American prohibitions limiting how Ukraine uses US-provided weapons will not prevent Ukraine from using NATO-provided weapons to engage legitimate military targets in Russia.

A strike on a civilian shopping mall in Kharkiv today left an unknown number of civilians dead. The target was not military. Meanwhile, I often see satellite images of civilian structures used by the Russian military, including homes with children, yet we never strike them

The Russian Air Force leveraged Russian airspace sanctuary to strike the Ukrainian equivalent of Home Depot in Kharkiv and kill hundreds of civilians.

It's morally repugnant and militarily incompetent to allow Russian aircraft to continue conducting such attacks with impunity.

The lack of any Russian response speaks volumes.

The more 'red lines' Ukraine crosses, the less compelling the case for constraining Ukraine's ability to defend itself becomes.

Russia is not entitled to protection in a war it started. Russia can and will endure costs.

‼️NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on NATO allies supplying weapons to Ukraine to lift their restrictions on using these weapons to strike military targets inside Russia.

What will be the response from the US? economist.com/europe/2024/05…

NEW: U.S. restrictions that force Ukraine to defend their country with 'one hand tied behind their back' are outmoded, illogical and contradictory, me and @MichaelDWeiss argue.
newlinesmag.com/argument/ukrai…

A reminder that negotiations, ceasefires, and peace deals are not off-ramps but rather on-ramps for the Kremlin to renew its attack on Ukraine in the future under conditions that advantage Russia. They are means to the same ends—full control of Ukraine and eradication of

It is not possible to defend Ukrainian territory without defeating the glide bomb threat.

Defeating the glide bomb threat requires intercepting Russian aircraft in Russian airspace.

The glide bombs are launched from Russian airspace and fly glide into Ukraine.

'If Russia is defeated In Ukraine, the next after Putin may or may not be worse. If Russia prevails in Ukraine, the next after Putin will most certainly be like Putin or worse because of the political imperatives that this [empowers].'- Nataliya Bugayova

The U.S. debate is really heating up on the Administration's limitations on how Ukraine may defend herself using the weapons given to her. Everyone can see how absurd these restrictions are.

Russia is not entitled to sanctuary.

Maintaining the sanctuary is not compatible with a serious strategy that seeks to stop Russia's invasion.

#Ukraine must be allowed to defend itself, period. If that means striking a Russian bomber launching missiles at Ukrainian civilians from Russian airspace, then Ukraine should be able to take that shot.

Experts and bipartisan members of Congress agree: Ukraine must not only be allowed but encouraged to target military sites within Russian borders. 🇺🇦

Austin makes it clear: Russia unambiguously still has a sanctuary space protecting its ground forces.

We need clarity on US restrictions on Ukraine's ability to intercept Russian aircraft.

Honored to testify before the U.S. Helsinki Commission on Russia’s war. The testimony is available here: understandingwar.org/backgrounder/c…. Key points:
-      The most advantageous outcome for the US remains helping Ukraine liberate its territory and people, as it is the only path to a

That is ideal, but battlefield realities necessitate a different approach.

Ukraine has no capability to intercept Russian fighter-bombers dropping glide bombs on Vovchansk & Kharkiv City unless they use Patriots against Russian aircraft while they're still in Russian air space.

Wise words from Nataliya Bugayova. Putin is not entitled to sanctuary to shield his forces.

We must abandon the Russian information line that Russia can somehow demand an immunity from being attacked when it’s waging an unprovoked war.