Interview. - Why is U.S. Chief of Staff Mark Milley now calling for negotiations with Russia?- We don't have enough ammunition, enough fuel, enough spare parts, enough soldiers ready to engage in a confrontation with Russia.

925

•

A voice of reason (seeking negotiations with Russia) now comes from the Pentagon, of all places, from Joe Biden's top military adviser, General Mark Milley.

The latter made the above suggestion to the administration and probably got a rebuff - then he broke the silence ban and went public, via the New York Times. Although risking his career, he was reluctant to let things take their course to the point where NATO's only choice would be to swallow a toad or escalate to nuclear.

More than the Russians, he apparently fears the incompetence and hubris of the Bidens, Blinkens, Nulands, Selenskis and Baerbocks of this world. In an interview with U.S. journalist Aaron Maté, former Pentagon adviser Colonel Doug Macgregor tries to sharpen our senses to military reality.

Aaron Maté (AM): Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. Joining me is Doug Macgregor, retired U.S. Army colonel and former Pentagon advisor. Doug, thanks for being back on the air with us.

Doug Macgregor (DMG): You're welcome.

Aaron Maté (AM): What's your reaction to the new development late last week? Out of nowhere, the top officer of the U.S. military, General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), suddenly appears and advocates negotiations with Russia.

This comes just a few weeks after progressive members of Congress were forced to withdraw their call for the same thing, to talk to Russia about ending this war. And now the highest ranking officer in the country, General Milley, in apparent disagreement with representatives of the Biden administration, is calling for talks with Russia.

What is your assessment of the significance of this, and why, of all people, is it General Milley who is pushing for talks with Russia?

Doug Macgregor (DMG): Well, first of all, Milley is known for only doing things whose outcome he has assessed and judged to be favorable to himself. He revealed things from conversations with Trump that were supposed to benefit him.

We had no idea whether they were true or not. Now he's doing the same thing with the New York Times (NYT).

In essence, I think he said the Ukrainians had done all that could reasonably be expected, and it was now time to negotiate. Pretty much that's what he said and most likely addressed to President Biden.

Of course, Biden, Sullivan, Blinken, and the others would have none of that. So there are two very interesting aspects to this, the second of which concerns the ''talking out of school''.

General Milley is the President's principal military advisor. Frankly, everything he says is confidential and should be treated with silence.

He can think and believe what he wants, but once he shares any of it with the President - quite frankly, Aaron, that's where it stops.

During World War II, Admiral Leahy was in the White House about what the chairman of the JCS is today, plus there was Ernest King of the National Forces and George Marshall of the ground forces and the Air Force.

They did not go public and leak anything that they had ever discussed with the President, even after the President died. Okay, so we were pretty strict about that.

There are a couple of exceptions where somebody has leaked out, and if that happens to a senior general, they're usually removed. Because that is not his job, he is supposed to advise, he is not an opinion maker, he is not a political strategist. So then third, what is Milley up to?

Well, I can assure you that Milley is scared, and for good reason.

He has no combat experience of his own, but he knows the simple, hard facts: We don't have enough ammunition, enough fuel, enough spare parts, enough soldiers ready to engage in a confrontation with Russia.

But he also knows that under certain circumstances, it comes down to a confrontation with Russia. Well, a couple of weeks ago, General Petraeus was here, who has a lot in common with Milley's self-reliant nature, and he blurted out the idea of a multinational task force, a "coalition of the willing," predominantly composed of forces from the United States, Poland, and Romania, 90,000 strong in all, that would show up in western Ukraine at some point, and that would lead to a peaceful outcome.

Now, Milley is not stupid, he knows that this would not end peacefully. The Russians have said quite clearly that they will treat any interference with their operation as a hostile act. He also realizes that we are not going to be able to sustain ourselves for long.

The Ukrainians have so far fired about 7,000 artillery shells a day. We have just agreed with the Koreans on the delivery of 100,000 155-millimeter shells. We bought them for the Ukrainians. Now, the problem is, that's just enough to supply the artillery for 14 days.

