November 24, 2023 • 42 mins
Join us Host Dana Lewis on journey into the heart of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. This episode arms you with insights from US Army (Ret) Lieutenant General Ben Hodges and security analyst Zoran Kusovac, unpacking the tenuous nature of the Gaza ceasefire and hostage exchange agreements.
Our conversation with Lieutenant General Ben Hodges brings into sharp focus the stark realities of the Ukraine-Russia war and the brutalities of urban warfare. Delve into the unvarnished truth of the US's support for Ukraine, the painstakingly slow delivery of essential munitions, and the far-reaching implications of these actions.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dana Lewis (00:00):
And there's supposed to be no shooting
during any of that time.
What could possibly go wrong?
Zoran Kusovac (00:07):
Anything could possibly go wrong.
These things are very, verysensitive because they depend on
people on the ground, the bigbosses.
They make the big dates andthey say okay, we are going to
stop fighting and we are goingto exchange the captives.
And that sounds very good.
Even if the intention indeed issincere, as we hope it is, it
(00:34):
still has to be translated onthe ground, Do you believe?
Dana Lewis (00:38):
that they're actually getting what they need,
and you've been a fierce criticof the fact that the US has put
this on a slow drip in terms ofthe munitions that they could
have sent and can send toUkraine, and it's been it hasn't
been forthcoming a lot of it.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (00:56):
Yeah, I was very disappointed with
Secretary Austin's message.
Why does it have to be amarathon?
I mean, this is our choice,this is American policy, that
this is a marathon instead of adecisive victory for Ukraine.
Dana Lewis (01:19):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis Coming up theinsightful, no-nonsense lowdown
on Russia's war on Ukraine fromUS Army Lieutenant General Ben
Hodges.
Are we witnessing a completedeadlock in the fighting?
Hodges says he just got to saythat Ukraine needs to win and
(01:40):
that's lacking in thediscussions in the strategy on
arming and funding Ukraine.
And security analyst ZoranKusovac on the Gaza war.
Will a pause become a ceasefire?
I doubt it, but let's talkthrough what's happening with
the Israeli hostages and whattomorrow holds.
Zoran Kusovac is a geopoliticaland security analyst, a war
(02:09):
correspondent, a producer,somebody I've worked with over
the decades, and you can't findanybody who's sort of more
experienced and I wouldn't saywar weary, but war Zoran, what
would we say?
Just, you've been everywhereand you've seen it all and
you're very good at kind oflooking at today's situations
(02:32):
and being able to reflect theminto yesterday's and what could
possibly go wrong.
Zoran Kusovac (02:39):
Thanks for singing my praises, dana.
I would settle for war savvy.
I think that explains it.
Dana Lewis (02:46):
Let's go with that.
Look, as I was waiting for youto come online, I was watching
the Qatari foreign ministerspeak about this deal to release
the hostages in Israel and itseems like there are so many
unanswered questions.
But essentially, starting at 4pm on Friday, 13 hostages are
(03:09):
going to be released.
But the truce, the ceasefire,if we can call it that, or the
cessation in hostilities is abetter way of saying it is
supposed to start at 7 o'clockin the morning.
Aid trucks are supposed tostart moving into Gaza and then
the Red Cross will facilitatethe first batch of hostages to
(03:32):
be transported over the Gazaborder into Israeli hands the
first day.
And this is supposed to go onfor four days, while the
Israelis are supposed to stopNothing in the sky, you know,
turn the drones off, groundtheir aircraft, and there's
(03:52):
supposed to be no shootingduring any of that time.
So let me go back to the firstquestion that I said to you, and
that is what could possibly gowrong.
Zoran Kusovac (04:04):
Anything could possibly go wrong.
These things are very, verysensitive because they depend on
people on the ground, the bigbosses.
They make the big deeds andthey say, okay, we are going to
stop fighting and we are goingto exchange the captives.
And that sounds very good.
Even if the intention indeed issincere, as we hope it is, it
(04:30):
still has to be translated onthe ground into some very sticky
things like what route are theygoing to use?
Those on the ground first of allhave to meet, and that is not
always easy.
Imagine they've been fightingeach other now in the last Gaza
(04:53):
offensive for almost a month onthe ground.
They wanted to kill each other.
They wanted to kill as many oftheir opposite side soldiers and
officers, and now somebody hadto pick up a radio.
They actually talked to eachother on the radio.
In all wars, the enemies towneach other.
When there is a quiet moment,they call each other names and
(05:16):
they threaten each other, butthey know where they are.
They use the same channels onwalkie-talkies.
So somebody on one side oranother picked up a radio
anytime from Wednesday untiltoday, probably already on
Wednesday, saying my commanderwants to talk to your commander,
(05:37):
and then the two of them starttalking and say hey, you and I
have to find out a safe routefor these guys.
We have to work out who and howis going to clear the rubble,
who is going to guarantee thatthere are no land mines?
Which is going to be our changeover point, and this is very
(06:00):
important.
You are responsible up to thisstone and I'm responsible from
that stone onto my side.
Dana Lewis (06:08):
Two sides did still want to kill each other, just
haven't been bent on it in thepast.
I mean, they hate one anotherand they want to kill one
another.
So who do you think, asIsraelis are still in place in
Gaza in their tanks, inbuildings, in their overwatch
(06:28):
positions, hamas is still intunnels.
They are still everywhere,spread around, able to hit and
run, who do you think, with allthese different factions in Gaza
, might want to torpedo a deal?
Zoran Kusovac (06:42):
torpedo the truth .
We don't need to go that far.
We can ask one even simplerquestion Are we 100% certain
that both sides, on every pointon the battlefield, exercise
full and complete control 24-7?
(07:02):
It's enough for one soldier tobe angry, to be drunk, to be
frustrated and to say who arethey to tell me not to fight
when I lost this person or thatperson, and it's enough for
someone to start shooting totrigger domino effects.
(07:26):
So there are many dangers.
One thing that I don't like,and I have to mention it
immediately, is that the initialexchange has been set for 4pm
Now.
The window on light is veryshort 4pm in Gaza, the sun is
already going down and it'salmost dark.
(07:48):
As it happens very fast andwithout any delay, and it's very
efficient, they're going to runinto dark hours and, as you
know, it's never a good idea toconduct any business on the
battlefield of the sunsets.
So this worries me very much.
Dana Lewis (08:11):
Can I ask you?
There are a lot of peoplesitting back applauding this
because they just wanted thebloodshed to end.
The former Mossad chief,ephraim Halevi, did an interview
in Israel and he said thatquote I think this deal is the
first stage.
If this process of exchange ofprisoners is carried forward to
the end, it will be much moredifficult to renew the military
(08:34):
campaign until the collapse ofHamas.
That's the former head ofMossad saying.
We may not see a resumption ofhostilities at all if and you
and I both agreed, there's ahuge if here if the hostage
release is successful andcontinues.
Zoran Kusovac (08:55):
Absolutely.
He is definitely somebody whoknows all things that are
involved, who has experienced,who has battlefield experience,
who has experienced indetermining what the enemy
thinks.
So, yes, this is one of thethings.
That is quite a logicaldevelopment.
(09:18):
People will say not just peopleon the ground, but it starts
from them.
The Palestinians and theIsraelis will say wait a second,
if we had four days without anyfighting, without people
getting killed, without anythinggetting destroyed, without
buildings in Gaza beingdestroyed and the covering
(09:39):
people under rubble, withoutrockets being fired at Israel
and killing people in theirhomes, why can't we have 40 days
or 400 days?
Dana Lewis (09:49):
And the political pressures will be extreme on
Netanyahu.
