November 28, 2023
Francis Farrell, Reporter
Assault troops of the Skala Battalion return to base after a mission in the outskirts of Bakhmut, Donetsk Oblast, on Dec. 29, 2022. (Francis Farrell/The Kyiv Independent)
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.
This November has been a particularly grim one here in Ukraine.
Over the past month, two media sensations in big Western magazines served as a sober wake-up call about the state of the war.
First, Simon Shuster’s profile in TIME magazine on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “lonely fight” 20 months into the war, Zelensky’s cool reception in Washington as U.S. support for Ukraine falters, and his apparent isolation from some of his highest-ranking officials who see the prospects of victory as increasingly faint.
The feature was a far cry from the heroic portrayal Zelensky was given in May 2022 by Shuster, who has consistently received deeper access to the Ukrainian leader over the full-scale war than any other journalist.
Then came an interview in The Economist with Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who all but admitted that the war is at something akin to a stalemate, stuck in high-intensity positional fighting where liberating just a kilometer of mined, bombed-out Ukrainian land tends to cost hundreds of lives, thousands of shells, and millions of dollars worth of equipment.
In the aftermath of both pieces came more reports of tensions between Zelensky and Zaluzhnyi, stoked by the president’s firing of Special Operations Forces Commander Viktor Khorenko, supposedly behind Zaluzhnyi’s back.
This has all taken place on the backdrop of a worsening situation on the battlefield, as Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive has culminated without achieving any major strategic gains, while Russia has retaken the initiative in the country’s east.
I don’t want to get into the politics of Zelensky’s inner circle, or speculate on tensions between the president and military in the wake of Zaluzhnyi’s column. What I do want to do is lay out some objective facts about where we are now in the war, why that is, and what we can expect in 2024 and beyond, if and if not Western support for Ukraine changes in scale or nature.
1. Zaluzhnyi is right. The front line across Ukraine has become static, and taking territory is becoming harder and harder for both sides.
As the war drags on and both sides transform how they fight, the traditional defender’s advantage has thus far been amplified by the expansion of both sides’ mobilized armies, the evolution of drone warfare, and, most importantly, the reinforcement and improvement of defensive lines with fortifications and minefields.
We didn’t need Zaluzhnyi to tell us this: It has been obvious for months for anyone watching the war with a strong handle on reality. From Bakhmut, to Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive, to the fierce Russian assault on Avdiivka, both sides’ operations across 2023 show that the age of successful maneuver warfare in Ukraine is likely over, and will be for a long time until some big changes.
Zaluzhnyi’s argument that a breakthrough can come through a technological upper hand also makes sense, but there is no silver bullet. Long-range missiles, better electronic warfare (EW) and counter-EW capabilities, and winning the drone war could all help Ukraine get the upper hand, but all of it needs to come together with continued conventional military support at scale.
Both require one thing: real commitment from the West to Ukrainian battlefield success.
2. The main reason Ukraine finds itself in this position is because it wasn’t given the weapons it needed to change the game before the war settled into this positional tussle.
Here, I can’t help but recall the bittersweet memories of last autumn when, just after the liberation of Lyman, Ukraine was on the brink of pushing onward to Kreminna and Sievierodonetsk, potentially causing another collapse in Russian defenses. Russia had only just begun a desperate mobilization of its citizens and had not yet started to build the fortified defensive lines that became key to stopping Ukraine’s counteroffensive.
Imagine if, back then, Ukraine had had long-range missiles, Western tanks, and more artillery, including the U.S. DPICM cluster munition shells that were only given this summer… Do I need to go on?
The West had so much time and yet, over the course of 21 months of the full-scale war, it never seemed to feel much sense of urgency. We have now reached a point where, because Ukraine wasn’t given what it needed to win a short war, NATO countries are forced to hunt around the world for artillery shells and scramble to increase their own production to keep Ukraine afloat in a long one.
3. While it remains taboo to admit, it’s now nearly impossible to deny that the West, in particular Washington, does not want a complete Ukrainian victory.
You only have to look at months and months of public statements, which are best summed up by the tired commitment to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” echoed from Washington to Paris to Berlin. On U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s Nov. 20 visit to Ukraine, the wording “here for the long haul” was chosen.
As long as it takes for what?
There’s a reason Western officials don’t talk about restoring Ukrainian sovereign territory to its 1991 borders. The idea of Ukraine truly defeating Russia and threatening to return all occupied territories, including Crimea, is at the core of the West’s fear of escalation and possible nuclear use by Russia.
