Ukraine, War, and National Defense
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
8/10/2023
In an interview by Ron Paul, Colonel Douglas McGregor gave his opinion of the war in Ukraine, forward American military bases worldwide, the influence of oligarchs/money on defense policy, the changes in technology and the realities of distant wars, and the effect of PC/Woke policies on American defensive readiness.
The following is a summary of Colonel McGregor’s opinions on these issues:
Col. Douglas McGregor discussed the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and shifting views on American foreign policy and militarism. Some key points:
– McGregor said his views changed after observing the flawed conclusion of the Gulf War in 1990-91, where objectives and outcomes were not clearly defined.
– He sees the Ukraine conflict dangerously escalating without a clear strategy from NATO or the US. Continued support only ensures Ukraine’s destruction while risking wider war with Russia.
– The roots of the conflict were the avoidance of Russian security concerns and the expansion of NATO beyond Cold War borders. A diplomatic solution was always possible but avoided.
– Both Ukraine and American leadership have lost control of events. Multiple factions in the US now want to disengage but also intervene, showing a lack of coherent strategic thinking.
– Propaganda efforts are shifting blame to China as the Russia goals weren’t achieved, and failure becomes clear. But border issues and lack of vetting of immigrants pose greater threats.
– Long-term, unsustainable military spending and adventurism will bankrupt the US as it did Britain in Asia after WWII. Technological changes require rethinking global troop deployments.
– Woke policies are weakening military recruitment prospects. Personnel should reflect all citizens, not favor some over traditionally dominant groups.
– Real reform is unlikely due to the influence of donors and military-industrial interests over politicians. Systemic change may be needed if the government becomes truly unresponsive.
– Whistleblowers revealing government wrongdoing must be protected under the Bill of Rights, not prosecuted. Outcomes for Assange and others set troubling precedents.
– For McGregor, the 1990-91 Gulf War was formative because objectives were not clearly defined beforehand, and the sudden halt to operations after initial success left important strategic questions unanswered. This highlighted flaws in military/political planning.
– In Ukraine, he believes continued Western support only ensures more destruction and casualties without any chance of Ukrainian victory. The aim seems to inflict damage on Russia rather than a strategic victory.
– Technological changes like long-range precision missiles mean rapid global troop reinforcement is no longer viable. Forward basing carries high risks of entanglement in minor conflicts. Force structure needs redesigning for deterrence/defense.
– Military recruitment shortfalls now partially stem from woke policies that tell prospective recruits that other groups can do their jobs better. This harms morale and reduces the pool of willing recruits.
– The donor class—wealthy individuals and groups—wields outsized influence via campaign finance, media ownership, universities, and other avenues. This oligarchic control undermines the responsiveness of elected officials.
– Personnel changes are needed at the top levels of the military, which still seeks to refight past wars rather than adapt strategy to current threats and capabilities.
– Trump acknowledged bringing McGregor in earlier could have helped, but his options were limited by the spheres of influence around him. It’s unclear if he’s learned lasting lessons on personnel selection.
– Lasting reform may require revisiting the existing government framework as environments change rapidly, but responses remain slow and captured by entrenched interests. The system seems increasingly unworkable.
McGregor discussed redesigning the US force structure along more defensive and deterrent lines:
– Reduce overseas basing and forward deployments that risk entanglement in minor conflicts. Pull back from being the world’s policeman.
– Rely more on sea and air power projection through carriers and long-range missiles/aircraft, with submarine forces as a core strength. Limit “tripwire” ground troops abroad.
– Shift investment from large platforms like aircraft carriers to more dispersed, survivable assets like missile-armed submarines, long-range bombers and missiles.
– Re-focus ground forces on continental defense and rapid deployment within North America if needed, rather than projects of global power projection.
– Maintain nuclear second-strike capabilities and missile defenses as the ultimate deterrent, allowing cuts to excessive conventional forces no longer needed to fight global wars.
– Reallocate savings from force structure cuts towards modernizing degraded assets, research on disruptive technologies, and stockpiling strategic reserves rather than ongoing foreign deployments.
– Regional allies would need to shoulder more of their self-defense burdens without leaning as heavily on US tripwire forces and security guarantees in their neighborhoods.
– Cyber, space, and other asymmetric capabilities could supplement a retrenchment from heavily armed presence missions around the world that are no longer strategically tenable.
Colonel McGregor gave no specifics, but some examples of disruptive technologies for modernizing US force structure include:
– Hypersonic weapons – Missiles, glide vehicles, and aircraft capable of flying many times the speed of sound, rendering missile defenses obsolete.
– Artificial intelligence and automation – AI piloted aircraft/vehicles, automated weapons, intelligence analysis to multiply capabilities of small forces.
– Anti-satellite weapons – Effective counter-space missiles, energy weapons, or cyber tools to deny adversaries’ use of orbiting assets.
– Cyber and information warfare tools – Offensive and defensive capabilities for digital battlespaces like undersea cables, electrical grids, and financial markets.
– Directed energy weapons – High-powered lasers, microwave weapons, plasma guns for missile defense, anti-drone and anti-aircraft applications.
– Long-range strike technologies – Hypervelocity projectiles, advanced railguns, automated long-range rockets, and missiles usable from sea, air, or land.
– Nuclear power miniaturization – Portable nuclear reactors to power remote bases, drone fleets, and energy weapons without using fossil fuels.
– Autonomous systems – Swarms of AI-coordinated drones on land, sea, and air to maximize the effects of minimal manned forces.
– Quantum technologies – When developed, communications, sensing, and computing will transform encryption, navigation, and materials science for military systems.
Commentary By Dr. Thomas:
The war in Ukraine could have been avoided. Putin warned us that NATO had violated the original treaty agreement. This is the same violation we felt when Russia put missiles in Cuba. We are claiming to defend democracy by coming to the aid of Ukraine when there is plausible evidence that the election of Zelensky was not the democratic will. The motivation for using Ukraine as a proxy for a fight against Russia is unclear. Possibly it is related to allegations of Ukraine being a money laundering capital of the world, used by US politicians. There are also rumors that Zelensky is a homosexual – possibly, this puts him in a favorable light to the current US administration. Regardless, the war in Ukraine is only vaguely connected with US interests. Of course, the US does not want Russia to take over all of the Eastern Bloc, which is undesirable. Our leaders don’t want to be a modern-day Neville Chamberlain, declaring peace in our time when giving land to an aggressor. We don’t want to let oppressed people be overtaken by tyrants bent on empire-building. Trading land for peace is a very effective method of disguising aggression and then getting approval for their advancement.
Having said that, it appears that the tail is again wagging the dog. The donor class, the oligarchs in the West, and the monied-industrial-social interests appear to be the force behind supporting the Ukraine aid/defense agenda while rejecting the moderate approaches to a negotiated peace. If true, this is another example of special interest and/or personal enrichment as the force driving foreign policy and war. This is where we must change and operate according to Godly principles. The public not being informed about the larger context of this conflict is a central issue. The media only tells the story of how evil Russia is and how noble the Ukrainians and their president are in resisting Russian aggression to the last man. The government-media cancellation/censorship of the news and information must stop. People must be informed. The facts should all be clear to the public – they are not; they are filtered through the bias of media censorship, which may be influenced by government direction.