Let's start with Ukraine. fresh narratives appeared, of course, based on speculation. There are supposedly various camps in Ukraine. On the 1 hand, any point out that Valeria Deserved, Chief of General Staff, is most likely more controlled by the United States. On the another hand – Zelenski and the head of his office, Andrei Jermak is to be controlled by Britain. I have a question about Britain – are there any differences between London and Washington erstwhile it comes to the Ukrainian conflict?
– Let's say Kiev is simply a snake pit, and you ask me which snake is the most dangerous, which is the biggest problem. I don't know. It's all speculation. It reminds me of stories in the 1970s and 1980s erstwhile people speculated who was who in the Kremlin and who had power and who didn't. To be honest, they were usually wrong. In general, London and Washington are very closely linked for better or worse. It's possible London is trying to outrun Washington in many areas. We frequently accept this due to the fact that we like to usage British peculiar Forces in places where the usage of our air force would upset the public in the United States. There are times erstwhile we trust on the British due to the fact that they have better intelligence and we trust them. On the another hand, it is very hard to tell on your question today. It's like betting in the planet football championship who's most likely gonna score another goal. I can't do that. On the another hand, I think both governments are in bad shape. UK – their bond marketplace is simply a disaster. Their economy is falling apart. The British Army is simply a shadow of what was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Laughter is worth what the British brag about due to the fact that they have nothing to support themselves on the military issue. Our own troops are not in the best condition, and frankly, as I have said, the army is besides tiny for the things it is expected to do. We inactive usage the equipment we designed in 1970 to operate in 1980 and 1990. We are prepared for another planet War II, and this is not the war we are now seeing in east Ukraine. In conclusion, we should all quit this business, halt talking about these things and effort for peace and any form of stability. No 1 in the United States will. I wouldn't anticipate anything from London. This makes me look at continental Europe. There, I believe, in Paris, Berlin, Warsaw – these are places where people request to discuss and come up with a solution that will bring peace, ending the conflict. That's where they should work on the arrangements. I don't know how that would go. I say it takes a fresh government. possibly we will have their change in Berlin, we will see the change in Paris. There will be more of the kind of problem we see in France recently, and it will spread to Germany and the UK, most likely Italy, Sweden, Denmark and another countries.
As far as Poland is concerned, there are 2 ways of reasoning about Polish politics. any say our full political class is completely under Washington control. They supply examples like the publication of information in Newsweek that the CIA's main operational group for Ukraine is based here in Poland; that we have 10,000 American soldiers, etc. That we have elites that are totally under American control. Others – I mean any of my American friends – say that it is Poland, the Polish political class trying to drag the United States into the war in Ukraine. What do you think? Who pulls who?
– I think that both sides are someway involved. Poland was admitted to NATO as a breath of freshness to aid deal with the Germans, who usually were against everything the United States wanted to do and what active military force. I happen to be closer to the Germans; I think they were right. I liked Britain more erstwhile Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister and made it clear that under no circumstances would they support us in Vietnam. And they were wise to stay distant from this war. This is simply a kind of sobering good judgement that the United States has to hear from its allies sometimes. In turn, my feeling about Poland is that Polish authorities – I surely do not know adequate about Poles themselves – but Polish leaders would like to be a large power. I get it. That's great. But how do you measurement greatness? For example, I believe that Germany was never greater than erstwhile Otto von Bismarck was Chancellor. Above all, due to the fact that it was decided at any phase to stay distant from wars in Europe and to put Germany in a situation that would prevent wars. erstwhile individual tried to change it, even the Russian Tsar, Alexander II, who wanted the Germans to join Russia in the war against the Turks and the Balkans, Bismarck and the Emperor replied: “This is absurd, we are not curious in the Balkans. It is no of our business."
Without the Germans on Russia's side, it was impossible for Russia to wage this war, due to the fact that it was inevitable to face France, Britain, etc., for various reasons. In another words, Poland is highly located in the heart of Europe, so it can do many things. It could go to war, it could end in destruction. I don't think that would be good for her. But it can usage its importance to bring about a fresh form of stableness in a region where it is unfortunately of small importance today. How to do this is the concern of Warsaw. But I think the problem is that erstwhile they joined NATO, they started reasoning that NATO would do things for them that they couldn't do for themselves. It was a mistake. They didn't request our protection from Russia. Poland was highly capable of defending itself, as the Finns, frequently demonstrated that they were eminently capable of doing so. The problem now is not NATO, but what Poland wants. What does Poland want? What is Poland's long-term strategical interest? If Poland links its long-term strategical interest with the demolition of Russia, it will be over. He's not gonna make it. So what is Poland's long-term interest? I think it's stableness and prosperity. How to accomplish this is your business, but I don't believe it can be achieved by war. And surely not by a war involving NATO.
