Ukraine is in the middle of its long-awaited counteroffensive against Russia. Ukrainian forces probably received a bit of a boost from the weekend’s short-lived mutiny by Yevgeny Prigozhin and his Wagner mercenaries.
But no matter how successful the counteroffensive ends up being, few analysts believe that Ukraine will no longer require significant flows of weaponry from the U.S. and NATO allies when the music stops.
New polling shows that three-fourths of Americans believe it is important to the United States that Ukraine wins the war against Russian aggression, including 86% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans. Despite this popular support, in a polarized Congress, finding the necessary consensus will be key to enable Ukraine to end the war on favorable terms and to deter further aggression while rebuilding its destroyed cities.
Already, there are battle lines being drawn in the U.S. Congress over spending. Some of the louder opponents of continued support for Ukraine include such controversial populist figures as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). However, perhaps to the surprise of some, when Gaetz introduced a resolution to immediately stop supplying U.S. weapons for Ukraine’s defense, he attracted only a modest ten co-sponsors.
This is because, although there is great and perhaps even inordinate media interest in the loudest Republican voices calling for global disengagement and ending support for Ukraine, most Republican elected officials remain firmly in the camp that wants to boost defense investments to counter China and Russia.
Unfortunately, however, the populist right wing isn’t the only place where skepticism of U.S. support for Ukraine has metastasized. Right before the midterm elections, a letter from 30 members of the progressive Democrats threw cold water on full Democratic support for Ukraine’s defense. The chair of the progressive caucus Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), ultimately retracted the letter in the face of blowback related to the politics and timing of its release. But those progressives said what they meant, and the Democrats’ messaging discipline on Ukraine is showing even more cracks now.
The senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), recently said that a Ukraine bill will not survive “unless there is a willingness to increase domestic spending at the same time.” It is a dangerous gambit to condition military support for Ukraine’s defensive effort — or any other military spending on weapons of such significant geopolitical consequence — upon the outcome of partisan squabbles over domestic programs.
The debt ceiling deal negotiated by Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and the White House avoided a default on the nation’s debts. But Republican Senators and security-minded House Republicans expressed grave concern that the deal shortchanged the Pentagon budget at a pivotal moment, when the U.S. faces an array of threats from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) answered those concerns, saying “This debt ceiling deal does nothing to limit the Senate’s ability to appropriate emergency supplemental fund to ensure our military capabilities are sufficient to deter China, Russia and other adversaries.”
There are other methods of finding money — for example, cuts to outdated and expensive military programs ill-suited for today’s threats, assuming that the money saved is reallocated to necessary programs. Still, Congress would also be wise to pass an emergency supplemental to ensure that Ukraine has the weapons it needs to prevail over Russia and in the right quantities. Congress must also spend the money to restock American munitions and quickly ramp up production of key weapons to field in the Pacific theater in order to deter China.
DeLauro’s announcement signifies that some or even many House Democrats might hold back support for vital defense programs unless Republicans support Democrats’ preferred domestic programs. This puts support for Ukraine and deterrence of China in jeopardy.
Although many Republicans have pressed for scrutiny over aid to Ukraine, most have not criticized President Joe Biden for being too supportive of Ukraine or too tough on Russia. Rather, they correctly criticize the administration for pursuing a strategy of support for Ukraine’s defense that is aimless, indecisive, and risk-averse. Learning from the mistakes of the “forever wars” in the Middle East, they have pressed for a clear theory of victory backed by ample resources for Kyiv to succeed quickly and decisively.
Illustrating that perspective, the House Armed Services Committee, led by Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), just passed a defense authorization bill more prescriptive in the weapon systems it wants the U.S. to send to Ukraine. It is noteworthy that the prescription is for more lethality. Specifically, the bill earmarks some of the requested funds for ATACMs — the strike systems that Ukraine has been begging Biden’s White House to send, but which the White House has so far refused to provide.
The conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) has also leaned into its support for Ukraine. Last week the RSC, led by Chairman Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), released a budget document that criticizes the Biden White House for its failure to deter Russia and for padding Ukrainian assistance with funds unnecessary for the war. Hern insisted that while there should be scrutiny over aid deliveries, “lethality should be the goal,” and that “air defense systems such as PATRIOT missile batteries, ATACMS long-range missile systems, cluster munitions, Bradley and Abrams tanks, MQ-1C Gray Eagle and MQ-9 Reaper drones and F-16 fighter aircraft are all examples of such lethal aid that the RSC Budget would provide.”
These are precisely the categories of weapons that analysts at the Hudson Institute have assessed would greatly contribute to Ukraine’s battlefield success.
The debt ceiling compromise deferred a serious financial crisis. But it will be for nought if Democratic leadership or populist Republican sentiment trades short-term success for cuts to defense that could permit a geopolitical crisis in Europe or in Asia.