The Bulwark Podcast - Mark Hertling: What My Oath Means

Episode Date: February 7, 2023

The balloon set off a performance theater among members of Congress that was unbecoming of their rank and office, Lt. Gen Mark Hertling tells Charlie Sykes on today's podcast. Plus, how Jan 6 has impacted education at military colleges, and an update on the war in Ukraine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the Bold Work Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. It is February 7th, 2023. And if you listen to the media, all eyes are going to be on the State of the Union Address later today. Not really. I confess in my newsletter this morning that I am a little bit jaded about State of the Union Addresses. I've watched too many of morning that I am a little bit jaded about State of the Union addresses. I've watched too many of them. So I'm underwhelmed by it. Look, I'm sure that Joe Biden is going to do a fine job, workmanlike job, you know, walk through a lot of substance, take some victory laps, you know, maybe take some shots at some of the crazier Republican policies. But to the extent there's going to be any drama, it's probably going to be the reaction of the performative House majority to the address. And so we will devote

a lot of time to talking about that tomorrow and over the next couple of days. Today, I wanted to do something very, very different. And we are very fortunate to welcome back on the podcast, retired General Mark Hertling. Mark, as you know, is a retired Lieutenant General, is a former Commanding General of the U.S. Army Europe and the Seventh Army. He has also commanded the Army's 1st Armored Division, and he's now a military analyst for CNN. General Hertling, thank you for coming back on the podcast. Charlie, it is always a pleasure to be with you, especially with some of the more crazy stories that are going on right now, as well as some of the important ones surrounding Ukraine and the state of our democracy. be shaping up. I also want to talk to you about a slightly more cosmic issue, just what you see

as the danger to society of authoritarianism, and then how, as a retired soldier, you look at that oath of office. So I want to get to that, but obviously we need to start with some of the breaking news about the balloon. And I don't know where you want to start there, you know, how it was handled. And of course, this rather extraordinary story, we're now realizing how large it was. I think it's really interesting that the thing is like 200 feet tall, you know, carried equipment that measured the size of a regional jet. Right. And now we're finding out that there had been previous incursions that apparently we did not detect.

So I really wanted to get your take on this. How can the Chinese have balloons in U.S. airspace and our military not know about it? You know, the first thing, Charlie, I'd point out just from a comic relief standpoint is now we're seeing various media outlets compare the balloon to the Snoopy balloon in the Thanksgiving takeaways. I love that. It's like, okay, how much sillier can we make this? But going back to your question, how could we not detect it? I don't know. They provide a radar signature, but they are slow moving.

And when you're talking about defending the boundaries of both the United States and Canada, which is a job for NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, they're focused on ballistic missiles and bombers and things like that. So when you're talking about even something with a big signature, it is very slow moving and it can literally come underneath the radar, if you will, of some of the kinds of things that NORAD normally looks for, because they are looking for high threat activity, like I said, nuclear weapons or bombers coming into our territory. So maybe it was just one of those things they weren't focused on. I am not a NORAD kind of guy, never been assigned there, never been assigned to aerospace defense, so I just don't know.

But I think it's fascinating that they will readily admit that this has happened in the past. And as importantly, it's an attempt eventually going to shoot it down. But if there were five previous incursions and we didn't know about it, have they probed? Have they discovered some sort of a vulnerability? The previous incursions, from what I'm understanding, were actually noticed by the intelligence community, not as much by NORAD. I don't know if that's right or wrong. That's conjecture on my part. But the intelligence community has been watching, and they know that China has a fleet of these kinds of intelligence collection balloons, which, by the way, Charlie, so do we. We've got something called an aerostat. And if you're ever traveling on the roads in Arizona or southern New Mexico, you will find aerostats tied close to the border to watch immigrants come across and get some

intelligence on that. And I used six of them in northern Iraq when I was there in 2007 and 2008. We had them over some of our forward operating bases just to detect a movement of insurgents as well as strikes from rockets and mortars. So it's not like this is something that's unusual. A lot of countries use it. There's a long history behind it, but it goes back to your original question. Do we have a dearth of intelligence collection from our air defense capability with these balloons coming in? And, you know, the commander

of NORAD said, yes, we do. So we're going to be watching it much closer. So when you were on CNN, you pointed out that China's probably looking at a number of things, including, you know, what techniques we're using, you know, military tracking, how it is communicating about the craft, but that they're also watching how the country responded, what kind of divisions there are inside the government, the way the Congress is reacting to Joe Biden, how Americans reacted generally. So from the Chinese point of view, what are they seeing? I think the initial requirement or attempt is to gather electronic intelligence.

