What the new military aid will mean

The $61 billion in U.S. military aid Congress finally approved for Ukraine is “a desperately needed injection of hope” for the embattled nation, said Missy Ryan and Siobhán O’Grady in The Washington Post. It arrives at a moment when Ukraine’s exhausted troops have been “outgunned 5 to 1” and forced to ration ammunition in the face of Russian assaults. But will it turn the tide in the 26-month-old war? U.S. officials believe the infusion of artillery shells, air-defense missiles, and other arms will allow Kyiv to “blunt Russia’s advance.” But “Ukrainian forces have lost their early battlefield momentum,” and U.S. officials see “no clear military course to regaining” the 20 percent of Ukraine that Russia now occupies. The aid also won’t fix Ukraine’s manpower problem, said Daniel DePetris in the Chicago Tribune: It’s struggling to replenish its casualty-depleted ranks, and has lowered the draft age. With a population three times Ukraine’s, Russia simply has “more bodies to throw into the war.”

“Pessimism gives short shrift to several important factors,” said Cathy Young in The Bulwark. President Biden has agreed to include ATACMS, long-range ballistic missiles that can hit supply depots and other targets far into enemy territory, which “could have a dramatic impact on the course of the war.” Previously promised F-16 fighter jets will finally be deployed this summer, and the U.K. is preparing its own “record assistance package.” And despite manpower disadvantages, Ukrainians have “repeatedly demonstrated that they fight better and smarter.” Russia, meanwhile, has made only incremental advances while suffering massive casualties, and faces “staggering morale problems” and a growing number of desertions.

The aid should stabilize the front lines, and “that’s no small thing,” said Joshua Keating in Vox. Just as importantly, it signals to Russian President Vladimir Putin that U.S. support for Kyiv remains strong. That solidarity is of critical strategic important to the West, said Will Marshall in The Hill. If Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he’s likely to “turn his acquisitive gaze to Europe.” As long as the U.S. and Europe send arms, the best he can hope for “is a bloody stalemate” that will get harder to sustain if “Russian society sees no path to victory.” That all changes if Donald Trump— who’s vowed to broker a quick end to the war, no doubt by cutting off all aid to Ukraine—wins in November. If Trump wins, “we’ll hear corks popping in Moscow as well as Mar-a-Lago.”