Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley didn’t hesitate to bash Trump, but he’s working overtime to protect Biden over the linkage between Afghanistan and Ukraine.
When pressed by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, on the Afghanistan withdrawal and whether it played a part in Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, Milley replied: “From the intelligence I’ve read, it’s not clear. I think it certainly is possible, but I also know that Putin had aims on Ukraine long before the end of the war in Afghanistan.”
Blackburn cut him off: “I think we all know that. So he saw his opening, right?”
“Well, the forces were building up — they began to build up their force in September, October,” Milley replied. “So I think in order to do that, they would’ve had to have the plans and approval long before September, October.”
This is dumb. And Milley isn’t this dumb. No one in his position could be. This is a case of deliberately playing dumb.
The Russians would have had a dozen plans for invading Ukraine going back who knows how long. I’m sure Milley’s seen that we have plans for invading Ukraine, Fiji and anywhere else in the world. Considering Russia’s interests, I doubt they would have had to suddenly scramble to formulate new plans. And considering Russia’s performance, they were almost certainly working off some old plan.
As for approval, is Milley serious? Russia isn’t America. There’s a much shorter approval process in dictatorships especially ones in which the military brass is very political. Considering the botched disaster in Afghanistan, which Milley and other brass knew would go bad, he ought to appreciate that. When you can’t tell the head cheese that he’s an idiot and what he wants is going to get a bunch of people killed, the approval process is surprisingly short.
Ugly Sid says
As hire As. Bs hire Cs.
And we have an F in charge.
mortimer says
A thoroughly dishonest man whose permanent expression resembles a boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar!
Creepy, corrupt Joey the $40-million Beijing Bribed-man deserves a kiss-arse like Milley.
The TWO OF THEM lost TWO COUNTRIES IN SIX MONTHS … by projecting WEAKNESS.
First they lost Afghastlistan, then Ukraine.
Peace through strength, but war through weakness … the Bribed-man is the NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN of our times!
The Grand Jury investigating Hunter cannot get the dumb-arse BIG GUY soon enough.
bill says
I get quite tired of the constant disparaging of Chamberlain in this kind of comment page. Chamberlain was not the only one, the French PM Deladier appeased Hitler also with the Munich pact. One has to look at the zeitgeist of the time. WWI memories were still fresh. People were still grieving the loss of their loved ones. UK had lost many thousands of young men. The maimed were still in hospital, too horribly disfigured to be seen in public. Many of the current politicians had served in the war as young men. My father was one and he was a pacifist. The horrors of the ‘war to end all wars’ were too fresh. The politicians would do almost anything to avoid another war. Have the people of USA forgotten 9/11 when ‘only’ 3000 died? That was just over 20 years ago too. In WW1 millions died. Sixteen million comabatants and a total of 37 million in all.
The UK and French politicians believed in diplomacy, they did not understand that Hitler was a
dissembling scoundrel who in fact wanted war all along. WW1 was the formative period of his life. Hitler was literally a failure until then. He wanted to restore the ‘honour’ of Germany as did many Germans, and he lusted for revenge. Munich was just to buy time, he had no intention of honouring it. Hitler could also be very chraming when he chose to be, a factor usually forgotten.There also was in UK (also in USA) a substantial body of opinion particularly among the upper class
against another war and many of them in fact admired Hitler for his achievemnets in bringing back Germany from the dire straits it was in in the post WW1 period. The Duke of Windsor was one of them; of course they did not know the real conditions in Nazi Germany; just as the Socialists who visited Soviet Russia did not knw the reality there either.
The staging in !936 of the Olympics in Berlin was pure propaganda for the Nazis.
The French and British were quick to honour their treaty with Poland and declare war on Germany; and I have always believed that if they had attacked Germany in response to the invasion of Poland, WW2 might have been avoided, as what was needed was for other countries to stand up to Hitler. Hitler and his generals were able to practice their tactics on a militarily weak Poland and the lack of action in the West emboldened Hitler to subsequently invade France and the low countries.