Let's address that issue first. And as I said on CNN yesterday, I think it was, as a former cavalryman, I was a reconnaissance guy, an armor guy during my career in the military. And I learned early on through training and operations that when you're doing reconnaissance, it's really important to do counter reconnaissance. And a smart counter reconnaissance person like a cavalryman spends a lot of time observing, reporting, and analyzing. And in fact, there's a saying in the army that cavalrymen do not ever, if they're doing their job right, fire the first shot. They let the enemy come into their territory, see what the intent is, see what kinds of things are going on and try and

collect intelligence on an enemy formation. And I think that's what we were doing on this. And in fact, now I know, talking to some of my contacts in government and in the military, when this balloon was going over our territory, when it was in fact noticed by NORAD and seen coming across the Bering Sea and then into the Aleutian Island chain, then into Canada, by the way, it was in Canada for a very long time. And then finally into the northern part of the United States, a combined force of both the Canadian and American portions of NORAD were tracking it and seeing exactly what the hell is this thing doing? And they put some counter jamming capability or

counter electronic capability on this device as it proceeded across the country. Now, I can't go into the details of the reconnaissance, but when you're talking about things that I do know about, because I've used them in combat, an airplane called Rivet Joint, P-8s, something called Combat Scent, even U-2s, the old U-2 spy planes that we have transformed into a different kind of listening device and intelligence collection device. That balloon was more than likely surrounded by those kind of aircraft the entire time it was in U.S. airspace. And we probably got more information from it

than the Chinese did. And in fact, the commander of NORAD said that this morning. So you don't want to shoot something down when you're collecting intelligence from it, because it's giving you information. I think that was the value of actually tracking across the United States. It was not collecting on any of our bases, as some people are currently claiming, because it was jam spoofed and we were getting a whole lot more intelligence. But going back to your original question, what can the Chinese government learn from this? It can learn about our processes. You know, when the president calls a meeting of his advisors and gets some intelligence feed, you know, a rash actor would immediately say,

shoot it down. Can you imagine if that balloon had been shot down on the first day it was observed and the Chinese still could have claimed it was a weather balloon, even though we had the information? It would seem to me, and I know I'm part of the let it go cult as opposed to shoot it down right now cult. It seems to me, if we had shot it down, it would have become a much greater international incident. And we would not have gained intelligence from that device that we currently have now and can stop future ones. And in fact, we're feeding some of that intelligence to countries in Latin America and South America where the second balloon is going. Well, the thing about the balloon theater was that it was substantive. I mean,

there's real issues involved in terms of our relations with China, but also there was just the pure silliness of it. And you've dealt with this in the past, all of the politicians and lay people who suddenly become experts on things military. But that was really quite a series of vignettes watching members of Congress actually pose with handguns and rifles talking about shooting it down. I can address that. And I think we're probably going to talk about that later on. The performance theater, when we're talking about important issues of national defense or the politics of the nation. The performance theater that seemed to be exhibited by some, to me, is not only unprofessional, but it's exceedingly immature. Charlie, during my time in the military, I had to testify before Congress on several occasions. And there were always one

or two that the guys that prepared the military commanders to testify would say, hey, Congressman Smith or Senator Jones are going to hit you up with these kind of things. And my immediate reaction was, boy, that's really silly, but that's what they were interested in. Now it seems like we have an entire cubby of these individuals who are doing things, and to include former administration officials like the Secretary of State, who's posing with a gun shooting up in the air. It's unbecoming of their rank and their office and their duties to the nation. That's what bothered me about this whole thing. To the extent there's any good news at all, there were early reports that the Republicans were going

to pass a resolution condemning Biden over his response before the State of the Union. Apparently, they backed off on that and they're going to have a resolution that will just target the Chinese. But it was interesting how that narrative that this showed how Biden was weak and that we were being humiliated, was being pushed out. I want to get your take on this. It would seem to me this is a huge embarrassment to the Chinese. They cannot be looking at this as a success. No, absolutely. That is absolutely true. And going to those who wanted to condemn the president on this, I think they would have been embarrassed.

