American generals were mistaken about the Ukraine war! - NEDRET ERSANEL

American generals were mistaken about the Ukraine war!

We can start the discussion first on retired and active U.S. generals, because this is what Americans are doing right now. (‘U.S. Generals Have Been Wrong On Ukraine. We Shouldn’t Be Shocked’, 02/07, D. Davis, 19fortyfive.) 

 The claims by retired Lt. Gen. Frederick B. Hodges, who served as commander of the U.S. army in Germany until 2017, in the New York Times (June 21), stating that “Ukraine’s forces—bolstered by heavy artillery from the West—would slow Russia’s advance and begin to roll back its gains by late summer,” and that the “Ukrainian logistical situation is getting better each week while the Russian logistical situation will slowly degrade” seems to be the tipping point. 

 The objections are simple: There’s a stark contrast between such discourses by top-level U.S. military authorities and the realities of the battlefield. They are implying that “the truth is being twisted,” and in fact, that “they are lying.” In addition, they are saying that this is not new, and that these generals have been making this mistake for decades. 

It's true. Those who listened to the retired generals and admirals’ claims throughout the Ukraine war could have believed that Kyiv had actually won the war. 

Of course, the war is not over just yet and can change direction. Extraordinary events that may impact its trajectory are likely. Nobody has the knowledge to estimate this. But the latest status, the flow of life tells us that Russia won on the ground. 

* * * 

“These conflicting claims make lawmakers, the American public, and us believe in encouraging Ukraine to prolong the war against Russia. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to provide Kyiv with critical weapons, as well as political and moral support, to defend itself.” 

 This is what they are saying. But what they really want to say is that this is being done not to support the official propaganda, boost Kyiv’s morale, or even launch a psychological attack on Moscow, but to strengthen the American public’s belief in the war. 

 Making the American public believe in the war! 

Their expectation is not Ukraine’s victory—or even Russia’s defeat. Sure, it would be great if the Kremlin collapsed. But this needs to be monitored specifically within the context of global balances. However, in Washington’s case, “making the public believe in the war” means controlling the country and the world, consolidating much greater power for the elections. 

The American generals and retired hotshots in the Pentagon and NATO told dozens of lies about Russian military dynamics, psychology, and defeat. Among these, there are also the statements made by top-ranking military intelligence authorities to senators during Congress sessions—such as Russian troops rebelling against their commander’s orders and fleeing. 

Today, we can see that the overwhelming majority of these claims are far from the truth.


What about the retired generals who conveyed to the Turkish public the same comments for days through the maps presented on TV screens almost during the same time period? 

I am not referring to all of them—that would be wrong. I don’t think they want to twist the truth like their American colleagues. 

But I do think that, while following the war, they largely used Western and U.S.-U.K. sources. I believe they first resorted to Western information tools. The West’s obscuration of Eastern sources must have been effective as well. Thus, even if they didn’t intend to, they gave rise to the same impact among the Turkish public as well.

In contrast, there were also those who thought that the war would allow the West and the U.S. to re-emerge, unite with the influence of the Western vestiges within their own legal acquis, and impact interior policies. We witnessed some “academics and retired diplomats” do exactly this. But we are not talking about them. If we were, our tone would be different.  

NATO’s strategic concept

NATO’s strategic document, which brands Russia and China as “enemies,” may become useless in months, depending on the results of America’s November elections and the Ukraine war. 

The 2010 plan was underhandedly preaching naive perspectives planning “green strategies,” a “Green Deal” future, as well as the sniveling Greta propaganda. Today, the greens support the war, spending billions of euros on the defense industry, and the use of coal and nuclear energy. 

The last “Strategic Concept,” on the other hand is an incredibly inflated document. Not only is the document futile, but so are those who are blowing it out of proportion. 

It would have been “strategic” if it answered the following questions: Are some important allies convinced by the American policies that impose these new enemies on NATO, and the “NATO acceptances all over again”? Do they have the economic and political power to achieve these? 

Just as the bucket-loads of money that were promised are nowhere to be seen, all of these countries, including the U.S., are experiencing serious internal economic threats. 

European countries in particular are already displeased about standing against Russia, while on tenterhooks that their relations with China will sour as well.  

In Turkey’s case, NATO’s “rise” and rivalry against Russia may boost Ankara’s value. But it will limit the domain of balance policies! 

Hence, Ankara is constantly repeating that it “will maintain its balancing policies.” This means, “We will follow our own path.” 

Furthermore, there are those who still refer to the “spirit” of the NATO deal, saying, “Parties of the deal are determined to protect the freedoms, common heritage, and civilizations of all peoples based on the principle of the superiority of democracy, personal freedoms, and law.” 

Yet, NATO, in other words, the U.S., harassed all nations by violating these very values. 


Cookies are used limited to the purposes in th e Personal Data Protection Law No.6698 and in accordance with the legislation. For detailed information, you can review our cookie policy.