Ben Hodges: Crimea Looks Like A Trap For Occupiers

American general gives an exclusive interview to Charter97.org.

Retired General Ben Hodges, the former commander of US troops in Europe, believes that the Russian army will be defeated on the battlefield in Ukraine. The American military expressed this opinion in an interview with Charter97.org.

— You helped to train Ukrainian soldiers in 2014-2017. While watching the events over the last 10 months did you feel proud at any point of the decisions and the efforts you've made in the years 2014-2017?

— I am proud of what our soldiers did and what the US did to help train Ukrainian soldiers, to help deliver capabilities, such as counterfire radar, Javelin, medical equipment.

I would also say that we learned a lot from the Ukrainian forces. In fact, we changed our training at Grafenwoehr and Hohenfels because of what we learned from Ukrainian soldiers. They helped us make the change from counter-terrorism to fighting against a peer adversary.

I am also very proud of what US Army Europe did to improve and increase our presence along all of NATO's Eastern Flank but particularly in Romania. Romania became the center of gravity for all of what we were doing in the Black Sea Region. A lot of work done there to improve our presence and our capabilities.

— When you watch the news about Russian soldiers looting, raping and torturing civilians, what does it make you feel as a military professional? Why is ethics important on the battlefield?

— It is sickening to see soldiers who are given weapons and authority by the state to use deadly force, to abuse that force against innocent people — that's clearly illegal.

War is a terrible thing: soldiers are under enormous pressure when their comrades are killed; people see lots of terrible things — after thousands of years of history, we know that. You have to instill a culture in your military and in each unit to make sure that people know what the law is, what is acceptable, what is not acceptable.

When I see reports of Russian war crimes — that starts at the very top. Vladimir Putin is responsible for allowing or even encouraging these war crimes, the targeting of civilians with their rockets, drones and missiles. He gave an award to the commander of the unit, responsible for the murders in Bucha. That is a big signal to everybody that this is okay, that this is expected.

Fortunately, I think, the World sees this now. Russia has no credibility. This kind of rot that happens inside the country and inside units eventually leads to its moral collapse. That's why the Russian Federation led by the Kremlin is heading downhill.

— Can the people who do all those things fight effectively?

— Yes, they can. In the Second World War some of the most effective Wehrmacht units were also responsible for atrocities, same with Japanese units, same with Soviet units. There's not automatically a separation in terms of fighting skill but there is a moral rot inside a unit that has criminals in it. There will not be the same level of trust. If you're willing to kill innocent people, then you also are willing to kill your own fellow soldiers, kill your commander if you don't like him or use violence in other ways. Over time those kinds of units will not be combat effective.

— Russian forces in Ukraine have a very peculiar structure: there are regular troops, conscripts, newly mobilized guys from all walks of life, convicts, the Kadyrovites. As the US Army retired General, how would you grade this structure of the Russian forces in Ukraine?

— So far, based on what I've seen they are not very effective. All of us depend on a mix of regular forces, elite special forces and reservists. One-half of the United States Army is regular, the other half is National Guard Reserve — we depend on that.

Most nations have a reserve component, but that's not what I see in Russia. What I see in Russia is a reaction by the Kremlin to solve a problem that they created themselves. They thought they would be able to walk into Ukraine with the forces that they had. And here we are, almost a year later, they are losing hundreds of soldiers killed every day, so they have to mass mobilize. The population clearly does not want to be there. There's not one single Russian soldier that wants to be there, none of them.

What you end up with is this kind of a mixture of different types of soldiers that are not trained, that are not cohesive formations. Even more damaging, you do not have a coherent chain of command. I think Kadyrov does what he wants to do. He doesn't take orders from the General Staff. In fact, you see very few reports of Chechens killed or being fed into the meat grinder. You see Prigozhin who has staked his personal reputation on one place, Bakhmut — and they are failing, so he has to keep feeding bodies into this. You have the regular military, which has been bled white. The best units of the Russian army were the VDV [Russian Airborne Forces - Ed.], and most of their leaders and experienced soldiers have been killed or wounded.