Right, Because, okay, 50 peoplereleased, it's a huge number of
hostages out, but there arestill potentially almost 200
others that will still be heldand the pressure on the Israeli
government, which at firstseemed to draw a horizontal bar
(10:10):
between removing Hamas and thewar and also releasing the
hostages they've been under alot of pressure to say hostages
being released are the numberone priority now.
Zoran Kusovac (10:22):
Well, most people in Israel asked for that from
the very beginning.
But of course it just fell ondeaf ears because Netanyahu and
his hawks they, were verywarlike and they kept saying
we're going to destroy Hamas.
Of course people who reallyknow something about wars
(10:44):
Israelis who know about wars andthey do they must have told
Netanyahu from the verybeginning.
It's not that easy to destroyHamas.
You can kill many people,hoping that some of them will be
Hamas.
But singling out Hamas anddestroying Hamas is not going to
be easy militarily.
By now many people realize that.
(11:04):
So in a way, stopping thefighting, getting some kind of
political securities after theygot all the hostages out, would
be an honorable way out foreverybody.
But that would cost Netanyahuhis political skin.
I don't think he can survivethis in any way.
His popularity, or actually hislevel of tolerance for his
(11:31):
politics, went up and down likeKiyoya, which was absolutely
rock bottom, and then when thedeal was announced, he
immediately tried to spindoctrine into I will free some
hostages.
Yes, that helps him a little,but I don't think it can help
him in the long term.
I think he's doomed one way oranother.
So a lot of strategic decisionmaking around.
(11:57):
The Israeli position in Gazawill be determined by
Netanyahu's tactical politicalgame of survival.
Dana Lewis (12:06):
Do you want to make a prediction?
I'll make a prediction.
I would tell you, aftercovering Hamas since the 1990s.
This truth will not hold.
They will want to, I think,torpedo any cessation of
hostilities at a certain point.
I don't know what that pointwill be.
Once they get a certain amountof aid into Gaza, they will not
(12:29):
release some men of military ageand some of the hostages very
easily.
That can go on for months.
Israel will begin to pull thetrigger again, depending on how
many hostages are released andhow quickly.
But how does this conflict end?
Does it end with the Israeliarmy staying in Gaza?
Or do you think that behind thescenes, there is anything in
(12:53):
the works in terms of aninternational effort to try to
replace Hamas or bring in theregular Palestinian authority or
somehow to set Gaza back onsome of the rails of self-rule
in some form that the Israeliscan live with?
Sorry, I know there's a lot inthat question, but do you see an
(13:15):
endpoint here?
Zoran Kusovac (13:18):
No, I don't see an endpoint.
I don't see a logical endpoint.
And I don't think that Israelsees an endpoint, which is even
more important because, from themoment all hostages are
released, there is no winsituation for Israel, whatever
it does.
If it stays in Gaza, it's bad.
(13:39):
If it tries to occupy the wholeof Gaza, it's bad, because that
means pressure on theinhabitants, who will then have
to press on Egypt to get intoEgypt, and Egypt doesn't want
them.
Dana Lewis (13:56):
No country wants them and pressure on Israeli
soldiers, who will keep dying inthere, by the way, too, because
they cannot.
Just that's why they left Zoranright.
Zoran Kusovac (14:05):
Exactly exactly.
They will keep getting.
Dana Lewis (14:08):
Drive by shootings at night.
They will keep getting pickedoff.
There will continue to be armedconflict in there.
Israel may think staying is thelesser of a number of evils,
but I don't think Israel wantsto stay on the ground there and
the Israeli public won't acceptsoldiers coming home dead every
week, more and more and more.
Zoran Kusovac (14:31):
The only thing I beg to disagree is when you say
Israel will not accept thatIsrael is never going to be
unified on this.
The time when Israel was aresponsible society that behaved
like we don't challenge ourgovernment while we are at war
(14:53):
has definitely passed.
So from now on, there will betwo Israels.
There will be the war hawks,there will be the doves in
Israel, there will be therealists, and those who engage
in wishful thinking will saywell, it's worth staying in Gaza
because, even if our soldierswill be killed, our civilians
(15:16):
will not be killed, and Israelis going to have a very, very
tough internal debate as to whatit wants and what it can do in
and around Gaza.
So this is not going to beresolved very easily and very
quickly.
Dana Lewis (15:34):
Now take months and months and maybe a couple of
years, although a lot of peoplewould say that's looking way too
far in the distance.
Zoran Kusavach.
Thank you so much, my friend.
It's good to hear you, good tosee you.
Zoran Kusovac (15:47):
Just to add, Dana , somebody we know very well, US
General David Petraeus, theformer military commander and
head of CIA, said exactly thatthis war is not going to be
finished in weeks.
It's going to take at leastmonths.
Dana Lewis (16:06):
Yeah, that's from a guy who predicted Afghanistan
would be a 20 year insurgencyand he was pretty close to that.
Yeah, I don't think hepredicted the end of that very
well, but he predicted the lastof it.
Zoran Kusovac (16:20):
Thank you, sir.
Yes, thanks, dana.
Bye-bye, nice talking to you.
Dana Lewis (16:28):
Lieutenant General Ben Hodges is a frequent guest
here.
He's a former US Army commanderof Europe.
Terrific insight on theUkraine-Russia war.
Welcome back, sir.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (16:38):
Dana, thank you very much for the privilege
.
Dana Lewis (16:40):
Thank you.
And, of course, the first thingI'm going to ask you about has
nothing to do with Ukraine.
So Russia, let's put Russiaaside for one minute.
As we speak, Israel hasnegotiated with Hamas, through
Qatar, as you know, for therelease of 50 hostages over four
(17:02):
days, for a pause.
It's not officially a ceasefire, but you call it what you want
to you.
The first time I met you was inIraq, as you were commanding
forces as a young lieutenantcolonel with 101st Airborne
through urban areas.
I mean, they're a lot differentthan Gaza, but there are
(17:23):
similarities.
How would you feel if you werea commander on the ground being
told stop for a minute, hold andwait while we try to get some
hostages out?
A very complicated situation.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (17:39):
Yeah, well, obviously, if this hostage deal
does come to pass, it's greatnews for those 50 people, as
well as their families.
But this comes with a cost, andyou allude to that.
The Israeli Defense Force, Iwould imagine, will be
(18:01):
frustrated that they're havingto stop because they clearly are
pounding Hamas.
I mean, that's the only reasonHamas would have agreed to any
sort of thing like this isbecause they are suffering and
they need the benefit of a breakof some sort.
The part of the agreement thatstruck me is most.
What would be most annoying tome is the agreement to stop any
(18:28):
sort of drone ISR flightsoverhead, that kind of thing.
Now, the Israeli Defense Forcehas many other means for
collecting intelligence, butthat one in particular.
That would have been annoying.
Having said that, the IsraeliDefense Force is very
professional.
They understand that what ismost militarily expedient is not
(18:49):
necessarily what's mostimportant.
It's accomplishing thepolitical objective, and I think
Prime Minister Netanyahu hasbeen under enormous pressure
from his own population, as wellas from the United States, to
try and get these hostages out.
So that's kind of why we arewhere we are.
Dana Lewis (19:06):
What would you say about the kind of urban warfare
that we're witnessing and thatthe world is reacting to in Gaza
, and a lot of people think thatIsrael has to decrease the
number of civilian casualties.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (19:21):
You know, of course, I've never,
personally never had experience,intensity and the scale of what
they're doing there now.
I mean thousands of Hamasfighters in their home turf, if
you will.
So the challenge for IsraeliDefense Forces, from a purely
tactical standpoint, issignificant, Although I would
(19:43):
say that I have been impressedwith the tactic that they used
to first isolate Gaza City andthen they'll continue to work
the way further south, but doingit in a way that probably
reduces some of their casualtiesby not just rushing in.
