Adam Kinzinger Urges International Support for Ukraine and Highlights Concerns Over Georgia’s Economic Relations with Russia

Adam Kinzinger, former American politician and CNN senior political commentator, provides updates on the training of Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 aircraft. Kinzinger emphasizes that the war between Ukraine and Russia is unprovoked and urges adequate international support. He warns against appeasing aggressive leaders like Putin and believes NATO membership or a defense association is crucial for Ukraine. Regarding Georgia, he disagrees with their government’s economic relations with Russia, emphasizing that the future lies with the West.

Can you provide an update on the training of Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 aircraft? How long did the process take, and when can we expect to see F-16s in Ukraine?

Well, it’s good news that the training on F-16s has finally started, although it would have been preferable if it had happened earlier. The procedure took approximately one year to put in place. Currently, it appears that we can train a well-qualified Ukrainian pilot in about four months, which is a standard timeframe when transitioning to a different aircraft for pilots who already know how to fly. I am confident that we can accomplish this. Once we initiate the training for these pilots, it will take around four months for them to become qualified to operate the F-16s. However, logistical considerations, such as training, mechanics, and other factors, need to be taken into account as well. Realistically, we could start seeing F-16s in the service of Ukraine within four to six months, depending on how the coalition comes together. There must be a country willing to relinquish their F-16s to make room for F-35s as replacements. I hope this happens soon because it not only benefits the ongoing conflict but also strengthens Ukraine’s defense against potential future aggression. The F-16 is a highly capable aircraft, after all.

Let’s discuss the war between Ukraine and Russia. You mentioned the term “unprovoked war” in your Twitter posts. Can you elaborate on the situation and evaluate the international support received? Do you believe it is adequate?

Russia has made its intentions clear regarding the expansion of its empire.

They often use justifications like protecting ethnic Russians or manufacturing crises to achieve their goals. However, it’s important to look at what Vladimir Putin himself has been saying. He has long desired to take control of Ukraine or destabilize its government. Ukraine, on the other hand, has done nothing to provoke this conflict. Even when part of its territory, Crimea, was annexed, Ukraine continued to seek peaceful negotiations. Unfortunately, after a period of isolation due to COVID, Vladimir Putin made the decision to wage this war. However, he is now realizing that determined people defending their homeland cannot be easily overcome by machines or weapons. Ukraine has stood strong and adapted rapidly to the challenges it faces, including the use of NATO-standard equipment such as the Patriot missile system. Western and proUkrainian support appears to be holding firm, and we hope it continues to do so. My concern is that changes in political dynamics might weaken the West’s resolve to support Ukraine. Nonetheless, as long as Ukraine receives the necessary support, I am confident they can not only resist Russia but also achieve victory. The human cost of this conflict is significant, so a swift resolution is desired. This situation serves as a lesson for countries like Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. By demonstrating unity, setting aside differences, and calling out aggression, the likelihood of a Russian invasion or attack decreases because Vladimir Putin knows he will ultimately lose.

Some people draw parallels between the current situation in Ukraine and the events preceding World War II. What is your perspective on this, especially from the Western point of view?

The lessons from history are clear when dealing with strong leaders like Vladimir Putin. We must pay attention to their words and actions. When Putin expresses his desire to rebuild aspects of the USSR, we should take it seriously. Back in 2014, when he attacked the eastern regions of Ukraine and annexed Crimea, the international response was slow. This was reminiscent of the lackluster reaction to the Russian occupation of South Ossetia in Georgia. Putin is a smart individual, regardless of one’s opinion of him. He understands that he cannot defeat the military might of the West or the determination of people to defend their land. If there are no obstacles in his way, why wouldn’t he continue his aggressive actions? The lesson here is similar to what we learned 80 years ago during the Munich Agreement. We cannot appease a strong leader. This doesn’t mean that we actively seek war or conflicts. The United States and the Western countries, in general, do not desire war. However, history has shown that if we do not stand up against aggression when it is relatively easy to do so, we will inevitably face a much harder situation in the future. Just look at past instances where Hitler occupied Austria, expecting a response from France and the UK, but when they failed to act, it only emboldened him. The same applies to Vladimir Putin’s ambitions.

And when the war started in Ukraine, the first messages were that Ukraine is not just fighting for itself, but for the Western world as a whole. However, over a year has passed, and some Western leaders and societies may not perceive this as a threat that they need to address. They believe that because it’s happening at a distance, it’s happening somewhere far away. What is your perspective on this? How is the situation perceived in the US?

Well, the US population is still very much behind the Ukrainians and anyone who stands up against this aggression. However, on the political side, things are a little strange at the moment, not just in the US but also around the world. There seems to be a concerning strain of nationalism and isolationism gaining attention, particularly on platforms like Twitter. This is something that worries me. For example, if Donald Trump were to become President again (which I don’t think will happen), or to some extent, if Ron DeSantis or other Republicans who are supportive of Ukraine come to power, it would be positive. It’s crucial for leaders like President Biden to continue discussing this issue with the American people. We are investing a significant amount of money, and Europe is doing the same. It’s important to remind people why we are doing so. In the 21st century, where everything is interconnected, as we’ve seen with the COVID-19 pandemic, borders are no longer barriers. If we believe that what happens in Ukraine will never affect the United States, we are mistaken. I think most Americans have learned that lesson. Therefore, it’s essential for us to support Ukraine when they are willing to fight and defend themselves. We don’t have to send US or NATO troops or escalate the war. If Ukraine is willing to defend itself, it’s crucial to provide them with the necessary weapons so that hopefully, we can avoid having to send troops.

