Have questions about Ukraine’s war with Russia? Here are some answers.

As the GOP wrangles over finding a new House speaker, the future of aid to Ukraine suddenly looks uncertain. No one knows whether the next speaker will have the guts to buck the MAGA firebrands who want to ax help for Ukraine.

Those extremists, who were responsible for toppling former speaker Kevin McCarthy, are playing on broader public uncertainty about where the war is headed. Egged on by Donald Trump, fueled by social media and Fox News, they are spewing disinformation.

I see the impact in my email, which often parrots claims about a “corrupt” Ukraine. Even supporters are often uncertain of where the war is headed. This is in large part because President Joe Biden has failed to clearly state the U.S. end goals in the conflict, or clarify whether he wants Ukraine to win — and what win means.

So, in hopes of greater clarity, let me reply to some of the questions I’ve received from readers on both sides of the Ukraine debate.

Oddly, McCarthy put it best in a news conference after he was ousted, when he spoke honestly. “What’s happening [in Ukraine] looks a lot like the 1930s,” he said. “A lot of actions that Putin takes is very similar to Hitler.” He described how Russian President Vladimir Putin, furious at the breakup of the Soviet Union (as Adolf Hitler was at Germany’s loss in World War I), wants to restore the great Russian empire, with Ukraine at its core. I’d add: If the West lets him win there, NATO will crack, and Putin will use his nuclear threats to intervene further in Europe, the Arctic, and Asia — in league with North Korea, Iran, and sometimes China. In other words, what goes on in Ukraine won’t stay in Ukraine.

The United States is fully capable of dealing with foreign and domestic crises at the same time. Yes, the Biden team has failed to adequately address the problem of immigration. But the border issue is mainly political, not financial. Slashing Ukraine aid is irrelevant to a solution, which requires an overall immigration reform plan, at which point funding could be found.

Most of the military aid to Ukraine goes to U.S. contractors to produce military supplies, or to reimburse the Pentagon for stock sent to Ukraine (the U.S. military uses the funds to replenish stocks or purchase upgraded systems while the Ukrainians often get older equipment). As for corruption, Ukraine is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Yes, there is a corruption hangover from Soviet times, but Ukraine’s anti-corruption nongovernmental organizations and its free press are busy investigating rumors of misspent monies, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has fired many officials because of alleged corruption.

Another misunderstanding pushed by Trump and the MAGA crowd. As detailed by the Ukraine Support Tracker of the Kiel Institute, a German think tank that keeps careful track of all U.S. and European funds promised to Ukraine, the commitments by all European donors (both EU members and non-EU) are twice as large as those of the United States: roughly $164 billion to $74 billion, if you include multiyear commitments. The difference is that European nations give far more financial support, while U.S. aid is focused much more heavily on weapons.

Trump promotes this dishonest argument by pledging to put Putin and Zelensky in a room and produce a solution in 24 hours. For starters, Putin has made clear he has no interest in negotiations now but is waiting for Western support for Ukraine to wane and the possibility that Trump could be reelected. Trump has said publicly that he believes Putin is entitled to keep Crimea because its population is Russian-speaking. Never mind that most Ukrainians were Russian speakers before Putin invaded and that he has mercilessly bombed cities full of Russian speakers. Moreover, Putin has broken every accord he previously made with Ukraine, and Kyiv knows he would use any pause for negotiations to rebuild his army before restarting the war.

No to both questions. True, Ukraine has been slow to advance on the ground because Russia mined the battlefields five levels deep and built lines of concrete trenches in occupied territories. Ukraine’s tanks can’t cut through such defenses without air cover and long-range munitions. Yet the White House has slow-walked permission for Europeans to send U.S.-made F-16s and long-range ATACMS missiles. However, Ukraine has brilliantly changed strategy and is destroying Russian supply lines and equipment behind the front lines, particularly in Crimea, which is the key to victory. With British long-range missiles and homemade sea drones, it has forced Russian warships in the Black Sea to mostly abandon Crimea.

Winning means that Kyiv puts the Russian army on its back. The key: making Crimea untenable for Russia’s military by cutting off land, air, and sea support to the peninsula that enables Russian control of the Black Sea. If Russian troops were forced to retreat, the blow to the Kremlin might make much of the occupation unsustainable. Only then might talks become possible. But to “win,” Ukraine needs those long-range ATACMS and F-16s.

Patriotic GOP legislators must push through a bipartisan Ukraine aid bill over objections from the extremists. Biden should finally explain to the U.S. public why a Ukraine victory is good for Americans and why a loss would be a disaster.

And the president must stop letting Putin’s bluster deter him from delivering needed weapons. Neither Washington nor Kyiv can afford to let this war drag on indefinitely. A war of attrition is a win for Putin.