Global Research

It is difficult for the person-on-the-street to get a proper handle on what is happening in a war. Regarding the current fighting between Russia and Ukraine, the monopoly media in the “West” has often pointed to Ukraine winning. Other independent sources will state the opposite. Who should one believe?

Beware. The aphorism “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” cautions against too readily believing a known source of disinformation. To do so runs the risk of being made to look foolish. There are several instances of the United States pulling the wool over gullible people’s eyes. But one instance of lying is sufficient to throw doubt on the source of disinformation.

A legal maxim holds, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). According to this legal wisdom, one instance of mendacity suffices to discredit future information from the same source. At the very least, one should regard with extreme skepticism what that discredited source claims.

In 2003, then-US secretary of state Colin Powell, to his everlasting disgrace, held up a vial of anthrax and lied throughout his testimony to the UN security council. The US subsequently launched a devastating war (“shock and awe” as the military behemoth bragged) against Iraq, on the pretext of it having WMD. It didn’t.

Why then would thinking people trust the US about not having committed the war crime of sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines? Why would people believe the monopoly media that has so often gotten it wrong but somehow still manages to attract a readership/viewership?

So again: who to trust?

There are two American patriots steeped in US militarism: former Marine intelligence officer (and the UN weapons inspector who warned that Iraq was “fundamentally disarmed”) Scott Ritter and retired colonel Douglas MacGregor, both of whom have stated emphatically, and have done so all along, that Russia will win and is winning the war in Ukraine. That these two sources are former US military and profess to love their country gives them credibility.

Giving credence to the statements of Ritter and MacGregor is a Turkish media source, Hürseda Haber [yet to be verified], that has reported data on the fighting in Ukraine that indicates a one-sided death toll. But the data also reveals that the fighting is not two-sided:

Ukraine

The casualties of Ukraine, which was on the ground with 734 thousand soldiers (plus 100 thousand reservists) and NATO officers, soldiers and mercenaries, are as follows:

• Aircraft – 302
• Helicopters – 212
• (S)UAV – 2,750
• Tanks and armored vehicles – 6,320
• Howitzers (Artillery systems) – 7,360
• Air defense systems – 497
• Dead – 157,000
• Injured – 234,000
• Captives – 17,230
• Dead – NATO military trainers (US and UK) – 234
• Dead – NATO soldiers (Germany, Poland, Lithuania, …) – 2,458
• Dead – Mercenaries – 5,360

Russia

Russian losses in the field with 418 thousand soldiers (plus 3,500,000 reservists) and the increasing number of Wagner mercenaries:

• Aircraft – 23
• Helicopters – 56
• (S)UAV – 200
• Tanks and armored vehicles – 889
• Howitzers (Artillery systems) – 427
• Air defense systems – 12
• Dead – 18,480
• Injured – 44,500
• Captives – 323

Google translate of data from Hürseda Haber.

Giving further credence to Ritter and MacGregor, and so many others that have stated this is a proxy war, is the death toll that reveals that the Russians are fighting not just Ukrainians but also NATO military trainers, NATO soldiers, and mercenaries (thousands of the NATO personnel and mercenaries having died).

Ritter had pointed out the consequence of failing to accept the Russian demands that Ukraine be neutral, eliminate Nazism, and recognize the independent republics of Donetsk and Lugansk:

… basically what the Russian position will be is, if you don’t accept this, then what we can offer you is death. And not just death of your soldiers, but death of the nation.

Russia is one country going up against many countries. That will magnify the success of attaining Russian military objectives. Conversely, such a NATO defeat will be a massive loss of face for hyped-up American military dominance and throw cold water on the NATO alliance.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review