The famous American General: Russian Army Degrading in Ukraine

While the Russian invaders have shown a number of weaknesses: wrong planning; the highly optimistic predictions of intelligence about how conflict would occur; the underestimation of Ukrainian forces and people; the maintenance and non-adquate logistics; the unimpressive equipment; the support of recruits and the inability to wage an effective cyberwar.

During the CNN interview, Petraus, who has been leading the CIA, praised the war in Ukraine. He is sceptical if the Russians have enough power to take over the country, saying the ongoing urban struggle in general would favour Ukrainians. However, it also notes that Russians have the enormous capacity to destroy cities, civilian objects and critical infrastructure, and they will destroy urban areas in an effort to take over, abcnews reports. al

Petraus praised the actions of the Biden administration and its allies in recent weeks and noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin, instead of making Russia big again, has done so. NATO again big.

INT ERVISTA

Journalist: Is the resistance of the Russian army in Ukraine surprising?

GeneralKind of surprising, but not completely. And there are many reasons for the terrible performance of the Russians. First of all, they are fighting a very determined, highly skilled force, consisting of special operations, conventional forces, territorial forces, and even citizens, who are all determined not to allow Russia to achieve its goals.

They are fighting for their national survival, their homeland and have priority in the field, knowing the terrain and communities. But beyond that, Russians are surprisingly unprofessive. They obviously have very poor standards when it comes to performing basic tactical tasks such as combined weapons operations, which include armor, infantry and artillery.

They are very weak in maintaining vehicles and weapons systems, also in logistics. Part of the problem is that the Russian military has a considerable percentage of recruits. About 20 to 25% are recruits.

Their minorities are not very effective. This was highlighted by the fact that they failed to destroy the track in Ukraine as we did in Iraq in 2003. So the exact Russian ammunition is missing. We can also see this in resistance to Russians who hit civilian infrastructure, such as the hospital in Marioupol, other medical centres and government centres in Kharkiv.

So in every single field of appreciation, the Russians are facing an enemy that is absolutely determined, surprisingly capable, very innovative and resourceful, and struggling with resistance. Most of the population also hate the Russians, and this hatred is deepening even more after every blow to civilian infrastructure.

Not only are the Russians not winning hearts and minds, but they are alienating the hearts and minds of citizens.

Journal: Is fate on the Russian side?

General: The great destructive capacity of Russian bombs, missiles, missiles, artillery and mortars should certainly be a major concern.

It's clear that they don't have enough force to get, much less to control, Kiev and some of the other big cities, but they have rockets, rockets, artillery and bombs. So they are continuing the approach they used in Chechnya, especially Grozn, and in Syria, especially with the Alepon, where they depleted cities with overuse of bombs.

And there will be a competition of stability between the Russian willingness to destroy Ukrainian cities and the ability to survive such destruction.

Journal: Will the Ukrainians favour urban war?

General. Usually, the general rule of urban warfare is that it requires at least five attackers for each defender. I'd say it's more than that after the Ukrainians have been very resourceful.

Of course, the Russians will have some success in some cities, and of course, the battle for Marioupolis is a race among Ukrainian famines that remain there, where Ukrainian forces are still struggling with their lives, and there is the willingness of Russians to bomb civilian areas.

Journalist: If Putin decides to take all of Ukraine, what is the greatness of the army he would need?

General: I'm not sure. I don't think even his entire army can't do that, and this is Putin's obvious inability to replace the forces that are currently fighting.

Journalist: American officials say Russia is asking China for military assistance and other forms of assistance. What do you think of that?

General: The report by American officials is interesting in some ways.

First, If that's correct, this indicates that Russia is running out of weapons and ammunition systems.

Second, this presents a very difficult issue for China. China abstained in the UN General Assembly vote, in which 141 countries sentenced Russia for its unprotested aggression.

Third, Beyond these issues, President Xi Jinping must be frustrated with Russia's invasion, as Ukraine's largest trading partner was China.

Finally, Putin can put Xi in a very difficult position.

