Revealed: Trump and Putin’s $12 trillion partnership plan & wargaming a Russian attack on NATO with Lt Gen Ben Hodges, former commander of US Army Europe

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Ukraine: The Latest"

Episode Title: Revealed: Trump and Putin’s $12 trillion partnership plan & wargaming a Russian attack on NATO with Lt Gen Ben Hodges
Date: February 9, 2026
Host(s): David Knowles, Francis Durnley
Guest: Retired Lt Gen Ben Hodges (former commander, US Army Europe)

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores a series of major geopolitical developments related to Russia's war in Ukraine and wider European security:

• Revelations about a purported $12 trillion Russia–Trump administration economic deal ("the Dmitriev package")
• President Zelensky's warnings regarding US–Russia peace negotiations and implications for Ukraine's sovereignty
• An in-depth interview with Ret. Lt Gen Ben Hodges about a recent NATO war game simulating a Russian incursion in the Baltics, the readiness of Western allies, and the risks posed by a divided NATO
• Key updates from Ukraine and across the international diplomatic stage

The tone is urgent, skeptical, and at times wry, with the hosts analyzing both frontline realities and back-room diplomacy.

---

Key Themes & Discussion Points

1. Assassination Attempt in Moscow & Security Incidents

• [00:38–04:00]

  • Russian Lt General Alekseyev survives an assassination attempt in Moscow. Russian FSB blames a Ukrainian-born pensioner, Lyubir Korba, arrested in Dubai and extradited.
  • Ukraine denies involvement, suggesting Kremlin infighting is responsible.
  • Ukrainian soldier killed in Odessa car bombing—seen as part of escalating tit-for-tat terror attacks.
  • Technological developments: Ukrainian drone shoots down a Russian Shahed drone with backward-facing missiles, reflecting ongoing drone warfare innovation.

  “It’s the result of a power struggle inside the Kremlin’s elite, the so-called siloviki.” — David Knowles [01:38]

---

2. Ukraine's Defense Industry & Diplomacy

• [04:00–12:42]

  • President Zelensky announces new arms export centers in Europe, highlighting Ukraine’s growing domestic arms industry.
  • Ukraine and France sign a letter of intent for joint arms production, signaling a move from mere “supplies to joint production and long-term solutions.”
  • Questions arise on whether European defense sovereignty arguments are cover to protect domestic arms industries from Ukrainian competition.

  “Ukraine began in 2023 to pursue its long-term objective of ensuring self-sufficiency... so Ukraine could be less reliant on foreign military provisions.” — David Knowles [06:15]

---

3. The 'Anchorage Agreement' and U.S.-Russia Relations

• [12:42–15:53]

  • Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov laments the collapse of so-called “Anchorage Agreement”—an alleged U.S.-Russia bargain for Ukraine to cede Donbas. America, he claims, has backtracked.
  • Hosts debunk the narrative, with Knowles calling it “the Schrodinger’s Anchorage Agreement.”
  • Lavrov accuses the Trump administration of refusing to uphold deals, using this as leverage in Russia’s negotiation stance.

  “Russia and this lot in charge at the moment, they are a cruel and joyless burst of flatulence from history. But they are not stupid.” — David Knowles [14:54]

---

4. Zelensky's Warning on U.S.-Russia $12 Trillion Deal

• [12:43–15:54; 15:54–17:00]

  • President Zelensky warns that Russia offered the Trump administration a $12 trillion economic package—the “Dmitriev package”—to tempt U.S. private sector cooperation as part of backchannel peace talks.
  • Zelensky insists any deal affecting Ukraine cannot override its constitutional sovereignty, especially over territorial matters.
  • Discussion about U.S. domestic politics: Will Trump’s donors expect payoffs from peace negotiations? Might this tie into his midterm campaign strategies?

  “Moscow’s strategy [is] to seduce this business-minded White House ... a warning to Europe and of course the Ukrainian population.” — Francis Durnley [13:57]

---

5. International Sanctions and Political Maneuvering

• [15:54–22:27]

  • European Union proposes an ambitious 20th sanctions package, moving toward a full ban on services supporting Russian oil exports.
  • U.S. policy in flux: sanctions legislation remains sluggish; diplomatic frictions escalate between the U.S. and Polish leadership.
  • Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban deploys anti-Ukraine rhetoric for domestic advantage, labeling Ukraine an enemy if it seeks to halt Russian energy imports.
  • Moldovan leadership takes an opposing tone, with Maia Sandu declining a Nobel Peace Prize nomination, requesting it go instead to Ukrainian POWs.
  • Japan’s snap election: strong victory for PM Sina Takeachi, with promise to revise pacifist constitution—a potentially historic regional shift.

  “Almost all the news from the U.S. makes grim reading for Ukraine and its allies.” — Francis Durnley [17:00]

---

6. Wargaming a Russian Attack on NATO: Interview with Lt Gen Ben Hodges

a) War Game Insights

• [22:27–29:38]

  • Recently published war game: simulates swift Russian seizure of the Suwalki Gap (a vulnerable Baltic land corridor).
  • Hodges cautions: war games are not hard predictions, but analytical tools. He notes this simulation underplayed the critical role of NATO air power and the importance of “total defense”—involving whole-of-society concepts beyond military forces.

  “War games serve the purpose of analyzing various aspects of operations... but this is not a prediction.” — Ben Hodges [23:23]

b) Military Mobility & Readiness

• [29:38–33:35]

  • Real-world limitations: troop movement in Europe remains slow due to infrastructure and bureaucratic bottlenecks; key to deterrence is demonstrating the ability to deploy forces rapidly in peacetime.
  • Air and missile defense largely unevaluated by European militaries at scale seen nightly in Ukraine.

  “It still takes too long to move adequate capability to NATO’s eastern flank ... this is about deterrence.” — Ben Hodges [32:17]

c) Likelihood of Russian Success

• [25:22–26:01]
  • Hodges doubts a Russian attack could unfold as war gamers suggested without warning.
  • Asserts that in event of open aggression, Kaliningrad would be rapidly isolated: “I am pretty certain that Kaliningrad will be taken off the board immediately.”
  • Accuses current U.S. administration of “doing a terrible job ... almost all the pressure has been on the Ukrainian side.”

d) Hybrid and Drone Warfare Evolutions

• [37:48–42:06]

  • Both sides innovate in drone tactics: Russia’s 90,000-strong drone force has reach, but limited exploitation ability because of poorly trained infantry.
  • Ukraine’s adaptation is seen in deep strikes and minimizing troop exposure.
  • Consensus: modern warfare is evolving toward layered, attritable (expendable) drone-based defenses, but will always be backed by conventional “heavy metal.”

  “You don’t have to have all your troops up on the border... you can use these things like rounds of ammunition.” — Ben Hodges [42:06]

e) Political Fractures Within NATO

• [42:43–45:31]

  • Increasing intellectual split in NATO, with Baltic and Nordic states more alert to the Russian threat compared to major Western European powers.
  • U.S. political ambiguity fuels risk of Russian miscalculations; “The cohesion of the alliance has always been the secret sauce.”
  • Article 5 (the NATO collective defense clause) is ultimately a political decision—its deterrent value depends on conviction in allied unity.

