September 17, 2024 • 32 mins
What will be the outcome of the Ukrainian conflict? Join us as Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commander of US Army Europe, shares his perspective on the ongoing war in Ukraine and the critical missteps in US foreign policy. We contrast media portrayals with on-the-ground realities, focusing on Ukrainian counteroffensives towards Kursk and the sluggish Russian advances.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (00:00):
Somehow, the narrative in much of the
media not the pros like you, butin much of the media is like
the Russians are remorselesslyadvancing, advancing.
It's just not true.
In fact, the Ukrainians aretreating that as a secondary
effort, and their main effortwas this counteroffensive that
they launched up in thedirection of Kursk, because they
(00:22):
could see that the Russians aremoving at glacier-like speed.
Dana Lewis (00:34):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
There are a few people who seemto have a more realistic
understanding of what'shappening in Ukraine than this
week's guest.
To have a more realisticunderstanding of what's
happening in Ukraine than thisweek's guest, lieutenant General
Ben Hodges, formerly thecommander of US Army Europe, is
a NATO mentor and regularlyvisits Washington and other
strategic decision-makingcapitals involved in the support
(00:57):
of Ukraine.
Sure enough, the picture isn'trosy.
Ukraine hasn't received a lotof the support it was promised.
The Biden administration hasfailed to give Ukraine
battlefield advantages, so hasGermany, so has Britain, so has
France.
Putin's Russia presses on,oblivious to Russia's isolation
(01:19):
and even the tens of thousandsof Russian soldiers killed in
action.
I'll tell you more about thatat the end of the podcast.
That's Russia for you, but allis not lost either.
Claims of battlefield advancesby Russia are often
over-dramatized and Ukrainecould still turn the tide.
Ben Hodges is a former US Armycommander in Europe.
(01:43):
Lieutenant General Ben Hodges,good to see you again, sir.
Good to see you, daniel.
Thank you, army commander inEurope.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (01:45):
Lieutenant General Ben Hodge, it's good to
see you again, sir.
Good to see you, Danny.
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (01:47):
You were in the US for a while campaigning.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (01:51):
Yeah, this summer I went back for six weeks
.
We go back to the States threeor four times a year actually,
but in the summer we take anextended trip and I was there
for two weeks of work in DC,including a week at the NATO
summit and a little bit of avacation there in South Carolina
, which is my statesideresidence.
But then, for the first time inmy life, I decided to get
(02:14):
involved in the politicalcampaign supporting candidates
who were challenging MAGAincumbents in South Carolina,
virginia, north Carolina andPennsylvania.
You know, I thought I can'tjust sit at home and worry and
complain about.
You know what happens if Trumpand all these people that enable
(02:36):
his terrible behavior.
I can't just complain about it.
I wanted to get on the groundand try and help.
Dana Lewis (02:44):
Is it?
I mean, you've been out theretalking to people.
How much of the US vote do youthink will I don't want to say
revolve around, because I don'tthink any of it will revolve
around foreign policy but howmuch of a factor will foreign
policy and things like Ukrainebe part of the debate, do you
think I?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (03:02):
think there's probably more people who
, when you take the time toexplain how what's happening in
Ukraine affects them, inPennsylvania or Virginia, for
example, then you can see peoplegoing like oh okay, I never
thought about that, I neverheard about that, and so you
know.
So, in the broader sense ofsecurity and defense for the
(03:25):
United States, helping toexplain why NATO matters, why a
stable, secure Europe isimportant for our prosperity and
why helping Russia defeatUkraine sends a powerful signal
to China that will help deterChina from making a terrible
miscalculation.
I think that resonates.
(03:46):
But, as is traditional with USelections, foreign policy almost
never plays an important part.
You may remember, during thelast presidential election,
there was zero mention ofAfghanistan in the debate.
Dana Lewis (04:04):
Incredible right, and it was so close to Trump's
negotiations with the Talibanthe undermining of the mission
in Afghanistan.
And then later on, you know,president Biden would have
Afghanistan under him and hedidn't have very many troops to
(04:27):
pull out after that.
He only had I mean, originallyTrump brought it down from 5,000
to 2,500.
And then the Taliban kind ofcould see and so could all of
the Afghans see that oneadministration, one or the other
would eventually just pull outand the Taliban then started
positioning themselves to takeover.
(04:48):
Whoever was in the Afghan armyprobably started to find the
exit door at that point.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (04:55):
Well, you know, of course, blame for our
failure in Afghanistan cutsacross all four presidents.
Failure in Afghanistan cutsacross all four presidents, from
Bush to Obama, to Trump, toBiden, all of them because only
in the first year did we have aclearly defined objective.
(05:16):
After that first year and thatfirst year it was all about, you
know make sure that Afghanistancould never be used as a base
for recruiting or training orlaunching attacks by Get rid of
al-Qaeda, and so that wasaccomplished the first year.
We should have left, but wedidn't, and so the next 19 years
or so, you had policies insearch of a strategic end state.
(05:38):
It was never done.
So that is a responsibilityshared by all the
administrations and thecongresses that enabled them to
do this.
Dana Lewis (05:49):
Policies in search of an end state Right.
And here we are with Ukraine.
How would you?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (05:56):
draw a parallel with that.
We're in exactly the same place.
I mean, we have terriblepolicies like you cannot use a
TACOMS against a target insideof Russia, or this drip, drip,
drip of aid.
We've delivered less than aquarter of the Humvees that we
promised we would deliver.
I mean, it's just, it's notonly bad policy, but it's also
(06:19):
bad performance of bad policy,and it's really we're missing an
opportunity.
But it goes back to the failureof this administration to
clearly define the objective ofwhy this matters.
And then, if you don't have anobjective, then it makes it very
difficult to explain to theAmerican people why this matters
(06:40):
.
Now I would say you know, backto the Afghan army, though, why
this matters.
Now I would say you know, backto the Afghan army, though, one
of the mistakes that we made,and I'm partly responsible for
this.
We built an army that was verygood and looked exactly like us,
which means it requiresthousands of contractors,
enormous amounts of logistics,exquisite intel and endless
(07:02):
amounts of firepower.
So when we left and we took allthat with us, of course the
thing collapsed.
It was not an army thatreflected Afghan culture, and so
that was a mistake.
