Today I’m sharing a conversation with Lt. General (ret.) Mark Hertling. This is part of my effort to understand the Ukraine war. I’ve been frustrated by some news coverage, like a weekend article from The Wall Street Journal warning “Some Western Backers of Ukraine Worry That Time Might be On Russia’s Side.” These stories lack a rigorous economic and military analytical framework.
I’ll turn to frameworks in a moment. First, context on Mark. His resume includes tank battles in the first Iraq War, overseeing the surge in the second Iraq War, training the Ukrainian military, CNN analyst, travel to over 100 countries, husband, father, and grandfather. In short, he has had an amazing career and journey. In the search for a reliable military perspective on Ukraine, Mark is it. You can hear the full conversation here.
Two frameworks I am using to make sense of Ukraine.
1. Money. The Russian economy is tiny compared to the NATO economies supporting Ukraine. Note this table from a previous post. The $40 billion spent so far by NATO countries on Ukraine is 1/10th of 1% of the GDP of the economies disgorging the money! The point: there is lots and lots of money to spend to support Ukraine. While there will no doubt be headlines about scrutiny of this support, the US spends $1 trillion a year on defense and so far Ukraine is a small line item. That’s not true for Russia, even with their oil and gas.
Military. Ukraine and Russia are two radically different armies. The Russian army is corrupt generals and forced conscription soldiers with no clear idea of why they are in Ukraine, other than to steal dishwashers and jewelry (this is actually occurring). The Ukrainian army, by contrast, has undergone significant reform in party by training with Mark’s colleagues and knows exactly what they are fighting for. Over the medium term, war is logistics, morale, and money, and the odds in each category favor Ukraine. I am not a military guy but listening to Mark helped me become more confident in the above.
Before our conversation, I didn’t understand how massive the difference was between the modern Western military and Russia’s approach. Having leaders that deeply value their troops makes all the difference. When we finished recording. I asked how Mark felt about leading troops in the second Iraq War when he himself had written a memo outlining the likely challenges with such a mission.
I make it matter, he answered.
Meaning? I asked.
I keep ‘em all right here, he continued, showing me an elegant wooden box on his desk with ‘make it matter’ inscribed on what looked like a brass plate. These are the people who died under my command, he said.
He opened up the box. There were hundreds of laminated cards inside, one for each person who made the ultimate sacrifice. Mark said he takes out a few of the cards each day as a reminder to guide his own actions.
This one, he said, holding up a picture of a Black female soldier, is a woman from Alaska, a mother of six. Medic. Went out to cover another medic’s shift who was sick. Didn’t have to go, died that day, he said.
He has clearly looked at every card many times. When people like Mark rise to the top of bureaucracies it gives me faith there is indeed a meritocracy. The contrast between a general like Mark and the Russian generals who have lost 110,000 soldiers in less than a year in Ukraine is staggering.
The Russian military’s callous attitude toward casualties is evidently little changed over the decades. When General Zhukov attacked Berlin at the end of the Second World War, he was asked about the massive Russian losses. He is reported to have responded, “well, young women will just squeeze out more” boys to replace the dead. That’s not an attitude people in the West can easily fathom.
Mark said the Ukraine conflict would be over in a “matter of days” if NATO unleashed its full firepower. The main reason not to do so is fear of nuclear war. Mark’s logic dovetailed with that provided on this podcast by Congressman Jim Himes, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. If NATO wants to take out the Russians as quickly as possible, step #1 in NATO is obliterating Russian air defense. Sending US warplanes to bomb Russian soil risks a nuclear response.
Mark’s career is also testimony to the power of incremental change, both in the US and Ukraine. He started in the Army as Vietnam ended. He described a 1970s-era US military filled with draftees and wracked by racial strife and drug abuse. By the time he left, an all-volunteer force was laser-focused on how to teach effective leadership. When the Ukrainian military turned to the US for help shedding its obdurate Soviet ways, they used that same US leadership training to do it. Mark describes a “three beer” conversation with a top Ukrainian commander trying to figure out how to get rid of the dead wood and bring in new leaders.
Perhaps the biggest risk to Ukraine now is Fox News essentially re-tweeting Russian propaganda. Mark is appalled at the stop-the-steal sect of the Republican Party. How well do the sect’s shenanigans measure up with his rule to “make it matter”? Not well. The Ukraine War will likely continue as long as Putin is in power. But if you apply the economic and military frameworks above, it seems highly unlikely Ukraine loses.
Regarding investments,
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Things I Didn't Learn in School to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.