The original plan, as I understood it, was to brief a gang of eight and others in Congress today before the State of the Union. Would that have quieted them and caused them to be more embarrassed? But I got to tell you, when I speak on CNN, just like when you speak on MSNBC, we base our conversations on things we've experienced in the past. I've been in these kind of meetings where decision cycles are part of the game and how you kind of take all input from the various experts. I wasn't in this one.

You know, I wasn't in the Oval Office when they were discussing what to do with the balloons, but I kind of know sort of what went on without having detailed intelligence. And what I would say is when it's briefed to members of Congress, they're going to find out three things. Number one, the president probably did the right thing at the right time throughout the travels of this balloon. It gave the military and the intelligence community the ability to learn more about this device. We also, by the way, put in place the open skies protocol and were able to practice that as this balloon went across our airspace. But finally, as you just said, this has got to be embarrassing to the Chinese because it was so clumsy. And China has proven

themselves to be clumsy in intelligence collection in the past as well. I said this on the podcast yesterday. All you need to do is a thought experiment. Imagine it was the other way around and Joe Biden had sent a giant balloon over China, the Chinese discovered it and then shot it down in the view of the whole world. We would think of that as one of the great humiliations and just embarrassing moment for the U.S. government. And many of the same people that are criticizing Biden, if it had been the other way around, would have seen this as just a massive American defeat. This seems to have been a massive red face for China, which had reportedly wanted to engage in some kind of a charm offensive. I mean, whether you think that they are trying to mislead us by being charming falsely, or that they are trying to bully us and intimidate us with their massive military might.

This does neither. No, it certainly does not. You know, and I've been to China a couple of times. I've seen their military in exercises and training events, and they have a very large military is very capable. Don't get me wrong, but this is an embarrassment. And those on our side, members of our team that played into this, you know, there's an old expression in the army that sometimes the right approach is ready, aim, fire. But sometimes you have people that are ready, fire, aim. And this one seems to be a,

in many cases, a fire ready, aim approach. There's prudence that's required in government decision-making, and we certainly saw both sides of that, the good and the bad, over the last week. All right, I want to just pause and take a breath and change subjects a little bit. I want to get to what's happening in Ukraine, which I find to be very, very ominous that things seem to be coming to a head. But I know you have been giving a lot of thought to the threat to our society of authoritarianism, the threat posed by people like Steve Bannon. And as an old soldier, what's your oath really mean? So let's talk about that and what you are seeing and thinking that is concerning you right now. Yeah. When I was the commander of U.S. Army Europe, I had a chance to visit most of the 49

countries that are in the European footprint that were part of my area of operations. You know, beyond the doing of the duties that I had to do going to the embassies and working with the militaries of our partners, whenever I was with a group of allied or partner soldiers, I would ask the question, what do you swear an oath to? And I would get kind of interesting responses like, oh, well, we swear the oath to the president or the motherland or the fatherland or the king or the queen, whatever it happened to be. In Israel, for example, they swear an oath to put themselves between the people and the sea, which is kind of a unique oath when they take the oath of office. But the reason I did that is because I wanted to find out what other militaries see as important. What we do, we swear an oath. I mean, I can recite it. It's by memory. I, Mark Hurling,

do soundly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will bear truth, faith, and allegiance to the same. I take this obligation willingly and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully execute the duties of the office upon which I'm about to enter. Now, that oath was developed, or parts of that oath was developed by George Washington. And what's interesting to me is that's not only the oath of an officer in the military, the oath for the enlisted is slightly different, but it's also the oath of all members of our government, senators, congressmen, presidents, cabinet heads. It's the same oath with maybe just a little bit of change. But the uniqueness of it

is we swear, while others swear to defend a king or a motherland, we swear to defend a piece of paper, the constitution. That's ideas, values, the kinds of things that are our cultural norms from a country that's just over 250 years old. And to me, that's pretty beautiful. The difference in that is if you are committing to that piece of paper and those values and ideals, you're also committing to things like the great speeches of our society that have advanced us forward. Things like FDR's Four Freedoms or Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream or Lincoln's inaugural address or Kennedy's inauguration. And I could name many, many more, but things like respect for one another, moving the nation forward, having the civility toward

one another, having an understanding that our desire is to form that proverbial more perfect union. And we don't often get it right, but that is the intent is to continue to try and form a more perfect union where everyone has a voice. The rise of authoritarians challenges that across the board. The rise of the crazies who only want one side and it's their side to win, to me, is dangerous for our nation. And for those who are less informed on government or the makings of national security, it not only causes a little bit of an aberration, but it also causes wackos to come to the forefront. I mean, on the news last night, we learned about the couple in Maryland who's trying to attack Baltimore. I mean, on the news last night, we learned about the couple in Maryland who's trying to attack Baltimore. I mean, that's the extreme of anarchy. That's the extreme form of anarchy.

