13 OCTOBER 2023
Ben Hodges is one of the most well-known retired US generals in Ukraine. He served as the commander of the US Army in Europe from 2014 to 2018, during several Russian operations in its armed aggression in Donbas. He later retired but remained deeply involved in Ukrainian affairs and continued to be vocal about the responsibilities associated with his official position.
Since 2022, he has been publicly advocating for arming Ukraine and criticising the US government for not providing sufficient support to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Hodges had previously made optimistic predictions about the liberation of Crimea which did not come true, but here he explains why this was. This interview also covers the key mistake the Biden administration made regarding Ukraine and why Biden continues to insist on this mistake. What should the turning point be that guarantees Ukraine’s victory? Why does the United States believe that Russia will not risk a nuclear strike?
You can find answers to these questions in this interview, which was recorded during the Warsaw Security Forum.
“They don’t believe that Russia can actually be defeated”
We know that Ukraine will win. But does everyone in Europe and the United States believe this, considering the pace of the counteroffensive?
Yes, of course Ukraine is going to win.
I think people misunderstand what the counteroffensive is.
It’s not just what we see on the ground – fighting in trenches and minefields. That’s only the land component of a much larger, very sophisticated counteroffensive, what NATO calls multi-domain. That’s what Ukraine is doing: air, land, sea, cyber, information, special forces.
All of these things are being done, integrated in a way that gives Ukraine the initiative and also puts enormous pressure on the Russian General Staff. I would say that the Ukrainian General Staff is running rings around the Russian General Staff.
This attack on Crimea over the last four weeks, all of these things together, this was not a coincidence. This was a very sophisticated approach to remove radar, to attack and destroy a logistics maintenance site, and then to destroy the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet.
This is all part of making Crimea untenable for the Russian forces. That’s the key to victory.
Not so long ago, you were giving optimistic predictions about Crimea being liberated by the end of this year. Why did this not happen?
I believed that Ukraine would liberate Crimea by the end of this summer.
But as you will recall, I always had the caveat: if the West provides everything that’s needed.
So I was wrong in my estimation that the US administration and the German government would have decided to give to Ukraine the long-range weapons that it needed, the capabilities that were needed.
I was wrong. I was sure that my president by now would have said: “We want Ukraine to win, and for them to win, they need all of this.” We haven’t done that yet.
My president has done a very good job in so many ways to help keep the 50-plus nations together [in the Ramstein format], and of course, what the US has provided is not inconsequential.
But he has failed to do what I think is the most important task – to describe: what is our objective?
What do we want the outcome to be? Instead, what I hear is: “We’re with Ukraine for as long as it takes.” What a totally empty statement! That means nothing. As long as what takes?
My president has got to say: “We want Ukraine to win. We want Ukraine to eject Russia back to the 1991 borders.”
Why isn’t this being said? Is Biden afraid?
It’s not only him, but the people around him. These are good, smart, hardworking, intelligent people, but most of them are the same ones that were wrong about Russia during the Obama administration.
They haven’t changed their thinking that – number one – that Russia could even be defeated.
Number two: they worry about escalation.Then number three: they’re not sure what happens when Ukraine has catastrophic success and Russian forces are defeated and then maybe the regime collapses. What happens?
I think those are the things that are in their mind, and they can’t or haven’t answered that yet.
Do they believe that Russia can be defeated?
I do. I don’t think they do.
Many of them have always had this idea that somehow the Soviet Union, now Russia, is just too big and too powerful, and they can just keep absorbing punishment, and they have thousands of nuclear weapons. I think that’s the image. And so the idea that Ukraine could somehow defeat Russia – they can’t get their head around it.
For me, it is obvious that Ukraine is going to defeat Russia. We know from history that war is a test of will, and it’s a test of logistics.
Except when they hear us talking about, “We hope Ukraine can have a strong negotiating settlement”, or “Come on, Ukraine, let Russia have Crimea for the sake of peace.”
This kind of nonsense is oxygen for the Kremlin.
“Ukraine wins by liberating Crimea”
Under the current circumstances, when the West and the US are providing Ukraine with some weapons but not everything it needs, is it possible to retake Crimea militarily?
