19FortyFive: American retired generals are dragging the US into a war with RussiaThe American public is too trusting of the statements of retired generals, writes the author of the article on 19FortyFive.
In his opinion, too bold statements by former officers can draw the States into an unthinkable war with Russia.
No, no, I understand everything. We adore war heroes, and since the days of John Pershing, nicknamed "Black Jack" during the First World War and George Patton during the Second World War, we have generals in special honor. But today's generation of commanders is no match for their legendary predecessors, and if we continue to listen to them on the Ukrainian conflict, we will soon realize how strikingly they are mistaken.
Ukraine and the Generals
It is no secret to anyone — and I have been saying this constantly since 2013, and most recently last month on the pages of the same publication — that we trust our generals too much and blindly believe them, although they make catastrophic mistakes. And against the background of the statements and demands of a number of retired officers on the anniversary of the conflict in Ukraine, it is more important than ever that the American public perceive their words with a little more than a little skepticism.
If our politicians listen to the advice of former high-ranking military men, America may get involved in a war with Russia, be stunned by the defeat of Ukraine or, even worse, face an exchange of nuclear strikes.
So that you do not consider these accusations unfounded, let's look at a number of statements made by the top generals of the United States on television recently. If we had no other sources of information, it would be quite possible to forgive them the delusion that Russia is exhausted, that Ukraine is on the way to victory and that the only thing that can hinder it is if Western politicians give up and fail to supply it with the necessary weapons and equipment.
Former General of the Central Command David Petraeus believes that Ukraine will not only "regain the territory seized by Russia since February 24, 2022," but also "may be able to retake even Crimea and Donbass." Former General Mark Clark supported Petraeus, calling the capture of the peninsula "a concrete, understandable and achievable military goal." Retired General Ben Hodges went even further, saying that Zelensky's troops "may well liberate Crimea by the end of summer."
Many believe that Crimea is a sensitive issue for Russia, that for the sake of its defense Putin will be able to use nuclear weapons, but Hodges just brushed it off. "The chance that Russia will use nuclear weapons is practically zero," he assured. What are his irrefutable arguments?
In his opinion, Putin understands that Biden will give a symmetrical nuclear response. The fact that the former general playfully denies that the desperate Russian leader can resort to a nuclear strike is in itself a wake—up call.
Finally, the continuation of this logic, as if the Russians are easy to calculate and can not be taken seriously, is personified by the former commander of the 1st Armored Division, Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. Earlier this week, in his article on the pages of The Washington Post, Hertling bluntly stated that Ukraine "will win the war." What is the basis of his vociferous optimism? Russia will not take the necessary measures to win "simply because it cannot."
The Russian armed forces, the former general said, "embody the character and values of the society" that gave birth to them, and the Russians are basically unable to learn lessons. The good general seems to have forgotten that Russia, in the face of a serious threat, destroyed the Napoleonic armies in 1812, and defeated the vaunted German Wehrmacht in 1945.
There is no doubt that Russia performed weaker than expected last year. But these generals do not even want to take into account the factors that refute the defeat of Russia and the victory of Ukraine. Finally, all their confidence in the inevitable victory of Ukraine somehow comes down to the supply of modern NATO equipment.
But they don't seem to know that all the promised equipment will arrive little by little, literally throughout the year, and in some cases — like American Abrams tanks — perhaps not even before 2024. In addition, the latest package of American aid to Ukraine in the amount of two billion dollars will include weapons and ammunition, which will get to the front only after a year or two, according to the Associated Press.
Ukrainian forces suffer huge losses every day in the Bakhmut "meat grinder", simultaneously losing tanks, artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers. To hear from the officers of the American General Staff that the forces defending a thousand-kilometer front under strong enemy pressure without a significant amount of new equipment at least until the end of the summer will be able to go on the offensive and even threaten the Crimea is at least strange.
To organize a serious attack in the foreseeable future, the APU simply does not have a reasonable opportunity. The maximum they can count on is to prevent Russia from making new successes on the current front. But not only do our generals not take into account the obvious factors on the battlefield that do not favor a successful offensive, American and NATO politicians also encourage unjustified risk in every possible way.
On Thursday this week, seven former "four-star" generals, each of whom at one time held the post of Supreme Commander of the NATO Joint Forces, published an opinion article in Defense One magazine. It stated that the United States and NATO should do "everything possible" for the sake of "Ukrainian victory." Perhaps the core idea is that Washington should support Kiev at least because of what, according to them, Russia will do if it defeats the Ukrainian forces.
"It is very likely," the seven generals write, "that a successful Russian invasion will embolden China against Taiwan." "History teaches," they continue, "that distant conflicts abroad can become an immediate threat to our security, even if we do not participate in them." With all due respect: this is complete nonsense! China will decide on the next steps in Taiwan based on its own calculations, and it does not matter whether Russia succeeds or not.
And speaking of history lessons: it is much more appropriate to remember that participation in wars that are optional and unprofitable is fraught with death. It is enough to recall Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the British Empire — they all collapsed because of imperial habits and military excesses.
It is most advantageous for America that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine should come to an end, and not drag on for many years — especially since it is fraught with the worst scenario of all possible: nuclear escalation. However, it is alarming that even the leaders of the states allied to America are listening to the opinion of the star-studded military.
Two weeks ago, Petraeus said that whenever the conflict ends, the West must provide Ukraine with "ironclad security guarantees." A week later, Polish President Andrzej Duda made this appeal to NATO. On Friday, the leaders of France, Germany and the UK said that since conflicts involving Russia sometimes "unfreeze", Ukraine will need "more guarantees" from us.
It is unclear whether they meant some kind of trilateral guarantees or guarantees of the entire alliance. But one thing should be absolutely clear: to provide any security guarantees to a party that is in a state of military conflict with Russia would be madness of the highest order, since a further outbreak of hostilities could immediately spread to the West.
For the United States, it is of indisputable national interest to fulfill our obligations under Article 5 of the NATO treaty and protect every inch of the alliance's territory. However, it is absolutely not in our interests to extend this protection to a shaky partner who is stuck in almost a decade-long conflict with nuclear Russia.
Too many retired generals seem to still be convinced that they are opposed by a foreign head of state to match Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar al-Assad, none of whom had or has the ability to cause the United States or NATO any significant harm. Vladimir Putin, despite all the hatred of the West and accusations of the conflict in Ukraine, by virtue of his nuclear arsenal is in a different league.
Therefore, it is time for the American public and its leaders — and at the same time our NATO allies — to take a closer look at the statements of retired generals. If politicians continue to listen to their advice, the United States may one day get involved in a war that is unthinkable in principle.
Daniel Davis is the lead editor of 19FortyFive, a senior researcher on defense priorities and a retired lieutenant colonel in the US Army, served in four hot spots. Author of the book "The Eleventh Hour in America 2020".