So I think they've done thatquite well.
(20:04):
They're doing it quite well,also having to keep an eye on
their border with Lebanon and onthe West Bank.
But you know, the problem for mewith this is what is the end
state for Israel?
I mean, the mission from PrimeMinister Netanyahu was destroy
(20:25):
Hamas.
Okay, that's not achievable.
You can't destroy an insurgencyor terrorist organization
unless you can destroy the rootcause.
So is there a Hamas?
And you also have to be able toisolate it from external
support, whether that's money orweapons or people.
And I think that Hamas and Iranknew that Israel would respond
(20:50):
the way that they have.
In fact, they wanted them torespond the way that they have,
which is why the attack ofOctober 7th was so particularly
savage.
This was not typical terroristaction where they blow up a
building or blow up a bus orsomething like that.
I mean the 1,200 deaths.
(21:12):
So many of them were sohorrific, savage and done in a
way that we listened.
It's such a strong emotionalresponse from Israel and, of
course, this was designed tocreate a situation where it
would be almost impossible forArab countries to embrace Israel
(21:35):
or continue implementation ofthe Abraham Accord, which would
have been one of the objectivesof Iran.
They did not want to see theAbraham Accord implemented in
Arab countries and Israelachieving some sort of
normalized relationship.
So I think the tactics thatthey've used were intended to
(21:57):
achieve that purpose.
On the Israeli side, what Ithink needs to be there is
something in the missionstatement that talks about the
end state, that the end statehas to be where Israelis and
Arabs can peacefully coexist.
Easy to say, very difficult toachieve.
But the way the Israelis do noteven pretend to restrict
(22:20):
illegal settlements in the WestBank, the way that those
settlers treat the Palestiniansthere and the destruction that
we're seeing in Gaza, all ofthis contributes to the
narrative fair or not, accurateor not, that the Israelis are
the bad guys, and so that's whythere's so much pressure on the
Israelis to stop doing whatthey're doing.
(22:40):
You hear very, very littlepressure from Secretary General
of the United Nations, forexample, about Hamas and what
they're doing.
Dana Lewis (22:51):
And Netanyahu certainly would be one of the
chief authors of unraveling.
When you talk about end state,a possible two-state solution
that was agreed to 30 years agowhen the Oslo Accords and Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin andNetanyahu just poured it, put
(23:13):
the pedal to the metal in termsof expanding settlements, in
terms of even strengtheningHamas and weakening more
moderate Palestinian groups.
There's so much there tounravel.
Look, can I switch you over toUkraine.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austinwas there this week and he
tweeted Ukraine's fight againstPutin's aggression is a marathon
(23:37):
, not a sprint.
The US will keep working withallies and partners to ensure
that Ukraine has what it needsto succeed on the battlefield.
So obviously an importantmessage that the US continues to
support Ukraine.
But do you believe that they'reactually getting what they need
(23:58):
?
And you've been a fierce criticof the fact that the US has put
this on a slow drip in terms ofthe munitions that they could
have sent and can send toUkraine, and it's been.
It hasn't been forthcoming alot of it.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (24:15):
Yeah, I was very disappointed with
Secretary Austin's message.
Why does it have to be amarathon?
I mean, this is our choice,this is American policy, that
this is a marathon instead of adecisive victory for Ukraine.
And when I see references, youknow we're helping Ukraine fight
for their freedom.
That's strategically.
(24:35):
That's not what this is about.
This is about helping Ukrainedefeat Russia for the stability
and security of Europe.
It's about defending thesethings from which the United
States benefits so much Respectfor sovereignty, respect for
international agreements,respect for freedom of
navigation, respect for humanrights, owning, owning, owning
(24:57):
and uninterrupted flow of grainand energy and all of these
things.
That's what's at stake here.
This is to put it, to frame itas this is about helping Ukraine
fight for their freedom.
They were already free untilRussia invaded back in 2014.
And now Russia, after nineyears, still only controls nine
(25:19):
excuse me, about 19% of Ukraine,and that's without us
delivering any sort of decisiveweapons that would accelerate
the departure of Russians fromCrimea.
So I don't understand it.
I don't understand why theykeep saying this ridiculous
where with you for as long as ittakes.
(25:40):
I mean, what does that mean?
That is nothing that helpsdefeat Russia, and so, and, of
course, what we were justtalking about, the Hamas attack
on Israel.
Who's the biggest beneficiaryof all that?
I mean I think there should bea spot in man Putin, because
significant reduction in thingsthat are we're going to go to
Ukraine are now being deliveredto Israel and it creates a sort
(26:04):
of tearing, if you will.
We heard the new speaker of theHouse talk about Israel's
higher priority Ukraine, not sourgent.
I mean, that's a gift to theKremlin.
Dana Lewis (26:16):
Wall Street Journal editorial pretty remarkable
this weekend by Carnegie.
The headline is Time to End theMagical Thinking about Russia's
Defeat.
Essentially, the article saysthat the war is deadlocked.
The article calls for a rethinkof strategy to contain Russia
because a goal of defeat is notworking.
(26:38):
I know you will respond to that.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (26:42):
Well, of course it's not working if we
don't give them what is requiredfor it to work.
I mean, this has been aself-fulfilling prophecy by the
DOOMers, whether they're in thePentagon or elsewhere in the
administration.
Or these so-called geniuseslike the ones you just cited say
well, we can't defeat Russia,we haven't tried, we haven't
(27:03):
really tried by giving Ukrainenumber one, the unmistakable
commitment to.
We want them to win If we saythat.
But that's our policy, unitedStates policy, recognizing that
it is in our strategic interest,it is in the strategic interest
of Europe and Canada thatUkraine defeats Russia, ejects
(27:27):
them back to the 1991 border.
That would have such a powerfulimpact not only on Ukraine but
also on the Russians.
When they see articles like thatthey just kind of chuckle like,
ok, the Americans don't havethe political will.
This nonsense about Ukrainefatigue.
Nobody should be fatigued.
They haven't done anything.
(27:47):
The only people that have theright to be fatigued are people
inside the boundary of Ukraine.
If we've given them, if we'vemade a commitment, we want
Ukraine to win and then weprovide decisive effect.
There is no one weapon, it'snot about F-16s or every Tachyms
, but it's the effect that wouldhelp Ukraine accomplish their
(28:11):
task of liberating Crimea, thedecisive terrain, this would be
a different conversation.
If we did all that and theystill failed, then I would have
to acknowledge that, ok, this isnot working, but we haven't
actually tried.
Dana Lewis (28:29):
Well, I mean, a lot of people would say that
there's been a lot done.
Billions of dollars I don'thave to tell you, sir, with
respect, but just to remindpeople who are listening
billions of dollars in aid,everything from American M1,
abram tanks, the British, germanhave supplied armor, all of the
anti-aircraft systems.
(28:49):
There have been limited attackshipments, which I think
probably you would chieflycriticize because the attack
arms would give and that feedsinto what you were just saying
that that would give Ukrainethen the range to really go
after the bases and the supplychain of the Russians all the
(29:12):
way into Crimea.
Is that the main problem whenyou talk about not giving them
what they need to win?
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (29:18):
Well, first of all, yes, we gave 31 Abram
tanks.
How long ago was thatcommitment finally made?
After months and months ofdeligdaling?
And now they just are arrivingon the battlefield.
And we're talking about 31tanks.
Ok, there's about 4,000 Abramtanks in America.
So the number of what'sprovided is not the important
(29:38):
metric.
It's the percentage of what'srequired to win.
That's the only metric thatmatters.
And yes, of course, we haveprovided a lot of things that
have helped Ukraine stay in thefight.