The constant resort to smearing long dead politicians show a limited and lazy mind
Tim says
Good on you, Bill. After all these years of bashing Chamberlain you are the first person I’ve ever seen acknowledge the legacy of WWI.on Chamberlain’s mind. Only Churchill, who was impotent at the time, really understood what Hitler was. Chamberlain wasn’t Churchill but neither was anyone else. The destruction visited on England by WWI was unprecedented in all of history and Chamberlain wanted to avoid another war at any cost. Chamberlain was a sane human being who found himself dealing with an insane human being. I guess all these people who 2nd guess Chamberlain believe themselves to be as astute as Churchill. I have news for them, which is virtually everyone……….they aren’t. Well done, Bill
Wellington says
Winston Churchill himself disparaged the Munich agreement at the time. He knew what was coming. Besides, even before Munich Hitler had brutally taken over Austria, militarized the Rhineland, began construction of an Air Force—all contra the Versailles Treaty. The Nuremberg Laws against the Jews were passed in 1935. All political parties except the Nazi Party once Hitler came to power in January of 1933 were gone within six months, even the Far Right Nationalist Party. How much more evidence did Chamberlain and Daladier need by September of 1938? Besides, Chamberlain and Daladier sold the Czechs down the river at Munich, something the Czechs will never forget. How dare Chamberlain and Daladier give away another country’s territory without even consulting that country?
No, Chamberlain and Daladier were stupid and shameful at Munich. That’s my take. That’s most everyone’s take, including once again Churchill himself.
gravenimage says
Throwing Czechoslovakia under the bus was never a good thing, and others appeasing Hitler just as Chamberlain did didn’t make this any better.
Wellington is right–it is not as though Hitler seemed like a nice guy at the time.
That there are many people as clueless today is sad–this does not actually improve Chamberlain’s legacy.
Doomer says
I am sure he knew all about JOHN MEARSCHEIMER, brilliant analyst,who for years has warned that insisting on making Ukraine a NATO member would bring war with Russia.
Mearscheimer has said Zelensky’s hands were tied by nationalist forces( C-14, Aiden, Azov,Right Sector) and that is why he was unable to deal with Russia in a way that would have averted this war.
SCOTT RITTER is a brilliant military expert and today gave his view,to Gonzalo Lira( in Kharkov):
“Scott Ritter and The Battle of the Donbas” ( youtube, 1 hr 17 min )
gravenimage says
Of course, the Ukraine did not become a member of NATO as Doomer pretends. (Never mind the moral question of whether Russia has the right to attack Ukraine if she *had* joined NATO–this is obviously a moot point now). The fact is that Russia had long wanted to dominate Ukraine again as it had done in the past.
Putin had already taken Crimea, and with Biden in the White House saw the chance to take more–perhaps take over the entire nation.
As for John Mearsheimer, he has had no problem with Russia taking Crimea, and blamed this on the West.
As for Mearsheimer being some sort of seer, though, he is *anything* but–he wrote this during the same period: “If you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin is much too smart to try that”. And now Putin has done just that.
He is another antisemite, like so many Doomer has lauded of late. Mearsheimer has slammed the “Israel lobby”, and has castigated her for daring to defend against Hezb’allah and Hamas. He pretends that Israel’s protecting herself against Jihad terror is “apartheid”. He has also repeatedly claimed that Israel intends to seize Gaza and create a “greater Israel”, even though Israel unilaterally *gave up* Gaza in 2005. There is of course much more.
As for Scott Ritter, he worked for Russian-state controlled RT before its recent implosion.
A week ago he crowed about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “Russia Is Succeeding Wildly in Its Objectives!”. He openly and happily compares Russia’s invasion to the Nazi Blitzkrieg of World War II. He lauds “absolute destruction, liquidation, annihilation” in Ukraine. He’s made the absurd claim that Russia invaded Ukraine to “denazify” the country, even though Russia itself has a much larger cohort of neo-Nazis. Perhaps Putin should invade Russia…
On other matters, Ritter also writes for Al Jazeera, including pieces slamming the US for opposing Iran developing nuclear weapons. He keeps claiming that the US has declared war against Iran; he’s been saying this for about twenty years now. He wrote “Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change” back in 2006.
