Douglas Macgregor: Russia destroys Bridges and will take Kiev

Summary

In an interview with Glenn Diesen, retired U.S. Colonel Douglas Macgregor argues that battlefield victories do not automatically produce peace—especially when a powerful continental state can absorb attacks and continue fighting. He cites Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and Germany’s experience in World War II as examples of campaigns in which military force failed to secure the political outcome the invader wanted.

Iran and regional tensions

Macgregor argues that the United States can bomb or blockade Iran and declare victory, but cannot achieve lasting results without a ground invasion—which, he says, the U.S. lacks the capacity and strategic justification to undertake. He warns that renewed attacks could widen the conflict and increase the risk of nuclear weapons being used.

He also argues that Iran may seek to drive U.S. forces from the region, potentially leaving Israel more exposed, and says Turkey and Pakistan could further complicate the regional balance.

Macgregor criticizes what he describes as a U.S. strategy of imposing political outcomes abroad, comparing it to the “Serbian model” of pressuring smaller states. In his view, interventions and proxy wars have often failed to resolve underlying disputes while destabilizing the regions involved. He argues that Western backing for Ukraine and Israel reflects a broader effort to maintain U.S. power, and predicts that regional powers such as Turkey and Iran will increasingly resist it.

Ukraine and Russia

Macgregor says Russia may have concluded that it cannot secure a lasting outcome while the current government remains in Kyiv. He speculates that Moscow could seek control of Ukraine’s southern territory, including the area around Odesa, and says Russian forces may ultimately move toward Kyiv.

He presents the reported destruction of bridges across the Dnieper and rail links as a way to disrupt Ukrainian logistics, while noting that Russia could build pontoon bridges if it chose to advance across the river.

Macgregor says Russian forces have advanced slowly in part to limit casualties from drones, but also describes pressure inside Russia for more decisive action. He praises General Sergei Surovikin’s military record and says some Russians see him as suited to a more forceful approach. He also alleges that Russian military corruption has become a serious problem and refers to reports of generals being arrested over alleged leaks. These claims are presented in the interview without independent verification.

Macgregor doubts that diplomacy with Russia will progress under current Western governments. He argues that changes in leadership—especially in Germany, France, and the UK—could create an opening for negotiations. He describes the Istanbul proposals as a potentially reasonable basis for an agreement involving Ukrainian neutrality and says Russia has likely lost confidence in Donald Trump’s administration because of what he characterizes as contradictory signals.

Economic pressures

Macgregor warns that U.S. military spending and overseas commitments may be economically unsustainable. He cites rising bond yields, inflation, and costs for energy, food, and industrial materials as potential sources of pressure, and argues that the wars should be settled before economic strain worsens. He says the public may not feel the costs immediately, but domestic financial pressure could eventually force a change in policy.

The geopolitical assessments and forecasts above are Macgregor’s opinions as expressed in the interview.

Presenters and contributors: Glenn Diesen (host); Douglas Macgregor (guest).