On September 3 1940, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a decision, which I may surprise you to know, actually bears on what we’re trying to do with Ukraine. You know, Britain by September of 1940, was in desperate trouble. The Germans had occupied Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland and France, and seem to be preparing to try to invade Britain. The British were out of ships. They were in a situation when they were losing ships their power on a regular basis. And Winston Churchill for months, had begged President Roosevelt to find a way to help them.
They finally found 50 used destroyers. That’s right. destroyer is built for World War One over 20 years old. But sitting there and available. And Roosevelt on September 3 said, we’re going to give the British these 50 destroyers, in return for having a land lease agreement to occupy a series of islands and build naval bases on British territories. Those 50 destroyers played a major role in winning World War Two in saving Britain from a potential German invasion. And why does that matter today? Because the United States has a lot of surplus weapons that could be sent to Ukraine. At no cost. We’re in the process. I’ve been told of the mobilizing 100 IMRs artillery systems that will be perfectly useful, and an enormous asset to Ukraine. Now, why is it happening like this? I think there are two reasons. The bureaucracy and the Pentagon is a very complicated, frankly, self serving system that has massive red tape, and very, very limited ability to be agile. And they just haven’t thought it through. Second, the lobbyists have a game going, we’re going to pass money for Ukraine. But the money by the way, is not going to go to Ukraine. The money’s going to go to American manufacturers, were going to build new weapons, which are going to go to the Pentagon, for the Pentagon sends old weapons to Ukraine. So I think there’s probably a problem that if we were to suddenly say, what if we just took all the weapons that we were going to demobilize that we didn’t need anymore, that were surplus, and gave them to Ukraine, because it’s not costing us anything, these are weapons we’re not going to use, then that wouldn’t be weapons that would lead to money going back to the American manufacturers. So you’re not going to find any defense lobbyists, eagerly out there saying, Gosh, this would be a really smart thing to do. Good for the American taxpayer. Good for the Ukrainians, really bad for Putin and Russia. And yet, what I think should happen is we should survey first of all, how many weapons have been demobilized in the last two years that could have gone to Ukraine? My guess is it’s an amazing number, and would have made Ukraine much stronger, save Ukrainian lives, and forced the Russians to really rethink what they’re doing. But let’s start right now. We can’t go back and relive the last two years. Let’s make a ground rule that we’re going to make sure that every available surplus weapon goes to Ukraine. It doesn’t go to some graveyard and as used at no cost to the American taxpayer to help defeat Putin.
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
‘A promise’: Cadets describe their journeys at West Point
Jan 10 Dr. Frank Luntz‘A disturbing pick’: Americans debate Musk, Trump’s cabinet picks
Jan 3 Dr. Frank Luntz‘Dysfunctional’: Americans share criticisms of Congress
Dec 27 Dr. Frank Luntz‘Instill optimism’: Americans on how future generations can succeed
Dec 20 Dr. Frank LuntzLet’s send every available surplus US weapon to Ukraine
By Straight Arrow News
As Ukrainian munitions reach critically low levels, the Biden administration has pledged an additional $300 million in ammunition and weaponry for Kyiv. This marks the first security package announced by the Pentagon for Ukraine since December, and as national security adviser Jack Sullivan cautions, it will serve to maintain Ukraine’s defenses against Russian attacks for only a few weeks.
Straight Arrow News contributor Newt Gingrich contends that the United States should have consistently provided Ukraine with its entire inventory of decommissioned weapons to fend off Putin. Gingrich posits a theory to explain why this hasn’t been the case.
So I think there’s probably a problem that if we were to suddenly say, ‘What if we just took all the weapons that we were going to demobilize, that we didn’t need anymore, that were surplus, and gave them to Ukraine, because it’s not costing us anything. These are weapons we’re not going to use.’ Then that wouldn’t be weapons that would lead to money going back to the American manufacturers. So you’re not going to find any defense lobbyists, eagerly out there saying, ‘Gosh, this would be a really smart thing to do — good for the American taxpayer, good for the Ukrainians, really bad for Putin and Russia.‘
And yet, what I think should happen is, we should survey, first of all, how many weapons have been demobilized in the last two years that could have gone to Ukraine. My guess is, it’s an amazing number, and would have made Ukraine much stronger, save Ukrainian lives, and forced the Russians to really rethink what they’re doing.
