[ad_1]
A year ago, when the United States and much of Europe were still filled with optimism that Ukraine was on the verge of expelling Russia from its territory, the United States turned its back on the victims of Vladimir V. Putin’s aggression. It seems like it was unthinkable for him to point at her.
That possibility remains real even as Senate Democrats now seek to withdraw aid to Ukraine. And this political moment is the latest from 14 months ago, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy stood before a joint session of parliament wearing his signature dull green sweater and was greeted with a one-minute standing ovation. It feels like something far away.
This turnaround surprised the White House. Even if the Senate were able to move forward with military aid, there are still many reasons to doubt funding, including persistent opposition within House Republicans and former President Donald J. Trump’s insistence on a more isolationist stance. .
President Biden’s aides insist he is not yet exploring other options.
“We are not focused on Plan B,” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said in Brussels on Wednesday after a meeting with NATO nations. “We are focused on Plan A,” he said, which calls for a bipartisan aid package that will allow Ukraine to “effectively defend and reclaim territory currently occupied by Russia.” He said that means it will pass.
But behind the scenes, there is much discussion in Washington and Europe about other options, such as seizing more than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets hidden in Western countries, a process that is more complex. This is becoming clear. More than I first thought.
Still, U.S. officials admit there is nothing on the horizon to match the new $60 billion in Congressional spending to buy beefed-up air defenses, more tanks and missiles, and a huge influx of ammunition. .
And the symbolism of America retreating now could be profound, they added.
European officials, who have long feared that Mr. Trump could be re-elected and follow through on his promise to withdraw from NATO, are beginning to question the credibility of the United States, no matter who is president, at least privately.
A senior European diplomat in Berlin said Wednesday that if Republicans were going to follow Trump’s demand to vote against continued aid to Ukraine, why Europe would accept Biden’s assurance that the U.S. would “protect every inch” of Ukraine. I asked him if he was dependent on it. NATO territory? Even some of Mr. Trump’s former national security aides, who parted ways with Mr. Trump long ago, are beginning to say that failing to fund Ukraine would be a major strategic victory for Mr. Putin.
“The United States has a clear choice: give Ukrainians the weapons they need to defend themselves, or cut off aid and abandon democratic Ukraine from its struggle for survival against President Putin’s aggression.” said HR McMaster, who served as the country’s first president for one year. One of Trump’s four national security advisers said Monday. “Abandoning Kiev would be a gift to the Moscow-Tehran-Beijing-Pyongyang axis of aggressors,” he said during the parliamentary debate. As aggressors become bolder, allies and partners will lose confidence in the United States. ”
Strangely, Congress’ threat to derail aid comes just as Europe is pumping $54 billion into rebuilding countries over the next four years and countries from Norway to Germany are pledging new arms aid. It was uttered in an instant. “It is remarkable how quickly Europe is moving towards a new substantial multi-year support program for Ukraine,” said Christoph Trebesch, who leads the production of the Ukraine aid tracker at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in northern Germany. said. “For the first time, the United States is falling far behind” compared to European aid, he said.
“This is not an act of charity. It is our own security interest,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday at alliance headquarters, attending a press conference with Sullivan. A Russian victory “is important for European security and for American security,” he added.
But this argument that the West must push back on Russia in Ukraine or face the possibility of fighting it on NATO territory appears to be losing validity in Congress. And some Republicans still accuse Europe of not pulling its weight, even if updated fiscal policy changes the equation.
But U.S. and European officials say none of these arguments can overcome reality. If the United States stopped funding wars, many everyday military necessities would go away. Air defense against near-daily barrages of missiles, drones, and other weapons targeting critical infrastructure like city centers and power grids. And if the country’s economy collapses, it will halt two years of efforts to salvage its nascent, even deeply flawed, democracy.
Republicans opposed to aid have not directly disputed that logic, but many argue that funneling billions of dollars to a country with a deep history of corruption invites abuse. Rather, their main argument is that the money should be spent on the country’s southern border, rather than on the Ukraine-Russia border area. The most outspoken opponents, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Matt Gaetz of Florida, argue that aiding Ukraine “puts America last.”
For months, the White House considered them fringe. But polls show a sharp increase in the share of Republican voters who think the United States has spent too much to protect the country. And many Republicans are now pushing back, aligning their views with long-held positions by Trump, who said during his 2016 campaign that he would not defend Ukraine. Eight years later, he claims to end the war within 24 hours, without revealing his details.
The opposition is now so entrenched that even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who has repeatedly declared that funding the Ukraine war is one of his top priorities, is retreating. That’s what it looks like.
Meanwhile, Biden’s aides are trying to figure out how to pay for weapons if Congress remains paralyzed. There are complications with the plan to seize Russian assets. It is unclear whether this reserve could be used to pay for air defense or artillery. Administration officials have said that even that could require Congressional action, although there will probably be more votes in the House and Senate to support spending Russian money than US money. .
There is also talk of carrying out a complex arms exchange similar to the one in which Japan and South Korea provided artillery shells to the United States, which would allow Washington to provide even more shells to Ukraine. (Both countries say they cannot export directly to war zones.) Alternatively, European countries could pay for American weapons and ship them to Ukraine.
However, it is clear that Europe does not have the capacity to supply more ammunition on its own. During three decades of increasingly unstable peace with Russia, Europe dismantled much of its productive capacity. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a recent speech that “by next month we will have delivered more than 500,000 shells” and “by the end of the year we will have delivered more than 1 million shells.” ”, but she acknowledged that “this is certainly not enough.”
Europe also makes little contribution to drone manufacturing. And Germany remains reluctant to hand over its most powerful long-range air-launched cruise missile, the Taurus, for fear that it will be used deep within Russian territory. Germany’s role is sure to take center stage in Friday’s meeting between Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Biden at the White House.
Sullivan insists that if the administration sticks to its strategy, it will definitely win. “Leaving Ukraine at this time would be fundamentally wrong from a fundamental national security perspective for the United States and for our NATO allies,” he said Wednesday. “And we think we will continue to win this argument.”
Steven Erlanger I contributed a report from Oslo.
[ad_2]
Source link
