The potential global consequences of the Ukraine aid deadlock
Unstable global consequences loom as the impasse over Ukraine aid intensifies America's political divide threatens to shape a detrimental shift in world dynamics
The deep political divide in the Americas could have global consequences as the US support for Ukraine in the war is at risk of collapsing. President Zelensky's previous hero status is fading, and Putin's belief that the US will lose interest in the conflict is proving to be accurate. This could lead to significant ramifications, including a weakening of US global leadership, distancing of allies, and empowerment of enemies.
In the GOP-controlled House, staunch Republicans who support ex-President Donald Trump's "America First" philosophy are pushing to abandon Ukraine and leave its fate uncertain. Meanwhile, a broader group of Republicans in both chambers of Congress are leveraging President Joe Biden's $60 billion aid request to push for major concessions on immigration policy.
This is the latest instance in which conservative lawmakers, who lack the necessary support to achieve their goals, are using America's national security priorities and global standing as bargaining chips for their domestic political agenda. A recent emergency aid package passed by the House to support Israel's conflict with Hamas included cuts to Internal Revenue Service funding, rendering it unacceptable to Senate Democrats and the White House. This was preceded by the refusal of many Republicans to vote to raise the government's borrowing authority in May, ultimately resulting in then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy relying on Democrats to pass a measure averting a global financial crisis and weakening his position.
A widening geopolitical earthquake
The reasoning behind these political maneuvers? The belief that the White House will ultimately give in to GOP demands because the potential consequences of inaction are so dire. However, with the shrinking Republican House majority, the challenges facing new Speaker Mike Johnson in leading, and the staunch support for Trump within the conference, there's no assurance that Ukraine aid would even be approved at that point.
The clash over Ukrainian aid is crucial due to the significant role American weapons have played in Kyiv's defense against Putin's invasion. The country's ability to survive the ongoing bloody stalemate may hinge on the continuation of material support.
However, the implications of this situation extend beyond the mere existence of a single nation.
If the United States allows an illegal invasion to crush a country, it will seriously call into question the credibility of defense and strategic agreements that support the entire Western world. This outcome would make it more likely that Putin would not stop at Ukraine and might target other states once part of the former Soviet Union, such as Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia. Since these countries are part of NATO, a Russian invasion could draw the US into a direct conflict with nuclear-armed Russia, risking World War III.
Moreover, abandoning Ukraine would signal to authoritarian leaders like Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping that smaller opponents can be crushed without consequences, and that there are benefits to geopolitical aggression. It would confirm the belief of American adversaries, including Russia and China, that internal political turmoil will prevent the US from exercising its superpower influence and protecting global democracy.
Supporters of allocating additional aid to Ukraine must effectively articulate why it is in the best interest of all Americans to continue providing support, especially as many are facing economic challenges and questioning the relevance of a conflict in Europe. This political stance has also strengthened the Republican position, with many arguing that the Biden administration's handling of the southern border crisis justifies using the Ukraine funding debate as leverage for stricter immigration policies. The question remains: if the administration cannot control its own borders, why should it prioritize Ukraine's borders?
GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah said Wednesday, "I am very much in favor of getting support for Ukraine and support for Israel, but I also recognize the real politics of the United States House of Representatives will not give funding for Ukraine and Israel unless the border is secured. That's the reality."
A schism over US foreign policy
The debate over funding for Ukraine reflects a deep ideological divide over America's global role, which may be central to a potential 2024 election rematch between Biden and Trump. The current president aligns with the internationalist tradition of post-World War II US leaders, viewing the country as a defender of freedom, democracy, and international law. In contrast, Trump's "America First" approach stems from traditional isolationism, prioritizing national interests over democracy and alliances, and emphasizing transactional dealings with global leaders. This fundamental difference suggests that the current deadlock over Ukraine funding is just the beginning of a prolonged national disagreement.
