Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

American Colonel: “Ukraine a collapsed state”

The war in Ukraine

  • The war in Ukraine has been catastrophic for the Ukrainian people in general and for the Ukrainian army in particular, says the decorated American Colonel Douglas Macgregor, former advisor to the Pentagon.
  • He estimates that as many as 400,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in the battles, while Russia, in comparison, has had minimal losses and has now mobilized up to a million soldiers at the front.
  • The responsibility for the war lies primarily with the US, he says, pointing out that the war could have been easily avoided if they had been willing to accept a neutral Ukraine.
Published 16 October 2023
– By Editorial Staff
Colonel Douglas Macgregor in an interview with Tucker Carlson.
7 minute read

Douglas Macgregor, educated at the prestigious West Point, is a highly decorated, now retired, colonel who among other things served as one of the leading commanders in the Gulf War and was one of the planners of NATO’s bombing campaign in Yugoslavia in 1999. His philosophy on modern warfare is said to have influenced the overarching American strategy during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and he has also served as an advisor to the Pentagon. In relation to the Ukraine war, however, Macgregor has become widely known to the public for his detailed and candid analyses, which offer a different perspective on the proceedings and the situation than what is presented in mainstream media reports.

According to the colonel’s overall analysis, the conflict primarily stems from a reluctance on the part of the West to accept Ukraine’s neutrality. He has drawn parallels between Russia’s reactions to Ukraine’s approach to NATO and the American reactions during the transportation of Soviet missiles to Cuba during the Cuban Crisis. Initially, according to Macgregor, the Russian invasion forces consisted of a limited army of about 40,000 troops, a modest force by military standards intended to shock Ukraine and its Western allies in a final desperate attempt to get them back to the negotiating table. The demands were neutrality for Ukraine, autonomy for the Donbass republics, and recognition of Crimea’s annexation to Russia.

– From the very beginning, Putin and his advisors were never interested in a war with NATO or the U.S. That’s why you’ve had so much incrementalism, this slow grind of movement forward. Defensive operations for a long period of time to build up force, and then continued offensive operations, he says in an interview with Tucker Carlson.

Such a peace agreement, according to Israel’s then-Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, was very close to being reached during the negotiations in Istanbul in March 2022. However, after pressure from the US and UK, Ukraine withdrew from the negotiations at a late stage, prompting Russia to make a strategic retreat from the Kiev region and focus on taking control of most of the predominantly Russian-speaking areas in the southeast, where they established defensive lines.

– If they had made peace back in March or April, I think the Russians would have retained very little territory, probably Luhansk and Donetsk, the two so called breakaway provinces and I think there had been guarantees for neutrality of Ukraine, and guarantess of equal rights before the law for Russians. That’s what people don’t understand, most of this has to do with abuse meated out to Russians in Ukraine, by the Ukrainian government, summarizes Macgregor, pointing out that the government in question was essentially installed by the USA following the Maidan coup in the country in 2014.

“A disaster for Ukraine”

The sizeable Ukrainian army, which at the outset was estimated by some to be almost ten times the size of the Russian forces, has since then launched an offensive in a devastating manner, according to Macgregor, while Russia primarily operated from a favorable defensive position and in the meantime gradually mobilized up to a million soldiers.

Macgregor in conversation with senior Israeli military officers, March 2020. Photo: Share Alike 4.0 International.

Since the start of the war, NATO and the collective Western world, including Sweden, with the USA in the driver’s seat, have pumped in military aid amounting to trillions in Swedish kronor. Despite this, the Ukrainian army has never really had a chance, Macgregor argues. He estimates that as many as 400,000 Ukrainian soldiers have lost their lives in the battles, referring, among other things, to analyses of newly dug graves in satellite images. Meanwhile, he believes, Russian casualties can be estimated to be only a fraction of Ukraine’s – around 50,000 killed in action.

This inhumanity cannot be stressed enough, as the wounds Ukrainian soldiers sustain on the battlefield are injuries most of them will never recover from. We don’t know how many people have already been disabled, but we’re talking about tens of thousands. I’ve heard some say 70,000, others 60,000. It’s insane. They stand no chance of winning, he expresses.

