It is unlikely that additional deployed tanks or even fighters will be the decisive factor, although this is also valuable.
The column was recorded as part of a special interview with Stanley McChrystal on the sidelines of the Kyiv Jewish Forum-2023, which took place on February 15-16
Ukraine and Russia have been fighting for a year now, and I think this is not at all what almost all of us expected. The Russians apparently thought the operation to overthrow the Ukrainian government would take four days. Ukraine was probably looking at the longer-term perspective of resolutely defending its country. I guess the West didn’t know exactly what would happen. According to my feelings, there were many people in the West who were ready for a quick victory for Russia. And now it’s all turned into a grueling war often compared to World War I, with lines of trenches that barely move, with an emphasis on artillery battles. Of course, there has been a lot of movement on the battlefield, but in the last few months, in terms of geography, they have been much less than before. And now it seems that we are entering the next phase of the war, about which we are hardly more clear than with the previous one.
If we talk about Russia, then it does have some opportunities to use human resources. For example, in World War II, they lost about 20 million people killed. Therefore, it is worth recognizing the fact that the Russian Federation has the opportunity to bring many more people to war and suffer huge losses. And as more Russian troops arrive, even if they are not as well trained or as well led as they would like, they become a factor in the struggle and they can make it last for a long time.
On the Ukrainian side, one can note the skillful military leadership.
I think at this point the Russians have enough resources to make it difficult for the Ukrainians to carry out major offensives or takeovers, despite the presence of precision weapons. However, at the same time, it is also not easy for the Russians themselves to move forward. So, most likely, we are in for a deadly continuation of everything that we have observed in recent times, until other factors come into play. And it’s hardly about technology.
Yes, of course, the tanks are on their way, and the missiles have already been provided. And indeed, in this war, more than ever, new chips are involved – unmanned aerial vehicles, drones, high-precision weapons, which somewhat changed the nature of the war. But from all I see, the biggest killer on the battlefield is still blunt artillery shells. (i.e. more low-tech 155 artillery shells).
Therefore, it is unlikely that additional deployed tanks or even fighters will be the decisive factor, although this is also valuable.
Much more important will be determination. This is the main difference between the parties in this war. The one who will be determined not to give up and not lose will win. We tend to view war as a scale of military capability. I would say that in the end, it is usually a scale that measures the will.
Why the West initially did not provide Ukraine with all the assistance it requested, and then changed its mind
Unfortunately, wars in the course of their development are often transformed, their goals change. Let’s turn to history. What the West is doing is historically consistent with what usually happens. If we remember most wars, they start for very specific purposes. As soon as the war rages on, these goals are forgotten because they are mixed up or become unattainable. And often the new goal is simply to get out of the war or not lose it.
It’s the same with using things like technology. For example, at the beginning of World War II, each country declared that it was not going to bomb the civilian population. Between the First and Second World Wars, there was a great development of aviation, and suddenly it became possible to carry out heavy bombing. This opportunity was available to all countries. And everyone said that they would not bomb the civilian population. Only military purposes. In fact, the United States went for precision daylight bombing on the assumption that only military targets would be hit. And we remember that just a few months after the start of the war, every country that was a combatant began to bomb the civilian population. The United States has taken it to art. I mean, we’ve gotten to the point where the bombings in both Germany and Japan have become extremely deadly. And then, of course, we used nuclear weapons. That’s why I say that wars tend to flare up on their own, like wildfire. Over time, they gain their own energy.
And I think this also applies to the provision of weapons to the combatant. If we go back to American support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Russians, we started by providing a limited amount of money and weapons. Then, after some time passed, we sent them anti-tank weapons and then anti-aircraft missiles. «Stinger. So as you get into the war and it gets more complex and emotional, you start doubling down like in poker. I think the West’s plan was different from the beginning. The thing is, we provide technology and find that it’s good, but it’s not enough. And so we add to the pot and it keeps growing.
I personally believe that the US should support Ukraine until it wins this fight. And I consider it important that we provide the technologies necessary for this. But I also respect the idea that if you suddenly flood a country with an unthinkable amount of weapons, the effect may not be the results we want. This could lead to the idea that the West is even considering invading Russia.
And so I think that this somewhat slow escalation is frustrating for the Ukrainians, but I think it is natural and could probably have been predicted in advance.
Will nuclear weapons be used
Nobody can be sure of this. Vladimir Putin is an aging autocrat, a dictator. His legacy, as well as his continued power, is likely to depend on the success of this operation. So in the event that he is at risk of complete failure, a military catastrophe, then I think you cannot be sure that he will not use nuclear weapons. However, I believe it will be a tactical nuclear weapon. And its use will be intended to give Western Europeans the idea that we have crossed a red line and that ground war is now possible in Western Europe, which, of course, is very scary for the West.