This fear is not completely unfounded. Yes, every Ukrainian victory has been a hit to Putin’s ego, and yes, every new Western system delivered to Ukraine makes him seethe a little inside. However, these “red lines” are nothing compared to the prospect of him losing everything: the war, Crimea, and his legitimacy as an empire-building tsar. Only at that point does the nuclear threat become real, but it is Ukraine that would be in danger, and Ukraine that is ready to take that risk.
4. The West’s unwillingness to empower a Ukrainian victory is no clearer than in the issue of providing long-range missiles.
Long-range missiles may not be wonder weapons that will quickly cripple Russia’s war effort on their own, but they sure are a good indicator of political will.
The main culprit here is, of course, the U.S.-built ATACMS, which can be launched right out of the same HIMARS and M270 systems that Ukraine received last year. Ukraine has since then publicly begged for ATACMS, the long-range version of which could strike any target in Ukraine’s occupied territories, including strategically key airfields and the Black Sea Fleet.
“We think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,” then-U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl said in January, adding that they are not needed for targets “directly relevant to the current fight.”
This was not a line of argument but an open lie.
Ukraine finally received the older, shorter-range version of the ATACMS in October (these have a stated maximum range of only 165 kilometers and carry cluster munitions rather than a single high-explosive warhead) and immediately put them to good use. Ukraine’s Oct. 17 attack on Russian airfields in occupied Luhansk and Berdiansk reportedly destroyed at least nine Russian military helicopters and damaged up to 15 more. These were, of course, the very same helicopters that hammered Ukrainian forces over four months of the counteroffensive.
Then there is the German Taurus, which flies even further than ATACMS and can carry a 480-kilogram dual-stage warhead, perfect for destroying the illegally-built Crimean Bridge between the occupied peninsula and the Russian mainland. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has openly admitted his fear of Ukraine using these missiles against the bridge, and it wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that Washington has the same qualms about the long-range ATACMS.
5. Ukraine’s war effort depends most of all on Washington, where bipartisan support for Ukraine is openly faltering in Congress, and a presidential election could bring it all down.
Again, we return to the question of time. How much weight can phrases like “for as long as it takes” or “for the long haul” hold in a democratic country with elections in just a year’s time? What about when you add the fact that the clear favorite to win the opposition nomination is an open Putin sympathizer who actively campaigns against military aid for Ukraine? The return of a character like Donald Trump to the presidency would not only threaten the U.S. democracy but could also mean life or death for Ukraine.
A Ukrainian woman brings flowers to the place of the improvised memorial to the fallen Ukrainian soldiers on Independence Square on Sept. 26, 2023 in Kyiv. (Andriy Zhyhaylo/Obozrevatel/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images)
6. Even if Western military support continues to trickle in, Ukraine cannot fight a war at this intensity on its own forever.
In an industrial-scale war like this, there are some resources that even the most generous of Western funding cannot replenish: people. For as long as Russia is able to keep throwing tens of thousands of men and hundreds of thousands of shells at Ukrainian lines, Ukraine will continue to lose its best people at an unsustainable rate.
Whether it’s taking more and more Ukrainian men off to war, the constant need for basics like bulletproof vests and cars to be funded by civilians, or the many other immense social and economic strains that the country is currently under, things can’t continue like this indefinitely.
The way Ukraine fought off Russia’s attempt to take Kyiv, has struck back in successful counteroffensives, and remains in the fight against the immense Russian military machine is nothing short of unbelievable. No country should ever have to go through the campaign of total annihilation that Ukraine is standing against, but even Ukraine can’t be expected to be able to withstand the pressure forever.
7. The high cost of war on both sides means eventual peace negotiations are not unthinkable, but discussions about them usually get everything wrong.
Talk of peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, often among those in the West opposed to continued military aid to Ukraine, usually goes down an enticingly simplistic causal path: reduce aid or cut it off completely → force Zelensky to “negotiate” → peace in Ukraine.
Why does a country at war go to the negotiating table?
If both sides are exhausted and have a strong mutual interest in ending hostilities, then perhaps a ceasefire can be agreed upon. But if a state-on-state war is developing to favor one side, the side losing might sue for peace, resigning themselves to giving up a lot – often humiliating themselves in the process – in the hope of avoiding losing it all. Read between the lines, and these arguments to pressure the Ukrainian leader to negotiate are really pushing for Ukraine to start losing the war.