And then I would also say, inaddition to us talking about
Afghanistan as if it was anisland and believing somehow
(07:25):
Pakistan was really an ally.
That was wrong.
Not one American paid a penny intaxes for this war.
So there was.
Unless you had a family memberor you lived next to Fort Bragg
or Camp Lejeune or somethinglike that, it didn't affect you,
and so there was no pressure onthe Congress or on the
(07:45):
administration anyadministration to say what the
hell we're still.
We're still in Afghanistan.
For what?
And so you know, when I thinkabout where we are now with
Ukraine, the fact that there isstill not a clear definition of
what we're trying to accomplish.
Of course, as you know, Ibelieve that strategic objective
(08:06):
should be for Ukraine to defeatRussia, because this war is
about more than Ukraine.
It's about stability andsecurity in Europe, which
affects our prosperity, and it'sabout deterring China.
Dana Lewis (08:19):
I remember you leading a brigade in Iraq when
you were a lieutenant colonel.
Colonel, were you a lieutenantcolonel?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (08:26):
Colonel, colonel, were you a full colonel
at that point?
A brigade commander in the Armyis typically a full colonel.
Dana Lewis (08:32):
So you know it's hard to believe Marching into
An-Najaf 40 degrees I think itwas Celsius Soldiers, you know,
dropping back backpacks, andsome were passing out.
Some were still wearingchemical gear, although I think
some of you were allowed to dropsome of the chemical gear on
(08:52):
the way in.
But um, how big was thatbrigade?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (08:56):
well, the typical brigade of the 101st is,
with all of its attachments,including the artillery
battalion, the engineers,logistics, intelligence signal,
etc.
Etc.
You know it was around 5 000soldiers.
Attachments including theartillery battalion, the
engineers, logistics,intelligence signal, et cetera,
et cetera.
You know it was around 5,000soldiers, but that would have
been true of the 2nd Brigade and3rd Brigade as well.
That was about our size.
Dana Lewis (09:17):
So President Zelensky does a recent interview
now.
He says he was in the processof trying to form up 14 brigades
.
He could barely equip four ofthem.
Now I don't know what the 14were for that that's in addition
to what he already has on thefront line.
I assume he could barely puttogether four of them with the
(09:38):
gear that he had been promisedbut never got like things that
you just mentioned, like Humvees, but never got like things that
you just mentioned, likeHumvees.
So you know 10 brigades timesyou know 4,000.
Conservatively I mean that's40,000 troops short.
But he indicated that reallythe problem wasn't the numbers
(09:58):
of boots, it was equipment, youknow ammunition, rifles, armored
, armored, whatever armoredpersonnel, carriers around them.
I mean that's pretty pitifulgiven all the big promises that
were made and the billions ofdollars that were pledged.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (10:18):
So the Ukrainians have generally used
the brigade as the basic combatsort of unit, whereas the US
Army divisions are our sort ofunit for going to war.
I think the Ukrainians areprobably looking at should they
go to divisions where you bringtwo or three brigades together,
(10:42):
but right now that's neitherhere nor there.
Two or three brigades together,but right now that's neither
here nor there.
The fact is they know that theyneed more units so that they
can rotate units in and out ofthe fight and rather than having
individual replacements, whichis what we did disastrously in
Vietnam, instead the Ukrainiansare now doing what most of us do
(11:03):
, which is unit rotations.
So in order to get some guysout of the fight for a while,
you need to have a brigade thatcan replace them.
And it's also better whenyou've got trained women and men
that fill up these brigadeswith all the proper equipment
and then that brigade trains asa unit, then it goes into the
(11:24):
fight Much more effective for,uh, developing combat power.
Um, but what you've highlightedis the fact that they don't have
enough equipment yet most ofwhich is supposed to come from
us, uh, to fill out thesebrigades and, um, I'm it's very
frustrating.
I mean here are it's 10 and ahalf years of the war since it
(11:47):
started and now, two and a halfyears into the large-scale
invasion, or since thelarge-scale invasion, and we are
still unable to deliver, eventhough we have all the stuff to
give.
And this is going to sound likeI'm slamming people in the
Pentagon.
(12:07):
I'm not.
It's the administration nothaving the sense of urgency and
making it a priority.
Dana Lewis (12:14):
I don't quite understand that because and in
no way am I arguing with youabout it I just don't understand
.
We followed it.
They pledged the money.
They finally got the money.
They pledged the money, theyrolled out different
spokespeople who said there'sthis gallant airlift effort into
(12:37):
you know, into Germany, intoPoland.
What happened to all that?
I don't understand.
Why do they not have theequipment?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (12:46):
Yeah, again , there's kind of a you know,
the Pentagon is overworked allthe time and there is so much
going on.
They always have more tasksthan they have resources to
fulfill those tasks.
There's good hard work andintelligent, well-educated,
committed people, but you haveto pick priorities, and I think
(13:06):
that this is not a priority forthe administration.
I mean, if it was a priority,they'd be pushing these things,
uh, instead of saying, well youknow, and then coming up with
reasons why, well, you know,most of what they'd shoot are
outside of range.
Now, it doesn't really wouldn'tmake that much difference.
And these are all bullshitexcuses because the
administration and in this casethe Department of Defense as
(13:29):
part of the administration, isnot committed to actually
helping Ukraine win, ukraine win.
And so if you're not committedto helping them win, but you
want to make sure that Ukraine'shave just enough to avoid
getting overrun, that's whatwe're seeing right now.
Dana Lewis (13:44):
In the meantime, russian President Putin
announces that you know they nowwant to grow their army by
180,000 troops.
That'll take it to 1.5 millionactive servicemen, second
largest in the world after China.
What is what is?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (14:02):
happening on the horizon.
I'm very skeptical of thesenumbers.
I've never trusted any numbercomes out of Russia, and they
announced these bigmobilizations all the time but
then nothing ever actuallyhappens.
And it's also the.
I mean the way they sort ofpackage it and announce it makes
it sound like it's cumulative,but I think actually they're.
You know they't have that.
(14:22):
They've lost so many leaders.
The guys who would have to betraining are training new
recruits, being the cadre fornew units, all of this they're
(14:47):
dead.
They're dead and gone, and soI'm not impressed with these,
with numbers.
