"Trump won't turn away from Ukraine." An interview with U.S. General Ben Hodges.

Nuclear Escalation by Russia and Trump's Peace Plan

The recent launch of a new ballistic missile by Russia raises the question: is this a demonstration of readiness to carry out a nuclear strike or yet another attempt to intimidate Ukraine and the West?

The strike with this missile aimed to provoke concern. And Russia succeeded in achieving this. In some parts of Washington, Berlin, London, and other capitals, people have become more anxious.

However, I do not believe that Putin intends to launch nuclear strikes. There is no benefit for Russia in using nuclear weapons. The only thing the Kremlin wants is to convince everyone that they can do it. They see how this threat scares people.

The strike with the new missile illustrates the Kremlin's fear that Ukraine might employ Storm Shadow/SCALP and ATACMS missiles. Such a nervous reaction from Putin demonstrates the effectiveness of Ukraine's strikes on ammunition depots and other military targets within Russia. It seems to me that the Russians are currently worried. They do not like this situation.

I don’t know how many such missiles Russia has at its disposal. Of course, theoretically, they could equip these missiles with nuclear warheads. However, I believe that both China and India will advise Putin against doing so.

We should also not forget that President Biden has already explained to Russia the catastrophic consequences that would follow from the use of nuclear weapons. Now, Donald Trump will return to the White House, and the Russians are trying to demonstrate to him what they are capable of. But Putin does not know what Trump plans to do. Therefore, I think Moscow will be very cautious and will not escalate significantly.

Biden warned Putin about the consequences of nuclear escalation, but now Trump must remind him of them. If he does not, could Russia resort to nuclear strikes against Ukraine? And will China be able to deter Putin from such a move if the White House distances itself from this issue?

China wants to obtain cheap oil and gas from Russia. And I believe that Beijing understands one thing very well: if Moscow uses nuclear weapons, the United States will ensure that Russia cannot sell oil and gas. I think neither China nor India wants this to happen.

The only reason Russia can continue this war is the money Moscow receives from selling oil and gas to China and India. This is the real Achilles' heel of the Russians.

That is why I think the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons is low. However, the new U.S. presidential administration will also need to make it very clear to Moscow that nuclear strikes against Ukraine will have catastrophic consequences for Russia. This must be done.

I did not vote for Trump, but starting January 20, he will be the President of the United States. I must admit that I am inspired by some of the things I have heard from General Keith Kellogg, whom Trump plans to appoint as U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine and Russia. In recent days, I have been closely listening to what Kellogg has said in the public domain. He is very supportive of Ukraine and is a true hawk regarding Russia.

Kellogg has already stated that no one trusts Russia. He understands the situation well. And so I hope that Trump's team will also make it clear to the Kremlin that the use of nuclear weapons will have catastrophic consequences for Russia.

Keith Kellogg advocates for freezing the war, proposes allowing Russia to maintain control over occupied territories and is against Ukraine joining NATO. Would not the implementation of such a scenario be a disaster for Ukraine and a prelude to a new Russian invasion in the near future?

Of course, there are people in Trump's circle who advocate for precisely this scenario. But Trump and his team have already begun to change their tone. I believe that after his inauguration, the president will adjust his position on Ukraine, which he and his team articulated during the election campaign.

For example, I have not heard future Vice President James Vance make anti-Ukrainian statements after the election. The new U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz largely supports Ukraine. The nominee for U.S. Secretary of State, Senator Marco Rubio, has a pro-Ukrainian stance.

Senator Rubio voted against aid to Ukraine in Congress in April of this year, didn't he?

Yes, that is true. However, overall, Marco Rubio has always been pro-Ukrainian. Most of the Republican leadership in Congress also supports Ukraine. Therefore, I do not think that the new presidential administration will simply turn its back on Ukraine. I am convinced that Trump and his team understand the need to provide Ukraine with everything necessary to defend itself until Russia retreats.

Donald Trump plans to appoint Tulsi Gabbard, known for her pro-Russian stance, as head of the U.S. National Intelligence Agency. If this happens, will it mean that the U.S. will no longer share intelligence with Ukraine?

All my friends in intelligence are just stunned that Gabbard could lead the National Intelligence Agency. Personally, I do not think she will be appointed. But even if she is confirmed, she will follow directives from the White House. This is not a political position.

Will the Ukrainian Front Collapse?

Amid the active advance of the Russians, President Biden has decided to send anti-personnel mines to Ukraine. Do you think this will help stop the Russian offensive in the east?

American anti-personnel mines will pose a significant problem for Russia. I am glad that the Biden administration has finally agreed to provide them to Ukraine. This will help strengthen Ukrainian defenses.

It is also crucial for Ukraine to have the capability to strike deep into Russian territory with long-range weapons. Ukraine effectively uses Western-made missiles to target logistics, command centers, artillery, and personnel in the Russian rear. This complicates the placement of a large contingent of troops near Ukraine for Russia.

Ukrainians must continue to utilize all means to bolster their defense. I am very frustrated that Ukraine was not allowed to use American long-range weapons against Russian territory two years ago.

What do you think are the main challenges facing the Ukrainian army today? Why is Russia advancing so quickly in the Donetsk and Kharkiv regions?

You are at a stage in the war where Ukraine is gaining new opportunities. However, these opportunities are still insufficient. I do not know how many Storm Shadow/SCALP and ATACMS missiles Ukraine has. But there are always more military targets than weapons available to Ukraine. That is a fact.

I have a feeling that Ukraine is improving its defense industry and ramping up weapon production. This must continue. Combat operations will not cease in the coming months, so Ukraine needs to increase the production of drones and other weaponry. The Ukrainian army also lacks artillery systems and ammunition.

Do you not think that the main challenge for the stability of the Ukrainian front is mobilization issues? Perhaps Ukraine should lower the conscription age to 18?

Ukraine has enough people, but there is a shortage of soldiers on the front lines. Honestly, when I first heard a few years ago that Ukraine was not mobilizing young people to fight against Russian aggression, I was surprised.

In my opinion, the conscription age in Ukraine is too high. In most countries around the world, you can enlist in the military at 18 or 19 years old. Ukraine could also utilize this opportunity.

On the other hand, I understand and respect Ukraine's decision to protect its youth from war. This is normal. It is Ukraine's choice. But you still need soldiers for protection.

The Ukrainian government must do everything in its power to restore the confidence of Ukrainian families that their son or daughter, brother or anyone else, going into the army, will not end up on the front lines until they have the proper equipment and training. New recruits must be well-prepared.

Many Ukrainians have vivid memories of the Soviet army. One of my friends in Ukraine referred to it as a "prison army" because the life of a soldier in the army back then was no different from being in prison. In the Soviet army, you were not treated like a human being.

Therefore, I think it is the government's job, not the military's, to win the trust of Ukrainian families. Ukrainians need to know that serving in the army during wartime is not a one-way ticket, that their lives are valued and protected. And I also believe that there will be sufficient work for women in the army. Women should be more actively recruited into military service.

I live in Germany, and there are many Ukrainians here; I see them everywhere. This is wrong. Only those who cannot help Ukraine fight should be here. But again, it is the responsibility of the Ukrainian government to earn the trust of Ukrainians and convince them that their help is urgently needed and that their lives are of the utmost value to the state.

In February 2024, Alexander Syrsky replaced Valery Zaluz