Donald Trump’s policy toward Russia is causing growing concern not only in Ukraine but also among Americans who support Kyiv. Washington is moving toward a rapprochement with the Kremlin, while Moscow is making new demands on NATO and trying to secure agreements that are favorable to itself. At the same time, Europe is being forced to become more actively involved in the negotiations and to seek ways to compensate for the weakening of U.S. support.
Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Ben Hodges explained in an exclusive interview with 24 Channel why he considers the Trump administration’s current policy shameful, whether Europe is capable of taking on greater responsibility for supporting Ukraine, and what to expect from negotiations with Russia. The general also assessed the risks of Washington’s business deals with Moscow, Ukraine’s dependence on Starlink, and the new Congress’s ability to influence U.S. foreign policy.
popular videos
The State of U.S.-Ukraine Relations
Recently, there have been numerous signs raising questions about Washington’s position: the U.S.-Russian diesel deal, Donald Trump’s increased pressure on Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the situation surrounding Starlink, and issues with the exchange of intelligence on ballistic threats. At the same time, trilateral talks are expected in early November, and Stephen Witkoff and Jared Kushner have visited both countries. Can we say today that the U.S. still remains on Ukraine's side in this war?
I would say that the last few weeks have been shameful for me as an American: I see how the president and his administration are openly siding with the Kremlin on so many issues – across the entire range of actions you just mentioned. The majority of Congress, the majority of Americans, and everyone I know support Ukraine and recognize that Russia is the aggressor here.
But we find ourselves in a situation where our president, for various reasons, has decided to cozy up to Vladimir Putin and has shifted the blame for the war and the pressure onto President Zelenskyy. So unless something significant happens after the midterm elections, for example, I don’t see the president changing his stance. But we’ll see.
Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General on Trump’s Decision Regarding Russia: Video
Have we definitively lost President Trump?
I wouldn’t put it that way, because at the end of the day, he’s not an ideologue. He’s purely transactional, and I can imagine a situation in which it would be more advantageous for him to refocus on Ukraine. But I think the Ukrainian government already realizes: there’s no point in flattering him or meekly going along with everything the president says, hoping that he’ll, you know, resume or expedite the delivery of Patriots, for example. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I don’t believe it will.
As for Elon Musk: even if the White House and he have been blaming each other for what happened with service interruptions with Starlink, in my opinion there’s no doubt that they’re working together. And since most of Musk’s wealth comes from government contracts, he can’t afford to fall out with the president.
Do you expect that after the U.S. midterm elections, specifically Elon Musk and Trump, will put even more pressure on Ukraine to force it into a bad deal, given that a new round of trilateral talks is approaching?
That’s an interesting question. I think it all comes down to how much leverage President Trump has over Ukraine. I don’t think the U.S. is offering much more than it already is. European leaders seem to have finally realized this. That’s exactly why we’ve seen President Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Støre step in to the negotiation process. They know that Europe will have to deal with the fallout of whatever the outcome of the war may be, so they were right not to simply stand on the sidelines.
The fact that Russia has excluded European participation in the negotiations should serve as a huge red flag for everyone – a warning. And that is why I believe European countries must close not only the moral gap but also the diplomatic, economic, and military gaps created by the Trump administration.
Europe is trying not to be sidelined
The problems with Starlink remain serious because Europe simply cannot replace this system. If Elon Musk decides to completely shut down Starlink in Ukraine, it could undermine Ukraine’s defense or even break its lines of defense. How can this be replaced?
Well, of course, I don’t know the answer to that. But that’s the problem: Ukraine and Europe are so dependent on a system that is effectively controlled by a single person. This is a cause for concern in the U.S. as well. I expect that early next year, when thethe new Congress goes live, we’ll see hearings on this issue. They’ll be very concerned. They’re already concerned.
When you have a Democratic-controlled Congress – at least in the House of Representatives – I expect an investigation into this matter. Meanwhile, Europe isn’t moving with the urgency it needs to develop its own European space systems instead of also relying on Starlink. So we have a complicated situation. Ukraine is in a difficult situation precisely because of this.
Of course, Musk will be concerned about losing customers or potential customers, and if all of Europe turns away from him, that could also influence what he does next.
