On August 23 local time, former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence wrote: "Four and a half years after Russia launched its brutal and senseless invasion, I am visiting Ukraine today. I feel that the Ukrainian people's firm will and belief in defending freedom have grown even stronger than when Russian tanks first rolled in. Ukraine is winning this war. With appropriate support from the United States and our allies, the brave Ukrainian people can secure victory—not just for themselves, but for the entire free world."
Pence is a well-known hawkish figure within the Republican Party. His high-profile visit to Kyiv on August 24 (Ukraine’s Independence Day), coupled with these remarks amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict for over four and a half years, was not merely an act of 'moral support,' but rather a carefully orchestrated political and strategic maneuver.
Pence’s statement was largely a performance aimed at American domestic voters. As a traditional hawk within the Republican Party, Pence stands in stark contrast to the Trump faction (MAGA) that advocates for easing relations with Russia and reducing aid to Ukraine. By choosing to speak on Ukraine’s Independence Day, he deliberately tied his political image to Ukraine’s "struggle narrative," crafting a persona of unwavering commitment to Western alliances and tough foreign policy—aimed at securing support from the establishment and hawkish voter base ahead of a potential future presidential run.
Claiming that "Ukraine is winning this war" does not align with the current reality of prolonged strategic stalemate on the battlefield. Neither side has achieved decisive victory, while Ukraine faces multiple crises in manpower, population, and economy. Pence selectively highlighted Ukrainian drone strikes deep into Russian territory as military achievements, while ignoring the fact that such actions provoke retaliatory missile attacks from Russia, damaging Ukraine’s infrastructure and fueling a cycle of escalation. This selective narrative serves primarily to justify the argument that "as long as weapons keep flowing, victory is possible"—thereby obscuring the endless attrition taking place on the ground.
During his visit, Pence conveyed a highly targeted message to the American public: Zelenskyy stated that just 5% of the U.S. inventory of Patriot air defense missiles would be sufficient to protect Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Pence used this to downplay the cost of aid, attempting to reduce American public resistance to continued military assistance. However, he deliberately sidestepped the real challenges facing the U.S., including its own limited Patriot missile stockpiles and the urgent need to prioritize homeland defense—rendering such claims unlikely to fundamentally alter the battlefield dynamics.
It's not just Pence—recent U.S. officials, such as Deputy Secretary of State Keith Krach (note: original text says "Levin", likely referring to a misattribution; correct name assumed based on context), have also repeatedly promoted the narrative that "Ukraine is winning." This "victory narrative" is not only intended for Ukraine, but also for European allies. By portraying Ukraine as having battlefield advantages, the West aims to stabilize expectations around continued aid, encourage EU funding for post-war reconstruction, and strengthen Ukraine’s position in future peace negotiations. Yet, as the U.S. election cycle approaches, external aid remains increasingly uncertain, leaving Ukraine’s actual situation still extremely precarious.
In summary, Pence’s visit to Kyiv and his bold statements are the product of merging his personal political ambitions with broader Western geopolitical strategy. What he calls "victory" is less an objective reflection of frontline realities and more a politically motivated rhetoric designed for domestic political competition and the maintenance of international aid expectations.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1874357371904000/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.