  “If there’s ever doubt about whether or not the US would show up, that’s a chink in the armor.” — Ben Hodges [44:17]
  “Article 5 is a political decision. It’s not a laser beam ... There’s no trigger.” — Ben Hodges [47:51]

f) Recommendations for European Security

• [49:47–52:38]

  • Hodges urges large-scale NATO air defense exercises, better drone response, punishment of Russia’s shadow shipping fleet.
  • Predicts continued stalemate unless external shocks or bolder Western action disrupt Russia’s war effort; calls for more aggressive targeting of Russia’s oil and gas sector.

  “The best way to protect Europe is to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Then you don’t have these scenarios like the one we discussed at the beginning.” — Ben Hodges [36:05]

---

7. Closing Analysis and Media Commentary

• [53:00–56:41]
  • Shout-outs to drone operators and discussion on the impact of Starlink disruptions on Russian drone capabilities.
  • Discussion on layoffs at the Washington Post, with concern for international correspondents now stranded or endangered.
  • Wry commentary on media and film criticism (e.g., “Melania” film review).

---

Notable Quotes

• "They are dangling money ... and there is a clever strategy by Moscow, but you only have to look at Bill Browder and his comments on it ... they just lie, cheat, and steal their way through ... your money ends up in their pockets.” — David Knowles [14:54]
• “The President said the Ukrainian delegation conveyed the position that if there are any bilateral agreements between Russia and the U.S. the provisions related to Ukraine cannot contradict our constitution.” — Francis Durnley [13:48]
• “If Russia attacks a NATO country, I am pretty certain that Kaliningrad will be taken off the board immediately, in the first 24 hours.” — Ben Hodges [28:35]
• “You can kill thousands of enemy, but if it doesn’t achieve a strategic outcome, then it doesn’t matter ... We did that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. None of those turned out well.” — Ben Hodges [46:53]
• “I think a year from now, it’s going to look like it does right now. Unless there is some significant change externally ... Putin personally has no interest in ending the war.” — Ben Hodges [51:12]

---

Key Timestamps

• [00:38] – Moscow assassination plot and drone warfare updates
• [04:00] – Ukraine’s defense export pivot & Franco-Ukrainian arms deal
• [12:43] – Lavrov on 'Anchorage Agreement' / US backtracking
• [13:57] – Zelensky’s warning: $12 trillion “Dmitriev package”
• [15:54] – Sanctions news, Orban’s anti-Ukrainian rhetoric
• [22:27] – NATO-Baltics war game introduction
• [23:23] – Gen. Hodges: War game analysis
• [32:17] – Military mobility challenges in Europe
• [34:09] – US, European policy towards the war
• [37:48] – Drone warfare innovations
• [42:43] – Divisions and cohesion within NATO
• [47:51] – Article 5 and threshold for NATO intervention
• [49:47] – Hodges’ recommendations for European/NATO security
• [51:12] – Predictions for the next phase of the war
• [53:00] – Final thoughts: Media layoffs and morale

---

Takeaways for New Listeners

This episode highlights growing complexities in both battlefield and diplomatic theaters as the war grinds on into its fourth year. Diplomatic maneuvering (and potential backroom deals) between the US and Russia present existential risks to Ukraine's sovereignty, as President Zelensky eloquently warns.

The analysis of the NATO war game exposes both strengths and dangerous vulnerabilities in the current alliance posture. Hodges' expertise clarifies that technological adaptation on the front line must be matched by political will and infrastructural reform in Europe—and that US ambiguity emboldens Russia.

Above all, the episode reinforces the continuing urgency for steadfast support of Ukraine and the need for unity within NATO and the wider Western alliance.

---

Useful Links:

• Ukraine: The Latest – The Telegraph’s daily coverage
• Newsletter sign-up

Transcript

[David Knowles]

The telegraph. I'm Dom Nichols and this is Ukraine. The latest today, in a rare outburst against the Trump administration, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has accused the US of backtracking on the mythical anchorage agreement whereby the US had apparently agreed to force Ukraine to cede parts of the Donbas. And Russian forces have been unable to take in nearly four years of war. We look at President Zelensky's comments that a new deadline from the White House for peace could be linked to Donald Trump's midterm elections campaign. And we report how Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban is trying to leverage the war as a means of galvanizing his own political support. And later we interview former commander of US forces in Europe, retired General Ben Hodges, about the war and how prepared Europe and NATO might be for for a sudden Russian push into the spalky gap. Bravery takes you through the most unimaginable hardships to finally reward you with victory.

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

The Russia does not want peace. If I'm president I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours.

[David Knowles]

We are with you, not just today or tomorrow, but for a years.

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

Nobody's going to break us. We're strong, we're Ukraine is.

[David Knowles]