What about NATO membership? Do you believe it could be a solution, or is providing military aid enough?

If I could wave a magic wand, I would make Georgia and Ukraine members of NATO today. However, we must also consider the realities and challenges associated with border disputes. According to NATO’s charter, membership is off the table when such disputes exist. Nevertheless, I believe that once this war is over, Ukraine’s path to NATO membership becomes highly likely, or at least some security construct that fulfills their needs and helps attract investment for rebuilding. There is always a risk of the war resuming, making it difficult to attract outside funding for reconstruction. Therefore, even if it’s not full NATO membership, some form of association that enables Ukraine to defend itself in similar cases is crucial.

The NATO Vilnius Summit is upcoming. Do you have any expectations regarding what might happen? What is your outlook on this war, given your military background and understanding of the situation?

At the NATO Summit, I anticipate the introduction of more aid packages, including tanks and missile defense systems. There will likely be a plan to not only train Ukrainian pilots but also equip Ukraine with the necessary resources, such as F-16s, to defend itself. I also foresee a renewed commitment to defense. While there are still some unpredictable actors within NATO, the alliance remains largely united. As for the future prognosis of this war, I see two possibilities. The worstcase scenario is a continued stalemate with high casualties and limited territorial gains for Russia, resembling aspects of World War One. In this situation, if you are Vladimir Putin, you are concerned about losing power. Using human lives as a means to buy time, he becomes less threatened as the war prolongs. However, when this war ultimately ends in defeat for Russia, whether sooner or later, it will pose a threat to Putin’s future because the Russian people will not be supportive of such an outcome. On the other hand, my hope, and something that is quite possible, is the collapse of the Russian army. No one wants to die for a futile cause, and if soldiers see no hope of victory or if their leaders abandon them amidst internal conflicts, such as those between Wagner forces and the Russian Defense Ministry, it becomes less likely for them to put their lives on the line. In such a scenario, the Russian army could collapse entirely, resulting in a complete rout and the eventual necessity for Russia to seek peace. Ideally, Ukraine would regain control over both the eastern provinces and Crimea, which rightfully belong to them.

Let’s discuss Georgia now. You have been following the events in Georgia closely, and you often express your opinions on the matter. Currently, there are flights between Russia and Georgia, and the Georgian government states that they want to have economic relations with Russia without implying a lack of support for Ukraine. They argue that it’s purely business and economics. What is your take on this situation? What has been happening since the war?

First and foremost, I believe that the majority of the Georgian people do not support their government’s stance on this issue. While it can be argued that economic relations can be beneficial, including with Russia, it’s important to stand against aggression, especially for a country like Georgia that has experienced firsthand the loss of territory and occupation. This move seems to be in violation of sanctions, and it’s puzzling why the Georgian government, specifically the Dream Party, is so eager to please Russia. Russia is a failing country, and even if they were to succeed in the war in Ukraine (which I highly doubt), their future prospects, demographically and otherwise, are grim. Choosing Russia over a closer relationship with the West makes no sense to me, unless there are hidden motives at play.

I understand the frustration regarding Georgia’s NATO membership and integration issues. However, the United States and the West have made it clear that they consider Georgia a partner and an ally. We have provided aid and training, and our troops have trained alongside Georgian troops in Afghanistan. The notion that the US is abandoning Georgia is false and disingenuous, propagated by the country’s leadership. It is equally absurd to suggest that the United States wants to drag Georgia into a wider war with Russia. Our objective is to support Ukraine in maintaining its territorial integrity and achieving peace, not to escalate the conflict.

Let’s talk about your new organization, Country First. What is its mission, and where does it stand in US and international politics?

The mission of Country First revolves around prioritizing the interests of the country over partisan interests. I am deeply interested in democracy and democracy-building, which is why I hold Georgia in high regard. The people of Georgia have shown immense courage in their pursuit of freedom. Democracies should not be defined solely by their bad days, rather, they are defined by how they recover and uphold their democratic values. Country First aims to teach individuals to prioritize their country’s interests above those of their political party. I want to emphasize that one can identify as a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, but the well-being of the nation should always supersede partisan loyalties. My ultimate goal is to expand this mission beyond the United States to other countries, fostering a broader perspective that emphasizes the future of the country rather than specific individuals or parties. Many democracies struggle with this issue, including our own, and I believe it is crucial to place the country first and focus on ideas rather than personalities.

Is there anything else you would like to mention that we haven’t discussed?

I want to reiterate that the United States holds great affection for the country of Georgia. One only needs to look at the aid, training, and partnership Georgia receives to understand the level of attention given by the US. Personally, I have a deep love for Georgia. Whenever your leaders suggest there is a hidden agenda to involve Georgia in a wider war, please disregard such claims as baseless. The last thing the US desires is to escalate the conflict in Georgia. I must stress again that Russia is not the future for Georgia. The future lies with the West, whether it be the United States, France, Germany, or any other Western country. Russia is a failing country, and the Georgian leadership should recognize this and guide the nation toward a better future—one that does not involve Russia.

Additionally, I would like to address the concerns raised by some Western politicians about Georgia’s current orientation. While there may be skepticism regarding Georgia’s alignment, it is crucial for the United States and the West to understand that the views expressed by the government may not necessarily represent the sentiments of the Georgian people.