Lt. General Ben Hodges (Ret.) | Are the US’ and Europe’s security interests growing apart? #443

hello listeners welcome to another English language episode of futurecast my name is is Sako I'll be your host today we have a great pleasure and honor to welcome retired three star me three star general uh Ben Hodes and former Commanding General of the United States Army Europe to the show Welcome M thank you very much for the privilege uh first of all we have a lot to talk about but uh first of all we are in many ways more immersed in the world of war through social media these days pictures cameras and phones do you think civilians regular people are more close to the reality of War than ever before these days or are there still some blind spots and some ways in which social media distorts the reality of War well I that's a great question um I think uh people have more um sense of what it looks like the the combat on the ground the destruction uh that happens uh particularly of cities uh uh innocent people killed by Russian missiles and Rockets slamming into apartment buildings um but I think we've become a little bit numb to it uh when you see so much disruption where it just doesn't shock as as much anymore as it used to and I don't know that that's a good thing and also U it could convey um a sense of uh um video game when you see so much Drone footage you know of drones flying into tank turrets or uh buildings and and doing all this um it it it it's possible to draw the wrong conclusions from what is so readily available if you're if you don't have a a broader context for it yeah I'm I'm ashamed to man to admit that I feel that same type of numbness every now and again and my educated guess is that it's not the same type of numbness as the people who are actually serving in the front lines SC well we we know we know from history that images are very powerful um you know the one of the most famous images from the vorn Vietnam was this the young girl running down the road that U had been burned by Napal um even images from the American Civil War of dead bodies on the battlefield people had never seen that before American soldiers killed in World War II when the first pictures came out of that I me these had powerful uh impact on how people viewed the war or what was at stake now you see so Much Death and destruction um it's lost unfortunately some of that impact and so we do become numb and now you know the fact that Russia is uh destroying harke block by Block it's like this not even news even though this is one of the biggest cities in Ukraine uh used to be two million people there and there's there's no moral outcry um about what Russia's doing to harke similarly I must say um there has been a significant impact in Israel in Gaza Str with the the destruction has uh uh changed how many people think about that conflict and frankly their support for Israel has been degraded a lot because of what they see yeah so speaking of Ukraine it seems that the assessments from the ground are always sort of tempered by the expectations that we have of the situation so just as a kind of a hypothetical question if you if you could imagine or picture yourself being back in Fe February 2022 and experiencing the first week of the full frontal assault of Russia and Ukraine and then if you were giving given a snapshot of what was going on in the war in the front lines in in April 2024 how do you think you would feel about the situation in April 2024 from the perspective of 2022 well I I think three things come to mind that's another interesting question uh first of all um I was sure that Ukrainian forces would do well because of the people the soldiers that I knew I was sure that that you know they would not be overrunning three days that was ridiculous um but I also thought the Russians would do much better I I'm grossly overestimated Russia's military capability um and uh yeah so that those those were from the first days my estimate of how both sides would would do now the second sort of thing is that um I uh I have I very disappointed that uh my government has failed to um here we are in April of 24 more than 10 years since the war started and more than two years since the beginning of the um uh large scale military operation large scale Invasion um we still have not clearly identifi the objectives and of what why this matters uh and that failure to uh identify the objective and the Strategic instate that we want has resulted in terrible policy or no policy of hesitancy where the focus is on avoiding escalation to a nuclear conflict versus helping Ukraine win and delivering what's needed to help Ukraine win so that's um you know as I look at where we are today because the administration um who has done a good job on many other aspects of this but because they have failed to make the case of why it's important they left the door open for uh Trump and his supporters to stop aid for Ukraine they they've been able to change the narrative from one of helping Ukraine defeat Russia to um you know what about our own borders and so that that's that's something that I I would not have anticipated and then the third thing is uh the emergence of France as a uh as a powerful voice uh the emergence of Finland as a powerful uh voice and contributor um and uh the resolve of particularly Central and Eastern European countries because they know you know what the what the outcome is if Ukraine is defeated or Russia feels like they can keep going so that those are not necessarily all related but those are the three big things that come to mind um now after hearing your question yeah speaking of that I was going to actually ask you this later but since