are trying to do the kind of thing that McBeth does professionally, only with no experience and far less understanding of which sources are reliable. For, example, RT is notorious for cooking its figures, and its Russian articles sometimes differ in content from English versions because of the propaganda values for foreign versus domestic audiences.

Holy carp what a pile of made up nonsense .. I didn't say you was calling Doug an idiot .. but you did jump in on a convo where he had been called a liar.. You now crying out ... I never called him a liar is a joke .. and deflection .

My comments are not endorsements of everything people have said in your arguments with them, so you are the one deflecting here by making false accusations. I think MacGregor is incredibly naïve if he thinks that Ukraine has lost 400K soldiers. If he doesn't actually believe that claim, then that would make him a liar. In any case, the claim is an example of a falsehood by any reasonable calculation, as McBeth pointed out in his factchecking exercise.

You then accuse me of Ad Hom Fallacy ...(showing you don't know what it is) followed by you stating Doug has been interviewd by RT ... which is Ad Hom Fallacy Central

You actually just proved that you don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I was pointing out to you that he was supporting Russia's claims about the war and was, in fact, interviewed by RT multiple times. I gave a link to support the truth of that claim. That isn't an ad hominem fallacy, which is claiming that something is false because of who made the claim.

Then finally when you get around to addressing the topic .. you make a completely unsupported nonsense claim " fairly obvious Doug gets things wrong and uses fallacious reasoning to support his claims"

That was sneaky. You changed what I said and put it in quotes to make it look like my words. I have boldfaced the parts you modified.

"it's fairly obvious from the McBeth critique that he does get things wrong and uses fallacious reasoning to support his claims"​

As you can see, I supported my claim by referencing the video, which you admit you only watched a few minutes of. The fact is that you have no way to know what else he said, since the transcripted portion posted in this thread was only a small piece of it and you admittedly didn't watch it.

This is preposterous nonsense given your inability to point out a single falsehood .. your stinger example was not supported .. not proven friend .. and if all you are going on is McDoodle said so .. too bad .. but , as discussed ... this example doesn't count .. for reasons given to you in detail .. the idea that it would .. frankly .. infantile understanding of subject matter .. not that you would .. of course

The stinger reference starts at 22:00 in the video, which you didn't watch. Again, I supported what I said. Your refutation is based on ignorance of the content of the video. Your remark here is typical of most of your criticism--ignorance based on your puzzling unwillingness to check the facts, which should have started with you watching the source that you intended to attack and criticize so vehemently. Again, it isn't McBeth or myself who is behaving in an "infantile" fashion here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I was not trying to justify the invastion on the basis of not being as bad as the others. .. you are building a silly strawman

My claim was simply that Vlad was a gentle Giant comparatively .. doesn't mean that war is not bad .. and that nasty things to not happen .. but on the Nasty Scale .. as measured by dead civilians .. this war is a cake walk.

"I promise I'm not downplaying the invasion, I just think this war is a cake walk compared to others".

Gee, I wonder what the reason is for this line of argument.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Apologise to a Washington Pentagon bootlicker? Not a chance.

And thus, you expose yourself.

And you accuse me of being emotional.

I love America, if you haven't noticed I am not a fan of US foreign policy, it's based on bigotry, it's despicable, and so are western imperialist shills.

Cool, so we agree.

So why are you running defence when OTHER countries do imperialism? Are you pro-Imperialism except when America does it?

And are you going to address the actual arguments yet? You've provided absolutely nothing to demonstrate - in any way, shape or form - that Maidan was a "US-backed coup".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can't say I've ever understood disliking a "country". Maybe that's shorthand for a nation's policies, people, geography. I dunno. America is a wonderful place filled with a lot of really great people, but it has problems like every other nation. We're under attack, but the attack is subtle and a lot of people here don't see it and other refuse to look.

My partner is American. When I say I don't like it, I'm talking in a geopolitical, foreign policy sense. As this - and other - threads prove, there are obviously significantly worse places in both respects, and yet there is a genuinely blind anti-American bigotry that will drive people to refuse to acknowledge this.