Former US General Ben Hodges was commander of the US Land Forces in Europe from 2014 to 2017. Now retired, the Germany and Europe expert is vehemently committed to Ukraine. In the interview, he passionately argues that Crimea should not be left out.
ntv.de: Mr. Hodges, the Russian attack on Ukraine has been going on for a year. People are living with air raids, murder, kidnapping, death and destruction. Still, they look as determined as ever. Did you expect that?
Ben Hodges: That's only human. Strategic bombing, that is, missile attacks on residential areas, power plants, and power infrastructure, has never worked as a means of subjugating the populace - in any war. That didn't work in Britain during WWII, and it didn't work in Nazi Germany either. In Ukraine we see the same thing. The people there are more determined than ever because they are defending their homeland. You know what happens when Russia occupies a place. Butscha has burned itself into her memory. So no, I'm not surprised that Ukrainians are so determined.
Where are we in this war right now? Who has the upper hand right now? Or does anyone even have the upper hand?
Let me put it this way: I don't see any light on the horizon for Russia - if the West firmly supports Ukraine. If we muster the will to give strong support to Ukraine, Russia will gain nothing from this war of aggression. That's why it doesn't help if my President just says that support will continue as long as it is needed. That's an empty, meaningless statement. Instead, President Biden should say very clearly: We want Ukraine to win!
Even Chancellor Scholz does not say that.
Yes. But fortunately other European nations understand what is at stake. So elsewhere we have real, strong leadership that comes with action. Estonia, for example, gives all of its howitzers to Ukraine. In relation to their gross domestic product, they give far more than anyone else. Estonians do what they say.
Has the expected Russian offensive already begun?
The fact that it makes you wonder if she started or not gives you an indication of the lack of offensive quality. I think technically it's started. But it's not an offensive one would expect from a professional army. They would focus their attention on a specific area and then concentrate all their energies there to achieve their goal. Instead, the Russians attacked on a broad front. So far they've just sent more ill-trained, ill-managed, and ill-equipped conscripts to the meat grinder.
But you could conquer Bachmut.
Even if they conquer Bachmut today - what then? They have no mobile forces to push forward after a breakthrough. There is more talk about the offensive than actually takes place.
Let's talk about Crimea. Some say she should be left out for now. What do you make of it?
I think that's a weak, half-hearted statement from high-level people who don't seem to mean what they say when they talk about democratic values, sovereignty and the UN Charter. They are ready to give up what has been lawful Ukrainian territory for decades. Germany would not give up, say, Saxony or Brandenburg just for the sake of peace. And the US would not simply give up Florida just to appease an aggressor like Putin. This type of conversation really turns me off. We are handicapping ourselves because we are so afraid of Russia. By the way, it's not true that the war started a year ago. The war started in 2014. The "special military operation" began last February. Look at where we are after nine years. The best that Russia has been able to do is what we see.
And what about the risk of a Russian nuclear strike?
I consider the risk of a nuclear escalation to be relatively low. I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all. Of course the Russians have thousands of nuclear weapons and they don't care how many innocent people die. But I believe President Biden's warning of "catastrophic consequences" got through to them. I also don't think using a tactical nuclear bomb would give them an advantage on the battlefield. They have nothing to exploit that with. But that's exactly what the tactical nuclear bombs were developed for during the Cold War: They were supposed to punch a hole in the NATO troops somewhere along the German border. Soviet forces trained to fight in contaminated terrain were then to advance into this gap. The Russians no longer have these troops. So there would be no point in using tactical nuclear weapons.
So far, Putin hasn't given much thought to the fact that something is pointless.
Russian nuclear weapons are only effective when not used. Now, when it is said that Crimea should not be conquered because Russia could use the atomic bomb, we are limiting ourselves. In fact, every time we have confronted him, Putin has backed down. It's like a bully: if you smack him on the nose, he'll back away. But again, we need to stop feeding the false, criminal narrative that Crimea is special in some way because it's sort of almost Russian territory. This is absolute nonsense: it is sovereign Ukrainian territory.
Even if you don't like the debate about it, we keep hearing that this war will end in negotiations. And Zelensky himself was still willing to compromise at the beginning of this war. Wouldn't Crimea be an acceptable sacrifice for the greater good to end this terrible war?
I have several problems with what you just said. First: I have no problem with the debate. I'm just saying that I have a completely different opinion than people who say Crimea is a special case, that it should be left out, and that Putin should be rewarded for his aggression and illegal annexation. Incidentally, the UN General Assembly voted against the illegal annexation. Nobody acknowledged that. Second, what is the higher good supposed to be here?
Peace?
That wouldn't be peace! So really! We know that from history. That would not bring peace. That's appeasement, that's appeasement. Do you really think that if Russia keeps Crimea, then in two or three years we won't be talking about another Russian offensive? Do you really think that after a reward for its brutal war of aggression, Russia would suddenly start respecting international law?
Last fall you said on ntv that Ukraine could control all of its territory by the summer. Are you staying?
When I make a prediction, of course I also name the basic requirements that have to be met. In the case of Crimea, these are long-range weapons. If we, the democratic allies, deliver these weapons, I still believe that it is possible to liberate Crimea by the end of August. Crimea is the crucial part, Donbass comes after. Ukraine will never be safe as long as Russian troops are in Crimea.
