Tucker Carlson does a classic strawman argument in a recent broadcast: equating aid to UKR with a war with Russia. Then claiming people don't want a war with Russian. This is the disingenuous reasoning at best/1 #TuckerCalrson @TuckerCalrson foxnews.com/video/63226408…
The premise is that endless aid to UKR will force us to war with Russia. How this is suppose to happen is left unsaid: a big clue that it is bravo sierra. His whole premise is that US forces would fire at Russian forces and start a war./2
One assumption he makes is that the US will do a "blank check:" to UKR and that - unstated- this will mean we will have to step in ourselves. Both are inaccurate to say the least./3
The US has not committed to a blank check: a $120 billion authorization over seven years. Not the trillions that aid opponents always alleged. That is being keyed to specific needs of Ukraine coordinated with all NATO allies. Not "open-ended" and nor a "blank check."/4
No actual money wo conditions & controls is given to Ukraine. A part of the $15 B in humanitarian and govt asst went for emergency pension payments to keep the country going. US has not assumed the obligation of paying Ukraine pensions. More misleading. /5 factcheck.org/2023/02/bidens…
Most aid (about 70%) is eqpt & ammo in storage donated. The price is figured by the replacement and UPGRADE costs (spent in the US over several years). All weapons are tracked within UKR down to end-users./6
So: no "blank check" and no "open-ended" commitment. How about shooting at Russians? Well, NATO & US preclude use of their weapons against targets in Russia. Over-cautious in the opinion for most mil experts. But that has been an iron clad rule./7 taskandpurpose.com/news/us-ukrain…
Or if the Ukrainians can only shot Russians illegally in Ukraine. How does this end up with the US attacking Russia itself? The unspoken assumption is that Ukraine will lose & this will be required. That is the biggest lie of the whole Carlson schtick. /8
UKR is winning the war and there is no need for Americans or any NATO country to send or use its own forces against Russia. No one but a fake translation of a Zelensky speech by Kremlin creeps has allege this needs to happen./9 apnews.com/article/fact-c…
Multiple sources affirm that UKR is winning, that Russians cannot keep up the war, that new UKR formations armed with modern NATO vehicles will sweep the map, and that Putin cannot wage an "endless war."/10 breakingdefense.com/2022/05/russia…
One top mil expert (for example) has been right from the start (unlike some talking heads on FOX) has consistently stated UKR will win and that /Russia is incapable of taking UKR if it is supported by NATO arms./11
General Keane (ret) also expressed this, pointing out that the initial Russian force available to Putin was & remains inadequate on its face to take UKR, and that UKR with latest heavy weapons cannot be stopped by Russia:/12
Experts generally agree that with planned NATO support (incl EU efforts that match or exceed US support (like 1 million 115mm shells this week), Russia has already lost./13 defenseone.com/policy/2023/02…
Facts:/14
The "big Russian offense" based on a mobilization of raw conscripts & older versions of Russian weapons has flopped with no major gains. As predicted:/15
There is no possible scenario right now where US forces will need to start shooting at Russians. So why would Tucker Carlson lie about this prospect? Why not even make an effort to defend it with facts?/16
Ironically, the assumption that US shooting at Russians would start a general war is also very debatable. Trump did exactly that in Syria vs the Wagner Group. Wagner will annihilated and NADA./17 coffeeordie.com/wagner-group-s…
Why did that end that way? Deterrence. Russian gains nothing by escalation where that will mean more loss to Russians than possible gains. It has worked since 1945./18
But backing down in UKR (Carlson's plan) would actually increase the risk of Russians and Chinese making aggressive moves that would end up causing just the confrontation Carlson says should be avoided. Because it will weaken deterrence./19 theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There are two Russian armies fighting in their invasion of Ukraine. There is the "second army" of the world with massive numbers of tanks and artillery pieces and soldiers that march with precision on Red Square and look like recruiting posters. This army is supported by a massive industrial base making "near peer" equipment at elevated rates.
Then there is another Russian army invading Ukraine. This one has lost 90% of its professional soldiers ("lifers" in US jargon). It is now filled with soldiers with 30 days or less training. Its officer corps depleted to a frction of the pre-war level. Never well-trained in manuever war or combined arms, this army uses clumsy tactics with little or no situational awareness. Vehicle drivers run over their own troops or into their own minefields. This army's generals order small unit attacks over and over again on the same avenues of approach that were dominated by the enemy the day before.
