A simplified view of American political life paints a picture in which Democrats are united in their struggle against Republicans over providing military and financial assistance to Ukraine (independents are hardly noticeable in this struggle). However, the political landscape is complex, the political players are seasoned, and the stakes are too high. Therefore, the internal struggle within the Republican camp is no less intense.
Indeed, the race for the White House commenced at the end of last year, and the aid package remains at the mercy of Congress. Republicans are insisting on substantial changes to the U.S. immigration policy, an issue on which the two sides have struggled to find common ground for decades, all in the name of safeguarding the southern border of the United States.
If Joseph Biden makes too many concessions against the Democratic Party’s agenda, he will demonstrate weakness in addressing domestic issues. If an agreement cannot be reached, the President will appear weak in advancing foreign policy goals. In both cases, U.S. national interests will suffer, and Republicans will emerge victorious.
For each of these cases, Republicans have prepared narratives, although they are mutually exclusive. If necessary, they would even blend them together to achieve a better effect.
The first narrative is familiar to Ukrainians: Why should American taxpayers contribute even more billions to a war safeguarding a country’s borders across the ocean when the U.S. border remains insecure? This perspective often raises concerns about corruption in Ukraine and the perceived lack of transparent oversight over the aid that has already been provided.
The second narrative strongly backs Ukraine in its quest for democracy and freedom. However, it underscores the perceived lack of a well-defined victory concept and strategy for Ukraine within the White House. Furthermore, Republicans stress that President Biden’s indecisiveness has led to catastrophic consequences, shaping the new “axis of evil”. Therefore, only the return of Republicans to power (specifically, Donald Trump) will help change the situation and compel authoritarian leaders worldwide to play by the old rules again (even though Trump prioritises domestic policy).
What are the Republicans saying, and what is behind their statements?
Mike Johnson, recently elected as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and now the third-ranking figure in the state following the President and Vice President highlighted several crucial points during his appearance on the weekly CBS program “Face the Nation” on January 7:
- The vote against approving a new aid package last year serves as a signal to the White House, indicating concerns about a lack of transparency with the American people. Questions about the purpose, ultimate outcome, and strategy regarding assistance to Ukraine remain unclear. Given the substantial $34 trillion federal debt in the U.S., a cautious approach is deemed necessary, with a focus on ensuring proper control over taxpayers’ money”;
- Securing the American border stands as an unquestionable priority. Despite President Biden’s push for additional spending in the name of national security, critics argue that he overlooks a crucial element of our own national security—our border. Although the Speaker does not endorse Trump’s rhetoric regarding “immigrants poisoning the blood of our country,” the “America First” agenda resonates with many Republican voters.
- While the Congress’s indecision regarding aid allocation might send a misleading signal about legislators’ attitudes, Johnson maintains a consistent stance that Putin must be defeated: “…we stand resolutely alongside the Ukrainian people and their fight for freedom against Vladimir Putin, who, in my view, is a ruthless dictator.” Furthermore, President Zelensky acknowledged that Ukraine can withstand without this aid package until February, indicating that the standoff with the White House is not currently critical for Ukraine.
Party members openly criticise the Speaker’s leadership, demanding a resolute position on expense reduction and border reinforcement. They find the previous agreements on the 2024 budget unsatisfactory, deeming a $20 billion reduction insufficient. However, the looming first of the two crucial budget adoption deadlines (January 19) constrains time for discussions; otherwise, certain government structures risk being left unfunded. The second deadline on February 2 will ultimately determine the fate of the aid package to Ukraine.
Nevertheless, the outlined issues are indeed important for Americans. The border issue is not just about illegal migration; it’s a war against fentanyl trafficking into the U.S., which has increased nearly sixfold since 2018. During this period, over a quarter of a million Americans have died from overdoses. In the Republican narrative, “more Americans die from fentanyl every day than Ukrainians from Russian aggression”.
Due to the increase in federal debt, Republicans demand a $3,6 trillion reduction in spending on childcare, education, housing, healthcare, transportation, and many other national priorities over the next ten years.
