EXPERT Q&A – World leaders are promising much-needed additional aid to Ukraine at this week’s NATO Summit in Washington DC with the U.S., Germany, Romania, Italy and the Netherlands promising additional long and medium-range air defense systems among other things. But to what end?
The Cipher Brief sat down with Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (Ret.), former Commanding General of the U.S. Army Europe, to talk about what Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky really needs, how Europe is considering its own future security – and why Hodges thinks Russian President Vladimir Putin’s greatest weapon is his ability to ‘scare’ the west with threats of a nuclear weapon.
Our interview has been lightly edited for clarity. You can also listen to the interview by subscribing to the State Secrets podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
The Cipher Brief: We know that President Zelensky wants more of a commitment from NATO this week, and everyone seems worried about the upcoming election. Let’s throw all that on the table and ask your thoughts at this point?
Lt. Gen. Hodges: This is one of the why it’s an advantage for the United States to be in NATO. You have 31 other nations that have all come here to the summit. The world is watching the American election that’s coming up. We have global challenges from Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, all of which want to turn upside down this so-called international rules-based order from which we have benefited the most. Respect for sovereignty, freedom of navigation, respect for international law, are all the things that make America prosperous, that’s what’s at stake. By having 31 other countries, most of the most powerful countries in the world as allies and friends, all here, what an incredible opportunity.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the alliance is perfect. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said as much. It’s not perfect, but it is the longest living, most successful alliance in the history of the world. And there’s a reason that other nations are in a queue wanting to join NATO. Nobody’s knocking on the door of the Kremlin saying, “Hey, let us back in.”
So, what makes the Alliance so successful and why are nations in a queue to get in? It is this unshakeable commitment that while we may have huge policy disagreements with each other on certain things, the fact is that all 31 nations would come to the assistance if one of the 32 were attacked. That’s Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which we’re celebrating the 75th anniversary of this year. That commitment by the way, has only been invoked one time in the history of the alliance. That was after 9/11 when all of our allies came to our aid after we were attacked.
The Cipher Brief: Europe has been thinking already for some time now about providing more of its own defense, worried about the future of NATO as well and the US commitment to continue supporting NATO. France has floated the idea of possibly even sending troops. What do you make of all this and Europe’s attitude toward NATO and toward its own defense, regardless of who wins the election in November?
Lt. Gen. Hodges: Our European allies know that their prosperity and security depends on being a part of this successful alliance, as it has been for many of the countries for 75 years. What’s missing is the political will to do everything that’s necessary. Europe will pay an enormous price if Ukraine fails. And Ukraine only fails if the U.S. and Europe don’t give Kyiv the ability not just to survive, but to defeat Russia. The political will to do that exists in some countries, but it doesn’t exist enough in the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada. I’m talking about the will to say that Ukraine must win, not this nonsensical messaging that ‘we’re with you for as long as it takes’, which means nothing.
The economies of Europe – even if you subtract England, Canada, and the U.S., and it’s just the EU countries – those combined economies dwarf Russia’s economy. Significantly. Russia’s economy is about the size of Spain’s. Why have we not crushed the Russians yet?
It’s political will.
It’s the shadow fleets that sail out of the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea every week carrying Russian oil that goes primarily to India and China, but even to some European countries that are still buying Russian oil. Even at below market price, it still gives Moscow income that they can then use to buy ammunition from North Korea, drones from Iran, parts from China.
Until we’re serious about helping Ukraine win and serious about using all of our economic tools to do it, I think we’re going to continue in this long war of attrition where the Russians know that they cannot knock Ukraine out. They clearly don’t have the ability to do that. They can only hope that we quit. That’s what they’re counting on.
It’s not just for the President anymore. Cipher Brief Subscriber+Members have access to their own Open Source Daily Brief, keeping you up to date on global events impacting national security. It pays to be a Subscriber+Member.
The Cipher Brief: There was a lot of talk the last time that The Cipher Brief was in Ukraine in April about what a negotiated settlement would look like. It’s being whispered about in quiet circles, about the opportunity perhaps for President, if elected, Trump to come in and say Russia can keep the territory that it’s held so far and we will bring an end to this. What are your thoughts on the costs of a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep what they’ve taken?
Lt. Gen Hodges: The cost of any negotiated settlement where Russia is rewarded for what it did is going to be more war. This is what failed deterrence looks like.
We did nothing after they invaded Georgia in 2008. We did nothing after they jumped over President Obama’s red line in Syria and used chemical weapons or helped the Assad regime with chemical weapons against his own people, which then put over a million refugees on the road headed towards Europe.