So that's why I think from a military perspective, I'm scared to death of authoritarianism. Is the threat external or internal? Absolutely both. Our foes on the world stage see our democracy as a way to negatively influence our society. Those on the inside, the so-called stochastic terrorists, are seeing their ability to get their way and only their way. We're going back to the beauty of our country. I mean, I've always been an independent in terms of my political lean, because I really believe that the Republicans and the Democrats, the two-party system, bring the best of ideas forward in a very balanced way for the majority of Americans. But we've lost that. It's now become a power struggle on both

sides, more so on one side than the other. So let me ask that same question with a slightly different focus. From the point of view of the military, is this threat external or internal? What is it about the specific role of the military and you as an old soldier that concerns you about domestic authoritarianism? I'm concerned primarily, and Secretary Austin, who, by the way, is a West Point classmate and very good friend of mine, and was my boss on two occasions in combat, understands what others in the past have understood, that there are challenges inside the military from those who believe in this kind of stuff. And, you know, there's a lot on TV where you see the January 6th as an example, you know, there is a great deal of emphasis on the number of security forces or

military forces that took part in that demonstration in an attempt to overthrow the government. Now, I don't know why it's more focused on the military and security forces than others, but it tells me that inside of our ranks, we have individuals who believe this. And when you think that for a second, it's scary, but then what I would say as a former military guy is, of course we do. Why wouldn't we have these kind of people inside of our ranks? Because we draw from the society. Armies have always drawn from the society they serve.

So if there is this divisiveness within our society, you're, of course, going to get recruited soldiers in basic training who have some very weird ideas about the role of government until we start teaching them about their duty to the Constitution. But even our instruction and our training on taking the oath and them taking the oath isn't going to change 18 years of what has happened in their home life and in their community before they joined the military. So it is an insider issue, an insider challenge that I think the military is attempting to address. But Charlie, the hard part is, how do you address it when the society you're drawing from continues to have this divisiveness? Well, and we're also getting a much clearer picture of what the leaders of the U.S. military had to put up with in 2020 and 2021 and how they drew these rather significant lines.

You had the president of the United States, the commander in chief, pushing them. Why can't you shoot protesters using the military against demonstrators. Then, of course, after the election, the fact that you had all of these former secretaries of state that had to sign a letter saying the military has no role in our elections. Clearly, you hear from Mark Esper, you know, his concerns about what he might be asked to do, or Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This really tested the military-civilian relationship in a way, I'm trying to think of an historical parallel to this, because we can talk about this in terms of theory, but they all had to confront the possibility that the commander-in-chief

might tell them, order them, ask them to do something that violated that oath of office. Yeah. We've had this in our history, though. When? In the 1850s and 1860s. I mean, there's a great book that I have on my shelf behind me that talks about the class of brothers at West Point, the military academy, where some went north and some went south. My all-time favorite Civil War character, John Buford, who was a cavalryman at the Battle of Gettysburg, and he was from Kentucky. He had a brother that went on the southern side and he went on the northern side. And when he was drinking bourbon

the day that Fort Sumter was attacked, he was asked by his commander, John, which side are you going from? And he goes, well, I just got a letter from the governor of Kentucky. He was a captain at the time out west in California. And he said, I just got a letter from the governor of Kentucky offering me a colonelcy in the Kentucky militia. His friend said, are you going to take it? And he goes, I'd rather be a private in the Union Army defending my constitution than taking a colonelcy in the Kentucky militia. So these kinds of things have happened before. I'm going to tell another story. I know both Walt Pyatt, whose names probably are unfamiliar to you, and also Charlie Flynn, the brother of Mike Flynn, two great soldiers, really good soldiers who spent a career defending the country. And they've been pilloried

for being in the meeting on January 6th, not sending National Guard troops to the Capitol. And the soundbite is them saying, we don't want to portray the military as taking sides, because they had been under the pressure from President Trump to continue to put active duty military on the streets so that he could foment an insurrection and call out the Insurrection Act. So these are two really smart generals who were put in very bad positions and had to make the call as to whether or not to deploy U.S. forces in the streets of the Capitol, and they didn't do it. And they have been pilloried for it. And in fact, one of them has resigned from the military.

