Ben Hodges - Commanding General, United States Army Europe HARDtalk

Now it's Hardtalk with Stephen Sackur.

Welcome to a special edition of HARDtalk from western Poland where

forces for more than 20 Nato countries have joined the host

country for what is the biggest military exercise on European soil

since the end of the Cold War. And it comes at a sensitive time with

east European nations increasingly nervous about the intentions of

Russia's president Vladimir Putin. My guest today is the outspoken

commander of the US army in Europe, General Ben Hodges. Is Nato ready to

respond to any Russian threat? Swooping over the plains of

north-west Poland, on the ground and elaborate wargame simulating an

invasion of Nato is mangled eastern flank. General Hodges, this is a

little map of Europe that you travel with, and when you look at this,

what do you see? It is useful to appreciate the geography, the fact

that the Russians had access up to the Baltic Sea means they have

access to countries up to France. What I also take from this note is

that Poland is tricky to Lee and extraordinarily important place.

Geographically it is like a keystone if you will from the top end of the

alliance, at Estonia down to Bulgaria, as far as this border, so

you are right. No matter a crisis in Romania or Estonia, you will pass

through the airspace and on the ground. Operation Anaconda was a

10-day exercise designed to show Nato's rapid response capability.

Hundreds of paratroopers were airdropped into the fight. Heavy

armour roared across the Polish plains. And infantry showcased their

urban warfare training. Nato has 28 members. They use different

equipment, train differently, speak different languages and they face to

the east a Russian leadership ready and willing to flex its military

muscle. Across the eastern border the Russians will be watching this.

The Russians say when Nato puts these big, big exercises on pretty

close to our doorstep it is nothing more than a provocation. No. Our

president said we will defend all Nato allies. The best way to prevent

crisis from happening is to show that you are ready. And so this

exercise is part of showing that we are going to do what it takes to be

prepared. When I see the big-screen presentation from the Polish

commander here, talking at about the red enemy, talking about the red

enemy taking the Baltic states and operating hybrid warfare tactics in

northern Poland, you know, it does seem to be a pretty clear, blatant

message to Moscow that you believe that is on Moscow's agenda. I think

political leaders all over the alliance have been saying that. I

mean, Russia has changed the security environment. Invaded

Georgia, in faded Ukraine. They scare the hell out of people in the

Baltics and in Poland -- invaded. Every country I go to that was a

former Soviet republic or a former Warsaw Pact member or is a neighbour

of Russia absolutely believes that this is a very real possibility. Do

you believe it? I absolutely believe it is a possibility. They only

respect to strength. And defensive strength is exactly what Operation

Anaconda was designed to showcase. The Germans and the Brits built a

bridge over this river. Nato wants Moscow to see this and be deterred

by it. The generals declared fair wargame a success but there is no

disguising the nervousness in Eastern Europe. There is a very

strong whiff of public relations about everything that's happening

here. The Polish government is very keen to deliver two clear messages.

One is that they are doing their bit to secure Europe's eastern flank but

number two is desperately wanting the Americans to stay committed to

Nato. Poland is one of the few countries to meet Nato's target on

military spending. But post the Ukraine crisis, Warsaw feels

vulnerable. I think most other countries which are on the eastern

border of the Nato would like to have the Americans, Brits and other

forces on their territories. So we are not the exception from the other

countries on the east border of Nato... When you say to the

Americans, we would like you to station permanent forces here, what

do they say to you? Of course, if we discuss the military, so there is

not any problem. At the final decision depends as always on the

politicians. -- but. This massive exercise was brought to a close with

Brave words about readiness and resolve. But Nato's 28 members are

beset with economic and political difficulties -- brave. The security

threats facing Europe are changing fast. And the alliance is struggling

to keep up. General Ben Hodges, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. Are

you ready to tell me where you think the weaknesses are in Nato's

capability today? You must have learned a lot from the last 10- 12

days. Where are you worried right now? The thing I worry about most is

freedom of movement. Russians are able to move huge formations and

lots of equipment a long distance very fast. They are snap exercises

that they do I personally am surprised each time they do it --

their snap. And so you can see why that scares me. You mean about the

speed and scale they can bring to bear? 20,000 troops and a lot of

Whitman shows up on the border of a Nato country or maybe somewhere like

Georgia or Ukraine that is concerning -- equipment. The

Russians have what we call freedom of movement on interior lines. They

can move anywhere inside Russia as fast as they want. In order for our

political leaders to have options other than the liberation campaign,

we need to match that same speed inside Nato. You don't have that

speed today. No. We need what I would call a military Schengen zone

that would allow the military to move inside, a British convoy, a

German or American convoy should be able to go anywhere inside Nato in

order to have the same freedom of movement. I am talking about three

days, three days' notification we ought to be able to do and we don't

have it right now. I think it is a necessary part of this deterrent

that the alliance is shifting from a sure to deterrence. You are saying

right now and in a frank way that right now you don't have deterrence

because the enemy, that's what you have called the Russians, they know

you can't do that. Deterrence is in the mind of the potential adversary,

obviously. I am uneasy about my ability to assemble quickly or for

others to assemble quickly, and so I will try to continue explaining why

it matters. It is not for our convenience. It is for the ability

to give political leaders options short of having to do and liberation

campaign. You have set in the recent past we have a grave lack of combat

aviation. You have also talked of the weaknesses in terms of

intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability. At one

point you said we have no short-range air defence any more.

