MacGregor wrote this December 23rd of last year, but thus far it’s held up. All that’s currently happening is saber rattling, with no important military action on either side.

The American Conservative:

It’s an indisputable fact: Washington leads the world in self-delusion.

Washington’s political class is poised to march into a hurricane of its own making in Ukraine, a perfect storm of foreign- and defense-policy blunders likely to plunge the American people into future crises and conflicts. Having refused to acknowledge Russia’s vital strategic interest in Ukraine, Washington now wants to subject Ukraine and the NATO alliance to a dangerous and unnecessary test by confronting Russian conventional military power. In turn, Washington and its allies now face a test—one that they could have avoided but are now likely to fail. First, the facts.

The fact is that the US Military is a joke + nuclear weapons. I’ve said before and I’ll say again, the conventional forces of the US Military are laughable. Even beyond the absurdly overhyped technological disasters like the F-35, none of the furry soldiers are dying for the regime anymore. This is a military that refuses to admit that they lost in Afghanistan. That still refuses to admit that they lost in Vietnam, citing inflated casualty numbers for the North Vietnamese as if that was somehow the real determinant of victory.

Russia’s conventional-ground-force superiority stems, in part, from the strategic advantage of fighting close to Russia. Its potency is also a reflection of President Vladimir Putin’s insistence on fundamental defense reform and reorganization. The reform process involved years of struggle to expel old generals who resisted change and install new, resolute fighting forces, composed of young, single men with a profound sense of Russian patriotism and toughness. The policy has resulted in an operationally flexible grouping of smaller capability-based Russian fighting formations, designed to ruthlessly exploit the striking power of Russia’s rocket artillery, tactical ballistic missiles, and loitering munitions.

I appreciate that MacGregor’s analysis includes the very important but hard to quantify aspect of morale. While Putin is surrounded by exploitative zionist oligarchs, they actually do the occasional policy that Russian citizens would like. Beyond that they intentionally fill the ranks with Patriotic Russian Men, and demand competence from generals. The second that mass casualties occur the US military will fold like a cheap plastic chair.

Far to the west and behind the Polish border sits an awkward collection of U.S. Army and NATO Ground Forces that, despite decades of cooperation, are still challenged to fight effectively as one force. In the last 20 years of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, most of America’s allies seldom had anything to contribute to our efforts, save a flag and inexperienced troops who were forced to operate under political restrictions. Thus, like the U.S. Army that leads them, the allied ground forces cling to the illusion that NATO can fight future conflicts on land the way Anglo-American allies did during World War II—with large, densely packed divisions, corps, and armies. These are lucrative targets for Russian strike formations.

He could have stopped simply by saying “the US military is filled with trannies while the Russian military is filled with patriots. GG,” but instead he brings up something else that always bothered me. Even if you totally ignore nuclear weapons, the dense military formations that the US got away with against the incompetent Iraqis isn’t going to work against a country that has their own competent air force to blow up all the vehicles, such as the trucks bringing fuel, before they even get to the frontlines. The US military has basically fuck all in terms of the mobile AA defense that other militaries have, due to sheer arrogance.

So what exactly is the plan here? How is the US military supposed to drive some armoured divisions across the wide open plains of Russia without them getting ripped to shreds by these guys?

Well you see the riflemen, tankers, truckers, and everybody else on the ground is just supposed to shake their fists at those Russians being big meanies with their mean little planes full of anti-ground weaponry. Or maybe they’re supposed to cower under the non-extant cover on the plains of Russia. Good luck hiding your entire armoured division from aircraft in this terrain goyim!

In case someone brings up fighter planes like the F-22, those things need absolutely pristine airfields to even take off and land from. Destroying those airfields is trivial even without modern GPS guided long range missiles. Even doing some bombing runs with conventional payloads would do the trick just fine. Long range GPS guided missiles, especially with nuclear warheads, simply makes planes that need pristine, built up airfields and pavement runways a complete joke.

Take a look at the above pictures from WW2. These are airfields that these planes are taking off from. You’ll notice that they are literally fields. The destruction of airbases due to bombing runs, artillery barrages, etcetera was a problem in WW2. Even using the unguided conventional payloads of the day this was a serious problem. This was mitigated by those planes being so ruggedly designed, and having low enough takeoff and landing speeds, that they could use pretty much any random flat piece of land as the new airbase. Even fields covered with a thin layer of snow and underbrush were fine, as seen above.

Pictured: Air field that is 4 divots away from being completely inoperable.

That is absolutely not true for modern day jet fighters, at least those operated by the US. The designs that enable them high cruise speeds force them to have extremely high takeoff and landing speeds. This necessitates long and perfectly smooth pavement runways. The turbine engines, absent Foreign Object Debris (FOD) covers, are vulnerable to any random pebble that might come across the pavement, and so they need FOD sweepers to keep these airbases pristine.

X marks the spot.

While much of this is the unfortunate downside to turbojet engines, it’s not necessarily true that any plane with a turbojet, or low bypass turbofan, is some strategically irrelevant princess that is utterly useless in a real war. The Russians build all their fighters to be able to take off from flat dirt fields, and made the sacrifices in terms of weight to get the landing gear strength to do so. The Swedes back in the 70’s went one step further with their Bas-60 system. They built their fighters to be extremely small so they could land on any two lane road, and then built a redundant system of dispersed, pre-stocked airbases so that they could maintain operation even under nuclear bombing.