you now mentioned it different governments different intelligence agencies different I guess people commentators have given different time taes and and timelines for a another assault or maybe like an maybe an assault on a NATO country by Russia the number of 3 years to 5 years has been given some governments are unwilling to give an assessment of any timetable and some people are saying that there's no IM immediate risk of of this in the in the near future how do you see this situation well uh you know when somebody say three to five years I mean that's a huge span of time yeah I mean that's a You Know cover all your C all your bases on your prediction I think that the time it would be based on two or three things number one the the technical logistical side of things is uh professional estimates by different people different intelligence services on how long it would take Russia to recover from the shellacking they have taken at the hands of Ukraine to rebuild their forces uh and and uh build up necessary Logistics to take the next step which would be uh a conflict with a NATO country and presumably with with NATO I mean that's we're not talking about a little sliver of Lithuania here we're talking about you know if they're are they really prepared to uh have a conflict with a with NATO and they would have to uh be thinking that the entire Alliance would respond so you you know the the timeline is based on when will they be ready from a military and economic standpoint and they they have enormous damage to repair enormous losses to fill and I'm not so uh sure that they could actually do that um or that Russian people would be up for that but that's that that timeline is it's not unreasonable but but I think that's what it would it would be based on that sort of calculation and uh it's not a perfect science obviously because there would be a lot of other factors how much help would Russia be getting from Iran or China and so on and this this goes to a larger question about strategic uh design that I'll that I'd like to come back to now the other factor of course on whether or not U Russia decides to make the terrible calculation that they could launch some sort of attack against NATO that would not be a big giant red arrow going all the way across Europe the way it would have been during the Cold War but instead something designed to break NATO to to challenge us to attack a NATO country and then stop and say do you really want to have a nuclear war over labia or Romania or or something like that um and I think they would do that if they felt confident that either number one the United States uh was not willing to to engage in that or would had turned its back on Europe so to speak or that if other countries in the alliance were not willing to do that because if if we didn't respond if we didn't live up to our article five obligations then they would have in effect achieved their objective of of breaking NATO uh which is not to say that several countries would not respond but the alliance so that their their assessment of whether or not we have the cohesion and level of Readiness to uh to deal with that I think would affect their time that also yeah and what is your analysis on that want to package this uh point in a larger question about what the northern European security situation looks like right now with the accession of Sweden and Finland into NATO how does the Baltic Sea look like as a as a potential um area of conflict at this moment how how have the power balances shifted after the accession of Sweden and Finland but also do you think if there is a um I don't know what it would look like let's say a a small kinetic operation somewhere in the north of Finland the border of Finland and Norway may be spurred on by even some Chinese pressure or or something like that who knows uh do you think there's enough interest in Spain Portugal southern Europe let alone the United States to actually activate Article 5 and and make sure that uh the union the promise of the alliance holds well uh okay you really are good um first of all NATO got better the minute that Finland joined and then Sweden joined I mean these are net pluses in terms of capability uh Str uh Geographic uh Advantage now for the alliance um over the both in the high North but also over the Baltic Sea um both countries bringing very good um modern high-tech defense industry in both Nations bringing fit resilient societies so uh no downsides for nato in the addition of Finland and Sweden and I'm not throwing bouquet here I mean that's when I think about my experience with officers and Soldiers and Sailors and Airmen from both Finland and Sweden only positive experiences uh and with the quality of what they what they bring in their societies um thank you I want to say it's it's sincere um I've got good friends that former Army Chiefs from both countries that I with whom I dealt a lot over the last few years and these are really quality people um the uh the the key to deterrence is the adversary or potential adversary believing that you have capability to cause them enormous harm or cause them to fail and also believing that you have the willingness to use that capability so that's that's going to be the key uh and obviously American uh leadership and participation in all of this is going to be an essential component not only because of the nuclear deterrent but because of the the mass the the scale of what the us could bring if it were committed both economically as well as militarily so um the the scenario you pose something happening in the in the Arctic region um I think US Canadian um thinking about this would be very important to how the alliance