Decrying GOP resistance on Ukraine
Steve Inskeep’s recent interview of Rep. Andy Harris on NPR’s “Morning Edition” revealed the utter shallowness of the Republican position on Ukraine and the Maryland congressman’s inability to credibly defend it outside of the right-wing echo chamber.
Harris, a do-little rep for most of his seven terms, got time on NPR because he’s co-chair of the House Ukraine Caucus and because he’s changed his mind about funding the fight against Russia’s hideous invasion. Harris doesn’t think Ukraine can win the war, and he and other House Republicans under the spell of Donald Trump have refused to commit the
U.S. to another $60 billion toward Ukraine’s existential struggle. As a result, we have the disgraceful and unprecedented prospect of the “leader of the free world” holding back its support of an ally against a rival ruled by a murderous dictator with one of the world’s largest militaries and nuclear arsenals.
It not only gives comfort to an enemy of democracy but further diminishes international respect for the U.S. and trust in the commitments we’ve made.
Last summer, Harris told Politico that the U.S. can’t afford to keep funding Ukraine because of federal budget deficits, though the Trump tax cuts, supported wholeheartedly by Republicans, contributed trillions to those deficits.
Asked by Inskeep on
Feb. 15 how much he’d be willing to send to Ukraine now, Harris threw out a random number, $10 billion, and echoed the Trump blather that other nations needed to step up their direct aid.
In fact, many nations already have done that. The latest tabulations show that, as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. is way down the list, well behind nations of Europe, in aid to Ukraine.
Inskeep pushed Harris on the ridiculous Republican rejection of a compromise plan that tied funds for Ukraine to efforts to strengthen security at our southwestern border with Mexico.
Clearly, this rejection occurred at Trump’s urging, to avoid giving the Biden administration anything resembling a win.
“I’m hearing you say,” Inskeep said, that “you still need to negotiate a solution to the many-years-old border problem before you’re willing to give any more funding to Ukraine. Is that right?”
“That’s right,” said Harris.
The congressman also denied that a majority of Republicans have a favorable view of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, though recent polling suggests that they have a higher regard for him than for their own president and other American leaders.
Don’t worry, said Harris: “We understand that Mr. Putin is probably not a very good person at all, that he is a threat.”
But apparently not so bad that the U.S. should aggressively and readily fund Ukraine’s courageous efforts to repel his troops.
It is not only a shameful position but a dangerous one.
For Peter Charchalis, a Baltimore-area businessman of Ukrainian ancestry — and one of Harris’
1st District constituents — there should be no question about U.S. support for Ukraine; the choice is good over evil, and any equivocation about that amounts to a betrayal of American values.
“The United States has prospered immensely in the post-World War II era because of the hegemony that has been created through our leadership,” he says. “If it weren’t for the United States being the greatest power on Earth, we wouldn’t have the prosperity that we currently enjoy. But there’s a price for that, and supporting Ukraine is a very small price.”
Charchalis, who grew up in Baltimore, lived and worked in Ukraine for 13 years.
He saw his parents’ homeland emerge from its Soviet past into modern independence. He married a woman from Ukraine.
Charchalis has written letters to Harris, urging support for Ukraine’s fight. In his most recent reply, Harris, like other members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, rejected the bipartisan approach that tied Ukraine funds to southern border security, describing the latter measures as “absolutely milquetoast.”
Charchalis doesn’t buy anything Harris says because he thinks Harris would reject anything that a Democrat proposes. Of course, that’s partisan politics in the Trump era, but a dangerous game when it comes to foreign policy. “Withholding military support for Ukraine is tantamount to providing military support to Russia,” Charchalis says.
The overriding worry now, says Marta Lopushanska, a native of Ukraine in Baltimore, is that diminishing U.S. support could lead to further stalemate and a negotiated settlement. A lot of Republicans, including Harris, are talking about that being the only way to end the war.
But, says Lopushanska, that would reward Putin for his aggression.
“And,” she adds, “it will just discredit all of the sacrifices and deaths of all of these young [Ukrainian] men who laid down their lives for the country and for their freedom, only to lose territory.”
Two years of war have taken a terrible toll on Ukraine, with more than 10,000 civilian deaths, according to the International Rescue Committee. Many of the survivors are exhausted and demoralized, conditions compounded by the resistance to more help from the U.S.
“All Ukrainians are asking for,” says Lopushanska, “is just give us the means to protect ourselves. We’re not going to bomb peaceful citizens of Russia. We’re just trying to defend our country and our freedom.
“Ukrainians want to fight, but then they see people backing away from them, and that’s extremely painful, and it’s very difficult mentally. … And we’re paying with our lives. There’s just no humanity left in politics.”