Things that shoot down UAVs, you go from Patriot missiles to an M4

rifle. There is nothing in between. You are a guy who is exposing the

weaknesses of your own site. I think I have a duty to make sure that our

policymakers and planners understand clearly exactly where we are --

side. Now, these are all decisions that have to be made, priority is to

be made. The US army is continuing to shrink. These are political

decisions based on budget. From your point of view are they the wrong

decisions? I don't have enough capacity to do everything that needs

to be done, but my army chief has said that. You don't have enough

capacity? A previous supreme commander has said that. We need

combat aviation. We need short-range air defence. We need long-range

fires. This is an extraordinary thing you are telling me. It is not

news. The army leadership has been saying this same thing... That is

the point, General. Senior top brass have been saying it month upon

month, year upon year and it hasn't been delivered. I think it is. It

will never be as fast as I would like to see. My country has spent

$3.4 billion bringing equipment back in to Europe. As a response to what

we see as a threat that wasn't there - we didn't see it, I didn't see it

that way until they went into Ukraine. When Russia went into

Ukraine that is when it became very real. In the great scheme of things,

it is actually a significant step by my government. I would put it to you

that your east European partners within Nato want a whole lot more

than you are giving them. The Obama administration talk about

reassurance and the reassurance initiative by putting one brigade

back into Europe isn't going to do it. The Polish President has made it

plain that he wants to see US forces permanently based, permanently

based, in Eastern Europe. Is that going to happen? I think what we

will see coming out of Warsaw is specifics on which nation is going

to do what with these enhanced forward presence battalions. The

Secretary General recently made the announcement that there would be an

increase in Nato troops that are in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and

Poland. Permanently based US forces? There will be a rotational presence.

Ah, rotation. Again, president Duda, we do not want to be a buffer zone,

we want to be the real eastern flank of this alliance, and by that he

means, we don't want forces in West Germany or somewhere else which can

be in emergency centre wards us and it will take days to get there. We

actually want real commitment, men and material on our territory. My

President has said we will defend all of our Nato allies. That has

never been in question. What if they don't believe any more? I think they

do and we will continue to exercise here. We are going to continue to do

things that improve the overall collective security of this most

successful alliance in the history of the world. Part of what makes

Nato - I am speaking to you as a US army officer, US Army Europe - but

of course we are the contribution to Nato from the US, part of that, it

is a collective security alliance. 28 nations. Not every one of the

same threats. If you are in France, Italy, Spain or grease you are

seeing massive immigration problem and Islamic extremism as the main

threat. The alliance is not about just lining up all of our troops on

the border with Belarus or Russia or in Ukraine, it is about collective

security -- Greece. So, positioning decisions that our leaders will make

over the next few weeks will reflect that and maintaining the unity of

the lines. President Putin's number one objective is absolutely to

terror apart the unity of our alliance, so decisions will be made

that point be ideal for every country but they will be their best

to maintain the unity of the alliance. That's what I believe. You

say Putin wants to tear apart the alliance. He cannot stand the

alliance. Do you, as a very experienced infantrymen, general,

now the head of US army in Europe, do you believe that the Russians

over the next, say, five years, have a game plan to a certain military

presence, frankly, to undertake military aggression against the

Baltic states or other parts of the western backed eastern flank? I

think they started in 2007 with a modernisation effort, and with a

mobilisation effort to be in a place where they have the capability to

conduct any sort of operation to assert influence, whether it is

against a perceived provocation, which I don't believe that is their

narrative, or to a Serb-controlled and influence over what they think

is their rightful sphere -- or to assert. Andrew Monaghan from Chatham

House has done a lot of good work is planning this mobilisation not in

the old sense of mobilising troops but of all the institutions of

government as well as forces being at a level of readiness and

modernisation that would enable them to conduct sustained operations.

This is also within the context of hybrid warfare. It won't be like

what I grew up against in the 80s, long lines of Russian tanks and a

massive assault and artillery like that. Although that could be part of

it. Instead, if there is ever a crisis it will be within a nasty

cyber environment, misinformation, all elements of national power,

information, economic, as well is military.

