Mr. President, it’s clear that the main hurdle to achieving peace in Ukraine stems from Russia’s ongoing aggression.
You mentioned feeling “disappointed” after your conversation with Vladimir Putin, expressing doubts about his commitment to peace.
Putin has reiterated that he won’t agree to a ceasefire until the “root cause” of the conflict is addressed.
For him, that “root cause” seems to hinge on Ukraine’s very existence.
In response to your call, he launched a significant drone and missile attack, resulting in at least one fatality.
So, why does it seem like your administration is punishing Ukraine?
The Pentagon has halted the provision of anti-missile and drone defenses crucial for protecting civilians in Kyiv. You might recall the urgent look on the face of the Ukrainian reporter you met in Holland, along with her worries about her husband and family.
Why are we seemingly considering abandoning her and others like her?
There’s a narrative pushed by a few misguided ideologues suggesting that helping Ukraine somehow undermines U.S. interests. This perspective seems quite far from reality.
Authorities claim we’re low on weaponry, yet many arms have already been assigned, with some even positioned in Poland.
Ukraine is essentially a recipient of those arms, funded partly through seized Russian assets and European assistance, which also serves as a catalyst for our own industry to ramp up production.
In fact, our military can utilize those funds and insights gathered from Ukraine’s resilience to enhance our drone and missile technology.
We should solidify our support for the foundations of a strong defense.
But above all, the outcome for Ukraine sends a crucial message to the global community regarding America’s stance. Russia is not an economic powerhouse; it’s teetering on decline while the regime uses its own people in a desperate grip to maintain influence.
If we allow Putin to succeed, we effectively empower not just him, but also set a precedent that could resonate negatively with Europe and signal to China that our alliances are unsteady and our resolve fleeting.
This isn’t about choosing between supporting Ukraine or engaging China, as Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby might suggest. Our support for Ukraine is a step against both Russia and China, who are united in their opposition to the United States.
One of the missiles currently in storage will eventually need to be utilized as this alignment strengthens.
Mr. President, you’ve navigated a remarkable stretch of achievements. You successfully passed your significant legislation, prevailed at the Supreme Court, and are establishing crucial trade agreements.
Most critically, your decisive action on Iran’s nuclear ambitions has contributed to a safer Middle East, showing that focused strikes can push adversaries to negotiate.
The same logic applies to Ukraine; Putin only respects strength. If the U.S. doesn’t firmly commit to defending Kyiv, he will keep disregarding your leadership.
On a positive note, your recent conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky indicates progress, with discussions about reinforcing Ukraine’s air defenses. That’s encouraging.
The potential collapse of Ukraine shouldn’t be seen as trivial—it could trigger significant instability, weaken the U.S., and cast a shadow over your presidency. I urge you not to back away from this responsibility.
