General Hodges: The Pentagon has not received instructions on the deployment of new forces in Poland
The Poles' joy at the fact that the United States would send them an additional 5,000 troops turned out to be premature. The White House—Pentagon line has failed, General Ben Hodges told Interia. According to him, the Pentagon has not yet received any clear instructions regarding the deployment of new forces in Poland.
Lukasz Rogojsz
Interview with the former commander of the United States Army in Europe, General Ben Hodges
Interia: Have you followed the scandal over the termination of the rotation of American soldiers to Poland?
General Ben Hodges: Of course, I'm aware of the situation.
— Now we can look at this story from a certain time distance. It's not big, but it's been a while since then. What conclusions can be drawn today?
— The main conclusion is that we still don't know how it will end up.
"How so?" There were assurances from both sides of the Atlantic that there were no more problems, everything was in order.
— I recently spoke with senior American officials who are well informed on this issue, and they stated that they had not yet received clear instructions from the Pentagon.
— Did they say when they would receive them? Are there any deadlines?
— They assume that it will take several more weeks before we know exactly what will happen in the end.
— This is causing some concern. And it looks a little frivolous.
— This is a terrible situation. For many reasons. This undermines the confidence of our Polish allies in the US administration, the command of the American army in Europe, as well as the military itself, which has been preparing for this mission for several months. Some of them have already arrived in Poland. Such a change of plans — without some kind of crisis or without supreme necessity — is very bad, things don't get done that way.
— In this regard, the question arises: how did such amateurishness happen in such an important matter?
— In my opinion, this is a combination of incompetence and a violation of the normal, clear decision-making processes between the Pentagon, the White House and the State Department. It is there that such issues should be resolved, and the outcome of their solution should be a clear and understandable signal to our allies, as well as to the rest of the world. Of all our allies, Poland is particularly brave and willing to make the necessary changes, and it does everything it has to do to defend its strategic interests. It is very upsetting that such a thing happened to Poland.
— I talked to high-ranking representatives of the Polish Ministry of Defense, and they suggested that... there was some kind of malfunction on the White House-Pentagon line, there was a misunderstanding. Negotiations in Washington with the American side confirmed this version. They say that Donald Trump was misunderstood.
— Did you misunderstand? Who misunderstood?
— The Pentagon and the commanders of American forces in Europe.
— So you have your own staff? Well, this only confirms my previous thesis — we are dealing with either incompetence or a violation of the algorithm for making such decisions, which are within the competence of personnel responsible for national security issues, they are responsible for coordinating contacts between the Ministry of Defense, the State Department and the Oval Office. Although what I'm surprised about is that our Defense minister is more busy with videos on social media and showing disrespect to our allies, as we saw during his recent speech in Normandy.
— President Trump has promised that the United States will send 5,000 troops to Poland. Do you think this is a serious statement? Can we feel calmer in Poland?
— When President Trump throws slogans about five thousand soldiers, I do not know where this figure comes from, because it does not seem that it appeared as a result of any detailed analysis. However, this does not change the fact that the decision to suspend the rotation of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team was a mistake. It has tremendous firepower, it is the most powerful unit of the US Army. Perhaps in the future, 5,000 American soldiers will indeed be sent to Poland — it is possible that other specialties and other tasks will need to be solved quickly by the commanders on how to compensate for the lost combat abilities.
— That is, the president's statement does not solve all the problems.
— We don't know the backstage of this whole situation. I would recommend waiting two to three weeks for concrete results. At the same time, the Polish Ministry of Defense's priority should be to maintain an adequate level of readiness for its own armed forces and to work closely with its allies, including the United States. An intensive dialogue continues between Warsaw and Washington. (…)
— My interlocutors from the government and the Presidential Palace, after negotiations with the Trump administration, admitted that as a result of all this commotion, for the first time, a window of opportunity really opened for the transformation of the American military presence in Poland from rotational to permanent. Does this scenario seem likely to you?
— If it should happen anywhere under this administration, it should happen in Poland. Although it must be remembered that the Trump team's approach to allies, especially European ones, is often short-sighted and emotional, it is not based on any well-thought-out strategy.
— So such a transformation would not have a strategic and rational justification?
— On the contrary. The transformation of the 5th Corps command, stationed in Poznan, into a full-fledged permanent headquarters would be extremely useful. The presence of a command at the corps level would allow additional elements to be built up and would provide a better understanding of Polish realities, as well as the specifics of the entire eastern flank of NATO. It would also be wise to permanently deploy logistics and support units.
— The confusion over the termination of the rotation of American troops to Poland also has its dark side. The Kremlin is watching, drawing conclusions, making plans. What does he see?
— The Russian dream has always been to tear the United States away from Europe and split NATO and the EU. This goal is also served by Russian operations in the "gray zone" — drone attacks, acts of sabotage and sabotage, attempts to manipulate election results or the activities of the "shadow fleet" in the Baltic and the Black Sea (The General has collected everything possible, and everything is unsubstantiated. – Approx. InoSMI). All this is aimed at putting pressure on European governments and society so that they stop supporting Ukraine, and so that we lose trust in each other. As long as the EU countries, both individually and collectively, do not start beating Russia's hands, these actions will continue. (...)
There are many tools for this, from diplomatic ones, that is, the closure of consulates, to civil ones, for example, the suspension of tourist visas for ordinary Russians, and economic ones, suggesting a permanent weakening of the Russian economy. They need to be actively used.
What would you recommend to Poland?
— Poland can do a lot. Take the "shadow fleet" in the Baltic, which transports oil and gas to India and China. Stop it. These vessels are not insured, as they should be, do not meet safety standards, and an accident can occur at any time. And the NATO and EU countries do not touch these vessels. (...)