It’s unlikely that Johnson wants to repeat the fate of his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy (also a Republican), who was ousted under pressure from the far-right wing of the Republican Party at the end of last year for allegedly making a secret deal with Democrats to ensure aid to Ukraine. However, talks about his possible resignation are already circulating.
“No more money for Ukraine” is precisely how some of his fellow Republicans, including Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia, express their opinion, threatening Johnson with removal.
Incidentally, right after his removal from the Speaker’s position, McCarthy delivered a speech that resonated with most Ukrainians. He drew a clear parallel between Putin’s and Hitler’s actions from the inception of their “creative” journeys to the bloodshed of wars, enumerating global threats in case of inadequate support for Ukraine. The former Speaker underscored his endorsement of providing weapons (not cash) to Ukraine and placed the responsibility for significant miscalculations on the White House.
In particular, he underscored U.S. policy missteps, including the “endorsement” of the Nord Stream 2 construction after the annexation of Crimea and the commencement of the war in Donbas, as well as the Afghanistan withdrawal, perceived as a sign of weakness by Russia. He also recalled Vice President Biden’s refusal to send Javelins to Ukraine after the 2014 events. “I fear we’re repeating the same mistake, sending the wrong signals,” he remarked. The display of weakness enabled the formation of a new “axis of power” (a synonymous term for the infamous “axis of evil”).
The new “Axis of Evil” is back on the American political menu
“The escalating aggression of the New Axis of Evil signals that America’s adversaries are not deterred by Joe Biden’s foreign policy. When they perceive Biden, they witness the nation’s decline, and their resolute aspiration for global dominance intensifies every day. The situation calls for a strong leader who seeks peace backed by strength, not appeasement at any cost,” summarised Marsha Blackburn, a Republican representative from Tennessee in the House of Representatives in the year of the U.S. presidential election. This statement is intriguing as, according to voter surveys, approximately three out of four Republicans willing to vote for Trump also oppose providing aid to Ukraine.
The term “Axis of Evil” was coined in U.S. President George W. Bush’s address before Congress on January 29, 2002, pinpointing countries accused of sponsoring terrorism and developing weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were explicitly identified during that time.
After the official rationale for the U.S. intervention in Iraq was discredited due to the absence of weapons of mass destruction, the term fell out of favour. However, two decades later, it seems to have regained popularity.
Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republican minority in the Senate, currently controlled by Democrats, stated, “The world is facing a new Axis of Evil”, referring to Russia, China, and Iran, while North Korea seemed to have been forgotten. The convergence of Russia and China is a crisis that cannot be ignored, according to McConnell. In his view, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. mistakenly believed that terrorism was the primary threat.
Among the Republicans, Senator McConnell is a leading advocate for assistance to Ukraine, dedicating all his political experience and influence to align this issue with fellow party members’ call for the protection of their own borders. “If we were to allow Russia to triumph in Ukraine, it would not only diminish trust in America but also undermine crucial alliances, forcing us into an even more direct confrontation with two significant adversaries simultaneously,” he remarked. “I genuinely cannot envision a greater strategic risk arising from shortsightedness”.
His firm stance on Ukraine may pose a personal risk and is seen as a test of his leadership. “I know he really wants to help Ukraine,” said Republican Senator Rick Scott.
What narratives do Republicans Mitch McConnell and Mike Johnson have to deal with?
It’s hard to determine precisely which faction of Republicans is entirely opposed to providing assistance to Ukraine and which is attempting to navigate between current voter preferences, party agendas in the race for the Oval Office, and the far-reaching geopolitical interests of the United States, like drops.
Nevertheless, some Republicans have articulated rather clear views following the commencement of the full-scale invasion:
- “I honestly don’t care much about what’s happening in Ukraine” – Senator J.D. Vance from Ohio.
- “Ukraine is not our ally. Russia is not our enemy. We must address our problems with excessive debt, inflation, and immigration. None of this is Putin’s fault” – Paul Gosar from Arizona in the House of Representatives.
- “I’m more concerned about the border between the U.S. and Mexico than between Russia and Ukraine. I will not apologise for that” – Matt Gaetz from Florida in the House of Representatives.
