Last week, Ukraine recaptured the city of Kherson from the Russians. It was one of the most stunning victories for Ukraine since the war began eight months ago. Still, the road ahead is long and uncertain. Just this week, Putin unleashed a heavy bombardment of missiles across Ukraine in an attempt to destroy the country’s energy infrastructure.
The stakes of this war are already high for Ukraine, but they are made exponentially higher—for countries across the globe—because of the looming danger of nuclear war.
Lt. Gen. HR McMaster returns to Honestly to talk about the chance of nuclear escalation; what plans our military has in place in the case of a nuclear attack on Ukraine; what a realistic end to the war might look like; how concessions will only embolden Putin; and why McMaster believes that America needs to remain actively invested in this war.
Listen to the conversation here:
And to support Honestly, become a subscriber to Common Sense:
Citing probabilities of the Russian use of nuclear weapons in the context of the Ukraine conflict tells me that B Weiss does not understand the most basic things about statistical probability's use; that isn't at all unusual. _Many_ people have no idea why such probability assertions don't even qualify as educated guesses. Many very bright & educated people are statistically illiterate. She's among these.
@Bari Weiss: this is important, so I'm kind of flagging this comment in the hope that it reaches you.
I just finished listening to your interview with HR McMaster, so I'm about two weeks late to this conversation. So, just in case you come across this:
McMaster's responses to your questions was disturbing for a lot of people. I'm one of them, just to make my bias clear. I do, however, want to push back against one hazardous sentiment that several people expressed, which is that you shouldn't be interviewing people (like McMaster) whose viewpoint is flawed, foolish, disingenuous or erroneous for some reason or another.
I emphatically disagree. McMaster is an influential public figure. He has a resume and credibility, at least in DC. His name sounds so dignified and authoritative. He knows people in high places. He's articulate and energetic. What he says and writes has actual consequence. Rather than arguing with him, you surgically questioned him in such a way that the hollowness of his thinking was inescapably obvious. His answer to "How do you respond to people who consider a negotiated end to war in Ukraine the wisest and least risky course of action?" was a pair of silky ad hominem arguments (1: yokels, 2: businesspeople) that sidestepped the question entirely. He showed us the hollow center at the heart of our current war fever. It was like jujitsu. I don't think he even knows what happened.
I would hire this guy to sell anything, but not to conduct foreign policy. You let him make that case for himself. Keep doing what you're doing. This is real journalism.