To me, that only prolongs the conflict.
So many more people get killed, there’s so much more destruction, when it really could be over much faster if the US and Germany in particular would say: “We want Ukraine to win. Here – this is what you need. Take this.”
Crimea is the only thing that matters. If Ukraine liberates Crimea, then it’s over.
I don’t think Russia cares a drop about Donbas. They’ve done nothing to improve Donetsk and Luhansk, since they’ve controlled it, nothing. Except grab men and put them in the military. They’ve done nothing to improve those occupied territories.
They need Crimea as a military base that led them to control…
… the Black Sea!
The Ukrainian General Staff, which has been brilliant in this war, understands that Ukraine will never be safe or secure as long as Russia occupies Crimea.
They’ll never be able to really rebuild their economy as long as Russia occupies Crimea and can disrupt shipping from Odesa, Kherson, Mykolaiv, or block ships coming in and out of Azov. Even after Kherson and Berdiansk are liberated, the Russians will still block the Azov Sea.
I don’t see how Ukraine can accept a solution – nor why any of us should push a solution – where Russia keeps Crimea.
What weapons do the Ukrainian Armed Forces currently lack? You mentioned long-range missiles – is that the only thing? And won’t it be like with the tanks: we heard many times that several hundred tanks would change the situation. But when we received the tanks, it turned out that it wasn’t enough because the Russians countered them with Javelins and minefields.
This has been the problem. There’s been so much emphasis on specific platforms.
F-16, ATACMS, tanks, Patriot, and so on – all of these are important. But there is no one weapon that changes everything. It’s the effects of a combination of weapons that are properly employed.
That’s why I prefer to talk about capabilities. What capability does Ukraine need to win?
We have to ask ourselves: “Well, how do they win?”
Except when they hear us talking about, “We hope Ukraine can have a strong negotiating settlement”, or “Come on, Ukraine, let Russia have Crimea for the sake of peace.”
This kind of nonsense is oxygen for the Kremlin.
“Ukraine wins by liberating Crimea”
Under the current circumstances, when the West and the US are providing Ukraine with some weapons but not everything it needs, is it possible to retake Crimea militarily?
To me, that only prolongs the conflict.
So many more people get killed, there’s so much more destruction, when it really could be over much faster if the US and Germany in particular would say: “We want Ukraine to win. Here – this is what you need. Take this.”
Crimea is the only thing that matters. If Ukraine liberates Crimea, then it’s over.
I don’t think Russia cares a drop about Donbas. They’ve done nothing to improve Donetsk and Luhansk, since they’ve controlled it, nothing. Except grab men and put them in the military. They’ve done nothing to improve those occupied territories.
They need Crimea as a military base that led them to control…
… the Black Sea!
The Ukrainian General Staff, which has been brilliant in this war, understands that Ukraine will never be safe or secure as long as Russia occupies Crimea.
They’ll never be able to really rebuild their economy as long as Russia occupies Crimea and can disrupt shipping from Odesa, Kherson, Mykolaiv, or block ships coming in and out of Azov. Even after Kherson and Berdiansk are liberated, the Russians will still block the Azov Sea.
I don’t see how Ukraine can accept a solution – nor why any of us should push a solution – where Russia keeps Crimea.
What weapons do the Ukrainian Armed Forces currently lack? You mentioned long-range missiles – is that the only thing? And won’t it be like with the tanks: we heard many times that several hundred tanks would change the situation. But when we received the tanks, it turned out that it wasn’t enough because the Russians countered them with Javelins and minefields.
This has been the problem. There’s been so much emphasis on specific platforms.
F-16, ATACMS, tanks, Patriot, and so on – all of these are important. But there is no one weapon that changes everything. It’s the effects of a combination of weapons that are properly employed.
That’s why I prefer to talk about capabilities. What capability does Ukraine need to win?
We have to ask ourselves: “Well, how do they win?”
So what do you need to liberate Crimea? You need to have forces that can isolate Crimea, cut the land bridge, cut the Kerch Bridge, and then make Crimea untenable for Russian forces.