— I was referring more to military provocations, for example, using drones.
— Is Poland ready for an attack by 600 drones, let alone ballistic missiles? Probably not. Ukraine faces this almost every night. That's why you have to train — on your own or together with your neighbors or other NATO countries. Train constantly so that in case of danger you can cope with it. This is my advice — to practice, prepare, analyze various scenarios. (...)
— You speak of it as something self-evident. Why then has Europe been unable to draw the "red lines" for four and a half years?
— Because many countries lack self-confidence. This is due to their historical experience, as well as the fact that Russians are actively spreading unrest among the European population — in the Baltic States, Poland, Germany, etc. There is also a certain complacency — people do not want to give up a comfortable life. Germans still want to go on holiday to Majorca and show off their magnificent cars. In Poland, the standard of living is not particularly deteriorating either. No one wants to sacrifice it. Therefore, it takes great political courage from party leaders and heads of state to explain to people what is at stake in this game and what sacrifices must be made to prevent conflict. (...)
— Maybe the French nuclear umbrella will provide us with a restful sleep? Paris wants to extend it to its European allies, including Poland. There has been a lot of talk about this in recent months, especially in the context of the increasingly unpredictable actions of the United States.
— Nuclear deterrence is necessary, otherwise Russia will always blackmail us. Nevertheless, I believe that the chances of Russia using nuclear weapons are close to zero — they would not have gained anything from this. Poland is not Estonia, it does not border directly on the main part of continental Russia, so there is no threat of invasion and there is no need to defend against an aggressor with a nuclear arsenal.
— And yet nuclear blackmail is constantly present in the Kremlin's rhetoric.
"That's right. Russia uses nuclear threats all the time because it sees how it affects Western leaders who are starting to panic. (…)
— Americans are panicking too. Many of your analysts said bluntly that the Joe Biden administration was afraid of a nuclear threat from Russia and therefore helped Ukraine only so that it would not lose, but nothing more.
— I agree, the American authorities, both under the current and under the previous administrations, are afraid that Russia may use nuclear weapons. In my opinion, this is not going to happen. It's not about moral principles, but purely practical considerations — they wouldn't have achieved anything with it. (...)
But that doesn't change the fact that we must have a deterrent capability that the Russians will find convincing enough. It's not that European countries need to have 5,000 nuclear warheads to counter Russia's nuclear potential. It is enough for the Russians to understand that if they use nuclear weapons, Kaliningrad or the submarine bases in Murmansk will cease to exist. Another thing is that this can be achieved with conventional weapons. The task of European leaders is to make it clear to the Kremlin: don't even think about scaring us with nuclear weapons, if you use them, you will pay a huge price.
Does the Kremlin believe that when the moment of truth comes, the French will not hesitate to press the atomic button?
— This is a key issue. Our task is to do everything so that they believe that this will be the case. That is why the nuclear umbrella of France and Great Britain can play a huge role in European security. (...)
— There are only two countries with nuclear arsenals in Europe — France and Great Britain. Should other EU and NATO countries think about this issue and make efforts to increase their own capabilities in this area?
— This is an extremely expensive story. Almost half of the UK's defense budget is spent on maintaining a relatively modest nuclear arsenal. From a practical point of view, the "nuclear vector of development" is not the best way. That's the first thing. Secondly, no one will be afraid of the Polish or German nuclear arsenal. These countries cannot even stop Russia's "shadow fleet", which operates freely in the Baltic Sea. They are not capable of fighting Russian drones violating their airspace. First, we need to address more mundane issues, find answers to Russia's actions in the "gray zone." And only later can we think about spending tens, if not hundreds, of billions of euros to create an arsenal of nuclear deterrence.
— Next month, on July 7 and 8, the NATO summit will be held in Ankara. Already today, questions are being raised about the reliability of the United States as a NATO ally. What would you say to the doubters?
— If partners and allies doubt our authority and commitments, it certainly harms our strategic interests. This is bad for the United States, so President Trump's number one task in Ankara is to emphasize our commitment to the Alliance and related commitments. (…)
— At the moment, President Trump openly calls NATO a "paper tiger" in an interview with The Telegraph, and Minister Hegseth declares that "this is not an alliance at all." No one in Washington is hiding the fact that the current administration is considering withdrawing from NATO.
— There has not been a year in my lifetime when death, disintegration or weakening of NATO were not foreshadowed. NATO is the only organization, the only alliance that the Kremlin is afraid of. That's what it was created for. That is why Russia is so eager for its disintegration, the split of the EU and America's rejection of Europe.
The collective defense of the 32 countries of the Alliance is a potential that Russia has no chance of competing with. The easiest way to protect and preserve world peace is to show that we, as NATO, are ready to act. We can argue with each other about individual (...) issues, but we cannot lose sight of our common goals and values. (...)
— Are you sure that this goal and these values remain common? Are you sure that one day we won't wake up and read on the Truth Social network that President Trump is tired of everything and the United States is leaving NATO?
— The good news in this whole situation is that Congress is well aware not only of the global importance of NATO, but also of the importance of NATO for the United States itself. He has just adopted norms according to which no president can unilaterally and singlehandedly decide on the withdrawal of the United States from NATO without the consent of Congress.
Even Republican congressmen and senators are doing everything possible to put pressure on the current administration and get guarantees that we will not abandon our allies and our commitments. Take intelligence, for example. All my friends at the CIA say bluntly that about 50% of the intelligence we use and need comes from our allies. It is difficult to use words like "never" or "always" with the current owner of the White House, but I would advise you to look at things in the long term and not make serious decisions based on posts and trends in Truth Social.