For the Russians, it would be enough for five days. What I'm saying is, we can't confront them because we don't have the supplies in depth. And Milley knows more: he knows what's coming.

He has seen the Russians completely change their approach. When they invaded Ukraine, it was like they had one hand tied behind their back. They never used more than 20 percent of their ground forces, with an initial 110,000 troops in Ukraine.

By August, they shifted entirely to the defensive. And that's where it's stayed: consolidating the position, pulling in the horns, because the generals had told Putin that the only way to end this is militarily.

If we want to end this militarily, that means massive offensives, more soldiers, more material. That takes time, and that's why the Russians said, fine, we'll trade land gains for time, consolidate our positions, minimize our losses, and let the Ukrainians spend themselves.

continued in comments.

A voice of reason (seeking negotiations with Russia) now comes from the Pentagon, of all places, from Joe Biden's top military adviser, General Mark Milley. The latter made the above suggestion to the administration and probably got a rebuff - then he broke the silence ban and went public, via the New York Times. Although risking his career, he was reluctant to let things take their course to the point where NATO's only choice would be to swallow a toad or escalate to nuclear. More than the Russians, he apparently fears the incompetence and hubris of the Bidens, Blinkens, Nulands, Selenskis and Baerbocks of this world. In an interview with U.S. journalist Aaron Maté, former Pentagon adviser Colonel Doug Macgregor tries to sharpen our senses to military reality. Aaron Maté (AM): Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. Joining me is Doug Macgregor, retired U.S. Army colonel and former Pentagon advisor. Doug, thanks for being back on the air with us. Doug Macgregor (DMG): You're welcome. Aaron Maté (AM): What's your reaction to the new development late last week? Out of nowhere, the top officer of the U.S. military, General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), suddenly appears and advocates negotiations with Russia. This comes just a few weeks after progressive members of Congress were forced to withdraw their call for the same thing, to talk to Russia about ending this war. And now the highest ranking officer in the country, General Milley, in apparent disagreement with representatives of the Biden administration, is calling for talks with Russia. What is your assessment of the significance of this, and why, of all people, is it General Milley who is pushing for talks with Russia? Doug Macgregor (DMG): Well, first of all, Milley is known for only doing things whose outcome he has assessed and judged to be favorable to himself. He revealed things from conversations with Trump that were supposed to benefit him. We had no idea whether they were true or not. Now he's doing the same thing with the New York Times (NYT). In essence, I think he said the Ukrainians had done all that could reasonably be expected, and it was now time to negotiate. Pretty much that's what he said and most likely addressed to President Biden. Of course, Biden, Sullivan, Blinken, and the others would have none of that. So there are two very interesting aspects to this, the second of which concerns the ''talking out of school''. General Milley is the President's principal military advisor. Frankly, everything he says is confidential and should be treated with silence. He can think and believe what he wants, but once he shares any of it with the President - quite frankly, Aaron, that's where it stops. During World War II, Admiral Leahy was in the White House about what the chairman of the JCS is today, plus there was Ernest King of the National Forces and George Marshall of the ground forces and the Air Force. They did not go public and leak anything that they had ever discussed with the President, even after the President died. Okay, so we were pretty strict about that. There are a couple of exceptions where somebody has leaked out, and if that happens to a senior general, they're usually removed. Because that is not his job, he is supposed to advise, he is not an opinion maker, he is not a political strategist. So then third, what is Milley up to? Well, I can assure you that Milley is scared, and for good reason. He has no combat experience of his own, but he knows the simple, hard facts: We don't have enough ammunition, enough fuel, enough spare parts, enough soldiers ready to engage in a confrontation with Russia. But he also knows that under certain circumstances, it comes down to a confrontation with Russia. Well, a couple of weeks ago, General Petraeus was here, who has a lot in common with Milley's self-reliant nature, and he blurted out the idea of a multinational task force, a "coalition of the willing," predominantly composed of forces from the United States, Poland, and Romania, 90,000 strong in all, that would show up in western Ukraine at some point, and that would lead to a peaceful outcome. Now, Milley is not stupid, he knows that this would not end peacefully. The Russians have said quite clearly that they will treat any interference with their operation as a hostile act. He also realizes that we are not going to be able to sustain ourselves for long. The Ukrainians have so far fired about 7,000 artillery shells a day. We have just agreed with the Koreans on the delivery of 100,000 155-millimeter shells. We bought them for the Ukrainians. Now, the problem is, that's just enough to supply the artillery for 14 days. For the Russians, it would be enough for five days. What I'm saying is, we can't confront them because we don't have the supplies in depth. And Milley knows more: he knows what's coming. He has seen the Russians completely change their approach. When they invaded Ukraine, it was like they had one hand tied behind their back. They never used more than 20 percent of their ground forces, with an initial 110,000 troops in Ukraine. By August, they shifted entirely to the defensive. And that's where it's stayed: consolidating the position, pulling in the horns, because the generals had told Putin that the only way to end this is militarily. If we want to end this militarily, that means massive offensives, more soldiers, more material. That takes time, and that's why the Russians said, fine, we'll trade land gains for time, consolidate our positions, minimize our losses, and let the Ukrainians spend themselves. continued in comments.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Liberation attempts.