You end up with this mix of people, but not units that are trained and have a cohesion that would enable them to be effective in terrible conditions. Usually, it's leaders that get killed the most: company and platoon leaders, battalion leaders, the ones that have maybe some more experience, because they're more exposed, they're always getting killed. Now, you have new soldiers without old leaders.

— Some say, that irrespective of the state of the Russian army, the West and Ukraine at some point have to come to terms with Mr Putin just because of the mere fact that he does have nuclear weapons. What's your answer to such a point of view?

— That is what the Kremlin hopes, that the threat of nuclear weapons will force the West to come to some sort of negotiated end. But I don't think it is likely they would do that [use nuclear weapons]. Of course, you have to take the Russian threat seriously, because they do have thousands of nuclear weapons. It's clear, they do not care how many innocent people would be killed, even of their own, but the use of a nuclear weapon would give Russia no battlefield advantage on the ground.

I think, that the Russian General Staff believes President Biden's threat that there will be catastrophic consequences [if a nuclear weapon is used]. I think they believe that. The people that are able to think professionally, I think, will prevent Putin or talk him out of using a nuclear weapon.

People in the West should get their heads around the idea that Russia is going to be defeated the old-fashioned way on the battlefield. They are going to be forced out of Crimea. They cannot stop it. There is no way that Russia can reverse the momentum.

Every day, Ukraine gets a little bit better with logistics. They have 2 million people waiting to join the military. Russia has a serious manpower problem. Their logistics get worse every day. Sanctions make it worse every day. I think that what we are going to see is by the end of August Ukraine will have liberated Crimea.

— But Russia has endless stockpile munitions (some very old), so China and North Korea do. How about the West? Does the West have enough munitions or the capacity to produce munitions to sustain its help to Ukraine?

— First, let me challenge your assumption that Russia has endless amounts of ammunition and the implication that China and North Korea will provide even more. I have doubts that China will provide ammunition to Russia. I think President Xi realizes that Russia is losing and that China does not want to be handcuffed to a corpse. I think even Lukashenka realizes that Russia is a corpse and this is going to end one day. I think other leaders are starting to think, about how close they want to be associated with what is happening in Russia.

The US and other allies and partners have all discovered that we do not have enough ammunition on hand — this is a problem. Our industries are working, I think, to increase production, but this is not like a light switch. It takes time to change the industrial base, the supply chain, necessary for all the components, whether we're talking about basic artillery or precision weapons. We certainly have the potential and the capacity to do a lot more. We just don't have a lot on hand right now.

However, the Czech Republic is providing 24 more self-propelled DANA 152-millimetre howitzers. They are sending ammunition for that, and Ukraine already produces 152-millimetre howitzer ammunition, as do other Eastern European nations.

— Which types of western weapons are still lacking in Ukraine and needed the most in order for Ukrainian forces to advance?

— First of all, long-range precision weapons. ATACMS is an example: 300 kilometer range and could land inside about a one-meter grid square — that would give Ukraine the ability right now to deny sanctuary in Crimea. They could be hitting Sevastopol today. They could be hitting every Russian air base and ammunition storage site in Crimea today if they had the ATACMS or if they had Gray Eagle and Reaper combat drones.

Because we have limited some of the capabilities we have provided to Ukraine, we have, in effect, given Russia sanctuary that they just have to move back outside of HIMARS MLRS’s range and then they just shoot with impunity against civilian targets inside Ukraine.

Obviously, Ukrainians are not sitting on their hands. They are developing their own technology, so we occasionally will see drone strikes on a base in Crimea or at an air base deep inside Russia, but our policy in the West has in effect, given sanctuary to Russia — we have to change that.

Secondly, continue to find ways to help them knock down these attacks against civilian targets, whether we are talking about cruise missiles or drones. Ukrainians are doing very well knocking down drones — still, some get through — but there are hundreds more that are still coming. You would not use a Patriot against that, you could use a Stinger or you might use another kinetic solution, saving Patriot and S-300 for cruise missiles.

