Hear retired admiral’s prediction for Russia’s military after prolonged battle in Bakhmut

Former US Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen tells Christiane Amanpour that the longer the Ukraine war goes on, the more difficult it becomes. #CNN #News


  1. Bahkmut is like if you had to run a marathon but you decide to do an hour of sprints directly beforehand.

    1. @Mark B I’m not so sure. A major advantage russia has is numbers of artillery. Anytime forces are massed in a small area, they are very vulnerable to artillery fire. Right now, a lot of elite forces are amassed in a very small area of Bahkmut. Only time will tell what is really happening there.

    2. If Ruzzia wins Bakhmut, it will clearly be a Phyrric victory. They’re losing more soldiers than there were people in that town.

    3. @shredman59 RuSSia’s artillery is a joke, though. They’ve got a ton of it, but it’s inaccurate spray and pray. Ukraine can fire one shell to their ten and achieve the same effect.

    4. @mile_high_topher When troops are massed in a small area, spray and pray works just fine. If they continue to concentrate ukraine forces in small areas, they can use their admittedly “old tech” artillery to maximum effect. It will be devastating.

  2. It has been said that the objective of modern war it to destroy the enemy’s army, not capture land and towns. In-fact, towns are very costly to take and land does not weaken the enemy. So, for example, Bakhmut has no value. The holder of that ground is not going to win the war because he raises his flag there. But if the Ukrainian army can destroy 800 Russian soldiers and 30 tanks every day, I would say they are accomplishing the proper objective of destroying the enemy’s army. The UAF is rotating units in and out of Bakhmut and the Russians are funneling new troops in constantly with unrecoverable losses. This will have the effect of consuming all of the resources gathered for the Russian “Spring Offensive”. The Russians are now pulling troops from everywhere to replenish the losses around Bakhmut and their offensive is not threatening at all.

    1. All numbers regarding losses on either side are pure propaganda. The ONLY source regarding losses in Bakhmut I trust, is the Australian ex military guy interviewed on the Willy OAM channel, who is in Ukraine and has first hand experience. His information is that Ukraine was losing a lot more than Russia until recently, when the Russians stepped up the attacks, and now the losses are comparable on both sides.

  3. What we (USA) does have is lots of HIMARS. We could send 60 or 80 easily. Get half of those fitted with the GLSDB’s to take out Russian logistics and ammo up to 80 miles behind the front. An army with no ammo is pretty helpless.

    1. @Israel Wilson of course, same reason why irone dome israeli made is also a no go due to the cost per shot but I think having atacms can help with a couple of strategic strikes to pin down the logistics and as we all know winning a war means stelar logistics and supply lines

    2. HIMARS have rubber tires and are not well suited for the Ukrainian terrain, and the logistics of getting this equipment 2:1are being delayed about a year. This retired geek is a liar. Not to mention that this technology is over 30 years old.

    3. @Iseektruth a 6 wheel atv which is light isnt a problem for ukranian terrain. dont make conclusions based on inferences. otherwise we can talk about the gulf war and unfilitered manifold intakes.

  4. Aircraft is part of combined arms you can’t have combined arms with out aircraft. Be it rotary or fix wing. Give them Apache, give them A-10, give them F16. In the end they are the 1s who have to figure out how to best use whatever we give them but they need whatever we can spare & we need them to win.

    1. Really dumb idea russia has not even used its high tech aircraft yet so you introduce planes you will see Russia’s full air power in action ! You really have no idea 🤷‍♂️

    2. @Manfred Connor because do you hear him? Give ukraine apache give them a-10” u kidding they are not fighting iraq here . If russia will shoot them slow things out of the sky then nothing the russians will video them falling all over cnn

  5. I find it disturbing when sometimes journalist can deliberately get and twist things around that the speaker is saying it only confuses the public

  6. I think the strategic importance of bakhmut is there. Mainly because where else could you have such a ratio of losses to wins were the opponent losses 5 to 1. It would be dumb to not try to take on that fight, given the stubborness of the opponent. Basically weaken the whole army through bakhmut instead of going for a disavantaged counteroffensive were the ratio of losses may reverse.