The explanation for Russia’s extreme advantage despite its smaller force initially, according to the colonel, is not just that it’s a much larger country, but primarily that they have developed a modernized form of warfare that mainly relies on advanced space surveillance and extensive artillery support. In practice, the Ukrainian army has had very poor conditions to defend itself, even though it has closely cooperated with the USA. In contrast to the general media portrayal that’s still broadcast on many state channels, he believes the situation for Zelensky’s administration is overall desperate.

Even more money being thrown down a rat hole when he absolutely has no chance of winning – which he never did, and his government is really unpopular in Ukraine. They’re gathering people off the streets, going to the Carpathians, looking for any living person they can find there. They want NATO’s governments to round up Ukrainian men of draft age and send them back to Ukraine to die in the Russian meat grinder, says Macgregor.

“A collapsed state”

Macgregor has long been deeply critical of the US support for the Ukrainian leadership in Kiev and emphasizes that those who have suffered the most from the policy and the failing diplomacy in the end have been the Ukrainian people. He notes that Ukraine has effectively been shattered and that many millions have left the country, seeing it as unlikely that these will return to any significant extent.

Douglas Macgregor interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Photo: facsimile/X.

– The longer this goes on, the more people are senselessly slaughtered and the destruction of Ukraine becomes even greater. Ukraine is now effectively a collapsed state and may be completely erased from the map, he says.

According to Macgregor, Russia, in sharp contrast to the general media image, has made great efforts to minimize civilian casualties. This is partly because the population in the territories where they have operated is largely ethnically Russian and because they also view Ukrainians as a fraternal people. He also points to this as one of the reasons for reports that more and more Ukrainian soldiers have surrendered to the Russian army when they could no longer fight.

– The Soviet army was an exercise in barbarity and brutality, mass rapes and all that. That’s not Russia today. It’s a very different society and state, Macgregor argues.

Rather, according to the colonel, from the Western side, they have not at all had the best interests of the Ukrainian people in mind, where cynical geopolitical motives come into play. His support for Ukraine is largely based on a stubborn hostility towards Russia stemming from Vladimir Putin’s administration, unlike predecessor Boris Yeltsin, managing to establish the country as an independent state with a traditional Orthodox Christian culture. This is something the ruling oligarchy in the West disapproves of as it poses a barrier to accessing Russia’s vast natural resources and is also perceived as a growing threat to their power position in Europe.

It’s probably another reason why so many want to destroy Russia, for it’s the last European state that hasn’t been overrun by foreigners and turned into some sort of polyglot experiment, he adds.

From the American perspective, Ukraine has been seen as a strategic power base and battering ram that they’ve done everything to turn against Russia. Macgregor, for instance, points out that the US, according to recordings of Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, handpicked the Ukrainian government after the coup in connection with the Maidan revolution, when the neutrally oriented president Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown.

“We don’t need Ukraine in NATO”

Macgregor points out that the negotiating room has shrunk significantly for the US-led block and Ukraine since the outbreak of the war.

– The Russians have a series of demands – which at the beginning of the war were suggestions – and Ukraine and the West seem unwilling to consider any of them. Ukraine will not join NATO, period. So Ukraine can remain neutral.

We don’t need Ukraine in NATO. Ukraine as a neutral state is actually a wonderful idea. That’s almost 500 miles between us and the Russians. Is that a bad thing? Not at all.

As part of the effort to stop the war, Douglas Macgregor recently launched the civil rights movement Our Country Our Choice. An initiative across current party lines aimed at uniting the American population and strengthening public opinion against the war in general and the US’s involvement in particular.

 

– Whatever we have set out to achieve has failed, what we need to do now is stop this and come to a settlement that we might not like but it needs to happen and soon, before this thing is out of control, says the colonel, who, however, does not see any signs of interest in peace negotiations from the Western-Ukrainian side, despite the dire situation.

The people bathing in blood are in Kiev and Washington, not in Moscow. This sort of thing is gonna play well until it can’t. We’re gonna see this whole thing collaps and implode, it’s coming, Macgregor states.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Trump pressures Zelensky to accept Russia’s peace terms

The war in Ukraine

Published yesterday 17:00
– By Editorial Staff
Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
3 minute read

Donald Trump has, according to multiple sources, urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to agree to Russia’s demands to end the war in Ukraine. A stormy meeting at the White House on Friday was reportedly marked by raised voices, heated arguments, and Trump’s repeated echoing of Putin’s positions.

During the meeting, Trump allegedly warned Zelensky that Putin had threatened to “destroy Ukraine” if the country does not accept the terms, reports Financial Times.

Sources with insight say the meeting between the parties devolved several times into “shouting matches”, where Donald Trump used profanities and threw frontline maps across the room.

Trump reportedly insisted that Zelensky must hand over the entire Donbass region to Moscow, and repeated arguments that Putin had made in a phone call the day before. At the same time, he later supported freezing the current frontlines, reflecting his shifting stance on the issue.

Zelensky and his delegation had hoped to convince Trump to deliver Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, but the US president refused.

If the reports are accurate, the meeting can be compared to the contentious meeting in February, where Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticized Zelensky for lack of gratitude toward the United States.

Donald Trump Volodymyr Zelenskyj
The meeting between Zelensky and Trump in February earlier this year ended in open quarreling. Facsimile: Fox4

Zelensky’s position unchanged

European officials report that Trump repeatedly echoed Putin’s arguments word for word on several occasions, even when they contradicted his own previous statements about Russia’s weaknesses.

One official said Trump called the conflict a “special operation, not even a war” and warned Zelenskyy that Ukraine risked destruction.

Trump also expressed that Russia’s economy “is doing well”, which contrasts with his previous public statements that Putin’s economy is near collapse.

Zelensky commented to journalists:  Trump wants a quick victory – an end to the war – and that would be a victory for all reasonable people. Putin, however, wants the total occupation of Ukraine.

After the meeting, Zelensky stated that he had made clear to Trump that Ukraine’s position remains unchanged. Trump told Fox News on Sunday that he was convinced the conflict could be ended, adding that Putin “going to take something, he’s won certain property”.

Ukraina - ryska drönarattacker - juni 2025
While peace negotiations between the parties are marked by disagreement and stubbornness, fighting continues with undiminished intensity (archive image June 2025). Photo: screenshot/Youtube/@CNN

Donbass in exchange for other regions

Putin has proposed in talks with Trump that Ukraine hand over all of Donbass in exchange for smaller areas in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. However, Zelenskyy stated that there is still no clarity about exactly what Russia is willing to give up in these regions.

Ukrainian officials warn that giving up the remaining Donbass would give Moscow territory that it only partially controls, since the war began over three years ago.

Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of Ukraine’s foreign affairs committee, says: – To give the Donbas to Russia without a fight is unacceptable for Ukrainian society, and Putin knows that. It’s not about getting more territory for Russia; it’s about how to destroy us from within.

Trump’s repetition of Putin’s rhetoric dampened hopes among many European allies for increased support to Kiev, despite him previously expressing frustration over Putin’s unwillingness to negotiate directly with Zelensky.

Zelensky commented after returning home: – We have moved closer to a possible end to the war. That doesn’t mean it will definitely end, but President Trump has achieved a lot in the Middle East, and riding that wave he wants to end Russia’s war against Ukraine.

British field marshal: Ukraine cannot win against Russia

The war in Ukraine

Published 19 October 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Even with expanded Western support, Lord David Richards assesses that Ukraine cannot win the war.
3 minute read

One of Britain’s highest-ranking military officers assesses that Ukraine will never be able to defeat Russia on the battlefield and should instead negotiate for peace.

In an interview with The Independent’s podcast World of Trouble, Field Marshal Lord David Richards argues that Ukraine simply does not have the capacity to drive Russian forces from its territory and should instead seek a negotiated solution.

Richards, who was promoted to the country’s most prestigious five-star military rank earlier this year and led NATO forces during the troop surge in Afghanistan, is critical of how Ukraine’s allies have managed their support.

— What we have done in the case of Ukraine is encourage Ukraine to fight, but not given them the means to win, says the former Chief of the Defence Staff.

When Richards is asked to reflect on Ukraine’s chances of success against Russia, he is clear.

— My view is that they would not win.

When the interviewer asks whether Ukraine could win even with the right resources, the answer is brief.

— No.

Pressed further on whether the right resources could make a difference, he repeated his answer and added:

— No, they haven’t got the manpower.

Not an existential issue for the West

Richards, who is the only British officer to have commanded large American combat forces since 1945, believes the prospects for Ukraine are bleak.

— Unless we were to go in with them – which we won’t do because Ukraine is not an existential issue for us. It clearly is for the Russians, by the way.

— We’ve decided because it’s not an existential issue, we will not go to war. We are, you can argue – and I absolutely accept it – in some sort of hybrid war. But that’s not the same as a shooting war in which our soldiers are dying in large numbers, Richards continues.

He emphasizes that despite sympathy for the Ukrainians and their achievements, he still believes the war is not in the West’s vital national interests.

— My instinct is that the best Ukraine can do, and you already see President Zelensky, who’s an inspirational leader … the best they can do is a sort of a score draw.

Zelensky met Trump

The statement comes after Volodymyr Zelensky flew to Washington DC to meet Donald Trump and try to convince him to give Ukraine Tomahawk cruise missiles.

But Zelensky’s plans to pressure Trump appear to have been undermined by Vladimir Putin, who spoke with the American president hours before the White House meeting with the Ukrainian leader.

At a packed press conference, Trump appeared hesitant to give away American weapons, while maintaining a friendly tone with Zelensky. The American president emphasized his own country’s need to maintain stockpiles.

Zelensky said very little, except to politely suggest that Ukraine could offer its drone technology in an exchange deal. Trump seemed open to the idea.

After the summit, Zelensky said that Trump had not said no to the idea of Tomahawk missiles – but not yes either.

Iraq war built on lies

In the extensive interview about his military life, the field marshal revealed that although his career has been successful, there have been occasions when he came into conflict with the establishment and often disagreed with his military and political superiors.

As a major general and deputy chief of the army under General Sir Mike Jackson, he says it was obvious to him that British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government was lying about its claims that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons in Iraq.

Tony Blair’s government lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to legitimize the invasion. Photo: World Economic Forum/CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Together with other senior officers, he questioned the legality of Britain’s decision to join American forces in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Before the British joined the invasion, Blair presented an intelligence document to parliament claiming that the Iraqi dictator was developing nuclear weapons.

“This stinks”

The document, which has since been mocked as “the dodgy dossier” for its unfounded claims, caused dismay among senior officers who had access to the actual intelligence information.

— “I and others encouraged the chief of defence staff to query whether this was legal and what was the basis of this intelligence, says Lord Richards.

— I do remember one officer – who I won’t name but was on the intelligence side – saying, ‘Don’t worry. We’ll find something to put’. Yeah, ‘don’t worry. We’ll find something about that. We’ll justify what we were doing’, he recounts.

— I went back to say to Mike Jackson, ‘This stinks’.

Hegseth to Europe: Buy more American weapons for Ukraine

The war in Ukraine

Published 15 October 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Pete Hegseth together with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
2 minute read

Western military support to Ukraine has nearly halved over the summer. Now the US Secretary of Defense is demanding that NATO countries once again open their wallets for more American weapons deliveries – but several major European nations are hesitating.

Pete Hegseth had a clear message when he met with his NATO counterparts in Brussels on Wednesday: Europe must invest even more money in American weapons for Ukraine.

The US Secretary of Defense pointed to a report from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy showing that military support to Kiev fell dramatically during the summer months – a 43 percent decrease compared to the first half of the year.

Hegseth was explicit about his view on how peace is achieved.

— You get peace when you are strong. Not when you use strong words or wag your fingers, you get it when you have strong and real capabilities that adversaries respect, he declared to assembled journalists.

