The history of diplomacy has many euphemisms for disengaging from a fight before the enemy: "ending wars," "retrenchment," "refocusing," "a decent interval," and so on. The military has a simple word for it: surrender.
The past three U.S. administrations understood both the stakes and the complexity of supporting Ukraine. They helped Ukraine take the difficult steps toward interoperability with NATO while provided critical military equipment and training. Our policy and our delivery timelines weren't always perfect, but Republicans and Democrats agreed that a free, strong Ukraine in a position to defend itself was an asset to our security. And Americans supported that approach.
None of this was charity -- it was strategic investment with deliberate attention to what we could provide without compromising our own readiness. That took rigor, discipline, analysis, and more risk mitigation than almost anyone who doesn't work in the Pentagon will ever realize. But it paid off. Ukraine, once reliant on Soviet doctrine and gear, transformed its military structure and operational capability under fire while defending its sovereignty with courage, combat savvy, and increasing skill.
Ukraine is holding on. Barely, but bravely. Let's not make them hold on alone or for much longer.
-- Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.), former commander of U.S. Army Europe, "If We Don't Stand With Ukraine, What Do We Stand For?" (7 July 2025)
No comments:
Post a Comment