It is always a concern whether federal legislation will have strong bipartisan support. That’s certainly the case on Tuesday, when the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly supported an additional $95 billion foreign aid package, including $60 billion for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel.
Only two Democrats, one independent, and 26 Republicans voted against spending billions of dollars on conflicts in which the United States is not a belligerent.
To hear from supporters of additional spending, this aid won’t necessarily change the course of either war. Rather, it’s about reminding the world that we are still “leaders.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, after the vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, “With this bill, the Senate declares that American leadership will not waver, will not falter, and will not fail.” said.
“There is no guarantee that Ukraine will beat Russia,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said on the Senate floor before the vote. But billions more in aid “enable America to remain the leader of the free world and demonstrate that we honor our commitments to our friends and allies.”
The New York newspaper reported that the 26 Republicans who voted against the aid bill, citing the fiscal impact, the urgent need for more federal funds at the southern border, and the hopelessness of a Ukraine victory, were “the leaders of the world.” He had chosen to “forget,” the New York paper wrote. Times columnist Bret Stevens.
The three non-Republican no’s are senators. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), Peter Welch (D-Vert.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) all base their arguments on Israel’s civilian casualties in Gaza. takes the opposite position.
Some may think that “leadership” means more than just throwing money at endless conflicts. It also requires some judgment about what U.S. aid money is actually buying, whether it’s worth the sticker price, and whether we really need to pick up the tab. It should be necessary.
If U.S. leaders exercise more of the judgment required of “world leadership,” there will be no remittances to Ukraine or Israel.
It is easiest to argue for cutting aid to Israel. It is a wealthy nation with a modern military and extensive resources at its disposal to wage the Gaza war. Israeli taxpayers could easily cover military spending currently borne by American taxpayers. The additional $14 billion sent in the Senate aid bill is not needed.
The humanitarian argument for cutting off U.S. aid should also be persuasive to those who have seen Gaza turned into the surface of the moon with U.S.-funded weapons. Even if it doesn’t, cutting off U.S. aid is one of the strange horseshoe issues that unites critics and some supporters of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.
Those who believe that Israel is too aggressive in its war effort, thereby killing civilians needlessly, oppose further U.S. aid because of how it makes us complicit in the genocide.
Sen. Merkley, one of the Democratic “no” voters, said in a statement explaining his vote, “If Israel is using bombs and shells indiscriminately against Palestinian civilians, no more bombs are needed. “I cannot vote to send in shells or shells.”
On the other side of the issue are Israeli hawks who believe that U.S. aid comes with endless humanitarian conditions that impede Israel’s war effort.
“The biggest problem right now is the control[US aid]gives us over our foreign policy. It’s a concession to sovereignty and decision-making,” Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, said on the Econ Talk podcast earlier this month. ” he said. “Even the United States says, “We can criticize Israel because we pay taxes.”
Both sides are unhappy with the current middle ground being considered by the Biden administration, which would provide weapons to Israel on condition that it not kill too many people.
To protect this middle ground, the Biden administration will also have to take the awkward twist of insisting that Israel is a state. sovereign nation While seeking to impose humanitarian restrictions on the use of weapons provided by the United States, it does not have to answer to the United States.
To be sure, all the money the US is sending to Israel has not made the Israeli government more open to pressure from the Biden administration for a cease-fire or post-war recognition of a Palestinian state.
So if U.S. aid to Israel doesn’t improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, doesn’t change the course of the war, and angers people, why continue?
The same can be said of US aid to Ukraine, which at first glance presents a more sympathetic case for US aid.
Ukraine is a poor country that cannot easily afford to defend itself against a more powerful authoritarian invader. U.S. weapons are likely essential to sustaining the war effort in the short term.
So the big questions remain unanswered: what Ukraine can realistically accomplish with U.S. aid, and what risks are posed by continued U.S. aid?
The United States has pledged $44 billion in military aid to Ukraine since the Russian invasion, and an additional $30 billion in non-military aid. Overall, Congress appropriated $113 billion in military and non-military Ukraine-related spending.
As a result, a World War I-like stalemate continues, with no sign of abating. Ukraine’s highly publicized counterattack last year did not change this reality. Even an endless supply of Western weapons cannot erase the fact that the Ukrainian military is understaffed.
The harsh reality is that even if Ukraine pumps in an additional $60 billion, it will not be able to drive Russian forces from its pre-war borders.
Anatole Lieven, a scholar at the Quincy Institute, wrote last week in Responsible Statecraft: “If Ukraine continues to defend itself indefinitely, areas of Ukraine occupied by Russia will remain in Russian hands — legally, of course.” “Not really, but in fact.”
The inescapable conclusion is that Ukraine’s war with Russia could, at best, end in a negotiated peace that cedes to Russia some of the territory it already controls.
Lieven said the shaky military leadership of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the overall political turmoil in Ukraine were largely due to politicians trying to avoid taking responsibility for the peace that was ultimately negotiated. It suggests that this is because they are trying to establish a position.
How Ukraine ultimately decides to make peace with Russia clearly depends on the decision of that country and its leaders. Still, when you subsidize something, you get more. By continuing to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the United States is encouraging the country to continue maintaining the bloody status quo rather than begin the process of hastily concluding a politically difficult but inevitable peace agreement. I encourage it.
The lack of benefit from U.S. support for Ukraine is further exacerbated by the serious risk that a proxy war with Russia will turn into an actual war with Russia. That would be truly disastrous for the entire planet.
Supporters of continued aid to Ukraine often seek to minimize its costs by comparing them to unprecedented federal spending.
“We’ve been told we can’t afford $60 billion in Ukraine-related funds,” Romney said in remarks on the floor. We can cover it,” he said.
In fact, we can’t even afford those things. To claim that Ukraine aid is a drop in the bucket is to take the perverse position that the more the defense budget swells and the deficit grows, the less we need to care about each additional dollar spent. Become.
This willingness to spend money solely on foreign policy issues has led to the current excessive defense budget. Unfortunately, we have little to show for the money we spend, which is one reason why a significant portion of Republicans have indicated they will vote against increasing spending on foreign wars. It is.
It remains to be seen whether growing right-wing skepticism about foreign military aid will be enough to pass the Senate aid bill in the Republican-controlled House.
The war still attracts bipartisan votes.
Still, we cannot shake the ultimate conclusion that U.S. aid has not changed the outcome of the wars in Ukraine or Gaza. It only changes who ultimately has to pay the financial price for them.