Journal: What do the Russians need most?

General: Clearly, American antitank system Yavelin. And it's not just that, it's also antitank systems of other countries and mobile air protection systems. The British AT system is very good. 17,000 of these antitank weapons entered Ukraine in just one week.

Journal: Should the United States have armed Ukraine after Putin invaded Crimea in 2014?

General: Congress authorised the shipment of weapons Yavelin to Ukraine but was later suspended by the Obama administration.

The attempt by the Beden Administration to arm Ukrainians and the actions of our Western partners has indeed been quite dramatic, especially on the immediate eve of the invasion. Even Germany, which said that it would only send nonlethal weapons before the invasion, changed its mind.

Even the EU agreed to send 500m euros in military aid to Ukraine. So, there were revolutionary policy changes just days after the invasion began.

JournalAre you surprised?

General: I think you should give US credit, NATO and the EU. I think the Biden administration has acted impressively and I say that as someone who publicly criticised the administration for the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan in August 2021.

Journalist: Getting into Putin's mind, of course, is not easy, but to what extent do you think the US withdrawal from Afghanistan could have helped Putin in his accounts?

General:  With hearts, I think the actions of the United States and those of our allies worldwide for Ukraine have shown that the United States is a reliable partner and is not a great force in decline.

This war, instead of making Russia big again, has done NATO again the Great.

Journal: There have been warnings from the White House for possible use of chemical weapons by Putin. Is it true?

General: They used the Novichok nervous agent against opponents of the regime like Sergei Scripal and Alexei Navalny. It's not known if they have them in large quantities and if they're available, but that should be serious concern.

JournalRussians have caused many casualties, according to American officials.

General:Yeah. They seem to have killed more civilians in the first two weeks of the war than the U.S. in 20 years in Iraq; some 5,000 or more.

Journal: Is the situation for Putin politically stable, or is it still unclear?

GeneralOnly time will tell. He's still very powerful. But when the mothers of the fallen soldiers start standing up what will happen or when the economic collapse affects the country?

In fact, 380 companies have suspended operations in Russia. No one can predict what the results of sanctions, frozen assets, suspension of activities and other actions on Russia and the Russian people will be.

JournalWhat do you think of the Russian attack on Ukrainian base near the Polish border: Does this indicate that conflict can extend beyond the borders of Ukraine?

General: The Russian attack on the vast Ukrainian training base near Lviv was undoubtedly an attempt to prevent the supply of weapons to Ukraine from Poland, about 12 miles west, and also to destroy the location in which foreign volunteers are preparing before joining Ukrainian forces.

In view of border proximity, this clearly raises concerns about attacks in a nearby country NATO something that would require a NATO response given NATO's commitment to Article 5.

Journalist: After the start of the Iraq War in 2003, you were asked by a journalist, “how will the war end? How does the Ukrainian War end?

General: Well, I think there are several possibilities, and I'm not sure which is closer to reality. However, for now, it will not end and it will be a bloody war for Russia that is worse than the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

War will cause many casualties, a massive humanitarian disaster, as well as terrible losses for Russia. We're talking about it in the short term; in other words, next year or so.

There may also be a solution, since both Putin and Zelensky realise that neither of them can fully achieve what they want and that both sides have suffered serious damage. There is another possibility, of course, if Putin is no longer in power. A new leader may withdraw from Ukraine, perhaps attempting to reach an agreement.

Of course, the leader behind Putin could be as ruthless, insensitive and kleptocratic as Putin was, so we should always soften our optimism when it comes to Russia.

There is a fourth possibility that cannot be disfellowshipped, and that is for Ukraine, in a sense, to win. Ukraine can Russians on the battlefield and gradually, the real battlefield moves to Moscow. And maybe Ukraine will re-launch Donbas or set some conditions for Russia.

There are at least these four options. Unfortunately, what is most likely to happen in the short term is the continuation of the war, with some Russian successes and some costly failures, as well as increasing economic damages: rising inflation and unemployment.