Last week’s 28-point peace plan drafted by Russia and the US outlining a proposed end to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine sparked uncertainty, especially among Europeans not involved in the process.
One of the main questions at this time is whether Europe can still rely on the rules-based system that has shaped its security for decades, with the United States as its protector, or whether this has opened the door to Russia’s further push to destabilise its immediate neighbourhood and the rest of the continent.
At this year’s Berlin Freedom Conference, Euronews spoke with retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commanding general of United States Army Europe.
He explained why Washington needs Europe, and why Ukraine’s defeat would have negative consequences for the US as well.
Euronews: In what ways would Ukraine’s eventual victory be positive for the US?
General Ben Hodges: Europe is America’s biggest trading partner. American prosperity depends on European prosperity. European prosperity depends on Europe’s stability and security, which is being damaged by this war that Russia started. Therefore, winning this war against the Russian aggressor is so important.
Additionally, if Russia is not stopped in Ukraine and this war continues into NATO territory, we could find ourselves in an actual kinetic conflict with Russia.
Deterring China also plays a big part: the Chinese are watching to see if we’re serious about sovereignty and international law, and whether we’re a reliable partner.
Finally, Russia keeps Iran and North Korea going. If you are worried about these two countries, defeating Russia first leaves these two further isolated, which reduces the damage they can do to Israel or South Korea.
Euronews: What are your thoughts on whether the US is still a reliable NATO partner?
General Hodges: I would say so, yes. But, I think it is unfortunate that people even ask this question because the Trump administration has created doubt about whether the US would respond.
That’s the problem: the Russians could make a dangerous miscalculation if they believe the US doesn’t want to do anything beyond issuing statements. That perception raises the risk of Russian interference.
Now, as I watch what the administration has done and said over the past ten months, you can see the number one priority is the western hemisphere, North and South America.
Second priority: the Indo-Pacific region, although that’s mainly in an economic sort of way.
Third priority is probably going to be the Middle East. Since the administration has a primarily transactional, not a values-based or traditional sort of sense of strategy and diplomacy, a lot is about getting business deals.
That means Europe is probably in the 4th place in terms of priorities. You’re most likely going to see a reduction in US military presence here, as they recently already announced a reduction of US Army presence in Romania.
Euronews: Do you expect there to be a reduction of troops in Germany as well?
General Hodges: I would say it’s almost inevitable, but I don’t know. They already talked about it a lot in Trump one, but then, bizarrely, the number of US troops permanently assigned in Germany increased during his first term.
Now, I think, they are more determined to actually do this. There’s not much that we have in Europe, that especially the US Army has in Europe.
What the Army has in Europe is not needed in the Pacific, but it could be reduced to free up money, resources. I think the US Army overall is going to shrink, and some of that shrinkage is going to come out of Europe.
Euronews: Do you think there will also be reductions at air bases, such as Ramstein?
General Hodges: Potentially. But Ramstein itself is so important for everything we do, not just in Europe, but in Africa, the Middle East.
The bases that our European allies allow us to have for the Navy and the Air Force are important for us.
While I could imagine some, it’s just not that much that we have. If you take something out, you’re taking away a capability.
Euronews: Germany is purchasing 35 F-35s from the US. Trump talked about a kill switch in these fighter jets before. This feature was never confirmed, but does that create more potential risks for the Bundeswehr?
General Hodges: There is no such thing as a kill switch. What is a vulnerability, though, are the updates. The F-35 is basically a flying computer, which is what makes it so special. It’s all the systems, the connectivity, and what the pilot is able to accomplish beyond our traditional understanding of what a fighter pilot does.
And so conceivably, if, for whatever reason, the United States were unhappy with a particular country that had the F-35, and Trump said “no more”, the German government, the British government, the Dutch, and all the others receiving or already operating the F-35 — Finland, Sweden — would have made sure to protect themselves to prevent that kind of interference. I think this scenario is extremely unlikely, though.
I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I would be very sceptical that the Trump administration would do something like that, as it’s not only bad politically, but also for business.
If we’re not seen as reliable, it obviously affects business as well. For those reasons, I think the Trump administration would be reluctant to take any action that could have that impact.
Euronews: Germany is reportedly buying around 80% of its weapons from Europe and only a small percentage from the US. Could such a shift pose a risk to the transatlantic relationship?
General Hodges: Where Germany – or any nation – buys its arms should be based, first and foremost, on what gives the Bundeswehr the best capability.
As you said, about 80 % of what the Bundeswehr will have is manufactured mostly in Germany.
But there are some things Germany isn’t yet able – or willing – to produce. Take the Patriot system. Germany has very good air and missile defence capabilities, but in its category, Patriot is the best. So for now, you want that.
At the same time, everybody – including the United States – is looking to reduce vulnerabilities. We are very vulnerable right now because of Chinese control over rare earth materials, for example.
So you want to reduce those vulnerabilities, and I would imagine Germany’s ministry wants to do the same.
Euronews: As a retired military officer, how do you feel about someone like Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth leading the army, especially after his speech where he slammed “woke” policies, diversity and physical readiness of the troops?
General Hodges: The most important thing I took from that presentation was that I was actually relieved to see those hundreds of women and men in there — these very senior officers — sit there professionally, respectfully and quietly.
They did not allow it to turn into a rally, which is what Secretary Hegseth, the Secretary of Defence, and President Trump wanted. They sat and listened because we take our oath to the Constitution very seriously.
This is not just an administrative thing; it’s something we truly value. The oath is to the Constitution, not to the president, even though Article 2 of the Constitution names the president as commander-in-chief. The oath is about defending the Constitution itself.
Of course, they are aware that Secretary Hegseth has sacked quite a few – almost over a dozen generals and admirals – without cause. This creates a lot of pressure on senior officers who will have to carry out the missions assigned to them from the Pentagon. They also know that their Constitutional duty is to carry out lawful orders.
Euronews: Do you think a lot of them are going to do that?
General Hodges: Well, here’s what I think happens – or rather, here’s what I know is supposed to happen – and I’m confident that the vast majority do this: you try to prevent bad or illegal orders from ever coming out.
A lot of backroom work happens when the secretary says, “We’re going to do this and this and this.” It’s the duty of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to say, “Mr. Secretary, we can’t do that.” And you try to prevent it from ever coming out.
You might say, “I know what you want to achieve. Here’s a way to get that effect without doing something at odds with the law or international law.”
It’s very difficult, I’ll be honest with you. And the administration sometimes seems content to just do what they want, not seeing this as a priority. The obvious example on my mind is the so-called Venezuelan drug boats.
Then there’s the president talking about using American cities for training. That’s a problem. On another note, Secretary Hegseth seems intent on sidelining women. He didn’t outright say “we’re going to get rid of all the women,” but he kept emphasising male standards.
The US Army is 20% female for practical reasons: first, because we need that brain power, second, because there aren’t enough men willing to serve.
This isn’t about being “woke,” it’s about practicality. But his approach will likely discourage talented young women from considering military service for four or five years. These are serious dangers.