Whereas I don't agree with what happened that day, I can understand why they did what they did. They were trying to defend the institution and not put it in harm's way, being used by Mr. Trump in an illegal manner. Well, these kinds of hard decisions, I'm listening to this, these kinds of hard decisions could really become really an integral part of the job going forward because anyone in a senior military role might be faced with the possibility of sitting in the Oval Office or the Situation Room where a President of the United States asks them to do something that they believe is illegal or that

violates their oath of office. And I guess here's the question, the clarification, because there is a school of thought that says you're in the military, you salute, you follow orders. The Commander-in-Chief is the ultimate authority. You cannot have members of the military second-guessing civilian authority. But there are times when a general, an admiral, is going to have to say no to the president. What would those circumstances be? What would that be like for Mark Milley to say, I am sorry, sir, I am not going to carry out that order? When it's illegal, when it's an illegal order. When you rise to the senior ranks of the military, you always, when you're given a course of action or a military operation to execute, there is a legal review by your staff, staff, judge, advocate. So Milley had that in spades as the chairman of the joint chiefs. And by the way, technically, and this is being discussed in

military schools today, Mark Milley, who's been pilloried as well, when he took the orders of Vice President Pence instead of the President on January 6th, he was doing something outside of his realm of authority. As a military commander, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, your bosses are the Secretary of Defense and the president. The vice president is nowhere in your chain of command. So taking that order from the vice president on January 6th, was it smart? Yeah, absolutely. He did the right thing.

Was it illegal? Yeah, a little bit. A little bit. So let's play out this scenario. And this is a little disturbing, but OK, so you're sitting around with the generals, the president, whoever it is, maybe it's Trump 2.0, orders the general to do something that he believes to be illegal. The president then looks around the room and says, OK, you're fired, you're removed, you're

relieved of duty. Who in this room will follow my order? Wouldn't they just simply, like a domino effect, go down the list to find someone in that room or in that chain of command who will follow the order? And is there any check on that? There is a check on that. And again, it's the lawyer saying this is an illegal order. And by the way, for those deeply entrenched in the history of January 6th, remember before January 6th, Mark Milley, as the chairman, got all of his joint chiefs together from the various services and said, hey, some crazy things are going on.

We all got to hang together on this. There's some implied intent in that statement. That is an extraordinary moment, isn't it? From a military perspective, Charlie, it really is. The good news is that our young captains and majors and colonels right now are in their war colleges and their command and staff colleges studying this kind of stuff. Interesting. What do you do now, Lieutenant? I mean, we used to have a magazine in the armor branch where the last page had a tough conundrum for a young lieutenant of tanks, an armor lieutenant to solve.

And the bottom line would always be, what do you do now, Lieutenant, after this problem set was, and it would be something you would discuss around the water cooler or I'm dating myself saying that you would discuss in Starbucks or wherever. But today that's, what do you do now, Colonel? What do you do now, Colonel? What do you do now, General? And there are those ethical conundrums that from the standpoint of a nonpart about military operations, what I have said is what I know from my experience in the military, but also my understanding of the nonpartisan requirements of the military. Let's talk about what's going on with Ukraine, because I know you've been following this carefully. Monday's New York Times reports that Russian assaults are intensifying in the East.

Russian forces attack dozens of Ukrainian positions across the eastern front as Moscow assaults widen and intensify ahead of what Kiev has warned could be the Kremlin's largest offensive since the first week of the war. And of course, a lot of these attacks are around Bakhmut as the Russians try to break that city. So your take right now, because there are a lot of ominous signs that the Russians are just prepared to throw hundreds of thousands of their troops into this meat grinder. What's going to happen? How grim is the situation at the moment? I think the late winter, early spring is going to be very difficult. You're likely going to see some Russian advances, but they're

going to be very small as they throw more meat into the meat grinder. There have been some incredibly difficult battles, both in the Donbass, as you mentioned, Bakhmut is one of them. There are several others, but also in the southern area, in the eastern side of Kherson province and in Zaporizhia. The last couple of months, some might call it a stalemate. I would certainly not call it that. There have been some just unbelievably intense battles on all fronts, but in the north, in the Donbass, or rather in the east in the Donbass, as you said, near Bakhmut and some of the other cities, there has been a steady flow of Russian, and I hesitate to call them soldiers, but Russian fighters thrown into the forefront.