Make it so that the Black Sea Fleet cannot stay in Sevastopol, the Russian Air Force cannot stay in Saky, Russian logistics cannot stay in Dzhankoi.For that, you need long-range weapons.
They can hit Sevastopol, Saky, every day, so that they have to leave.
I heard General Cavoli recently said that precision can defeat mass. The only advantage the Russians have is mass. That’s it. And they don’t care how many of their people get killed. So you have to neutralise mass by destroying headquarters, logistics, artillery.
You need long-range precision fires to do that.
So whether it’s ATACMS, Taurus, Storm Shadow, Grey Eagle drone, or Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb – I don’t care. You need that capability to hit those things.
I do believe it could be over next year if the US says: “Look, Putin is going to keep doing this until he realises he has lost. When it’s in his head, “I’ve lost” or “I’m losing”, then he’ll have to stop and he’ll change the narrative.
Or he can use a nuclear weapon.
Okay, let me come to that.
So the way we make him realise he’s lost is when 50 nations say, including the United States, Germany, UK, France: “We want Ukraine to win. It’s our policy that Ukraine is going to win.”
Then, when he sees us do all this, then he knows.
But right now, he sees that we are not committed to Ukraine winning. So he just has to hang on.
Yes, of course you have to take the nuclear threat seriously. They have thousands of nuclear weapons. He doesn’t care how many people die, including his own people. He doesn’t care.
So why would he use a nuclear weapon? I don’t think he will. There’s no benefit. There’s zero benefit to Russia if they use a nuclear weapon. Ukraine has already said: “We’re not stopping.” My president has said: “If you use a nuclear weapon, you will see catastrophic consequence for Russia.”
I think they believe him.
[Chinese] President Xi has said, do not use nuclear weapons.
And I think the people around Putin are looking at him and saying: “He’s 70 years old. What about our life after him?”
So I’m not so sure that everybody in Moscow or St Petersburg would support the idea of him using a nuclear weapon. And of course, we’re talking about tactical nuclear weapons, not strategic. Tactical nuclear weapons require a lot of people to follow orders, to do things. We would see, we would know if they were beginning that process.
It means that even if Putin became that crazy, some people would stop that process?I think so.
“Russia, as terrible as they are, does not want to commit suicide”
To finish up, let’s talk about NATO. We lost in Vilnius because we didn’t receive an invitation to join the Alliance. Is there a chance of Ukraine receiving an invitation during the Washington summit?
It is possible. I think the language has changed. The mood sort of changed at Vilnius, even though we didn’t get the invitation that we had hoped for, for Ukraine. It’s like we’ve gotten over a hurdle emotionally and intellectually.
So I think now what we’ve got to do is separate invitation from accession.
I even heard it from Mr. McFarland, the American national security advisor, if Ukraine is invited to join NATO, we’ll immediately be at war. No!
That’s not true.
Of course it’s not!
But that came from the American National Security Advisor. We have got to work hard on the language to make it clear.
Look at Sweden. Sweden was invited over 18 months ago, and they’re still months away.
There’s an example already of a country that was invited, and they’re on the path, which would be a very important signal to Ukraine, but also to Russia, that Russia does not get to choose.
Some in the US are against Ukraine’s NATO membership even after victory. They say that in that case, if Russia starts a war again, the US would have to step in.
Yeah, we’ve been prepared to do that since 1949 when any member was attacked.
The best way to make sure Russia doesn’t attack is for Ukraine to be in NATO.
Russia, as terrible as they are, does not want to commit suicide, which would be an attack on NATO.
My country needs to get behind this.
This will improve security and stability in Europe much better than what it is now, by having Russia see that because of what they’ve done, they now have NATO from Finland to Türkiye, all the way, and in the Black Sea. We need to have a strategy for the Black Sea region.
Stop talking about Ukraine like it’s an island, but instead, talk about Ukraine as part of a region that is strategically important for the West as a member of NATO. Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Türkiye, and then who knows, Moldova and Georgia at least inside the EU.
That would change the security dynamic historically, for generations.
And it will happen.
