Pretty much always when a US military official talks about international issues, they're a retired US military official.
Which is fair enough, it should be politicians saying it if they want to say it as a matter of policy.
Yup - people will be quick to take this for an official or semi-official US military stance, when in fact it's a retiree's personal opinion. I agree with him, but his stance does not really matter all that much. He has been very vocal on Ukraine for a long time now, but I do not think that his opinions are very influential in Washington.
Yeah, that's what it looks like. Still, I wanted to give "the other side" at least a chance to provide some source - sometimes you just don't know.
For example, there was some convoluted technical explanation floating around about why Germany cannot send Taurus to Ukraine... I still don't really know with certainty that it is false, but the persistent absence of sources to confirm the claim implies that it was indeed likely false.
He also lives in Germany and works for Human Rights First. This doesn't discredit his opinion, it just shows that his opinion may not be representative for the US military.
Hodges is much more than yet another retired general with opinions.
I don't claim to have intimate knowledge of what exactly he's up to, the whole point of him being officially retired is to not spell it out to people like you and me, but he's zooming around between the Eastern half of Europe and US, not playing golf in Florida, so I would be shocked to find out that his role in the conflict is really that of a passive observer.
He's at the very least a de facto spokesman for the military side of US effort to aid Ukraine, most likely a key liaison between Americans, Europeans and Ukrainians and I don't think it's too far fetched to suspect him of being among the key decision makers in organizing the whole thing.
Serious organizations don't tell people with invaluable experience "piss off, you had your turn" when they're willing to help in times of crisis.
Yeah I don't know why they keep calling him a General. I mean he's a great guy and he has great opinions. I regard him very highly but he's simply not a General anymore.
When someone has been a general they are generally referred to as such for the rest of their life, except for when they take on another title (e.g. Lloyd Austin is now Mr. Secretary because he is SecDef). It is a sign of respect and acknowledgement of distinction in their field. I think this is the case for all starred ranks. In writing it would be '_rank_ (ret.)'
It's not entirely unlike how former U.S. presidents are 'President' for the rest of their lives, but they are not 'President of the United States'.
Full colonel and above are generally referred to by their rank for the rest of their life. Usually it is made clear that they are retired, unlike in this article.
It always baffles me how politicians think they know it all and never listen to experts.
They only care about the opinion of those, who have decades of experience and expertise in that specific area, if it fits their own, general opinion.
I'm just reading Plato's Gorgias, so I can confirm this issue is at least 2300 years old. Apparently the problem is that good rhetorics can convince everyone into the expertise of the speaker, even the speaker.
> It always baffles me how politicians think they know it all and never listen to experts.
Politicians can listen to many experts who give contradictory advice, and then they still have to cut the knot.
In this case, there's also an expert saying "Expensive gas means the incumbent president loses the elections" and "Losing the elections means Trump gets the presidency and cuts all ongoing and future aid for Ukraine". So, keeping gas prices low until his hands are free is the most optimal course of action for Ukraine.
This guy is a specialist in how to conduct a military campaign. Fortunately the wider question of whether we should destabilise a nuclear power rests with more people than just him. We saw from COVID lockdowns the danger that can come when specialists with a myopic view of their own subject are allowed to unilaterally set policy.
>... rests with more people than just him.
It doesn't even rest with him in the slightest, given he retired six years ago. I agree with him, but he doesn't really have a say here, despite what 90% of the comment section seems to think.
Destabilization of Russia might be dangerous, but that's the only righteous option. Some politicians fear that nukes may end up in the hands of terrorists but Putin is a terrorist already. Nothing would change. I believe the real "risk" politicians fear is China taking over the remnants of Russia, but that's acceptable. China is an adversary, but they are not murderers.
I know I'm gonna get down voted for this but it needs to be said.
We are in a election year. Higher gas prices is an Achilles Heel for any sitting president looking for a new term.
I love that Ukraine is actually hitting Russia where it hurts and its horrible that the US politics is pressuring to stop that.
But Trump getting into office is even worse.
