Don’t Let Retired Generals Drag America Into the Ukraine War
I get it. Military heroes are our favorite, since the days when “Black Jack” Pershing From World War I to George Patton Since World War II, the general has been a special hero. However, today’s flag officers aren’t as legendary as their forefathers. And if we listen to what they have to say about the Russia-Ukraine War, we might be shocked at how bad their judgment is.
Ukraine and the Generals
It’s not a secret that sincerely has been admired by many. 2013 I’ve argued – Many times (including last month in these pages) – we place too much trust on our generals and turn too blind of an eye when they are Proved disastrously incorrect. It is imperative that Americans listen to the claims of a number retired general officers as they make statements leading up Friday’s one-year anniversary of Russia’s war with Ukraine.
If our policymakers take the advice of these former high-ranking officers, America may find itself at war with Russia, shocked by a Ukrainian loss – or worst of all: sucked into a nuclear exchange with Russia.
These claims are not unsubstantiated. Let’s take a look at the statements and claims made by America’s most prominent generals. If you only listened to these officers and didn’t know what was actually going on on the ground, it would be easy to believe Russia has lost its strength, that Ukraine is on its path to victory, that Ukraine will not win, and that Western politicians would fail to provide the supplies and gear necessary to defeat Ukraine.
Former Central Command General David Petraeus He believed Ukraine would “retake the territory Russia has seized since 24 February (2022),” And that is exactly what it is “even conceivable now that they could retake Crimea and the Donbas.” Former general Mark Clark seconded Petraeus suggests, adding that Crimea should be taken “is a concrete, understandable and achievable military objective.” Ben Hodges, a former general, took it further. Claim It was “quite possible” Zelensky’s troops “will liberate Crimea by the end of (this) summer.”
Though many have argued that Crimea was a major emotional issue for Russia – for which Putin said it flat-out he might use nuclear weapons to defend – Hodges casually dismissed that idea. There are good chances. Hodges categorically claimed, “that Russia will use nuclear weapons are almost non-existent.” Hodges’ solid reasoning for such confidence is impressive.
He “believes” Putin acknowledges that Biden would respond with a nuke response. It is a red flag that an ex-general officer would dismiss the possibility that a desperate Russian leader could resort to nuclear weapons.
Finally, expanding on this line of thinking that Russians can so easily be read – and dismissed – is former commander of 1st Armored Division, Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling. This week, in a Washington Post Op-EdHertling clearly stated Ukraine “will win the war.” His optimism is not based on facts. Russia won’t make necessary changes to win “simply because it can’t.”
The Russian military, as the former general claimed “reflects the character and values of the society” The Russians cannot learn from the lessons it was drawn. The general seems to have forgotten that Russia is capable of being destroyed when threatened sufficiently Napoleonic armies in France In 1812 and Germany’s vaunted Wehrmacht 1945
Russia’s performance in this war has been disappointing for the past year. These generals ignore a few key fundamentals of war which don’t support the notion of a Russian defeat or victory for Ukraine. Each of these generals has based his claims of an unavoidable victory for Ukraine on the delivery modern NATO equipment.
It’s almost as though they aren’t aware, however, that all this promised equipment will be arriving in dribs and drabs, spread literally out throughout the year, and in some cases – like with the U.S. Abrams tanks – possibly not Jusqu’à 2024. The latest U.S. package to Ukraine is also available. $2 billion It will not include ammunition and weapons from existing stocks that could be delivered immediately to Ukraine. “could take a year or two to get to the battlefront,” According to the Today’s Associated Press.
Bakhmut is a terrible place for the Ukrainian forces “meat grinder” On a daily basis, they lose tanks, artillery pieces and armored personnel carrier in the process. It is a strange thought to think that a force fighting along a 1000km front under heavy pressure from its enemy and not likely to see significant amounts of new equipment until late in the summer could switch to offensive and put at risk Crimea.
There is no way that the UAF can mount a credible offensive in the near future. They will be well-served by preventing further Russian advances on the current front. Flag officer advice not only fails to account for obvious battlefield factors that do not support a successful offensive but also encourages U.S. or NATO policymakers and others to support unnecessarily dangerous actions.
This week’s Thursday editorial in Defense One was published by seven ex-four-star generals who were all once the Supreme Allied Commander for NATO. “must do everything” It is possible to make it happen “a Ukrainian victory.” Their main claim is that the U.S. must help Kyiv win because of what Russia would do if they defeat Ukrainian troops.
“It is highly likely,” The seven generals write, “that a successful Russian invasion would have emboldened China to act against Taiwan. History teaches, they continue, “When we are not engaged, even distant conflicts overseas can directly threaten us here at home. This is absurd, with all due respect! China will or won’t move on Taiwan based upon their calculations, regardless if Russia is successful or not.
A far more important lesson from history is that countries that wage wars that are neither necessary nor beneficial to their people have often seen their civilization destroyed. (See also the Greek empire). Roman Empire, British EmpireAll bankrupt by Overreach in imperial or military matters.
The greatest benefit to the United States is for the war between Russia and Ukraine to come to an end, not see it extended possibly for years to come – especially when doing so could spawn the worst possible outcome for us: nuclear escalation. Even America’s allies are finding it difficult to accept the advice of such men with so many stars on their shoulders.
Two weeks ago Petraeus argued When conflict is over, the West should continue to provide support “ironclad security guarantees” Ukraine One week later, Polish president Andrzej Duda NATO to provide security guarantees for Kyiv. Friday’s leaders from France, Germany and the U.K. It was said that Because Russia’s wars occasionally “unfreeze”Ukraine “will need more guarantees from us.”
It is not clear if they were referring to a tri-country pledge or if they meant to seek a NATO guarantee. It is clear that any security guarantee would be foolish to give to a party at war with Russia. Any future hostilities could immediately engulf West.
It is the undisputed national interest of the United States to make good on our obligation to NATO’s Article 5 treaty and defend every inch of NATO territory – it is not in our interest to essentially expand that protection to a volatile partner with a nearly decade-long history of conflict with nuclear armed Russia.
Many of today’s former general officers believe that they are dealing directly with Saddam Hussein, MuammarQaddafi, and Bashar al-Assad. None of these men had the ability to cause any significant harm to the U.S. nor NATO. No matter how much Vladimir Putin is hated by the West and blamed for the war in Ukraine – he’s not in that category because of his nuclear arsenal.
Moscow is not a credible threat to NATO, as it has been shown over the past year of war, in which Russia has failed to control even a fifth the bordering country. Putin will not be able to seize all the Donbas without a massive mobilization. At this time, there is no way for him to seize all of Ukraine. It is worrying that our generals do not seem to understand this military reality.
It is beyond time, therefore, that the American public and leaders – along with our NATO allies – start to apply significantly more scrutiny to claims by retired U.S. generals. The United States could find itself in a conflict that shouldn’t have been fought if their advice continues to be influential on policymakers today.
MORE: B-21 Raider: China should be afraid of America’s new Stealth Bomber
MORE: H-20: China is Building a New Stealth Bomber
MORE: Russia’s Su-57 Felon Stealth Fighter is a total bust?
Expertise in Authorship and Experience
Contributing Editor for 1945, Daniel L. Davis A Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities, he is also a former Lt. Col. of the U.S. Army and was deployed in combat zones four different times. He is also the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
