A new US aid package for Kyiv can’t mask the fact that its American support has been wearing out
Finally, the United States’ polity has found the resolve to pass a much-delayed aid package for Ukraine after wrangling over it for months, even as the situation for Ukraine has been going from bad to worse on the battlefield against Russia. This much-needed $61 billion package, which includes air defence systems, mid- to long-range missiles and artillery shells, along with more than $9 billion of economic assistance, got the approval of the US House of Representatives last week by 311 votes to 112. Though this support looks strong, it obscures a bitter divide within the Republican party.
American President Joe Biden commended the bipartisan effort to “answer history’s call” and asked the Senate to approve it quickly, “so that I can sign it into law and we can quickly send weapons and equipment to Ukraine to meet their urgent battlefield needs.” But the Republican opposition to the legislation is striking, as more Republicans voted by 112 to 101 against the bill than in its support. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson managed to push the bill, but now it is his survival as speaker that’s at stake with several members of his party calling for his ouster. Johnson argued that a failure to secure the aid lifeline to Ukraine would bolster the emerging de facto axis of totalitarianism between Russia, Iran and China. But in so doing, he challenged the dominant strain of foreign policy thinking in today’s Republican Party that doesn’t view support for Ukraine as a vital national interest of the United States.
Former US president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has also been a vocal critic of continuing aid to Ukraine.
There is no doubt that fatigue is setting in within the US electorate over the Ukraine war and a sharp ideological divide has been emerging. Recent US opinion polls have shown that Republican voters are increasingly resistant to sending any additional aid to Ukraine, even as Democrats and independents are more favourably inclined.
Former US president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has also been a vocal critic of continuing aid to Ukraine. But in recent days, he has signalled that he is open to considering a loan to Ukraine, and that also may have helped Johnson in going for broke. However, for many Republicans, the US-Mexico border crisis is of greater concern than the Ukrainians being shelled by Russian forces.
It has been clear for months that Ukraine, which is heavily dependent on Western armaments, urgently requires assistance as it faces a formidable Russian power that has been gaining consistently in recent weeks. The Ukrainian military has lately been warning that its situation on the eastern front has been getting worse, with Russian assaults increasing in intensity and potency. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has been repeatedly underscoring the urgency of US aid, arguing that swift provision of appropriate weaponry could significantly alter the dynamics on the frontline. Other Western nations have not been able to fill the void left by the American inability to make adequate provisions to sustain Ukrainian war efforts.
Ukraine’s challenges on the battlefield are not only a function of Russia’s superior military capabilities, including advanced weaponry and extensive resources.It lacks consistent support, so the resultant limits on its access to modern equipment and supplies are also a constraint. Without robust US support, Ukraine has found itself increasingly isolated, which has emboldened Russia to escalate its military actions, leading to further loss of Ukrainian territory.
Ukraine’s desire for closer ties with the West has been a point of contention between Nato and Russia, and wavering support from the US could weaken Nato’s ability to deter further Russian aggression in eastern Europe.
But there are costs for the US as well, since its global credibility is under threat. Insufficiently strong American support has the potential to undermine the The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (Nato) credibility and cohesion. Ukraine’s desire for closer ties with the West has been a point of contention between Nato and Russia, and wavering support from the US could weaken Nato’s ability to deter further Russian aggression in eastern Europe. Central and east European nations have been the most vocal supporters of Ukraine and the need for the US to do most of the heavy lifting. A diminished US commitment to Ukraine could strain relations between the US and its European allies that have also provided support to Ukraine and view Russian aggression in eastern Europe as a threat to regional stability.
Domestic politics in America, however, is rapidly evolving and the internationalist segment of the Republican Party is increasingly finding itself in a minority. On the ascendant, it would seem, is a ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) foreign policy, promoted by Donald Trump during his presidency and which prioritized an ‘America first’ approach.
The latest effort by the US Congress to channel billions of dollars in new aid to Ukrainian war efforts may be adequate for the immediate future, but a change of guard in the White House or a Republican majority in the US Congress in upcoming elections would make the continuance of US support unlikely. Both Ukraine and the wider West will need to prepare for that eventuality as well.
This commentary originally appeared in Mint.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Professor Harsh V. Pant is Vice President – Studies and Foreign Policy at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. He is a Professor of International Relations ...
Read More +
PREV