That’s not a coincidence. That was intended collateral damage, what General Phil Breedlove calls the ‘weaponization of refugees’. That put enormous pressure on European cohesion back in 2015. Then, of course, when the Russians invaded Ukraine the first time in 2014, we really did nothing. The United States did zero. It was a huge debate whether or not to provide Javelins, a MANPAT anti-tank weapon [portable shoulder-launched projectile systems that fire heavy projectiles].
What’s missing from all this is a recognition of who Russia really is and that they’re at war with us, but we’re not willing to accept that and so we’re not thinking that they are a real opponent in a sense that they have to be defeated. That’s why we have a lack of political will.
There are too many good, smart, well-educated people who somehow believe that Russia’s too big, can’t be defeated, they’re a reliable partner. They’re a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and they’re using multimillion dollar precision weapons to hit a children’s hospital in Kyiv on the day that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi – from supposedly the largest democratic country on the planet – is hugging Vladimir Putin in Moscow. How did we get to this?
Unless we have the political will to be clear-minded and clear-eyed about the threat and then take steps to defeat that threat, we’re going to be dealing with this forever.
There’s a reason why Catherine the Great took Crimea the first time back in the end of the 18th century. It dominates the Black Sea. It also dominates the entire northern coastline of the Black Sea, which means if Ukraine were forced into a negotiated settlement, it would never again be able to use any of the ports on the Azov Sea, meaning Mariupol and Berdiansk, even after they’re liberated because the Russians have that big bridge that blocks access in and out of as Asov Sea. It’s easy for them to continue to disrupt grain shipments and other merchant shipping coming in and out of Odessa.
For the Ukrainians, they can’t accept that.
Think about this, the Russians launched massive missile strikes against civilian infrastructure during the Vilnius Summit last year. They murdered Alexei Navalny during this year’s Munich Security Conference, and then they just struck three hospitals the day before the start of this NATO summit. These are not coincidences. This is Putin giving all of us the middle finger because he’s pretty sure we’re not going to do anything about it.
The Cipher Brief: Let me ask you about NATO’s will because President Zelensky came to the NATO summit last year really hoping to go home with something, some kind of assurance that Ukraine would be accepted into NATO. He didn’t really go home with what he was looking for. How’s he going to go home this time and is it going to be enough?
Lt. Gen. Hodges: No, it is not enough, but he knows, unfortunately that the White House – it’s the U.S. and Germany primarily – have said no to Ukrainian membership at this time. I think this is a huge mistake.
The alliance will get immediately better when we incorporate Ukrainian into the alliance. For sure, however, whenever this war ends, we’re going to have to have a Russia containment strategy 2.0. Ukraine will be the absolute best partner to have. Nobody will know Russia better than Ukrainians, how to fight against them and who will have more experience, and then of course, the geography. It’s to our strategic advantage if we want to prevent war with Russia, to get Ukraine into the alliance.
There’s are reasons that that hasn’t happened yet, but I think there’s an excessive fear among a lot of leaders, including here in Washington, that somehow if we do certain things, Russia will use a nuclear weapon, that they will escalate. I think there’s about zero chance Russia’s going to use a nuclear weapon.
The Cipher Brief: Why do you think that when so many of the policymakers think otherwise?
Lt. Gen. Hodges: Of course, you have to respect the fact that Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads. So do we. They definitely don’t care how many innocent people they kill, including their own. To not use a nuclear weapon would not be a moral decision for them, but it would be a practical decision for them. There’s no benefit if they use a nuclear weapon. All of their benefit from their nukes comes from the fact that they see we are so scared that they might use one that we deter ourselves. That’s why the President doesn’t say, “It’s our strategic objective that Ukraine defeats Russia, and we’re going to do everything they need, give them everything they need.” It took two years just to get where they could have the 300-kilometer range ATACMS. We still say, “You can’t use it against these airfields inside Russia from which attacks are killing innocent Ukrainian people.” Why is that? I mean, it makes no military sense. There’s no legal reason not to do it. There’s no moral reason not to do it. It’s all about this excessive fear that Russia might use a nuclear weapon.
I try to think, well, why would they use one? What would they target? They’re already pounding almost every Ukrainian city. The Ukrainians have said, “There’s nothing else you can do to us. We’re still going to fight,” because they know what happens when the Red Army shows up in a town or a village.
The President has said to the Russians, “If you use a nuclear weapon, catastrophic consequences.” Even China and India have told the Russians, “Do not use a nuclear weapon.” Not for moral purposes, but because they don’t want any disruption of the cheap oil and gas they get from Russia. There’s no incentive for Russia to actually use a nuclear weapon. All the benefit comes from not using it.
