A former top United States military commander in Europe has delivered a stark assessment of the current administration’s approach to the war in Ukraine, suggesting it mirrors Kremlin talking points and lacks clear strategic thinking, placing the onus squarely on European nations to secure Ukraine’s future and prevent a wider conflict. General Ben Hodges, who commanded US Army Europe until 2017, expressed deep concern over recent statements and actions emanating from Washington, criticising what he perceives as a failure of American leadership at a critical juncture. Speaking on the Front Line programme, Hodges was particularly taken aback by the President’s assertion that Ukraine started the war, calling it “frustrating” and indicative of the administration taking the “Russian side”. He speculated that this stance stems not from the President being a Russian asset, but from a lack of appreciation for Ukraine’s history and strategic importance, possibly combined with lingering resentment from past political dealings.
General Hodges noted the unconventional nature of the current US administration’s foreign policy operations, observing that traditional roles seem blurred, with individuals like real estate lawyers apparently undertaking sensitive diplomatic missions whilst the Secretary of State appears sidelined. He described the President’s voice as the “only one that actually matters”, surrounded by advisors who seemingly prioritise agreement over independent counsel. This situation, Hodges argues, has created a vacuum that Europe must now fill. He dismisses the notion that European nations cannot support Ukraine adequately without the US, pointing out that the combined economic, demographic, and military strength of Europe, including the United Kingdom and Canada, vastly outweighs that of Russia. He stated forcefully that this is “Europe’s moment” to demonstrate its capability and shed any image of dependency on the United States.
Despite the political turbulence in Washington, Ukrainian forces continue to demonstrate remarkable resilience and innovation on the battlefield. General Hodges praised Ukraine’s success in striking deep behind Russian lines, targeting logistics, headquarters, and crucially, Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure – operations he believes could have strategic effect comparable to historical strategic bombing campaigns. He highlighted Ukraine’s ability to adapt, change military doctrine, and grow its defence industry whilst under sustained attack, citing the effective neutralisation of the Russian Black Sea Fleet without a conventional navy and the surprising counteroffensive into Kursk as prime examples of creative, risk accepting leadership. He contrasted this with Russia’s struggles, noting their failure to achieve air superiority or interdict supply lines despite numerical advantages, their reliance on poorly equipped troops, and their control of only around nineteen percent of Ukrainian territory after eleven years of conflict.
Looking ahead, General Hodges is deeply sceptical about the prospects for a genuine ceasefire negotiated in good faith by the Kremlin. He asserts that Russia has “zero interest” in any outcome that allows Ukraine to survive as a sovereign nation and will only come to the table meaningfully if compelled by a united and determined European front. He outlined a potential three phase path towards a resolution, emphasising that the current period is one of preparation.
Ben Hodges: Russia Must Not Be Allowed to Dictate Europe’s or Ukraine’s Actions | Times Radio (Video)
Commentary and Video
A former top United States military commander in Europe has delivered a stark assessment of the current administration’s approach to the war in Ukraine, suggesting it mirrors Kremlin talking points and lacks clear strategic thinking, placing the onus squarely on European nations to secure Ukraine’s future and prevent a wider conflict. General Ben Hodges, who commanded US Army Europe until 2017, expressed deep concern over recent statements and actions emanating from Washington, criticising what he perceives as a failure of American leadership at a critical juncture. Speaking on the Front Line programme, Hodges was particularly taken aback by the President’s assertion that Ukraine started the war, calling it “frustrating” and indicative of the administration taking the “Russian side”. He speculated that this stance stems not from the President being a Russian asset, but from a lack of appreciation for Ukraine’s history and strategic importance, possibly combined with lingering resentment from past political dealings.
General Hodges noted the unconventional nature of the current US administration’s foreign policy operations, observing that traditional roles seem blurred, with individuals like real estate lawyers apparently undertaking sensitive diplomatic missions whilst the Secretary of State appears sidelined. He described the President’s voice as the “only one that actually matters”, surrounded by advisors who seemingly prioritise agreement over independent counsel. This situation, Hodges argues, has created a vacuum that Europe must now fill. He dismisses the notion that European nations cannot support Ukraine adequately without the US, pointing out that the combined economic, demographic, and military strength of Europe, including the United Kingdom and Canada, vastly outweighs that of Russia. He stated forcefully that this is “Europe’s moment” to demonstrate its capability and shed any image of dependency on the United States.
Despite the political turbulence in Washington, Ukrainian forces continue to demonstrate remarkable resilience and innovation on the battlefield. General Hodges praised Ukraine’s success in striking deep behind Russian lines, targeting logistics, headquarters, and crucially, Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure – operations he believes could have strategic effect comparable to historical strategic bombing campaigns. He highlighted Ukraine’s ability to adapt, change military doctrine, and grow its defence industry whilst under sustained attack, citing the effective neutralisation of the Russian Black Sea Fleet without a conventional navy and the surprising counteroffensive into Kursk as prime examples of creative, risk accepting leadership. He contrasted this with Russia’s struggles, noting their failure to achieve air superiority or interdict supply lines despite numerical advantages, their reliance on poorly equipped troops, and their control of only around nineteen percent of Ukrainian territory after eleven years of conflict.
Looking ahead, General Hodges is deeply sceptical about the prospects for a genuine ceasefire negotiated in good faith by the Kremlin. He asserts that Russia has “zero interest” in any outcome that allows Ukraine to survive as a sovereign nation and will only come to the table meaningfully if compelled by a united and determined European front. He outlined a potential three phase path towards a resolution, emphasising that the current period is one of preparation.