But in this way, Putin would like to sow doubt among those who support Ukraine. Now we say that the use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable. And when we think about strategic nuclear weapons and the destruction of the planet, this is, of course, true. But I’m not sure that the idea of tactical nuclear weapons is generally unthinkable for many people. I think there is an idea that this could happen on the battlefield itself, in Ukraine. This would shock the Ukrainians. Obviously, this would scare many of the countries that support Ukraine, and then some of those who do not support Ukraine, but are in thought, will suddenly be very, very interested in trying to quickly end the fight.
So you can’t just brush it off. This reality cannot be ignored. I can’t give a percentage of that, but I think it’s unrealistic to say it can’t happen.
What should be the end result of the war
First of all, we return to what George W. Bush said after Iraq’s invasion and conquest of Kuwait in 1990. He said, “This cannot be tolerated.” I think it is important that our first and main message be this: “Ukraine is a sovereign state that wants to remain sovereign, and it has such a right.” And if we, the United States and the West as a whole, are not ready to defend a nation that has the right to survive, and which has also demonstrated a willingness to fight for it, we will weaken ourselves and also let other nations down. In this case, we will kind of tell the world – both the countries under threat and the autocratic leadership of the countries that threaten them – that such aggression is possible.
Therefore, first of all, Ukraine must survive.
Secondly, in a more personal sense, I think that Russia should be defeated. You will say that in reality both should happen. But I think the complete failure of Russia, along with the overthrow of the Putin regime, may be one of our goals. Perhaps we could just create a situation where it becomes clear that Putin’s efforts have failed. When it becomes clear to everyone that it was a bad idea, and it failed in its execution and as a result.
Now we return to the issue of temporarily occupied regions, in particular, Crimea. And I divide this question into two parts. I must warn you right away that I am not an expert on this region. I am sure that these territories of Ukraine, especially Donbass, are Ukrainian. I know that in this part there is a certain percentage of the population of Russian origin, with Russian connections, who speaks Russian. But this territory was occupied, and Ukraine has every right to it.
When you talk about Crimea in an emotional sense, I believe that Ukraine has the right to keep it too. But I don’t think that inside Russia, the Russian population treats Donbass and Crimea in exactly the same way. Probably Crimea more than Donbass is identified with traditional Russia. Therefore, I would leave this issue to the diplomats. Because in this case we are approaching a point, such a collapse, when we can get an episode similar to the end of the First World War, guaranteeing the start of a new war. It is unlikely that this is in anyone’s interests. Therefore, I would say that, in general, Ukraine deserves its sovereignty, but it is worth deciding what is necessary to ensure stability in the future in order to prevent this from happening again.
On political disputes in the United States over support for Ukraine
After the fighting in Mogadishu in 1993, when America lost 18 troops in a heavy firefight, many, including us, left Mogadishu. Most have come to the conclusion that America cannot stand losses, and therefore any time we get into a war, if we take losses, we leave. I think that this turned out to be untrue – in Iraq and Afghanistan, we were ready to bear the losses and invest in these countries. What we’re not good at is staying committed to something we don’t see progress on.
We want to see very clear, measurable progress – with a beginning, a middle and an end result. And that end cannot be too far away. And so I think the national nature of America makes it problematic for us to be able to stay focused on something that is long-term, without a clear end perspective, which is Afghanistan. And that becomes a vulnerability. This is in our national character – we need constant reinforcement of how important this is for us, which we could not see either in Afghanistan or in Iraq. And so the national support for these regions began to weaken rather quickly. So I think we need to sort this out. And we need to get that message across to the American people.
You know, we need to prove that this is important, just like when we sent troops to Japan and Germany after World War II.
The other side of this problem is that there is a political dynamic in the US which means that the opposition tends to oppose everything the ruling party does. So even if it doesn’t make sense in terms of US global political politics, it becomes leverage. And that’s risky, because I’ve always believed that American policy should stop at the water’s edge, at our national borders, but that’s not the case now.
I think the danger today is that Ukraine is becoming a political football that is completely separate from the pros and cons or interests of the United States regarding this issue. The Ukrainian question is simply becoming something that can be used for political purposes. Is it dangerous. And Americans should hold leaders on both sides to account by saying that you can argue about many things, but you can’t argue when it comes to threatening America’s political interests around the world and the interests of our allies like Ukraine.
Translation NV
Join our telegram channel Views of NV
