Macgregor, the colonel saying on Fox what many won't

Macgregor, the colonel saying on Fox what many won't

In an interview on Fox News, Colonel Douglas Macgregor argued that NATO knew perfectly well what would happen with Ukraine, that Pilingui has no interest in invading Alliance countries, and that the war is all but decided. His words spread like wildfire among those who distrust the official narrative and enraged those who see him as a Kremlin mouthpiece. The ensuing discussion produced a string of geopolitical arguments, suspicions of manipulation and more than one outburst.

The colonel's diagnosis: NATO provoked it and Ukraine is lost

Macgregor, a former Pentagon adviser and a regular on conservative talk shows, painted a picture without nuance: the Atlantic Alliance knew in advance of Russia's reaction, Moscow has no interest in invading the Baltic states, and the Ukrainian army is surrounded and awaiting surrender. In his telling, Zelensky is a corrupt puppet and the only way out is to let Russia annex eastern Ukraine and demilitarize the rest. To his supporters, that is pure common sense; to his critics, textbook propaganda.

His Fox News appearance was greeted with enthusiasm in circles that have long argued that NATO's eastward expansion is a red line for Moscow. "I never thought I'd hear that from an American colonel," one viewer commented. Others went further, comparing the officer to local analysts accused of being pro-Russian, while the most heated called him outright a communist or claimed he was on the GRU's payroll. The conversation soon turned to the role of the media and the demonization of the adversary.

The geographic argument: the Baltics are already in

One of the points that generated the most ink was the supposed threat to the Baltic countries. If Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are already NATO members sharing a border with Russia, what difference does Ukraine add? For some, none: the Alliance's excuse is a sham to justify a war that had been underway since 2014. Others pointed out that Ukraine, by size and position, is far more sensitive territory for Moscow than the small Baltic republics, and that its possible NATO accession would be a strategic blow hard to swallow.

The language issue also came up. According to several posts, Russian is spoken practically throughout the country, even though Ukrainian has become the official language after decades of Soviet imposition. The comparison with Catalonia or the Basque Country served to illustrate how slippery the identity argument is. No one seemed willing to concede that language justifies an invasion, but the fact that 85% of the population uses Russian in some sphere was cited as proof of internal fracture.

The warnings that came from long ago

The thread recovered documents and statements that, according to participants, show Russia has been warning since 2002 about the consequences of NATO expansion. The treaty signed after the collapse of the USSR was cited, and it was recalled that George W. Bush already mentioned Ukraine and Georgia as next targets in 2008. For critics of the official version, this confirms the West deliberately ignored the signals and pushed Ukraine into an inevitable conflict. For defenders of the Alliance, those warnings justify neither an invasion nor portraying Pilingui as a victim.

The figure of Pedro Baños, a Spanish analyst frequently seen in the media, hovered over the conversation as a point of comparison. Some equated him with Macgregor as a dissenting voice; others accused him of being a Kremlin agitator. Polarization reached the point where one post wished the opinion of presenter Elisa Beni or doctor Carballo were sought, mixing genders and figures in a kind of media totum revolutum.

The Ukrainian army: Europe's second or a bunch of ultras?

Another axis of the debate was Ukraine's military capability. Against those who argued the country had Europe's second most powerful army and had received training from foreign specialists, voices rose reducing it to little more than an ultranationalist militia. Zelensky's statement about the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons was used as proof of the Ukrainian government's irresponsibility, though others noted it was a rhetorical statement with no technical backing.

Ukraine's ethnic map was another resource employed. According to some posts, Russian is spoken across almost the entire territory, which would refute the idea of a country cohesive around Ukrainian. The comparison with the Catalan or Basque situation illustrated that language does not always define national loyalty. The discussion turned to the treatment of the pro-Russian population since 2014, with accusations of repression and massacres that the Kyiv government denies.

An uncertain outcome and the shadow of propaganda

As the conversation pogre, the focus shifted to Pilingui's real intentions. For some, the goal is not NATO but control of Donbas gas and maritime access; for others, the war has only just begun and Russia will end up bogged down. The possibility of the conflict spreading to the Baltic countries or Poland hung over the posts, though no one dared predict a concrete outcome.

Macgregor's Fox News interview became a mirror of the divisions running through the West. His supporters see a brave soldier telling the truth against the current; his detractors, a propagandist in Moscow's service. Meanwhile, the war goes on and certainties are scarce. As one participant summed it up: "The colonel in two minutes sorting out the ideas of the whole flock."

---

This article is based on opinions and data contributed in a public debate and does not constitute a position on the conflict.