Think of how many of their red lines we’ve crossed. We can’t possibly give them Javelins. We can’t possibly give them Stingers. There’s no way they can have tanks or Patriots. Eventually, this incremental decision making, gets us where?
The Cipher Brief: And now they have it all. But the criticism now is that the U.S. is helping but it’s way too slow, and NATO is helping but it’s way too slow.
Lt. Gen. Hodges: The way you frame the question highlights the problem. It shouldn’t be about helping Ukraine. This is in our strategic interest. Ukrainians are doing all the fighting, but this is our interest. It’s in our interest that Russia is defeated.
Why is that? First of all, American prosperity depends on European prosperity. Europe is our biggest trading partner. It’s to our advantage that Europe is prosperous. That means they have to be stable and secure, reduce the refugees, plenty of energy, plenty of food, all those things. All of that’s been disrupted because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There’s no end in sight from a Russian perspective. It’s to our advantage that they’re defeated.
Secondly, there are people wringing their hands understandably saying, “Oh, my God. We don’t want to have a war where NATO gets in direct conflict with Russia.” Well, you can be sure that’s going to happen if Ukraine is not successful. Russia will absorb tens of thousands of well-trained, well-equipped Ukrainian soldiers into the Russian military. You’re going to have millions of Ukrainian refugees pouring into Poland and Germany. That’s what’s going to happen if Ukraine fails.
Then of course the Russians have said, “We’re going to Moldova.” All right, well, the Romanians have said, “Well, we will have to react if Russia goes into Moldova.” The Poles, they know how this movie ends. They’re not going to sit behind the Vistula River. They will come into Western Ukraine to preempt Russia coming into Poland.
Now you’ve got NATO countries that are going to be involved in the conflict, and then we all are. If you want to prevent a NATO conflict with Russia, make sure that Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.
Then finally, I know some good, smart people here that think, ‘Oh, forget Europe. It’s all about Indo-Pacific, China’. The best way to deter China is for the Chinese to see that the United States and all of our allies have the political will, the industrial capacity, and the military capability to help Ukraine defeat Russia. If that happens, the Chinese will go, “Oh, shit. They’re serious.”
The Cipher Brief: But China’s got this alliance now with Russia. How important is that alliance in order for Russia to continue its campaign in Ukraine?
Lt. Gen. Hodges: I would not call it an alliance, but certainly they have an agreement. But China is clearly the senior partner in this relationship. In an alliance usually you’re talking about a commitment, if you’re attacked, we’ll come help. Only North Korea has said that.
The Chinese, of course, are most interested in status quo. They don’t want to see another autocratic government overthrown. They don’t want any disruption to their cheap oil and gas. Of course, they’re watching as the polar ice cap melts. The ability to move over the top of the earth is better from a shipping standpoint. That’s their strategic interest with respect to Russia. Of course, they’d love to see us fail.
I think that without China, number one without China buying Russian gas and without China providing components that have otherwise been blocked by sanctions, the Chinese are providing things that help Russia cobble together some long-range precision weapons. That is important just like North Korea providing artillery ammunition and now it looks like ballistic missiles.
If you think strategically and you look at all the challenges that you’ve highlighted, I look at them as all being connected as parts of one strategic whole. If you defeat Russia first, that isolates Iran because Iran’s only friend on this planet is Russia. They need each other. If Russia’s defeated, that isolates Iran, which will then be less capable to support Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas. Then the North Koreans will be out. They have no friends. The Chinese are not happy about North Korea having this bromance between Kim Jong-un and Putin. Then the Chinese will say, “Okay, they’re serious.”
The Cipher Brief: You mentioned Moldova. How are you thinking about this if you’re Bulgaria or you’re Lithuania or you’re Georgia? How are you thinking about what success means in Ukraine?
Lt. Gen. Hodges: Well, what success means, of course, is Russia being defeated. These countries on the eastern flank of NATO, if you will, or the eastern front, they’re not confused about who Russia is. They understand exactly what the threat is. That’s why they have all been clamoring to have NATO enhance forward presence units in the countries, and we have that now. There are not just Americans, but there are French, British, German, Polish, all sorts of, Spanish, Canadians that are part of these forward units. That’s just the land forces. Then you have Baltic and Black Sea air policing.
For all of them, they’re watching very closely. Part of deterrence is having confidence that the rest of the team will come to your aid. If they see us not willing to help Ukraine or that our commitment is, ‘oh, well, we’re not sure. We’re thinking about going to the Pacific’, then I think smaller countries will have to make decisions for themselves. That only helps the Kremlin. That does not help us at all.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business