But if they do to get that manymore, that means they're
finally going to have to startreaching into Moscow and St
Petersburg and, uh, they'regoing to have to start using
conscripts in combat.
Which Putin promised he wouldnot do is he would not use
(15:08):
conscripts in combat.
And so now you're going to haveand I'm speaking to somebody of
authority the other day and hesaid there's already amongst
parents of conscripts in Russiaare very unhappy that their
little Ivan is being sent intocombat, which is not what Putin
(15:28):
promised, and so there's a.
If this continues and increases, I think this will be a
domestic problem for the Kremlinas well.
Dana Lewis (15:39):
Let me read you a quote, not because he's the best
source, but it's just one ofthe most recent things I've read
from Lord Ashcroft here, who'sa former deputy of the of the
Conservative Party.
Ukraine has been forced tofight for its survival with one
hand tied behind its back, heldback, tragically, by the very
(16:00):
partners that professed tosupport its cause.
He goes on to say Americanpolicymakers are so consumed by
the fear of escalating theconflict that they have
effectively limited Ukraine'sability to defend itself.
Putin's regime can launchmissiles, bomb cities and
terrorize Ukrainian civilians,but when Ukraine seeks to
(16:21):
retaliate against thoseresponsible, it's told to
refrain.
This is not how wars are won.
It is shameful.
Unquote.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (16:31):
I would agree with every word, letter
and punctuation mark in thatstatement, Completely right.
Dana Lewis (16:47):
Because it's not a priority or because they're
worried, they're truly worriedabout escalation by allowing,
you know, the Brits to deploythe Storm Shadow and the French
the Scalp Missile and hit someof these airfields and artillery
and radar systems just insideRussia.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (17:01):
The administration is excessively
concerned, excessively concernedthat Russia might somehow use a
nuclear weapon that mightescalate.
And so, because of that, we areparalyzed with that concern and
we come up with these terriblepolicies that we've already
talked about.
And it's not just all theso-called Russia experts in the
(17:25):
administration, who have been apart of this for a long time, to
include going back to the Obamaadministration, but it's also
there's a community of people inDC that have outsized influence
, which I don't understand,because they have been wrong
from for years, but yet somehowthey have access and influence
(17:46):
there on the administration,which really counsels.
You know, take it easy.
You don't want to poke the bear, don't want to.
You know the Russians thatcould do this and there's no way
Ukraine can win.
And you know we don't want theregime to collapse and all of
this nonsense and uh, it's, it'sabsolutely maddening because it
(18:06):
makes, uh, it's poor judgmentand um, we're going to regret
this, we're going to be lookingback at this at a gigantic
missed opportunity number one.
But also that the Ukrainiansare suffering like they are
needlessly.
I mean, we are failing them,we're failing Europe, we're
(18:27):
missing an opportunity toimprove the security situation
in Europe for decades by helpingUkraine defeat Russia.
And maybe even more importantly, we're missing the opportunity
to send a signal to the Chinesethat, yes, we do care about
sovereignty, freedom ofnavigation, international law,
(18:48):
human rights, internationalagreements.
Instead, we're sending a signalto the Chinese that we really
don't have the political will orindustrial capacity to defend
those things, and it is muchmore difficult out in the
Pacific than it is in Europe.
Dana Lewis (19:03):
What's incredible to me, general Hodges, is that
the debate has taken placepublicly, been drawn out month
by month, by month on, you know,allowing you know, take off the
gloves and allowing Ukraine tohit inside Russia.
Now Zelensky says in this mostrecent interview that he did
(19:23):
that.
You know there were a lot ofRussian jets were on the ground.
Of these, you know, a dozen to16 air bases that could have
been hit just inside Russia.
Now they've moved most of themnow anyway, because of the
debate that's taken placepublicly, and instead of being
(19:44):
150 kilometers inside Russia,they're probably 500 kilometers
inside Russia and by the timeyou conclude this debate, if you
allow Ukraine to strike Russiantargets in defense, you're
probably going to have to letthem hit even further.
Like 500 kilometers insideRussia.
It sounds ridiculous.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (20:05):
Well, you know, I listened to the SACEUR a
while back and he said GeneralCavoli, and he said Russia's
only advantage is mass.
They have these huge numbers oftroops and they don't care how
many of them are killed, they'rewilling to just keep putting
them in there.
So the way you defeat that iswith precision, if you have
enough time.
(20:25):
That means if you can knock outheadquarters, artillery,
logistics, airfields, then itdoesn't matter how many tens of
thousands of untrained, unluckyRussian infantry there are.
They're not effective withoutthe artillery, the headquarters
to direct the logistics, whichis mainly what we're talking
(20:48):
about artillery ammunition, ofcourse, and then the airfields
from which these murderous jetsare taken off and launching
bombs against apartmentbuildings.
So that's why these long rangeweapons are so important,
whether it's Taurus or a Tukumsor a Scout or Storm Shadow,
whatever, and other systems.
Let the Ukrainians use thosethings.
(21:09):
That's how they defeat theRussian advantage of mass.
Now the Ukrainians, of course,they're not going to sit around
and wring their hands.
They're working as hard andfast as they can to develop
their own drones and otherlong-range weapons to hit
targets, uh, particularly oiland gas infrastructure, because
that's what's paying forrussia's war, is the oil that
(21:30):
they sell to india and china.
But if we were, if we wereserious about helping uk
actually win, we'd be pushingthese things to them, not coming
up with excuses why we can't.
Dana Lewis (21:46):
So when you add all of this up, everything that
you've been telling me, wheredoes it leave us?
Then it looks like a lot ofpeople are saying well, they
have to start talks, they haveto get the fighting stopped.
Wow, they have to bring Ukraineto the table and Russia to the
table.
But if you bring Russia, russiahas no incentive to go to the
(22:06):
table right now because they'readvancing on the battlefield.
And if Ukraine goes to thetable, probably without the
support of their own people Now,if they were trying to trade
off 20% of the country,ukrainians are not probably
going to accept that.
So where does it go then?
The pathway to so-called peacethat people are talking about
(22:27):
seems unrealistic.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (22:29):
Well, anybody that's pushing Ukraine
to negotiate with Russia rightnow or thinks that Ukraine
should give up some land for thesake of peace has no
understanding of who and whatRussia is.
And they've also never lookedat a map.
