Unraveling Connections: $60 Billion, Ukraine, and the U.S. — Mexico Border
This installment, marking the war’s second year, will examine the relationship between legislative gridlock within the U.S. political system, the U.S. Presidential election, and vital aid that Ukraine will need to endure a lengthening war of survival.
As the second anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine approaches, the war's trajectory appears increasingly precarious. Despite limited gains during Ukraine's fall offensive, Russia has shifted towards a protracted strategy aimed at depleting Ukraine's military resources and eroding the resolve of its Western backers. The crucial factor in thwarting Russia's aim lies in maintaining uninterrupted Western support. However, the United States, Ukraine's largest single supporter, has stalled in providing the latest round of assistance due to legislative gridlock and dysfunction. The ultimate outcome of this political struggle on Capitol Hill will play a pivotal role in determining the prospects of both Ukraine and Russia in the ongoing war.
To date, the United States Congress has passed four spending packages to assist Ukraine totaling $113 billion, with the last approved on December 29th, 2022. Much of the appropriations for military aid across each of the spending packages have been allocated, and the diminishing rate of arms transfers to Ukraine in recent months have failed to meet current battlefield needs. This has translated to significant shortages of vital resources for Ukrainian service members, such as artillery ammunition, on the front lines. On February 14th, Ukraine’s Deputy Defense Minister, Lieutenant General Ivan Havryliuk, acknowledged that Ukraine cannot compete with Russia in terms of the number of artillery shells, tanks, or manpower, but that it can overcome the disparity with more advanced weapons systems — such as those supplied by the West. The greater precision and range of these systems has enabled Ukraine to inflict the majority of Russia’s losses thus far. Nonetheless, the disruption in Western support has forced Ukrainian forces to ration ammunition by firing only one third the number of rounds per day needed to maintain their current positions. For Ukraine to undermine Russia’s efforts to revive its offensive in the Donbas, the West will need to ensure that Ukraine’s more precise arsenal can keep firing at an effective rate.
In Washington, political opportunism, and prospects of the approaching 2024 elections have clouded the focus of many Republicans — offsetting the priorities of the Biden administration. As far back as August 2023, the administration requested a fifth supplementary aid package to Ukraine. If successful, this would serve to not only extend material support to meet current needs in Ukraine, but also clearly signal to Moscow that the United States’ commitment to Ukraine’s defense has not wavered. Facing a more contentious environment on Capitol Hill, President Biden sought to sway Republican dissent with attached funding for ‘disaster relief’ and border security in his proposal. In lieu of a government shutdown, Congress was able to adopt a revised supplementary spending bill in September, only without any Ukraine aid to speak of. Republicans, who hold a slim majority in the House of Representatives and a two-seat minority in the Senate, have demanded even larger border security appropriations and a return of draconian Trump-era immigration policies. The Biden administration responded in October with a subsequent supplementary spending package proposal totaling $118 billion, including funding for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, the southern border, and immigration reform. Unfortunately, as spring approaches, no such package has reached the President’s desk with Congressional approval.
Despite initial support among Republicans for the proposed arrangement on border security, the bill’s prospect for success seems to have come into conflict with the long-term interests of the party’s de facto leader and second term presidential hopeful: Donald Trump. The former president has publicly and privately expressed discontent to Republican lawmakers over a bipartisan border security deal, fearing it would hand Biden a ‘win’ on a key issue of the Trump campaign platform. Subsequently, Trump’s influence on Republican party politics has been brought further into relief. After months of deliberation, the Senate ultimately rejected the proposed bipartisan border deal on February 8th. Moreover, some Senators went as far as to suggest that they hoped to preserve the purported border crisis until the election, reflecting Donald Trump’s political interests. After further deliberation, a stripped-down foreign aid package totaling $95 billion ($60 billion for Ukraine) was approved by a 79-20 vote — without any changes to U.S. border policy. In the absence of border policy reform, it remains to be seen if the bill will be put to a vote in the House of Representatives at all. Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who previously characterized a potential bipartisan border deal in the Senate as “dead on arrival” in the House, has reiterated that the southern border remains the foremost national security consideration for his party. Now faced with the bipartisan Senate-approved foreign aid package, the speaker has emphasized that he will not be ‘rushed’ to a vote on the bill. This dynamic reflects how the outsized influence of Trump and the far-right elements of the Republican party appear to weigh on Speaker Johnson’s leadership, and the relationship is testing his effectiveness as Speaker of the House.
