Ukraine War Fetishist David French Is Now Lecturing You From Kyiv

French has looked into the eyes of Ukrainians because he is there in Ukraine and has seen for himself just how important it is that you, the American taxpayer, contribute more.

Eddie Scarry reporting for The Federalist

David French, renowned dork and New York Times columnist, desperately needs everyone to know he is in Ukraine, cheering on more American taxpayer-funded war. But only so long as it means he personally remains safe and gets to continue presenting himself as an important expert on foreign conflict.

The Times reported on Monday that the critical Ukraine territory of Bakhmut had been turned to dust and is now occupied by Russian troops. It was unfortunate timing for French, who wrote just a day before how fabulously positioned Ukraine was to gain a strategic advantage now that the Biden administration has prolonged the affair by clearing the way to supply it with fighter jets.

“On Friday morning, local time, I received news of one of the best American decisions of the war,” wrote French, from Kyiv, in local time, because he is in Ukraine, as his column’s dateline indicated, since he is there. “The White House would no longer block its European allies from supplying Ukraine with American-made F-16 fighters, a move that should greatly enhance Ukrainian military capabilities without significantly increasing the risk of unacceptable escalation in its conflict with Russia.”

Honey, wake up the kids! David French says it’s a good thing that we’re doing more war! And guess what! He even says it’s “without significantly increasing the risk of unacceptable escalation!”

Take one look at French’s protective eye goggles and neckbeard. If the image doesn’t steel your spine with confidence that he knows the exact right way to navigate deadly conflict, I don’t know what to tell you.

French went on to say he spent the past week in Kyiv — lest you forget that he is literally in Ukraine — so he personally “can attest to the relentlessness of Ukrainian arguments for advanced fighters.” He said that during his travels to Kyiv, where he is, he “had never seen as consistent, disciplined messaging as I experienced here” (in Ukraine).

Folks — what more do you need? French has looked into the eyes of Ukrainians, because he is there in Ukraine, and seen for himself just how important it is that you, the American taxpayer, contribute more. The $100 billion-plus (and counting) isn’t enough. You need to do more. French knows this firsthand because he has been to Ukraine. He even wrote an article from there, which we know because it was datelined, “Kyiv, Ukraine.” This isn’t difficult to understand.

By the way, giving more money to one of the most corrupt countries in Europe supplying Ukraine with advanced airpower comes at no risk of “significantly increasing the risk of unacceptable escalation” with Russia. French says so. He’s there, so he knows. (French was also once a lawyer in the military, so don’t for one second doubt his expertise on just what it will take for Ukraine to triumph over Russia.)

In any event, it was actually not much of a surprise to French that Ukrainians would ask for more money additional armament. He anticipated this. “I came to Ukraine already believing that Kyiv needed advanced fighters,” he wrote. (Of course he did.) “[B]ut I was unsure whether it needed F-16s specifically.”

That lack of certainty was eventually put to rest, because French was in Kyiv speaking directly with, as he put it, “Ukrainian leaders across the full spectrum of government, including the defense minister, the foreign minister and ministers and other officials involved in law enforcement and economic reconstruction.” They told French they needed more weapons of war, and he believed them. And so, too, shall we.

As for how sure French is that supplying Ukraine with yet more destructive gear raises no risk of violent escalation between the U.S. and Russia, he can only ask for your trust in his wisdom. “The F-16 — especially in the modest numbers under discussion — does not present a substantial threat to Russia itself,” he wrote. “It presents a substantial threat only to the Russian invasion. It is not a true deep-strike aircraft.”

Folks, this is simply how war works. If, like French, you describe weapons as “modest” and make clear to note they’re not “a substantial threat,” no harm, no foul. David knows because he is there — in Ukraine.

If it’s any consolation, French, the war enthusiast, closed with a prayer. Literally. “The Biden administration is ready to turn the page from helping Ukraine simply avoid defeat,” he wrote. “Now we are starting to help Ukraine achieve victory — and maintain the peace we pray is soon to come.”

Though, to be clear, when French says, “We are starting to help Ukraine,” he doesn’t mean he’s in Ukraine to pick up a gun and strap a helmet to his bald head. He means he’s safe from harm and getting paid to cheer on the violence while others die and you fret about looming nuclear war. He’s doing his part, and he’s glad everyone else is too.