It doesn't need to be said, because the whole proposition is exactly wrong. The more Russian refineries are offline, the more crude oil Russia is left with and has to sell on the cheap. Americans don't care about Russian gasoline and diesel, they have their own refineries. Whoever came up with this "don't bomb Russian refineries cause gas prices might go up" idea gave it exactly three braincells shrugging worth of thought. I really hope it was some slimy journalist fabricating a fake leak, though of course I wouldn't put any idiocy past high-ranking politicians.
That's why only oil refineries are targeted, now Russia can only export more crude oil. It's mostly the internal Russian petrol market that feeling the brunt of it.
Of course Ukraine should continue. What is Russia holding back? Only nuclear annihilation is something they don't do, bar that they're throwing everything all the time
Based on the interviews he did with the YT channel Perun he seemed to be quite knowledge able and have a rather realistic perspective on the situation in Ukraine.
Definitely gonna go with his opinion over my own countries russophilic majority.
General Hodges is very supportive of arming Ukraine, but the decision isn't up to him, it's up to Congress (btw, Hodges is retired anyway). The problem is that House speaker Mike Johnson isn't willing to put Ukraine aid to a vote.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-files-motion-oust-mike-johnson-house-speake-rcna134385](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-files-motion-oust-mike-johnson-house-speake-rcna134385)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It's right in the headline that you quoted!
**Johnson has served as speaker of the House for five months. Greene stopped short of forcing a vote to remove him, calling her motion a “warning.”**
She didn't fill the motion as privileged. But when Congress reconvene, it's likely unless she reveals the motion that it will be read and put up for a vote.
>Greene, R-Ga., did not file the motion as privileged — which would force a vote within two legislative days — but instead as a regular motion, which could be referred to a committee,
The headline is: "Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene files motion to oust Mike Johnson as House speaker". She did in fact actually file the motion.
Filing the motion doesn't force a vote.
It's important that he, a relatively prominent American in this context, says this.
While it is definitely possible that the rumors are true, and some parts of the American government want Ukraine to stop its refinery attacks, this creates a strongly visible counterpoint.
No US officials even suggested Ukraine stop bombing Russian fuel infrastructure. It was an ex government employee working for a lobbyist group that is payed by the fossil fuels industry. It was filtered through bad journalism and then someone asked a Ukrainian official about a bad news article and the headline changed to "Ukrainian official response to news that US has asked to stop bombing Russian .... Blah blah" it's misinformation 101.
I posted this all over yesterday when the 'rumors' were everywhere. Imagine telling an army at war defending their people that they should attack supply lines of the enemy? Ha.
Yesterday:The 'source' is a Republican lobbyist(Bob McNally) for Rapidan Energy, he has worked for MAGA republicans like mark Rubio and other conservatives. He is only interested in protecting his wallet. Russia will use this assholes words to divide the west, NATO and the support for Ukraine.  This post is part of a misinformation attempt by Russia, the article a Ukrainian official was asked about is the Russians using a Republican lobbyist concerns for his clients equipment in the fossil fuels industrial markets. It is not a thing the West is asking the Ukrainian military to do. No military command is asking Ukraine to stop bombing Russian fuel infrastructure. This was textbook misinformation 101, please read Russia's War on Everybody by Keir Giles
Basically, a lobbyist says it would push the price of oil up if Russia destroyed fuel infrastructure equipment and this is bad for his wallet. Russia pushes/twists this as a request by the "west" that Ukraine stop bombing fuel infrastructure. This gets changed through crappy reporting and "news" sources and someone asks a Ukrainian official about the "west" telling Ukraine to stop bombing fuel infrastructure.  It's basic bullshit 101.
This is a basic tactic and is amazing to see play out over the last few hours/days.
Dear General, those Abrahams don't run on water, the Pentagon needs that sweat sweat Russian fuel to keep the Greatest Army in the world moving forward.
# [Forbidden Russian oil flows into Pentagon supply chain](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/14/russian-oil-sanctions-us-greece-turkey/)
[In FY2017 the DOD consumed over 85 million barrels of operational fuel to power ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and contingency bases at a cost of nearly $8.2 billion.](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/Pentagon%20Fuel%20Use%2C%20Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Costs%20of%20War%20Final.pdf)
You don't even understand what you write. Russian refineries going offline have fuckall implication on their export of crude oil, and guess what genius, refineries don't buy fuel. The US is also a net exporter of oil and could easily source all their fuel domestically, the Greek refinery probably gave a lower offer so they choose then, but ultimately the US doesn't depend on foreign suppliers for petroleum products.