This brings us to Russia. Barring total surrender, the end of the war is not Zelensky’s choice alone – it can’t happen without Putin, and for that, something major has to shift the battlefield in Ukraine’s favor to force the Russian dictator to change course.
On the same day as Austin’s visit to Kyiv, a tweet by the U.S. Mission to NATO said that Washington is “focused on setting conditions for a just, durable, and sustainable peace.” The post generated plenty of angry backlash from Ukrainians, taking it as an admission that the U.S. would not support Ukraine until victory. The fact is, we knew that already, but the problem is that so far, even the “setting conditions” part is not being done. Dwindling arms supplies and internal political divisions set conditions not for a durable peace but instead for Moscow to be vindicated in its plan for victory.
8. Russia’s mission to destroy independent Ukraine hasn’t changed. Moscow has little left to lose, and its strategy of tiring out the West is slowly working.
“If Russia stops fighting, there will be no war, but if Ukraine stops fighting, there will be no Ukraine.” This phrase was often repeated in the early months of the full-scale war, and the truth of it hasn’t changed since. Nor have Russia’s maximalist war aims in Ukraine. From official statements to propaganda narratives, Russia shows no signs of giving up on destroying an independent Ukraine.
The Battle of Kyiv was Russia’s most humiliating defeat, but it hasn’t stopped army recruitment advertisements from promising Russian soldiers the opportunity to soon be able to buy real estate in the Ukrainian capital. If the supply of shells to Ukraine slows to a trickle or dries up completely, Russia will almost certainly start marching forward. When it does that, for Ukraine, it means more Bakhmuts and Avdiivkas, more cities wiped off the earth, more torture chambers, more deported children, and thousands more soldiers’ lives lost.
The question of time again looms. Sure, Ukraine may receive enough to hold the line against Russia over 2024, but what about 2025 or 2026? If, through a lack of equipment, ammunition, and personnel, the Ukrainian military’s capacity to fight is eventually degraded enough, cities like Kharkiv and even Kyiv could once again come under threat of Russian occupation.
9. To end the war with an independent Ukraine, the West must provide honest answers to two questions.
The first question is, “What will you do to permanently stop Russia from wanting and being able to take more Ukrainian territory?” The answer should be obvious: to finally empower a Ukrainian victory by giving all available weapons systems that have so far been held back. Airpower, long-range missiles, more tanks, armored vehicles, mine-clearing equipment, drones, everything; Ukrainians have been calling for this since the very beginning.
But if complete victory is seen as neither possible nor desirable by Ukraine’s partners, the next best thing would be setting conditions for Russia to want to negotiate, but that can only be achieved by putting pressure back on Moscow. There are few options left: either properly arm Ukraine for a more effective counteroffensive than last time or, perhaps, give Kyiv the long-range missiles to destroy the Kerch Bridge, the Black Sea Fleet and, with them, Putin’s dream of a Russian Crimean paradise.
The second question is, “What incentive will you give to Russia to not quickly break any ceasefire deal and finish what they started?” This is the “just, durable, and sustainable” peace that Washington frequently refers to.
Yes, Western military aid to Ukraine must continue after the shooting stops, as Russia’s military-industrial complex and society have now been put firmly on a war footing. That’s the absolute minimum, but what really must be offered to Ukraine is NATO membership. Security guarantees are not enough – they have not worked in the past in the face of Russia’s lack of respect for any signed piece of paper.
The world is changing, and without action, the barriers that once deterred countries from invading and conquering their neighbors all over the globe will continue to dissipate. That action must start with Ukraine, and it must start by not taking Ukraine’s survival for granted.
Note from the author:
Hi, this is Francis Farrell, thank you for hearing me out in what might have not been the happiest of reads. Trust me, it wasn’t fun to write either. But as I have said before a few times, keeping in touch with reality is one of the most important parts about keeping one’s head above water in these times, as an individual or as a country. However dark that reality might get, it won’t stop us from working. Please consider supporting our reporting.
Reporter
Francis Farrell is a reporter at the Kyiv Independent. He has worked as managing editor at the online media project Lossi 36, and as a freelance journalist and documentary photographer. He has previously worked in OSCE and Council of Europe field missions in Albania and Ukraine, and is an alumnus of Leiden University in The Hague and University College London.
“For as long as Russia is able to keep throwing tens of thousands of men and hundreds of thousands of shells at Ukrainian lines, Ukraine will continue to lose its best people at an unsustainable rate.”