So I think our generals have finally come clean and taken a stand against the government line.

How far they went in private I don't know, but I think Milley feared they would be forced to make bad decisions, so he let his voice be heard, and after being very unhappy with the response, he decided to leak it.

Maybe in the coming days we will get a clearer picture of how bad things really are on our side, that would be helpful. The American people should know that while we don't have overly strong forces and they are not in optimal condition, in terms of troop strength, we have more generals and admirals than we have had throughout our history.

It's like they were falling out of the trees. We have had so many headquarters with so many admirals and generals that it makes you laugh. It's a disgrace.

AM: Just this week, CIA chief Bill Burns sat down with his Russian counterpart. The White House insisted that it was not about ending the war or reaching an agreement, but only about de-escalation and avoiding nuclear war.

Do you believe that?

DMG: Yeah, I don't know any more about that than you do.

It may well be that Bill Burns, given his background, has strict orders not to discuss a cease-fire under any circumstances.

Because the first requirement for peace talks is a cease-fire, and everybody has opposed that, because they say Ukraine wins, and then you don't want a cease-fire.

So it may well be that they are telling the truth, besides, if you went to the Russians now, I don't think you could get a cease-fire out of it.

Negotiate you could, but what would you get? I mean, their original goals, to put it that way, were very simple.

Number one, Ukraine should not be in NATO. No NATO country should station troops in Ukraine.

Number 2: The two eastern territories that were split off get autonomy. After all, the inhabitants are Russians.

Number 3: Crimea should be recognized as a legitimate part of Russia. It has been since 1700.

The episode with Khrushchev giving Crimea to Kiev in a drunken state is nonsense. And finally, back to the ministerial courts, give Russians living in Ukraine the same rights as other citizens. And that's all.

And if you suddenly appeared now, what do you think you would get from the Russians? I don't think you would get much out of it. They would hear you out, but I don't think you would get much.

Civilian versus military targets.

AM: After the attack on the Kerch Bridge, which connects Russia to Crimea, Russia responded with the worst attacks on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine to date, and recently they have continued.

I wonder, if there is no cease-fire coming, but a major Russian offensive with the newly-expanded hundreds of thousands of troops, what do you think that will look like?

DMG: First of all, I have to go back to one point to correct you there. We always talk about civilian infrastructure. But if you're at war and the power grid is supplying your [3]) army, and you destroy the power grid, it's not because you're trying to harm the population.

But you are trying to cut off the military from access to energy.

So we should understand one thing: the Russians did not intentionally target civilians - but conversely, there is a lot of evidence that the American HIMARS launcher was knowingly used by the Ukrainians to attack civilians in Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea, and other places. [4]

Nobody talks about this because, after all, Ukraine is always spotless, democratic and perfect, and Russia is evil, authoritarian and terrible.

But the truth is that the Ukrainian side is not a pretty sight. In the case of the Russians, so far they have stuck quite closely to targets of military value. But how it will be in the future, I do not know.