would respond my sense is that yes of course um the United States would respond to that for multiple reasons not just because of it's Article 5 obligation but you do highlight uh a reminder that article five is not automatic it is ultimately a political decision um it's not like a laser being when you when you walk through a door or walk towards a door to store and the door automatically opens up because you've BR a laser beam right that's that's not Article Five um it has it is a political decision by all the nations that yes this constitutes an article five uh situation which means an armed attack on one is considered an armed attack on all and then the nation's respond in accordance with you know what they're what they're willing to do and and what the uh Regional defense plans require them to do um I think that the uh likelihood that we would all respond is very hot now you know what would be required what's the appropriate plans this is why I think one of the most important things that came out of the villous summit last summer was the approval by the North Atlanta Council of uh the plans Regional defense plans where what what NATO calls the family of plans for the defense of NATO's Eastern flake and they're their Regional plans as you probably know U these still need further maturation and um training but nonetheless these are specific plans and nations are obligated make contributions to those plans so there may not be a requirement for a lot of Portuguese or Spanish troops to be involved in a plan in the in the high North but you could imagine Spanish Air Force um or intelligence or other capabilities that might be a part of n's response this will be the calculation that the Russians and perhaps the Chinese are making when they think about you know what do we what do they want to accomplish yeah you've given some really really good interviews about the situation in Ukraine for example for for Jake bro you did one recently and then uh for silicon curtain uh which went really viral it's at almost 600,000 views at this point and um the title was very very interesting and and uh and I don't want to say sensationalist but uh the siege of Crimea has started something like that very interesting it's kind of surprising for a lot of people following the course of the war thinking that uh Ukraine is in for a couple of or or I mean difficult months ahead uh it was actually Jonathan Fink's phrasing not yours but you agreed with it so so I I want to uh I want to ask about that what does that mean what what is the siege of Crimea and why do you think it has started so um thanks for asking that um and I did get some uh ha mail on uh on Twitter like know seed of C I mean what are you talking about you know um first of all the the overall narrative is so negative about What's happen in Ukraine and it and the reality is so far from that I mean it's it's very different ult obviously for Ukrainian Ground Forces since they have been denied uh adequate support by the United States thus far and not all European countries have stepped up with as much as they could or should do um so um you know they they he had to pull out of ABA after months um because of a lack of artillery ammunition not because of a lack of drones so that there is an impact but the put that in context um I think that actually Russia is in big trouble uh this war has been going on for more than 10 years Russia had every Advantage um and still they occupy less than 20% of Ukraine and and they don't have the ability to knock out Ukraine to knock Ukraine out of the war um the Russian Air Force has failed to achieve it two most important task which is number one to achieve air superiority and they and number two which is to be able to interdict the lines of communication the cgo and trains coming from Poland into Ukraine bringing stuff they haven't destroyed a single Cobo train that's incredible the Black Sea fleets troubles are well documented by now about a third of it's underwater they're having to pull out a sast to some extent because of just a few Storm Shadow and Scout cruise missiles that were employed by ukrainians so I think um it's it's useful to keep keep in mind that uh there's a lot of doomers out there which is exactly what the kremin wants is to create this it's inevitable there's no way Ukraine can win it's just a matter of time so that they'll get um people to say come on we just need we need to end this war we need to uh put pressure on Ukraine to give up territory for the sake of Peace why should we provide more stuff they're going to lose anyway no it no they're not uh but that that's a narrative that's out there that and I'm glad you're giving me a chance to push back on that narrative now the siege of Crimea I think uh that uh came about because I do believe that crimeia is the decisive terrain of this War I don't think Putin really cares that much about the dbass except that it provides a a land link to Crimea Crimea is the great prize because of what it offers in terms of uh a sea port a navy base like sebasto um as well as our projection platform for Russian air power and cruise missiles and all that not only into Ukraine but frankly they can cover about 96 97% of the Black Sea with uh missiles launched from cria they can they can disrupt or prevent freedom of navigation uh a lot of energy and a lot of Food Supplies move through the Black Sea so Crimea gives them that which is why Katherine the Great took it the first time back at the end of the 18 century to protect Russian ports from the ottoman Navy um so uh it that's why it's important to Russia but it has not always been Russian that's the narrative they would like uh and and uh