It's Monday the 9th of February, three years and 352 days since the four scale invasion began. And today I'm joined by the Telegraph's executive editor. For audio, Francis Dernley. I started with news from the weekend from Moscow. Now on Friday, news was just breaking of that attempted assassination of Russian Lieutenant General Alekseyev who was ambushed inside his apartment building in the northwestern outskirts of Moscow. At least one gunman reportedly confronted him on the landing and fired several shots at close range before escaping with an accomplice. Russian media citing officials familiar with the inquiry, said the general suffered three gunshot wounds to the torso. He was said to have undergone immediate surgery at a nearby hospital and and doctors said on Saturday that his life was no longer in danger. Ukraine has denied that it had anything to do with the attempted assassination, suggesting that it's the result of a power struggle inside the Kremlin's elite, the so called siloviki. Now yesterday a Ukrainian born pensioner has been accused of the assassination attempt was arrested in Dubai. Gentleman called Lyubir Korba, 65 years old, was arrested and handed over to Russia when we are told after fleeing to the United Arab Emirates. This comes from the fsb, Moscow's security service speaking yesterday Sunday. Now Russia has accused Ukrainian intelligence of recruiting Mr. Korba to carry out the shooting. He is a Russian citizen, but was born during Soviet times, obviously in the Ternopil region of Ukraine. So the fsb, the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, to give it its full title, said a second suspect had been detained in Moscow and a third suspect had managed to get out of the country, fleeing, as they said, back to Ukraine, but didn't give any evidence for that claim. Now, the UAE did not release details about how Mr. Korbo was detained, but Vladimir Putin thanked Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Naran, the leader of the uae, for his help in detaining the suspect. Russia's Foreign Ministry said Right today, Monday, Russian state media outlet Aria Novosti, quoting the FSB, says that two suspects, so Mr. Korber and and a chap called Viktor Vasin have pleaded guilty to this plot. The FSB said that Mr. Korber was allegedly recruited in August last year in Turnerpil in Western Ukraine. He then underwent training, they say at a facility in Kyiv before traveling to Moscow via Tbilisi in Georgia. They say once in Moscow, he spied on high ranking military officials and in December last year received an order to kill General Alexeyev. They name an accomplice, Zinada Serebritskaya, and say that she allegedly gave Mr. Korber the keys to the entrance to the General's residence where she also lived. And according to the fsb, she was the one that managed to get out to Ukraine. The other conspirator, Mr. Vasin, is said to have rented the apartment where Mr. Korber lived. The FSB said that Mr. Vassin had participated in protests in Moscow and supported the Anti Corruption Foundation. That's a non profit organization founded in 2024 by the murdered opposition leader Alexei Navalny. So all a bit rum on General Alexei. Still no word from Ukraine. They have in the past claimed responsibility for a number of the attacks on Russian generals, but they have not said anything here. Now, also at the start of the weekend, a Ukrainian soldier was killed after his car exploded in Odessa on Friday in what local security services have called a terrorist attack. This is a 21 year old man who was killed. No arrests have been made yet, but it comes after a National Guard serviceman was killed in December last year following an explosion in Kyiv. Now, following that blast, the Security Service of Ukraine, the SBU, arrested three Ukrainian men in their 20s who had been recruited by Russia over telegram to build and plant explosive devices. Nobody has linked those two. I'm just raising that as it's the context of the blast on Friday. Now, Ukrainian and Russian sources reported yesterday that a Ukrainian interceptor drone had shot down a Russian shahed type drone equipped with R60 air to air missiles that were facing backwards. Now although it's a relatively new development, we have seen Shaheds with forward facing R60 missiles. These are assessed to be trying to destroy Ukrainian helicopters and slow fixed wing aircraft that are hunting Shaheds and other drones. So why put these things on firing backwards? Is it to defend the drone? Is that particularly cost effective? Because we know that they are producing hundreds of these drones. So you know, does it really matter? Think about the technical complexity of making an air to air missile that's just there to protect the drone. Or is it some other reason? Don't know. Maybe it's an experiment. We do not know. Now President Zelensky yesterday Sunday said that Ukraine is opening its military exports and will open 10 export centers in northern European states and the Baltics this year. He said there is spare capacity in Ukraine such the country can start exporting arms manufactured equipment to the West. Now the Institute for the Study of War says that Ukraine began in 2023 to pursue its long term objective of ensuring self sufficiency when it comes to its defence industrial base such that Ukraine could be less reliant on foreign military provisions in the future. You'll remember at the time or the last couple of years all the questions about Joe Biden and releasing weapons and permissions and all that kind of stuff. We've reported before that Ukraine clearly took the decision to some time ago to have their own sovereign capability in this regard and not be beholden upon the US or anyone else. Well that now seems to be bearing fruit to the extent that they've got excess capacity in their defence industrial base. So I think there's a role here for pearl the prioritised Ukraine requirements list. You remember the big the sort of pot of cash that people can donate to from which Ukraine can then go and buy arms. So you know, maybe there's something there for longer term military contracts that can soak up some of this excess capacity. It does though raise interesting questions I think about safe the security action for scheme and that separate 90 billion euros loan from which Ukraine is going to be able to buy weapons. Now will certain countries not want Ukrainian arms manufacturers with all this spare capacity get the lion's share of these two schemes? I wonder. It might. If that is the case, it might expose certain policy positions held up by a number of countries that say developing European defence sovereignty is the most important consideration. But some people say that's a smokescreen by some European leaders to protect their own domestic industries. Will that be shown up in light of this excess capacity referenced by Mr. Zelenskyy? We will keep an eye on it. You can be of no doubt there anyway linked to that, must be linked to that. Ukrainian Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov and his French counterpart Catherine Vautrin signed a letter of intent this morning for joint arms production between the two countries. Mr. Fedorov said this opens the way for large scale joint projects in the defense industry. We are moving some from supplies to joint production and and long term solutions that systematically strengthen our defence now over the weekend, drone missile strikes continued Saturday to Sunday. There were 101 drones. Kherson and Krama Tors were badly hit, the latter by multiple launch rocket system, tubed artillery, energy facilities. And Poltava also struck Sunday overnight into today Monday, 160 drones and 11 ballistic missiles. An apartment block in Shakhtarska in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast was hit and there were injuries there. And across the wider oblast, Novovolynsk, that's in the far west, right over near the Polish border, that was also targeted. The local mayor there, Boris Karpus says that they are coping in the region thanks to alternative means of power including generators to keep water services going. Energy facilities elsewhere in Volyn oblast, that's the oblast that Boris Karpos is the mayor for the town. Energy facilities elsewhere were hit alongside Odessa and Kharkiv also badly hit. Now no significant confirmed moves on the ground but I have seen reports today from Russian military bloggers that report Ukraine has launched counteroffensives in Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. There's suggestion that Ukraine is taking advantage of that switch off of the Starlink terminals. Now no further details known about these alleged counteroffensives. Also no further details that I can really think of how switching off Starlink would really that would enable a counteroffensive because that might severely impact some of the drone activity. But there's a lot more to a defense or an attack than that. So you know, treat with caution. Not confirmed, but we will keep an eye on that. Also announced this morning, Ukrainian forces say they've destroyed 6,000 first person view drones and components in a major overnight strike last night. This comes from Ukraine's general staff speaking earlier today. They say Ukrainian forces targeted a Russian drone warehouse in the city of Rostov on Don. That's in Russia's Rostov Oblast, just to the east of Ukraine, northeast of Sea of Azov. That kind of area, destroying three containers filled with FPV drones and a load of other components. Ukrainian officials also said a command post of Russia's airborne troops in the city of Suzha in Kursk Oblast, you'll remember from the Ukrainian incursion a couple of years ago, as well as a Russian ammunition depot in the Russian occupied part of Kherson Oblast were also hit. Hit. And then finally for me, bit of an odd one here. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he has been commenting in reports out today on the so called Anchorage Agreement. You remember this is the mythical deal that Russia did with the US In Anchorage in Alaska last August whereby Russia is trying to push the narrative that America said they would force Ukraine to give up land in the Donbass as part of a peace settlement, land that Russia has not been able to take since the start of the full scale invasion. So Mr. Lavrov, he along with a lot of other Russian officials have been talking about this so called Anchorage Agreement for weeks now. But he's talking about it again today. But not happy. He is not a happy chap. Speaking to Russian registered TV brics for a piece, as I say, released today, he's accused the Trump administration of refusing to implement alleged Russia US Agreements on Ukraine. He said the US has backtracked on what he described as the Anchorage Agreements allegedly reached last year that as I say envisaged Ukraine surrendering the entire Donbas region to Russia without fighting. Mr. Lavrov said they tell us that the Ukrainian issue needs to be resolved in Anchorage. We accepted the proposal of the US they made an offer, we agreed and the problem should have been resolved. It seems that they proposed it and we were ready and now they are not. He said that despite declarations about moving towards full scale broad cooperation with Washington continues to pursue what he described as an anti Russian policy. He pointed to new sanctions and Western actions against Russia's shadow fleet of oil tankers as evidence. He said in practice everything looks the opposite. New sanctions are being introduced and a war against shadow fleet tankers is being waged on the high seas. So not a happy chap. Francis. Sounds like the Schrodinger's Anchorage Agreement has gone up in a puff of smoke and you got to feel for poor old Mr. Lavrov. But you know, if he's going to believe in mythical things, then this is going to happen. I mean, God knows, don't tell him about the tooth fairy anyway. What else have you seen on the diplomatic front? Francis?

