Most NATO armies likely 'could not meet Ukrainian standards' in combat effectiveness, retired US Army general says
A retired US Army general said it's most of NATO, not Ukraine, that has to learn from the other about combat.
Ret. Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges was asked in a video interview with the Kyiv Post, published on Tuesday, about what Ukraine's NATO allies could do to help Kyiv's military reach Western standards.
But Hodges flipped the question on its head.
"Well, actually, it's not about meeting Western standards. Most NATO armies could not meet Ukrainian standards, in terms of actual combat effectiveness," said Hodges, who was the US Army's commanding general in Europe from 2014 to 2017.
Hodges highlighted what he said was a gap in NATO capabilities, such as poor cohesion among fighting units from different member states.
"We still cannot communicate securely with British or German units," Hodges said. "So I think the Ukrainians kind of look down their noses at us a little bit, you know, when they hear us go: 'We're going to come help train you.'"
"We should be begging them to help us learn how to do what they're doing," he continued.
NATO said in May that it has trained roughly 192,000 Ukrainian personnel so far. Some were sent to NATO sites to learn how to use Western equipment. At least a dozen brigades were also directly instructed outside Ukraine on tactics and maneuvers by European and American military trainers.
Some units have criticized parts of that training, saying there were gaps between what they were taught and the battlefield's realities. The dominant use of cheap hobby drones as deadly weapons, for example, is a new development that's changed the face of war.
In his interview, Hodges also cited Kyiv's naval operations in the Black Sea as an example of what NATO forces could learn.
"They have shown the entire world that you can defeat a conventional navy, at least in an enclosed body of water like the Black Sea, without having to have capital ships of your own. Lots for us to learn there," he said.
"That may not apply in the Atlantic Ocean, but certainly in the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, these kinds of things. I hope we are paying attention," Hodges added.
Romania and Bulgaria, he said, could benefit from building up fleets of uncrewed vessels the way Ukraine created and used its own to counter Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
Hodges said he was also impressed by Ukraine's integrated air and missile defense to give it a clear picture of all the incoming aerial threats it's facing at any given time, such as fighter jets, missiles, or drones.
"The Ukrainians have developed that for themselves. I would want to be confident that we have a shared picture between them, Poland, Baltic countries, Germany, the US, Romania, for example, Turkey," he said.
He said the right system would help prevent NATO states from using the wrong weapons to take down targets.
"You're not going to waste Patriots on drones," Hodges said.
In February, NATO inaugurated a department in Poland called the NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training, and Education Center. The alliance said the center would focus on gleaning lessons from the war in Ukraine to "better position NATO's deterrence."
Meanwhile, Hodges said that Ukraine does have to learn how to reshape its military as an institution. Much of the country's forces were built on a Soviet organizational culture that Ukrainian troops frequently bemoan as a source of poor decision-making and unnecessary bureaucracy.
"That means that the government has got to earn the confidence of the people," Hodges said. "That their sons or daughters will not get sent off to the war until they are properly trained, properly equipped, and put into a well-trained, ready unit."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wall Street reports 65% chance that U.S. will intervene in Iran—Goldman Sachs says OPEC will be key buffer in oil volatility
Rising tensions between the U.S., Iran, and Israel have fueled speculation about possible U.S. military intervention, with Wall Street reporting a 65% chance of action against Iran by July, leading to increased oil price volatility and shipping costs, especially around the critical Strait of Hormuz. However, OPEC+'s substantial spare capacity is seen as a key buffer against major supply disruptions, while the surge in oil prices has also strengthened the U.S. dollar amid global uncertainty. Questions are continuing to mount about how far tensions in the Middle East will spiral, with President Trump refusing to rule out U.S. intervention between Israel and Iran. Indeed, the rhetoric out of the White House is stoking theories that America may take military action in the Middle East, with Goldman Sachs now placing the probability as more likely than not. Overnight White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested the Oval Office will take a view in the coming fortnight, relaying to reporters a direct message from the president: 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' President Trump has kept spectators largely in the dark about his intentions, saying Wednesday 'I may do it … I may not. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' In a note Wednesday—published by Goldman ahead of Leavitt's announcement yesterday—commodities researchers Daan Struyven, Ephraim Sutherland and Yulia Zhestkova Grigsby wrote there is a 65% of U.S. military action against Iran by July, citing a Polymarket survey. That being said, the analysts left the chances of a U.S.