By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During his Senate confirmation hearing, President Trump’s nominee for the top U.S. general in Europe, Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich, expressed his belief that Ukraine could win the war against Russia. Grynkewich cited the unwavering tenacity displayed when a homeland is threatened as a key factor in his assessment. This statement comes amidst the ongoing conflict that has persisted for over three years.
Read the original article here
Trump’s pick for top US general in Europe says ‘Ukraine can win’ war with Russia… Well, that’s certainly a statement, isn’t it? You’d think a declaration like that would ruffle some feathers, especially considering the political landscape and the former President’s known inclinations. The consensus seems to be that this particular pick might be facing an early retirement, which is a bit of a shame. I mean, the job of a general is to speak the truth and this fellow clearly believes in Ukraine’s potential. It’s just not the narrative some would prefer to hear.
And if we’re being honest, the idea that Trump could simply end the war with a phone call always felt a bit… optimistic, to say the least. Wars are complicated things. It’s easy to understand why people would expect the war to end with Trump being president again. Everyone wants it to end.
The discussion around this statement seems to be a bit more nuanced than a simple “yes” or “no.” It appears that the real focus should be on providing Ukraine with the resources it says it needs. The impression is that the US has, perhaps, been taking a measured approach, aiming to weaken Russia over time. This strategy, often described as “bleeding Russia out,” could be seen as a long-term play, designed to expose Russia’s weaknesses and exhaust its resources. From this point of view, the general’s assessment might be viewed as consistent with the long term U.S. objectives for the war.
Furthermore, the economic realities facing Russia are crucial to understand. Reports that Russia is teetering on the brink of recession, combined with Putin’s apparent anxieties about this, paint a picture of a nation under immense strain. The possibility of economic collapse and its effects on Russia’s ability to finance the war should not be discounted. All of this is in stark contrast to the image of invincibility Russia often projects.
The assessment of Ukraine’s military performance is also critical. Ukraine’s resilience and fighting ability have, quite frankly, been remarkable. Many seem to see Ukraine as a uniquely strong fighting force. Considering this level of tenacity, and the weakening of their adversaries, the case for Ukraine’s ability to prevail is strengthened.
However, the conversation also touches on the limits of a Ukrainian victory. The prevailing sentiment is that Russia will not willingly relinquish territory, particularly Crimea and the areas of eastern Ukraine it currently occupies. In this scenario, a complete and total win for Ukraine, as they defined it, might not be realistically achievable. It would be foolish to rule out any scenario, but it is fair to point out that the most ideal outcomes, as desired by Ukrainians, might be out of reach.
A crucial factor is the level of support and aid that Ukraine receives, especially from the West. There are concerns that if the US reduces or stops aid to Ukraine, this would severely hamper Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and could prolong the conflict. A consensus seems to be that the US, even on its own, has the capacity to greatly influence the conflict’s outcome, and that this reality is not fully appreciated.
The discussion also brings up the sensitive issue of the Russian people. The article emphasizes that the war is not with the Russian people but with Putin, a crucial distinction. It’s important not to demonize an entire population based on the actions of one leader. The impact of the conflict on all of the Russian people needs to be factored in.
The general’s statement is also a source of potential political drama. The question of whether Trump will approve of the general’s assessment is raised, given the historical nature of Trump’s relationship with Putin.
The context of the statement is important, too. The general is not making a statement in a vacuum; he is likely giving an opinion in the face of a reality and to shape the future.
While there may be a debate on whether Ukraine can “win” in an absolute sense, there is near-universal agreement that the war has revealed Russia’s weaknesses and incompetence. Russia is a much weaker foe than previously imagined, and for this reason, Ukraine’s potential to prevail is much stronger.
It appears that the West’s approach to this war, a prolonged war to bleed out Russia, will remain unchanged. It also appears that Trump’s pick for top US general in Europe believes Ukraine can win the war, and to a much larger degree than it has previously been assumed.