We have seen over recent months a series of worrying incidents. We

have seen US naval vessels being buzzed by Russian aircraft, very

close. We have seen incidents in Scandinavia or enjoy involved naval

vessels. There is a sense in which the Russians appear to be pushing

the envelope. Do you fear there is a real possibility may be inadvertent

military confrontation between Nato, Western forces, and Russian forces

in this neighbourhood? We sure are concerned about that. During the

Cold War it was common that submarines and aircraft shadowed

each other. But there was almost an unwritten protocol about what was

acceptable, because everybody wanted to avoid a midair collision, or

submarines bumping into each other, and all the negative things that

would come out of that. What seems a bit different this time, recently,

is what I would describe as the unprofessional, to fly that close to

aircraft, to do certain manoeuvres. I'm in infantry soldier so I'm not

an expert on flying or maritime operations, but even a pedestrian

observer can tell that this is very unsafe. Russia wants to be treated

like a global superpower, they should act responsibly. And that is

not responsible. What is extraordinary is to reflect upon the

fact that in 2012 the Obama administration took a strategic

decision to draw down, significantly drawdown, US forces in Europe. I

think we all thought Russia was going to be a partner. That was

certainly the hope of this administration, previous

administrations. You remember President Bush meeting with

President Putin? I remember Russian soldiers being with us when we went

into to enforce the Dayton peace accords. So, for years you got it

wrong? No, but what I am saying is that Russia has changed. They had an

opportunity, a seat at the table. But somewhere, 2008, the invasion of

Georgia, the use of force to change the border of Ukraine, the things

that they are doing on their periphery, that is what has changed.

So, the alliance is responding, the US is responding to that. Today, you

see Russia as the enemy, right? I see it as the only potential threat

that can destroy it the US or the UK or Germany or any other country,

because of their nuclear force. They talk about nuclear weapons a lot, in

exercises they have threatened Denmark, Sweden, Poland and

Scandinavia as being nuclear targets. But that doesn't mean they

are going to do it. There is a difference between having the

capability to destroy the US. Islamic State have said they hate

everything about us, they want to destroy the US, the UK, France. They

don't have the ability to do it. We will be dealing with them for

decades. Let's stick with Putin for now. It seems to me that the context

in which we talk, that is that a generation ago 300,000 US troops

were stationed in Europe, and today pretty much 30,000. That has sent an

extraordinary message to the Russians. It has told the Russians

that the US government no longer has the will or the intention of

investing in the security of Europe. Obviously are completely disagree

with you on that. The fact is, we are bringing equipment and troops

back into Europe. Our government has made it clear to our allies that

they have a responsibility to take on more of a share, and frankly the

allies are stepping up. But they are not, are they? Of course they are.

At the Wales summit all the parties agreed that they would begin to take

on more responsibility, and the most well-known metric of the 2% of GDP.

How many of those countries are meeting that target? Today I think

we are at five. Out of 28? They gave themselves 20 years to do that, so

we are not even two years on. Keep that in mind. I think a number that

are either in increasing or have stopped the decline is something

like 28. I appreciate that you need to be, in terms of sending signals

to Moscow, you need to be a guy who is talking about a glass half full,

not half empty. But you yourself said not long ago, my task right now

is to make 30,000 US troops look and feel like 300,000. That is the best

you can do Vladimir Putin will not be impressed by that. I think he is

impressed so far. Our 30,000 of course is what is stationed here.

Creating opportunities in the way the U.S. Army has responded by

providing more reserve component forces to come over for exercises.

The fact that $3.4 billion has been spent just next year, if the

Congress approves it, to improve training and capability. We are

responding, but I have seen the UK, of course, has maintained that 2%.

They will be the lead nation for the joint task force next year. You say

the UK is one of the most staunch loyal partners. They are cutting,

the Cameron government is committed to cutting the army size from

roughly 100,000 a couple of years ago, down to 80000 x 20 20. When you

see that sort of cut, does it worry you? Every army chief has to balance

three competing requirements. The size of the force, the readiness of

the force, and the modernisation of the force. And so, if you have an

army that is at a certain size in order to maintain that structure you

have to rob from your own modernisation accounts or maybe from

the readiness accounts, which means training, maintenance and so on. So

what matters to me is less the size, and more the quality and capability.

Chief of General staff Nick Carter is one of the most innovative

officers I've ever known, and he is figuring out with whatever structure

he has, how does he make sure it is organised to deliver the effect?

That maybe so, but independent analysts are looking at it and they

don't like what they see. Chatham House has said there is a real of UK

military ability being hollowed out. The former defence secretary in the

US, a guy that you obviously know very well, he has said if the cuts

go through the UK can no longer be regarded as a full spectrum military

partner. There is real concern, isn't that? None of us has enough.

No country has enough land forces to do everything they have been asked

to do. There is a school of thought in your country, and maybe the

loudest express Rip that is Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican

nominee, that in his world Nato is obsolete and it is not really needed

any more, and the US need be investing huge amounts of money and

material in Nato any more. The economic relationship between the US

and the EU is about five times more than it is anywhere else in the

world. So, for no other reason than stability and prosperity in Europe

affects our own stability and security. Our strong list allies

come from Europe, as well as Australia and Canada. We have

learned that we don't have the capacity to do anything by

ourselves, we will always need allies, partners, and Europe is

where they come from. Common values, shared collective security

commitments, I think that has survived for almost 70 years and I

actually feel that we are going to be able to continue that. General

Brad -- Dan Hodges, thank you for joining us.

It is the 20th of June, and since it is a leap year,

that means it is the summer solstice.

It might not feel very summary, but we will have 17 hours

It also coincides with the strawberry moon,

the full moon marking the start of the strawberry season.