By Yigal Levin
Just like Sikorsky’s statement—that “they will shoot everything down”—it’s important that Trump’s words don’t remain just words.
This also applies to downed aircraft: if someone says they’ll shoot them down, it’s not interesting—then shoot them down, and we’ll have concrete material to base judgments on.
The same goes for Trump’s words: he said NATO would provide weapons, implying they would be sent to Ukraine—no problem, if the weapons arrive, there will be something to discuss.
Weapon transfers have two dimensions: the first is sending just enough to maintain the resilience of the Ukrainian military. This includes all the F-16 support packages and similar supplies.
The second dimension is increasing transfers both qualitatively and quantitatively, and yes, this is never done without purpose. It’s always carefully tied to a specific operation of strategic importance.
If we see a radical increase in supplies to Ukraine, it should be understood that this won’t come from sudden “generosity,” but because something is now expected from Kyiv.
I fully admit that Ukrainian diplomacy, the office, and European plus American supporters of Ukraine may have convinced the U.S. administration over the past months that the potential is there.
If it works, there will be even more supplies and support; if not, it will be a Groundhog Day scenario like winter 2023–2024.
And yes, Putin has already written himself into history with many of his decisions, and certainly as a unique figure who rejected Trump’s proposal for a freeze.
I know history well and assure you—this doesn’t happen. No one, when in such a position with such a force disposition and a terrible deadlock, refuses the kind of proposal Trump has been pushing since spring.
There was even a sense that, following the logic of “don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” Putin would grab this lifeline and agree to a freeze.
But no—much to the surprise of the Americans (and others), he chose to continue burning his own state.
The big mistake of Trump, many analysts, and various “think tanks” is failing to understand that Putin’s attitude toward Ukraine goes beyond rationality.
It may seem rational from his own perspective—mythical signifiers—but it’s utterly irrational in terms of Western values.
In any case, all of this is material for philosophers, sociologists, and historians. Reality now is determined and decided as it has been over the past years.
It is determined by the Ukrainian soldier—he witnessed how it all began, and he will ultimately determine how it ends.
