Great interview. It didn't bug me at all, which is unusual.
In defense of the firing of the General, I would say that Lincoln fired more than a few before he got the "right" one (Truman too), so while I don't know that it won't lead to disaster, it isn't exactly unusual to get rid of a popular General
Russian economy. Can't say I'm surprised. Russia has solid leaders in this area, and I expect China is helping quite a bit too. I would prefer that they stopped the assistance, but Europe is applying pressure, which is good. I hope China gets stuck with a bunch of bad debts, but I don't think that will happen. Too bad. I would add that GDP doesn't mean much of anything in wartime. Russia is hurting, just not as much as most in the West would like.
The predicted power shortages in Western Europe have not come to fruition either. At least yet.
In my view there’s a key difference between Lincoln firing McClellan et. al. and Zelensky firing Zaluzny.
Lincoln’s early generals refused to marshal the North’s vastly superior material resources to capture territory in the comparatively weak South. The North was in a vastly superior material position to the South, whereas Ukraine is in a vastly inferior material position vis-a-vis Russia, and it depends on Western European & American support to make up for that gap.
Agree with your facts, but a President should remove a General for whatever reason he sees fit.
In the end, McClellan did go to the Peninsula, and from what I understand, he did well other than panicking due to the unknowns and retreated. Had he not retreated, the war might have been won, and slavery survived, so I say it worked out despite all the deaths that followed.
I hope the General takes it better than McClellan. Hooker, Burnside, Pope, and probably many others continued to serve following being relieved. I have not heard anything about how he responded, but he obviously would be a good person to keep around in some function.
The story I have heard (as a non-expert on Ukraine’s domestic politics) is that Zaluzny was much more popular than Zelensky and was becoming a political figure who had enough support to seriously challenge Zelensky for the Presidency of Ukraine.
The question of whether a President should fire a general for any reason is not strictly pertinent to this post, but I’d say a President shouldn’t fire a general merely due to political disagreements. It should be based on the general proving to be ineffective as a commander.
I can see a good argument for that position, but any reason (including petty reasons) are valid. The President and the country will face consequences in such situations that might be very negative for the country; I would not pretend to know what those consequences are. Only time will tell and neither of us are in the rooms where the decisions were made.
In the US, we tend to elect Generals as Presidents and more than a few have run following being relieved; none of the relieved ones have been elected to my knowledge. Relieving generals can be grossly unfair too; Warren, a hero at Gettysburg, was relieved at the very end of the Civil War and never got over it. I feel bad for him, but what can one do? It's the senior's decision to make.
Generals are subject to employment-at-will like the rest of us but I don’t agree that any reason is valid and cannot be second-guessed. There can be equally dire consequences for the fate of the nation or a war effort if the President relives a general for petty or political reasons.
The U.S. is hardly unique in having many former high-ranking military leaders become head of state. It happens all the time, always has.
I agree with the exception that any reason is valid; I think it is. That doesn't make it a good idea, and I see no reason not to second guess it, but I am confident that we are not in the position to question the wisdom of such a move as we need more information. It can be fun to do such a thing, but recognize we do not have the information necessary to evaluate.
It is entirely possible that the Ukrainian army is in a bit of a crisis and about to start losing badly unless huge risks are run that can bring great losses, and the relieved general refused to take those risks without activating the young people who have not been subject to the draft. I don't think that is the case, but it is conceivable as I do not know conditions on the ground or political/economic support within Ukraine, EU, and the US. I don't even have casualty figures that I trust and I do not believe anyone claiming to know is trustworthy as they do not recognize their limits; or they do indeed have quality information whose source they cannot share.
We're all guessing but some people have better information upon which to base their guesses.
John, from someone who studied under Prof John Garnett of the at-the-time Realist Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University.
You make it clear in your Great book that in the anarchy, there is uncertainty regarding states’ intentions [2001, pp30-1], and yet, when it comes to the Ukraine war, much of your opposition to the the West's position relies on "Putin has made it clear that he does not intend to conquer all of Ukraine".
You criticise UK & USA for threat inflation, and yet it has been for 3 decades the frontline states making the loudest siren calls, in line with Offensive Realist thinking: Great Powers (such as Russia) will seek to dominate their neighbours with their offensive military capabilities.
Not sure how you can't see that Iran is the pre-eminent Great Power in the Middle East, dominating as it does the entire Fertile Crescent and physically controlling most of it, even without the backing of its biggest oil customer (PRC) and biggest weapons customer (Russia).
Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. "What I’m describing is military rule," says Mike Benz. "It’s the inversion of democracy." -- https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1758529993280205039?s=20
I would disagree slightly with John on the following point: while it’s clearly true that Ukraine needs weapons more than money if it wants to carry on the war effort, it needs soldiers even more desperately. And at this point, it does not have nearly enough military age men to continue the campaign. A huge number of young Ukrainian men have fled the country; a huge portion of those who have remained have died or been seriously wounded in combat.
Ukraine needs tanks and guns, but it will all be a moot point if it does not have soldiers to man the tanks and fire the guns.
If the only way to gain access to your material is to let folks, of whom I don’t know nothing, deposit cookies on my phone/computer then I choose not to continue with this subscription!
Great interview. It didn't bug me at all, which is unusual.