unfortunately even candidate Trump has has bought into this and and so you saw the article I'm sure in Washington Post a couple days ago he's got a plan that he can end the war in 24 hours and what it basically means is telling Ukraine stop give up any hope of Kia give up the dbass and then then the war is over but that's incredibly naive and strategically illiterate to think that Russia would stop that all they really wanted was Ria the other side of that of course is uh any hope of reconstruction of of UK after the war is is really going to be handicapped if Russia controls Crimea because Crimea blocks access into as ofc where two of Ukraine's five biggest ports barop and berance even if they were rebuilt would be useless for Ukraine because Russia controls AZ offc and they have the capability to disrupt traffic in and out of Odessa harstone or Mia so that's why I believe that crime is the decisive terrain of the war when we say it's under siege um what does that mean not in the traditional sense with trenches all around the cria you know and then then it's blockaded but the fact is the r the Russian Navy is having to withdraw from Castle because uh Ukraine demonstrated with special forces uh Maritime drones uh aerial drones and Storm Shadow and Scout that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is completely vulnerable sitting there with just a few weapons um and that other uh air bases and other facilities in Crimea are vulnerable to these kinds of strikes and and so what uh Ukraine is doing is by number one destroying these uh lsts Landing ship tank which are the large Russian native ships they're not warships per se but they're used for carrying armored vehicles that's also useful for logistics for carrying stuff so once the kurts bridge is destroyed and it will be um without having these lsts available Ria becomes increasingly isolated and that's that's the key to making Pia untenable is by isolating it from outside reinforcement and then by through the use of long range Precision weapons and drones destroying the facilities there this is this is what's underway I could not tell you when C bridge will be dropped um but I am fairly certain that General budanov and the others um have U several um I don't want to say ideas because it's more than that but it'll be done in a way um that is effective and will will surprise us as well as the Russians which is what they've been doing for the last two years anyway I mean they contined to surprise us yeah even if you did know I don't think you would tell it here on the show no yeah um I've read that um there's been there have been some worries about uh ukra ukrainians not I don't want to say reluctance cuz I don't know if that's what it is but their inability uh to construct defensive line defensive positions similar to the ones that Russ Russia built with the Surin line uh and just a very general oneone Basics question about defensive lines what are defensive lines what are effective and ineffective defensive lines why are they important and how should armies think about constructed defensive lines especially Ukraine and the situation they're in right now yeah this is another good question of course these are uh Manpower intents uh intensive in terms of engineering equipment um or they they need depth it's not like one long line of trenches that's kilometers deep if if you're intending to stop uh attacks um you landmines all of these things so I don't know what all the the thinking is on the Ukrainian side um I think that they're they have probably uh are doing some things around harke to to make sure they don't lose harke um but you know when when you're when you're hard pressed or um for cap for assets you have to prioritize um I'm not so sure that as they look at what Russia has that defensive lines are necessarily certainly not from to cover the entire width from top to bottom of you of the country that that's what's necessary um that would be useful in some places to to to provide uh anchors around which Ukrainian Defenders can uh hold out against U these human Mass assaults um and the amount of bombardment the Russians are launching as part of every attack attack but um I just don't see large armored formations that are well trained properly supported and logistically enabled that could exploit any kind of a breakthrough I mean abiva that happened back at the end of February so almost two months down the road they have still Russians have still not been able to exploit it because it they don't have the capability so I I imagine that that's part of the calculation that goes into Ukrainian decision making on where and how much should they invest into fortified lines there could also be a political calculation that they don't want to uh create something that becomes a hardened Border in a negotiated thing right I don't know that but that that that could be part of the calculation uh I see occasionally people talk about the nepro rivers you know that's I think that would be a horrible idea to say you know let Russia have everything east of nepro that that would be uh I think a catastrophe for Not only would it be political suicide for any Ukrainian leader to agree to something like that but also to give Russia that much of eastern Ukraine uh from from an economic standpoint agricultural standpoint population nothing good will happen to ukrainians on that east side of the river yeah yeah that's interesting I mean do you think there could be like a psychological effect if we build a defensive line here it sort of draws an uh an unofficial border that then de facto might become the border around which the negotiations would uh would start to well certainly