Because when they say Ukraineshould settle, give up some land
, of course what they're talkingabout is Crimea, and as long as
(22:49):
Russia retains Crimea numberone, they'll be blocking access
into Azov Sea, which means twoof Ukraine's five main seaports
from before the war, mariupoland Berdansk, will never be able
to reopen again, even afterthey're liberated.
And also, from Crimea, they'llalways be able to disrupt energy
and grain shipments coming outof Odessa and resume the attack
(23:12):
on Ukraine after we loseinterest in two or three years.
So this is a nonsensicalapproach in my view, and the
Ukrainians know it.
They know what happens, butthat's what the Russians are
counting on is that we in theWest will get so tired of this
and we'll press the Ukrainians.
I mean, look, this has beengoing on for 10 and a half years
(23:34):
.
10 and a half years, russia hadevery advantage, and after 10
and a half years, they controlless than 18% of Ukraine, at the
cost of about 600,000casualties of their own, not to
mention the fact that the BlackSea fleet is a disaster.
The Russian Air Force hasfailed its two main tasks of air
superiority and interdictinglines of communication.
(23:56):
And now you've got thousands ofUkrainian troops occupying part
of Russia in the Kursk Oblast.
Russia's famous attack onPokrovsk, you know.
If you read the paper it's likeoh my God, you know there are
Russians are rumbling towardsPokrovsk.
That's absolutely not true.
(24:19):
It is 60 kilometers.
That's 35 miles for British andAmerican listeners to your
program.
It's 60 kilometers fromAvdiivka, which the Russians
captured finally back inFebruary, and they have only
gone 50 kilometers towardsPokrovsk.
(24:40):
So in six months, dana, sixmonths, at the cost of tens of
thousands of casualties, theyare still not able to capture
this town of Pokrovsk, whichsome idiots in the paper will
refer to as a strategicallyimportant city.
There's nothing strategicallyimportant about it.
All right, yes, it was atransportation hub until weeks
ago when the Ukrainians quitusing it because the Russians
(25:02):
had gotten close enough to hitthe railroad station and things
like that.
But somehow the narrative inmuch of the media not the pros
like you, but in much of themedia is like the Russians are
remorselessly advancing,advancing.
It's just not true.
In fact, the Ukrainians aretreating that as a secondary
(25:23):
effort, and their main effortwas this counteroffensive that
they launched up in thedirection of Kursk, because they
could see that the Russians aremoving at glacier-like speed
and are losing huge amounts oftroops against Ukraine's
secondary effort.
And if you look at the map puton the map, where is Pokrovsk?
(25:45):
It is almost as far east inUkraine as you can get.
So somehow Ukraine is supposedto now negotiate and give up
land, or what?
Where do we go?
Well, where do we go ishopefully, either in the last
few months of his administrationPresident Biden will be
(26:07):
thinking seriously about hislegacy, or President Harris dear
Lord, I hope she's elected thatthey will continue.
At least continue what theBiden administration is doing.
In my sense, based on what I'veheard her say and the fact that
she will get rid of all thecurrent Russia team and bring in
(26:29):
her own team that they willhave a much more dynamic and
forward-leaning approach tohelping to address this
important strategic problem,because this is not just about
Ukraine.
If Ukraine defeats Russia, thenIran has no friends zero.
Nobody else in the world is afriend of Iran.
(26:50):
So if you can defeat Russia,they are much less capable of
helping Iran and that wouldundermine Iran's ability to
support Hezbollah, hamas and theHouthis.
So that has strategic benefitfor us and it would also leave
North Korea friendless, becausethey have no friend other than
Moscow.
And then the Chinese would sayoh wow, the West is committed.
(27:14):
The West does have thepolitical will and industrial
capacity which we have not yetshown.
So this, I think a Harrisadministration will see this.
Dana Lewis (27:26):
And a Trump administration.
Do you think that Ukraine canfight on if Trump comes to power
?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (27:32):
I think.
Well, first of all, trump andall these other geniuses that
are making, offering deals,they're doing it without Ukraine
being involved in theconversation.
So Ukrainians are going like,hey, wait, you know, we're not
Afghanistan, we're going to,we're going to be here, we're
going to keep fighting, becausewe know what happens when the
Red Army shows up.
So the fact that Trump wouldsay publicly, well, I'll solve
(27:53):
this in 24 hours, no seriousperson should believe that for a
second.
But because he has zeroprinciples, no moral principles,
he only wants a deal.
He will offer something toPutin and say, hey look, do this
and do this and we'll pull out.
We'll leave the Ukrainians bythemselves.
But the rest of Europe?
(28:13):
They're not sitting in thebleachers here.
The Europeans know that even ifthe US totally fails, they are
going to inherit a gigantic mess.
If Ukraine fails, it will bebecause the United States and
Germany in particular, failed todo what was necessary them.
Millions of more Ukrainianrefugees headed into Poland,
(28:39):
romania, germany, on top of thefive or six men that are already
there now.
This will be an enormous burdenon their economic and social
systems.
We'll continue to have to dealwith disruption of grain
shipments and energy supplies,which affects prices for all of
us in America as well as Europe.
And we'll have said to theChinese we don't really have the
(29:02):
political will to defend whatwe say is so important.
Dana Lewis (29:07):
Lieutenant General Ben Hodges.
Ben, always a pleasure, Somedark moments potentially ahead,
you know, and a soberingdiscussion always.
I appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
Thanks for the opportunity, Dan.
Underscoring how deadly this warhas been, the Wall Street
Journal this week placed thenumber of casualties on both
sides at one million One millionpeople.
(29:29):
The publication placed thenumber of Russian casualties
200,000 dead and around 400,000wounded, citing Western
intelligence estimates whichwould place the total around
600,000.
For Ukrainian militarycasualties, the Wall Street
Journal placed the number at80,000 dead and 400,000 wounded.
(29:52):
Stunning numbers, I mean,however accurate.
All mostly hidden from theRussian public out of fear that
people will turn on Putin'sregime.
If only they knew.
Oddly, the story suggests thatPutin sought to boost Russia's
demographic population byinvading and controlling Ukraine
(30:12):
.
I mean that's pretty strange,considering when Russia started
its illegal war on Ukraine,roughly 600,000 Russians fled
their own country, fearinganti-war arrests and
conscription All part of Putin'sdark legacy from his perch back
in Mordor.