    1. Exactly. Ukrainian losses are a tragedy but Russia’s losses are catastrophic. If Russia takes Bakhmut then Ukraine will have little choice than to move on and sadly sell Russia another city at a similarly catastrophic cost.

  7. Adm. Mullen is absolutely right about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian troops being due to their intensive training since 2014–training which is ongoing. But may I point out, without taking a thing away from the Ukrainian soldiers themselves, that they haven’t had to bootstrap the process. Their training has been informed by sustained NATO support, notably by a large an important of Canadian Forces personnel. Working up close and personal, the Canadians weaned the Ukrainians from traditional Soviet tactics, where command was strictly top-down, with initiative in the ranks not only discouraged, but punished. In its place they have trained a superb corps of NCOs and junior officers who are able to take charge on the battlefield, and make crucial split-second decisions in the heat of action. This is, of course, extremely good for morale, because the troops learn to trust and look up to their immediate leaders. My late father, a 30-year career MCPO in the Navy liked to say, “Leadership is knowing what to do next. Period.” The soldier fighting under such a leader fights with courage and confidence. And small units are able to be extremely nimble. The Russians, by contrast, still hew to the old Soviet model. When a decision must be taken, nothing happens until a colonel arrives from the rear. If it’s something really important, they have to wait for a general. Early in the war we were constantly surprised at how effective the Ukrainians were at killing off these senior officers, men who can’t be replaced from one day to the next.

    1. @James Louder But in the end the Iranians won and Saddam eventually got hung for his troubles. Since then no one seems to have invaded Iran.

  8. My assessment before watching this.. is that was Verdun and it cost em… in their attempt to bleed Ukraine white.. they probably almost did it to themselves… Ms Amanpour, i remember you in Bosnia when i was a kid… you in that trench with your antenna cameras on… you are one of my HEROES.. ❤ GOD Bless Everyone

  9. When she asked what he would do as the “battlezone commander” I thought for a second he was going to say, “They need to get some ships into Bakhmut.”

    1. Well of course. Why would you ask an Admiral what he would do on the battlefield, that makes zero sense.

  10. If the Russians had wanted to destroy Bakhmut using all their means, they would have done it like the USA did in the 2nd world war with the German cities where thousands and thousands of civilians died. you have a short memory

  11. Unfortunately one high ranking military (what it is called) from Finland said they are not trained to attack. Its still the old western style. Snd he was not the only. many from USA said the same. It was written yesterday soni can not say what date they were there.

  12. Golly, Gee, Admiral Mullen! You must watch the same news channels as everyone else! Here, you simply repeat what everyone already knows, the same information available to everyone, the same observations everyone else has already made. Did anyone not know that the city has been destroyed? Did anyone not already know that this was a battle of attrition? Shortages of ammunition is news? Wow, what a deep and insightful flag officer analysis you have provided. Hope to hear more from you soon, Skippy!

  13. Why is it so difficult the understand the difference between “they don’t need that weapon” and “this is not the weapon they need the most, and not the one they could immediately use most effectively”?

    1. Because we needed to be a member of nato. And about your questions – war is always dynamics. Like catastrophic tsunami + earthquake + many zombie’s around. Sometimes you can’t just make accurate prognostic.

  14. Thank you for sharing the obvious Admiral. Well done.
    I am better informed ” if you will” than you are and I am just a marginally educated middle class geezer. Goodnight and good luck sailor.

  15. Excellent interview! Good to see Adm Mullen looking well; a man of great honor & integrity. Salute sir!

  16. Mike Mullen is right about not needing the F16 right now, but for US to show that they are presently training Ukrainian pilots on the system will ratchet up the pressure on Russia to end the war, with attrition no longer on the table against Ukraine

  17. Hmm, Amanpour. I just love the ways you always present your questions. So unique! You are the BEST!…from Richard

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.