Pretty much what I’ve been saying for a long time. I’d shake Mr Farrell’s hand for his brilliant article if I could. He really “gets” it.
Last year Ukraine was winning. The orcs were in disarray and the West was united in its support in the struggle of good against an evil of an intensity and hatred that has never been seen before in history.
What happened next? The counteroffensive was planned and weapons and materiel requested. During that time, the putinaZis consolidated their gains and built massive defensive fortifications; with the help of Chinese equipment such as diggers etc.
In the event, less than 20% of what was requested was supplied. The Ukrainians were required to dislodge 400,000 vermin without air superiority; something that US commanders would not even contemplate.
That great friend of Ukraine; Gen Ben Hodges, was made to look foolish because his prediction of the liberation of Crimea did not happen. But even he could not have planned for the recalcitrance of the allies and the massive surge of support for the trumputler bloc.
The only known Ukraine-supporting “brand name” MAGA personality; Mark Levin; who used to work for Reagan (as a lawyer), last year proudly boasted of the massive Republican support for Ukraine.
Well that has died now and Reaganite Republicans seem to be on the fringe.
You are helping Trump supporters turn away from Ukraine by calling them names every day and claiming to know what they think. As you call it, you are rimming Putler, congratulations….
As I said before, you are a fanatic and such people cannot be reasoned with. However, due to yet another repulsive ad hom attack from you I am compelled to defend myself from your vile, unprovoked insults.
Trump is a public figure who wants to hand much of Ukraine over to a nazi degenerate. As such, he is fair game for criticism. He even refers to his own opponents as “vermin”, so it’s hardly unexpected for him to get some stick back.
You in the other hand are a private individual and I have no interest in personally attacking you in the same hideous way you attack me.
I have the greatest respect for those politicians who support Ukraine and nothing but contempt for those who actively promote kremlin talking points. What category does Trumpkov come into? Take a wild fucking guess.
Trump On Feb 23. 2022:
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.” “He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
Since then he has consolidated his position as the only US president in history to repeatedly praise a murderous fascist dictator. Also receiving his glowing approval: Jinping, Fat boy Kim and Orban.
Oct 24, 2023:
“The whole world is exploding. You know I was very honored—Victor Orbán, did anyone ever hear of him?” Trump asked his supporters in New Hampshire. “He’s probably one of the strongest leaders anywhere in the world. Right? He’s the leader of Turkey.”
Trump goes on to say that Orbán has a “front” with Russia, when neither Turkey nor Hungary has a border with the country.”
Proving once again he is stupid as well as evil.
This year he said on TV: “Putin is gonna take all of Ukraine.” It’s up on YouTube. You can’t get a clearer declaration of policy than that.
His asshole punk son DT Jr said last year : “all aid to Ukraine must be stopped.”
Also last year he called Zel a “welfare queen.”
Trump fanatic Ted Nugent was the guest speaker at a Trump rally. He said to cheers:
“I want my money back. I didn’t authorize any money to Ukraine to some homosexual weirdo.”
Nov 12, 2023:
“Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, said Wednesday that he’d consider Carlson as his running mate if he becomes the GOP’s 2024 nominee.
“I like Tucker a lot, I guess I would,” the former president responded to conservative radio host Clay Travis’ question about the topic on The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. “I think I’d say I would because he’s got great common sense.”
He chose the same motherfuckers; Travis and Sexton, to make this announcement, thus doubling down on the terrible comments of Feb 23, 2022.
Outside Russia, this deeply unpleasant human represents the most terrible danger that Ukraine faces. When he won in 2016, putinaZi ruling elite held champagne parties. Seen celebrating were nazi scum like Zhirinovsky, Dugin and Solovyov.
Should he succeed this time, the celebrations will be off the scale, because the genocide of Ukraine will be not only forgiven, but allowed to continue. A bogus “land for peace” deal will be made and that will be the beginning of the end for Ukraine.
To quote the distinguished writer Anders Aslund in the Kyiv Post:
“Donald Trump has emerged as Putin’s main ally. If anybody can break Ukraine, it is Trump rather than Putin.”
So it is now crystal clear; even to you, just who exactly is the putler-rimmer.