Interviewed by Sergiy Sydorenko
Video by Volodymyr Oliinyk
European Pravda from Warsaw
https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/interview/2023/10/13/7171238/
Once again, nothing that General Hodges said in this interview can be refuted or contradicted. Everything he said is true and makes logical sense.
But, this is what I’ve been saying for quite some time; why doesn’t Biden address the American people on Ukraine, for Christ’s sake? We already know … the entire planet already knows … that we won’t get directly involved. That we will “be with Ukraine for as long as it takes.” But, this is NOT a strategy. There is no end goal in those empty phrases. There is no reasoning about why we should help. There are no consequences being explained as to what the aftermath will be if mafia land wins. There is nothing from Biden.
That the administration is afraid is also a given. But, fear should never be a vital ingredient to form a policy. This fear is preventing us from doing what should be done, and this in a determined and quick manner.
The people in Biden’s staff might be smart, but they aren’t as smart as they should be, given the grave mistakes they’ve made and keep on making. Their work is mediocre, and mediocre is not good enough when we have such a huge crisis in this world. We need excellence. But, there is none in this administration. The House is in chaos, but there is no answer to this from Biden or his staff for the American people. I hear crickets. The American people are hearing crickets.
“why doesn’t Biden address the American people on Ukraine”
I’ve read that he’s planning on doing so after the US House selects a speaker.
To me, that makes sense – nothing can happen funding-wise until after that, and the spectacle of the dysfunction on the Republican side means anything said before that will likely be forgotten by the low-information voters who don’t already understand the importance of supporting Ukraine.
(PSA: The US Surgeon General warns: Drinking every time there’s another House Speaker vote could result in acute alcohol poisoning.)
Ha,ha,ha!
I don’t understand what the problems with the House have to do with Biden addressing the American people, but I’ve taken note of your argument. Maybe I’ll see a connection at a later date.
The house is refusing to fund Ukraine until Biden makes a case for it and specifies US objectives in this war. They’re fed up with “for as long as it takes”, as we all are. There’s an angle to this that hasn’t been spoken. Forcing Biden, unfortunately he needs to be forced, to declare Ukrainian victory to be a US objective will bring the war to a quicker end.
Biden should address the American people about his Ukraine strategy yesterday!
Think of a circus – when something goes wrong, they send in the clowns as a distraction, so people forget about what happened previously.
In this case the clowns are the “Freedumb cockus” and those who enable them. This ongoing circus is a big distraction, and if you want people to retain Biden’s argument, it’s better that he make his case when the distraction is behind us. (It’s not like any funding decisions can be made before there’s a new Speaker…)
The only circus is the hard lefties in the White House. They are so busy covering up for Biden’s bribes that they don’t have time to manage the country. Joe Bribem is the main clown. I hope he will do the right thing and speak in defense of Ukraine in terms of winning.
Reminder: Republicans held sham hearings and all their witnesses said they had no evidence of any bribes or other financial crimes related to Joe Biden.
And I don’t know who you’re referring to as a “hard lefty”; President Joe Biden is a centrist.
Yeah yeah blah blah, anyone with their wits knows exactly what’s on junior Biden’s laptops. Just imagine if that was Don Jr. lol…you guys would be pulling out your collective hair and screaming at the sky and calling for lynching of everyone that voted for Trump. Your Matriarch has already called for reeducation camps in the US in true Stalin style. Kind of makes you proud eh?
What laptop? You mean the external drive they have that was hacked while Hunter was in rehab with no access to it?
Still no actual evidence of Joe Biden doing anything illegal.
And Hillary Clinton never called for reeducation camps. She only talked about possible deprogramming of the MAGAt cult members, as you’d do for members of any cult:
“there wasn’t this little tail of extremism wagging the dog of the Republican Party as it is today, and sadly, so many of those MAGA extremists take their marching orders from Donald Trump, who has no credibility left by any measure. He is only in it for himself and he’s now defending himself in civil actions and criminal actions. And when do they break with him? Because at some point, maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members. But something needs to happen.”
