Col Douglas Macgregor and the Ukrainian Breadbasket

 

Some people evidently don't listen as intently as I do when someone is being interviewed and/or have limited sources of information.  I wrote a comment in response to the interview Tucker Carlson did with Col Douglas Macgregor.  If one didn't catch the hypocrisy at the end, it would explain why they missed certain other talking points in the interview.  My comment was:

"I haven't read or heard where illegals coming over the border are being given twenty two hundred dollars a month. I think I'd need stronger evidence than just his say on the matter. There may, if I recall right, that they did subsidize the Afghans when they first got here. I don't know if they still are, but they weren't technically illegals coming over the border (in the same sense) either so I think his signals are cross on that one. If they were giving twenty-two hundred dollars to every illegal crossing the border they wouldn't be going to do those "jobs Americans don't want" which technically with their infiltration into the manufacturing arena of food service industry are jobs Americans want. The vast majority are unionized good paying jobs with benefits. If they can use temporary employment agency workers for those jobs it cuts their cost substantially.

His depiction of the tank issues is the same when it comes to Russia, they also need large volumes of fuel to refuel their tanks, of which Russia hasn't, from what I've read or seen elsewhere, had a problem getting fuel to the battle areas. The fuel supply though has been known to become targets. The clencher in it is reports out there that Russia isn't just refueling their tanks and there's been talk they have been supplying fuel to Ukraine also, how reliable those reports are I have no idea. But it wouldn't come as a surprise since they were, up until Feb 5 of this year supplying Europe with diesel fuel despite the sanctions. He also talks like the US wouldn't have the same capability to use satellites to target Russia tanks or Russian troops. I don't or am not under the impression that Russia is the only one using those satellites that Elon so hastily sent up after the start of the war. As far as no surge capacity the US didn't have surge compacity either during other wars but managed quite well to gear up after changeover of manufacturing facilities such as the auto plants.

As far as the war reaching US shores the one thought that hasn't escaped me is the fact back during the riots the states with the most riots were states with the largest imports/exports out of the country. One thought on the matter that has recently been shaking around in my head recently is the awareness being pushed of how many big retailers or manufacturers are moving from these areas due to crime and increasing homelessness contributing to the rise in crimes. So let's just throw it out there that if the war was to reach US soil, I personally don't necessarily equate that to ongoing expansion of the war per se so much as I would that it would be included in any so called tearing it down and building back better agenda. Of which first and foremost, at that point or juncture, maintaining or taking control of the ports would be a first objective. Basically, because at that point Americans will have awaken to the point that this was never really about Ukraine and more so about a change over to a global governance, that conclusion will be established through the fact of the so-called inability he describes here in our government of having let it get to that point. Insurers don't pay for acts of war, why it would be vital for corporations to move their holdings out of areas, if this was to come to fruition, that they, the globalist, are going to be taking an aim at. They are going to be protecting themselves along the way not the populace. The way he describes what could happen and the lack of sound reasoning for it happening, reeks of a depopulation agenda rather than a fight over some country that isn't worth it.

This is what it is all worth if putting everything you read, see or hear being put out there by any combination of people if your inclined to give any of it any weight. A bit of "make it make sense" situation(s)."

I was pretty confident I left a lot of wiggle room for doubt without having to totally cancel out other perspectives I've read on the matter involved, including my own.  Some though evidently have to see it in black and white.  

First and foremost, he totally blows his credibility when he states how many children have come up missing in Ukraine, how about the women who've been sold into sex trafficking.  Not that I am trying to sound disingenuous at those thoughts, but we are talking about a man who in life chose a military career, as such these types of circumstances prevail in any given war.  This serves as a point of contention because it's being used as a ploy in the conversation and isn't coming from any particular heartfelt contentions.  He'd quit the military long ago if that bothered him now but not early on in his career.  Similarly happens when he said this:  "If Americans knew anything about Eastern Europe they'd all say get out because the wars, the blood and the hatred that has been characterized   to that part of the world for hundreds of years - is something we can't sort out, we can't fix it.  We shouldn't try to arbitrate it.  We don't know anything about it, we shouldn't be in this, bottom line.  I think Americans figured that out."  Do I really have to embellish upon this for anybody?  Everyone is entitled to their regrets in life, they are even entitled to help themselves grieve through the processes of the wrongs committed by looking for forgiveness by telling the truth behind the wars.  Just like we are entitled to determine the amount of sincerity involved and deciding for ourselves how much clarity we see in that sincerity when it comes to the overall conversation.  

Personally, myself, I wasn't seeing much when in particular he tried to sell the breadbasket case.  He went on to say that it's not just the military industrial complex that makes money off wars but other people who have money to invest in products they can make money off.  As an example, and I kid you not, he said:  "You seen that report from the Oakland Institute which talks about arable land in Ukraine, breadbasket of Europe, some of the richest most fertile soil anywhere in the world.  A friend of mine whose Ukranian said all you have to do is take an old boot, stick it in the ground in Ukraine, come back in six months and something grows, the boot transforming into something you can eat,   that's how fertile that is."  

He went on to note Ukraine supplies a lot of grain to countries around the world.  You would think if this were going to be his top selling point of why we are warring over Ukraine he'd have an explanation why the grain that is coming out of Ukraine is being flooded onto the European market. This is bringing down prices for farmers in Europe who are quite upset over it.  Meanwhile people are starving in some third world countries this grain would ordinarily being going to but it's not.  If there is such richest to be made off this grain than why are these investors who are clamoring for profits not making sure it's reaching the markets it was intended for instead of flooding Europe.  That's because if anyone had read my op on the seventeen billion dollar honeypot they'd know this wasn't about fertile soil.  https://hive.blog/deepdives/@sunlit7/ukraine-and-the-seventeen-billion-dollar-honeypot.  Ukraine is rich with vast amounts of resources, over 20,000 deposits of 194 known minerals, including the largest deposits in Europe of titanium and uranium, with the latter accounting for 1.8 percent of the world's uranium.  It is this that the investors are clamoring for.  Attempts over the years to get at it but mismanagement and corruption has slowed the exploration processes. 

That's not the only I kid you not in this.  He stated if this war isn't stopped and expands into central Europe we could see it reach our shores, all supposedly, to keep the world stocked in Ukranian grain if you take him at his above words.

"This is the 21st century.  Today if you have forces forward they are easy to identify, easy to target easy to destroy.   We can always reinforce it.  No, you can't.  How do you get across these vast oceans, the Atlantic, the Pacific when your opponents have submarine fleets, how many ships do they have to sink, supply ship transports before anybody says that's it, we're not going?  Same thing true for aircraft.  Well, we have better aircraft.  We may have better aircraft, but we don't have better air defenses, we've neglected air and missile defenses for years.  In the army they always treated air and missiles defenses as the red headed stepchild because we haven't fought anybody that compelled us to defend ourselves from missile and air attack.  Well, those days are over.  In other words, if you press this war with Russia in central Europe, it will reach us here in the United States.  People aren't thinking about that."

After having heard that statement my personal opinion stated above about not necessarily equating it to the expansion of the war has several other complexities involved not mentioned, the global partnership agreements, the agreements of mutual understanding, the spoken depopulation agenda, that among many other observances personally or of others.  Like I said sometimes you have to take everything, throw it out there and try and make it make sense.  The one thing that doesn't make sense is the breadbasket and that after decades of trying to unsuccessfully through failed explorations for minerals, we are going to destroy the globe as we know it.  That is something that technically we never did for oil, just doesn't make sense, there has to be a bigger agenda attached to letting a war reach our shores.