I'm Dana Lewis.
(30:33):
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
Share the podcast, please, andI'll talk to you again soon
against him, Thank you, Thankyou.
Somehow, the narrative in much of the
media not the pros like you, butin much of the media is like
the Russians are remorselesslyadvancing, advancing.
It's just not true.
In fact, the Ukrainians aretreating that as a secondary
effort, and their main effortwas this counteroffensive that
they launched up in thedirection of Kursk, because they
(00:22):
could see that the Russians aremoving at glacier-like speed.
Dana Lewis (00:34):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
There are a few people who seemto have a more realistic
understanding of what'shappening in Ukraine than this
week's guest.
To have a more realisticunderstanding of what's
happening in Ukraine than thisweek's guest, lieutenant General
Ben Hodges, formerly thecommander of US Army Europe, is
a NATO mentor and regularlyvisits Washington and other
strategic decision-makingcapitals involved in the support
(00:57):
of Ukraine.
Sure enough, the picture isn'trosy.
Ukraine hasn't received a lotof the support it was promised.
The Biden administration hasfailed to give Ukraine
battlefield advantages, so hasGermany, so has Britain, so has
France.
Putin's Russia presses on,oblivious to Russia's isolation
(01:19):
and even the tens of thousandsof Russian soldiers killed in
action.
I'll tell you more about thatat the end of the podcast.
That's Russia for you, but allis not lost either.
Claims of battlefield advancesby Russia are often
over-dramatized and Ukrainecould still turn the tide.
Ben Hodges is a former US Armycommander in Europe.
(01:43):
Lieutenant General Ben Hodges,good to see you again, sir.
Good to see you, daniel.
Thank you, army commander inEurope.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (01:45):
Lieutenant General Ben Hodge, it's good to
see you again, sir.
Good to see you, Danny.
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (01:47):
You were in the US for a while campaigning.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (01:51):
Yeah, this summer I went back for six weeks
.
We go back to the States threeor four times a year actually,
but in the summer we take anextended trip and I was there
for two weeks of work in DC,including a week at the NATO
summit and a little bit of avacation there in South Carolina
, which is my statesideresidence.
But then, for the first time inmy life, I decided to get
(02:14):
involved in the politicalcampaign supporting candidates
who were challenging MAGAincumbents in South Carolina,
virginia, north Carolina andPennsylvania.
You know, I thought I can'tjust sit at home and worry and
complain about.
You know what happens if Trumpand all these people that enable
(02:36):
his terrible behavior.
I can't just complain about it.
I wanted to get on the groundand try and help.
Dana Lewis (02:44):
Is it?
I mean, you've been out theretalking to people.
How much of the US vote do youthink will I don't want to say
revolve around, because I don'tthink any of it will revolve
around foreign policy but howmuch of a factor will foreign
policy and things like Ukrainebe part of the debate, do you
think I?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (03:02):
think there's probably more people who
, when you take the time toexplain how what's happening in
Ukraine affects them, inPennsylvania or Virginia, for
example, then you can see peoplegoing like oh okay, I never
thought about that, I neverheard about that, and so you
know.
So, in the broader sense ofsecurity and defense for the
(03:25):
United States, helping toexplain why NATO matters, why a
stable, secure Europe isimportant for our prosperity and
why helping Russia defeatUkraine sends a powerful signal
to China that will help deterChina from making a terrible
miscalculation.
I think that resonates.
(03:46):
But, as is traditional with USelections, foreign policy almost
never plays an important part.
You may remember, during thelast presidential election,
there was zero mention ofAfghanistan in the debate.
Dana Lewis (04:04):
Incredible right, and it was so close to Trump's
negotiations with the Talibanthe undermining of the mission
in Afghanistan.
And then later on, you know,president Biden would have
Afghanistan under him and hedidn't have very many troops to
(04:27):
pull out after that.
He only had I mean, originallyTrump brought it down from 5,000
to 2,500.
And then the Taliban kind ofcould see and so could all of
the Afghans see that oneadministration, one or the other
would eventually just pull outand the Taliban then started
positioning themselves to takeover.
(04:48):
Whoever was in the Afghan armyprobably started to find the
exit door at that point.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (04:55):
Well, you know, of course, blame for our
failure in Afghanistan cutsacross all four presidents.
Failure in Afghanistan cutsacross all four presidents, from
Bush to Obama, to Trump, toBiden, all of them because only
in the first year did we have aclearly defined objective.
(05:16):
After that first year and thatfirst year it was all about, you
know make sure that Afghanistancould never be used as a base
for recruiting or training orlaunching attacks by Get rid of
al-Qaeda, and so that wasaccomplished the first year.
We should have left, but wedidn't, and so the next 19 years
or so, you had policies insearch of a strategic end state.
(05:38):
It was never done.
So that is a responsibilityshared by all the
administrations and thecongresses that enabled them to
do this.
Dana Lewis (05:49):
Policies in search of an end state Right.
And here we are with Ukraine.
How would you?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (05:56):
draw a parallel with that.
We're in exactly the same place.
I mean, we have terriblepolicies like you cannot use a
TACOMS against a target insideof Russia, or this drip, drip,
drip of aid.
We've delivered less than aquarter of the Humvees that we
promised we would deliver.
I mean, it's just, it's notonly bad policy, but it's also
(06:19):
bad performance of bad policy,and it's really we're missing an
opportunity.
But it goes back to the failureof this administration to
clearly define the objective ofwhy this matters.
And then, if you don't have anobjective, then it makes it very
difficult to explain to theAmerican people why this matters
(06:40):
.
Now I would say you know, backto the Afghan army, though, why
this matters.
Now I would say you know, backto the Afghan army, though, one
of the mistakes that we made,and I'm partly responsible for
this.
We built an army that was verygood and looked exactly like us,
which means it requiresthousands of contractors,
enormous amounts of logistics,exquisite intel and endless
(07:02):
amounts of firepower.
So when we left and we took allthat with us, of course the
thing collapsed.
It was not an army thatreflected Afghan culture, and so
that was a mistake.
And then I would also say, inaddition to us talking about
Afghanistan as if it was anisland and believing somehow
(07:25):
Pakistan was really an ally.
That was wrong.
Not one American paid a penny intaxes for this war.
So there was.