And is that really, is that theobjective?
Just prolong this war for aslong as it takes?
I mean that's.
And when I hear theadministration talk about we
(30:00):
want them to be in the bestpossible negotiating position.
Ok, the best possiblenegotiating position is to
defeat Russia and eject themback to the 1999 border.
So you're right, a lot has beenprovided, but, keeping in mind,
a lot of what has been publiclystated has not actually been
(30:20):
delivered yet, and we're talkingabout things that were.
Either it's not like we'recutting off our own arm to give
it to Ukraine.
This is stuff that was eithergoing to be decommissioned or
we're sitting in storagesomewhere.
So very little of what weprovided came out of hide, if
you will Now the reason we focuson long range precision
(30:42):
capability.
The Ukrainians have alreadyproven the concept.
With just three, just threestorm shadows they destroyed a
dry dock in Sevastopol which hada submarine and a logistic ship
sitting in the dry dock.
So that was brilliant targeting.
Because if you want to, if youwant to force, if you want to
make Crimea untenable for theRussian Navy, destroy their
(31:05):
maintenance capability and thenthe Navy can't operate out of
Sevastopol, not long term.
So they destroy that and thenthey destroy the Black Sea Fleet
headquarters.
Whether or not the guy, theAdmiral, is absolutely
irrelevant.
What matters is that theyprobably killed about 30 staff
officers.
That's much more difficult toreplace.
So just three storm shadowsthat they accomplished all that
(31:26):
and the Black Sea Fleet isbeginning to reposition further
to the East.
So imagine if Ukraine had 50 or100 attack arms, 300 kilometer
range unitary warhead.
There would be no place inCrimea that the Russian Air
Force or Navy could safelyoperate, because all of them
(31:47):
would be within range.
The Ukrainians don't needattack arms to hit targets
inside Russia, although I wouldnever be against that.
They certainly have the rightto defend themselves.
But the objective is toliberate Crimea, the decisive
train of the war, and you dothat by making it untenable for
the Russians.
Dana Lewis (32:07):
Do you believe now that we are entering a new
conversation where the politicalelites in America are kind of
reading comments from, you know,the commander in chief of the
armed forces of Ukraine,zaluzhnyi, where he's saying
we're deadlocked on thebattlefield and that the
(32:29):
American administration enteringyou know, fiercely entering an
election year is probablyrecalculating and that it would
seem that the momentum now and Ihave to be careful how I
characterize it, but it may bethat the momentum now is towards
some kind of negotiation togive Russia part of the Donbass
(32:52):
and give them the Crimea, cutoff a slice and try to bring
about some kind of ceasefire?
Do you think that that's wherewe're heading now?
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (33:01):
Well, of course, this is not new
direction.
It's only now becoming clearer,though, that that was always
the administration position,that they've never talked about.
When I'll take that back?
One time, after the very firstmeeting of the so-called
Ramstein group, the Secretary ofthe House of Representatives
said we're going to help Ukrainewin and we're going to damage
Russia so much that they won'tbe a threat to anybody.
(33:21):
When I heard that, I thoughthell, yeah.
He never said that againbecause I'm sure the
administration told himabsolutely not.
That's not what we're going todo, and that's why, for 22
months, we have drip, drip, drip, incrementally delivered bits
and pieces of what was needed.
Some allies, of course, are theones who live closest to Russia
(33:43):
and know what the outcome willbe if Ukraine fails.
They have given it everything,but the United States.
We have not done that.
I think this is a failed policythus far and it's a huge missed
opportunity.
I think you're right.
There are people that aresaying, okay, it's obvious now
(34:05):
what we should have been obviousall along.
There have been several of usthat have been very critical of
the administration for neverdeclaring what is our objective,
and so that's how you end upwith bad policies if you don't
have a clear, defined objective.
Dana Lewis (34:22):
Why, general Hodges , do you think that that's naive
, that you can make some kind ofdeal with Russia, cut off a
piece of Ukraine, try tonegotiate some geography and
ceasefire, and it's all going togo away.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (34:35):
All right.
So listen to what you just said.
I mean, this sounds like the18th century, where Russia,
russia, austria and France wouldmake a decision about carving
up smaller countries.
Here you can have this part,you can have this part.
Here we are in the year 2023,and there are serious people
talking about come on, letRussia have Crimea.
(34:58):
People who say that don'tunderstand geography or history.
I mean, if you look at the mapand you see where the Crimean
Peninsula sits, russia occupyingCrimea will forever be able to
threaten Ukraine all along itsshoreline, all of its ports.
Ukraine will never be able torebuild its economy because
(35:19):
Russia doesn't want them to, andwill be able to block access
into Azov Sea where, even afterBarodansk and Mariupol are
liberated, russia would still beable to block any shipping
coming in and out of there.
So those two ports will neverbe rebuilt, and then Odessa,
herson and Mikhailov also willforever be under the shadow of
(35:42):
Russian drones, ships, planes aslong as Russia occupies Crimea.
So from a practical standpointit's totally infeasible From a
moral standpoint.
Who are we to carve up to tellUkraine go ahead, let them have
it?
I mean, why don't we tellGermany come on, for the sake of
peace.
Let Russia have back the partof former East Germany that they
(36:06):
used to occupy, or tell Italyto come on.
Let them have.
Let them have Lake Como I meanit's but yet people are willing
to tell Ukraine go ahead.
Let them have this for the sakeof peace, guaranteed.
That will not lead to peace.
Dana Lewis (36:24):
And the Baltics would say we're next.
Yeah, of course they would.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (36:28):
I mean the Russians talk openly about it,
and so I mean, how many times dowe have to keep learning the
same lesson about you?
Know what is the price ofappeasement?
It always, always, always,always, always invites further
aggression.
Dana Lewis (36:44):
Attorney General Ben Hodges.
Thank you so much for your time, sir.
I took more than your 20minutes, but I wasn't much over,
and I wish you a very happyAmerican Thanksgiving.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (36:53):
Thank you very much.
You're very thoughtful and Ialways enjoyed the chance to
speak with you.
Dana Lewis (36:58):
I appreciate that, sir, and I'm going to keep that
in and not edit it out, becauseyou are so popular on social
media that when I haveinterrupted you in the past, you
can't imagine the feedback thatI get.
It is almost like you're youknow, some kind of royal of
heritage that you should neverbe challenged.
So I'm very, very careful.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (37:21):
No, please don't you know what I think, no.
Dana Lewis (37:24):
I'm singing in jest , but there's a see.
I interrupted again, but I'msinging in jest, but there's a
lot of people, I think, thatappreciate your views on Ukraine
and they don't understand whythe American administration
cannot cut through the fat andsee it as clearly and as simply
as that.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (37:41):
Well, of course, you know the
administration to be fair.
They have other things thatthey're dealing with and I have
the privilege, the luxury ofbeing able to focus on just a
couple of things, so they're notstupid.
I just think you know we'regoing to look back on this as an
unbelievably, unbelievablymissed opportunity to change the
security situation forgenerations.
(38:03):
And of course, the Chinese arewatching all this.
And then, if you really want tohelp Israel defeat Iran's best
ally, russia, I mean Iran willbe a lot less capable if it
doesn't have Russia helping it.
Dana Lewis (38:20):
It's a bigger, much bigger picture than some people
imagine when they're justlooking at these things in
isolation.
General Hodges, thank you sir.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (38:29):
Okay, then have a nice day.
Dana Lewis (38:30):
And that's backstory this week.
But a time you hear this, thepause in fighting in Gaza may
have already collapsed.
I hope not.
Those Israelis women, children,fathers, brothers deserve to
come home now.
All of them and Palestiniansdeserve peace.