In defense of the firing of the General, I would say that Lincoln fired more than a few before he got the "right" one (Truman too), so while I don't know that it won't lead to disaster, it isn't exactly unusual to get rid of a popular General
Russian economy. Can't say I'm surprised. Russia has solid leaders in this area, and I expect China is helping quite a bit too. I would prefer that they stopped the assistance, but Europe is applying pressure, which is good. I hope China gets stuck with a bunch of bad debts, but I don't think that will happen. Too bad. I would add that GDP doesn't mean much of anything in wartime. Russia is hurting, just not as much as most in the West would like.
The predicted power shortages in Western Europe have not come to fruition either. At least yet.
In my view there’s a key difference between Lincoln firing McClellan et. al. and Zelensky firing Zaluzny.
Lincoln’s early generals refused to marshal the North’s vastly superior material resources to capture territory in the comparatively weak South. The North was in a vastly superior material position to the South, whereas Ukraine is in a vastly inferior material position vis-a-vis Russia, and it depends on Western European & American support to make up for that gap.
Agree with your facts, but a President should remove a General for whatever reason he sees fit.
In the end, McClellan did go to the Peninsula, and from what I understand, he did well other than panicking due to the unknowns and retreated. Had he not retreated, the war might have been won, and slavery survived, so I say it worked out despite all the deaths that followed.
I hope the General takes it better than McClellan. Hooker, Burnside, Pope, and probably many others continued to serve following being relieved. I have not heard anything about how he responded, but he obviously would be a good person to keep around in some function.
The story I have heard (as a non-expert on Ukraine’s domestic politics) is that Zaluzny was much more popular than Zelensky and was becoming a political figure who had enough support to seriously challenge Zelensky for the Presidency of Ukraine.
The question of whether a President should fire a general for any reason is not strictly pertinent to this post, but I’d say a President shouldn’t fire a general merely due to political disagreements. It should be based on the general proving to be ineffective as a commander.
I can see a good argument for that position, but any reason (including petty reasons) are valid. The President and the country will face consequences in such situations that might be very negative for the country; I would not pretend to know what those consequences are. Only time will tell and neither of us are in the rooms where the decisions were made.
In the US, we tend to elect Generals as Presidents and more than a few have run following being relieved; none of the relieved ones have been elected to my knowledge. Relieving generals can be grossly unfair too; Warren, a hero at Gettysburg, was relieved at the very end of the Civil War and never got over it. I feel bad for him, but what can one do? It's the senior's decision to make.
Generals are subject to employment-at-will like the rest of us but I don’t agree that any reason is valid and cannot be second-guessed. There can be equally dire consequences for the fate of the nation or a war effort if the President relives a general for petty or political reasons.
The U.S. is hardly unique in having many former high-ranking military leaders become head of state. It happens all the time, always has.
I agree with the exception that any reason is valid; I think it is. That doesn't make it a good idea, and I see no reason not to second guess it, but I am confident that we are not in the position to question the wisdom of such a move as we need more information. It can be fun to do such a thing, but recognize we do not have the information necessary to evaluate.
It is entirely possible that the Ukrainian army is in a bit of a crisis and about to start losing badly unless huge risks are run that can bring great losses, and the relieved general refused to take those risks without activating the young people who have not been subject to the draft. I don't think that is the case, but it is conceivable as I do not know conditions on the ground or political/economic support within Ukraine, EU, and the US. I don't even have casualty figures that I trust and I do not believe anyone claiming to know is trustworthy as they do not recognize their limits; or they do indeed have quality information whose source they cannot share.
We're all guessing but some people have better information upon which to base their guesses.
John, from someone who studied under Prof John Garnett of the at-the-time Realist Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University.
You make it clear in your Great book that in the anarchy, there is uncertainty regarding states’ intentions [2001, pp30-1], and yet, when it comes to the Ukraine war, much of your opposition to the the West's position relies on "Putin has made it clear that he does not intend to conquer all of Ukraine".
You criticise UK & USA for threat inflation, and yet it has been for 3 decades the frontline states making the loudest siren calls, in line with Offensive Realist thinking: Great Powers (such as Russia) will seek to dominate their neighbours with their offensive military capabilities.
Not sure how you can't see that Iran is the pre-eminent Great Power in the Middle East, dominating as it does the entire Fertile Crescent and physically controlling most of it, even without the backing of its biggest oil customer (PRC) and biggest weapons customer (Russia).
Thank you, very interesting interview!
Bravo !!
Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. "What I’m describing is military rule," says Mike Benz. "It’s the inversion of democracy." -- https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1758529993280205039?s=20
I would disagree slightly with John on the following point: while it’s clearly true that Ukraine needs weapons more than money if it wants to carry on the war effort, it needs soldiers even more desperately. And at this point, it does not have nearly enough military age men to continue the campaign. A huge number of young Ukrainian men have fled the country; a huge portion of those who have remained have died or been seriously wounded in combat.
Ukraine needs tanks and guns, but it will all be a moot point if it does not have soldiers to man the tanks and fire the guns.
Dear John,
If the only way to gain access to your material is to let folks, of whom I don’t know nothing, deposit cookies on my phone/computer then I choose not to continue with this subscription!
That is the first time this has happened