Tucker’s back — on Ukraine

Tucker’s back — on Ukraine. By Scott Johnson. You may well have heard that Tucker is back, this time on Twitter, to a huge audience:

Tucker devotes the first six minutes of his monologue to bashing Ukraine. …

All this in support of the proposition that Ukraine blew up the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant in the early morning hours yesterday and is therefore guilty of terrorism.

I’m not sure. Interested readers may want to check out the June 6 Russian offensive campaign assessment from the Institute of the Study of War. With respect to the dam explosion, “ISW has not yet observed clear evidence of what transpired at the KHPP on June 6 and is therefore unable to offer an independent assessment of responsibility at the time of this publication.” By the same token, the Wall Street Journal story offers competing considerations that might support an attribution of responsibility either to Ukraine or to Russia.

However, Tucker has it figured out and perhaps he is right: Ukraine did it. …

I identify with Tucker’s contrarianism. I hate having crap shoved down my throat by our presumed betters in virtually every institution of American life. I have an open mind about what level of support for Ukraine is in the best interest of the United States or what the limits on it should be. However, I certainly would prefer Ukraine to win and have no doubt that Russia is the aggressor. I think Russia is also guilty of war crimes in its prosecution of the war. …

I don’t recall Tucker ever having a good word to say about Ukraine’s resistance to the Russian invasion. He has never had a good word to say about Zelensky’s leadership of the Ukrainian resistance. He has never had a bad word to say about Putin, at least since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine. I don’t understand it. Indeed, I find it mystifying.

Sometimes Tucker get things wrong. It’s usually because he gets one or two facts wrong, because he didn’t check them sufficiently. He then goes off, weaving a story to incorporate the wrong information. Whatever. He’s only one man, and anyway he’s interesting.

Russia stands to gain more by blowing up the dam, because it creates a water barrier along the southern front for a few weeks, just as the Ukrainian offensive gets underway. More likely, IMHO, is that the dam buckled because it was crumbling anyway and the Russians had overfilled it and were letting water flow over the top — always poor practice for a dam.