Much more here. as well.
maria says
Mearsheimer is one of the worst antisemites ever. He is pro Iran and as bad as Putin
gravenimage says
True, Maria–I neglected to mention John Mearsheimer’s support for a nuclear-armed Iran. He has said that a nuclear-armed Iran would bring “stability”–despite the Mullah’s threats to “wipe Israel off the map”:
“JOHN MEARSHEIMER, University of Chicago: I think there’s no question that a nuclear-armed Iran would bring stability to the region, because nuclear weapons are weapons of peace. They’re weapons of deterrence.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/nuclear-armed-iran-would-bring-stability-but-risks
horyu says
Greetings, gravenimage
I have been reading and enjoying your posts for years and normally I’m in sympathy with them. However, here’s the point. For years Putin has been voicing his concerns about NATO’s expansion to the East. Given his country’s experience during WW2 when tens of millions died following an undeclared invasion, you can understand why. You and I might think of NATO as a harmless old club whose members’ darkest thoughts are about how to avoid paying their dues, but that’s not the way everyone sees it. From Moscow’s point of view, for decades NATO was the enemy, and its continuing advance, despite Russia not representing any kind of threat, looked like some in the West wanted to take advantage of the country’s new weakness to finish the job.
Had Ukraine joined NATO, as it was being encouraged to think it would be able to, it would have been too late for Russia to take action as any invasion would have triggered NATO’s legal obligation to go to Ukraine’s aid. That is why one had to take place beforehand.
Your point about whether Russia had moral the right to launch an invasion is similarly easily answered. When the Soviet Union moved missiles into Cuba, no one doubted the right of the US to send a task force to invade a sovereign nation to remove them. What Russia has done is to pre-empt such a situation arising when it was clear one would.
I don’t think Putin wanted to invade Ukraine. I think with all his troops massed on the border and with Russia facing humiliation as a result of western politicians continuing to refuse to listen to his concerns, he felt he had no choice. He knew the price he and his country would pay would be terrible. That, indeed, as Mearsheimer predicted, Russia would get wrecked. But the honour of his great nation, to say nothing of its security, was at stake.
This is an appalling tragedy for both Russia and Ukraine for which NATO and the West bear much of the responsibility. Until this is recognised there will be no proper reconciliation or peace. In the meantime, the West’s wilful blindness to Russia’s legitimate security concerns is pushing Moscow further and further into the embrace of China.
How dumb is that?
Best wishes
gravenimage says
horyu wrote:
Greetings, gravenimage
I have been reading and enjoying your posts for years and normally I’m in sympathy with them.
…………….
Thank you for your kind words, horyu.
More:
However, here’s the point. For years Putin has been voicing his concerns about NATO’s expansion to the East. Given his country’s experience during WW2 when tens of millions died following an undeclared invasion, you can understand why…
…………….
Ukrainians living free of the Russian heel does *not* represent a threat to Russia, nor were Ukrainians threatening to invade Russia and mass murder Russians.
The reality is in fact the exact opposite of what you claim–instead, it is Russia invading Ukraine and mass murdering Ukrainians.
And Ukraine did not have missiles aimed at Russia–it was Russia that had troops massed on Ukraine’s border.
Then, the implication that the US invaded Cuba and mass murdered Cubans is not the case–this never happened.
More:
I don’t think Putin wanted to invade Ukraine. I think with all his troops massed on the border and with Russia facing humiliation as a result of western politicians continuing to refuse to listen to his concerns, he felt he had no choice.
…………….
Putin had invaded Ukraine before, and seized Crimea. Are you claiming that he had “no choice” but to invade Ukraine over and over again?
And Putin has previously implied that Ukraine has no right to freedom and instead belongs to Russia.
Then, the claim that Russia “had no choice” but to invade Ukraine and brutalize her people because he felt “humiliated” by Ukrainian freedom is, I’m afraid, very like apologia for the Nazi Invasion of the rest of Europe.
