Ukraine Could Free Crimea by End of Summer: Ex-U.S. General

Ukrainian troops—if sufficiently supported with expanded Western military aid—can break through Russian lines and reach the occupied Crimean Peninsula by the end of the summer, the former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe Ben Hodges has told Newsweek.

Amid concerns about the slow pace and mounting losses of Ukraine's nascent counteroffensive in the south and east of the country launched early in June, Hodges called on President Joe Biden's administration to underscore its commitment to Ukrainian victory by providing advanced weapons like the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System—colloquially known as the ATACMS—so far denied Kyiv for fear of provoking Russian retaliation.

"My principal caveat still remains that if the United States were to provide what Ukraine needs, then Ukraine could actually still liberate Crimea by the end of this summer," Hodges said in an interview about the progress and prospects of Ukraine's long-awaited push.

Kyiv has reported significant progress in multiple directions since switching to offensive operations earlier this month. The most intense fighting has so far been in eastern Donetsk Oblast around the devastated city of Bakhmut and on the southern Zaporizhzhia front. Other battles are continuing along the 800-mile contact line, with Russian forces reportedly on the offensive in northeastern Luhansk Oblast.

Ukrainian officials say the initial probing attacks involve hard but productive fighting as Kyiv's troops progress into long-prepared Russian defensive lines. Moscow, meanwhile, has repeatedly claimed to have defeated Ukrainian counterattacks saying massive personnel and equipment losses have been inflicted on Ukrainian troops. Russian propagandists—and alleged "useful idiots" in the West—have amplified such reports.

Hodges said it is too early to evaluate any success or failure in the ongoing Ukrainian counteroffensive, though he stressed he remained optimistic about Kyiv's prospects.

"This is not going to be 'Pac Man'; this is going to be, at some point, a breakthrough," Hodges said, noting that most of Ukraine's heavy armor formations have not yet jointed the fight. "I'm not sure when or where, but at some point, you get through these defenses and then the whole momentum and nature of things can change."

"But for them to do that, they need long-range precision weapons," Hodges added, listing ATACMS, Gray Eagle drones, "or other weapons systems that can reach further than they can reach right now."

Hodges added: "That would enable them to make Crimea untenable. And that's the key: make the Black Sea Fleet have to move out of Sevastopol, which would happen if Ukraine was able to put ATACMS inside that harbor. Those ships couldn't just sit there, all the facilities would be destroyed. Same for the airbase in Saki and other facilities."

"If Ukraine has to settle, because of pressure from us, for some sort of outcome where Russia retains Crimea, in two years now you and I will be having the same conversation," Hodges continued.

"The Russians will wait for us to lose interest. They'll be able to launch attacks from Crimea, Ukraine will never be able to rebuild its economy because the Russian navy will be blocking the Azov Sea as well as Odesa and Mykolaiv," he said. "How's Ukraine going to have an economy? It's not good for anybody in Europe."

Waiting for ATACMS

The White House has been hesitant to provide Kyiv with its longest-range munitions, fearing that Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russian territory may provoke a Kremlin escalation, perhaps even a nuclear one.

One of Kyiv's most desired weapons is the ATACMS, a 190-mile range missile fired from multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS). The ATACMS far outranges any MLRS so far provided to Ukraine and would put Russian positions across occupied Ukraine and Crimea within Kyiv's sights.

Biden administration officials have disputed Ukraine's claimed need for the ATACMS, simultaneously warning that providing the munitions could escalate the conflict and leave America's own ATACMS stocks dangerously low.

However, Biden said this month that the prospect of ATACMS for Ukraine is "still in play," and Kyiv's envoy to the U.S. has said that the White House's tone on the matter is changing and that there are no obstacles to the weapon's eventual provision. But as Ukraine's high-stakes offensive begins, Kyiv is still waiting for the green light.

"I think the administration has not been honest," Hodges said of the ATACMS debate. "They didn't want to do it, so they continuously came up with excuses like we don't have enough. That's not true. On ATACMS, we're selling them to Poland. The defense industry is not a charity."

The U.S. and its NATO allies are rushing to expand military production capabilities that atrophied—particularly in Europe—through the post-Cold War era, with recent decades dominated by low-intensity counter-insurgency interventions abroad. This effort includes American expansion of Lockheed Martin's ATACMS production line.

But Hodges said hesitation about sending Ukraine the West's most powerful weapons speaks to a political problem.

"Political will is expressed in the form of money, in orders to build and deliver capability," he explained. "Whenever somebody from the administration says, 'Well, we don't have enough ATACMS.' I say yes, if you don't tell industry to make more.

"Whenever I hear someone from the administration say, 'Well, they don't really need F-16s'; what military professional would say they don't really need a quality aircraft to support an offensive, with all the different things that an F-16 can do, whether it was ground support, or air interdiction, or to counter Russian aircraft?"

"How in the world could anybody with more than a week's worth of military education think they don't need ATACMS? And then the months of, 'Well, the Abrams tank, it burns too much fuel' and this and that. Then why do we have Abrams if it's such a terrible tank?"

Ukraine has steadily won over its foreign partners on the need for the most advanced Western technology, from shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons all the way up to fighter jets. Officials in Kyiv, though, have been open in their frustration at the slow political dance required before each new system can be approved. Hodges, too, said the West is still too hesitant.

"The announcement that it's going to be months before F-16 pilots might be ready—I don't understand this," he said. "I don't understand why the administration can't say we want Ukraine to win, and we're going to help them win because this is good for the United States, it's good for Europe, it's good for all of us, for all the reasons we've talked about."

"If they can't be clear about the objective, then the result is incremental decision making. And I think if it's not dishonest, it's an incoherent description of policy."

Russia's Nuclear Option

Moscow's repeated nuclear threats—which have become less and less veiled as the war in Ukraine drags on and Western support for Kyiv expands—still loom over the wider confrontation with Ukraine and its Western partners.

Observers are particularly worried that a Ukrainian advance into Crimea might trigger an extreme Russian response, given that losing control of the peninsula could prove so destabilizing for Putin's Kremlin kleptocracy.

Biden and other Western leaders have been clear in their priority to prevent any direct NATO-Russia conflict and subsequent nuclear exchange. Hodges is among those who believe President Vladimir Putin is bluffing.

"We continue to deter ourselves," he said. "Russia knows that all they have to do is mention nuclear once a week or so, and it causes us to stop. We're being blackmailed. And I think this is a terrible precedent for the future."

"This constant narrative that we don't want to escalate. The Russians are castrating prisoners. Where is our red line?

"My optimism is tied to the caveat of American leadership and support. The United States needs to be much more direct and clear about what our objective is. And it should be that we want Ukraine to win, not this: 'We're with you for as long as it takes,' which is about as empty a statement as you could possibly create."

National Security Council spokesperson Adam Hodge told Newsweek in a statement: "Over the past year and a half, President Biden has rallied the world to respond to Russia's war in Ukraine.

"We have worked with Congress and our allies and partners to provide a historic and unprecedented amount of security assistance, and Ukraine is effectively using those weapons and equipment to defend its territory and democracy. That aid has evolved as battlefield conditions have changed.

"We will continue to help Ukraine meet its immediate battlefield needs and strengthen its long-term defenses so that they are able to defend against and deter future attacks."

Update 6/21/23, 10:15 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from the National Security Council.