Douglas Macgregor
As an experienced officer and military expert, could you imagine a situation that was described by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, erstwhile NATO Secretary-General, who is now an advisor to Zelenski, that Poland, Lithuania, possibly another smaller Baltic countries, would join the conflict with no NATO support. This would be a beautiful limited operation, but in Ukraine. What would be the military's point of view of specified an operation, specified a movement?
"Historically, from a European point of view, I am certain that if we had resurrected Jan Sobieski, he would have signed up to this view. Poland's interests ended on the shore of Dnieper. I'm saying that for centuries, Kiev was specified an advanced base. After the Mongol invasion, erstwhile the Polish-Lithuanian state appeared, it was a bridgehead for the West. Continuing erstwhile you start talking about the usage of military force, especially if you are heading for Ukraine, Russia or Belarus, consider the consequences first. How far do you go, how much strength do you need, how much ammo do you have? How do you supply and keep these troops? What kind of support do you anticipate erstwhile you get there? What do you anticipate the Russians to do? It is known that Ukraine is not part of Russia. There is no agreement on this with Russia. If you decision west of Ukraine regardless of NATO, will the Russians accept that? Or will they inactive see you as a Trojan NATO horse? I suspect, regardless of what they say in Vilnius and Warsaw, that they will be treated like a Trojan NATO horse. And the Russians will act decisively, strike to destruct them. So if you're convinced, if that's what Vilnius and Warsaw want, they want something from Western Ukraine, I think it's time to leave NATO. Throw all abroad troops out of Poland and send your diplomats to Moscow. Take your maps, your suggestions and start talking. I know that 5 years ago Putin, after a speech in St. Petersburg, was questioned by journalists and 1 of them asked: "Should we bring Ukraine back to Russia?" He smiled and said: “See, people in western Ukraine want nothing to do with us. They don't want us to regulation them. We realize that.” Then he bitterly stated that "they would most likely be happier surviving with Poles."
President Putin knows the past of his own country. He knows the region, he knows the people who live in it. He has no extraordinary goals. The most maximalistic here is Zelenski. Maximalists are in Washington and London. They want something unattainable. “We will humiliate Putin. We'll bleed out and bring down the Russian army. We will destruct the large power," they call. It's all nonsense, it's bullshit. It is as if individual in 1720, after the demolition of the Swedish army, proposed that the treaty be signed and recorded in it that "we shall now cast out Peter the Great." It's just stupid. We gotta halt this nonsense. Let's start surviving in a possible world. Politics is the art of opportunity. If Warsaw and Vilnius wanted something, why not put a dot where they are now, and fly to Moscow? And get out of NATO! I am certain that if Poles and Lithuanians “divorce” with NATO and talk straight to Moscow, they would be amazed by its flexibility. But as long as you're part of NATO, no substance what you say, if you go to Ukraine, we'll be dragged into a war with Russia. And this is something we don't want. If Washington interferes, it won't take long due to the fact that the Americans won't support it. I know the Germans won't support it, and I don't see any reason for the French to do it. I bet the British will defend themselves against that.
I see. I'll ask about the interior situation in the United States. Many of us here are counting on your presidential election next year. That it could radically, strategically change the situation. There are respective candidates, many from the Republican Party. For example, of course, Donald Trump, who claims to end the war in 24 hours, if I'm not mistaken, but besides Vivek Ramaswamy, who claims to have a peace plan. Do you think there is any chance of a profound change in American strategy after the presidential election?