Unless you had a family memberor you lived next to Fort Bragg
or Camp Lejeune or somethinglike that, it didn't affect you,
and so there was no pressure onthe Congress or on the
(07:45):
administration anyadministration to say what the
hell we're still.
We're still in Afghanistan.
For what?
And so you know, when I thinkabout where we are now with
Ukraine, the fact that there isstill not a clear definition of
what we're trying to accomplish.
Of course, as you know, Ibelieve that strategic objective
(08:06):
should be for Ukraine to defeatRussia, because this war is
about more than Ukraine.
It's about stability andsecurity in Europe, which
affects our prosperity, and it'sabout deterring China.
Dana Lewis (08:19):
I remember you leading a brigade in Iraq when
you were a lieutenant colonel.
Colonel, were you a lieutenantcolonel?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (08:26):
Colonel, colonel, were you a full colonel
at that point?
A brigade commander in the Armyis typically a full colonel.
Dana Lewis (08:32):
So you know it's hard to believe Marching into
An-Najaf 40 degrees I think itwas Celsius Soldiers, you know,
dropping back backpacks, andsome were passing out.
Some were still wearingchemical gear, although I think
some of you were allowed to dropsome of the chemical gear on
(08:52):
the way in.
But um, how big was thatbrigade?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (08:56):
well, the typical brigade of the 101st is,
with all of its attachments,including the artillery
battalion, the engineers,logistics, intelligence signal,
etc.
Etc.
You know it was around 5 000soldiers.
Attachments including theartillery battalion, the
engineers, logistics,intelligence signal, et cetera,
et cetera.
You know it was around 5,000soldiers, but that would have
been true of the 2nd Brigade and3rd Brigade as well.
That was about our size.
Dana Lewis (09:17):
So President Zelensky does a recent interview
now.
He says he was in the processof trying to form up 14 brigades
.
He could barely equip four ofthem.
Now I don't know what the 14were for that that's in addition
to what he already has on thefront line.
I assume he could barely puttogether four of them with the
(09:38):
gear that he had been promisedbut never got like things that
you just mentioned, like Humvees, but never got like things that
you just mentioned, likeHumvees.
So you know 10 brigades timesyou know 4,000.
Conservatively I mean that's40,000 troops short.
But he indicated that reallythe problem wasn't the numbers
(09:58):
of boots, it was equipment, youknow ammunition, rifles, armored
, armored, whatever armoredpersonnel, carriers around them.
I mean that's pretty pitifulgiven all the big promises that
were made and the billions ofdollars that were pledged.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (10:18):
So the Ukrainians have generally used
the brigade as the basic combatsort of unit, whereas the US
Army divisions are our sort ofunit for going to war.
I think the Ukrainians areprobably looking at should they
go to divisions where you bringtwo or three brigades together,
(10:42):
but right now that's neitherhere nor there.
Two or three brigades together,but right now that's neither
here nor there.
The fact is they know that theyneed more units so that they
can rotate units in and out ofthe fight and rather than having
individual replacements, whichis what we did disastrously in
Vietnam, instead the Ukrainiansare now doing what most of us do
(11:03):
, which is unit rotations.
So in order to get some guysout of the fight for a while,
you need to have a brigade thatcan replace them.
And it's also better whenyou've got trained women and men
that fill up these brigadeswith all the proper equipment
and then that brigade trains asa unit, then it goes into the
(11:24):
fight Much more effective for,uh, developing combat power.
Um, but what you've highlightedis the fact that they don't have
enough equipment yet most ofwhich is supposed to come from
us, uh, to fill out thesebrigades and, um, I'm it's very
frustrating.
I mean here are it's 10 and ahalf years of the war since it
(11:47):
started and now, two and a halfyears into the large-scale
invasion, or since thelarge-scale invasion, and we are
still unable to deliver, eventhough we have all the stuff to
give.
And this is going to sound likeI'm slamming people in the
Pentagon.
(12:07):
I'm not.
It's the administration nothaving the sense of urgency and
making it a priority.
Dana Lewis (12:14):
I don't quite understand that because and in
no way am I arguing with youabout it I just don't understand
.
We followed it.
They pledged the money.
They finally got the money.
They pledged the money, theyrolled out different
spokespeople who said there'sthis gallant airlift effort into
(12:37):
you know, into Germany, intoPoland.
What happened to all that?
I don't understand.
Why do they not have theequipment?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (12:46):
Yeah, again , there's kind of a you know,
the Pentagon is overworked allthe time and there is so much
going on.
They always have more tasksthan they have resources to
fulfill those tasks.
There's good hard work andintelligent, well-educated,
committed people, but you haveto pick priorities, and I think
(13:06):
that this is not a priority forthe administration.
I mean, if it was a priority,they'd be pushing these things,
uh, instead of saying, well youknow, and then coming up with
reasons why, well, you know,most of what they'd shoot are
outside of range.
Now, it doesn't really wouldn'tmake that much difference.
And these are all bullshitexcuses because the
administration and in this casethe Department of Defense as
(13:29):
part of the administration, isnot committed to actually
helping Ukraine win, ukraine win.
And so if you're not committedto helping them win, but you
want to make sure that Ukraine'shave just enough to avoid
getting overrun, that's whatwe're seeing right now.
Dana Lewis (13:44):
In the meantime, russian President Putin
announces that you know they nowwant to grow their army by
180,000 troops.
That'll take it to 1.5 millionactive servicemen, second
largest in the world after China.
What is what is?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (14:02):
happening on the horizon.
I'm very skeptical of thesenumbers.
I've never trusted any numbercomes out of Russia, and they
announced these bigmobilizations all the time but
then nothing ever actuallyhappens.
And it's also the.
I mean the way they sort ofpackage it and announce it makes
it sound like it's cumulative,but I think actually they're.
You know they't have that.
(14:22):
They've lost so many leaders.
The guys who would have to betraining are training new
recruits, being the cadre fornew units, all of this they're
(14:47):
dead.
They're dead and gone, and soI'm not impressed with these,
with numbers.
But if they do to get that manymore, that means they're
finally going to have to startreaching into Moscow and St
Petersburg and, uh, they'regoing to have to start using
conscripts in combat.
Which Putin promised he wouldnot do is he would not use
(15:08):
conscripts in combat.