that's what happened in Korea yeah the Korean War I mean U once the war of maneuver had ended then it became a matter of lines and there was enormous fighting to advance the line during the iations a few miles you know north or south and um I don't know that that's that's 100% speculation on my part but it's kind of like the first thing that I thought of on your question is hardening that line of contact and you know the um when you're trying to achieve a decisive outcome you don't achieve a decisive outcome through defense you know and I think the the outcome for Ukraine has to be and it should be for all of us that they eject Russia back to the 1991 border and so um to reestablish the sovereignty of Ukraine and I think that must be part of the calculation but there is from an operational level of War uh there's advantage in having places where you can anchor strong defenses while you conduct maneuver Warfare elsewhere yeah uh so I I think uh General s he probably spends a little time every single day you know reviewing plans where do they want to invest uh resources uh how would they do that I just don't know what that is yeah I know you like talking about a proactive Western strategy that we should have one we should construct one there should even be a discussion a more open discussion about one but uh so I want to give you an opportunity to uh to tell how you're thinking about that has evolved in the in the recent months where do you see both I guess it's it's too prong this question what do you think a proactive Western strategy could be and then also is there enough political capital and uh Unity within the Western Alliance to sustain the kind of strategy you would like to see well you know um the the kind of the simplistic uh concept of strategy is ends Ways and Means the ends are what trying to accomplish the ways or the how and the means are the resources required and so obviously the step one is identifying the end what what do you want to accomplish uh that's been our biggest failure I think thus far in the west is to clearly identify the end so you get ridiculous statements like we're with you for as long as it takes well first of all the ukrainians don't believe that anymore either but that's not an end and that's not something that's compelling to American voters and taxpayers or German voters and taxpayers either why you know we should be devoting pouring so much resources so many resources into helping Ukraine win um I think clearly identifying that it's in our strategic interest not because we love ukrainians and we're inspired by their courage or don't like what Russia's doing to them it's because it's in our strategic interest of Russia is defeated and once Russia has finally defeated the oldfashioned way the then uh we have an opportunity to fix European security for Generations uh but as long as Russia believes that they still are this Empire then they will they're going to keep doing what they're doing now and um you know when Putin dies and he will die so fact somebody else like him will come along so the only way to cause Russia to reconsider who and what they are and to uh free Russian people uh from the Yoke of Russian Empire which has taken many different forms over the centuries um is for them to be crushed um as as my friend Gary casparo I own the part of his team at renewed democracy initiative and I was with him last week in New York and and he he uses the phrase Ukrainian Victory equals freedom for Russians which is really uh interesting of course he's a Russian decient uh uh is that Russian people um will never be able to change who and what they are until that notion of Empire is is once and once and for all destroyed and that Russia has undergone uh some significant changes after they lose a war uh and I think there's too much uh hand ringing goes on in Washington and Berlin and probably some other Western capitals that somehow uh it's a bad thing that the Kremlin Falls that that Russia's defeated that it will unleash incredible nuclear escalations or chaos everywhere and I don't I don't think that's the case I'm not advocating for regime change so that should be our objective but obviously we should plan for that um uh what what are the implications and consequences um 19 uh December 1941 Japan uh bomb Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the War uh January 1942 Churchill comes to Washington for what was called the Arcadia conference he actually came at the end of December 41 stayed over at the White House for Christmas and they had what was called the Arcadia conference and during that conference while US Navy ships are still burning in Pearl Harbor um and despite the fact that most Americans did not want to get involved in a European land War um Churchill and Roosevelt recognized and agreed on a policy a strategic priority of Germany first that Nazi Germany had to be defeated first before they turned their full attention to defeating the Empire Japan that was an important part of strategy because it was a priority and then it helped them organize their thinking for building industry growing the types of armies and navies and Air Forces they would need to fight a global war and then one year later in C at the cabla conference January 1943 and by the way wherever there's no reason for optimism here I mean Great Britain had suffered mostly defeats for three years the US that just lost half of its Naval sea power and most people did not want to get into the war and so here's two leaders with strategic Clarity talking about priorities and then Janu 43 inate unconditional surrender not some Namby pambi we want to fight a a huge War to get to a better negotiating position