If your bill rebuilds our defense industrial base at a slower pace than it sends weapons overseas, it's not about America's security. And it's not about our defense industrial base. At this point, the entire Russia-Ukraine debate borders on fantasy. We need some realism.
Don't tell me the Europeans are doing more or will do more. This is too abstract. Tell me, in precise terms, what Ukraine needs to win (or have a chance at winning). And then tell me how much Europe and America together can reasonably provide, and by what date.
.@JDVance1 J.D. Vance, your statement is riddled with inaccuracies and misleading assertions that need urgent correction. Firstly, your critique of the pace at which the U.S. is rebuilding its defense industrial base while sending weapons overseas betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of strategic security policies. Supporting allies like Ukraine is vital for deterring aggressors like Russia, enhancing global stability, and aligning with America’s national security interests. While it’s true that our defense industrial base is under strain, there are concerted efforts, including your own legislation, to ramp up American defense production. Your comments about Europe’s contribution also miss the mark. European nations have indeed ramped up their defense budgets and support for Ukraine substantially following Russia’s invasion. There is a robust commitment to collective security. On the capability to support conflicts, you question America's ability to produce sufficient military munitions. However, the U.S. is actively increasing manufacturing capacity to meet these demands, incorporating economic aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic efforts, which you have conveniently overlooked. The narrative about China as a manufacturing superpower and its implications on U.S. capabilities in conflicts is another distortion. The U.S. continues to lead in defense technology and production, and efforts to decouple critical supply chains from China are underway, which you fail to acknowledge adequately. Most troubling, however, is your dismissal of moral arguments for supporting democracies like Ukraine, and your problematic historical comparisons. These positions undermine the principled foundations of U.S. foreign policy, which champions democracy and counters authoritarian aggression. Your call to focus solely on domestic issues such as border security and debt management before addressing international conflicts is a false dichotomy. America has the capacity and the obligation to engage with both domestic and international challenges concurrently. To suggest otherwise is a misleading oversimplification that could dangerously undermine both U.S. security and global leadership. It's imperative, Vance, that you adhere to a more fact-based arguments. The complexities of international relations and national security demand nothing less than accuracy, responsibility, and an unwavering commitment to democratic values. The American people deserve a clear and truthful narrative, not one distorted by inaccuracies and nonsense. #UkraineRussiaWar #Ukriane
@JDVance1 JD Vance works harder to protect Vladimir Putin’s interests than our own. Maybe the people or Ohio should start asking themselves why?