- “Zelensky is a globalist puppet of Soros and the Clintons” – Senator Wendy Rogers from Arizona.
- “I am profoundly troubled that the compromised President of the United States is extending significant support to the President of Ukraine, whose honesty is difficult to ascertain” – Matt Rosendale from Montana in the House of Representatives.
- “NATO is providing powerful weapons and thorough training to neo-Nazis in Ukraine. What the hell is happening with these #NATOnazis?” – Marjorie Taylor Greene, House of Representatives.
The resonance of Russian narratives in the Congress of the leading democratic nation is a cause for serious concern, particularly given the abundance of first-hand information, verified sources, and our own intelligence.
Nevertheless, there is also good news.
Republicans’ Ukraine Rescue Plan
Congressman Michael McCaul from Texas, the honorary chairman of the House Committee on National Security, Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Michael Turner, Congressman from Ohio, Chairman of the Permanent Intelligence Committee, presented a plan for Ukraine’s victory.
The 28-page document outlines the threats posed by The Unholy Alliance, presents a strategy to assist Ukraine in securing victory, details mechanisms for monitoring aid distribution, and proposes burden-sharing among allies. Notably, a significant section focuses on delays in providing weapons attributed to President Biden’s decisions, a part that might be unsettling for those with weak nerves among Ukrainians. In general, the document consistently criticises the President on many pages.
“Since the onset of the war, Biden’s failure to act promptly in supplying essential weapons to Ukraine is impeding the country’s path to victory. Ukraine requires long-range ATACMS missiles, F-16 fighters, a sufficient quantity of cluster munitions, artillery, air defence systems, and armoured vehicles to shift the tide on the battlefield. These delays come with a price – the lives of Ukrainians and the funds of American taxpayers,” asserts the document.
It’s difficult to dispute the statement that weakness only emboldens aggression. The authors link strength to former President Donald Trump, stating that he “recognised Putin’s respect for strength”. Trump, they note, reversed the ban on supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine imposed by the Obama-Biden administration and initially delivered Javelin anti-tank missiles. According to them, this action deterred a large-scale invasion of Ukraine during Trump’s presidency—a rather assertive claim.
As a result of inadequately assertive policies, the United States risks losing the trust of its allies and its status as a world leader in the free world. Adversaries will perceive their strength, making the world more perilous. “The United States can either champion freedom, democracy, and human rights or withdraw under a false sense of security. The choice is ours, the time is now, and history is on our side”.
The authors identify three main steps toward Ukraine’s victory:
1. Swift provision of critical weapons to Ukraine according to its needs.
2. Strengthening sanctions against the Putin’s regime.
3. Transferring frozen Russian assets to Ukraine.
It is specifically emphasised that replacing Soviet-era weaponry supplied to Ukraine by American partners fosters the growth of the American defence industry and creates new jobs. American arms manufacturers have already secured orders from European countries amounting to $90 billion. The authors also highlight the positive trend of a rising share of assistance from European countries compared to the U.S., which presently constitutes 45% of the overall aid extended to Ukraine.
Additionally, due to a substantial decrease in Europe’s reliance on Russian energy, as previously highlighted by Donald Trump, there has been a surge in the import of American liquefied natural gas. The authors stress that rather than curbing hydrocarbon extraction in the U.S., Biden should advocate for the sustainable growth of America’s environmentally friendly oil and gas industry.
Importantly, the section on accountability and aid monitoring highlights that none of the 96 planned or ongoing audits conducted by more than 20 different agencies has uncovered substantial violations, theft, or improper use of U.S. assistance.
According to the authors, the pressure exerted by Republican lawmakers has been and will continue to be “crucial in securing every newly required weapon system for Ukraine since the onset of the war”.
What is the meaning of all this?
Ukraine has ceased to exist as a standalone topic on the U.S. foreign policy agenda. Instead, this issue is intricately woven into domestic politics and inter-party struggles, which, on the eve of the presidential elections, may become just as intense as the confrontation between Ukraine and Russia.