The third, capability that they need is our armored vehicles. That will be helpful when the mobile phase of this campaign resumes, which I think may happen sooner rather than later. I think the Biden administration is about to announce that they're going to provide the Bradley fighting vehicles (the announcement took place after the interview was recorded — editorial note). France announced that they're gonna provide the AMX-10 — these are all good capabilities. What I would like to see is for the US, Germany and others to begin training Ukrainian soldiers how to use Abrams and Leopard while they still try to decide on the policy of whether or not to deliver. Don't wait for that policy before starting training.

— Do you presume that more dynamic events and major changes will take place in Ukraine soon?

— I don't want to say major changes. I think, the Ukrainian General Staff has done a very good thorough job of pounding away at Russian logistics, transport, headquarters. Almost every day you see a report of an ammunition storage site or a bridge, or a headquarters that was hit. Those are the right targets. This is part of preparation — when the Ukrainians do see the opportunity, when they see the conditions are ready — to start moving again.

Obviously, the weather is a part of that, but track vehicles can still move in the mud, so I think the weather is not a big factor. I think the big factor is that the General Staff wants to make sure that they have done everything ready to give their soldiers the best opportunity for success.

Clearly, Crimea is the decisive terrain. That's it. I think the General Staff will keep an eye on Belarus, on Belgorod for these reports of possible new Russian offensives. They will be prepared for that. I think they'll make sure they have enough capability around Bakhmut to continue stopping Russian efforts there. But the real main effort is the South, is eventually to isolate Crimea.

There are only two roads into Crimea: the Kerch bridge and the land bridge. The Kerch bridge has already been hit. I'm sure it will be revisited over and over. The land bridge, which goes through Mariupol and Melitopol is already being hit, and I'm sure that it will continue to be hit. So, eventually Crimea starts to look like a trap, and it becomes untenable for the Black Sea Fleet, the Air Force, and other Russian Forces.

— Should Putin and Lukashenka decide to invade with ground troops from the North, what is a likely scenario of the events unfolding on the battlefield?

— I think, that the Kremlin would want Ukraine and all of us to be worried about that, to distract away from where the real fighting is, and to see Ukraine have to deploy capability against the possible threat. But, I don't see this being a modern, well-trained, powerful force. I am sure there will be something at some point, but if you and I know about it then certainly the US and UK intelligence and Ukrainian intelligence know about it and they're watching it. I think this is an area where nobody should be surprised.

I'm not convinced that the leadership in Minsk wants to be a part of this. As I said earlier, I think they see that Russia is losing and that the Russian military is not what we all thought it was. I also think that Lukashenka knows that if the 10 or so Battalion Tactical Groups of the Belarusian army are put into the fight, that they'll be destroyed almost immediately. They are not at the level of readiness to be able to fight effectively. I don't know if he wants to lose his small army.

I am also not convinced that people in Belarus, even in the military, want to be a part of this. I don't think there is the animosity between Belarus and Ukraine that there is between Russia and Ukraine.

There are a lot of these factors, I think, that argue against Belarus playing a major role other than allowing Russia to transit, which is a violation of the sovereignty of Belarus.

I would hope that the people of Belarus will do what they did in World War II which would make it a living hell for the rear area just the way they did for the Wehrmacht where partisans were constantly attacking German convoys and railroads. I hope that that tradition will come back of the people of Belarus defending the sovereignty of their country will attempt to stop, disrupt Russian convoys, trains and communications.

If you like this article, you can support the website Charter97.org

MULTI-CURRENCY ACCOUNT FOR ASSISTANCE:

Bank's name: Bank Millennium S.A.
Address: ul. Stanislawa Zaryna, 2A, 02-593, Warszawa
IBAN: PL 97 1160 2202 0000 0002 1671 1123
SWIFT: BIGBPLPW
Name of the account holder: Fundacja “KARTA ‘97”
Purpose/title of payment: Donation for statuary aims

You can contact us by the e-mail [email protected]