But let’s start right now. We can’t go back and relive the last two years. Let’s make a ground rule that we’re going to make sure that every available surplus weapon goes to Ukraine, it doesn’t go to some graveyard, and is used at no cost to the American taxpayer to help defeat Putin.
On September 3 1940, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a decision, which I may surprise you to know, actually bears on what we’re trying to do with Ukraine. You know, Britain by September of 1940, was in desperate trouble. The Germans had occupied Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland and France, and seem to be preparing to try to invade Britain. The British were out of ships. They were in a situation when they were losing ships their power on a regular basis. And Winston Churchill for months, had begged President Roosevelt to find a way to help them.
They finally found 50 used destroyers. That’s right. destroyer is built for World War One over 20 years old. But sitting there and available. And Roosevelt on September 3 said, we’re going to give the British these 50 destroyers, in return for having a land lease agreement to occupy a series of islands and build naval bases on British territories. Those 50 destroyers played a major role in winning World War Two in saving Britain from a potential German invasion. And why does that matter today? Because the United States has a lot of surplus weapons that could be sent to Ukraine. At no cost. We’re in the process. I’ve been told of the mobilizing 100 IMRs artillery systems that will be perfectly useful, and an enormous asset to Ukraine. Now, why is it happening like this? I think there are two reasons. The bureaucracy and the Pentagon is a very complicated, frankly, self serving system that has massive red tape, and very, very limited ability to be agile. And they just haven’t thought it through. Second, the lobbyists have a game going, we’re going to pass money for Ukraine. But the money by the way, is not going to go to Ukraine. The money’s going to go to American manufacturers, were going to build new weapons, which are going to go to the Pentagon, for the Pentagon sends old weapons to Ukraine. So I think there’s probably a problem that if we were to suddenly say, what if we just took all the weapons that we were going to demobilize that we didn’t need anymore, that were surplus, and gave them to Ukraine, because it’s not costing us anything, these are weapons we’re not going to use, then that wouldn’t be weapons that would lead to money going back to the American manufacturers. So you’re not going to find any defense lobbyists, eagerly out there saying, Gosh, this would be a really smart thing to do. Good for the American taxpayer. Good for the Ukrainians, really bad for Putin and Russia. And yet, what I think should happen is we should survey first of all, how many weapons have been demobilized in the last two years that could have gone to Ukraine? My guess is it’s an amazing number, and would have made Ukraine much stronger, save Ukrainian lives, and forced the Russians to really rethink what they’re doing. But let’s start right now. We can’t go back and relive the last two years. Let’s make a ground rule that we’re going to make sure that every available surplus weapon goes to Ukraine. It doesn’t go to some graveyard and as used at no cost to the American taxpayer to help defeat Putin.
We need one big budget reconciliation bill, not two
Looking forward to major shift in US government
The United States should stay out of Syria
Congress must invest in military, stay vigilant
Trump can nominate Patel, Hegseth, but will Senate confirm?
Underreported stories from each side
Hunter Biden artworks worth ‘millions of dollars’ destroyed in LA fires: NY Post
13 sources | 0% from the left ReutersCanadian industry groups call for help facing US tariffs
60 sources | 15% from the right Mert Alper Dervis/Anadolu Agency via Getty ImagesLatest Stories
Bias Comparison but no Bias Summaries
Bias Summaries but no Bias Comparison
Both Bias Summaries and Bias Comparison with two sides
Both Bias Summaries and Bias Comparison – Bias Left Summaries missing
Both Bias Summaries and Bias Comparison
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
We need one big budget reconciliation bill, not two
Jan 15 Newt GingrichRFK Jr. at Health Department a chance to tackle drug addiction crisis
Jan 15 Adrienne LawrenceIs Meta’s free speech overhaul a power play or real change?
Jan 14 Ben WeingartenAmerica is deeply divided. Here’s what you can do.
Jan 14 Ruben Navarrette