Swedish Gripen Fighter

This has the downside of being more expensive to maintain, especially in peacetime. You also need to spend a lot of money to set this system up, and you need more logistical vehicles in both peacetime and wartime to make it all work. Even worse, your generals need to get their feetsies wet going and inspecting them in the middle of winter with all the snow. Poor bureaucrats.

It has the upside that you didn’t get your entire fleet destroyed in a few minutes because Russia launched about 3 long range nuclear missiles at your well known and not secret airbases.

You’d think that would be somewhat important, but this is the US military we’re talking about. Rest assured there are no limits to hubris and stupidity.

And BTW, even if you could somehow, magically, not have the Russians just destroying the airbases that you would need to be launching fighters from, fighter planes struggle against low flying airplanes anyway. Radar missiles and infrared missiles work very poorly against low flying aircraft when shot by high altitude aircraft. Looking down at the ground confuses those missiles with clutter. This also makes such aircraft hard to find in the first place. Beyond that, the endurance times of fighter planes is extremely low. They are designed to do 30 minute long sweeps of an area at high altitude, with just a few minutes of actual combat. Finally, Russia has their own fighter planes, so you can’t just turn on your radar constantly looking for the non-fighter planes, since that gives your own position away. It’s the air combat version of using a flashlight at nighttime to look for enemy soldiers. Not necessarily a great idea.

So first of all, the airbases are going to be destroyed, and the planes will be grounded or destroyed by long range missiles. Even if that weren’t true, these fighter planes would need magical blood seeking x-ray vision to find all the hard to find low flying aircraft without giving their position away to enemy fighter planes. Even if that weren’t true, it’s doubtful they could have enough planes in the air to stop any sort of mass attack on their exposed ground forces, since the missiles are of dubious value against these low altitude targets, forcing either cannon use or  low percentage missile shots. Especially since defenseless ground forces have proven themselves to be little more than meals on wheels for close air support aircraft.

What I’m saying is that there is no actual way for the US Military to push into Russia, or do whatever pathetic idiot saber rattling faggot shit they are threatening to do. But even if they did have the military setup to do that, none of that matters anyway, as MacGregor explains.

Additionally, institutional policies to impose diversity and inclusion on the U.S. Armed Forces at the expense of demonstrated character, competence, and intelligence, demoralize our troops. As a result, the dedication, cohesion, and pride of achievement required to sustain America’s professional fighting force have been seriously damaged.

Because nobody is willing to die for ZOG.

The implications are clear: A U.S.-Russian confrontation in Eastern Ukraine could easily resemble the 1940 Anglo-French experience, with the Wehrmacht provoking a serious backlash at home. Supply-chain bottlenecks, consumer-goods inflation, and soaring energy costs could all worsen if events in Ukraine spiral out of control. As more and more Americans wake up to falling standards of living, how will they react to yet another war for suspicious aims that have absolutely nothing to do with their own vital strategic interests, and make their daily lives even harder?

Reality is sitting on Ukraine’s eastern border, not in the South China Sea or in the strait of Taiwan, and there is ostensibly nothing Washington can do about it. The questions that should concern Washington’s political class are: Will NATO survive its ignominious retreat in the face of superior Russian military power? And, why is Washington conducting policy not from strength, but from weakness—a weakness thus far disguised by the outward show of military power against weak opponents without armies, air defenses, or air forces?

I strongly hope there’s no war between Russia and ZOG Ukraine/NATO. Having said that, from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, it could well be the best thing for us politically.

As John Kenneth Galbraith warned, “People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right.”

Douglas MacGregor using anti-elf tropes.

Washington’s corrupt and morally bankrupt leaders are walking into a minefield. If they embroil U.S. and allied forces in Ukraine, extraordinary discontent at home and abroad awaits them. However, like so many privileged classes before them, the Biden administration may prefer “complete destruction” rather than acknowledge that its most cherished beliefs are utter delusions. It’s safe to say that whatever happens in Ukraine, this chapter will not end well for President Biden or Washington’s political class.

His article was written on the 23rd of December as I mentioned earlier. Thus far there’s been no real military action by either side. My theory has always been that ZOG understands and accepts that the conventional fighting forces of the crumbling US empire is decayed beyond repair. They’ve made peace with that, and use the blue water navy and nuclear weapons to essentially be a terrorist state while they switch the rest of the military to 100% loot mode.

That theory will be put to the test if they are so delusional that they actually do anything other than whine about Ukraine. I’m certainly not risking any clout on sanity prevailing from Washington, and it looks like MacGregor isn’t either.

You may also like

1 Comment

  1. They accomplished their goals in Afghanistan and Vietnam, which was kill a lot of goyim on both sides, and make a lot of money for the Jews. In that sense they won. People assume they wanted to win in Vietnam or the Middle East, when total victory hasn’t been the goal of an American war since ww2. They just want endless war, and war isn’t endless if you win.

    That’s why as soon as they kill some terrorist group, they end up training and arming another terrorist group so that they have someone to fight. The goal in Vietnam was never to win, the goal in Afghanistan was never to win, it was just part of the Jewish forever wars. Forever wars that drain the USA dry because ultimately the Semitic parasite wants to kill its host. But only after sucking is dry like a golden calf and chopping us up and selling us off.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *