Wow,
drgondog
, there's a hell of a lot to unpack in there...including a whole bunch of conspiracy stuff. I'll try to respond without crossing over the political threshold.
Or neither. If you refer to Tucker Carlson as weak, reflect that a.) he was 100% correct in presenting the Hunter Biden laptop as 'real' and not Russian Disinformation; b.) he was 100% correct that Twitter was 'banning and shadowbanning' conservative political leaders at the behest of both Administration and FBI for attempting to even Comment on the Biden laptop, greatly influencing the election of 2020 - as well as banning the NY Post for even reporting on it, c.) calling out the DOJ for citing angry parents at school board meetings as 'domestic terrorists', d.) reporting on the early rumors that CIA/US was behind Nordstream bombing, and e.) joining other pundits to note that Victoria Nuland was not only complicit wrt to threats against Nordstream but also admitting that US had bio labs in Ukraine
Am I correct in understanding that, during the run-up to the 2020 election, the Republican Administration was responsible for banning efforts to comment on the Biden laptop prior to election? Now we have a Democrat Administration, but DOJ is pressing forward with an investigation into Hunter Biden. And somehow that's supposed to show that Carlson was right? Not sure I see the correlation there.
As for the Nordstream bombing, NONE of those rumours have been proven correct. I note you have not responded to my comments on that topic, which present a host of problems with the theories being spouted by unnamed sources.
Having ploughed through Hersh's article on the topic, it's just riddled with errors (here's a link for those who have time to waste:
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline). For example, apparently, in one of the planning meetings, the USAF proposed dropping bombs with delayed-action fuses that would be triggered remotely via command signal. Really? How would such weapons be triggered remotely? Does the USAF even have regular bombs that can do that, let alone bombs that can find targets underwater. Or is this more secret-squirrel stuff that, again, is somehow operated without anybody noticing (except the unnamed source that Hersh is referencing)?
Then there's another classic quote "In the past few years of East-West crisis, the U.S. military has vastly expanded its presence in Norway." I can tell you with 100% certainty that is not a correct statement. The USMC has increased training in Norway but forces are rotational and of the order of hundreds, not thousands, and the permanent party cadre is tiny. Then, according to Hersh, there's a "new U.S. submarine base" which, in reality, was USS New Mexico arriving in Tromso as part of a new bilateral agreement....hardly a "new base."
Then there's the timing problem. Apparently, the special team of planners flew to Norway in March 2022 to discuss the op with Norwegian counterparts. As noted in my earlier post, exercise planning starts 14 months in advance to ensure you have the right host nation, airspace and international water approvals, and to coordinate all participants. Unless the exercise was already placed smack dab ontop of Nordstream, then a late-breaking change in March 2022 at the earliest, would really stand out. You don't just change operating areas on a whim because it impacts the entire exercise planning and logistics. The alternate approach is that an exercise participant diverted from its exercise mission to conduct the operation...but, again, we're expected to believe that NOBODY saw this.
As to the aircraft dropping a sonobuoy to trigger the explosion, everyone that worked on or flew that aircraft must have been aware of something unusual happening. If you've ever worked on a multi-crew aircraft, you know it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the crew not to know what's going on. There's also the small challenge of the aircraft operating over Danish waters, which would require flight approval...but, again, no such flight plan or approval has come to light, nor have any of the countless aircraft spotters in Europe come up with a track showing such a profile around the time of the explosion.
Then there's the final cherry on the cake. The place selected was in Denmark's territorial waters. Apparently Norway insisted that the Danish and Swedish governments be informed that a diving event would be happening in the area. Apparently, arrangements were made to stop the information progressing up the command chain. However, when the actual explosion went off, nobody in Denmark, Sweden or Norway said "Hey, you never told us you'd be blowing up the pipeline." As soon as the explosion happened, there would be an inquisition to ask what was known by the Danish military...unless that was all hushed-up too (but, if so, why the need to stop info moving up Danish command chains)?
Once again, we have a conspiracy theory that requires literally THOUSANDS of people involved, across multiple nations, to hide something that was eventually reported in the open press. Oh, and by the way, no shred of evidence came out of efforts to explore what happened to the pipeline.
Just because Carlson and Hersh SAY that the US blew up Nordstream does not make it a fact. There is ZERO corroborating evidence. Everything is circumstantial. The simple inaccuracies elsewhere in the article, that cover things I DO know quite a lot about, strongly suggest to me that the entire piece is a work of fiction.
As a challenge to you and others that have the wisdom and clarity of thought about the facts of the struggle in Ukraine, perhaps you or other individuals attacking either or both - please produce your credentials to debate combat, strategy, hands on experience at Field grade level and knowledge of trainining and logistical realities of the situation with either of Them. Especially YOU.
I'm biting on this one, too. Let's see, I have 20 years' experience in the military, including field grade rank. I served at all echelons from tactical, up through 4-star service and Joint headquarters, and even in ministry-level positions. For the past 4 years I've supported multiple US Combatant Commands, including living and working for 3 years at one of them. My team spanned J2, J3, J5, J6, and J8 responsibilities, and did a fair bit of work on J4 equities, too. I've worked planning and operations processes, and have been directly involved in those for one of the headquarters. The work I've done has reached across the US Joint Force and impacted activities in multiple theatres to improve processes and drive materiel solutions to better support warfighters. I've briefed literally dozens of star-rank officers across two nations, and continue to engage at the O-6 level and above in my current work. Is that good enough for you?
As to the ability of conscripts, I would offer US experience in Vietnam as a classic example of where the draft simply didn't deliver the desired operational effects. Today's military is incredible complex, with technology that prior generations couldn't dream of. Being able to operate the new technologies while retaining the tactical nous to outthink the enemy is no small hill to climb...and conscripts won't get you there. Before you start going on again about how Ukraine has conscripts, I would observe that you were specifically asking why NATO hasn't introduced the draft. That's the question I'm responding to, not the wider implications of the draft for other nations.
For the rest of the post, the details you're asking for reside in the classified domain and can't be shared, even if I had such details. Like everyone on this forum, I'm using unclassified, open-source material upon which to make value judgements. Then again, perhaps that's why you're asking for these details...because you know that your request can't be answered. As to the maps you want us to produce, are you suggesting that the maps being pushed out by news organizations are wrong? If so, please share your rationale for that, with evidence to the contrary. See? We can both play this game.
I will state, ONCE AGAIN, that nobody on this forum has suggested Ukraine is winning. The country is fighting for its very existence and has lasted far longer than most pundits, including Macgregor, forecast. It is still unclear what would constitute a Russian victory, short of occupying the entire nation formerly known as Ukraine. It is clear that all Ukraine must do is not lose. So far, they've done a pretty damn fine job of that.