Reps. Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Mike Turner (R-OH) appeared on ABC News’s This Week on Sunday and pledged that aid for Ukraine will continue to flow unimpeded once Republicans have a majority in the House in January.
McCaul, who will likely head the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the next Congress, also called for the Biden administration to send longer-range weapons to Kyiv. He said that his criticism of the Biden administration was that it “slow-walked” military aid to Ukraine by being hesitant to provide longer-range weapons.
McCaul said the US should provide Ukraine with Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), artillery munitions with a range of up to 190 miles, so Ukrainian forces can hit targets inside Crimea, which Russia has controlled since 2014.
Ukrainian attacks on Crimea will likely lead to major escalations from Russia. Moscow didn’t start launching large-scale attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure until October, after the truck bombing of the Kerch Bridge, which connects the Russian mainland to Crimea.
When asked if Ukrainian strikes on Crimea would “incite Russia,” McCaul said the peninsula could be targeted since the US doesn’t recognize it as Russian territory. “Crimea is not part of Russia under international law. So if they can hit into Crimea, I think that’s fair game,” he said.
Both McCaul and Turner insisted that Republicans will support continuing to arm Ukraine but said there is growing support for more oversight. “I think the majorities on both sides of the aisle support this effort,” McCaul said. “I think everybody has a voice in Congress. And the fact is, we are going to provide more oversight, transparency, and accountability. We’re not going to write a blank check.”
A group of House Republicans who oppose US aid to Ukraine led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) recently introduced a bill that would audit the funds Congress has approved to spend on the war. The legislation will likely be voted down by Democrats, but Greene said she would reintroduce the bill in the next Congress.
43 thoughts on “Top House Republicans Call for Biden to Send Longer Range Weapons to Ukraine to Strike Crimea”
Rep. Michael McCaul (R Texas) gives Republicans a bad, bad name. He is a warmonger, against stopping the horror in Yemen, very pro the ongoing Ukraine debacle. He is a lawyer. He has never been in an army, never served time anywhere other than in the US government. And notably much time was in Homeland Security. He is a vital cog in the machinery that is turning, imminently, our republic into a failed empire. Read history. It’s all happening again. I didn’t even look up his compatriot in forwarding this wonderful pro-endless-war effort.
“Rep. Michael McCaul (R Texas) gives Republicans a bad, bad name.”
Which is saying a lot with all that competition.
I can see several possibilities for this situation to turn into something else… My main concern is Russia…
“asked if Ukrainian strikes on Crimea would ‘incite Russia,’ McCaul said the peninsula could be targeted since the US [and international law] doesn’t recognize it as Russian territory.”
Oh. So in other words, he evaded the direct question, ‘Would attacks on Crimea escalate the war?’ with the non-answer, ‘It’s legal.’
Thanks for making me laugh, a good way to start the day… 🙂
Good point, all that matters is the slaughter be ‘legal’, … like John Yuh’s torture memo.
To be consistent, that would mean that McCaul would recognize the legality of Serbia bombing the hell out of Kosovo because Belgrade doesn’t recognize Kosovo as an independent country. Same goes for Taiwan vis a vis China.
Send these bastards to Ukraine..
Give them jackets with Azov battalion patch on them. Air drop them in the middle of a skirmish.
Now we’re getting creative!
right then. ukraine claims crimea as its own yet would not hesitate to bomb crimea.
way to go.
Using this logic everything Putin has done in the Donbas, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia – way to go!
and it all began with 2014 and the overthrow of the legal, democratically elected, neutral government of Ukraine.
Yes Russia should have been familiar with revolutions – anyway since that there has been two democratic elections – so very little to suggest that the current Ukrainian government is not legal.
Fruit of the corrupted tree. You might be inclined to overlook past criminal activity of your country, but fortunately you’re not everyone.
My country has not conducted criminal activity for well over a century – if you are talking about the US then I’m fairly sure that at the very least people in EU have far fewer problems with their criminal activities than they have with unleashing war of territorial conquest.
Long-range missiles, fired from where to where?
Aren’t the Republicans split, some what escalation, some what to abandon Ukraine to its fate. The only thing they know is Joe is wrong
True true, here here!
Yes, there are a few republicans that are returning to very very old anti-war roots. But it is a very small few.
Remember when the founders told us not to become entangled in foreign alliances? Do you also remember all your family calling you a leftists traitor to our country for quoting our country’s founder?
Republicans suffer the same egomania based on CIA writers in Hollywood as liberal progressive democrats.
US citizens will need to be prepared for the great fold. Only foolish people believe the US cannot go broke and then bust. Russia has plenty of resources to carry on, China will simply buy more paper mills in Maine and expand its Boston rapid transit production in Massachusetts. What will the Eurasian allies do with an empty pentagon building in D.C.?
“Top House Republicans Call for Biden to Send Longer Range Weapons to Ukraine to Strike Crimea Reps. McCaul and Turner say there’s support for more oversight of the aid”
Keep poking the bear and Cuba or Venezuela might just host long range Russian weapon systems.
This is how we came to the Cuban Missile Crisis. American intermediate range missiles in Turkey and Russian intermediate range missiles in Cuba.
Blowback can be a surprising event!
1) the US already faces the threat of nukes from less than 100 km distance from Washington and New York so this changes what?
2) surely that would be short to medium range weapons.
Havana to Washington 1100 nm!
What is the range of Russia’s hypersonic missiles?
The Russian military says the Kinzhal has a range of up to 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles)
and flies at 10 times the speed of sound, making it difficult to
intercept. Russia has used the weapon to strike several targets in
A Russian SSBN is easier to track, but the point is making a statement with a Kinzhal deployment.
So clearly medium range.
about 1200 nm launched by Mig 31 1900 if launched by TU 22 – so both require planes to be on Cuba – giving a significant warning time but perhaps more important the payload is 500 kg so probably not the kind of missiles that even with 10 or 20 launched can prevent MAD.
I have no problem with those stats – it does not make stationing it in Cuba any more of a game changer.
Sure the kind of message the Pearl Harbor attack gave the US – not sure this is the kind of message the Russians would be well advised to send as it would prolong sanctions for a very long period.
Is a Russian SSBN easier to track than a missile complex on the island of Cuba?
Sanctions are long term no matter what happens in combat. Try to pay attention.
The point here is that Russian missiles in Cuba does not change things for the US – they have had that threat and worse since nukes could be launched from submarines.
Sanctions are indeed long term – but with missiles stationed in Cuba the Russians would have them extended for much longer than would otherwise be the case – or is there some reason that you think taking this step would make the US think that the Russians had to be placated?
Comments are closed.