And so now you're going to haveand I'm speaking to somebody of
authority the other day and hesaid there's already amongst
parents of conscripts in Russiaare very unhappy that their
little Ivan is being sent intocombat, which is not what Putin
(15:28):
promised, and so there's a.
If this continues and increases, I think this will be a
domestic problem for the Kremlinas well.
Dana Lewis (15:39):
Let me read you a quote, not because he's the best
source, but it's just one ofthe most recent things I've read
from Lord Ashcroft here, who'sa former deputy of the of the
Conservative Party.
Ukraine has been forced tofight for its survival with one
hand tied behind its back, heldback, tragically, by the very
(16:00):
partners that professed tosupport its cause.
He goes on to say Americanpolicymakers are so consumed by
the fear of escalating theconflict that they have
effectively limited Ukraine'sability to defend itself.
Putin's regime can launchmissiles, bomb cities and
terrorize Ukrainian civilians,but when Ukraine seeks to
(16:21):
retaliate against thoseresponsible, it's told to
refrain.
This is not how wars are won.
It is shameful.
Unquote.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (16:31):
I would agree with every word, letter
and punctuation mark in thatstatement, Completely right.
Dana Lewis (16:47):
Because it's not a priority or because they're
worried, they're truly worriedabout escalation by allowing,
you know, the Brits to deploythe Storm Shadow and the French
the Scalp Missile and hit someof these airfields and artillery
and radar systems just insideRussia.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (17:01):
The administration is excessively
concerned, excessively concernedthat Russia might somehow use a
nuclear weapon that mightescalate.
And so, because of that, we areparalyzed with that concern and
we come up with these terriblepolicies that we've already
talked about.
And it's not just all theso-called Russia experts in the
(17:25):
administration, who have been apart of this for a long time, to
include going back to the Obamaadministration, but it's also
there's a community of people inDC that have outsized influence
, which I don't understand,because they have been wrong
from for years, but yet somehowthey have access and influence
(17:46):
there on the administration,which really counsels.
You know, take it easy.
You don't want to poke the bear, don't want to.
You know the Russians thatcould do this and there's no way
Ukraine can win.
And you know we don't want theregime to collapse and all of
this nonsense and uh, it's, it'sabsolutely maddening because it
(18:06):
makes, uh, it's poor judgmentand um, we're going to regret
this, we're going to be lookingback at this at a gigantic
missed opportunity number one.
But also that the Ukrainiansare suffering like they are
needlessly.
I mean, we are failing them,we're failing Europe, we're
(18:27):
missing an opportunity toimprove the security situation
in Europe for decades by helpingUkraine defeat Russia.
And maybe even more importantly, we're missing the opportunity
to send a signal to the Chinesethat, yes, we do care about
sovereignty, freedom ofnavigation, international law,
(18:48):
human rights, internationalagreements.
Instead, we're sending a signalto the Chinese that we really
don't have the political will orindustrial capacity to defend
those things, and it is muchmore difficult out in the
Pacific than it is in Europe.
Dana Lewis (19:03):
What's incredible to me, general Hodges, is that
the debate has taken placepublicly, been drawn out month
by month, by month on, you know,allowing you know, take off the
gloves and allowing Ukraine tohit inside Russia.
Now Zelensky says in this mostrecent interview that he did
(19:23):
that.
You know there were a lot ofRussian jets were on the ground.
Of these, you know, a dozen to16 air bases that could have
been hit just inside Russia.
Now they've moved most of themnow anyway, because of the
debate that's taken placepublicly, and instead of being
(19:44):
150 kilometers inside Russia,they're probably 500 kilometers
inside Russia and by the timeyou conclude this debate, if you
allow Ukraine to strike Russiantargets in defense, you're
probably going to have to letthem hit even further.
Like 500 kilometers insideRussia.
It sounds ridiculous.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (20:05):
Well, you know, I listened to the SACEUR a
while back and he said GeneralCavoli, and he said Russia's
only advantage is mass.
They have these huge numbers oftroops and they don't care how
many of them are killed, they'rewilling to just keep putting
them in there.
So the way you defeat that iswith precision, if you have
enough time.
(20:25):
That means if you can knock outheadquarters, artillery,
logistics, airfields, then itdoesn't matter how many tens of
thousands of untrained, unluckyRussian infantry there are.
They're not effective withoutthe artillery, the headquarters
to direct the logistics, whichis mainly what we're talking
(20:48):
about artillery ammunition, ofcourse, and then the airfields
from which these murderous jetsare taken off and launching
bombs against apartmentbuildings.
So that's why these long rangeweapons are so important,
whether it's Taurus or a Tukumsor a Scout or Storm Shadow,
whatever, and other systems.
Let the Ukrainians use thosethings.
(21:09):
That's how they defeat theRussian advantage of mass.
Now the Ukrainians, of course,they're not going to sit around
and wring their hands.
They're working as hard andfast as they can to develop
their own drones and otherlong-range weapons to hit
targets, uh, particularly oiland gas infrastructure, because
that's what's paying forrussia's war, is the oil that
(21:30):
they sell to india and china.
But if we were, if we wereserious about helping uk
actually win, we'd be pushingthese things to them, not coming
up with excuses why we can't.
Dana Lewis (21:46):
So when you add all of this up, everything that
you've been telling me, wheredoes it leave us?
Then it looks like a lot ofpeople are saying well, they
have to start talks, they haveto get the fighting stopped.
Wow, they have to bring Ukraineto the table and Russia to the
table.
But if you bring Russia, russiahas no incentive to go to the
(22:06):
table right now because they'readvancing on the battlefield.
And if Ukraine goes to thetable, probably without the
support of their own people Now,if they were trying to trade
off 20% of the country,ukrainians are not probably
going to accept that.
So where does it go then?
The pathway to so-called peacethat people are talking about
(22:27):
seems unrealistic.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (22:29):
Well, anybody that's pushing Ukraine
to negotiate with Russia rightnow or thinks that Ukraine
should give up some land for thesake of peace has no
understanding of who and whatRussia is.
And they've also never lookedat a map.
Because when they say Ukraineshould settle, give up some land
, of course what they're talkingabout is Crimea, and as long as
(22:49):
Russia retains Crimea numberone, they'll be blocking access
into Azov Sea, which means twoof Ukraine's five main seaports
from before the war, mariupoland Berdansk, will never be able
to reopen again, even afterthey're liberated.