In the Kosovo war, during the air strikes on Serbia, I was the director of the Joint Operation Center. And we had destroyed all the targets that were military in the narrowest sense after only a week and a half: all the airfields, barracks and things like that.

There wasn't much left-Yugoslavia was almost still a Third World country, it wasn't very developed.

Then we had a meeting to discuss how to proceed.

Should we attack the Yugo factory? [5] Well, they actually build vehicles for the Yugoslav army there, too. OK, we'll attack them. What about the Danube bridges? Well, of those, only two were used by the military.

But there were 23 bridges - could the Yugoslav army use the others? Yes - so we attacked all twenty-three.

What I'm saying is, when you go to war, what was initially purely civilian moves more and more into the category of "wait a minute, this also has possible military applications" as the war progresses and the level of mobilization increases.

I think we overdid it back in the Kosovo war. I don't think the Russians have reached that point yet. But I think when the major offensives begin, they will destroy anything that might offer resistance. They will not call their bluff.

The options of the Russians.

But as far as I have been able to see from a distance so far, the Russians have been much more cautious and careful in choosing their targets than NATO has been in Serbia.

If they are now also attacking the water supply - and it looks like they are - that means attacking water plants, attacking power plants, attacking fuel depots for diesel, gasoline, attacking any kind of refining capacity and production capacity, not just military - all of that has to be if you want to lower the level of capabilities directed against you, and I think we will see the Russians now using every day and every night until the major offensive to decimate the rest of the capabilities of the enemy as well.

It is now in the Russian interest to let the Ukrainians freeze. It is in the Russian interest to let the Europeans freeze.

Especially the Germans. We have seen to it and brought it about [6]. It was not the Russians, it was us. And the Russians know that. It's not one of the things they planned at the beginning of their operation, this SMO.

This SMO started very limited, very targeted, and was supposed to deliver a certain result.

But it did not come to that. The underlying assumptions were flawed.

The Russians could not have anticipated that we would deliver so many billions of dollars worth of military equipment.

Nor do I think they anticipated that we would send employees of British or U.S. companies, former or even active soldiers in civilian clothes, to the front lines to operate complex systems like the HIMARS missile launcher.

We don't even know the full extent of those activities. Nor do I think they anticipated that NATO personnel would be deployed at the command level to support Ukrainian personnel.

And they had no idea that NATO headquarters would be directing Ukrainian warfare from afar.

So the Russians misjudged the enemy, they now have to correct that assessment and become ruthless in bringing this war to an end.

And I think General Milley knows about these things.

And Milley can't be the only one, and that's why I think he went to the White House, told the truth there, and was not satisfied with the answer he was given.

AM: With reference to what you just elaborated on, how this war becomes an imperative for Russia to let Ukrainians and Europeans freeze: If you in Washington by virtue of your office could end this war, wouldn't you take that option, unless you didn't care about Ukrainian and European lives?

DMG: Well, Aaron, I haven't been able to discover much evidence of great compassion in that department.

If there was that compassion, we would never have let the war get this far. And, as I've said to you and your colleagues, I wouldn't have believed that once a U.S. President got us into a war with Russia in Eastern Europe, either.

Our only real interest in that region is in ending the war and implementing a solution, whatever it takes.

In late February, I wrote a guest editorial suggesting that we assemble an army of neutral countries, Finland, India, Austria, Malaysia, and others, to provide a cease-fire zone between the armies of the Russians and Ukrainians.

And then hold talks until a solution was found. But nobody was interested in it. But now, all of a sudden, there is at least one voice of reason, and surely there are more people in uniform who also say: it's time to stop - but I don't think we can do it.

The UN is no help.

AM: Do you think that Russia has made sufficient efforts in this direction - at one point Putin was talking about peacekeepers for the Donbass?

But from my perspective, and maybe I'm wrong, I couldn't see that they made much fuss about it.

I didn't see them at the U.N. Security Council saying there, we need international peacekeepers to protect the residents of the Donbass and avoid war, or we are going to have to invade ourselves because nobody else is doing it, and the U.S. is back in Ukraine putting artillery fire on these ethnic Russians in the Donbass.