At its core, the withdrawal of American support for Ukraine would signify the United States abandoning people who have suffered from an unjust invasion and endured two years of violence and atrocities for the sake of choosing their own destiny and leaders.
If Washington overlooks this, it would tarnish American leadership for years to come, as Biden acknowledged in a passionate speech at the White House on Wednesday.
"I am astonished that we have reached this point," remarked Biden. "Russian forces are engaging in war crimes. It's as straightforward as that. It's astonishing. Who is willing to ignore Putin's actions? Who among us is truly ready to do so?"
The turmoil in Congress is already impacting the situation in Ukraine. Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley, who co-chairs the Congressional Ukraine Caucus and recently visited the country, informed CNN's Jim Sciutto on Wednesday that soldiers have had to "begin rationing their ammunition as any responsible army would" out of fear that the supply of US shells and bullets is about to run out.
One soldier, known only as Sasha, expressed to CNN's Anna Coren from the battlefield, "I fear that Ukraine will not be able to survive without the support of our partners and allies. ... It's as straightforward as that."
What happens if Putin is not stopped now?
In a larger strategic perspective, there are increasing concerns about the potential impact of the withdrawal of US aid to Ukraine as its counter-offensive has stalled and Putin is successfully rebuilding Russian forces with the help of other US adversaries like Iran and North Korea. The failure to arm Ukraine after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 serves as a lesson that without intervention, Putin will continue his aggressive actions.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron advocated for ongoing US involvement after meeting with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, emphasizing that the cost of stopping Putin's aggression now is far less than what the US may have to face in the future.
If Putin achieves victory, it won't be the end of the situation. In 2008, I stood in Tbilisi, Georgia, and warned that this could happen," said Cameron, a former prime minister. "Now it's happening in Ukraine. If we allow Putin to succeed in Ukraine, it will expand to other places, potentially putting American lives at risk, not just American money. It's not just about Ukraine, it could be a NATO country next," he stated at the Aspen Security Forum in Washington.
The impact of Ukraine's loss would extend beyond Europe. In Asia, the US is grappling with the implications of a rising China, and if the US abandons its allies, this could change Beijing's calculations regarding military action in Taiwan. Additionally, a weakening of American resolve may lead allies in the region and the Middle East to question their security guarantees and consider seeking their own nuclear protection.
Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, a Republican, expressed concerns about the United States' support for Ukraine during the Aspen forum, stating that potential abandonment of Ukraine would not only affect how our enemies view us, but also how our allies perceive our reliability. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Risch also warned that a failure to support Ukraine could trigger a global nuclear arms race. However, opposition to providing military aid to Ukraine is frequently not well-reasoned.
Some Republicans seem to be driven by political motives. Trump seems to still be upset about his first impeachment in the US House, which was triggered by his attempt to pressure Zelensky to investigate Biden.
The new House speaker, on the other hand, has raised legitimate concerns. Johnson is seeking a more detailed account of where the already-spent billions have been allocated, as well as the administration's plan for ending the war. However, the situation in Ukraine does not have clear-cut solutions. Putin is trying to outlast the United States, and Ukraine's only goal under such a brutal assault is survival, no matter how long it takes.
Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is channeling isolationist sentiments within the GOP by speaking out against US support for Ukraine. He compares this support to "neoconservative" actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, hoping to appeal to voters tired of prolonged foreign wars, despite the fact that no American soldiers are currently fighting in Ukraine.
During a heated interview on Fox News, Ramaswamy expressed his frustration, stating, "We're giving more taxpayer money so some Ukrainian kleptocrat can buy a bigger house," when questioned about his stance on Russia's presence in Eastern Europe.
Ramaswamy's arguments may be effective in a debate setting, but they overlook crucial strategic factors. Furthermore, they fail to address a poignant question raised by Sasha, a Ukrainian soldier on the frontline: "If we allow Ukraine to fall and Putin to prevail, who will feel secure? No one."