Zelensky wants more

At the center of discussions is the PURL program – Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List – which has fundamentally changed how the U.S. supports Ukraine militarily. Previously, Washington donated weapons directly, but now NATO countries must pay for the deliveries themselves.

According to Hegseth, the logic is simple: The more Europe buys, the faster the war can be concluded.

— Our expectation today is that more countries donate even more, that they purchase even more to provide for Ukraine, to bring that conflict to a peaceful conclusion, he said.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced that $2 billion has been pledged so far through the PURL system, and that he expects additional contributions. But the figure falls far short of the $3.5 billion that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had hoped to secure by October.

Three countries made new pledges on Wednesday: Sweden, Estonia, and Finland. Corresponding commitments from European heavyweights such as Spain, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom are still lacking.

USA – the big winner?

The Russian government has accused Kiev’s European financiers of prolonging the conflict at the expense of Ukrainian lives, and Moscow claims that European countries are unwilling to acknowledge the failure of their strategy.

Meanwhile, European NATO members continue to bear the economic consequences of their sanctions policy against Russia. After rejecting Russian energy, many EU economies have been hit by rising production costs and widespread bankruptcies in industry.

The United States, however, has benefited from developments through increased investment flows and higher sales of liquefied natural gas to Europe.

Trump threatens to send Tomahawks to Ukraine

The war in Ukraine

Published 13 October 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile
2 minute read

US President Donald Trump says Ukraine could receive long-range Tomahawk missiles if the war is not resolved. He acknowledges that such arms deliveries would constitute “a new step of aggression” toward Russia.

President Donald Trump announced during an appearance on Sunday that he is prepared to bring up the issue of delivering Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine in discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, if the war does not end in the near future.

If this war is not going to get settled, I’m going to send them Tomahawks, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, according to reports from Associated Press.

He emphasized at the same time that he would like to understand what Ukraine intends to do with the weapons, to avoid an unwanted escalation in the war.

Like Trump himself, however, several sources have expressed reservations about an actual delivery. Reuters reports that it is unlikely the US will send Tomahawks to Ukraine, as existing stockpiles are already earmarked for the Navy and other military purposes.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has long desired Tomahawk missiles from the US. Montage. Photo: IAEA, Matt Johnson/Right Cheer/CC BY 2.0

Could strike targets deep inside Russia

Tomahawk missiles have an estimated range of approximately 2,500 km (1,550 miles), which would give Ukraine the capability to strike targets deep inside Russia – including Moscow – if the deliveries become reality.

Some critics and analysts question, however, how much such a weapon could affect the conflict on the ground. According to reports, Trump’s closest advisers are skeptical that Tomahawk missiles would significantly change the combat dynamics.

The Kremlin is now issuing strong warnings about consequences if Tomahawks are delivered to Ukraine. Russian representatives claim that such an action would dramatically escalate the conflict and set the stage for a new chapter in the war.

Russia further argues that Ukrainian forces would not be able to handle such a sophisticated system without direct American participation.

Previous statements from Vladimir Putin have also indicated that delivery of such weapons would represent a qualitatively new stage in the conflict.

The rhetoric between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump increasingly strained. Photo: US Department of Defense

Trump: “Sort of made a decision”

Trump has previously hinted that he has sort of made a decision regarding delivery of Tomahawks, but that he wants more information about what Ukraine actually plans to do with them. He has also emphasized that the weapons would not be sent directly by the US to Ukraine, but rather through the NATO alliance.

If an agreement is reached and the weapons are actually delivered, difficult technical, organizational and diplomatic challenges remain to be solved.

Ukraine would need operational capacity, training, target selection systems and support to handle long-range offensive capability.

The threat to arm Ukraine with Tomahawks marks a clear shift in rhetoric from the Trump administration and an increased willingness to use the war’s heaviest symbols in diplomatic pressure.

Between words and reality stand logistical constraints and political concerns – not least from Moscow.

If the decision is made – and the weapons are delivered – we may face a new escalation in the conflict where the risks of direct confrontation between the great powers could become reality.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.