Let’s also discuss the phone call you mentioned between Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gar Støre, and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. It seems significant, as it’s the first such conversation since 2022. However, according to the Financial Times, Putin spent most of the conversation lecturing them on medieval Slavic history. What is your reaction to this? And what do you see as the main reasons for this move? Even if Putin is simply continuing to lecture Europeans, he apparently does not consider them equal partners.
Of course not. Both Stubb and Store knew this. I’m sure they expected this typical “ a grumbling Russian lecture.” But both Store and Stubb said afterward that they hadn’t been “lectured” in that sense, or at least that’s not exactly how it was conveyed. These are two great, strong, very intelligent people who won’t be intimidated by Vladimir Putin.
I think the most important thing about what happened is that they didn’t sit idly by and complain that they didn’t have a seat at the table. I remember how Radek Sikorski said about a year and a half ago: when the topic of negotiations came up, and people asked, “Why isn’t there a European seat at the table?” Sikorski replied, “We have to make our own table.” If we weren’t invited, then we’ll make our own table. And he’s absolutely right.
That, in my opinion, is exactly what Stubb and Store did: they stepped in on their own, rather than allowing themselves to be sidelined. Among all European leaders, these two are probably among the four or five people who have enough political clout and authority to do something like this. I’m glad they did this, and I hope others will join them rather than criticize them.
Negotiations in Abu Dhabi and a limited ceasefire
Let’s also talk about the trilateral talks between Ukraine, the U.S., and Russia, which are scheduled to take place in Abu Dhabi in early November. Do you expect a real breakthrough from this meeting? Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggests that Russia may be seriously committed to the talks, but is there reason to hope for a broader ceasefire? Separately, I’d like to ask about the efforts of U.S. First Lady Melania Trump to achieve a limited ceasefire in Oleshky. How do you assess this agreement, and could it serve as a model for broader agreements between Ukraine and Russia?
These are two very different issues that you’ve just combined. Regardingmeetings in Abu Dhabi, I would trust President Zelenskyy’s judgment on what to expect there and how to proceed.
But I keep hearing one thing – I think it was Mr. Ushakov, who said the other day – something along the lines of: there won’t be any real negotiations until all of Russia’s demands are met. Well, that’s, to put it mildly, a peculiar starting point for negotiations.
And, unfortunately, President Trump has generally adopted the Kremlin’s position. I’m sure Zelenskyy understands this. And I hope that European leaders are telling him that he can count on their support, whatever Ukraine decides to do.
But I wouldn’t trust anything involving Russia unless there were observers, enforcement mechanisms, and other measures that would compel them to abide by the agreements. Otherwise, they have never, ever honored a single agreement.
As for Melania Trump’s efforts to achieve a limited ceasefire – are you optimistic? What is your assessment? And could this serve as a test for a possible broader agreement?
Of course, I’m all for anything that alleviates the pain and suffering of innocent Ukrainian citizens – children and the elderly. So if there’s relief, even if it’s temporary and sustainable, I’m certainly in favor of it. But I’m very skeptical about all of this.
I doubt that the First Lady was the one who organized this. As far as we know, the Pope has been working on this for a long time. I think the Russians are using the First Lady and Trump’s weakness to launch a certain propaganda campaign. And, ironically, historically, this is happening in the same region as the famous Potemkin villages of the 18th century.
I think that if the First Lady really has that kind of influence, why isn’t she using it for the rest of Ukraine? Why doesn’t she tell her husband, the President of the United States, that people in Oleshkyis suffering because of Russian aggression? Has she used her influence anywhere else? I don’t know about that.
Although, I have to give her credit: she’s been a champion in her efforts to bring back abducted Ukrainian children. Perhaps her approach is to secure small victories wherever possible. But if she truly has that kind of influence, she should remind her husband, the President of the United States, that this entire problem exists solely because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Russian Demands, Business, and the Threat of a Rollback to the 1997 Borders
Let’s also discuss Russia’s demands. The Telegraph reports that Russia will demand NATO’s withdrawal to the 1997 borders as part of these negotiations. Also under discussion are a buffer zone, a military zone on both sides, as well as numerous business deals – I’d say worth hundreds of billions of dollars – between the U.S. and Russia even before the war ends. Does this undermine Ukraine’s efforts to achieve a lasting peace?
