This will sound flippant but I'm being perfectly serious: today is the 2nd anniversary of the invasion. On this day many Western leaders (minus Biden) will do what they love to do more than anything else in the world - they will gather together in Kyiv, get their photo taken with Zelenskiy, and give the exact same speeches they've been giving for 2 years. They will talk about "Russia's brutal and unprovoked aggression". They will talk about "freedom and democracy themselves" being at stake. And, their beloved catchphrase: they will talk about standing with Ukraine "for as long as it takes".
My proposal is this: President Biden gives a live interview, this evening, to Ukraine's main news channel. During this interview he is asked the questions that no American network or newspaper will ever, ever ask him:
1. President Biden, your Administration has said that if Ukraine loses this war, Putin will go on to invade NATO countries such as the Baltics and/or Poland and American soldiers will have to fight Russia. Yes or no, do you seriously believe this?
2. Yes or no: is America's aim in this conflict for Ukraine to win the war and Russia to lose the war? If yes, clearly define "win" and "lose" in this context. If your definition is "That's for Ukraine to decide", then...
3. Any time you are asked what the ultimate aim is in this conflict, you always say: "That's for Ukraine to decide". But we've already decided: our aim is to reclaim all our territory according to 1991 borders. So, yes or no: is America's aim for Ukraine to reclaim all of its territory to 1991 borders?
4. You have said that the 61 billion dollars in aid being held up in Congress will lead to Ukrainian "success" - define "success" in this context. What will 61 billion dollars do this year that 113 billion dollars didn't do over the last 2 years?
5. You have said that Ukraine must secure "a just and lasting peace" - define "a just and lasting peace". If your answer is "That's for Ukraine to decide", please refer back to question #3.
6. Three different reporters asked John Kirby yesterday why your administration continues to say you "haven't taken the long-range ATACMs off the table". Ukraine continues to beg you for them. Why will you only commit to "not taking them off the table", and not simply send them to us now when we're asking for them? If you genuinely believe this is an existential fight for the West, why aren't you giving us everything we need to fight it for you now, when we need it?
Russia asks North Korea and Iran for weapons and they receive a million artillery shells literally the following weak. You mock Putin for this and tell us it is indicative of Russia's "weakness". Ukraine begs a coalition of the world's 54 wealthiest countries to supply us with anything you have, and we're told: "Maaaybe we can get you 300,000 shells by March". This, you tell us, is Ukraine's "strength". Russia's allies are giving Russia what it needs to win the war. Ukraine's allies are not giving Ukraine what it needs to win the war. So which alliance is "weak" here?
7. Yes or no: do you seriously believe Ukraine can win this war - as defined in question #3 - without any NATO boots on the ground AND without Ukraine striking anywhere on Russian territory?
8. Last and most important: you are on record as saying, approximately thirteen thousand times, "we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes". Clearly say now: for as long as it takes to do WHAT? What is the West's strategy here, beyond meaningless prattle about "as long as it takes for a just and lasting peace"?
If Biden does not clearly answer any of those questions, my proposal is that Ukraine unconditionally surrenders to Russia tomorrow morning. The rationale should be: you're asking us to "defend the entire Western world" from Russia but you're not providing us with the means to do it, even though you have these means. And so rather than asking us to fight Russia on your behalf, you can now fight Russia on ours, as you suggested you would in question #1. It makes more sense for us to do this rather than than be slowly murdered as a country in a war we literally cannot win due to your inaction and indecision. The Palestinians are already facing the propsect of Donald Trump being the one to negotiate their fate. We're not waiting to go down the same path.
I wrote earlier in this thread that Ukraine is going to lose this war, and the primary reason is that Russia is absolutely laser-focused on its goals, whereas the West has no idea what it wants out of this conflict. It cannot define "success" for Ukraine and it cannot define "victory" for Ukraine. The West's strategy can be summed up as: "Let's just keep Ukraine in the fight for as long as possible and kind of hope something miraculous happens in Russia to change the situation". That is why it's going to be nauseating today watching all those 'foreign leaders' in Ukraine droning on about how "we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to achieve victory", and not one member of the carefully selected media will press them to define what any of it means.
