Ariana Figueroa and Samantha Dietel with contributions from Jennifer Shutt and Jacob Fischler Need for continued aid Meeting with Biden Vance leads letter of opposition $24 billion request (aid...
Ariana Figueroa and Samantha Dietel
with contributions from
Jennifer Shutt and Jacob Fischler
“If we don’t get the aid, we will lose the war,” Zelenskyy said to senators, according to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Need for continued aid
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers to reiterate the need for continued aid to support his country’s fight against the Russian invasion, even as the U.S. faces a partial government shutdown as soon as the end of the month.
“It is very clear that if we were to have a government shutdown, or pass a CR without Ukrainian aid, the damage that would occur on Ukraine’s campaign would be devastating,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said.
CR refers to a continuing resolution, the name for the short-term government funding bill that lawmakers must pass to give themselves more time to pass the full-year spending bills.
Meeting with Biden
Biden announced the next tranche of military aid, comprising artillery, ammunition, anti-tank weapons and the first U.S. Abrams tanks to be sent to Ukraine. The U.S. president said he was confident Congress would fund further aid.
“I’m counting on the good judgment of the United States Congress,” he said in response to a reporter’s question following the meeting. “There’s no alternative.”
Zelenskyy thanked Biden, Congress and the American people for their solidarity over the 575 days of the war.
Zelenskyy told Biden the new defense package “has exactly what our soldiers need.”
The Ukrainian president said he would soon announce a new agreement that would boost his country’s defense capabilities.
“This man has moral courage and moral clarity,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul, said of Zelenskyy. “The will of the Ukrainian people is far stronger than the will of the Russians.”
Vance leads letter of opposition
After a Wednesday closed-door Senate briefing about Ukraine, more than two dozen Republican lawmakers sent a letter to the White House opposing any more funding.
Ohio GOP Sen. J.D. Vance posted the letter to X, formerly known as Twitter, that was signed by 28 Republicans.
“Yesterday at a classified briefing over Ukraine, it became clear that America is being asked to fund an indefinite conflict with unlimited resources. Enough is enough. To these and future requests, my colleagues and I say: NO,” according to the letter.
U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said he is opposed to approving aid to Ukraine because he doesn’t see Ukraine defeating Russia anytime soon.
“It sounds to me like this is a stalemate,” he said. “What’s our plan? What are we going to do? Are we just going to spend hundreds of billions indefinitely? What is the plan here? I just don’t know.”
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, was not moved.
“What you’d expect,” he said. “It’s the same points being made, there’s nothing particularly new.”
However, U.S. Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota said that Zelenskyy “struck a very bipartisan note.”
“His main message was one of gratitude for the help that the United States (has) provided to Ukraine and … ask that we continue that support so that Russia doesn’t overrun Ukraine,” Smith said.
$24 billion request (aid packages approved till now total $110 billion)
The White House is asking for Congress to approve $24 billion for several types of aid to Ukraine.
The request asks Congress to provide $13.1 billion for the Defense Department, $8.5 billion for the State Department and USAID, $2.3 billion for the Treasury Department, $100 million for the Department of Health and Human Services and $68 million for the Energy Department.
Top Senate appropriators Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, both said they believe Ukraine should receive aid.
Collins said she asked Zelenskyy what would be the impact if Ukraine only received military aid rather than economic and humanitarian aid.
“He explained that all of their budget is going to aid their soldiers and sailors and that if they did not get the humanitarian and economic aid, they would lose their school teachers, their health care professionals would leave, and … additional people would literally die,” Collins said.
Congress has approved four aid packages for Ukraine since the war began in February of last year, totaling $110 billion.
“At the risk of repeating myself, American support for Ukraine is not charity,” McConnell said in a statement. “It’s an investment in our own direct interests — not least because degrading Russia’s military power helps to deter our primary strategic adversary, China.”
Ukrainian First Lady visits students
Ukrainian First Lady Olena Zelenska was also in Washington, where she visited students, faculty and staff at Georgetown University.
“I’m looking at you and I can see our students,” Zelenska said. “I don’t think you are that different. And you have one particular trait in common, that’s caring and empathy and wanting to change things for the better.”
“If there is no bomb shelter in a school, children cannot attend it, school will just not open, so a lot of children do distance learning,” Zelenska said.
Zelenska stressed that if her country were to be defeated, it would not just impact Ukraine and its people, but threaten everyone.
“If you have power, if you have opportunities and resources, you can do anything you want,” Zelenska said. “You can be a tyrant, you can seize other countries, other territories, and then these situations mean that no one is safe in this world.”
“To turn a blind eye means to turn your back to your own future,” she said.
While we should continue to support Ukraine, the primary strategic justification for supporting Ukraine should be for game theoretic reasons--i.e. demonstrating that aggressive action will be met...
“At the risk of repeating myself, American support for Ukraine is not charity,” McConnell said in a statement. “It’s an investment in our own direct interests — not least because degrading Russia’s military power helps to deter our primary strategic adversary, China.”