[Francis Durnley]

Well thanks Tom.

[Francis Dernley]

As you say, an interesting few days in the diplomatic realm since our last broadcast. I'm going to start in Ukraine rather than Russia. Over the weekend, President Zelensky hinted that a new deadline from the White House for peace could be linked to Trump's midterm elections campaign. They say they want to get everything done by June, he told reporters. Now I've already lost count of the number of deadlines Trump's laid down which have passed without consequence, so I don't think we should read necessarily too much into this. But given the pressure the Republicans will be under in the midterms, we mustn't dismiss out of hand the idea there will be greater threats from Trump the closer we get to that date. But will those threats target the Russians or the Ukrainians? Based on past experience, it will be the latter, despite the fact that, According to Reuters, U.S. and Ukrainian negotiators are discussing how a quick deal their term could work, with Kyiv suggesting a sequencing plan, which I think we should read as a staggered approach, perhaps a ceasefire, then some other peacekeeping force moves in, and then some stipulation of American intelligence offered. Whatever. Now, Zelenskyy also told reporters on Saturday that both Ukraine and Russia had been invited to further talks this week, probably in Miami, but we've not yet got that fully confirmed. Perhaps Zelensky's most significant intervention, though, came in the form of a warning to NATO, specifically that Ukrainian intelligence uncovered Russia presented the US with a $12 trillion economic cooperation proposal dubbed the Dmitriev package. That would certainly tally with what we know about Moscow's strategy to seduce this business minded White House. And I think it's significant he's chosen to risk the wrath of the administration in revealing it. This is a warning to Europe and of course to the Ukrainian population, given the potential risks. The President said the Ukrainian delegation conveyed the position that if there are any bilateral agreements between Russia and the U.S. the provisions related to Ukraine cannot contradict our constitution. That appears to refer to territorial issues.

[David Knowles]

Yeah, I saw this. I mean, look, Russia and this lot in charge at the moment, they are a cruel and joyless burst of flatulence from history. But they are not stupid, they are not silly. They're actually very clever. They clearly have decided and they know it's obvious to everyone that Donald Trump is attracted by shiny things. Money in particular, pretty much only money, power, money, all this kind of of stuff. So they are dangling money. I mean, it's a very obvious and very sensible. And there is a clever strategy by Moscow, but you only have to look at Bill Browder and his comments on it over the weekend. That said, any US firm signing up for all these, this rich bounty, all these rewards, you're never going to see it and you'll get a few returns. But as he says, they all just lie, cheat and steal their way through to making sure that what happens to this is that your money ends up in their pockets and that's about it. But, you know, I can't blame them for trying. They've worked out which buttons to press with Donald Trump and they are dangling the dollar signs in front of him.

[Francis Dernley]

Yeah, yeah.

[David Knowles]

And I can't say it's not going to work.

[Francis Dernley]

Absolutely. And of course, bearing in mind all that Wall Street Journal reporting at the end of last year, how many of Trump's donors are lining up to potentially profit from a deal? I think that plays in to all of this and that's relevant to the midterms, too, because of course, if they're funding that campaign, they want to see some rewards for them financially. And so it's all very, very murky indeed. But in other domestic news, the former head of President Zelenskyy's office, Andrei Yermak, remember him, has reportedly met several top officials since his resignation in November and is not serving on the front line as he pledged after that resignation. As Ukraine's copravity speculates, this may indicate Yermak still keeps some political influence. Some of the meetings could have been linked to his role in the energy corruption case. Zelenskyy also signed two decrees over the weekend imposing sanctions on individuals and companies involved in supplying components for r Russian missiles and drones, as well as those helping Russia circumvent international sanctions. Those targeted include citizens and residents of Russia, Hong Kong, Kyrgyzstan and the uae, all the favourite holidaying hotspots. Now, speaking of sanctions, the European Commission has proposed a new 20th package against Russia. The new package of sanctions covers energy, financial services and trade, Ursula von der Leyen said, saying a central element of the proposal is a full ban on maritime services for Russian crude oil, which would be coordinated with G7 partners. Now, if approved, the measure would bar European companies from providing insurance, shipping, financing and other key services from transporting Russian oil, regardless of price. Quite a significant step. Washington is still talking a good game about potentially imposing new sanctions against Russia based on progress in peace talks. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant said as much at the Senate committee hearing last week. But there is no evidence that this administration is really serious. The bipartisan bill is still stuck in the Senate with very little momentum behind it. As far as our sources, there can judge. In fact, almost all the news from the US Makes grim reading for Ukraine and its allies the latest row is between the US Ambassador to Poland, Tom Rose, and the speaker of the Polish parliament's lower house. The dispute erupted after after the speaker rejected efforts to back Trump's Nobel Peace Prize bid and accused him of disrespecting Poland by criticizing NATO allies for insufficient support during the US Led war in Afghanistan. Effective immediately, we will have no further dealings, contacts or communications with the marshal of the Parliament, rose wrote On X. We will not permit anyone to harm U.S. polish relations, nor disrespect President Donald Trump now. The dispute escalated after the US Ambassador appeared to question the US military presence in Poland. As a response to all this, he was writing on his personal X account to a critic who suggested Poland could handle its enemies alone, writing should we take all our soldiers and equipment with us? Meanwhile, as election fever ramps up in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban is leveraging the war as a means to try and galvanize support. On Saturday, he actually went as far as declaring Ukraine as an enemy during a speech, saying that any country demanding the EU halt imports of cheap Russian energy is an enemy of Hungary. So Ukraine is our enemy. The Hungarian government also said yesterday it's providing consular protection to a citizen detained by Ukraine over allegedly trying to help five Ukrainian draft age men illegally cross the border. Seemingly any row relating to Ukraine at the moment is being magnified by the Hungarian government, a stark contrast to Maya Sandu, the president of nearby Moldova who we interviewed recently and has now rejected her nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, asking instead for Ukrainian prisoners of war to receive it. Today I was watching Ukrainian prisoners of war who returned home from Russia, she said. These are the people who most deserve the peace prize, but I want to end on in the theatre that once upon a time was it less than a year and a half ago, the US was eager to encourage its allies to pledge more military support in the Pacific. Japan's Prime Minister Sina Takeachi called a snap election to cement her authority, which took place over the weekend, leading to her winning a landslide. Earlier today, she vowed to use her dominance of Japan's parliament after that win to attempt to amend the country's constitution for the first time in almost 80 years. She said she has a heavy, heavy responsibility to strengthen Japan. Now this matters because within days of taking office last October, she ignited a diplomatic storm by addressing how Japan might respond if China moved on Taiwan. She told parliament that such an attack would constitute a threat to Japan's Survival language implying the possible deployment of Japanese forces. Beijing was livid. Now she's going further, signaling that her party intends to lay the groundwork for revising Japan's post war constitution, drafted under U.S. supervision after 1945. The procedural hurdles for doing that are formidable. Amendments require supermajorities in both chambers of the parliament, followed by approval in a referendum, something Japan has never held. Previous administrations have floated reforms, but this is all about Article 9, the clause that enshrines Japanese pacifism and states quote, land, sea and air forces as well as other war potential will never be maintained. Creative reinterpretations over the years have allowed self defense forces to exist, but a formal revision would place the military on a far firmer legal and political footing. So a fascinating development, one with very far reaching implications for that theater. Japan, as we all know, has also been a very strong supporter of Ukraine's over the years. So we'll continue to keep an eye out as to whether there are any more announcements on that score too.