no is we're going to [ __ ] Crush Nazi Germany and the Empire Japan that's the end State and that's what enabled them to organize for victory and that's what's missing right now um I think we the focus on Russia or Ukraine is all about limiting escalation and we know from history and we know from what's happening right now limit focusing on limiting escalation only drags it out it's I mean it is it betrays how little we understand Russia and then keeping that separate from what are we trying to do with Israel and Hamas and then you've got North Korea and China I think these should be linked together and if we look to them as a global challenge the way the Roosevelt Churchill did that would cause us to develop strategic priorities uh to be more clear about an inate and then you could have conversation with your population about why this matters and this is what we're going to do and I think most Americans just like most F would probably say okay that makes sense but yeah without a strategic Clarity and a clearly defined instate the the administration is not able to make the case with their own population yeah and I want to ask about that actually the differences between uh European and United States interest uh in Europe in Finland the role of the United States states as a security guaran has been uh very apparent for the past few years but then in the United States there seems to be this sense of um unwillingness to be the security guaran of the world in all in in perpetuity um is this just a phenomenon that exists in in magga Republicans or is it a broader sense in American society right now that uh this can't go on long term and this this is a failure of leaders from both parties uh being able to explain to Americans why it is to our advantage that we are quote the world's policeman of course it's expensive and of course uh the average person that lives somewhere in the middle of the United States or even on the coast like why are we why is it our troops that are doing this uh that is um ignorance that and and it's the job of the uh Administration and the Congress to explain to populations how much America depends on freedom of navigation for example I mean if you don't have the world's greatest Navy out there making sure that ships can move around the world that that affects us our ability to export and import um or for our ized to have access to energy resources for example so um it it you know this is kind of a catchy phrase um that is used by a populace uh and it takes it exploits people's strategic illiteracy or lack of Interest or attention or lack of understanding of geography and history because we are spoiled in the United States having this this Incredible Gift of our geography with oceans on both sides and friendly neighbors to the North and South um that there is a a large part of of American society that is isolationist now why does why does that matter to me without thinking about the fact that almost everything inside their house was imported from somewhere else um or that most American companies depend on exports to another country that's you have to you have to have um uh stability and Security in for in order for that to work so uh I'm sorry that's kind of a a rambling answer to a good question but it it does boil down to people not appreciating your understanding why it's to our advantage that we are able to influence what goes on this so-called International rules-based order that was created after the second world war has enormous advantage to the United States and all of its friends which of course is why the Russians hate it the Chinese hate it the Iranians hate it for economic reasons uh that they and they want to turn that over and and we're very close to losing this enormous Advantage because of our own internal domestic problems yeah I don't disagree with anything you said quite the opposite but if I were to come one step uh ahead to meet you in the middle or meet the perspective in the middle to sort of when people say that hey you need to take care of your own backyard you need to pay the 2% whatever sound bites people have in Finland it seems like um as far as I understand from the national conversation uh it does resonate here that I mean we do want or we do recognize the need for the United States to be the security guaran especially today but it's a good point we need to take care of our backyard before we make demands how do you think do you think that's the right way to think about it oh uh every president since Truman every president Republican Democrat didn't matter complain that our European allies should do more of course they should I mean you know uh that that's a common sense thing there to expect that um Germany Poland Finland Norway Portugal Italy everybody should do their part the 2% is a metric I don't think it's the best metric but was one everybody agreed on okay well then then live up to what you said you would do because for sure uh people are counting on the United States to provide this nuclear Shield um and uh to provide uh other capabilities that are out there from which almost every European country benefits um and and so yes I think also though it would be helpful if most Americans appreciated that whether or not every European country does what it should that doesn't change the fact that it's in our interest that Europe is is stable and secure because America's Prosperity is is tied directly to European prosperity it's our biggest trading partner as a group and so uh if Europe's on fire if it if there's conflict there if you've got millions of refugees all over the place and and food and energy supplies are being disrupted and freedom of navigation is