“We have a large problem with fair elections in the United States. We are not convinced that we can make truly fair and free elections. This problem should be solved. Now, on the basis of our constitution, which was written and designed in the 1780s, each state has its own elections. There are no uniform standards and requirements. It made sense in 1787 due to the fact that erstwhile we created our country, there was practically no national government. All money, strength, power, everything was in individual states. This had to be resolved with certainty, but the civilian war did not leave it. This should be resolved before planet War I, after planet War II, but again it was not. So we have problems here. So I don't know precisely what happens next year. You mentioned Trump, there is besides RFK Junior, Robert F. Kennedy Junior, whose views are in fact the same. I think that if any of them took over, they would effort to bring the war to a swift conclusion, but to do so, we would gotta show our gravity of Moscow first. That would mean the immediate withdrawal of all American troops that are east of the Oder-Nysa line. This would be a real implementation of Mikhail Gorbachev and president George Bush's agreement, under which russian troops withdrew from the German Democratic Republic, Poland and another countries. So it's not just a question of a message like "well, we're against this war, it all has to end." We would most likely hear from the Russians: “We are glad to hear it, thank you for your contact and now do something.” And that would be step one, withdrawing all our troops. erstwhile that happens, it would be clear to everyone in east Europe that we will not support any further acts of hostility towards Russia. Then possibly there'll be any changes. I don't think Zelensky would have survived that. Honestly, I'm amazed president Zelenski is inactive in his office. After all, there are many angry Ukrainians now; I think that the anticipation of his definitive departure as a consequence of the actions of interior opponents is infinitely higher than that of anything the Russians do. That's my individual opinion, based on my sources. We'll see. But remember that nothing is now guaranteed. We live in a different world, the United States is on the verge of a fresh crisis. We have problems very akin to those we see in France now. What happens in France can happen very easy in the United States. This time, I don't think Americans will tolerate it for besides long. Question is, how do we handle this, what do we do? Let's see what the French do.
And then we gotta go back to the economy – how is she now? To be brutal, things are getting worse. I do not see any improvement in the situation with 31, 32 or 33-billion sovereign debt. Are we on credit vacation? How do you compose it down, what do you do? How do you get out of debt? You don't leave. These things are very variable in this complex equation. Saying present what will happen in December 2024 is ridiculous. We can't even begin to foretell what happens until then. However, due to the war, in my opinion, it was time for Warsaw to think carefully about the questions I asked. What are your long-term strategical interests? What are you trying to achieve? Will this be achieved? Will this be achieved with NATO or without NATO? And can you accomplish any of this without talking to Moscow? I don't think so.
That's the answer to the question I wanted to ask you. What would you advise the Polish authorities if you became a national safety advisor here in Warsaw. Do you think that it would affect the situation in Ukraine immediately stopping the transit of weapons for Kiev through Poland?
– Yes, I think that would be the first thing that would happen if the president were Trump or Kennedy, and I was a national safety advisor. I'm certain I'd be instructed to do it first. Discontinue weapons, ammunition, etc. Then ask Russia about talks without preconditions. But I think we would besides gotta privately tell them that, absolutely and without doubt, we will support the neutrality of anything that appears in place of the present country, which we call Ukraine. possibly I wouldn't say it in public, but I think we'd gotta make certain of that privately. Then I think they'd be willing to start talking. However, I do not think that you want the United States to make decisions on the population and borders in east Europe. That was a problem we've been through. You had British, French, and Americans. any thought that the British and the French would realize east Europe better than we do. But they didn't understand. To them, it's like Mars or Jupiter. That is why I would like to be placed at this negotiating table if I were a Pole. I want I had something to say about what happened. As far as Ukrainians are concerned, the problem of Ukraine is that I do not think that Zelenski or anyone associated with him would join these talks. They'd gotta appoint individual else. Or he'll end up like Petlura erstwhile Piłsudski made decisions, and the Ukrainians stood in the rain, waiting for an answer. Like the Prussian king erstwhile the Tsar made peace with Napoleon. That's what happens erstwhile you deal with extremists. And present we are extremists, I have no doubt. There is any kind of emphasis on looking at Russia as bad, on that, there can be no peace with Russia. It's sabotage of reality. This puts distant any affirmative solutions. So, yes, you would gotta have a different leadership of the United States. You would gotta have fresh authorities in Ukraine and – I fishy – Poland too. Current leadership in Poland did not care about good relations with Moscow.
Thank you so much for this conversation.
Good luck! God bless Poland!
Matthew Piskorski spoke
Colonel Douglas Macgregor (born 1953 in Philadelphia) is an American military and analyst, postgraduate of the West Point Military Academy, Ph.D. on global Relations (University of Virginia). By 2004, in the United States Armed Forces (one of the commanders and planners of intervention in Yugoslavia and Iraq), he then co-worker of the Donald Trump administration, advisor to defence secretary Christopher Miller, associate of the academic council at West Point.
photo public domain
Think Poland, No. 31-32 (30.7-6.08.2023)
![Nielisz: Power Sobótka. największą popularnością cieszyły się koncerty [ZDJĘCIA]](https://static2.kronikatygodnia.pl/data/articles/xga-4x3-nielisz-power-sobotka-najwieksza-popularnoscia-cieszyly-sie-koncerty-zdjecia-1751631617.jpg)