That is why we need international peacekeepers. In your view, has Russia engaged enough to avoid the violence?

DMG: Well, I know that there are many Russians living in the towns and villages of the Donbass who, by their own admission, were on the verge of being liquidated by members of the Azov regiment when Russian troops and tanks showed up at the last moment and prevented them from being shot and their village from being burned.

So that was a real danger.

I don't think Putin had much confidence in the U.N., and suspect he was probably right about that, if you think about the last vote.

I mean, most of the delegates to the U.N., if we say vote a certain way, they will because we have means to influence their lives by controlling the dollar-based economy and finance along with the financial institutions.

We control the IMF and the World Bank, and consequently, if you're in Central Africa, Latin America, or Southwest Asia, are you going to resist and say, we're sorry, we don't agree with you, the Russians have a valid argument?

Much more likely we will say, look, we may sympathize with the Russians this time, but it's not in our interest to expose ourselves with this, so we will vote with the United States.

So he [Putin] was probably right in concluding that he couldn't expect much help from there.

I think his biggest problem was not understanding what is currently governing us in Washington, this gang that is determined, by hook or by crook, to ruin Russia, to break up the country and its government, and secondly, I think he underestimated to what extent we were actually calling the shots in Kiev.

Selensky as a pawn of the West.

AM: And how far does that control extend, for example...?

DMG: Absolutely. It is absolute. If the U.S. president wanted negotiations toward a peace settlement, he would tell Selenski to shut up.

Now there is a theory that Selenski is surrounded by ultra-nationalists who want to kill him if he does something like that.

I don't know ... I can't comment on that. But if he cares about Ukraine, maybe he should take this risk to save lives. But so far I couldn't see any approaches in that direction, or did you see any?

AM: No. I mean, we know from Fiona Hill [7] that according to official sources, there was a draft peace agreement at the end of April.

She didn't explain what thwarted that plan, but Putin claims, and the Ukrainian media reports based on sources close to Selenski, that then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and let Selenski know that the West would end its support for Ukraine if he reached a peace agreement with Russia.

So he de facto ordered him to keep fighting, and Selenski obeyed.

DMG: We must not forget that London and Washington are pulling in the same direction on this issue.

That Boris Johnson could say these things in Kiev would never have been conceivable without prior coordination with Washington.

So you can be sure that they were in agreement.

And London, which apart from us is the fiercest supporter of war with Russia, as you can see from the use of their special forces as trainers and assistants in all sorts of places in Ukraine, is training thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on British soil, has been for some time.

So we should see not so much Boris Johnson as an actor, but London as part of that axis with Washington, acting in the sense of Washington.

