“Trump’s new term will have more continuity than differences with Biden’s foreign policy, but unpredictability is a problem. Putin will not limit himself to the invasion of Ukraine. And America will always have to stay in the Middle East,” says American General David Petraeus, who led the intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, and later was director of the CIA, in an interview with Corriere Della Sera.

Reporter: What is the risk for Ukraine and Europe?

David Petraeus: Vladimir Putin will not stop at Ukraine. Next could be Moldova, Lithuania. His ambitions go far beyond the borders of Ukraine. I will remind you that when Putin was asked what was the most terrible event of the 20th century, a century that survived two world wars, the Great Depression and many other misfortunes, he said that the most terrible thing was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

He tries to collect the pieces of the USSR or the Great Russian Empire by various means. We must not delude ourselves that this will stop. Therefore, we should all support Ukraine, because NATO’s security begins at the Russian-Ukrainian border, not at the borders of NATO countries. There are many factors that will determine the course of the war, including the outcome of the next United States presidential election.

Reporter: What impact will the American vote in November have on the rest of the world?

David Petraeus: It is clear that the election will have consequences. I am apolitical in the United States. I don’t even register to vote, let alone endorse candidates from either party, but I offer advice to both. If the current president were re-elected, some continuity would be created. I disagreed with some of his choices.

I disagreed with President Biden’s call to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. I was afraid that the result would be not only terrible and tragic, but also catastrophic. Unfortunately, it was. Some decisions should have been made more quickly when it came to providing resources to Ukraine; the inability to do this with the necessary speed cost the Ukrainians.

It is critical now that aid continues, and the current administration strongly supports it. Overall, the current administration has done a credible job of developing a comprehensive and integrated approach to China to ensure robust deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region; as well as in general in response to Iran.

Reporter: What if Donald Trump returned to the White House instead?

David Petraeus: There would be a certain degree of unpredictability. I saw his statements. But let’s also remember that the approach to China was very similar, on the contrary, there was actually more continuity than change between the two administrations. I suspect that will continue to be the case. Differences may concern relations with NATO, perhaps with Russia.

The problem with Trump, again, is the degree of unpredictability. As we can see, for example, when during his presidency our forces were withdrawn from Syria within 24 hours and then returned to the battlefield a few days later.

Reporter: Biden has big problems in the Middle East. Was he wrong to allow himself to be drawn into a crisis in that part of the world? He shared Obama’s doctrine, which dictated the “pivot to Asia”, the transition to China. Does America, now energy independent, still have vital interests in the Middle East?

David Petraeus: There is a large number of attractions in the area. One of them is freedom of navigation, especially as it determines the supply of gas and oil for the world economy. In addition, we have important alliances with various countries in the region, as well as important enemies. The number one rule in the Middle East is to know clearly who your friends and enemies are.

Iran clearly falls into the enemy category as it trains, equips, finances and often leads groups such as Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen and of course Hamas in Gaza. Each of them is a problem. This clearly explains why the United States must remain focused on the Middle East.

“Pivot to Asia” was an unfortunate definition because it implies a diversion from the Middle East. A better word would be rebalancing. We can better focus on the most important scenario in the world, where the most important confrontation in the world is taking place: between China on the one hand and the United States and our allies on the other. But we must always keep our eyes open to the situation in the Middle East.

Corriere della Sera interview (acquisition of Rador Radio Romania)