Congress needs to step up for Ukraine. Then it’ll be Biden’s turn.

There is a silver lining that could emerge from the current congressional impasse over US military aid to Ukraine. But it needs to emerge quickly, because events on the ground aren’t going to wait much longer for American politicians to resolve their differences.

Over the past two years, Ukraine has done what many observers considered impossible: It has withstood an invasion by an army said to be the world’s second most powerful.

But its success has rested, at least in part, on massive amounts of aid from the first most powerful: the United States. That assistance has often been too slow to come or too limited in quantity, though, and the United States has held back some of the most powerful weapon systems — with the effect of prolonging the war.

Now a critical moment has arrived. Ukraine is running short on ammunition. Though its soldiers remain willing to fight, they can’t do it without help. And a package that would authorize aid to Ukraine has been bottled up for months on Capitol Hill. The legislation would earmark billions of dollars for assistance, most of which would stay in the American economy because it would be spent on American-made weapons.

Congress needs to pass that package, or something like it, soon. To his credit, Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled that he intends to put Ukraine legislation on the floor; if he fails to do so, an effort by rank-and-file members of both parties is also underway that could force his hand. The aid package easily passed the Senate, and there is clearly a majority that would vote for it in the House if given the opportunity.

Getting it across the finish line will require that bipartisan majority to flex its muscles and sideline opponents at the fringes of both parties. And that’s where the silver lining might come in. A robust congressional voice has largely been silent so far, but if a bipartisan coalition forms now, it would then have the standing to prod the Biden administration to do a better job arming Ukraine and explaining to the American public why the country’s defense is so critical.

President Biden has tried to juggle competing goals in Ukraine — helping the country without triggering a wider conflict with nucleararmed Russia. But a large number of congressional critics, on both sides of the aisle, feel like he has erred too often on the side of caution.

On the question of sending F-16 fighter jets, for example, a bipartisan group of senators, led by Democrat Mark Kelly, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in February 2023 calling the jets “a significant capability that could prove to be a game changer on the battlefield.” A similar effort was led by Maine Democrat Jared Golden in the House. But it took until August for the White House to approve NATO transfers of F-16s to Ukraine, on the condition that Ukrainian pilots would be trained first. The F-16s have yet to be deployed in Ukrainian combat, with only 12 pilots expected to be combat-ready this summer.

Massachusetts Democratic Representative Seth Moulton said the Biden administration could have been less stingy on tanks, artillery shells, and rockets during Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive. “We were getting the Ukrainians

just barely what we thought they might need,” he said.

According to a timeline from Republican lawmakers Michael McCaul, Roger Wicker, and Jim Risch, the White House has had a pattern of foot-dragging on everything from Abrams tanks to long-range ATACMS missiles to F-16s.

But it’s been hard for critiques from Congress to get much traction when legislators haven’t done their part. Biden called the House’s inaction on a $95 billion supplemental aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan “close to criminal neglect.”

One way to overcome the blockade would be through a discharge petition, a rarely used tactic that requires support from more than half of

A package that would authorize aid to Ukraine has been bottled up for months on Capitol Hill. The legislation would earmark billions of dollars for assistance, most of which would stay in the American economy because it would be spent on American-made weapons.

the House members. Democrats have started one, but their own party isn’t united. A group of progressive Democrats — including Massachusetts congresswoman Ayanna Pressley — have not signed.

Johnson could also seek a vote with some sort of face-saving language for his party. One idea that has been floated, for instance, was to link aid to Ukraine with a reversal of a Biden policy pausing exports of liquefied natural gas. If it takes a trade like that, Biden — an experienced deal-maker from his days in the Senate — should do his part to close the deal.

Then, though, Congress needs to stay engaged and push the president to use the aid properly. Ukraine still has huge needs, and the administration is still too reluctant to provide the kind of weapons, such as air power, that would meet them.

“We need to give Ukraine the weapons they need to win this war,” Democratic Representative Jake Auchincloss said in an interview. “No NATO military would ever wage combined arms without air support. And that’s what we’re asking Ukraine to do.”

Similarly, when the United States finally sent Ukraine ATACMS missiles last year, they were limited to an older, medium-range variety out of fears that Ukraine would strike inside Crimea or Russia. Arguing for long-range ATACMS, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has said that the only way to destroy Russian capabilities in Ukraine is “to hit deep into the occupied territories, bypassing Russian radio electronic warfare and interceptors.” It was reported in February that the Biden administration was considering the request, but on a visit to Kyiv in March, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan threw cold water on the prospect.

If Congress approves the aid, lawmakers will be in a better position to insist on it.

Lastly, Congress can push Biden to speak more vocally, and more often, about the war — as he did in his State of the Union in February. That may be hard in an election year, but it’s crucial to make the case to the American people why their interests are served by helping Ukraine. Other would-be threats, like the Chinese government, are watching. And one of the lessons of the 20th century is that if left unchecked, authoritarian states will eventually threaten us — and exact a price far greater than $95 billion.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine warned last weekend that “if Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war.” And if Ukraine loses the war, the consequences for America could be profound. Congress and Biden both need to act accordingly.