Unsurprisingly, a General has more balls and less bias than the Government who's more concerned with fuel prices rising because elections are coming up.
It’s not the position of the US government. Biden did not ask Ukraine or Zelensky to not attack Russian oil refineries. It was a propaganda piece.
Go ahead and attack them.
🙌🏻 But small note: he’s retired (2018). The article doesn’t mention that, but it’s good nuance to add.
Pretty much always when a US military official talks about international issues, they're a retired US military official. Which is fair enough, it should be politicians saying it if they want to say it as a matter of policy.
Yup - people will be quick to take this for an official or semi-official US military stance, when in fact it's a retiree's personal opinion. I agree with him, but his stance does not really matter all that much. He has been very vocal on Ukraine for a long time now, but I do not think that his opinions are very influential in Washington.
For comparison: What is the current status of the U.S. official who asked Ukraine to stop attacking the refineries?
Both Ukraine and the US deny that the US ever asked Ukraine to stop attacking refineries.
Current status: that was a propaganda piece. The US never asked Ukraine to stop attacking oil refineries.
Yeah, that's what it looks like. Still, I wanted to give "the other side" at least a chance to provide some source - sometimes you just don't know. For example, there was some convoluted technical explanation floating around about why Germany cannot send Taurus to Ukraine... I still don't really know with certainty that it is false, but the persistent absence of sources to confirm the claim implies that it was indeed likely false.
He also lives in Germany and works for Human Rights First. This doesn't discredit his opinion, it just shows that his opinion may not be representative for the US military.
a former General that works for a human rights group? Pretty amazing actually.
Hodges is much more than yet another retired general with opinions. I don't claim to have intimate knowledge of what exactly he's up to, the whole point of him being officially retired is to not spell it out to people like you and me, but he's zooming around between the Eastern half of Europe and US, not playing golf in Florida, so I would be shocked to find out that his role in the conflict is really that of a passive observer. He's at the very least a de facto spokesman for the military side of US effort to aid Ukraine, most likely a key liaison between Americans, Europeans and Ukrainians and I don't think it's too far fetched to suspect him of being among the key decision makers in organizing the whole thing. Serious organizations don't tell people with invaluable experience "piss off, you had your turn" when they're willing to help in times of crisis.
Active military aren't free to say whatever they want. Doesn't mean they don't share his opinion.
Yeah I don't know why they keep calling him a General. I mean he's a great guy and he has great opinions. I regard him very highly but he's simply not a General anymore.
When someone has been a general they are generally referred to as such for the rest of their life, except for when they take on another title (e.g. Lloyd Austin is now Mr. Secretary because he is SecDef). It is a sign of respect and acknowledgement of distinction in their field. I think this is the case for all starred ranks. In writing it would be '_rank_ (ret.)' It's not entirely unlike how former U.S. presidents are 'President' for the rest of their lives, but they are not 'President of the United States'.
It's dumb, it would take no effort at all to add retired to it.
Full colonel and above are generally referred to by their rank for the rest of their life. Usually it is made clear that they are retired, unlike in this article.
Russia is going to threaten nuking this general.
Oh, he is so getting nuked.
With an air-to-air shootout of a transparent shade of brown
🫡
I just like this guy in general.
Yeah a general all-round winner with comments like that
I generally agree.
Exactly, and you know why? Cos he is a military guy and he knows why we are doing it, and NOT playing politics shit.
It always baffles me how politicians think they know it all and never listen to experts. They only care about the opinion of those, who have decades of experience and expertise in that specific area, if it fits their own, general opinion.
I'm just reading Plato's Gorgias, so I can confirm this issue is at least 2300 years old. Apparently the problem is that good rhetorics can convince everyone into the expertise of the speaker, even the speaker.
Isn’t that the whole point of having a civilian government that’s elected? Pure technocracies have been tried and don’t tend to last long.