[David Knowles]

What would happen if Russia attacked a NATO member and the US stood aside? A high level war game, recently conducted by German publication Welt in cooperation with the Helmut Schmidt University of the German army, suggests Europe would struggle to respond. In the simulation, Russian forces swiftly establish a militarily secured land corridor across Lithuanian territory Linky Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad through the strategically sensitive Suwalki Gap, NATO's only land connection to the Baltic states. Writing in The Telegraph, retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, whose final appointment was as commander of U.S. forces in Europe, offered his perspective on the war game. This morning we spoke to him to hear his insights in more detail before turning to broader questions about the war in Ukraine, the American strategy and what we should expect in 2026. We started by asking him to summarise his initial reactions to this scenario and painted by the war game.

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

Well, there's three things about the war game scenario and the war game itself that stand out for me. Number one, it's important to remember that these war games are not predictions about the future. War games serve the purpose of analyzing various aspects of operations, particularly logistics, time, space, factors, you know, how long would it take to move, when would you have to make decisions, that sort of thing. And of course, every war game requires the players, the organizers, to make assumptions about things, about potential reactions, et cetera. So just keep in mind that this war game that was done, that's not intended to be a prediction about what's going to happen. The second thing that stood out There was almost no reference to air power in the war game. You know, one of the biggest advantages that the alliance has always had, of course, was air overwhelming air power. And with the addition of Sweden and Finland, both of whom are going to have F35s as well as the Swedish Griffins and other air power in the region without US or UK is enormous. And yet that was not taken into consideration, that I could tell. And then the third thing that really stood out was a reminder of the importance of what we refer to as a total defense concept. The defense of Lithuania is not going to be a group of soldiers at the border only. It's going to be the whole of society being involved, the labor, the rail, the energy, the utilities, water, all these things and the mobilization of militia, the rifleman's union and so on. And the same is true up and down the line there. So those were things that I was looking for that I didn't see.

[Francis Durnley]

But do you still think that it paints a plausible scenario that it would be possible for Russia to make sizable inroads into NATO territory successfully with a fairly small number of troops?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

I don't, because one of the implied assumptions was that the Russians were able to launch this attack and we were caught flat footed. That's not to say that that would never happen. And as we saw back in 2022 when all of us were watching the Russian buildup and you still had political leaders that were unwilling to believe that it was actually still going to happen, but with modern indicators, in mourning, the idea that thousands of Russian troops could somehow build up inside Belarus and then attack into Lithuania and the Lithuanians and the German brigade there and everybody else be caught unawares. That's a stretch for me.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

Ben Dom here. Thanks so much for joining us today. You're talking about the scenario which is largely predicated upon Russian push across the Suwalki gap where Poland meets Lithuania. The sort of 70 mile ish, 100k ish gap between Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. I mean, that area there is a particularly hot geopolitical area. When you were commanding general of US forces in Europe, would you have liked it to be routine to put aircraft through their NATO air power? Or would that have been seen as too provocative?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

Not provocative at all. I mean, the Russians did complain whenever we did anything. But these are NATO countries, you know, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, NATO, Baltic Sea air policing, flies out of air bases in the region, continues to do. So. What really provokes the Russians is when it's clear that we don't have political will to push back or to inflict consequences on them when we seem unprepared. That's what provokes them to do things. Now, of course, they'll always complain about it. I remember Lavrov complained when the beginning of the construction of rail Baltica which would put all three Baltic countries on the same rail gauge as Western Europe. That's a big deal if you're talking about moving equipment rapidly up through the Suwalki corridor into the Baltic countries by rail. And Lavrov complained that that was unnecessary and provocative. So, you know, you just have to ignore yourself and acknowledge that that's what they're going to do. We did exercise a lot in the region and that's how I became more and more familiar that there really was the only the one rail line, one major highway and then one secondary road. That's not enough to sustain operations up in the Baltic countries. And it's also easily disrupted by indirect and direct fire, if not actually land forces. Which is why of course there's always been a challenge. How do you get more depth for our Baltic allies? And the addition of Sweden and Finland to the alliance helps provide some of that.

[David Knowles]

Yeah, and as you, I think you've.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

Made a comment in either in the.

[David Knowles]

Article for us or elsewhere.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

I think I've seen you say that with the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO, the Baltic Sea now can be a NATO lake. Do you think it would be a very difficult task to cut off Kaliningrad from maritime support from Russia or elsewhere?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

In the purest military sense? No. In fact, if Russia attacks NATO country, I am pretty certain that Kaliningrad will be taken off the board immediately, in the first 24 hours. There's no way that that could be tolerated sitting right there. And the Russians should know that they would lose Kaliningrad to effects immediately. Now of course, if we're talking pre crisis nations are still going to respect international law even if the Russians don't. So Baltic Sea is international water ships can come and go and there's various treaties in place over the centuries that allow movement through the Danish Straits for example. And the Russians exploit this to the max where their so called shadow fleet vessels that are unsafe and unseaworthy and not properly documented. So I think this is an area where we should be pushing back on these illegal activities, stopping these ships and disrupting Russia's ability to export oil and gas through the Baltic Sea.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

And just one final one for me before I go back to Francis, I've got some wider questions later. But based on this scenario, you talk there about the gray zone or hybrid attacks before an obvious overt conventional attack on a NATO member. So Russia, both in the war game and more broadly in reality, is doing a lot of these type of activities short of outright conventional attacks. Do you think there's room there for NATO to do something similar? For example, Kaliningrad is only supported by one major rail line from Belarus. It would be very easy to stop that line. Russia would go absolutely tonto about that. But that's a very easy thing that could be achieved short of outright conventional warfare. Or do you think, again, do you think that would be a little bit politically unacceptable?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

I think some countries would probably have a problem with that. That would make it difficult. I personally think we should be using things like that to put pressure on the Kremlin, but it's got to be part of a larger strategy. Deterrence is all about having capability in the enemy, knowing that you have that capability and the will to use it, and that includes gray zone operations. Right now, the Russians are pretty confident that we do not have the will to stop these shadow fleet vessels or drones flying over various international airports in Copenhagen, for example, or Germany, the destruction of undersea cables and pipelines. And we still have not really done anything. And I think when you get all the nations that are around the Baltic Sea, except for Russia, every one of them is an EU nation and a NATO ally. I mean, certainly we ought to be able to find ways to put pressure on the Russians to inflict some kind of consequences. I think Mar4ur, which is based there in the UK NATO's naval headquarters, for example, has the responsibility to monitor all the activity going on. Increasing the ability to know who's in the Baltic Sea and operating there would be a part of that.

