Share this page!

Randy Mott Profile picture
Twitter logo
Mar 21 • 19 tweets • 7 min read
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
　

Keep Current with Randy Mott

Randy Mott Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @randymot4

Randy Mott Profile picture
Mar 20
Why do pro-Russian people talk about Minsk Agreement: this was a ceasefire proposal and then a conflict resolution plan worked out by Europeans. Russia violated it from the beginning:/1
reuters.com/world/europe/w…
"The main impediment to a peace settlement in Donbas is, in fact, Russia and its proxies’ deliberate unwillingness to implement the Minsk agreements. Moreover, Moscow illegally provides weapons to the separatists. This is a well-known fact."/2
euvsdisinfo.eu/report/ukraine…
Typically, Russians ignored the key provision of Minsk: "all foreign military formations and equipment, as well as militants and mercenaries, must exit the territory of Ukraine under OSCE monitoring — was never implemented by Moscow." /3
reliefweb.int/report/ukraine…
Read 6 tweets
Randy Mott Profile picture
Mar 18
Republicans are divided 40/40/20 on UKR aid. Trump has a lock right now on the anti-UKR aid voters. Although a majority of the party also oppose his candidacy. Start with those facts./1
reuters.com/world/us/repub…
Right now (before DeSantis' UKR comments), it was a two-man race, with polls sharply divided. DeSantis as a new figure on the natl stage could be "all things to all people" as is normal early in campaigns. He has been the "non-Trump" candidate./2 Image
Could he beat Trump with former Trump voters and kept appeal to the rest of the party? It is unlikely that he can win without having a decisive if not overwhelming margin of non-Trump voters./3
Read 10 tweets
Randy Mott Profile picture
Mar 17
Ron Desantis, whom I have supported up to now, is starting on the wrong foot. His statement of Ukraine seems to be an effort to appeal to Trump voters. It was wrong on policy and wrong on politics./1
The core of Trump voters will not be moved: that may be 25-30% of the GOP. Other Trump voters are already basically gone to DeSantis./2
While DeSantis looks formidable in a head-to-head match, he is weaker in a crowded field. Exactly how Trump won in 2016 (through most of the primaries a strong majority voting for other candidates). The goal should be to get to the head-to-head match in the primaries./3
Read 8 tweets
Randy Mott Profile picture
Mar 17
Serious military question: we do not see large formations in tactical engagement in the UKR war. I assume this is because of the lethality of modern artillery. Any other explanation or comments?

Photo from initial RF attacks:
I think Vuledar was the largest engagement in a single tactical encounter that I seen since early war. That did not go very well for RF. 😀😀
The video of Vuledar is amateurish commentary. The problem with the conscript replacements was not that they did not understand UKR tactics: they did not know how to perform in basic combat. The vehicle count included APCS etc as tanks. Huge loss by any measure.
Read 5 tweets
Randy Mott Profile picture
Mar 17
Things that might trigger direct US-Russia war:
1. Flying combat missions for 3rd country at war;
2. Sabotaging infrastructure (cyber);
3. Talking out mil surveillance systems;
4. Destroying each other's mil unit in third-country./1
coffeeordie.com/wagner-group-s…
All of the above have happened, mostly more than once. Yet no global conflict arose. Winning at one level of conflict forces the other side to weigh the consequences of escalating that conflict. Deterrence occurs when those costs are too high and it has worked for decades./2
Use of nuclear weapons has not occurred despite many confrontations because it does not change the outcome of the initial confrontation & imposes unacceptable costs on the party making that choice./3
Read 8 tweets
Randy Mott Profile picture
Mar 16
The biggest scam of all in the Ukraine war is the hype about the risk of WW3. The fact is that deterrence works: as long as the risk of escalation prohibit Russia from upping the ante, it works./1
What if the US attacked the Wagner group with US mil forces & wiped a large unit out?
Well, that is exactly what Trump did in Syria. FACT
Why did it work? Deterrence. Russia knew escalation would be a disaster. This is how things really work./3
coffeeordie.com/wagner-group-s…
I am not suggestion that be done in Ukraine. BUT it illustrates why fears of giving UKR the means to defend itself within UKR do not create any serious risk of escalation./3
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(