While we should continue to support Ukraine, the primary strategic justification for supporting Ukraine should be for game theoretic reasons--i.e. demonstrating that aggressive action will be met with a response. The idea that we can use the war in Ukraine as a means to degrade Russia's military seems both misguided and dangerous. It's also not at all clear how this will weaken China.
He did not say weaken, he said deter. Which, the way I understand it, is basically the same game theory argument you used, directed at China: "Hey China, look at what happens to countries that...
Exemplary
It's also not at all clear how this will weaken China.
He did not say weaken, he said deter. Which, the way I understand it, is basically the same game theory argument you used, directed at China: "Hey China, look at what happens to countries that attack other countries... they do not get the reward and they get their military messed up. Think about that before trying to attack Taiwan."
BTW, one thing can have two purposes - support for Ukraine can both degrade the Russian military relatively cheaply and deter China - one stone, two birds.
China's military is nearly 4 times larger than Russia's by spending and, presumably, much more competent (plus they get more bang for their buck in terms of spending than the US). It's extremely...
China's military is nearly 4 times larger than Russia's by spending and, presumably, much more competent (plus they get more bang for their buck in terms of spending than the US). It's extremely unrealistic that in a proxy conflict, the US could make any meaningful dent in China's military. If anything, it would probably be more taxing on America's military than China's.
My initial interpretation was that a weakened Russia, as an important ally of China, would weaken China geopolitically. In reality, a weakened Russia would make it easier for China to expand its sphere of influence in central Asia and Russia itself. But either argument by McConnell doesn't hold much water and seems primarily guided by the military-industrial complex. Again, we should be steadfast in supporting Ukraine and the game-theoretic deterrence of China or any other power is still there, but the justifying logic should be sound and clean.
This is all theoretical. China's military has basically never been tested in a real conflict. The last time they fought major conflicts they were still basically Zerg rushing. They have had border...
China's military is nearly 4 times larger than Russia's by spending and, presumably, much more competent (plus they get more bang for their buck in terms of spending than the US). It's extremely unrealistic that in a proxy conflict, the US could make any meaningful dent in China's military. If anything, it would probably be more taxing on America's military than China's.
This is all theoretical. China's military has basically never been tested in a real conflict. The last time they fought major conflicts they were still basically Zerg rushing. They have had border skirmishes with India, but that's something of a special case. Both countries are extremely careful in their rules of engagement around escalation (to the point where clashes have often been fought with large sticks to avoid escalating by causing fatalities) and India is only sort of a peer but not really. The Himalayas are also an extremely unique theater to fight in. The logistical challenges are immense, it's only a little bit less difficult than trying to fight on the Moon. So it's hard to say how translatable anything that happens there is to any other military context.
The only verifiable fact in the part I quoted is the size comparison to Russia. Their relative bang for the buck is theoretical, as is the idea that the US wouldn't make a dent in a proxy...
The only verifiable fact in the part I quoted is the size comparison to Russia. Their relative bang for the buck is theoretical, as is the idea that the US wouldn't make a dent in a proxy conflict.
I actually find the idea that the US couldn't prop up a proxy conflict well enough to dent them dubious. The challenge has more to do with the fact that attacking an island is a different game from trying to do a ground-based invasion.
Everything happens faster and it takes a lot of infrastructure to keep naval and air defense in a state of readiness. You can't just hand out submarines and gunships to arrest the advance of a naval invasion the way you can hand out MANPADs and Bayraktars to stop an armor column. But that's not a particular strength of the PLA, that's just the nature of the terrain they'll be fighting in.
It's good to not be too sure, but we should be realistic about what's most probably true. We can make it painful enough to disincentivize them, but beyond that we should be wary of any test of...
It's good to not be too sure, but we should be realistic about what's most probably true. We can make it painful enough to disincentivize them, but beyond that we should be wary of any test of American resolve that we're likely to fail.
China is assuredly carefully watching how the war in Ukraine is going. How various equipment performs, what major logistical problems have occurred, tactical and strategic successes and blunders,...
China is assuredly carefully watching how the war in Ukraine is going. How various equipment performs, what major logistical problems have occurred, tactical and strategic successes and blunders, and most importantly, how every other nation is reacting and the taking action (or choosing to not take action). It's no secret Chinese ambitions lie towards Taiwan and beyond with the South China Sea. A strong anti-Russian stance sends a message to China that the USA, and most of the rest of the world, will not tolerate actions like Russia has taken against Ukraine.
I agree, it's a bit of a bad incentive outlined by McConnell because it implies that creating a quagmire is the best outcome. Ending the war definitively and "too soon" would mean Russia expends...
I agree, it's a bit of a bad incentive outlined by McConnell because it implies that creating a quagmire is the best outcome. Ending the war definitively and "too soon" would mean Russia expends less of its assets.
I have an unfortunate suspicion that it's not just McConnell who thinks like this, we hear a lot of excuses from neo-liberals too when they delay the delivery of drones, missle systems and the F-16s. General Patreaus more or less called it that the counter-offensive this year would be very much slowed by the hemming and hawing of western allies in providing adequate aid.