Immoral then, and immoral now.
More:
He knew the price he and his country would pay would be terrible.
…………….
I note there is no concern about the price *the Ukraine* is having to pay for his brutal invasion–but who cares about the victims?
As for Russia, I think that Putin thought the West was weak and so were the Ukrainians. I think he thought the West would put up with anything and that the invasion of Ukraine would be a walk in the park. Neither turned out to be the case–not completely, in any case.
More:
That, indeed, as Mearsheimer predicted, Russia would get wrecked. But the honour of his great nation, to say nothing of its security, was at stake.
…………….
The idea that Russia’s “honor” is based on brutally invading their neighbor and murdering her people is quite appalling. Then this savagery does not make Russia “great”.
And no–pretending that Ukraine had plans to invade Russia and murder tens of millions of its people is grotesque calumny–and is risibly false.
More:
This is an appalling tragedy for both Russia and Ukraine for which NATO and the West bear much of the responsibility. Until this is recognised there will be no proper reconciliation or peace.
…………….
In other words, Russia will not stop brutalizing Ukraine until the West bows to them. If this did happen, it would not curb Russian savagery as you pretend–it would just embolden them further.
More:
In the meantime, the West’s wilful (sic) blindness to Russia’s legitimate security concerns is pushing Moscow further and further into the embrace of China.
How dumb is that?
…………….
Russia and China share a hatred of freedom. This idea that this will change if only we abandon any defense of freedom–even verbal defense of freedom–ourselves grimly makes no sense.
Our winking at the invasion of Ukraine will not somehow bring Putin into our camp–whatever that would mean under such circumstances. It would only further embolden his barbarism.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“[W]e have plans for invading Ukraine, Fiji and anywhere else in the world.”
Hello, Daniel Greenfield. Strange that, like you, Fiji has been on my mind over the past few months. Fiji is my second-favorite Pacific island (No. 1 is Sakhalin).
gravenimage says
Mark, I don’t think that Daniel Greenfield was saying that the US is poised to invade Fiji–just that large militaries have theoretical contingency plans for conflicts anywhere in the world.
Wellington says
I believe nothing that Milley says until independently confirmed. He is easily the worst Chief of Staff in American history. This should be his “legacy” if truth prevails but it’s a big “if.”
gravenimage says
Milley’s Dishonest Answer on Afghanistan-Ukraine Invasion Link
……………..
Excellent analysis from Daniel Greenfield. Grim stuff but spot on.
OLD GUY says
Lots of speculation, but the Dictator Putin did invade Ukraine a sovereign nation who as far as I know made no direct threat to Russia. Putin claiming that Ukraine joining NATO was such a threat to Russia is B.S. Ukraine has every right to join any world organization it so Chooses. Being a member of NATO is a lot different from declaring war and invading another country as Putin did. Russia was the aggressor and the rest of the world needs to standup and make Putin pay the price for his criminal actions.
Hell using Putins reasoning America should invade Mexico do to the threat at our Southern border and the invasion taking place from South America.
James Lincoln says
OLD GUY,
Had Ukraine joined NATO, this in and of itself would not have posed a direct threat to Russia’s sovereignty.
From Putin’s viewpoint, however, a NATO backed Ukraine would have made a future Russian invasion of Ukraine impossible.
And Putin wanted to keep a Russian invasion of Ukraine as an option.
OLD GUY says
No question about it, invading Ukraine was Putins plan all along.
gravenimage says
Good exchange, OLD GUY and James.
Andrew Blackadder says
So riddle me this…
The USSR putting Nukes on Cuba, 90 miles for Florida… Really bad, and cannot be allowed, followed by the Bay of Pigs attempt to overthrow Castro.
Ukraine wanting to join NATO and the EU and get Nukes from USA or EU directly on the Borders of Russia… Okay…
Russia is feeling surrounded by Western loving Nations, one of whom is calling for his demise and overthrow…
Am I missing something here?..