Follow us on social

Pass Ukraine aid, but make it conditional on ending the war

Pass Ukraine aid, but make it conditional on ending the war

We should test Putin's willingness on talks, but denying the funding will weaken Kyiv's position at the negotiating table

Analysis | Washington Politics

In the debate over funding aid to Ukraine, both Republicans and Democrats are trapped in their own delusions. Congress needs to allocate the funding, but with a singular goal: to bring the war to a speedy conclusion.

Some Republicans appear to want to prevent funding for Ukraine simply to give a black eye to President Biden in an election year. This is no way to conduct foreign policy, let alone concerning matters of war and peace, where countless lives and the fate of independent Ukraine are at stake.

But some Republicans, among others, are asking an important question, one that we might call the David Petraeus query, who famously demanded about the war in Iraq back in 2003: “Tell me how this ends.” Unfortunately, the Biden administration, many Democrats, and other supporters of Ukraine have deflected from confronting that crucial question.

Ukraine’s leading military official, General Zaluzhny, recently labeled the war a stalemate. Months earlier, back in July of last year, U.S. general and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Mark Milley accurately predicted that Ukraine’s counter-offensive would be very difficult, very long, and “very, very bloody.” Yet now, even with the battle lines essentially frozen, many are speaking about a “long war.”

Somehow, while 2024 will be a very difficult year for Ukraine, pundits and officials suggest a counteroffensive could be successful in 2025. It requires magical thinking to assume that another additional weapon system down the line will somehow tip the balance, yet not lead to a wider war or escalation with a nuclear-armed power, a risk that some commentators casually brush away.

Despite all the promise of 21st century war-fighting technology, the conflict has devolved into classic trench warfare. Some one hundred years after WWI, it is worth recalling that Britain alone suffered the loss of several hundred thousand of its troops. And yet the first and last British soldier killed in that war died within a few miles of each other.

Quite understandably, many Ukrainians want to continue fighting in the hopes of pushing the invaders out of their territory. But those of us at a distance who can afford to be more sober-minded must ask our Ukrainian friends the following: how much more death and destruction can realistically be exchanged for how much territory?

Further, Democratic supporters of Ukraine need to ponder whether continuing the war until 2025 is really in Ukraine’s interest. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has said if elected president he could end the war within 24 hours. If that’s true, how much of that outcome would be favorable to Ukraine?

Some will object that Putin has no interest in negotiating to end the conflict at this point. That is one question that can be tested. If he refuses, that refusal should be made clear, loudly and publicly. To be sure, Russia appears to be in a stronger position than Ukraine, on the surface at least. Yet there are clear signs of war weariness in Russia as well: its economy is in danger of overheating through both inflation and a labor shortage, and it is facing its own challenges of mobilizing sufficient troops, with wives and mothers of soldiers at the front openly protesting the prolonged deployment of their husbands and sons.

Some will claim that ending the war now will allow Putin to claim victory, having illegally seized close to twenty percent of Ukraine’s territory. He will certainly try to convince the Russian population of that. Yet absent territorial concessions, sanctions will almost certainly remain. While Russia is nowhere near imminent collapse, as some pundits have quixotically hoped, the long-term prospects for the Russian economy are grim.

With the end of the war the focus in Russian will turn inward, and the Russian people will start to ask whether all the dead souls, maimed bodies, and economic hardship was worth the seized and devastated lands that will take countless rubles to rebuild.

If Congress denies funding, Ukraine will be in a much weaker position to negotiate. It will essentially be left out to dry, and Congressional inaction will send a troubling message about U.S. backing to other countries around the world. Putin will be tempted to continue this war, indefinitely.

But the negotiations need to begin. In short, Republicans should fund aid to Ukraine. In exchange, Biden and the Democrats should promise to push for negotiations now to bring this war to an end.


Handout photo shows U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on December 12, 2023 in Washington, DC, USA. Photo by Ukrainian Presidency via ABACAPRESS.COM/Reuters

Analysis | Washington Politics
Ukraine war
Top image credit: HC FOTOSTUDIO via shutterstock.com

Should a Russia-Ukraine peace leave territorial control for later?

Europe

Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, there have been ongoing diplomatic efforts to broker a peace settlement in the three-year-long war between Russia and Ukraine. So far, however, negotiations have failed to bridge the stark divide between the two sides.

Two of the key contentious issues have been post-war security guarantees for Ukraine and the political status of Ukrainian territory claimed or annexed by Russia. Specifically, regarding territorial sovereignty, Ukraine and Russia have rejected the United States' proposal to “freeze” the war along the current line of conflict as a de facto new border. Ukraine has refused to renounce its claims of sovereignty over territories occupied by Russia (including Crimea, which was annexed in 2014). Russia, in turn, has demanded Ukraine’s recognition of Russia’s territorial claim over the entirety of the four Ukrainian regions, which Russia annexed in 2022.

keep readingShow less
Submarine based cruise missiles
Top photo credit: An official USN rendering of an Ohio-class submarine VLS system firing Tomahawk missiles (Wikipedia/US Navy)

Navy pushing billions for sea-based nukes that nobody seems to want

Military Industrial Complex

Sea-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missiles, or SLCM-Ns, were considered unnecessary for U.S. national security for years. But now, the Navy’s pushing to bring SLCM-Ns back — even if doing so costs taxpayers billions.

Indeed, U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Johnny Wolfe told House Armed Services Committee members on May 7 that the Navy was fast tracking the development of the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile - Nuclear, known as the SLCM-N, along with the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapons System and hypersonic missiles.

keep readingShow less
lockheed martin
Top photo credit: The Lockheed Martin Corporation on display during the Seoul International Aerospace and Defense Exhibition(ADEX) 2023 at the Seoul Air Base on October 18, 2023 in Seongnam, south of Seoul. (Photo by Chris Jung/NurPhoto)

Bipartisan bill seeks to put arms sales lobbyists on ice for 3-years

Military Industrial Complex

President Donald Trump announced some $200 billion in potential arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar a week ago — this is huge potential business for major U.S. defense contractors like RTX, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics, all of which deploy armies of lobbyists in Washington each year to influence such contracts.

A new bipartisan bill dropping this week will impose some of the strictest bans to date to make sure former government officials aren’t lobbying on behalf of those big companies or foreign countries to get their share of this massive federal pie. In fact, the legislation will make it a crime to do so.

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.