And Ukraine has been very adept at countering and providing a defense in those actions. But as I've said before, many times, quantity has a quality all of its own. You can overwhelm that. You can overwhelm that. And that's what the Russians, because they don't put as much emphasis on safeguarding and caring for their soldiers. It's just been a meat grinder. That's the best way to do it. So in the Donbass, the intent by the Ukrainian forces is to not give up any more ground, hold the ground. The intent by the Russians, specifically the Wagner group, is to inch their way forward as much as they can. They

have not been extremely successful in doing that because it's not a stalemate, it's a slugfest. And what you have is both sides trying to get to the point where Russia is incorporating their newly mobilized soldiers, which are poorly trained and poorly led, while Ukraine counters all those with what they have right now, which is a lot of artillery, but continues to wait for incorporation of myriad tactical weapons into a combined arms capability where they can do all kinds of operations. Well, that's what I wanted to ask you about. This seems like it's kind of a race against time before all of the tanks arrive, all of the armor arrives. What is the timeline there? How long will it take for us to get that kind of equipment to the lines to give the Ukrainians what they need? The Russians seem to have made the calculation, okay, the tanks are coming. We need to win before they get here. We need to advance. So how is that

race working out? Yeah, I don't think the Russians would say they need to win the race before the tanks get there. I think the Russians are saying they just can't give up anything because the Russians in the past, in past conflicts, have always looked for that frozen conflict at the end where they can bite off a piece and hold onto it. You know, they've done that in Transnistria and Organokar Bak in Georgia and in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. So they want a piece of Ukraine because they couldn't get all of it and they can come back later and try and get all of it. But in the meantime, their decisive victory right now is holding on to terrain and perhaps

advancing a little bit more. They also know, by the way, that Ukraine and their supporters are in a very delicate situation. The last Ramstein conference that Secretary Austin held broke through on some things, tanks primarily. That's what everyone was focused on, more air defense. Ukraine, though, is also building the capability to conduct additional mobile attacks using some other combat vehicles they've been given. So whereas tanks would be great for a combined arms team, I actually believe Ukraine is probably going to have an offensive with probably some of their old T-72 tanks and maybe some of the newly arrived Leopards that they're training on right now. I think in Estonia, they're doing it at a training area there. So they will incorporate some, but they won't have the full force of a

transformed army. What I predict will happen is in the late winter, the next month or two, you're going to see continued slugfest with slight advances in some areas by the Russians, but no tactical defeat of the Ukrainians. I think in the early spring and into the summer, you will see the capability of the Ukrainian forces expanding, them conducting smaller counter offenses in some areas. And, you know, it will be a better spring and summer than it will be winter. Two things concerning. First is any potential Belarusian front opening. And what I mean by that is not so much the Belarusian army. I don't think that's going to happen.

But another attack by Russian forces using the launching pad of Belarus toward Kiev and the northern part of the country. Because that is going to cause the Ukrainians to look in another direction. Both sides are fatigued on the front lines. And if there's another front that's opened in the north, or even the threat of another front that's opened in the north, that could pull off Ukrainian forces from the front line and weaken their defenses there. In addition to that, there's also the wild card of any Russian naval action in the Black and Azov Sea with naval infantry. Naval infantry is what they call their Marines. Another potential amphibious assault in Odessa. Do I think either one of that northern or southern attack is going to happen?

I don't, but the threat of it requires Ukraine to pull off territorial defense forces and some of their army to protect against another threat. So those are the kind of moves that I'm watching to see what might happen. But the other thing that just really bothers me is Russia has not been successful in mobilization of their forces. They have not trained their hundreds of thousands of new soldiers well. They are going to just be more meat for the meat grinder. But there is still the missile and rocket attacks on Ukrainian cities that are going to continue to kill Ukrainian citizens. And the final thing I'm very concerned about is the continued stalwart actions by the West and the United States in continuing to support this fight for democracy.

Retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is a former commanding general of the U.S. Army, Europe, and the Seventh Army. He's also commanded the Army's First Armored Division. General Hertling, thank you so much for coming back on the podcast today. It's a pleasure to be with you, Charlie, as always. You ask great questions. Thank you. And thank you all for listening to today's Bulwark Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. We will be back tomorrow and we'll do this all over again. The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper and engineered and edited by Jason Brown.