Here's a more recent article adding context about Zelensky's trip: Ukraine war: mixed signals among Kyiv’s allies hint at growing conflict fatigue ($325 million isn't much compared to $24 billion....
Here's a more recent article adding context about Zelensky's trip:
Zelensky continued to Washington DC where he secured another military aid package worth US$325 million (£192 million). This aid can be allocated by US president Joe Biden directly under the so-called presidential drawdown authority.
A further US$24 billion in aid, which is subject to congressional approval, is more problematic. The Republican House majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, would not commit to putting a bill to that effect on the legislative schedule before the end of the year.
($325 million isn't much compared to $24 billion. I misread that at first.)
Ariana Figueroa and Samantha Dietel
with contributions from
Jennifer Shutt and Jacob Fischler
Need for continued aid
Meeting with Biden
Vance leads letter of opposition
$24 billion request (aid packages approved till now total $110 billion)
Ukrainian First Lady visits students
While we should continue to support Ukraine, the primary strategic justification for supporting Ukraine should be for game theoretic reasons--i.e. demonstrating that aggressive action will be met with a response. The idea that we can use the war in Ukraine as a means to degrade Russia's military seems both misguided and dangerous. It's also not at all clear how this will weaken China.
He did not say weaken, he said deter. Which, the way I understand it, is basically the same game theory argument you used, directed at China: "Hey China, look at what happens to countries that attack other countries... they do not get the reward and they get their military messed up. Think about that before trying to attack Taiwan."
BTW, one thing can have two purposes - support for Ukraine can both degrade the Russian military relatively cheaply and deter China - one stone, two birds.
China's military is nearly 4 times larger than Russia's by spending and, presumably, much more competent (plus they get more bang for their buck in terms of spending than the US). It's extremely unrealistic that in a proxy conflict, the US could make any meaningful dent in China's military. If anything, it would probably be more taxing on America's military than China's.
My initial interpretation was that a weakened Russia, as an important ally of China, would weaken China geopolitically. In reality, a weakened Russia would make it easier for China to expand its sphere of influence in central Asia and Russia itself. But either argument by McConnell doesn't hold much water and seems primarily guided by the military-industrial complex. Again, we should be steadfast in supporting Ukraine and the game-theoretic deterrence of China or any other power is still there, but the justifying logic should be sound and clean.
This is all theoretical. China's military has basically never been tested in a real conflict. The last time they fought major conflicts they were still basically Zerg rushing. They have had border skirmishes with India, but that's something of a special case. Both countries are extremely careful in their rules of engagement around escalation (to the point where clashes have often been fought with large sticks to avoid escalating by causing fatalities) and India is only sort of a peer but not really. The Himalayas are also an extremely unique theater to fight in. The logistical challenges are immense, it's only a little bit less difficult than trying to fight on the Moon. So it's hard to say how translatable anything that happens there is to any other military context.
China's performance on the battlefield is unknown, what I mentioned otherwise is just the basic reality.
The only verifiable fact in the part I quoted is the size comparison to Russia. Their relative bang for the buck is theoretical, as is the idea that the US wouldn't make a dent in a proxy conflict.
I actually find the idea that the US couldn't prop up a proxy conflict well enough to dent them dubious. The challenge has more to do with the fact that attacking an island is a different game from trying to do a ground-based invasion.
Everything happens faster and it takes a lot of infrastructure to keep naval and air defense in a state of readiness. You can't just hand out submarines and gunships to arrest the advance of a naval invasion the way you can hand out MANPADs and Bayraktars to stop an armor column. But that's not a particular strength of the PLA, that's just the nature of the terrain they'll be fighting in.
It's good to not be too sure, but we should be realistic about what's most probably true. We can make it painful enough to disincentivize them, but beyond that we should be wary of any test of American resolve that we're likely to fail.
China is assuredly carefully watching how the war in Ukraine is going. How various equipment performs, what major logistical problems have occurred, tactical and strategic successes and blunders, and most importantly, how every other nation is reacting and the taking action (or choosing to not take action). It's no secret Chinese ambitions lie towards Taiwan and beyond with the South China Sea. A strong anti-Russian stance sends a message to China that the USA, and most of the rest of the world, will not tolerate actions like Russia has taken against Ukraine.
I agree, it's a bit of a bad incentive outlined by McConnell because it implies that creating a quagmire is the best outcome. Ending the war definitively and "too soon" would mean Russia expends less of its assets.
I have an unfortunate suspicion that it's not just McConnell who thinks like this, we hear a lot of excuses from neo-liberals too when they delay the delivery of drones, missle systems and the F-16s. General Patreaus more or less called it that the counter-offensive this year would be very much slowed by the hemming and hawing of western allies in providing adequate aid.
Here's a more recent article adding context about Zelensky's trip:
Ukraine war: mixed signals among Kyiv’s allies hint at growing conflict fatigue
($325 million isn't much compared to $24 billion. I misread that at first.)