Comments by "Stephen Sipe" (@stephensipe5405) on "'Washington Has Not Decided If It Wants Ukraine to Win' - General Ben Hodges" video.

  1. I usually agree with GEN Ben Hodges, but with 100% hindsight, he is totally wrong!!! Ukrainian President Zelinsky stated Ukraine’s Summer Offensive Objective, cut the Russian land bridge. This Commander intent is crystal clear. The Ukrainian Offensive has failed this Objective. Part of the reasons is the opinions of GEN Hodges. Ukrainian Military Command took GEN Hodges statements about Crimea’s importance, combined it with President Zelinsky’s Commander’s Intent, and made Tokmak and Melitopol the Ukrainian Offensive’s Objective 1 and Objective 2. This was wrong and is clear as day in hindsight. During WW2, the best place to land Allied forces was Pais De Calais. The Allies landed just south at Dieppe as a test. The Germans then put their strongest defenses from Dieppe to Calais to thwart an Allied landing. Just south of Dieppe were the Normandy beaches. The landing spot was problematic. Special engineering constructions were required to land trucks, artillery, and tanks. The post landing terrain naturally resisted a quick breakout. This is why the Germans only positioned a nominal resistance force at Normandy. This is exactly why the Allies attacked at Normandy. US forces were able to create a breakout faster than the Germans believed possible and push the battle line toward Paris with a month. This follows the Principle Of War: strike decisively where your enemy is least prepared to defend. In June 2023, Ukrainian Military Command might have been unsure of where the greatest weak spot of Russian defenses would be. Therefore, it was reasonable for Ukrainian Command to prob for weaknesses for 1 to 3 weeks. However, by week 4, 2 areas were clearly the best places to ADD additional resources. The 1ST successful Offensive was Bahkmut South Flank. The north flank had some success, but never controlled the high ground. Bahkmut was never to be liberated. However, threatening it by continued envelopment would have forced Russians to reallocate Units from other areas. The Bahkmut South Flank Exploitation Offensive would have needed 2 Brigades to reach and defend the M03-H32 road junction to Popasna. Another 2-3 Brigades would have been needed to threaten the envelopment of Horlivka. Although using about 1/3RD of Ukraine’s new NATO resources, would any of this Offensive Operations have achieved the Commander’s Intent? Not exactly. By exploiting success in this area in late June and early July, Russian decision makers would have had to pull Units from Kherson and Luhansk 2 months earlier than they actually did. It would have prevented the current Russian Andriivka Offensive. The other successful Offensive was near Staromaiorske. A wide area of mines were cleared here too. So why waste resources pushing to Tokmak? A breakthrough at Staromaiorke open paths to either Berdiansk or Mariupol. Either would have accomplished Oresident Zelinsky’s Commander’s Intent. From either port city, Russian Azov Sea shipping would have been threatened. The Kerch Bridge would have been threatened. Finally, all of Crimea could have been sieged. Ukrainian Military Command has mishandled their big Offensives opportunities. They are wasting 15,000 soldiers playing faux threats along the Dnipro River. Those 15,000 troops could be decisive in Bahkmut South Flank or either Zaporizhzhya Offensive currently stalled. GEN Hodges should have called them out. Hopefully with Abrams M1A1 MBTs and F16s, Ukraine will find a way to win despite its initial Offensive bungling. Ukrainians have a NATO trained NCO Corp. They NATO weapons. Post war, the Ukrainian Officer Corp all need NATO training. Ukrainian Units need NATO organization. The Soviet organization and Soviet schemes of maneuver have to all go. I am a US school trained Armor Officer and school trained MI Officer, Brigade S2.
    3
  2. GEN Hodges could not stop talking. He put his foot in his mouth 2X more with political not military comments. Here is where he went wrong: 1: The US should NEVER have supported the UK and France recolonization after WW2. Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam might have been the US version of the UK’s Tito of Yugoslavia. The UK and France seizing control of the Suez Canal could never be supported by the US. Remember, the UK alone would not have defeated Nazi Germany and France never liberated itself. Neither of these countries talked to the US about their Suez Operation. The US would have said NO! 2: President Trump is not from a Washington Corp of elitists. Germany has run trade surpluses versus the US for 40 years. Germany still charges the US rent for NATO bases even with trade surpluses. Why should President Trump not threaten US NATO participation IF Germany and others fail to spend their treaty obligated 2% on defense? Remember, PM Merkle was getting personal payments from Russian gas company Gasprom. The whole leadership of the Social Democrat Party in Germany is corrupt. The US is no longer in the position to pay every bill. Europe in general and Germany in particular needed President Trump’s foot up their butt! Russia’s war on Ukraine proved President Trump’s point about European weak defense spending thinking. PS: I do not support President Trump in 2024. He had his 2 shots. I support GOV/Ambassador Nikki Haley for President. She supports most of President Trump’s domestic initiatives AND also supports Ukraine to defeat Russia.
    2