[Francis Durnley]

We'll come to some broader questions about where we are in the war and indeed in the hybrid theatre as well, shortly. But just because you were speaking about the railways there, and I remember that we spoke about one of the broader concerns in Europe about troop movements and being able to actually get troops to various vulnerable points at speed because of limitations in transport infrastructure, bridges, roads, and even just having the vehicles to be able to transport things, a lot of work has been done, which we've been reporting on the podcast recently, to prepare the ground better. But do you think that enough has been done? Is this a problem that has been neutered, as it were?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

I wish. Unfortunately, it still takes too long to move adequate capability to NATO's eastern flank, for example, to be an effective deterrent. And this is not about convenience for British army or US army exercises in Eastern Europe. This is about deterrence to demonstrate to the Russians that our forces can move as fast or faster than they can. So when we start to see indications, for example, like in the scenario of a buildup of Russian troops in Western Belarus, and then somebody in the alliance or in the nations makes a decision to deploy a armor brigade or somewhere into the Suwalki corridor, you have to be able to do that. And this is in peacetime conditions. This is the key. And so getting capabilities in place that allow rapid movement even in peacetime conditions is the key. A lot of attention has correctly been placed on do you have enough bridges that can support the weight of a Challenger or Leopard or an Abrams, for example? That is very important. But for me, the most important aspect of this is getting the necessary permissions to move while still in peacetime. We're not quite there yet.

[Francis Durnley]

Thank you. Well, the last time we spoke, Ben in person was in Wiesbaden at the Landuro conference. And then we were talking about the threats that Donald Trump was making, that if there weren't peace within a matter of days, that there would be these enormous sanctions that would be put on Russia. And I think you accurately predicted that it was unlikely that those sanctions would be forthcoming. And so it proved. Now, we're a few months on, what's your assessment of where we are in the war and particularly in relation to the United States position?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

So I have to be candid. It's incredibly disappointing for me that the current US Administration has done such a terrible job of actually trying to bring this war to a just, sustainable conclusion that everybody can live with. Almost all the pressure has been on the Ukrainian side. They've done nothing to hold Russians accountable. And it's clear that the Kremlin is not concerned about this. They have no respect for the US Administration, and they continue to do what they want to do. The Russians have never once backed down from their maximalist demands that have been for there from the beginning. They refuse all demands to pull back, to do anything. So whenever I hear Mr. Witkoff or the president say that we're almost there, it's 95% done. But then the 5% is the only part that matters. And that's the part that, you know, Ukraine cannot give up that bit of Donbass that is essential to their defense. And why should they give it up? This war has been going on since 2014, when Russia invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea. So keeping in mind that the war has been going on 12 years now and Russia still barely controls 20% of Ukraine, enormous cost in terms of casualties and their economy is in trouble. I'm not going to predict, you know, a certain time when it's going to collapse, but I think any serious economist looks at what's going on in Russia and sees the direction it's going. And now that Ukraine has the ability to strike deep against Russia's oil and gas infrastructure, I would say that Russia is under a lot of pressure and they're being abetted, unfortunately, by the Trump administration.

[Francis Durnley]

So you're not optimistic then that we're going to see a breakthrough anytime soon in Abu Dhabi or elsewhere in relation to some kind of ceasefire or more than that?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

Not a chance, unfortunately, it's not going to happen. The best way to protect Europe is to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Then you don't have these scenarios like the one we discussed at the beginning, because defeating Russia is the key now. I don't want to overstate or misrepresent what I think is happening on the ground. It's hell if you're a Ukrainian soldier. I mean, it is very, very difficult. Not just because it's the middle of winter. I mean, it's hard. But the Ukrainians have adapted extremely well to this drone battlefield and they actually have significantly reduced the number of troops they have exposed in this so called kill zone because of how they've been able to implement technologies that make it very difficult, almost impossible for the Russians to make any real gains. Now that's going to continue. I think if we're talking a year from now, it's going to be about the same on the ground. If you're a Ukrainian civilian living in any of Ukraine's major cities. I talked to a Ukrainian friend of mine two days ago, he's in the army, he said, where his wife and daughter live in their apartment. You know, it's seven degrees in the apartment. And that's, that's the norm for most people there. But then he said, you know, this really bad cold snap is going to end in a few weeks. I mean, that's their attitude. And so I think there's reporting coming out about work being done to provide autonomous air defense systems, which is incredible, what they're doing technologically, that's going to significantly improve their ability to stop these drones from hitting Ukrainian cities. So the Russians absolutely are not going to back off.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

There's a lot I'd like to pick up on, Ben. I'm afraid I'm going to range at quite some pace from the sub subtactile to the grand strategic. So please try and hang on if you can. So let's get you talking about drones just there. So the Russian drone force seems to be about 90,000 people strong, of which only 5,000 we think are in Rubicon, the experimental, innovative, well funded, politically connected group of Russian forces. And the Rubicon group seems to be having some element of success. They seem to be able to take the fight to the troop concentrations, the training areas, the fuel supplies, the logistic nodes, 50 to 100ks behind the front line. Which means then that when they push people in at the front line, they are able to get through to a certain degree. We've seen that around Percroft and we've seen that in the southwest around Huliyapoli. So my question is, using drones at that depth battle as well as the close battle on the front line, is that a new way of warfare or.

[David Knowles]

Do you think it's just the practical.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

Reality of Ukraine not having enough infantry soldiers to cover all parts of the front line at all times?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

Well, I would counter that just a little bit. There's no doubt that Russia's, particularly the Rubicon forces is very effective. The problem for the Russians is that Ukrainians are also very effective and that even where Rubicon might achieve some success, there are not adequate Russian forces that are able to exploit this. I mean, you mentioned Prokrosk. I've been hearing about the fall of Procrost now for almost two years. So it's just not going to happen, what the Russians are doing. Of course they'll get 2, 3, 4 soldiers, move them forward, infiltration tactics, and they might even make it 10 kilometers. And then what? I mean, two, three soldiers getting deep into the rear is not going to have any decisive effect on the battlefield, even if there's hundreds of them. What the Russians are not able to do, they cannot do what their grandfathers did with these breakthrough penetrations and then moving quickly towards some deeper objective that doesn't exist. And that's why the Ukrainians have pulled back a lot of their troops, because they're able to accomplish this sort of disruption with their own drone force. But there's no denying that Russia has become extremely capable. And of course they're able to produce in a volume to a scale that is more than what Ukraine is able to do. And I think the Ukrainians seem to me to have adapted to it. There is a war going on of electronic warfare, of jamming. How do you do things that cannot be Jammed, you know, the using fiber optic out to a distance of 20 kilometers. It's incredible. You can't jam that. So you have to find other ways to protect your critical assets. And for me, the more that they could do to destroy Russia's rear area, their own logistics that bring up these troops and forces that you're talking about. And of course the dream is to destroy the factory where these damn things are made.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

But that model where the infantry that are then hopefully able to move into that area, that has been degraded because of these depth battles by drones. The infantry are poorly led, badly equipped, they're hardly trained. As you say, these groups of two, five or ten people, the infiltration forces. So that's where this is falling over. But I mean, thank goodness this wasn't happening four years ago. It's almost micro air superiority using drones in a small piece of of area for a short period of time, but with infantry that are better trained and can and can push through that. Is that a new model, do you think?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

I think that's a good way to describe it. And in fact, this is what I think shaped Sakura's headquarters. One of his officers recently described what they're doing for the Eastern defense line of NATO. And it's kind of a layered sort of approach using exactly these kinds of things where what they've learned from Ukrainians about how you can create, I don't want to use a wall or barrier type metaphor, but you don't have to have all your troops up on the border. So it's a series of conventional obstacles, sensors, and then what they're calling disposable is not the right word, but munitions.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

Attritable.

