In an interview, General Philip Breedlove shared his assessment of the existing responses to the war in Ukraine as well as the sanctions Russia is subject to. General Philip Breedlove is the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, and currently the distinguished Chair of the Frontier Europe Initiative of the Middle East Institute.

What I found remarkable and inspiring with this interview was how he showed up and engaged with the questions.

As it was an interview, he knew that the audience would be split. Showing up he chose to be clear as to where he stands. This allowed him to let go of any effort to persuade others that he has the right arguments.

However, he does make the effort to point out possible disagreements and to be clear when he makes an assessment, believes something or uses his experience to answer the questions. His choice is to present the conclusion he came to, possibly one that new information and arguments could change. And instead of presenting himself as being right he sticks to his strong opinion and entertains the possibility that it is loosely held.

He thus willingly confirms the hypothesis that a move Ukraine could do makes sense but continues by stating that he doesn’t believe in the premise of the question itself. Similarly, when asked about an assessment a journalist made, he highlights how well written the article is, and shares that he doesn’t agree with the premise on which it is built.

Instead of discussing a hypothesis he either has not thought through yet or discarded in the meantime he chooses not to engage in such questions and explains why he doesn’t. For him it is an interview that benefits from his ability to describe his point of view; thus, he doesn’t let thought experiments deviate him from presenting what he has come for.

Similarly, he invites his audience to not be deterred by difficult things. A question about the reported atrocities and President Biden’s call for a war crime trial against Vladimir Putin, makes him put things into context. In this, he doesn’t shy away from judging the given situation as a horrid one and shares that what is seen now is a repetition of past events and thus not a surprise to him. And instead of focusing solely on Vladimir Putin, he brings up the chain of command. There are those giving the orders to the military but there are also those executing them. All of which can and should be held accountable. In addition, he pays attention to the hope one might have that justice can be established through such trials. He highlights how difficult it will be to establish responsibilities and act on them. But no matter how difficult it is, the effort needs to be undertaken.

What he is able to show us here, is that even in such a situation it is possible to hold different types of feelings at the same time. This is what allows him to not be carried away by emotions. In a few sentences, he described the situation as he sees it. He covers all the aspects needed: the history as he sees it, the emotional perspective, the actions that need to be undertaken in accordance with the law, the challenges, and the commitment.

A bit later on, he takes up the opportunity given to explain why he is participating in the interview. This statement shifts the entire interview. Instead of simply answering questions he tells the audience what he wants. In doing so he gives his audiences the possibility to review all of what he said in light of his purpose. Instead of letting the actions flow he wants people to discuss the risks of continuing the war as is. Instead of defining what the right solution would be, he wants those involved to make up their minds on what these risks are. He wants them to do it together in “an adult, non-emotional, educated discussion of risk.”

To me, he makes the situation accessible. And more importantly, he stays emotionally connected with it. He does so without letting emotions paralyze him or his audience.

There is always enough space for clear thinking and thus the possibility to hope that it remains possible to step into thoughtful actions.

It is aligned with how he is acting during the interview.