Interview: Col. Douglas Macgregor on Trump’s Failed Ukraine Peace Plan and the Decline of US Strategic Thinking

Col. Douglas Macgregor on Trump’s Ukraine Peace Failure and US Strategic Decline

In a revealing interview with Prof. Glenn Diesen, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a retired US Army officer and former advisor to President Trump, offers a scathing critique of the US’s role in the Ukraine war and its broader foreign policy failures. As Trump’s first 100 days come to an end, his proposed peace plan—intended to broker a resolution between Ukraine, Russia, and Europe—has collapsed, with Zelensky rejecting it and Europeans refusing to recognize Crimea as Russian. Macgregor argues that this failure reflects a deeper lack of strategy, driven by emotional rhetoric, powerful lobbies, and a refusal to adapt to a multipolar world, potentially forcing the US to walk away from the conflict.

The Collapse of Trump’s Peace Plan: A Predictable Failure

Macgregor dismisses the notion of the US as an honest broker in the Ukraine conflict, asserting that without US involvement—starting with NATO exercises in 2007 and the 2014 Maidan coup—there would have been no war. Trump’s peace plan, backed by figures like JD Vance and Marco Rubio, was doomed from the start. Zelensky’s swift rejection and Europe’s refusal to concede on Crimea underscore Russia’s lack of faith in US mediation. Macgregor notes that Russia, viewing the US as a key participant rather than a neutral mediator, likely never expected the plan to succeed, allowing Trump to “spin his wheels” while maintaining battlefield dominance.

Trump’s claim to end the war in 24 hours, Macgregor argues, was an “absurd” reflection of his outdated belief in US hegemony. The US’s role—supplying weapons, intelligence, and war planning, as revealed by a New York Times article—makes it a belligerent, not a peacemaker. After 100 days of continued involvement, Macgregor agrees with Diesen that this is now “Trump’s war,” despite his attempts to distance himself by blaming Zelensky and Biden. The failure to secure a political settlement raises questions about the US’s next steps, with Macgregor suggesting that Trump may “pick up his toys and leave the sandbox,” potentially halting aid and withdrawing US personnel within 48-72 hours.

The Absence of Strategy: A Longstanding US Failure

Macgregor identifies a chronic lack of strategic thinking in US foreign policy, a problem predating Trump. Since the Cold War’s end, the US has focused on maintaining hegemony through threats, bullying, and interventions, ignoring its own economic decline. He criticizes the tendency to blame China for economic woes, noting that the US willingly offshored industries for private profit, not Chinese coercion. The theft of intellectual property, often cited as a grievance, is a self-inflicted wound—US institutions invited Chinese access to labs and universities, ignoring historical patterns of IP appropriation in Asia.

Powerful lobbies, particularly the Israel lobby and the military-industrial complex, further distort US strategy. Macgregor warns that these groups prioritize their interests over national ones, driving policies like support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, which Trump has endorsed despite their irrelevance to US interests. The State Department, led by Rubio—who Macgregor sees as indistinguishable from Blinken—is “irrelevant,” while the Department of Defense is in “disarray.” Without control over agencies like the CIA, led by neocon John Radcliffe, Trump’s administration lacks the coherence to pivot in a new direction.

Emotional Rhetoric Over Rational Diplomacy

The Ukraine conflict, Macgregor argues, is exacerbated by emotional, slogan-driven rhetoric that stifles diplomacy. In Europe, despite recognition that the war is being lost and most Ukrainians favoring negotiations, advocating for peace is met with accusations of being a Russian agent or Putin apologist. The narrative of an “unprovoked” invasion, framing Russia as a Soviet-era aggressor, leaves no room for rational discourse. Macgregor compares this to historical US failures, such as the demonization of Kaiser Wilhelm in World War I, which Henry Kissinger later likened to the treatment of Putin—a substitute for strategy rather than a solution.

Macgregor recounts his 1995 experience in Bosnia, where Western assumptions ignored local realities, much like today’s dismissal of Ukraine’s cultural divides. He notes that Western Ukraine, historically tied to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, differs genetically and linguistically from the east, yet Western leaders treat it as a monolith. This “malignant stupidity,” as he calls it, mirrors Europe’s current refusal to respect differing perspectives, fueling the conflict’s intractability.

A Path Forward: Hemispheric Defense and Strategic Withdrawal

Macgregor proposes a radical reorientation of US policy to adapt to a multipolar world. First, the US should focus on hemispheric defense, prioritizing the Western Hemisphere and its continental empire from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Second, it must abandon the notion of permanent enemies, embracing commerce with all nations—a principle rooted in George Washington’s vision of economic strength through peace. The US, Macgregor argues, has no vital strategic interest in Ukraine, particularly east of the Dnieper River, which has never been part of the West.

He advocates for a dramatic reduction of the US’s overseas profile, potentially over three to four years, to avoid abrupt disruption. This requires control over government agencies and a clear, long-term end state—elements currently absent. Macgregor recalls Trump’s first-term skepticism of prolonged US deployments in Korea, Europe, and Japan, but notes that neocons and profiteers dismissed these concerns, claiming the US as the “keystone” of global stability. In Asia, he observes, countries like Japan, Korea, and Vietnam seek cooperation with China, not conflict, highlighting the US’s outdated “with us or against us” mindset post-9/11.

The War’s End: A Battlefield Resolution?

Without a diplomatic path, Macgregor sees the Ukraine war ending on the battlefield. Zelensky faces a dire choice: concessions risk assassination by nationalists, while refusal ensures Ukraine’s destruction. Russia, viewing the conflict as existential and holding the upper hand, is unlikely to compromise beyond securing the Dnieper River line—a natural defensive position. Macgregor suggests Russia may forgo control of Odessa or Kharkiv if it ensures no Ukrainian or foreign forces remain east of the Dnieper, though territorial losses for Ukraine are “inevitable.”

A potential end could come through internal unrest in Ukraine, similar to Germany in 1918, but the exodus of millions of Ukrainians makes this uncertain. Macgregor laments the lack of strategic foresight, recalling Eisenhower’s advocacy for neutrality in the 1950s to avoid overextension—a lesson ignored by NATO’s expansion into indefensible regions like the Baltics and Romania.

A Call for Rationality and Restraint

Colonel Douglas Macgregor’s analysis exposes the US’s strategic vacuum in the Ukraine war and beyond, driven by emotional rhetoric, powerful lobbies, and a failure to adapt to a multipolar world. Trump’s failed peace plan underscores the US’s compromised role as a belligerent, not a mediator, while Europe’s irrational stance prolongs the conflict. Macgregor urges a return to hemispheric defense, commerce-driven diplomacy, and a reduced global footprint, warning that without such a shift—and amidst a looming financial crisis—the US risks further decline. As Russia advances, the war’s resolution may hinge on battlefield outcomes, leaving the US to confront the consequences of its strategic failures.

See also: Interview: Jeffrey Sachs on the US-China Economic War – A Historical Rebalancing and the Clash of Statecraft

Follow: https://youtube.com/@paulofernandodebarros-oficial