But Hamas is the problemeverybody needs to solve before
(38:52):
there can be real quiet andpeace.
Otherwise, it's just a matterof time until the next round of
violence kicks off, whether itbe in the West Bank or Israel,
or in Gaza or elsewhere.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory, share the podcast and
I'll talk to you again soon.
And there's supposed to be no shooting
during any of that time.
What could possibly go wrong?
Zoran Kusovac (00:07):
Anything could possibly go wrong.
These things are very, verysensitive because they depend on
people on the ground, the bigbosses.
They make the big dates andthey say okay, we are going to
stop fighting and we are goingto exchange the captives.
And that sounds very good.
Even if the intention indeed issincere, as we hope it is, it
(00:34):
still has to be translated onthe ground, Do you believe?
Dana Lewis (00:38):
that they're actually getting what they need,
and you've been a fierce criticof the fact that the US has put
this on a slow drip in terms ofthe munitions that they could
have sent and can send toUkraine, and it's been it hasn't
been forthcoming a lot of it.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (00:56):
Yeah, I was very disappointed with
Secretary Austin's message.
Why does it have to be amarathon?
I mean, this is our choice,this is American policy, that
this is a marathon instead of adecisive victory for Ukraine.
Dana Lewis (01:19):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis Coming up theinsightful, no-nonsense lowdown
on Russia's war on Ukraine fromUS Army Lieutenant General Ben
Hodges.
Are we witnessing a completedeadlock in the fighting?
Hodges says he just got to saythat Ukraine needs to win and
(01:40):
that's lacking in thediscussions in the strategy on
arming and funding Ukraine.
And security analyst ZoranKusovac on the Gaza war.
Will a pause become a ceasefire?
I doubt it, but let's talkthrough what's happening with
the Israeli hostages and whattomorrow holds.
Zoran Kusovac is a geopoliticaland security analyst, a war
(02:09):
correspondent, a producer,somebody I've worked with over
the decades, and you can't findanybody who's sort of more
experienced and I wouldn't saywar weary, but war Zoran, what
would we say?
Just, you've been everywhereand you've seen it all and
you're very good at kind oflooking at today's situations
(02:32):
and being able to reflect theminto yesterday's and what could
possibly go wrong.
Zoran Kusovac (02:39):
Thanks for singing my praises, dana.
I would settle for war savvy.
I think that explains it.
Dana Lewis (02:46):
Let's go with that.
Look, as I was waiting for youto come online, I was watching
the Qatari foreign ministerspeak about this deal to release
the hostages in Israel and itseems like there are so many
unanswered questions.
But essentially, starting at 4pm on Friday, 13 hostages are
(03:09):
going to be released.
But the truce, the ceasefire,if we can call it that, or the
cessation in hostilities is abetter way of saying it is
supposed to start at 7 o'clockin the morning.
Aid trucks are supposed tostart moving into Gaza and then
the Red Cross will facilitatethe first batch of hostages to
(03:32):
be transported over the Gazaborder into Israeli hands the
first day.
And this is supposed to go onfor four days, while the
Israelis are supposed to stopNothing in the sky, you know,
turn the drones off, groundtheir aircraft, and there's
(03:52):
supposed to be no shootingduring any of that time.
So let me go back to the firstquestion that I said to you, and
that is what could possibly gowrong.
Zoran Kusovac (04:04):
Anything could possibly go wrong.
These things are very, verysensitive because they depend on
people on the ground, the bigbosses.
They make the big deeds andthey say, okay, we are going to
stop fighting and we are goingto exchange the captives.
And that sounds very good.
Even if the intention indeed issincere, as we hope it is, it
(04:30):
still has to be translated onthe ground into some very sticky
things like what route are theygoing to use?
Those on the ground first of allhave to meet, and that is not
always easy.
Imagine they've been fightingeach other now in the last Gaza
(04:53):
offensive for almost a month onthe ground.
They wanted to kill each other.
They wanted to kill as many oftheir opposite side soldiers and
officers, and now somebody hadto pick up a radio.
They actually talked to eachother on the radio.
In all wars, the enemies towneach other.
When there is a quiet moment,they call each other names and
(05:16):
they threaten each other, butthey know where they are.
They use the same channels onwalkie-talkies.
So somebody on one side oranother picked up a radio
anytime from Wednesday untiltoday, probably already on
Wednesday, saying my commanderwants to talk to your commander,
(05:37):
and then the two of them starttalking and say hey, you and I
have to find out a safe routefor these guys.
We have to work out who and howis going to clear the rubble,
who is going to guarantee thatthere are no land mines?
Which is going to be our changeover point, and this is very
(06:00):
important.
You are responsible up to thisstone and I'm responsible from
that stone onto my side.
Dana Lewis (06:08):
Two sides did still want to kill each other, just
haven't been bent on it in thepast.
I mean, they hate one anotherand they want to kill one
another.
So who do you think, asIsraelis are still in place in
Gaza in their tanks, inbuildings, in their overwatch
(06:28):
positions, hamas is still intunnels.
They are still everywhere,spread around, able to hit and
run, who do you think, with allthese different factions in Gaza
, might want to torpedo a deal?
Zoran Kusovac (06:42):
torpedo the truth .
We don't need to go that far.
We can ask one even simplerquestion Are we 100% certain
that both sides, on every pointon the battlefield, exercise
full and complete control 24-7?
(07:02):
It's enough for one soldier tobe angry, to be drunk, to be
frustrated and to say who arethey to tell me not to fight
when I lost this person or thatperson, and it's enough for
someone to start shooting totrigger domino effects.
(07:26):
So there are many dangers.
One thing that I don't like,and I have to mention it
immediately, is that the initialexchange has been set for 4pm
Now.
The window on light is veryshort 4pm in Gaza, the sun is
already going down and it'salmost dark.
(07:48):
As it happens very fast andwithout any delay, and it's very
efficient, they're going to runinto dark hours and, as you
know, it's never a good idea toconduct any business on the
battlefield of the sunsets.
So this worries me very much.
Dana Lewis (08:11):
Can I ask you?
There are a lot of peoplesitting back applauding this
because they just wanted thebloodshed to end.
The former Mossad chief,ephraim Halevi, did an interview
in Israel and he said thatquote I think this deal is the
first stage.
If this process of exchange ofprisoners is carried forward to
the end, it will be much moredifficult to renew the military
(08:34):
campaign until the collapse ofHamas.
That's the former head ofMossad saying.
We may not see a resumption ofhostilities at all if and you
and I both agreed, there's ahuge if here if the hostage
release is successful andcontinues.
Zoran Kusovac (08:55):
Absolutely.
He is definitely somebody whoknows all things that are
involved, who has experienced,who has battlefield experience,
who has experienced indetermining what the enemy
thinks.
So, yes, this is one of thethings.
That is quite a logicaldevelopment.
(09:18):
People will say not just peopleon the ground, but it starts
from them.
The Palestinians and theIsraelis will say wait a second,
if we had four days without anyfighting, without people
getting killed, without anythinggetting destroyed, without
buildings in Gaza beingdestroyed and the covering
(09:39):
people under rubble, withoutrockets being fired at Israel
and killing people in theirhomes, why can't we have 40 days
or 400 days?
Dana Lewis (09:49):
And the political pressures will be extreme on
Netanyahu.
Right, Because, okay, 50 peoplereleased, it's a huge number of
hostages out, but there arestill potentially almost 200
others that will still be heldand the pressure on the Israeli
government, which at firstseemed to draw a horizontal bar
(10:10):
between removing Hamas and thewar and also releasing the
hostages they've been under alot of pressure to say hostages
being released are the numberone priority now.
