Ukraine’s fate may rest with congressional Republicans
As the war in Ukraine nears its second anniversary, there are signs that both Russia and the West are beginning to look toward the negotiated settlement that is likely to eventually end the bloody conflict.
Nothing tangible has yet occurred, but The New York Times reported recently that Russian President Vladimir Putin “has been signaling through intermediaries since at least September that he is open to a cease-fire that freezes the fighting along the current lines.”
At the same time, longtime diplomatic writer Michael Hirsh reported in Politico that President Joe Biden is pushing for a strategy change to a more defensive stance that would concentrate on reinforcing territory Ukraine holds, rather than seeking to gain back that which it has lost.
All of this makes it all the more important that, when Congress returns from its holiday recess next week, it votes to provide Ukraine with the $60 billion in military aid that Biden requested four months ago. It’s been held up by domestic politics, namely Republican insistence on including significant changes in U.S. border policies.
Perhaps the senators who have been seeking a bipartisan border compromise will agree on a package that can attract the necessary 60 Senate votes. But immigration compromises have proven elusive for more than a decade, and it would be unconscionable for lawmakers to deny Ukraine the lifesaving assistance it needs if they can’t find one this time.
Because many House Republicans oppose more aid for Ukraine, the politics of the situation require that any aid package first pass the Senate.
As usual in such situations, the key person is Mitch McConnell. The longtime Senate Republican leader has repeatedly declared his strong support for Ukraine but has yielded to the entreaties from the more conservative voices within his caucus to tie further aid to achieving a border compromise.
Indeed, this shading of principle is typical of McConnell, who concluded former President Donald Trump was responsible for the Jan. 6 insurrection that invaded the Capitol but refused to cast the vote that would have convicted him and thus kept him from again seeking office.
Simply stated, the aid package, which also would include funds for Israel and Taiwan, can’t pass the Senate without at least 10 Republican votes, almost certainly including McConnell’s. Only then could Ukraine’s House supporters figure out a way to surmount the potential roadblock there.
As is often the case these days, the
House probably has the votes to pass the aid package. But the Republican leadership controls the agenda, and it has been reluctant to bring it to the floor without the backing of at least half of the chamber’s 221 Republicans.
Complicating matters is the fact that lawmakers also face a Jan. 19 deadline for extending funding for four primarily domestic federal agencies and a Feb. 2 one for the rest of the government, including the Pentagon.
The congressional deadlock comes amid a backdrop of the start of quiet diplomatic maneuvering that could lead to an eventual halt in hostilities in a war that more and more looks like a military stalemate. Russia continues to control large parts of eastern Ukraine while the country’s elected government has succeeded in maintaining its hegemony over the bulk of its territory.
The Times reported just before Christmas that, “While deploying fiery public rhetoric, Mr. Putin privately telegraphs a desire to declare victory and move on.” It quoted unidentified American officials as
also saying that Putin “sent out feelers for a cease-fire deal a year earlier, in the fall of 2022.”
Meanwhile, Hirsh wrote in Politico, “the Biden administration and European officials are quietly shifting their focus from supporting Ukraine’s goal of total victory over Russia to improving its position in an eventual negotiation to end the war.”
Hirsh said U.S. and other Western officials are discussing the redeployment of Ukrainian forces away from “the mostly failed counteroffensive into a stronger defensive position against Russian forces in the east.”
“In addition, the Biden administration is focused on rapidly resurrecting Ukraine’s own defense industry to supply the desperately needed weaponry the U.S. Congress is balking at replacing,” Hirsh added, a policy that is “aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation.”
That policy change reflects the decreasing congressional support for helping Ukraine. Even if the current aid package is ultimately approved, it may be the last one.
And all involved are aware of the prospect that Trump, who would likely end U.S. efforts to aid Ukraine, could return to office in the United States next year.
As Biden noted recently, the West is committed to supporting Ukraine “as long as we can,” a phrase that analysts noted marked a significant shift over his previous vow to maintain support “as long as it takes.”
A major stumbling block to this revised approach is that Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has strongly opposed the idea of a cease-fire, vowing to fight on until his country reclaims all of its territory taken by Russia, including Crimea, which Putin seized in 2014.
But that position is inherently unrealistic, especially after Ukraine’s much touted counteroffensive failed last year to reclaim much of the land in question. Until it changes, it remains impossible to say how much longer the bloody war will persist before serious discussions begin to end it.