Follow us on social

Zelensky faces chilly GOP reception in Washington

Zelensky faces chilly GOP reception in Washington

What a difference 10 months and a grinding war make, as Republicans vow no more 'blank checks' for Ukraine

Reporting | Washington Politics

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed a joint session of Congress last December, Republicans were a critical node in continued U.S. support for his country’s fight against the Russian invasion.

“Zelensky’s speech found a sympathetic ear among members of Congress, who frequently rose to their feet in standing ovations throughout his address,” wrote Responsible Statecraft’s Connor Echols at the time.

Zelensky returns to a vastly changed landscape in Washington Thursday, as a growing number of GOP lawmakers have expressed their reluctance — or outright opposition — to continued funding for Ukraine. “It’s not just far-right members,” a House Republican aide granted anonymity to speak freely told POLITCO. “(Mainstream Republicans are) sympathetic to the cause but we’re throwing money at a conflict that can last for years.”

This may be the reason why Zelensky will be meeting behind closed doors with selected bipartisan members of Congress — including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — and the White House, and not making another televised address to both chambers.

Congress is currently weighing President Joe Biden’s $24 billion aid request for Ukraine, part of a larger battle over funding the U.S. government for the next fiscal year, which begins October 1.

As the New York Times’ Andrew Kramer put it: the last time Zelensky was in the nation’s capital, he was given a “hero’s welcome.” This time around, he added, the Ukrainian president is on a “more delicate political mission,” both because of a slow-moving counteroffensive in Ukraine, and domestic politics in Washington.

McCarthy, whose position on funding Ukraine has been mixed since he assumed the speakership in January, told reporters that he had some questions to ask the Ukrainian President when they meet. "Where’s the accountability on the money we’ve already spent? What is the plan for victory? I think that’s what the American public wants to know," he said. The Speaker would not commit to whether or not he would support another tranche of aid.

Other members of his caucus have been more direct. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) — a rare member of the party’s far right flank who has been a consistent ally of McCarthy in a number of disputes over the past year — is opposing his efforts to broker a short-term spending deal between the party’s warring factions because she refuses to vote “to fund a single penny to the war in Ukraine.”

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) told reporters on Wednesday that his message to Zelensky is that there is “no money in the House, right now for Ukraine,” and that “it was not a good time for (Zelensky) to be here quite frankly.” Other reactions have said that they will oppose aid unless the Biden administration provides a clear strategy and mission for the war.

These reactions are indicative of a larger movement in the GOP against supporting additional, unconditional aid. The party has been “trending that way since last summer and has accelerated in the last month or so,” according to Dan Caldwell, Vice President of the conservative Center for Renewing America.

The increased opposition to aid reflects shifts in Republican public opinion outside of the Beltway. A CNN poll from last month showed 71 percent of Republicans believed that Congress should not authorize new funding.

However, while some of the loudest voices in the House are speaking out against more aid, advocates of continuing support are trying to paint a more nuanced picture. The group Defending Democracy Together, which is led by neoconservatives Sarah Longwell, Bill Kristol, and others, and which has launched an effort aimed at putting pressure on Republicans to support Ukraine, released a report card on House GOP members in advance of Zelensky’s visit. Judging by votes on five pieces of legislation along with its own analysis of their past statements, the group gave out 82 As, 43 Bs, 8 Cs, 17 Ds and 72 Fs.

On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Republicans have been more steadfast in their backing of Kyiv. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has endorsed the White House’s proposal. On Tuesday, during remarks about the looming government shutdown, McConnell added that he was “looking forward to seeing President Zelensky on Thursday,” and that it was “always good to remind everyone that a good portion of the money allocated to Ukraine is being spent in this country to rebuild our industrial base.”

But even in the Senate, efforts may become more complicated. On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who single-handedly delayed an effort to send $40 billion in aid to Ukraine last May, published an op-ed in the American Conservative saying that he “will do everything in (his) power to block a bill that includes funding for Ukraine.”

“No matter how sympathetic we are to the Ukrainian people, my oath of office requires me to put the American people first,” Paul wrote. “I encourage my colleagues to oppose any effort to hold the federal government hostage for Ukraine funding.”

Zelensky is confronting a different political reality than the one that greeted him last year. On the battlefield, Ukraine’s counteroffensive has not yielded the results that many analysts and officials predicted, raising the prospects of a protracted conflict.

In Washington, not only has the push against continued funding from Congressional Republicans grown in number and in intensity, but the debate over sending more money to Ukraine is only a part of a larger battle over the government budget. Conservatives in the House have threatened to force the government to shut down if a list of demands, including no “blank check” for Ukraine, are not met. There have been few signs of progress in Congressional disputes over legislation to fund government agencies and Biden’s request for more aid now hangs in the balance.


File:Volodymyr Zelensky and Nancy Pelosi during a Joint Meeting of ...
Reporting | Washington Politics
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

keep readingShow less
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.