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
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

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.