Well that’s quite some essay. I want to thank you for writing it, as I appreciate the comments here as much (or often more) than the news piece itself. I have several observations to share. 1) Regarding Tucker: answering a question in an interview is not the same as making an announcement. Putting one’s own spin on events damages credibility. 2) You’re demonstrating an enormous capacity to believe everything politicians say. This is just an observation. I don’t want it to be taken as a personal attack because I enjoy reading your comments. I also don’t like what Trump is saying about Putin & Ukraine. I take it with a grain of salt because I believe what Trump is saying about Ukraine is unrealistic. He’s not going to end the war in 24 hours. He’s not God. Ukraine is not giving up on its peace plan. Europe is not going to give up on Ukraine (I hope!) as doing so would amount to suicide. If Trump becomes president, I don’t think he will abandon our allies. Even if he wants to, surely the smart people around him, potentially Mike Pompeo for example, won’t agree to abandoning our allies. This is an incredibly complicated political situation with very little connection between what Trump is saying to be elected and the reality he will face if he wins the election. This is always the case, by the way, but especially at this moment. Speaking of which, I’m disgusted with what’s currently happening in congress with the fringe MAGA nutjobs. That’s where the real damage is being done.
Well said, Mr. Duck.
I do have a small bit of hope that the orange one will not do as he threatens to do, regarding cancelling aid to Ukraine. He does have a tendency to say many things that are just plain unrealistic. As you say, reality will (might?) force him to act differently than what he predicted.
However, his stupid talk about Ukraine doesn’t help the situation one bit. As the moscow runt grins with pleasure over our disunity, many Americans and politicians hopped on Trump’s anti-Ukraine bandwagon. I would welcome it greatly if the buffoon would put down his comic books and learn how to do Realpolitik for a change.
That’s some prime projection you’ve cooked up there, friend. Your TDS is real and you do not see it, just like your hate diatribes chase good people away. Talk about unreasonable. Look at this and see for yourself where Ukraine’s support has gone. This site is/was pure and accepted all supporters of Ukraine until you started being unfair and make this your little soap box. Here is a chance for you to be reasonable and start focusing on Ukraine, not Scradge.
Red, the downturn of visitors is solely due to Scradge’s (and my) ranting against certain Republicans/Trump, or what?
Sole? No. But I fear we are contributing to it by not being hospitable and not remembering the human factor of what we say. We are becoming just another GET TRUMP website.
I am still waiting for ONE Ukrainian to complain about the Trump years as president but we tear up him and half of the USA every day here. That’s not very inviting. Can you tell me how a Trump supporter and Ukraine supporter would feel at home here? We should be for everybody that supports Ukraine regardless of party. Can Ukraine get USA support from just the Democrats? This is what used to separate us from the pack
We know Putler pits sides against each other and thrives in chaos, yet we harvest it here daily for him. That is why Scradge serves Putin even more than Trump. I feel like I’m screaming under water because nobody else apparently can see it. They don’t believe our feedback nor our graphs and they just can’t stop themselves from hating and divorcing half our potential audience. If it was really about supporting Ukraine why wouldn’t we serve everyone instead of just those that agree with us?
I see your points, Red. Actually, I always have. However, I think that Scradge and I always put emphasis to the factions of the Republicans who want to kill Ukraine, so-to-speak, and not the entire party, nor the entire range of Republican voters. Remember, Red, I’m also a Republican.
In my humble opinion, those who want to stop aid to Ukraine are siding with what is currently the vilest, most evil shithole on this planet. Maybe it’s only indirectly, but even neutrality in such a case is siding with evil. I simply can’t ignore this and pretend that they don’t really mean it. If someone finds offense to this, then so be it.
I am always willing to revise my opinion about someone if there is a good reason to do so. I am also man enough to apologize if need be. So far, I see no reason why I should treat the anti-Ukrainian/pro-mafia faction with respect and to stop criticizing them. But, if it is important to you, then I will refrain from using strong language, as I will continue criticizing such individuals whenever it’s relevant. To me, they are on the wrong side of history and un-American with their stance.
Thank you for your honesty Sir Facts.
I believe it is human to get sucked into narratives. For example, you said, “…those who want to STOP AID to Ukraine…” and, “…the anti-Ukrainian/pro-mafia faction…”
Can you show me anyone besides comrade Carlson who actually said those things without conditions?
As for Scradge, he was my mentor 10 years ago and now he thinks I should have my skin pulled off very slowly. Who changed?
I will mention Gaetz and Taylor-Greene, hoping that their names will suffice to underline my thoughts on this. Most of the rest are using Ukraine as a chess piece to coerce border security measures through. I fully agree with border security, but not like this. They are playing games with an entire nation, for Christ’s sake! This is very, very dirty politics, IMHO.