What will decide this war? Weapons? Ammunition? Logistics?
As I said, there is no light on the horizon for Russia. They cannot reproduce their precision weapons because of the sanctions. They lose hundreds of soldiers every day. There is this myth about the suffering of the Russians. I doubt it applies to this war because the Russians are not defending their fatherland, unlike in World War II. And one more thing: You can be sure that in Moscow and St. Petersburg there are not so many families who are really suffering. Their children still vacation in Doha or work in London. It is mainly the people in the hinterland who pay the price. This can't go on forever.
What about the logistics?
Russian logistics were never intended for what Russians are doing now. They will not be able to keep doing what they are doing now. Not once in the past year has the Russian Air Force been able to destroy a single train or convoy carrying military supplies from Poland to Ukraine. These are very basic things and they are not able to do them. The Black Sea Fleet is practically hiding in Sevastopol. They are afraid to even approach the Ukrainian coast, even though Ukraine doesn't even have a navy. Remember last September, too: half a million men of military age fled the country to avoid conscription. You don't want this fight. This is all about Putin. This war will end with Ukraine defeating Russia. And the quicker that happens, the more lives can be saved.
What difference will the German Leopard tanks make?
As an American soldier, I always believed that the Abrams was the best tank. But in this case, the leopard is the best solution. It's an excellent tank in every configuration. Any leopard is better than anything the Russians have.
Even the old Leopard 1?
If they have a good crew in a Leopard 1, they will destroy every Russian tank out there. A good team is the most important thing. I haven't seen anything with the Russians that indicates that they have really well-trained crews.
Does Ukraine need fighter jets? After all, to date, Russia has not gained air sovereignty.
The reason for F16, MiGs or other aircraft is not only anti-aircraft defense, but also air support for ground forces. The aim is to destroy ammunition stores, artillery positions and headquarters. Modern aircraft would add precision at depth. That would contribute to the success of the ground offensive. So getting those planes would be of immense value.
Germany supplies the most weapons among the EU countries, uses practically no Russian gas and oil anymore, has taken in a million refugees and wants to invest 100 billion euros in the German armed forces. Do you still recognize the country?
I'm very impressed. It is interesting that probably 90 percent of Germans do not know that their country is the second largest supplier of arms and equipment to Ukraine. I think Berlin doesn't talk about what it's doing with enough confidence. The communication does not match the very good work of the federal government, the support of the Bundestag and the generosity of the German people, who have taken in so many refugees. I noticed that there are hardly any protests when the federal government takes a big step. Not in 2016, after Germany moved a battle group to Lithuania, and not a year ago after Chancellor Scholz's speech about the turn of the century. Or after the decision to supply Leopard tanks and allow other countries to export them - nobody took to the streets here in Frankfurt.
There is already some protest. There was just another open letter and on Sunday there should be a demo at the Brandenburg Gate. You know why many Germans have mixed feelings about war. After World War II, we grew up with the mantra "never again". Should the Germans put that behind them?
No, the Germans should do exactly that: never again. Because it's happening again right now: A brutal war of aggression and the murder of innocent people tens of thousands of times. I think most Germans understand what "Never again" means. Something you have to do to make sure it never happens again. When I walk along the sidewalks in Frankfurt or Berlin and other German cities, I always see the stumbling blocks. What an impressive reminder not to forget! I think Germany has built up a moral authority over the decades. They should protect you - by doing what is necessary to defend what is important to them and all your Democratic allies.
Of the 100 billion euros, none was spent until late, and Germany still does not spend two percent of its GDP on defense. Is Germany too slow?
Yes, but so are we Americans. Many people were pleasantly surprised when they heard the Chancellor's speech on February 27th. But you're right, it's too slow. This is partly due to political will, partly due to bureaucracy. But in the US, too, we've been talking for a year about how much ammunition is being used and that we wouldn't have enough if there was a conflict with China. Despite this, we have not yet increased our production. If the government needs more guns, they should spend money on them. This applies to Germany as well as to the USA.
Arms shipments are one thing. But isn't morale also crucial, the willingness to defend one's homeland?
In any case. Napoleon said that morality is as opposed to physical as 3 is to 1. This is why there are so many examples in history of smaller nations or units succeeding against larger ones. It is the will to fight and resist. I doubt that many Russian soldiers want to be in Ukraine. You are forced to be there. The Ukrainians know the Russians well. Ukrainians understand what is at stake, remember Stalin, the Holodomor. They see thousands of their children being deported. That's why Ukrainians say they'd rather live with Russian bombs than with Russian chains.
Does that remind Americans of their own history, of the struggle for independence and freedom?
In any case, it reminds us that it is one thing to want democracy and freedom. But the other thing is to do something about it. Freedom is never a gift. I know that sounds a bit banal now, but freedom is not free, freedom does not come for nothing. Ukraine has inspired many people and, personally, made me pay more attention to what is happening in my own country. Many Americans take freedom for granted. Many have become too lazy to understand their own history. To understand that to defend freedom one must fight. If you want to defend your values, you have to do something about it. Nobody else will do that for you.
Volker Petersen spoke to Ben Hodges