And also, from Crimea, they'llalways be able to disrupt energy
and grain shipments coming outof Odessa and resume the attack
(23:12):
on Ukraine after we loseinterest in two or three years.
So this is a nonsensicalapproach in my view, and the
Ukrainians know it.
They know what happens, butthat's what the Russians are
counting on is that we in theWest will get so tired of this
and we'll press the Ukrainians.
I mean, look, this has beengoing on for 10 and a half years
(23:34):
.
10 and a half years, russia hadevery advantage, and after 10
and a half years, they controlless than 18% of Ukraine, at the
cost of about 600,000casualties of their own, not to
mention the fact that the BlackSea fleet is a disaster.
The Russian Air Force hasfailed its two main tasks of air
superiority and interdictinglines of communication.
(23:56):
And now you've got thousands ofUkrainian troops occupying part
of Russia in the Kursk Oblast.
Russia's famous attack onPokrovsk, you know.
If you read the paper it's likeoh my God, you know there are
Russians are rumbling towardsPokrovsk.
That's absolutely not true.
(24:19):
It is 60 kilometers.
That's 35 miles for British andAmerican listeners to your
program.
It's 60 kilometers fromAvdiivka, which the Russians
captured finally back inFebruary, and they have only
gone 50 kilometers towardsPokrovsk.
(24:40):
So in six months, dana, sixmonths, at the cost of tens of
thousands of casualties, theyare still not able to capture
this town of Pokrovsk, whichsome idiots in the paper will
refer to as a strategicallyimportant city.
There's nothing strategicallyimportant about it.
All right, yes, it was atransportation hub until weeks
ago when the Ukrainians quitusing it because the Russians
(25:02):
had gotten close enough to hitthe railroad station and things
like that.
But somehow the narrative inmuch of the media not the pros
like you, but in much of themedia is like the Russians are
remorselessly advancing,advancing.
It's just not true.
In fact, the Ukrainians aretreating that as a secondary
(25:23):
effort, and their main effortwas this counteroffensive that
they launched up in thedirection of Kursk, because they
could see that the Russians aremoving at glacier-like speed
and are losing huge amounts oftroops against Ukraine's
secondary effort.
And if you look at the map puton the map, where is Pokrovsk?
(25:45):
It is almost as far east inUkraine as you can get.
So somehow Ukraine is supposedto now negotiate and give up
land, or what?
Where do we go?
Well, where do we go ishopefully, either in the last
few months of his administrationPresident Biden will be
(26:07):
thinking seriously about hislegacy, or President Harris dear
Lord, I hope she's elected thatthey will continue.
At least continue what theBiden administration is doing.
In my sense, based on what I'veheard her say and the fact that
she will get rid of all thecurrent Russia team and bring in
(26:29):
her own team that they willhave a much more dynamic and
forward-leaning approach tohelping to address this
important strategic problem,because this is not just about
Ukraine.
If Ukraine defeats Russia, thenIran has no friends zero.
Nobody else in the world is afriend of Iran.
(26:50):
So if you can defeat Russia,they are much less capable of
helping Iran and that wouldundermine Iran's ability to
support Hezbollah, hamas and theHouthis.
So that has strategic benefitfor us and it would also leave
North Korea friendless, becausethey have no friend other than
Moscow.
And then the Chinese would sayoh wow, the West is committed.
(27:14):
The West does have thepolitical will and industrial
capacity which we have not yetshown.
So this, I think a Harrisadministration will see this.
Dana Lewis (27:26):
And a Trump administration.
Do you think that Ukraine canfight on if Trump comes to power
?
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (27:32):
I think.
Well, first of all, trump andall these other geniuses that
are making, offering deals,they're doing it without Ukraine
being involved in theconversation.
So Ukrainians are going like,hey, wait, you know, we're not
Afghanistan, we're going to,we're going to be here, we're
going to keep fighting, becausewe know what happens when the
Red Army shows up.
So the fact that Trump wouldsay publicly, well, I'll solve
(27:53):
this in 24 hours, no seriousperson should believe that for a
second.
But because he has zeroprinciples, no moral principles,
he only wants a deal.
He will offer something toPutin and say, hey look, do this
and do this and we'll pull out.
We'll leave the Ukrainians bythemselves.
But the rest of Europe?
(28:13):
They're not sitting in thebleachers here.
The Europeans know that even ifthe US totally fails, they are
going to inherit a gigantic mess.
If Ukraine fails, it will bebecause the United States and
Germany in particular, failed todo what was necessary them.
Millions of more Ukrainianrefugees headed into Poland,
(28:39):
romania, germany, on top of thefive or six men that are already
there now.
This will be an enormous burdenon their economic and social
systems.
We'll continue to have to dealwith disruption of grain
shipments and energy supplies,which affects prices for all of
us in America as well as Europe.
And we'll have said to theChinese we don't really have the
(29:02):
political will to defend whatwe say is so important.
Dana Lewis (29:07):
Lieutenant General Ben Hodges.
Ben, always a pleasure, Somedark moments potentially ahead,
you know, and a soberingdiscussion always.
I appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
Thanks for the opportunity, Dan.
Underscoring how deadly this warhas been, the Wall Street
Journal this week placed thenumber of casualties on both
sides at one million One millionpeople.
(29:29):
The publication placed thenumber of Russian casualties
200,000 dead and around 400,000wounded, citing Western
intelligence estimates whichwould place the total around
600,000.
For Ukrainian militarycasualties, the Wall Street
Journal placed the number at80,000 dead and 400,000 wounded.
(29:52):
Stunning numbers, I mean,however accurate.
All mostly hidden from theRussian public out of fear that
people will turn on Putin'sregime.
If only they knew.
Oddly, the story suggests thatPutin sought to boost Russia's
demographic population byinvading and controlling Ukraine
(30:12):
.
I mean that's pretty strange,considering when Russia started
its illegal war on Ukraine,roughly 600,000 Russians fled
their own country, fearinganti-war arrests and
conscription All part of Putin'sdark legacy from his perch back
in Mordor.
I'm Dana Lewis.
(30:33):
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
Share the podcast, please, andI'll talk to you again soon
against him, Thank you, Thankyou.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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