Zoran Kusovac (10:22):
Well, most people in Israel asked for that from
the very beginning.
But of course it just fell ondeaf ears because Netanyahu and
his hawks they, were verywarlike and they kept saying
we're going to destroy Hamas.
Of course people who reallyknow something about wars
(10:44):
Israelis who know about wars andthey do they must have told
Netanyahu from the verybeginning.
It's not that easy to destroyHamas.
You can kill many people,hoping that some of them will be
Hamas.
But singling out Hamas anddestroying Hamas is not going to
be easy militarily.
By now many people realize that.
(11:04):
So in a way, stopping thefighting, getting some kind of
political securities after theygot all the hostages out, would
be an honorable way out foreverybody.
But that would cost Netanyahuhis political skin.
I don't think he can survivethis in any way.
His popularity, or actually hislevel of tolerance for his
(11:31):
politics, went up and down likeKiyoya, which was absolutely
rock bottom, and then when thedeal was announced, he
immediately tried to spindoctrine into I will free some
hostages.
Yes, that helps him a little,but I don't think it can help
him in the long term.
I think he's doomed one way oranother.
So a lot of strategic decisionmaking around.
(11:57):
The Israeli position in Gazawill be determined by
Netanyahu's tactical politicalgame of survival.
Dana Lewis (12:06):
Do you want to make a prediction?
I'll make a prediction.
I would tell you, aftercovering Hamas since the 1990s.
This truth will not hold.
They will want to, I think,torpedo any cessation of
hostilities at a certain point.
I don't know what that pointwill be.
Once they get a certain amountof aid into Gaza, they will not
(12:29):
release some men of military ageand some of the hostages very
easily.
That can go on for months.
Israel will begin to pull thetrigger again, depending on how
many hostages are released andhow quickly.
But how does this conflict end?
Does it end with the Israeliarmy staying in Gaza?
Or do you think that behind thescenes, there is anything in
(12:53):
the works in terms of aninternational effort to try to
replace Hamas or bring in theregular Palestinian authority or
somehow to set Gaza back onsome of the rails of self-rule
in some form that the Israeliscan live with?
Sorry, I know there's a lot inthat question, but do you see an
(13:15):
endpoint here?
Zoran Kusovac (13:18):
No, I don't see an endpoint.
I don't see a logical endpoint.
And I don't think that Israelsees an endpoint, which is even
more important because, from themoment all hostages are
released, there is no winsituation for Israel, whatever
it does.
If it stays in Gaza, it's bad.
(13:39):
If it tries to occupy the wholeof Gaza, it's bad, because that
means pressure on theinhabitants, who will then have
to press on Egypt to get intoEgypt, and Egypt doesn't want
them.
Dana Lewis (13:56):
No country wants them and pressure on Israeli
soldiers, who will keep dying inthere, by the way, too, because
they cannot.
Just that's why they left Zoranright.
Zoran Kusovac (14:05):
Exactly exactly.
They will keep getting.
Dana Lewis (14:08):
Drive by shootings at night.
They will keep getting pickedoff.
There will continue to be armedconflict in there.
Israel may think staying is thelesser of a number of evils,
but I don't think Israel wantsto stay on the ground there and
the Israeli public won't acceptsoldiers coming home dead every
week, more and more and more.
Zoran Kusovac (14:31):
The only thing I beg to disagree is when you say
Israel will not accept thatIsrael is never going to be
unified on this.
The time when Israel was aresponsible society that behaved
like we don't challenge ourgovernment while we are at war
(14:53):
has definitely passed.
So from now on, there will betwo Israels.
There will be the war hawks,there will be the doves in
Israel, there will be therealists, and those who engage
in wishful thinking will saywell, it's worth staying in Gaza
because, even if our soldierswill be killed, our civilians
(15:16):
will not be killed, and Israelis going to have a very, very
tough internal debate as to whatit wants and what it can do in
and around Gaza.
So this is not going to beresolved very easily and very
quickly.
Dana Lewis (15:34):
Now take months and months and maybe a couple of
years, although a lot of peoplewould say that's looking way too
far in the distance.
Zoran Kusavach.
Thank you so much, my friend.
It's good to hear you, good tosee you.
Zoran Kusovac (15:47):
Just to add, Dana , somebody we know very well, US
General David Petraeus, theformer military commander and
head of CIA, said exactly thatthis war is not going to be
finished in weeks.
It's going to take at leastmonths.
Dana Lewis (16:06):
Yeah, that's from a guy who predicted Afghanistan
would be a 20 year insurgencyand he was pretty close to that.
Yeah, I don't think hepredicted the end of that very
well, but he predicted the lastof it.
Zoran Kusovac (16:20):
Thank you, sir.
Yes, thanks, dana.
Bye-bye, nice talking to you.
Dana Lewis (16:28):
Lieutenant General Ben Hodges is a frequent guest
here.
He's a former US Army commanderof Europe.
Terrific insight on theUkraine-Russia war.
Welcome back, sir.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (16:38):
Dana, thank you very much for the privilege
.
Dana Lewis (16:40):
Thank you.
And, of course, the first thingI'm going to ask you about has
nothing to do with Ukraine.
So Russia, let's put Russiaaside for one minute.
As we speak, Israel hasnegotiated with Hamas, through
Qatar, as you know, for therelease of 50 hostages over four
(17:02):
days, for a pause.
It's not officially a ceasefire, but you call it what you want
to you.
The first time I met you was inIraq, as you were commanding
forces as a young lieutenantcolonel with 101st Airborne
through urban areas.
I mean, they're a lot differentthan Gaza, but there are
(17:23):
similarities.
How would you feel if you werea commander on the ground being
told stop for a minute, hold andwait while we try to get some
hostages out?
A very complicated situation.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (17:39):
Yeah, well, obviously, if this hostage deal
does come to pass, it's greatnews for those 50 people, as
well as their families.
But this comes with a cost, andyou allude to that.
The Israeli Defense Force, Iwould imagine, will be
(18:01):
frustrated that they're havingto stop because they clearly are
pounding Hamas.
I mean, that's the only reasonHamas would have agreed to any
sort of thing like this isbecause they are suffering and
they need the benefit of a breakof some sort.
The part of the agreement thatstruck me is most.
What would be most annoying tome is the agreement to stop any
(18:28):
sort of drone ISR flightsoverhead, that kind of thing.
Now, the Israeli Defense Forcehas many other means for
collecting intelligence, butthat one in particular.
That would have been annoying.
Having said that, the IsraeliDefense Force is very
professional.
They understand that what ismost militarily expedient is not
(18:49):
necessarily what's mostimportant.
It's accomplishing thepolitical objective, and I think
Prime Minister Netanyahu hasbeen under enormous pressure
from his own population, as wellas from the United States, to
try and get these hostages out.
So that's kind of why we arewhere we are.
Dana Lewis (19:06):
What would you say about the kind of urban warfare
that we're witnessing and thatthe world is reacting to in Gaza
, and a lot of people think thatIsrael has to decrease the
number of civilian casualties.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (19:21):
You know, of course, I've never,
personally never had experience,intensity and the scale of what
they're doing there now.
I mean thousands of Hamasfighters in their home turf, if
you will.
So the challenge for IsraeliDefense Forces, from a purely
tactical standpoint, issignificant, Although I would
(19:43):
say that I have been impressedwith the tactic that they used
to first isolate Gaza City andthen they'll continue to work
the way further south, but doingit in a way that probably
reduces some of their casualtiesby not just rushing in.
So I think they've done thatquite well.
(20:04):
They're doing it quite well,also having to keep an eye on
their border with Lebanon and onthe West Bank.
But you know, the problem for mewith this is what is the end
state for Israel?