https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=90830

**Liberation attempts.** So I think our generals have finally come clean and taken a stand against the government line. How far they went in private I don't know, but I think Milley feared they would be forced to make bad decisions, so he let his voice be heard, and after being very unhappy with the response, he decided to leak it. Maybe in the coming days we will get a clearer picture of how bad things really are on our side, that would be helpful. The American people should know that while we don't have overly strong forces and they are not in optimal condition, in terms of troop strength, we have more generals and admirals than we have had throughout our history. It's like they were falling out of the trees. We have had so many headquarters with so many admirals and generals that it makes you laugh. It's a disgrace. AM: Just this week, CIA chief Bill Burns sat down with his Russian counterpart. The White House insisted that it was not about ending the war or reaching an agreement, but only about de-escalation and avoiding nuclear war. Do you believe that? DMG: Yeah, I don't know any more about that than you do. It may well be that Bill Burns, given his background, has strict orders not to discuss a cease-fire under any circumstances. Because the first requirement for peace talks is a cease-fire, and everybody has opposed that, because they say Ukraine wins, and then you don't want a cease-fire. So it may well be that they are telling the truth, besides, if you went to the Russians now, I don't think you could get a cease-fire out of it. Negotiate you could, but what would you get? I mean, their original goals, to put it that way, were very simple. Number one, Ukraine should not be in NATO. No NATO country should station troops in Ukraine. Number 2: The two eastern territories that were split off get autonomy. After all, the inhabitants are Russians. Number 3: Crimea should be recognized as a legitimate part of Russia. It has been since 1700. The episode with Khrushchev giving Crimea to Kiev in a drunken state is nonsense. And finally, back to the ministerial courts, give Russians living in Ukraine the same rights as other citizens. And that's all. And if you suddenly appeared now, what do you think you would get from the Russians? I don't think you would get much out of it. They would hear you out, but I don't think you would get much. **Civilian versus military targets.** AM: After the attack on the Kerch Bridge, which connects Russia to Crimea, Russia responded with the worst attacks on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine to date, and recently they have continued. I wonder, if there is no cease-fire coming, but a major Russian offensive with the newly-expanded hundreds of thousands of troops, what do you think that will look like? DMG: First of all, I have to go back to one point to correct you there. We always talk about civilian infrastructure. But if you're at war and the power grid is supplying your [3]) army, and you destroy the power grid, it's not because you're trying to harm the population. But you are trying to cut off the military from access to energy. So we should understand one thing: the Russians did not intentionally target civilians - but conversely, there is a lot of evidence that the American HIMARS launcher was knowingly used by the Ukrainians to attack civilians in Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea, and other places. [4] Nobody talks about this because, after all, Ukraine is always spotless, democratic and perfect, and Russia is evil, authoritarian and terrible. But the truth is that the Ukrainian side is not a pretty sight. In the case of the Russians, so far they have stuck quite closely to targets of military value. But how it will be in the future, I do not know. In the Kosovo war, during the air strikes on Serbia, I was the director of the Joint Operation Center. And we had destroyed all the targets that were military in the narrowest sense after only a week and a half: all the airfields, barracks and things like that. There wasn't much left-Yugoslavia was almost still a Third World country, it wasn't very developed. Then we had a meeting to discuss how to proceed. Should we attack the Yugo factory? [5] Well, they actually build vehicles for the Yugoslav army there, too. OK, we'll attack them. What about the Danube bridges? Well, of those, only two were used by the military. But there were 23 bridges - could the Yugoslav army use the others? Yes - so we attacked all twenty-three. What I'm saying is, when you go to war, what was initially purely civilian moves more and more into the category of "wait a minute, this also has possible military applications" as the war progresses and the level of mobilization increases. I think we overdid it back in the Kosovo war. I don't think the Russians have reached that point yet. But I think when the major offensives begin, they will destroy anything that might offer resistance. They will not call their bluff. **The options of the Russians.** But as far as I have been able to see from a distance so far, the Russians have been much more cautious and careful in choosing their targets than NATO has been in Serbia. If they are now also attacking the water supply - and it looks like they are - that means attacking water plants, attacking power plants, attacking fuel depots for diesel, gasoline, attacking any kind of refining capacity and production capacity, not just military - all of that has to be if you want to lower the level of capabilities directed against you, and I think we will see the Russians now using every day and every night until the major offensive to decimate the rest of the capabilities of the enemy as well. It is now in the Russian interest to let the Ukrainians freeze. It is in the Russian interest to let the Europeans freeze. Especially the Germans. We have seen to it and brought it about [6]. It was not the Russians, it was us. And the Russians know that. It's not one of the things they planned at the beginning of their operation, this SMO. This SMO started very limited, very targeted, and was supposed to deliver a certain result. But it did not come to that. The underlying assumptions were