It undermines the entire peace and security of Europe. Frankly, this outrages me: the President of the United States is even willing to consider something like rolling back the borders. This has long been Russia’s dream.
The problem is that our negotiations are being led by criminals and real estate developers instead of diplomats. This is a complete capitulation after decades of persistent work by countries and people who care about freedom, democracy, and the sovereignty of self-governing states, all under pressure from the Kremlin. This is a shameful, disgraceful chapter in American foreign policy if the administration is truly showing support for all this nonsense.
Of course, countries make their own decisions, and European NATO members won’t say, “Okay, we’ll leave NATO.” That simply won’t happen. So I hope that after the midterm elections, at the beginning of the new year, we’ll have a new Congress that will be much more willing to put pressure on the administration, fulfill its oversight responsibilities, and not just sit on the sidelines while this is happening.
The Russians are trying to sell off their foreign assets. They’re demanding $100 billion in frozen assets. The Americans seem ready to hand that over to the Russian side. In addition, numerous business projects between the U.S. and Russia are being discussed. Wouldn’t that be the biggest mistake the U.S. has ever made – doing business with Russia before the war is over?
Yes, of course. That’s exactly what I just said. It’s probably illegal, too. So this is where Congress needs to do its job. That’s why this election is so important.
And, of course, there are quite a few European countries that do business with Russia: they import oil and gas, for example, or engage in other activities. So this isn’t limited to just the U.S. The problem is that the U.S. is supposed to be a leader here, and this is a terrible example. And I hope that the people involved in this will be held accountable.
Can Congress influence U.S. foreign policy?
From your perspective, can Congress really influence U.S. foreign policy, given that President Trump has authority over foreign policy and Ukraine?
Not necessarily. As you know, in our system, Congress is the body with authority over all finances. So the president cannot legally spend money or do anything with the money without Congress’s support. This is what we call the “power of the purse.”
It is precisely in this area that a Democratic-controlled Congress, in my opinion, will be able to influence the situation. Also – through endless hearings and investigations into what is happening. In other words, we need to shine a bright light on this administration’s poor strategic approach, as well as its illegal activities.
Furthermore, Congress is responsible for confirming ambassadors, judges, generals, admirals, and other government officials. And this is another area where the administration can be stopped by delaying confirmations. In other words, there are ways to exert influence.
And to be frank, President Trump still has two years left in office. Secretary of State Rubio, whom many consider a potential presidential candidate, will be held accountable for his actions as secretary of state, just like all other officials in this administration. So there are ways to put pressure on them.
Can Congress stop diesel shipments to the U.S.?
I don’t know enough details about this deal. I suspect there were violations of rules, sanctions, and other issues that allowed it to happen. So if we had a Congress that was doing its job, I think you’d see hearings and investigations into this matter.
I don’t know if that will happen in the next few weeks. But I’m encouraged that New Jersey Governor Sheryl has said she won’t allow this ship to enter a New Jersey port – where it’s supposedly headed – because she considers it to be an illegal cargo. So there are various ways to stop this, and I hope that people will use their legal authority to do so.
As for Iran: if the U.S. decides to resume strikes, how might that affect the negotiations regarding Ukraine?
I don’t know. It seems very likely to me that both the United States and Israel will resume large-scale military operations against Iran in the coming weeks after the U.S. elections are over. All signs point to this. While this doesn’t mean it’s inevitable, the signals are exactly that.
How will this affect Ukraine? Obviously, the priority for the Patriot and other weapons systems that the U.S. has supplied to Ukraine will shift in favor of American forces operating against Iran. But there is an even broader connection. I’ve always believed that all these wars are interconnected: the U.S. against Iran, Russia against Ukraine, China watching, and North Korea is also involved.
So Russia may try to use its ties with Iran and its war against Ukraine in some way to influence what’s happening. But exactly how – I don’t know yet.
If you find an error on this page, select it and press Ctrl + Enter