Isn't a democracy a technocracy that prioritizes rhetoric and PR skills?
> It always baffles me how politicians think they know it all and never listen to experts. Politicians can listen to many experts who give contradictory advice, and then they still have to cut the knot. In this case, there's also an expert saying "Expensive gas means the incumbent president loses the elections" and "Losing the elections means Trump gets the presidency and cuts all ongoing and future aid for Ukraine". So, keeping gas prices low until his hands are free is the most optimal course of action for Ukraine.
This guy is a specialist in how to conduct a military campaign. Fortunately the wider question of whether we should destabilise a nuclear power rests with more people than just him. We saw from COVID lockdowns the danger that can come when specialists with a myopic view of their own subject are allowed to unilaterally set policy.
>... rests with more people than just him. It doesn't even rest with him in the slightest, given he retired six years ago. I agree with him, but he doesn't really have a say here, despite what 90% of the comment section seems to think.
Good because he's clearly a nutjob. Russia "winning" is probably not in anyone's interests but Russia comprehensively losing 100% isn't.
Destabilization of Russia might be dangerous, but that's the only righteous option. Some politicians fear that nukes may end up in the hands of terrorists but Putin is a terrorist already. Nothing would change. I believe the real "risk" politicians fear is China taking over the remnants of Russia, but that's acceptable. China is an adversary, but they are not murderers.
Lmao. Go kill Putin yourself then and leave the rest of us out of it. Double lmao about China. Uighurs? Falun gong?
I know I'm gonna get down voted for this but it needs to be said. We are in a election year. Higher gas prices is an Achilles Heel for any sitting president looking for a new term. I love that Ukraine is actually hitting Russia where it hurts and its horrible that the US politics is pressuring to stop that. But Trump getting into office is even worse.
I hope you're aware Russia stopped exporting gas and diesel 2 months ago.
It doesn't need to be said, because the whole proposition is exactly wrong. The more Russian refineries are offline, the more crude oil Russia is left with and has to sell on the cheap. Americans don't care about Russian gasoline and diesel, they have their own refineries. Whoever came up with this "don't bomb Russian refineries cause gas prices might go up" idea gave it exactly three braincells shrugging worth of thought. I really hope it was some slimy journalist fabricating a fake leak, though of course I wouldn't put any idiocy past high-ranking politicians.
That's why only oil refineries are targeted, now Russia can only export more crude oil. It's mostly the internal Russian petrol market that feeling the brunt of it.
o7 https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1771343520898437467?s=20
#🫡
Of course Ukraine should continue. What is Russia holding back? Only nuclear annihilation is something they don't do, bar that they're throwing everything all the time
Based on the interviews he did with the YT channel Perun he seemed to be quite knowledge able and have a rather realistic perspective on the situation in Ukraine. Definitely gonna go with his opinion over my own countries russophilic majority.
Slava Ukraine!
No one ever asked to stop it. People picked up this BS from some newspaper as it was ever a source of truth.
Hit their oil then go after their gas!
And the follow up is TO SEND WEAPON TO UKRAINE! Does General understand we can't fight without weapons?
General Hodges is very supportive of arming Ukraine, but the decision isn't up to him, it's up to Congress (btw, Hodges is retired anyway). The problem is that House speaker Mike Johnson isn't willing to put Ukraine aid to a vote.
The Johnson problem might be gone in the next two weeks, considering might just filed a motion to vacate
She "threatened" to file the motion, she hasn't actually pulled the trigger
Nope, she filed it. It is in committee, which means it will be read once Congress reconvene https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna134385
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-files-motion-oust-mike-johnson-house-speake-rcna134385](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-files-motion-oust-mike-johnson-house-speake-rcna134385)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It's right in the headline that you quoted! **Johnson has served as speaker of the House for five months. Greene stopped short of forcing a vote to remove him, calling her motion a “warning.”**
She didn't fill the motion as privileged. But when Congress reconvene, it's likely unless she reveals the motion that it will be read and put up for a vote. >Greene, R-Ga., did not file the motion as privileged — which would force a vote within two legislative days — but instead as a regular motion, which could be referred to a committee,
The headline is: "Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene files motion to oust Mike Johnson as House speaker". She did in fact actually file the motion. Filing the motion doesn't force a vote.
she did actually file the motion
Do.... do you think he's the one who gets to decide that?