-Iran deal this year at 50%. As a result, the trio write 'the term structure of implied volatility, and call skew suggest that oil markets believe that much higher prices are likely in the next few months, but see limited changes to the long term outlook.' The note seen by Fortune adds: 'Our global indices of oil shipping rates have increased over the past week as increased risks have lifted rates for Middle Eastern routes.' Per Goldman's research, the rate in U.S. dollars per barrel increased in the recent-term from $4.5 to $5.5 for clean stock and approximately $2.8 to $3.1 for dirty. The projected volatility in Middle Eastern shipping costs comes down to the Strait of Hormuz, located on the southern border of Iran. The oil flow through the strait accounts for about 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption, writes the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Iran has—in the past—threatened to close the strait in a bid to curb Western intervention into its affairs, with reports already emerging about shipping companies avoiding the waters. This, in turn, has ramifications for costs given the lag in delivery times and the use of less efficient routes. Trump's threatened intervention into Iran has gone as far as saying he knows where the nation's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is hiding. Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday: 'He is an easy target, but is safe there. We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' However the conflict plays out, strategists at Macquarie expect oil prices to continue to shift over the coming weeks, writing in a note earlier this week seen by Fortune: 'We expect oil prices to remain volatile with an upward trend for the next few weeks as both Iran and Israel maintain their military intensity. 'Regardless of military or diplomatic progress, we expect Brent to rally towards the low $80 level before hitting a plateau as the perceived risk of actual oil supply disruption becomes largely discounted.' Goldman also said OPEC+ could provide a much-needed buffer amid the volatility, undoing some of the cuts it has announced previously. Reports have already surfaced that OPEC+ is considering a large production increase, with members considering potentially increasing output of 411,000 barrels a day (bpd) in July. 'While the exact magnitude is uncertain, we believe that above-average global spare capacity (worth around 4-5% of global demand) is the key buffer to Iran-only disruptions via larger-than-otherwise unwinds of OPEC+ production cuts,' added the Goldman analysts. Already the volatility has lit a fire under the U.S. dollar, which has been caught in a tug-of-war between better-than-expected inflation expectations and a flee to safety amid rising geopolitical tensions. As Antonio Ruggiero, senior FX and macro strategist at Convera wrote in a note to Fortune yesterday: 'Behind the façade of safe-haven appeal lies the true driver of the dollar's rebound: rising oil prices, now hovering near a five-month high. 'Since most global oil trades are settled in U.S. dollars, surging crude demand tends to drive additional demand for USD. This rebound in sentiment is also reflected in the options market, where—for the first time since April—traders have backed off from bearish dollar positions.' This story was originally featured on
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Danger Of Trump's Imminent Israeli-Iran War Involvement
As Israeli fighter jets bomb suspected Iranian military facilities and covert assassination campaigns target Iranian military leaders and scientists, the United States finds itself being pulled deeper into a conflict it outwardly aims to avoid. While Washington claims it is not at war with Iran, the facts on the ground indicate that there is U.S. involvement in Iran. American weapons, intelligence systems, and diplomatic cover are directly supporting Israeli military actions—turning what started as an Israeli campaign into a war with clear American involvement. Even more concerning, President Trump has indicated he will decide whether to directly enter the war within two weeks. Meanwhile, a significant amount of American naval support is heading towards the conflict zone. Although Israeli officials present these attacks as defensive responses to an imminent nuclear threat, the parallel to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq is hard to ignore. Back then, as now, secretive intelligence and speculation about weapons of mass destruction form the basis of preemptive war. Similarly, calls for restraint are overshadowed by a chorus of urgency, veiled threats, and regional power struggles. But unlike Iraq, this time the U.S. is not just involved in initiating the war; it is backing a conflict that could engulf the region and potentially entangle America as well. Furthermore, President Trump is even contemplating an attack on the leader of Iran. Although not formalized in a binding treaty, there is a widely respected informal norm urging world leaders to avoid assassinating one another. Ultimately, respect for state sovereignty is at stake. And that principle is increasingly being breached in major global conflicts today. While Israel justifies its strikes on Iran by claiming that Tehran is getting closer to developing nuclear weapons, a narrative echoed in Washington and widely repeated in the Western press, official assessments present a more complicated picture. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), at the start of this conflict Iran was not actively working on a nuclear bomb, and the IAEA had not found conclusive proof of a renewed weapons program. Although Iran's 'breakout time'—the period needed to produce enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb—has significantly decreased, this does not mean Iran is actually creating and deploying a nuclear weapon. That process requires not only fissile material but also sophisticated warhead design, dependable delivery systems, and rigorous testing—all of which remain unconfirmed in Iran's case. It seems, therefore, that the idea Iran is on the verge of going nuclear is not based on verified intelligence but on political urgency and worst-case assumptions. These fears, whether real or exaggerated, are fueling a military response that could easily escalate into a full-scale regional war and beyond. The irony of this story is hard to overlook. Israel is widely recognised to possess a strong and undeclared nuclear arsenal, estimated at 80 to 90 warheads, with fissile material for several hundred more. These figures come from reputable sources including the Nuclear Threat Initiative and SIPRI. Yet Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is not subject to IAEA inspections, and faces no international sanctions for its nuclear stance. Meanwhile, Iran—while a signatory to the NPT—is persistently scrutinised for enrichment activities still legally permitted under international law, while Israel's nuclear opacity enjoys the full protection of its American ally. Israel's recent campaigns in Gaza have resulted in staggering human costs. The United Nations estimates that more than 35,000 civilians were killed during the latest offensive, with entire neighbourhoods, hospitals, and infrastructure obliterated. Human Rights Watch has documented and daily television news reports on multiple channels from Gaza repeatedly confirm Israeli strikes on non-military targets, raising serious concerns about proportionality and the laws of armed conflict. Now, similar Israeli tactics are being applied elsewhere across borders. In Syria, Lebanon, and increasingly within Iran itself, Israeli strikes are targeting scientific centres, residential areas, and transport hubs. Civilians have been killed in cities like Beirut, Isfahan, and Tehran. What once seemed like a regional containment policy now shows the traits of a broader, irreverent deterrence doctrine—enabled by unconditional U.S. support. To claim that the U.S. is merely a passive observer is both inaccurate and misleading. American-provided munitions, joint military efforts, satellite and signals intelligence, and diplomatic support at the United Nations have all played a vital role in Israel's operational capabilities. This backing occurs despite the lack of clear congressional approval or public debate to clearly define American interests in the conflict. It also happens without any attempt to establish a long-term strategic goal. There is no diplomatic plan. No red lines for escalation have been set. And there is no accountability for what appears to be Israeli overreach. President Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement in 2018—originally intended to delay Iran's weapons capability—marked a turning point. The subsequent 'maximum pressure' campaign failed to restrict Iran and instead caused increased enrichment, regional instability, and now the risk of outright war. It is a failure of both diplomacy and deterrence, yet the same approach is being followed again. Iran has not attacked the United States. Although it funds groups hostile to U.S. allies, this has been its stance for decades and does not justify war under international law or the U.S. Constitution. No resolution from the United Nations authorizes force against Iran. No direct threat has been demonstrated to justify preemptive self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. If the aim is to prevent a nuclear Iran, diplomacy—despite being challenging—is the only feasible option. Bombing Iranian facilities is likely to speed up Tehran's nuclear pursuits rather than stop them. It could also boost support for the most hardline factions of the Iranian regime domestically and might provoke asymmetric retaliation against U.S. interests throughout the Middle East. While the United States escalates its military involvement in the Middle East, it has started to withdraw from another conflict it is both legally and morally obliged to address. In 1994, through the Budapest Memorandum, the United States assured Ukraine's sovereignty in return for Kyiv relinquishing the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal. That commitment was already strained by Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and the initial onset of Russia's hostilities towards Ukraine. Trump did nothing to address this escalating war during his first term from 2017 to 2021. While Trump supporters argue that, unlike Obama, Trump supplied Ukraine with Javelin missiles, the key word is 'supplied.' In reality, he sold them to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the war became existential in 2022 when Moscow launched a full-scale invasion. Now, in 2025, Trump's support for Ukraine is waning. Aid packages are delayed or reduced. Political rhetoric shifts towards 'peace through disengagement.' Ukraine, it appears, has become a bygone cause. In short, the US is willing to bankroll another war against a hypothetical nuclear Iran but hesitant to fully honour a promise to defend a non-nuclear Ukraine, especially since Ukraine chose disarmament. The message to other nations is clear: nuclear restraint leads to American abandonment. The United States does not need to engage in conflict with Iran. Nor should it endorse a deterrence model that depends on regional devastation and global hypocrisy. If Washington aims to preserve its credibility as a world leader, it must uphold world peace everywhere—not selectively, as with U.S. actions in Iran. This requires a renewed commitment to diplomacy with adversaries, enforcing norms among allies, and prioritizing conflicts where its reputation—and honour—are already at stake. Ukraine qualifies as such a conflict. Iran does not.
