Beyond the Festivities: ⟩ What the NATO Washington Summit Delivered for Ukraine

Ben Hodges: I don't know what to make of it. It is important to signal that we're committed to helping Ukraine not only to defend against the aggressor but to get to a better place. But clearly, there seems to be a lack of political will in the United States, Germany, and a couple of other countries.

Interviewer: What conclusions can Moscow draw from the Washington Summit? Was this Summit of any actual relevance to them, or is their glance fixed on the upcoming U.S. presidential elections?

Ben Hodges: I think Moscow might conclude that the U.S. administration, Berlin, and a couple of others still have an excessive fear that Russia might somehow escalate. The West still hesitates; that's the signal for the Kremlin.

Interviewer: One of the Washington Summit decisions was the establishment of the “NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine” (NSATU). There is a word or two lacking in the name of this project; the sentence in the Declaration does not even make grammatical sense. The EU has been running its EUMAM for one and a half years now, and the last “M” in their acronym stands for “mission.” Why did it take NATO two years to establish something that elementary during a major war in Europe?

Ben Hodges: Due to concerns that "mission" sounded too provocative, the German delegation would not allow its use in the Declaration. And there you have it, we are still deterring ourselves. But it still is a mission, even if it is not called that. It has taken two years for NATO because of the lack of clarity of the strategic objective. That said, there have been a lot of people working hard trying to find ways to do as much as they can for Ukraine, even if the top level has demonstrated absence of commitment.

Interviewer: Was this also a preparatory measure for Trump's second coming?

Ben Hodges: Probably. I think the decision-makers wanted to make sure Ukraine support coordination could safely continue even under a Trump administration. It seems he may be elected. People are concerned. But this seems like a prudent step to make it a NATO operation anyway.

Interviewer: One of the main unofficial topics of the Washington Summit seemed to be President Joe Biden’s cognitive condition. Is he deemed adequate enough to continue holding office in the U.S.? What might allies think of the situation?

Ben Hodges: Well, of course, no ally would comment on this publicly; that just would not have been appropriate. Clearly, that topic was the headline news all day, every day of the summit. Here in Washington, that's all you hear and see people talking about, and it completely overshadowed the summit, in my view.

Interviewer: Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted recently that in 2032 Canada will reach the defense spending minimum level of 2% of GDP. Why are some Allies still so out of pace?

Ben Hodges: It is embarrassing. It is embarrassing that Canada as a huge country with huge resources and as a founding member of NATO is so slow… that's unacceptable. And that's the kind of thing that fuels people like Trump, who can point to another NATO country that benefits from America without fulfilling its international commitments.

But what's more important than two percent is real military capability. You cannot stand at the border of your country with a sign that says we spent 2% and expect the Russians to stop, to be deterred by that statement only.

What will deter the Moscow is when they see that all of our forces are prepared, that we have adequate stocks of ammunition, resilient societies, that we have adequate transportation and logistics. That is what deters Russia. Not a sign that says we're in the 2% club. But certainly, if you're below 2%, there's no way that you can have adequate capabilities.

Interviewer: Estonians are currently wondering if 3% would do the trick. Can Tallinn now relax, now that 3% is the new minimum? Both our outgoing and incoming Chiefs of Defense have been exceptionally vocal about the need to purchase some more ammunition. Is it just war officials advocating for additional resources or is there a deeper crisis within Europe with the military readiness in terms of ammunition stocks?

Ben Hodges: I have a friend from Finland who says that the Finns are never scared because they are always prepared. That means that you know that your forces are ready, your society is ready, and you have adequate ammunition and all other things required for an effective, successful defense operation.

My answer to your question is no, nobody can relax right now. We're looking at Ukraine under enormous aggression by Russia. Russia has no intention of stopping until we stop them. Estonia and other nations should be purchasing as much ammunition as they have room for storage. Once it starts, you're going to need all of it. So you cannot relax. You have to practice. You have to be prepared.

And look, if the worst-case scenario happens and we get caught by surprise, it might be at least two weeks before additional land forces arrive in Estonia because some of us would have to pass through Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia to get to defend Estonia, for example.

Obviously, NATO Air Force would come immediately, and presumably, you might be able to get some things across the Baltic Sea, but that also would be contested, and it won't be instant. So Estonia may need to be prepared to fight for at least two weeks before additional ground forces arrive from somewhere else. You got to have ammunition.

Interviewer: General Patrick Sanders, former UK Army Chief, said in a recent interview with Politico that Ukraine is currently losing. Not decisively, nor fatally, but that currently Ukraine is losing. What trajectory is Ukraine on after the Washington Summit?

Ben Hodges: I don't know that I would characterize it that way. It is beyond doubt that without Western support, Russia could eventually wear down Ukraine. But I don't see Russia having the capability to knock Ukraine out of the war. Until we lift restrictions and they are able to start hitting the airfields from which these Russian aircraft bombing civilians are taking off with glide bombs, for example... if we don't change anything, then, yes, over the long term, it will be very difficult for Ukraine.

But there are three or four things we could do immediately that would change that course. Firstly, we have to use all of our economic tools. Russia is still exporting oil through the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea; that oil goes to India and China and generates revenue for them so that they can buy ammunition and drones and parts from China, Iran, and North Korea.

The second thing is our objective, conviction that Ukraine is our priority. That includes lifting the restrictions on Western military assistance to Ukraine. We would start pushing things to Ukraine instead of the current drip, drip, drip strategy, incremental provision of weapons and capabilities.

It is absurd how long it is taking us to get Ukrainian pilots trained in the F-16s. That is embarrassing to me, how long it has taken. I think Ukraine has to make some changes too, particularly with regards to the size of their armed forces. They're going to have to fix this.

Interviewer: In NATO, as well as in the member states, a schism has emerged in threat perception; that schism exists also in NATO and national militaries. Many of us are wondering, why would Russia engage militarily with NATO? The wider public is having a hard time grasping it. Why would Russia attack NATO when it has such a big and messy war on its hands?

Ben Hodges: Moscow would decide to attack a NATO member if it thought that the United States was not committed, or that NATO was not adequately prepared. Their objective is to break NATO, not to capture all of Europe like it was thought of during the Cold War.

Of course, this would be possible if Ukraine fails. Ukraine will fail if the West allows it to fail. That would signal to Russia that we are not really committed. Russia’s aim in attacking a NATO member would not be to capture or conquer a member state but to break NATO.

If Russians do a limited land grab and the alliance does not respond, because of not wanting to get into a nuclear war over a little piece of Estonia or Lithuania… That's what it would look like. So that's why it's so important that we are very clear and strong in our support for Ukraine, but also that the nations have got to be ready.

You have to assume you are attacked. This is what deterrence is all about. You have to have everything that's necessary to defeat Russia. That means you have to have ammunition, exercises, and adequate air and missile defense because for sure, if Russia does decide to attack a NATO country, they will not be hesitant to use missiles and drones like they do in Ukraine.

If the United States does not support Ukraine under a Trump administration, then that will also be a signal to the Russians that when it comes to Americans under Trump, Europe is on its own. That would be a strategic catastrophe, but you have to be currently aware that it is a possibility. The moment the U.S. ceases to support Ukraine, risks in Europe go up. Then it may already be too late to adjust military posture.