I mean, the mission from PrimeMinister Netanyahu was destroy
(20:25):
Hamas.
Okay, that's not achievable.
You can't destroy an insurgencyor terrorist organization
unless you can destroy the rootcause.
So is there a Hamas?
And you also have to be able toisolate it from external
support, whether that's money orweapons or people.
And I think that Hamas and Iranknew that Israel would respond
(20:50):
the way that they have.
In fact, they wanted them torespond the way that they have,
which is why the attack ofOctober 7th was so particularly
savage.
This was not typical terroristaction where they blow up a
building or blow up a bus orsomething like that.
I mean the 1,200 deaths.
(21:12):
So many of them were sohorrific, savage and done in a
way that we listened.
It's such a strong emotionalresponse from Israel and, of
course, this was designed tocreate a situation where it
would be almost impossible forArab countries to embrace Israel
(21:35):
or continue implementation ofthe Abraham Accord, which would
have been one of the objectivesof Iran.
They did not want to see theAbraham Accord implemented in
Arab countries and Israelachieving some sort of
normalized relationship.
So I think the tactics thatthey've used were intended to
(21:57):
achieve that purpose.
On the Israeli side, what Ithink needs to be there is
something in the missionstatement that talks about the
end state, that the end statehas to be where Israelis and
Arabs can peacefully coexist.
Easy to say, very difficult toachieve.
But the way the Israelis do noteven pretend to restrict
(22:20):
illegal settlements in the WestBank, the way that those
settlers treat the Palestiniansthere and the destruction that
we're seeing in Gaza, all ofthis contributes to the
narrative fair or not, accurateor not, that the Israelis are
the bad guys, and so that's whythere's so much pressure on the
Israelis to stop doing whatthey're doing.
(22:40):
You hear very, very littlepressure from Secretary General
of the United Nations, forexample, about Hamas and what
they're doing.
Dana Lewis (22:51):
And Netanyahu certainly would be one of the
chief authors of unraveling.
When you talk about end state,a possible two-state solution
that was agreed to 30 years agowhen the Oslo Accords and Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin andNetanyahu just poured it, put
(23:13):
the pedal to the metal in termsof expanding settlements, in
terms of even strengtheningHamas and weakening more
moderate Palestinian groups.
There's so much there tounravel.
Look, can I switch you over toUkraine.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austinwas there this week and he
tweeted Ukraine's fight againstPutin's aggression is a marathon
(23:37):
, not a sprint.
The US will keep working withallies and partners to ensure
that Ukraine has what it needsto succeed on the battlefield.
So obviously an importantmessage that the US continues to
support Ukraine.
But do you believe that they'reactually getting what they need
(23:58):
?
And you've been a fierce criticof the fact that the US has put
this on a slow drip in terms ofthe munitions that they could
have sent and can send toUkraine, and it's been.
It hasn't been forthcoming alot of it.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (24:15):
Yeah, I was very disappointed with
Secretary Austin's message.
Why does it have to be amarathon?
I mean, this is our choice,this is American policy, that
this is a marathon instead of adecisive victory for Ukraine.
And when I see references, youknow we're helping Ukraine fight
for their freedom.
That's strategically.
(24:35):
That's not what this is about.
This is about helping Ukrainedefeat Russia for the stability
and security of Europe.
It's about defending thesethings from which the United
States benefits so much Respectfor sovereignty, respect for
international agreements,respect for freedom of
navigation, respect for humanrights, owning, owning, owning
(24:57):
and uninterrupted flow of grainand energy and all of these
things.
That's what's at stake here.
This is to put it, to frame itas this is about helping Ukraine
fight for their freedom.
They were already free untilRussia invaded back in 2014.
And now Russia, after nineyears, still only controls nine
(25:19):
excuse me, about 19% of Ukraine,and that's without us
delivering any sort of decisiveweapons that would accelerate
the departure of Russians fromCrimea.
So I don't understand it.
I don't understand why theykeep saying this ridiculous
where with you for as long as ittakes.
(25:40):
I mean, what does that mean?
That is nothing that helpsdefeat Russia, and so, and, of
course, what we were justtalking about, the Hamas attack
on Israel.
Who's the biggest beneficiaryof all that?
I mean I think there should bea spot in man Putin, because
significant reduction in thingsthat are we're going to go to
Ukraine are now being deliveredto Israel and it creates a sort
(26:04):
of tearing, if you will.
We heard the new speaker of theHouse talk about Israel's
higher priority Ukraine, not sourgent.
I mean, that's a gift to theKremlin.
Dana Lewis (26:16):
Wall Street Journal editorial pretty remarkable
this weekend by Carnegie.
The headline is Time to End theMagical Thinking about Russia's
Defeat.
Essentially, the article saysthat the war is deadlocked.
The article calls for a rethinkof strategy to contain Russia
because a goal of defeat is notworking.
(26:38):
I know you will respond to that.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (26:42):
Well, of course it's not working if we
don't give them what is requiredfor it to work.
I mean, this has been aself-fulfilling prophecy by the
DOOMers, whether they're in thePentagon or elsewhere in the
administration.
Or these so-called geniuseslike the ones you just cited say
well, we can't defeat Russia,we haven't tried, we haven't
(27:03):
really tried by giving Ukrainenumber one, the unmistakable
commitment to.
We want them to win If we saythat.
But that's our policy, unitedStates policy, recognizing that
it is in our strategic interest,it is in the strategic interest
of Europe and Canada thatUkraine defeats Russia, ejects
(27:27):
them back to the 1991 border.
That would have such a powerfulimpact not only on Ukraine but
also on the Russians.
When they see articles like thatthey just kind of chuckle like,
ok, the Americans don't havethe political will.
This nonsense about Ukrainefatigue.
Nobody should be fatigued.
They haven't done anything.
(27:47):
The only people that have theright to be fatigued are people
inside the boundary of Ukraine.
If we've given them, if we'vemade a commitment, we want
Ukraine to win and then weprovide decisive effect.
There is no one weapon, it'snot about F-16s or every Tachyms
, but it's the effect that wouldhelp Ukraine accomplish their
(28:11):
task of liberating Crimea, thedecisive terrain, this would be
a different conversation.
If we did all that and theystill failed, then I would have
to acknowledge that, ok, this isnot working, but we haven't
actually tried.
Dana Lewis (28:29):
Well, I mean, a lot of people would say that
there's been a lot done.
Billions of dollars I don'thave to tell you, sir, with
respect, but just to remindpeople who are listening
billions of dollars in aid,everything from American M1,
abram tanks, the British, germanhave supplied armor, all of the
anti-aircraft systems.
(28:49):
There have been limited attackshipments, which I think
probably you would chieflycriticize because the attack
arms would give and that feedsinto what you were just saying
that that would give Ukrainethen the range to really go
after the bases and the supplychain of the Russians all the
(29:12):
way into Crimea.
Is that the main problem whenyou talk about not giving them
what they need to win?
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (29:18):
Well, first of all, yes, we gave 31 Abram
tanks.
How long ago was thatcommitment finally made?
After months and months ofdeligdaling?
And now they just are arrivingon the battlefield.
And we're talking about 31tanks.
Ok, there's about 4,000 Abramtanks in America.
So the number of what'sprovided is not the important
(29:38):
metric.
It's the percentage of what'srequired to win.
That's the only metric thatmatters.
And yes, of course, we haveprovided a lot of things that
have helped Ukraine stay in thefight.
And is that really, is that theobjective?
Just prolong this war for aslong as it takes?
I mean that's.
And when I hear theadministration talk about we
(30:00):
want them to be in the bestpossible negotiating position.
Ok, the best possiblenegotiating position is to
defeat Russia and eject themback to the 1999 border.