being disrupted that affects us yeah so I I think it's it's just it's not you're not paying your 2% therefore F you I mean that's that's not how that's not to our advantage yeah I still have a couple questions if that's okay do you mind yeah sure no these are excellent questions great thank you so much um yeah about us politics um I remember in 2022 in the first months people said that if there's anything the Ukraine want is the information War the I guess the some people said the propaganda War Ukraine succeeded in mobilizing Western support and Global support uh which is uh which was pretty imp parent back then but I don't know how um I don't know how conclusive that victory was if you look at how polarizing the question of Russia and and support for Ukraine is right now especially it seems in the United States you even hear people answer questions who do you prefer Joe Biden or Vladimir Putin you hear people say Putin uh I don't know what the percentages are but how as as a as an American how do you see how did this happen how how is this possible and what is your best sort of good faith Steelman version of what goes through a person's mind when they say that they prefer Putin over Biden well um I first of all it's hard to even imagine that that an American was say that especially from a republican um you know you think of Ronald Reagan and who was always stood up against the evil empire the Access of Evil and um it was Republicans and now you've got uh Donald Trump publicly praising Vladimir Putin is a great man he's really smart uh in the same way he Praises uh Jan ping or Victor Ora I it's it's incredible um if I didn't know it was true I would not believe it to be true uh unfortunately and so uh American politics has be has become has evolved into this uh mess where um one guy with his enablers is able to U create a belief system that is detached I think from reality and and is also a huge threat to our constitution um as well as to our alliance um now why why is that why why are we so vulnerable to that I think the Russians have invested a lot of time and effort as have the Chinese into undermining our society um we uh I think we're particularly vulnerable because of uh education standards you know a population that is not as uh educated uh and and alert as it should be which is embarrassing to have to admit um we don't live up to our own talking points actually I mean we have enjoyed this uh the greatest country the beacon on the hill it's you know millions of people risk their life to try to get to America every year which is true but we we have become I think so uh egocentric and uh have have lowered our guard and so uh we become suscep parts of society become very susceptible to um this sort of Russian uh disinformation um you've got religious extremists that are like Taliban I mean they do everything except cut people's hands off um in their intolerance and so this is where our leaders have got to uh be be clear they need to say look we're at war with Russia that doesn't mean that we're shooting but the Russians are clearly at war with us and until we wake up and realize that we're going to continue to be infiltrated we're going to continue to uh um be susceptible to further disinformation where people lose trust in their institutions you know the United States has always had a a level of chaos I mean that's the nature of a democracy anyway uh it's and particularly America style democracy there's always this yeah I mean um January 6 was not the first time we had a terrible day but I always had confidence U that the institutions could absorb a lot of damage and he would eventually get it right this is the first time where I felt like some of those institutions are um more fragile than maybe I realized yeah it's it's I mean on the the other hand when Europeans like to look at the current situation in the United States and scoff at them I mean it's good to remember that the United States is a much older democracy than many European Democracies and it has stood the test of time and it's still here but yeah it's it's a very good question are these institutions as resilient today than before with the internet with social media with new dividing lines in politics and society and and and things like that it's a very interesting question I think we're going to do an episode on that later actually in a few weeks but um last question and thank you so much ben Hodes for this episode this has been uh very very very very illumin Illuminating um broadly do you see the Strategic interests of the United States and Europe converging or what is the opposite of converging going the other diverging diverging thank you so much well I think that um uh we are still converging got so many shared values um um we need each other yeah actually you know the United States we with the biggest defense budget in history does not have the capacity to do everything it needs to do to protect all of its strategic interests or all of Europe's strategic interest and and all of our best and most reliable allies come from Europe as well as Canada and Australia so um I think even with the uh increasing attention towards the Endo Pacific region uh the United States knows on both sides Republicans and Democrats that uh it's in our strategic interest economically from a security standpoint and diplomatically that we stay closely connected to Europe uh of course there's going to be different views on things of whether it's economic or how do you deal with Israel or you know countries wanton access to Chinese markets uh America's policy cannot be you have to buy American I mean that's ridiculous that's not going to ever happen but it's also not