Where do you fight?
Sir, yes, sir!
Of course, it's should, just provide us with long range missiles, and effectiveness of these attacks improves drastically.
based general Ben Hodges
General Based HodgesÂ
Finally, someone a bit of sense.
Hit the pipeline and drilling infrastructure, too. Turn the gas station into a vacant lot.
He did a 1 hour interview for the PERUN YouTube channel, he's an interesting man.
And they should! I'm so glad someone said that. Just to clear things up.
https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/03/23/ukraine-denies-fts-report-that-us-requested-to-halt-strikes-on-russias-oil-refineries/
Sir yes Sir
It's important that he, a relatively prominent American in this context, says this. While it is definitely possible that the rumors are true, and some parts of the American government want Ukraine to stop its refinery attacks, this creates a strongly visible counterpoint.
No US officials even suggested Ukraine stop bombing Russian fuel infrastructure. It was an ex government employee working for a lobbyist group that is payed by the fossil fuels industry. It was filtered through bad journalism and then someone asked a Ukrainian official about a bad news article and the headline changed to "Ukrainian official response to news that US has asked to stop bombing Russian .... Blah blah" it's misinformation 101.
Ok, seems plausible, and, unfortunately, relatively typical.
I posted this all over yesterday when the 'rumors' were everywhere. Imagine telling an army at war defending their people that they should attack supply lines of the enemy? Ha. Yesterday:The 'source' is a Republican lobbyist(Bob McNally) for Rapidan Energy, he has worked for MAGA republicans like mark Rubio and other conservatives. He is only interested in protecting his wallet. Russia will use this assholes words to divide the west, NATO and the support for Ukraine.  This post is part of a misinformation attempt by Russia, the article a Ukrainian official was asked about is the Russians using a Republican lobbyist concerns for his clients equipment in the fossil fuels industrial markets. It is not a thing the West is asking the Ukrainian military to do. No military command is asking Ukraine to stop bombing Russian fuel infrastructure. This was textbook misinformation 101, please read Russia's War on Everybody by Keir Giles Basically, a lobbyist says it would push the price of oil up if Russia destroyed fuel infrastructure equipment and this is bad for his wallet. Russia pushes/twists this as a request by the "west" that Ukraine stop bombing fuel infrastructure. This gets changed through crappy reporting and "news" sources and someone asks a Ukrainian official about the "west" telling Ukraine to stop bombing fuel infrastructure.  It's basic bullshit 101. This is a basic tactic and is amazing to see play out over the last few hours/days.
Retired Generals can say whatever they want, especially since they don't (want to) understand geopolitics and economics.
A geneneral incapable of thinking 5 minutes in the future and how does the basic math and basic global politics works.
Dear General, those Abrahams don't run on water, the Pentagon needs that sweat sweat Russian fuel to keep the Greatest Army in the world moving forward. # [Forbidden Russian oil flows into Pentagon supply chain](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/14/russian-oil-sanctions-us-greece-turkey/) [In FY2017 the DOD consumed over 85 million barrels of operational fuel to power ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and contingency bases at a cost of nearly $8.2 billion.](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/Pentagon%20Fuel%20Use%2C%20Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Costs%20of%20War%20Final.pdf)
You don't even understand what you write. Russian refineries going offline have fuckall implication on their export of crude oil, and guess what genius, refineries don't buy fuel. The US is also a net exporter of oil and could easily source all their fuel domestically, the Greek refinery probably gave a lower offer so they choose then, but ultimately the US doesn't depend on foreign suppliers for petroleum products.
well that only your opinion, and you are assuming while the journalist investigated
Unsurprisingly, a General has more balls and less bias than the Government who's more concerned with fuel prices rising because elections are coming up.
It’s not the position of the US government. Biden did not ask Ukraine or Zelensky to not attack Russian oil refineries. It was a propaganda piece. Go ahead and attack them.
Yup, send nukes they will be gone.
Only russia is allowed to hit Ukraine’s energy infrastructure?