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

Yeah, attritable. Very good. Thank you. Yeah. And so, well, you can use these things like rounds of ammunition, basically. And so I think the alliance is going to do that, but it's still backed up by conventional forces. That would be part of a counterattack, for example. But just like, you know, when I was a lieutenant 100 years ago in West Germany, armored forces still had to be protected by air defense against Soviet air forces. So the idea is the same. It's the technology and the how is what's so fascinating and changing so quickly.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

Now if I could sort of knee jerk to the other end of military activity and talk at the grand strategic level for a moment, please. There's a lot of talk recently about NATO being split. It's along moral lines about would you actually turn up? Would the US Turn up Europe, would Europe turn up for the US With Denmark et CETERA et cetera, et cetera. And you've just made a very strong comment there saying that Russia is currently being abetted by the Trump administration. These are moral questions which I'd love to dial into, but we probably haven't got time today. But I'd like to ask you about the intellectual split in NATO. The further north and east you go in Europe, there's a much clearer view of the threat. It's a very different view from Helsinki and Tallinn than it is from Paris and London. They might talk the same language, but actually when it comes to actions and defense budgets and heavy metal, very different responses. Do you think European NATO in particular is split intellectually? And how dangerous is that?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

Well, certainly the Trump administration's recently released National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy do not put NATO at the center of our security strategy policy, unlike all of their predecessors for decades. So that's different. And you are exactly right that the Nordic countries and the Eastern European countries, they are not confused about the threat. I mean, they know exactly what's out there, and so that's why they do what's necessary. I mean, Finland has only a 5 million population, but they have more artillery than any country in Europe. They have a mobilization system that can put 200,000 plus troops that are already trained and equipped in the field in a matter of days. And we're seeing improvements in that sort of mindset in Baltic countries as well. But each, each nation brings a kind of a different capability and thing to the battlefield, different geography. But it is a problem, and the Russians explored it, that if the United States even, no matter what the uniforms say, and I'm 100% confident that the uniforms will do what we would always expect. But the political leadership, if there's ever doubt about whether or not the US Would show up, that's a chink in the armor of NATO. The cohesion of the alliance has always been the secret sauce that no matter what political arguments were going on at that level between the US And UK or Germany or Greece and Turkey or France or whoever, the Soviets and then the Russians never doubted that they would have to face all of NATO together. When that's in question, then I think the risk of Russia making a terrible miscalculation goes up, which is why European allies have to be prepared to, to do this perhaps without the same amount of US Commitment. I hope I'm completely wrong here, but I think you would be unwise to not think through those possibilities.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

Now, you highlight the importance of the military political interface, the Milpole Interface, in August 2009, you became Director of Operations of Regional Command South RC south in Afghanistan. You had to live with and make that MILPOL interface work. I had the luxury, if you like, if that's the correct word, of being able to sit down in Las Vegas and just grumbling about it. But how do you make it work? How do you get the military reality through to politicians who are willfully refusing to accept that their strategy is not working? We saw it in Afghanistan and I venture that there are a number of politicians today who are willfully ignoring the reality of Russia. How do you make that work without going mad?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

Well, you're definitely going to go mad. You can't, you can't, you can't not do that, you know. Psych. Your both current and past have had to deal that always as have Chiefs of Defense Staff in all of our countries. But the fact is in democratic societies, civilian elected civilian officials are the authority. And you'll remember we all grew up understanding that authority of the civilian leadership. And so it is incumbent on military leaders to number one, do everything they can to help inform our civilian leadership about the risks, about time requirements, about what needs to be done, the reality of it. So to help them understand it. But also the military has a responsibility to keep in mind that they have to solve ultimately the political end state. I mean, what is the political objective? You can go out there and kill thousands of enemy, but if it doesn't achieve a strategic outcome that's in the best interest of our nations, then it doesn't matter how many you kill. We did that in Vietnam, we did that in Afghanistan, we did that in Iraq and none of those turned out well. So this is a two way street.

[Francis Durnley]

You referenced hybrid warfare earlier on and I have to be candid really and ask you, do you think Article 5 is in danger now? Because it does feel that there has been a, a weakness of response from certain European countries to these drone incursions. And this is just at the thin edge of the wedge. Do you think that in more serious scenarios that actually already we've passed the Rubicon, as it were, and that Article 5 is no longer watertight?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

This was a very good question, Francis, and I look forward to discussing it again in more detail when we have more time. Ultimately, Article 5 is a political decision. It's not a laser beam like when you go to a store and you the doors automatically open up. I mean there's no trigger for Article 5. Article 5 is a political decision when one nation believes that they are the victim of an armed attack. And the rest of the alliance agrees whether or not that's true, but none of them are compelled to do anything. It's still a. It's a political decision. I think that this is a very important aspect of the alliance, but it requires our adversaries as well as our allies to believe that everybody is committed to that. And by the way, when Secretary General of NATO was Stoltenberg, the alliance made the decision that a cyber attack could be considered an armed attack depending on the nature of the attack, what were the damages that were caused, et cetera. So that was an important step forward to look at something more than are they Scud missiles or Russian tanks have to show up before it's considered an armed attack. The Russians, of course, use these gray zone operations that are below the traditional threshold of a kinetic attack in order to create distrust, division between the allies. It scares some countries so that they would stop supporting Ukraine, for example. And it also gives them a way to figure out our defenses by flying a bunch of drones over Poland, for example, and seeing how we respond. So it is time for the alliance as well as nations and the European Union to get serious about what Russia is doing. I think that there are a lot of things we could do that would inflict consequences on the Russians where they would realize they cannot just keep doing it if they don't suffer consequences. This is never going to stop.

[Francis Durnley]

Well, that was where I was going to end, Ben. Actually, as I've predicted, my next question, which is a cruel question, but what more should be done? And if we don't act, what do you think the next phase of this war is going to look like?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

You know, I can't believe that all of our nations cannot come up with a way when you've got drones flying over all of our international airports, that you can't figure out how to stop that. And I'm not talking about shooting them down. That actually is probably one of the worst ways to do it. We also have got to conduct a large scale joint multinational air and missile defense exercise that covers several countries, because we have never done an exercise that looks at a Russian air and missile attack like what Ukraine deals with every night. Hundreds of drones, dozens of actual missiles. We've never exercised against that. And you can imagine how difficult it will be if we can't even stop a handful of drones flying over our biggest airports. So that would be my recommendation to secure and to the nations, you got to practice this at that scale. Otherwise if the Russians do attack in a conventional sense, they will have already made the terrible decision to launch a massive strike against all of our transport infrastructure, and we're not prepared to defend that right now.