helpful if the French or the EU says you can only buy EU product so I think um finding ways to incre in improve our integration uh while uh doing this would respect um is important you know NATO our Alliance is not perfect but this I think everybody acknowledges it's the most successful Alliance initi in the world and that's the reason it's grown from 12 to 32 members and there are still countries in a que that want to be a part of it nobody's knocking on the door of the kremin saying please let me back in so I I think that um America is going to continue uh being a uh uh focused on our relationship with our European allies and our economic partner um but also keep in mind a little bit of History America was primarily oriented on the Pacific before the first World War I mean our uh most of America at the time where people had immigrated from Europe trying to get away from European Wars and uh or from religious persecution or or looking for Economic Opportunity you know my family is predominantly uh Scots Irish uh I would like to claim that I had Royal background but actually they mostly were released from Dead or prison to come you know uh in the early days in the colonies in the Southern United what became the Southern United States so it's this pivot to the Pacific is not a new thing it was Pacific oriented from before the first world war but it was the requirement to come back to Europe in the first world war against most Americans not wanting to do it and then we didn't want to do it in the 30s but then we had to come back again uh for the second world war and that's when the focus became you know with NATO a a a European Focus because we didn't want to have to come back to Europe for a third time for a a land War yeah United States has about a 100,000 military personnel in Europe now think about that 100,000 that's about what fills up wedley stadium in London that's crazy okay today 100,000 yeah that's but that's one stadium so people talk about this huge American commitment Europe it's wimbley Stadium worth of truth that's and half of that is rotational they don't they're not there permanently they come and go after three months six months nine months that sort of thing the US Navy uh in Europe is the part that's permanently assigned here is uh less than probably what Finland and Sweden have total uh in terms of number of capital ships so it's um it's not a huge commitment that we have but it is a commitment that's very important for us as well as for Europe and look I want to say ISAC um I believe in in my country uh there are way more good people than there are uh Knuckleheads and um uh we know that democracy is is not a ballet it's more like Rugby Football and uh it is hard and so the thing that protect it are uh media people that shine the light on stuff that hold politicians accountable that hold businesses accountable um and uh and young people coming out to vote now if young people turn out to vote on November the 5th we will not have to worry about Donald J Trump anymore but if young people don't show up because they don't understand or they don't care or whatever or they don't have confidence in the system then we will have another Donald J Trump Administration so that that's what's at stake here I do need to let you go soon but um you're okay with it if Donald Trump is elected what advice do you have for Europe no um you know you can't say you're for democracy but then hate it when you don't why the outcome yeah that's true if if if the American people actually elect him that that he is the president and in all the all the comes with it uh but I hope that uh uh our institutions are strong enough to resist you know the court system the the the media the Congress um I mean there there will be a lot of pressure on our on our institution we already know that Trump has said that that the people that are will enable him if he's elected again have made it clear what they want to do uh so our European allies uh I think I I know that uh leaders from European many European countries are already speaking to the Trump campaign as they should you know so that you can understand okay what what does that mean for my country or for Europe if there's a trump of administration you would I mean that would be the Strategic thing to do to at least have your eyes open about the possibility um but I think that um look the the combined economies and and power of Europe is to or or super cities the United States so Europeans if you know you can sit at home and complain about Trump or you can get off your butt and uh come together and and exert pressure in the different ways uh that you can yeah okay this is enough I've stolen enough extra minutes of your valuable time Ben thank you so much for uh for giving me this interview well I I really do uh appreciate the privilege and opportunity you gave me as it thanks for this thank you so much and thank you to our listeners and viewers I'll see you next week with a new episode it's probably not going to be English but we're going to come out with another English language interview um shortly so we'll see you then bye-bye

Channel: Futucast

Views: 166,054

Keywords: Futucast, Podcast, Suomi, Isak Rautio, Ukraine, Nato, Crimea, Trump, social media, Ben Hodges, NATO alliance, US security, European security, Army Europe, US military, military analysis, geopolitical issues, war reporting, defense strategy, NATO Finland, military policy, global security, security policy, military interviews, military podcast, military podcasts, defense podcasts, strategic insights, NATO future, military strategy, war impact

Id: NGlXzIzZDj8

Length: 55min 53sec (3353 seconds)

Published: Mon Apr 15 2024