This second Russian army has blown through a massive amount of its first-line equipment. Older T62s from decades ago are seen in its formations and loss columns, because the first line T80/T72 modern versions are becoming scarce. This army's air defesne has proven far less capable than its published specifcations and has been pciked apart by droens and anti-radiation missiles. Self-propelled artillery seen in vast numbers on paper before the invasion are now repalced with ancvient D30 towed guins, vulnerable to counter-battery fire and drones.
The second army is the real one. The first army is the myth that Putin may still nourish, but - more importantly- the delusion that drives Western media to claim the war is a "stalemate" or that Russia can fight a long-war as it grows "stronger" deploying non-existent modern equipment and trained troops. The first zdrmy only appears in RedSquare films. The second one shows up in daily clips from the battlefield. THese clips seldom reported or published in Westgern popular media.
The same media - ignorant of the battlefield reality- dutifully reports the lines on the map and concludes there is a stalemate. It feeds a narrative that more "resistance is futile" (Russians are the Borg).
The scenario for the first army described is that Russia will never give up its occupied territories without a fight to the bitter end. The second army has lost effective control of Sevastapol and is losing its land bridge to Crimea due to long-range artillery fire and partisan warfare. In this real world scenario, Russia has lost much of its basic war objectives and is relying entirely on a political effort to break Western will to supply Ukraine.
The Russian losses, verified by third-parties, in the real world are staggering and accelrating. These have consumed the best Russian equipment and their best troops.
The comments below have links to multiple sources and information describing this "second Russian army" - the real one. It is clear that Russia's only hope is to break Western will, which cannot be allowed to happen. Ukraine does not need a piece of paper that crates "peace" (they alreayd got one of those in Budapest). Ukraine just needs ammo, as Presdient Zellensky famously said. #RussiaLosingBadly
#UkraineMustWin
Why are Republicans holding out for border securty before agreeing to fund Ukraine? This post will not try to justify that position, but will explain it. 1. GOP members of Congress have voted by wide margins for Ukraine aid in all "stand alone" votes. thehill.com/policy/defense…
2. Republican chairmen and ranking members of the key committees have urged faster and more effective aid as well as a clear policy goal of Ukraine winning. foxnews.com/politics/inter…
3. On the other hand, even with majorities in the past, they have not done enough to secure the border. Since President Biden entered the White House approximately 9.5 million migrants have illegally entered the United States.
Russian in Losing Badly Part 3
This is an update on all of the evience that Russian is losing badly right now.
Frantic efforts to try to get a ceasefire. The Russians are pushing for it, not Ukraine. /1 x.com/EmekaGift100/s…
Major advances pose breakthrough opportunity in the south. Russia loses operational effectiveness of Sevastapol. Russian artillery takes a poounding and is keeps getting worse./2 x.com/Tendar/status/…
NATO equipment crushes Russians. Bradleys. Go to minute 1:30/3
The DESCENT of Heritage Foundation To Become Russian Propaganda
Founded in the Reagan era, Heritage Foundation has been a major voice for his foreign policy and defense principles. This continued in the Ukraine war, until it changed dramatically./1
“Timidity, fear, & hesitancy incentivize aggression and worsen the consequences of war……half measures and tepid, delayed assistance lengthen the duration of conflict, increase the amount of destruction, add to suffering, & make war harder to end.” HF website, March 15, 2023./2
Heritage Foundation, website, February 14, 2023:/3
How the Heritage Foundation became a pro-Russian force.
You may have seen their TV ad that supports cutting off US aid to Ukraine, a major objective of Putin and the only possible way Russia can even get a "draw" out of the war. So let's start with how phony the ad is./1
The aid starts the full 7 yr authorization figure for Ukraine to create a big number that is makes absurd comparisons to Hawaii initital FEMA aid. The annual number is small & declining each yr. It is mostly spent in US, creating jobs to replace & update the donated eqpt./2
Heritage shifted to a claim that the aid is not accounted for. A blatant lie which plays on low information voters' fears and bias. Totally crap and Heritage must know it!/3
Colonel Douglas MacGregor: spreading lies on social media for people too lazy or biased to check.
He appears everywhere especially since his Tucker Carlson appearance. Everyone should know some facts before they get too excited about what he says./1
@DouglasMacGregor
His casualty numbers come straight from the Kremlin. They have been debunked by all NATO intelligence services. If his numbers were accurate, Ukrainians would not be so dedicated to continue fighting./2
Here is the major effort by third-parties to verify losses on both sides ion the war. It is quite different that MacGregor's Kremlin nonsense./3 lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/dfbc…