by Kurt Nimmo, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics:
We are now perilously close to descending into a nuclear abyss.
If this editorial by retired Col. Douglas Macgregor doesn’t scare the hell out of you, I don’t know what will. Macgregor cites an interview with former Gen. David Petraeus by France’s L’Express weekly. During the interview, Petraeus, the former director of the CIA, said it is time for the USG to directly confront Russia on the ground in Ukraine to prevent the fall of Zelenskyy and his government.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Macgregor writes:
Admittedly, the whole business seems weird, but Petraeus’s suggestion should not be dismissed. Not because Petraeus’s military expertise warrants consideration—it doesn’t. Rather it merits attention because Petraeus would never make such a recommendation unless he was urged to do so by powerful figures in Washington and on Wall Street. And as Jeffrey Sachs tells Americans, globalist and neocon elites clearly want a direct armed confrontation with Russia.
Petraeus, according to Macgregor, “rose through the ranks by checking with everyone in a position of authority above him before doing anything,” making sure not to offend or challenge his superiors, and thus carving out a path to promotion.
Recall Iraq and Petraeus’ “coalition of the willing” that steamrolled over the sanctions-destroyed nation with little trouble. This is the mindset Petraeus is locked in. “Ukraine is not Iraq nor is the Russian Army an Iraqi-like force,” Macgregor warns.
As winter begins, it is becoming painfully obvious a broken-down and defection-ridden Ukrainian military will not be capable of fending off the Russians. “The series of Ukrainian counterattacks over the last 60 to 90 days have cost Ukraine tens of thousands of lives, human capital in uniform that Kiev cannot replace,” Macgregor writes.
According to Macgregor, it is the 11th hour in Ukraine. “The Russian sledgehammer scheduled to fall on the Zelensky regime in the November or December timeframe, or whenever the ground freezes, will crush whatever remains of Ukrainian forces.”
It is now November and the fields of Ukraine, notoriously muddy during the rain of autumn, will soon freeze over and the Russians will move to put an end to the Zelenskyy regime and its ultranationalist, neo-Nazi regiments, now embedded in the regular Ukrainian armed forces.
Petraeus considers the timeframe crucial. It is now or never to save Zelenskyy and his regime peppered with “patriots” paying tribute to the genocidal mass murderer, Stepan Bandera (who collaborated with real Nazis during WWII and massacred hundreds of thousands of Jews, Poles, Roma, and other “subhumans”).
The usual war hawks in the White House, the Pentagon, the CIA, and on the Hill probably assume that a quiescent American electorate will buy the argument that the commitment of U.S. forces in Ukraine without a declaration of war could facilitate a face-saving deal with Moscow.
Macgregor believes it is “dangerous and stupid to think so, and Americans should reject this notion, but it’s not unreasonable to assume this deluded thinking is prevalent inside the beltway.”
The American public is presently distracted by a number of issues, most dealing with inflation and a deteriorating economy, and while they may feel sympathy for the Ukrainians (largely unknowing of their history and the threat the neo-Nazis pose to ethnic Russians in Ukraine), but direct military intervention is certainly not high on the list of things they want the government to address.
In Washington’s halls of power, the “going in” assumption always presupposes certain conditions: a subservient Congress that will ignore its responsibility to invoke the War Powers Act, unconstrained financial resources for military action, and senior military leaders ready to comply with whatever dumb idea the politicians in charge advocate. For Petraeus and his peers there is also the high probability that some tangible reward is promised in the form of future appointments or financial gain.
In short, a direct confrontation with a nation possessing the largest number of nuclear weapons on the planet is a distinct and growing possibility, that is considering the leadership at the helm of the national security state. “The intellectual and professional caliber of America’s senior military leaders is deplorable,” Macgregor concludes.
Indeed, that has been apparent since the Vietnam War, the first major war lost by the once powerful United States military. It is now a shadow of its former self and replete with self-serving careerists like David Petraeus.
Read More @ kurtnimmo.substack.com