As for you and Scradge, I would rather not get involved. I had enough of such issues at UA Wire, when I was viciously attacked every time I criticized the fat bitch Merkel.
You’re right. You have to admit though that the Leftists HATE opposing views. They won’t just disagree they actually want you to die and hopefully your family and pets too. Similar to putin but they don’t even see it. I think I will just become more quiet, that’s what they want and demand, obedience or death, like Hitler too. We conservatives are outnumbered and even though this conservative would die for Ukraine it is not enough for the Leftists to even act civilized. Their blood thirst has no bottom. I will still read all your comments though Sir Facts, nice chatting with you
Like I also always read your comments, Sir Red.
Both types of shit nuggets – the far right and leftists – are harmful to our civilization. I am fearless … I vehemently oppose both factions.
“the Leftists”
It’s not clear who you’re referring to here. Certainly, I haven’t seen anyone in this group that seems to be a “leftist”.
“they actually want you to die and hopefully your family and pets too.”
That seems rather harsh.
“We conservatives are outnumbered”
Where? Certainly not in this group. As a matter of fact I seem to recall someone (possibly you) posting shortly after I joined that “This is a Republican group.”
RSM: “by calling them names”
I saw no name-calling above.
Duck: “I take it with a grain of salt because I believe what Trump is saying”
It’s wise to not believe anything that trumpkov says.
Duck: “surely the smart people around him”
Read his “Project 2025” plans – he’s going to jettison any smart people who would stand up against him. They’re publicly laying out their blueprints for an authoritarian takeover.
RSM: “Your TDS”
You are helping drive away anyone not in the MAGAt cult by referring to them as “deranged”.
> For example, you said, “…those who want to STOP AID to Ukraine…” and, “…the anti-Ukrainian/pro-mafia faction…”
> Can you show me anyone besides comrade Carlson who actually said those things without conditions?
Marjorie Taylor Greene says Ukraine won’t get more U.S. aid under GOP: “Under Republicans, not another penny will go to Ukraine.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3719467-marjorie-taylor-greene-under-republicans-not-another-penny-will-go-to-ukraine/
Matt Gaetz introduced a “Ukraine Fatigue” resolution seeking to end “military and financial aid” to Ukraine.
“our graphs”
Might be interesting to correlate that with accusations of “TDS”.
> Matt Gaetz introduced a “Ukraine Fatigue” resolution seeking to end “military and financial aid” to Ukraine.
That measure was co-sponsored by 10 other House Republicans, including fellow Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, and conservative Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky.
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2023/02/23/florida-rep–matt-gatez-introduces–ukraine-fatigue–bill-to-cut-country-s-aid
The quote is: “I take it with a grain of salt because I believe what Trump is saying about Ukraine is unrealistic.” So that’s how you roll, cheap shots? Take half the message out of context and spin it against me? Apparently you have nothing of substance to contribute.
“So that’s how you roll”
No, it’s not. I was replying to the bit about “taking with a grain of salt what trumpkov said”, and only quoted part of what you had written. I was quoting a bunch of separate stuff to include it all in one comment, and didn’t realize that the snippet I quoted changed your intent by not including a few more words.
You have my sincere apology. (I’d edit my post if I could…)
Thanks Larry. I accept your apology.
“and spin it against me”
P.S. My intent was to agree with you – I was saying that anything trumpkov says should be taken with a very large grain of salt indeed.
Gen Ben Hodges did note in his Crimean scenario, that this was provided Ukraine was given all the weapons and capabilities required.
“The Battle of Kyiv was Russia’s most humiliating defeat, but it hasn’t stopped army recruitment advertisements from promising Russian soldiers the opportunity to soon be able to buy real estate in the Ukrainian capital. If the supply of shells to Ukraine slows to a trickle or dries up completely, Russia will almost certainly start marching forward. When it does that, for Ukraine, it means more Bakhmuts and Avdiivkas, more cities wiped off the earth, more torture chambers, more deported children, and thousands more soldiers’ lives lost.”
Please God, no.
The proof of Russia’s evil and its nazi imperialism could not be more clear. Negotiations will never be possible with these murderers.
To say it again, with the risk of sounding like a broken record, the West is at fault that Ukraine must fight through terrible defensive lines, wasting lots of blood, ammo, and equipment.
Now, those little children are slowly getting tired of their toy and want to throw it into a corner.