So you're right, a lot has beenprovided, but, keeping in mind,
a lot of what has been publiclystated has not actually been
(30:20):
delivered yet, and we're talkingabout things that were.
Either it's not like we'recutting off our own arm to give
it to Ukraine.
This is stuff that was eithergoing to be decommissioned or
we're sitting in storagesomewhere.
So very little of what weprovided came out of hide, if
you will Now the reason we focuson long range precision
(30:42):
capability.
The Ukrainians have alreadyproven the concept.
With just three, just threestorm shadows they destroyed a
dry dock in Sevastopol which hada submarine and a logistic ship
sitting in the dry dock.
So that was brilliant targeting.
Because if you want to, if youwant to force, if you want to
make Crimea untenable for theRussian Navy, destroy their
(31:05):
maintenance capability and thenthe Navy can't operate out of
Sevastopol, not long term.
So they destroy that and thenthey destroy the Black Sea Fleet
headquarters.
Whether or not the guy, theAdmiral, is absolutely
irrelevant.
What matters is that theyprobably killed about 30 staff
officers.
That's much more difficult toreplace.
So just three storm shadowsthat they accomplished all that
(31:26):
and the Black Sea Fleet isbeginning to reposition further
to the East.
So imagine if Ukraine had 50 or100 attack arms, 300 kilometer
range unitary warhead.
There would be no place inCrimea that the Russian Air
Force or Navy could safelyoperate, because all of them
(31:47):
would be within range.
The Ukrainians don't needattack arms to hit targets
inside Russia, although I wouldnever be against that.
They certainly have the rightto defend themselves.
But the objective is toliberate Crimea, the decisive
train of the war, and you dothat by making it untenable for
the Russians.
Dana Lewis (32:07):
Do you believe now that we are entering a new
conversation where the politicalelites in America are kind of
reading comments from, you know,the commander in chief of the
armed forces of Ukraine,zaluzhnyi, where he's saying
we're deadlocked on thebattlefield and that the
(32:29):
American administration enteringyou know, fiercely entering an
election year is probablyrecalculating and that it would
seem that the momentum now and Ihave to be careful how I
characterize it, but it may bethat the momentum now is towards
some kind of negotiation togive Russia part of the Donbass
(32:52):
and give them the Crimea, cutoff a slice and try to bring
about some kind of ceasefire?
Do you think that that's wherewe're heading now?
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (33:01):
Well, of course, this is not new
direction.
It's only now becoming clearer,though, that that was always
the administration position,that they've never talked about.
When I'll take that back?
One time, after the very firstmeeting of the so-called
Ramstein group, the Secretary ofthe House of Representatives
said we're going to help Ukrainewin and we're going to damage
Russia so much that they won'tbe a threat to anybody.
(33:21):
When I heard that, I thoughthell, yeah.
He never said that againbecause I'm sure the
administration told himabsolutely not.
That's not what we're going todo, and that's why, for 22
months, we have drip, drip, drip, incrementally delivered bits
and pieces of what was needed.
Some allies, of course, are theones who live closest to Russia
(33:43):
and know what the outcome willbe if Ukraine fails.
They have given it everything,but the United States.
We have not done that.
I think this is a failed policythus far and it's a huge missed
opportunity.
I think you're right.
There are people that aresaying, okay, it's obvious now
(34:05):
what we should have been obviousall along.
There have been several of usthat have been very critical of
the administration for neverdeclaring what is our objective,
and so that's how you end upwith bad policies if you don't
have a clear, defined objective.
Dana Lewis (34:22):
Why, general Hodges , do you think that that's naive
, that you can make some kind ofdeal with Russia, cut off a
piece of Ukraine, try tonegotiate some geography and
ceasefire, and it's all going togo away.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (34:35):
All right.
So listen to what you just said.
I mean, this sounds like the18th century, where Russia,
russia, austria and France wouldmake a decision about carving
up smaller countries.
Here you can have this part,you can have this part.
Here we are in the year 2023,and there are serious people
talking about come on, letRussia have Crimea.
(34:58):
People who say that don'tunderstand geography or history.
I mean, if you look at the mapand you see where the Crimean
Peninsula sits, russia occupyingCrimea will forever be able to
threaten Ukraine all along itsshoreline, all of its ports.
Ukraine will never be able torebuild its economy because
(35:19):
Russia doesn't want them to, andwill be able to block access
into Azov Sea where, even afterBarodansk and Mariupol are
liberated, russia would still beable to block any shipping
coming in and out of there.
So those two ports will neverbe rebuilt, and then Odessa,
herson and Mikhailov also willforever be under the shadow of
(35:42):
Russian drones, ships, planes aslong as Russia occupies Crimea.
So from a practical standpointit's totally infeasible From a
moral standpoint.
Who are we to carve up to tellUkraine go ahead, let them have
it?
I mean, why don't we tellGermany come on, for the sake of
peace.
Let Russia have back the partof former East Germany that they
(36:06):
used to occupy, or tell Italyto come on.
Let them have.
Let them have Lake Como I meanit's but yet people are willing
to tell Ukraine go ahead.
Let them have this for the sakeof peace, guaranteed.
That will not lead to peace.
Dana Lewis (36:24):
And the Baltics would say we're next.
Yeah, of course they would.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (36:28):
I mean the Russians talk openly about it,
and so I mean, how many times dowe have to keep learning the
same lesson about you?
Know what is the price ofappeasement?
It always, always, always,always, always invites further
aggression.
Dana Lewis (36:44):
Attorney General Ben Hodges.
Thank you so much for your time, sir.
I took more than your 20minutes, but I wasn't much over,
and I wish you a very happyAmerican Thanksgiving.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (36:53):
Thank you very much.
You're very thoughtful and Ialways enjoyed the chance to
speak with you.
Dana Lewis (36:58):
I appreciate that, sir, and I'm going to keep that
in and not edit it out, becauseyou are so popular on social
media that when I haveinterrupted you in the past, you
can't imagine the feedback thatI get.
It is almost like you're youknow, some kind of royal of
heritage that you should neverbe challenged.
So I'm very, very careful.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (37:21):
No, please don't you know what I think, no.
Dana Lewis (37:24):
I'm singing in jest , but there's a see.
I interrupted again, but I'msinging in jest, but there's a
lot of people, I think, thatappreciate your views on Ukraine
and they don't understand whythe American administration
cannot cut through the fat andsee it as clearly and as simply
as that.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (37:41):
Well, of course, you know the
administration to be fair.
They have other things thatthey're dealing with and I have
the privilege, the luxury ofbeing able to focus on just a
couple of things, so they're notstupid.
I just think you know we'regoing to look back on this as an
unbelievably, unbelievablymissed opportunity to change the
security situation forgenerations.
(38:03):
And of course, the Chinese arewatching all this.
And then, if you really want tohelp Israel defeat Iran's best
ally, russia, I mean Iran willbe a lot less capable if it
doesn't have Russia helping it.
Dana Lewis (38:20):
It's a bigger, much bigger picture than some people
imagine when they're justlooking at these things in
isolation.
General Hodges, thank you sir.
Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (38:29):
Okay, then have a nice day.
Dana Lewis (38:30):
And that's backstory this week.
But a time you hear this, thepause in fighting in Gaza may
have already collapsed.
I hope not.
Those Israelis women, children,fathers, brothers deserve to
come home now.
All of them and Palestiniansdeserve peace.
But Hamas is the problemeverybody needs to solve before
(38:52):
there can be real quiet andpeace.
Otherwise, it's just a matterof time until the next round of
violence kicks off, whether itbe in the West Bank or Israel,
or in Gaza or elsewhere.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory, share the podcast and
I'll talk to you again soon.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.