The suggestion about “reeducation camps” came from Faux News co-host Tammy Bruce.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/fox-cohost-suggests-hillary-clinton-wants-to-place-millions-in-reeducation-camps
“Kind of makes you proud” – sure does – she was right about Trumpkov all along.
If Biden is a hard centrist, then everything else in politics must be shoved to the far-right.
A lot of us Conservatives have been calling for a plan from Biden’s handlers in the White House and for that we’ve been called agents of Putin. Like Scradje’s daily diatribe painting labels of Putin’s agents on a lot of people that support Ukraine but don’t pass the strict requirements of the Left so they feel they are not wanted and thus, sooner or later, lose support for Ukraine. Ukraine, and us, should be in the business of garnering support from everyone, not just those that meet someone’s criteria or the media’s myopic models.
Please name the people who support Ukraine that I have accused of being pro-Russia or Russian agents.
What I have said is that if you vote for an end to, a cutback, or a delay in Ukraine aid, or lobby for those things, you are a Russian agent. Whether actual or defacto is immaterial.
Which surely even you would not deny.
You said anyone that didn’t vote for the CR last week was as guilty of genocide as Putler is. In essence accusing about 100 million Americans of supporting genocide on Ukrainians. That’s not exactly welcoming to our website Sir Scradge not will it help gather more friends and supporters for Ukraine in her hour of need. But you’re free to say what you want, just expect a little push back bro.
“C’mon man!” 🙂
I think it must have been obvious that talking about anyone who didn’t vote for the CR is referring only to House members who had the ability to vote for the CR, not to the “100 million Americans” who aren’t members of Congress and so had no opportunity to vote either way.
Its called representative government. That’s what we are supposed to have in the USA where our representatives vote for us in Congress.
Read the Newsweek article posted by facts about the Jordan-Trump axis of evil. If it actually happens, it will be an unimaginable catastrophe for Ukraine.
Again: Please name the people who support Ukraine that I have accused of being pro-Russia or Russian agents?
When did I say : “anyone that didn’t vote for the CR last week was as guilty of genocide as Putler is.” ?
I have said repeatedly that : if you vote for an end to, a cutback, or a delay in Ukraine aid, or lobby for those things, you are a Russian agent. Whether actual or defacto is immaterial.
Explain in what way do you disagree with that?
I won’t debate Trump with you. It’s a waste of time for us both. However, there are regular commenters on here that hate him more than I, yet they never have to put up with hostility from you. Why is that?
I like your site and give you full credit for allowing people with views that differ from your own: I’d do exactly the same in your place.
What I would not do is post extremely unpleasant insults at posters who unequivocally support Ukraine. I reserve my hatred and contempt exclusively for kremtrolls. As should you.
“Biden’s handlers” – LOL
Many Republicans would have people believe that Joe Biden is old and feeble. Republicans who actually interact with the president know better.
E.g., Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia said, “In the two meetings I was in with the president, he was as sharp as a tack.” Republican Sen. Todd Young of Indiana said, “I visited with him in the Oval Office, and he seemed well-prepared and well-briefed for the meeting.”
“Sharp as a tack,” and “well-prepared and well-briefed” are things that was never said about Trumpkov.
Republicans are pushing this lie to counteract recent appearances of Trumpkov where he appears to be showing signs of dementia.
One reason the White House had no desire to help out McCarthy is that McCarthy mocked Biden’s age and mental acuity in public, while privately telling allies that he found the president sharp and substantive in their conversations — a contradiction that left a deep impression on the White House.
“[We] should be in the business of garnering support from everyone”
And how does your baseless Biden bashing help out in that regard?
You always write that you’re “pro-fairness”, but from what I see, your idea of fairness involves replying to any fact-based attack on Trumpkov with an attack on President Biden based on complete nonsense.
Our Biden bashing is far from being baseless. We have good reason for this.
The first action he took when he assumed the Oval Office was to rip our borders open.
The second thing he did was cause our withdrawal from Afghanistan to become a complete fiasco.
His behavior in the face of the massive invasion of Ukraine did NOT show strength or determination, or gives anyone a clue as to what it is he wants to achieve.
He might seem to be sharp as a tack, but only when he’s lying in a drawer full of marbles.
