Rep. Don Bacon Rejects "Biden's and Zelenskyy's War" Narrative, Emphasizes Putin's Aggression

Washington D.C. – Representative Don Bacon (R-NE) issued a strong critique of the narrative that frames the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as "Biden's and Zelenskyy's war," asserting that Russian President Vladimir Putin is solely responsible for the invasion. In a recent social media post, the Nebraska Congressman underscored the historical accountability facing the current administration regarding its handling of the conflict.

"It is Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s war” is so morally blind and factually wrong. Mr President, Putin is the one who is the invader," Rep. Bacon stated in his tweet, directly challenging a viewpoint that has gained traction in some political circles. He further added, "And, now this war is on your watch and you’ll be judged in the history books in the decades to come by your actions or lack thereof."

Rep. Bacon, a retired Air Force brigadier general, has consistently been a vocal proponent of robust U.S. support for Ukraine. His stance aligns with a segment of the Republican party that advocates for continued aid to Kyiv, emphasizing the strategic importance of resisting Russian aggression and supporting democratic allies. This perspective often contrasts with more isolationist views within the party.

The Biden administration has provided extensive military, financial, and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. This support has been crucial for Ukraine's defense, though debates continue in Congress regarding the scope and duration of future aid packages. Rep. Bacon's comments highlight the ongoing political discourse surrounding U.S. foreign policy and accountability in the face of global conflicts.

The war, now in its third year, continues to shape geopolitical dynamics and U.S. foreign policy decisions. Rep. Bacon's remarks serve as a reminder of the deep divisions and strong convictions within American politics regarding the conflict's origins, responsibilities, and the path forward for U.S. engagement. His call for historical judgment underscores the long-term implications of current policy choices.