flawed. The Russians could not have anticipated that we would deliver so many billions of dollars worth of military equipment. Nor do I think they anticipated that we would send employees of British or U.S. companies, former or even active soldiers in civilian clothes, to the front lines to operate complex systems like the HIMARS missile launcher. We don't even know the full extent of those activities. Nor do I think they anticipated that NATO personnel would be deployed at the command level to support Ukrainian personnel. And they had no idea that NATO headquarters would be directing Ukrainian warfare from afar. So the Russians misjudged the enemy, they now have to correct that assessment and become ruthless in bringing this war to an end. And I think General Milley knows about these things. And Milley can't be the only one, and that's why I think he went to the White House, told the truth there, and was not satisfied with the answer he was given. AM: With reference to what you just elaborated on, how this war becomes an imperative for Russia to let Ukrainians and Europeans freeze: If you in Washington by virtue of your office could end this war, wouldn't you take that option, unless you didn't care about Ukrainian and European lives? DMG: Well, Aaron, I haven't been able to discover much evidence of great compassion in that department. If there was that compassion, we would never have let the war get this far. And, as I've said to you and your colleagues, I wouldn't have believed that once a U.S. President got us into a war with Russia in Eastern Europe, either. Our only real interest in that region is in ending the war and implementing a solution, whatever it takes. In late February, I wrote a guest editorial suggesting that we assemble an army of neutral countries, Finland, India, Austria, Malaysia, and others, to provide a cease-fire zone between the armies of the Russians and Ukrainians. And then hold talks until a solution was found. But nobody was interested in it. But now, all of a sudden, there is at least *one* voice of reason, and surely there are more people in uniform who also say: it's time to stop - but I don't think we can do it. **The UN is no help.** AM: Do you think that Russia has made sufficient efforts in this direction - at one point Putin was talking about peacekeepers for the Donbass? But from my perspective, and maybe I'm wrong, I couldn't see that they made much fuss about it. I didn't see them at the U.N. Security Council saying there, we need international peacekeepers to protect the residents of the Donbass and avoid war, or we are going to have to invade ourselves because nobody else is doing it, and the U.S. is back in Ukraine putting artillery fire on these ethnic Russians in the Donbass. That is why we need international peacekeepers. In your view, has Russia engaged enough to avoid the violence? DMG: Well, I know that there are many Russians living in the towns and villages of the Donbass who, by their own admission, were on the verge of being liquidated by members of the Azov regiment when Russian troops and tanks showed up at the last moment and prevented them from being shot and their village from being burned. So that was a real danger. I don't think Putin had much confidence in the U.N., and suspect he was probably right about that, if you think about the last vote. I mean, most of the delegates to the U.N., if we say vote a certain way, they will because we have means to influence their lives by controlling the dollar-based economy and finance along with the financial institutions. We control the IMF and the World Bank, and consequently, if you're in Central Africa, Latin America, or Southwest Asia, are you going to resist and say, we're sorry, we don't agree with you, the Russians have a valid argument? Much more likely we will say, look, we may sympathize with the Russians this time, but it's not in our interest to expose ourselves with this, so we will vote with the United States. So he [Putin] was probably right in concluding that he couldn't expect much help from there. I think his biggest problem was not understanding what is currently governing us in Washington, this gang that *is* determined, by hook or by crook, to ruin Russia, to break up the country and its government, and secondly, I think he underestimated to what extent we were actually calling the shots in Kiev. **Selensky as a pawn of the West.** AM: And how far does that control extend, for example...? DMG: Absolutely. It is absolute. If the U.S. president wanted negotiations toward a peace settlement, he would tell Selenski to shut up. Now there is a theory that Selenski is surrounded by ultra-nationalists who want to kill him if he does something like that. I don't know ... I can't comment on that. But if he cares about Ukraine, maybe he should take this risk to save lives. But so far I couldn't see any approaches in that direction, or did you see any? AM: No. I mean, we know from Fiona Hill [7] that according to official sources, there was a draft peace agreement at the end of April. She didn't explain what thwarted that plan, but Putin claims, and the Ukrainian media reports based on sources close to Selenski, that then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and let Selenski know that the West would end its support for Ukraine if he reached a peace agreement with Russia. So he de facto ordered him to keep fighting, and Selenski obeyed. DMG: We must not forget that London and Washington are pulling in the same direction on this issue. That Boris Johnson could say these things in Kiev would never have been conceivable without prior coordination with Washington. So you can be sure that they were in agreement. And London, which apart from us is the fiercest supporter of war with Russia, as you can see from the use of their special forces as trainers and assistants in all sorts of places in Ukraine, is training thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on British soil, has been for some time. So we should see not so much Boris Johnson as an actor, but London as part of that axis with Washington, acting in the sense of Washington. https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=90830

link

(post is archived)

You can claim this sub in /s/subrequest