I will give credit where credit is due for Biden. But, this doesn’t mean that he’s had a solid, viable strategy. We’re into the 20th month of war, and he’s never even once addressed the nation about what the ultimate goal is, or what importance a Ukrainian victory has to us.
Our Biden bashing is a sad necessity. I wish I could worship the guy, but I simply can’t. He’s much too weak to be in this job.
I was replying to RSM’s “baseless Biden bashing” – specifically, the suggestions that Biden’s senile and being directed by “handlers”, and that he took bribes.
Our withdrawal from Afghanistan was bad, but Biden inherited Trump’s surrender agreement, negotiated by Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. President Biden was stuck with either going along with it, or ripping it up and starting from scratch (while more US soldiers were being killed). (And let’s not forget that Trump closed down 4 of the 5 Air Bases making it impossible to get everyone out, and then blamed Biden. Another bad deal set up by Trump.)
Biden was far from my first choice for president, and I certainly don’t “worship” him. However, I think there’s wide-spread agreement that President Biden did an excellent job in the lead-up to the invasion – passing along intel to Ukraine; exposing Russia’s plans to stage a “false flag” operation, and uniting Western nations against Russia.
“what importance a Ukrainian victory has to us”
He’s expressed this many times. In his State of the Union address, President Joe Biden made clear that backing Ukraine matters “because it keeps the peace and prevents open season for would-be aggressors to threaten our security and prosperity.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/07/remarks-of-president-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address-as-prepared-for-delivery/
“about what the ultimate goal is”
I see people here bashing him for saying he’ll back Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” I don’t really understand that. He’s repeatedly said that he and Zelenskiy “share the exact same vision” for peace. I think if he stated what he thought the goal should be, he’d be accused of dictating to Ukraine what they should do. It seems to me it’s up to Ukraine to decide what the ultimate goal is, and the US should do what it can to help them achieve that goal.
(And yes, I think we should be sending them more weapons and faster. But at least we’re not stuck with the guy who had weakened NATO and vowed to pull the U.S. out of it if he won a second term. Biden and his secretary of state, Antony Blinken, had worked hard to pull the alliance back together.)
“President Biden was stuck with either going along with it, or ripping it up and starting from scratch (while more US soldiers were being killed).”
I disagree. Biden had many more options. One would’ve been to set the Taliban straight after they started to break their part of the agreement. He should’ve threatened with dropping the whole deal if they don’t start behaving. Instead, he did nothing.
I agree that Biden did good up to the invasion, except on two points. One, he didn’t send weapons to Ukraine massively and quickly enough. Two, he told the kremlin rat that we will not get directly involved in the war. Both were strategic mistakes. Especially the last point was the proverbial green light for Vlad to strike.
“because it keeps the peace and prevents open season for would-be aggressors to threaten our security and prosperity.”
Sorry, but this is much too weak and it simply lacks substance. Many Americans understand on their own what importance this has, but many more are too dumb or too lazy to know this, or have listened too much to the various rat catchers. They are the ones who need someone to take them by their hands, so-to-speak.
Biden can do better than that, and he must do better. He must make a comprehensive declaration about the most important aspects of this war, in a clear and precise language.
“It seems to me it’s up to Ukraine to decide what the ultimate goal is, and the US should do what it can to help them achieve that goal.”
That’s just it, Larry. Ukraine already has stated what its ultimate goals are, yet we and the rest of the West have NOT done what’s necessary to achieve them. What Ukraine got is just enough to prevent a defeat. It’s up against a powerful military, deeply entrenched behind massive minefields and they are attacking without a real air force or other badly needed items. The White House said in the spring that Ukraine doesn’t need planes and that it has everything it needs for an offensive. Those were either lame statements from ignoramuses or blatant lies. There are no other options.
I will give Biden credit on NATO. And, I am very glad that the orange one isn’t in the Oval Office right now. However, I’ve seen no serious response over Hungary’s deplorable behavior during this war. Turkey, too, has not been acting in a way that should be expected from a NATO member. I simply don’t see a strong Biden putting both jerk-off nations in their places.