Those that are military "intelligence/analyst" minded...

[ret5hd]

Please look at this starting at about 12:30 in.

(Note: this interview is about 4 months old, so not exactly up to date, but gives some very interesting facts. For example, the u.s. support of Ukraine is really a lend/lease situation…every bullet we send is actually a debt that Ukraine owes us)

This is a (supposedly) CIA guy, seems very intelligent, informed, etc and gives a very disturbing analysis of the situation in Ukraine.

Very interested in what others think of this:

[lapfog_1]

1. he is wrong.

missile attacks, even on infrastructure, are not "control".

Air campaigns, whether by the Luftwaffe in WW2 against England, or the USA against Vietnam... do not win wars.

Even if Putin forces some sort of capitulation, the war crimes the Russians have committed will mean generations starting with the current 40 Million people will become terrorists in Russia.

[Beastly Boy]

2. His assessments are mostly correct, but his conclusions are pretty shallow.

Based on what he says, I doubt he is CIA. More likely, his background is in political science, a la Kissinger, but his education level doesn't exceed the level of graduate studies. His presentation has more cojones than it does deep analysis.

It is easy to see how where his bravado has failed him: he assessed that Russia would be in control of the Ukrainian territories all the way down to Odessa and Moldova in the south of the country by the fall. That didn't happen despite his explicit assurances it would. On the other hand, he is spot on about Putin not giving a shit what the mood of his subjects may be or how irrelevant it is to him waging war in Ukraine.

He is wrong about Nato's relation to Ukraine: it is nothing resembling Lend-Lease. Nato's interest in Ukraine is far greater than its facade of transactionalism, which appears to be the only, or at least the main motivator he acknowledges. He explains Russia's quest for more territory in bilateral terms: Russia vs Ukraine, Russia vs Georgia etc., without regard for the geopolitical situation of Russia itself.

But most importantly and inexcusably, his assessment of Russia at this point in its history is missing from his analysis. Ever since at least 1914, the Russian Empire, like most empires at that time, has been disintegrating. This process is continuing, notwithstanding Stalin's success, costing Russia dearly in blood and treasure, to temporarily slow this process in 1940's and 1950's. Russia is simply unable to sustain an empire, for purely internal reasons, and it has very little to do with external threats to its existence. Like any totalitarian regime, Russia needs an enemy to explain away its failures, hence its aggression against, for example, Ukraine, with all the ridiculous reasons Russian propaganda peddles to justify their aggression.

The problem with Russia is that it's a decidedly a third world country with a leadership deluding itself with tales of its glorious imperial past. Even if they gain all of Ukraine by force, they will not be able to sustain their control over it for long. What happened in 1980 with Russia losing influence over Poland in 1980, or Russia unable to keep the Warsaw pact together in the late 1980s, or the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1992, happened because of Russia, not Nato or Europe's aggression. And the process of Russia's internal disintegration is not over.

[ret5hd]

3. TY

[Emrys]

4. I'm open to input about Ukraine from any number of sources, and check out quite a few

military intelligence and related types, but I'm going to pass on watching anything from a self-styled spy-turned-"internet entrepreneur" whose previous output includes "Ukraine Will Never Win This War" and "This Is A Western War Against Russia Through Ukraine".

[ret5hd]

5. Well...ok.

[Emrys]

6. Take a look at his website, "Everyday Spy"

https://everydayspy.com/?clickid=407409&homepage=b

"CONTROL TOMORROW...TODAY. You were born with a secret spy superpower. The longer you wait to use it, the more you lose. Learn your secret power and start your elite action plan to control tomorrow, today." doesn't exactly reek of gravitas.

Then check the comments under Bustamante's own YouTube videos to see the sorts of people he generally appeals to.

[ret5hd]

7. That's good info. Thanks.

[brooklynite]

8. I stopped reading after "This is a (supposedly) CIA guy"

[ret5hd]

9. Well, ok.

You sure got me there.