The Ukraine Challenge

The United States currently faces a conundrum on its Ukraine policy. While many Western media outlets have commented on the war entering its third year (as of February 22nd), the war did not start in 2022. Many Ukrainians see the war as continuing since the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in the Donbas starting in 2014. By that measure, the war has already lasted a decade. Despite positive comments by U.S. officials last year on the potential of a Ukrainian “counteroffensive”, Ukraine did not and has not gained any significant territory since the fall of 2022. Last year, Ukraine lost Bakhmut after a long and bloody battle. In the last few weeks, Russia has taken Avdiivka, for which Ukraine spent much to defend, and several small villages. This all suggests that the war will continue for a long time.

However, at this critical moment, further military aid to Ukraine has been stalled for months in Congress. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller stated that Ukrainian troops are rationing ammunition due to Congress’s failure to act. The Senate passed a bill including $60 billion for Ukraine in mid-February, but House Speaker Mike Johnson has refused to put it to a vote. This comes after House Republicans demanded that border security provisions be attached to any military aid for it to be considered, then rejected a bipartisan bill that included more restrictive border policies. So, military aid has been rejected both with and without a border security component.

Most military aid to Ukraine is actually spent in U.S. factories to build weapons that are then sent to Ukraine. While Republican politicians know this, the supposed split between sending money abroad and needing it at home allows them to posture as being more concerned with domestic problems. As already stated, the bill that included border measures was rejected anyway. With neither party particularly caring about the mounting U.S. debt, both priorities could certainly be funded. The real reason for Republicans’ opposition to Ukraine aid is former President Donald Trump’s opinion.

Trump has recently stated that any foreign aid should be given as a loan, and that Russia should be allowed to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member that doesn’t “pay” enough. While this suggests that European NATO members are not giving the United States enough money for the collective defense arrangement, he is referring to a guideline that member countries spend at least two percent of gross domestic product on defense. In response, NATO head Jens Stoltenberg stated that 18 of the alliance’s 31 members would meet the two percent target this year. Although American presidents have long pressed its allies to spend more on defense, none of them have challenged the core purpose of NATO, since collective defense is so obviously in our interest.

Let’s step back and look at the reactions of a few Republican Senators to Trump’s comments. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) stated that he was “100% behind” the former President and that European allies should protect themselves. Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) meanwhile said that Europeans worried over Trump’s comments “need to get over it” and “be tough.” These stances show that Republican congressmen generally do not dare to take independent views from Donald Trump (now the presumptive Republican nominee for this year’s election, although this outcome has not been in doubt for many months).

While Republicans continue to reject or stonewall Ukraine aid, the reality on the ground is unfavorable at best. As the Washington Post states, “despite tens of billions of dollars in new weaponry and other equipment and months of training, Kyiv has been unable to retake large swaths of occupied territory and sever Russia’s land bridge to Crimea, Ukraine’s principal objective of the counteroffensive.” This suggests that weapons and aid are not enough. But without base-level funding, Ukraine is likely to perform even worse and lose territory. Something has to change to ensure that Ukraine can continue fighting this war, let alone achieve its objectives. So, what is the path forward?

The White House plans to continue pushing Congress on the proposed $60 billion aid package according to John Kirby, the National Security Council Communications Advisor. In a Wednesday interview with VOA, despite Kirby saying that the administration was looking into other potential actions to support Ukraine, “they’ve got nothing” and that “there’s no replacing the supplemental [package].” There are ultimately few good options to aid Ukraine when further Congressional funding is lacking. Although one idea has been to seize frozen Russian assets and use them to finance Ukraine’s war effort, there are logistical challenges in doing so, along with legal and financial risks. Moreover, European countries hold most of those frozen assets, meaning the decision is not up to the U.S. alone.

Although President Biden can re-emphasize the case for aiding Ukraine in his State of the Union address tonight, the impact of this could be limited. Partisan divisions on the issue will likely persist. While Biden and his administration can and should make a greater case to explain to voters why Ukraine aid matters, this effort will not be enough. Biden must also devote attention to winning reelection, as a return to office by former President Trump will endanger Ukraine and Europe as a whole. Another limitation on the time and effort that can go to Ukraine is other pressing foreign policy problems, such as the horrific war in Gaza and the Indo-Pacific security challenges posed by North Korea and China.

Supporting Ukraine and NATO are important foreign policy interests for the United States. Abandoning Ukraine would severely damage U.S. credibility in the eyes of its allies and would destabilize Europe. While administration officials and outside analysts have argued that Putin could pursue further aggression against European countries if Ukraine were to fall, I find this unlikely. Russia would run into NATO members’ borders almost immediately (barring Moldova) and would have nothing to gain from a war with NATO. Russia has also suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties and lost significant warfighting capacity from this war. Russia has neither the intent nor the capability for a wider war. Nevertheless, the Kremlin cannot presently be trusted, and my opinion here does not change my overall view that support of Ukraine is necessary and vital to protect our interests in Europe. The Biden administration must concentrate on getting its proposed aid package through Congress, and in particular must work to get Speaker Mike Johnson to put the bill on the floor. A lack of real alternatives makes this task critical and urgent.

Picture attributed to npu.gov.ua