‘We Are Going to Regret How Irrelevant We Will Have Become,’ US General Says

Gen. Ben Hodges, the retired American officer and former commanding general of US Army Europe, has long been one of the most vocal military advocates for a decisive Ukrainian victory. As debates in Western capitals often stall over fears of escalation and the pursuit of negotiated settlements, Hodges fears that political timidity is blinding the West to the reality of the threat.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Chalke History Festival, Hodges sat down for a candid conversation about the current and previous US administrations, the paralysis caused by Russian nuclear threats, and why the failure to fully commit to a Ukrainian victory will ultimately render Western leadership irrelevant.

Kyiv Post: It could be said that you are probably one of the most pro-Ukrainian and, to some extent, gung-ho American voices, out there.

Gen. Ben Hodges: Russia was always an enemy. Their desire is to wreck everything that I have ever cared about: democracy, peace in the world, all of these things.

And so I see what Ukraine is doing, an old country, but a young democracy, fighting to protect itself from Russia. It is an easy choice for me who we should be supporting, and of course we should make that the objective.

Are you saying the same sentiment is not shared by the White House? This and previous administrations?

Absolutely not. Yes, I would say definitely not this administration. The previous administration, at least the Biden administration, did a lot to help, but they always stopped short of saying, “We want Ukraine to win,” because I think they were excessively concerned that Russia might use a nuclear weapon.

Other Topics of Interest

Ukraine Shouldn’t Be AI Testing Ground, Order of Malta Warns

AI must serve people rather than power, international leaders said in Kyiv on July 2 as experts explored AI's role in Ukraine's humanitarian response and postwar reconstruction.

Are you concerned that might be the case, or has Russia demonstrated that it would not do it?

They certainly have the capability, and you have to take it seriously. But then, why would they do it? The only benefit for Russia is because they see that people are scared.

There is no place where they could use a nuclear weapon that would really change the direction of the war. And I think the Chinese have said [no], India [has said no], because the Chinese do not want anything that would disrupt their access to cheap Russian oil and gas.

So I just think there is no chance they would use it against Ukraine or anywhere else, unless it looked like Russia itself was under direct, existential threat.

The UK has had the Salisbury poisoning, with Russian drones in Europe, why, then, is America hesitant?

Well, I cannot explain this administration’s interest in transactional relationships instead of defending the things that are shared interests. And so I think this administration has a different view, unfortunately. I think they would rather do business with Russia, and if that is bad for Ukraine, then [so be it].

Do you put any focus on Ukraine joining other groupings? What do you think of Ukrainian involvement in the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF)?

Well, that would be a decision for the other countries that are in the JEF. Whatever organisation, institution or group Ukraine joins gets immediately better. NATO, JEF, or any other coalition – it gets immediately better. It will not happen with this president, probably.

Do you think that in the next year we are going to see a change in how America behaves towards Ukraine substantially, or will it be more of the same?

Well, I think we are going to regret that this administration, and the previous one, did not commit to helping Ukraine win, because Ukraine is going to win. Ukraine is going to become the heart of the defence industry of all of Europe within the next 10 years, and we are going to regret how irrelevant we will have become.