In spite of these setbacks, many are still confident that Congress will be able to deliver for Ukraine. House Democratic minority leader, Rep. Hakim Jeffries, has expressed certainty that should the Senate-approved security bill be put to a vote, it would pass with an overwhelming majority of support. Republican Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, has reiterated this confidence, underscoring the ‘brainwashing’ of those within his party for their opposition to foreign spending. Moreover, for the speaker to deny a vote on the spending package, House speaker Johnson would effectively compel members of his own party who support Ukraine to force a vote on the bill in cooperation with Democrats and undermine his power. On the other hand, should the speaker opt to bring the legislation to the House floor, he would be risking a potential counter vote from far-right factions aiming to remove him from the speakership. Proposals to alleviate this political dilemma have varied, including revisions to scale back appropriations in favor of military aid exclusively, and utilizing the $300 billion in seized Russian assets held in U.S. banks to lessen the reliance of any appropriations on taxpayer funds. In any event, the prospect of an eventual vote on Ukraine aid seems unavoidable for the speaker despite his apparent dithering on the subject.
To the dismay of the White House, Congress has now entered a two-week recess without a stable solution to the issue, casting further uncertainty on the timing of any potential House vote. Nonetheless, many Washington insiders remain confident that Congress will provide supplementary aid to Ukraine, though the extent of which remains uncertain. The timing and scale of this aid will be critical as concerns of a new Russian offensive in the spring grow. This factor is a foremost concern for European leaders, as a deficient U.S. aid package would compel a heightened role of European support for Ukraine to address Europe’s greater threat exposure to Russia. Given the uncertainty of outcomes, it is prudent for observers of the war in Ukraine, particularly those with a European perspective, to closely track legislative developments in the United States on this issue in the near term.
Further Reading
Foy, H., Schwartz, F. and Miller, C. (2024). Ukraine Faces ‘Gap in the Hose’ as Western Ammunition Dries up. [online] www.ft.com. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/6594e548-8b2e-4c95-a589-7d9e358062d2 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2024].
Hoffman, E., Han, J. and Vakharia, S. (2023). The Past, Present, and Future of U.S. Assistance to Ukraine: a Deep Dive into the Data. www.csis.org. [online] Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/past-present-and-future-us-assistance-ukraine-deep-dive-data.
Institute for the Study of War. (2024). Institute for the Study of War. [online] Available at: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-14-2024 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2024].
Kelly, L. (2024). GOP House chair: Johnson Has No Way out of Ukraine Floor Vote. The Hill. [online] 16 Feb. Available at: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4473343-mccaul-johnson-ukraine-aid-floor-vote/ [Accessed 18 Feb. 2024].
Mascaro, L. and Groves, S. (2024). GOP Speaker Johnson Says House won’t Be ‘rushed’ to Approve Aid for Ukraine as $95B Package Stalls. [online] AP News. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/house-speaker-johnson-ukraine-aid-06889e166a5417d5b4bc7795813e37ef [Accessed 18 Feb. 2024].
McDaniel, E. (2024). Senate Advances Military Aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. [online] NPR. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1231036049/senate-advances-military-aid-to-ukraine-israel-and-taiwan.
Press, L.M.A. (2024). U.S. Aid to Ukraine Hinges on House Speaker Johnson. His Leadership Is Being Tested by Far Right. [online] Los Angeles Times. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-02-17/us-aid-to-ukraine-hinges-on-house-speaker-johnson-his-leadership-is-being-tested-by-the-far-right [Accessed 18 Feb. 2024].
RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. (2024). The $60 Billion Aid Package Ukraine Is Waiting for. [online] Available at: https://www.rferl.org/a/us-ukraine-aid-breakdown-timeline/32822804.html#:~:text=December%202022 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2024].
Watling, J. and Reynolds, N. (2024). Russian Military Objectives and Capacity in Ukraine through 2024. [online] Available at: https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-military-objectives-and-capacity-ukraine-through-2024#:~:text=Russian%20forces%20are%20likely%20to [Accessed 18 Feb. 2024].
Wise, S.H. and L. (2024). Trump’s Hard-Line Border Stance Endangers Funding for Ukraine. WSJ. [online] 25 Jan. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trumps-wins-2024-politics-undercut-emerging-border-ukraine-deal-118cc91e.