[Francis Durnley]

And your instinct of where we might be heading in the next phase of the war?

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

I think a year from now it's going to look like it does right now. Unless there is some significant change externally, I can't predict how long Putin stays in power. He personally has no interest in ending the war. In fact, he needs to keep the war going because of where their economy is. And they don't want to bring back a million unhappy veterans with nothing to do. So there is no incentive for him currently to stop what they are doing. So he and the people around him are going to realize that the west is committed to helping Ukraine win. Only when they realize they cannot win then will they have to look for some other way out. I think the Ukrainians have shown us the path to victory, though, is destroying Russia's oil and gas infrastructure, their ability to export oil and gas, which of course is what pays for the war sanctions on India. While the Indian government may not be importing Russian oil and gas for a fact, Indian companies are importing it. So this is a example of these boasts about sanctions. It's absolutely not happening. China is not going to stop buying Russian oil and gas, especially now that they can get it so cheap. So sanctions are only a part of it. It's got to be destroy Russia's ability to refine and export and stop all these shadow fleet vessels that are sailing out through the Baltic Sea and Black Sea. And the UK could play a very important role there.

[Francis Durnley]

Ben, thanks so much for your time.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

Thanks, Ben. And if I may, as somebody who may have dented the air traffic zone in my Gazelle before I had full permission, I can tell you exactly who owns the airspace above Heathor Airport.

[Retired General Ben Hodges]

All right, we'll get on an interview.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

Without coffee with the air traffic controllers. Thank you so much.

[David Knowles]

For more from Ben, you can listen to our sister podcast, Battle Lines, who interviewed him about the ramifications of the Greenland crisis. We will link to that in the show notes. Okay, let's now go to final thoughts. Let me start first of all, if I may. I just want to say hello to Carl, who's fighting with Ukraine's drone forces. We hear from friend Richard.

[Podcast Announcer/Producer]

Carl, hello.

[David Knowles]

Thank you for listening to us. We do hope that we're able to help keep you updated on what's going on elsewhere that you're not getting any news on. And I was thinking about you today. Carl, because on the news of drones A note from Rob Lee, the senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a US Based think tank. Rob Lee says that a communications officer for Ukraine's 59th Assault Brigade says that the number of Molnya repeater or mothership drones operating in the brigade's rear has decreased significantly since the efforts to block Russia's ability to use Starlink. I think that's very, very interesting. We've got that. Anecdotally we've seen it from the Russian Mill blog community, but it's interesting to hear from the ground, as it were, via Rob, a trusted source. Well worth a follow on Twitter. Anyway, Carl, best wishes to you and hopefully one day we'll get to meet Francis. Where do you want to leave us?

[Francis Dernley]

Well, thanks, Don. We reported last week how the Washington Post sacked more than 300 employees, allegedly gutting around 80% of its staff involved in foreign companies coverage. As James Kilner said that day, we all suffer in these situations. The Post has done some of the best Ukraine reportage of the war, and we continue to hope that those who were stationed out there are able to find new roles. But since that news broke, more details have emerged which shows that some of those involved in the paper's foreign coverage, but not directly employed by the paper, have apparently been left completely in the lurch, including in war zones. So a GoFundMe page has been set up to help some of those people leave the countries in which they were stationed. As the fundraiser reads, among the hundreds of journalists laid off by the Post are dozens of international employees who were essential to our coverage of global events. These are correspondents and editors hired out of subsidiaries outside of the US as well as local employees, researchers, translators, office managers and drivers in places from Cairo to Mexico City. These workers are not eligible for protection under the Washington Post Guild and are in many instances being laid off with less favorable terms, while also facing immense logistical challenges and in certain cases, serious security risks. Please help us support this deeply courageous team of people. Now just bear in mind the newspaper is owned by one of the wealthiest men in the world, worth an estimated $235 billion. Jeff Bezos, quite remarkable developments and the Post and as we said last week, we really hope that those of you who have lost your jobs, and I know some of them are listeners to this podcast because they've written into us, are able to find alternatives as soon as possible. We need your coverage and let's just hope that there is a solution to this that helps everybody.

[David Knowles]

We do and I don't know why Jeff Bezos has done it. I mean, to save money or to do what Curry favorites. Clearly his colors have been nailed to the mast at the moment with the film Melania where last week the Guardian had to put out a correction. Don't know if you saw this. They put out a correction. They said that in their review for Melania they'd only given it one star. And they put out a correction saying that the journalist who wrote that review had been in touch with to say actually it should have been zero stars. So the Guardian then said, apologies for that. And I've seen another review.

[Interviewer/Host (possibly David Knowles or another host)]

I can't remember where.

[David Knowles]

I wish I did, but I've seen another review of the film Melania that said, even if it was shown on an aircraft, there'd be walkouts.

[Francis Dernley]

That reminds me of there was the cats review and it was this is the worst thing to happen to cats since dogs.

[David Knowles]

Anyway, for more of this insightful geopolitical analysis folks, do join us tomorrow.

[Podcast Announcer/Producer]

Ukraine the Latest is an original podcast from the Telegraph created by David Knowles to support our work and stay on top of all of our Ukraine news, analysis and dispatches from the ground. Please subscribe to the Telegraph. You can get one month free, then two months for just one pound at www.telegraph.co.uk Ukraine the latest Deploying cutting edge technology, we also release Ukrainian and Russian versions of this podcast. These translations retain our voices and delivery so that it can reach listeners in every region of Ukraine and those parts of Eastern Europe where Russian is still widely spoken. Links to those can be found in the podcast description to this episode. You can also now sign up to the New Ukraine, the latest weekly newsletter. Each week Francis and I answer your questions, provide recommended reading and give exclusive analysis and behind the scenes insights plus maps of the front lines and diagrams of weapons to complement our daily reporting. It's free for everyone, including non subscribers. You can find the link to sign up in the descriptions for this episode. We regularly have a Ukraine Life blog on our website where you can follow updates as they come in throughout the day, including insights from regular contributors to this podcast. We also do the same for other breaking international stories. If you appreciate our work, please consider following Ukraine the latest on your preferred podcast app and leave us a review as it really helps others find the show. Please also share it with those who may not be aware we exist. You can also get in touch directly to ask questions or give comments by emailing ukrainepodelegraph.co.uk we continue to read every message you can also contact us directly on X. You'll find our handles in the description for this episode. As ever, we're especially interested to hear where you're listening from around the world. Ukraine. The latest was today produced by Rachel Porter. Executive producers are Francis Durnley, Louisa Wells and David Knowles.

[David Knowles]

My name is David Knowles. Thank you all for listening. Goodbye.