Miami Herald
21 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Brazil joins Latin America's dictatorships in siding with Iran over Israel
No one's shocked to see the dictatorships of Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua lining up behind Iran's repressive theocracy in its standoff with Israel. But Brazil — South America's giant — striking a similar note is sparking outrage in Western diplomatic circles. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's government issued a statement on June 13, hours after the conflict started, expressing its 'firm condemnation' of Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. But the Brazilian foreign ministry statement didn't condemn Iran's missile attacks on Israel, its repeated vows to 'eliminate' Israel, or its history of supporting terrorist groups. Iran has financially supported Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Gaza-based Hamas organization, which invaded Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing more than 1,200 civilians and taking 251 others hostage. Brazil's position on the Israel-Iran conflict stands in stark contrast with that of all major Western democracies. The leaders of the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and Japan signed a joint pro-Israel statement at the G-7 summit in Alberta, Canada, on June 16. In it, they said that 'Israel has a right to defend itself' and that 'Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror.' The G-7 statement added that 'we have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.' Shortly before Israel's attack, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had warned that Iran has been secretly enriching uranium to 60% purity — just short of the 90% required for nuclear weapons. If you are not following Iran's political history closely, you may be asking yourself: Why doesn't Iran have the right to produce nuclear weapons as India, Pakistan and several other countries have done? The answer is very simple: because Iran is publicly vowing to annihilate another sovereign country — Israel — that has been recognized by the United Nations since 1948. Few countries would stand idly by if a nearby nation vowed to erase it from the face of the earth and was close to acquiring a nuclear bomb. Over the years, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly said that Israel must be 'wiped off the map.' In a 2020 speech, he called Israel a 'cancerous tumor' that 'will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed,' according to the Associated Press. It's not just Iran's rhetoric that's frightening, but its actions. In addition to sponsoring terrorist attacks by its proxies against Israel, Iran was behind the Hezbollah 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which left 85 people dead, according to Argentina's government. Elliott Abrams, who served as U.S. special representative for Iran and Venezuela in the first Trump administration, told me that 'it is shocking' to see a major democracy like Brazil lending its diplomatic support to Iran. 'It suggests that Brazilian officials have not read the IAEA report about Iran's violations of international agreements and its efforts to move toward a nuclear weapon,' he said. Abrams said this may be 'an anachronistic effort by Lula to bring back memories of the non-aligned movement. But this is 2025, not 1975'. He added, 'Brazil will not gain anything in the Arab world with this statement. It will make the Ayatollah happy, but what good does that do to Brazil?' Lula, who currently chairs the BRICS group of emerging powers led by Russia, China, India, South Africa and Iran, may be trying to raise his international profile as he prepares to host the bloc's summit in Rio de Janeiro from July 6-7. But many Latin American officials and academics say the Brazilian president may be shooting himself in the foot. Brazil, and Latin America in general, are minor players in world affairs, and Lula's posturing may do his country more harm than good, they say. Andres Velasco, dean of the London School of Economics' School of Public Policy and a former finance minister of Chile, told me that the Brazilian president's flirtations with China, Russia, Iran and the BRICS 'are very bad policy' amid President Trump's global tariff wars. 'I was truly embarrassed to see President Lula recently applauding the parade of missiles on their way to killing Ukrainians at Moscow's Red Square,' Velasco said. Referring to Trump's possible reaction, Velasco added that 'these kinds of things put Latin America in the spotlight at a time when things are so heated that they invite (U.S.) retaliations. The best thing a country like Brazil could do would be to draw as little attention as possible.' Indeed, the support for Iran from Lula and much of Latin America's old-guard left is preposterous. Iran is not only a Jurassic dictatorship that puts women in jail for not covering their heads with a hijab in public and executes people for being gay. It is also a major a global sponsor of terrorism. If Iran is allowed to have a nuclear bomb, it will become much more of a global threat than it already is. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:
