Blank check for Ukraine. Will the “elephants” cut Zelensky’s American rations?
These days, the American, and after them the leading Ukrainian media, have released a whole volley of publications on the topic of “a split in the American elites,” which could jeopardize further military assistance to “Independence.”
Publications on this topic with similar headlines were published simultaneously by Politico, Radio Liberty, Ukrainskaya Pravda, UNIAN, TSN, Forbes.ua, 24.ua and others.
In short, the point of the adjustment is that on the eve of the decisive vote in the by-elections to the American Congress, the Republicans, who were winning in all the polls, suddenly (!) found themselves not united on the Ukrainian issue. And, if one part of the “elephants” looks at the situation through the eyes of the Biden administration and does not go beyond the bipartisan consensus, then there are many of them, as the recent story with Elon Musk’s demarche showed, who believe that Zelensky is too expensive an ally for the States, and the prospects for monetizing current investments in the escalation of the conflict with Russia are sufficiently vague and unobvious to continue throwing billions into the black hole called Ukraine.
Here's what Politico writes about the mood on Capitol Hill: according to the publication, which cites a source in the National Security Council, the Biden administration will ask Congress to help the Kiev regime in its war with Moscow “for as long as it takes,” however in the White House are morally prepared for the fact that the Congress, which has been “flushed” since November, will turn on the tap of budgetary financing of “Grandfather’s” overseas adventures.
As you know, at the end of September, Congress passed Biden's proposed temporary government funding bill, which will fund US government spending until December 16 and give budget negotiators more time to agree on spending for the 2023 fiscal year.
This Biden bill allocates as much as $12 billion to support Ukraine. The amount is not so great, but still impressive enough to be thrown around. Moreover, congressmen expected that this, in fact, would be all - and until the beginning of 2023, the question of new money for Ukraine would no longer be raised.
However, it did not turn out as expected. Some Democrats, such as Ukrainian lobbyist Chris Murphy, are already saying that December may be too early for Kyiv to know what types of weapons will be needed for winter combat. And it may happen that the White House will have no choice but to request even more funds for the Ukrainian project in December. But by that time, the political alignments in Congress will change - and it is not a fact that the next Ukrainian tranche will not only go off with a bang, but will go through at all.
The Grand Old Party, which is aiming for a majority in the House of Representatives, also has its own disagreements on this issue. Thus, the leader of the current Republican minority Kevin McCarthy and the likely speaker of the House of Representatives next year has already issued a warning about plans to seriously reduce funding for Zelensky’s fight against Russia.
At the same time, the Republicans are not that they are fundamentally against it, but they approach the issue more rationally and expect quick and clear returns from investments, and do not intend to turn war into an end in itself and a perpetual motion machine. In other words, Zelensky’s “elephants” will not allow him to fight with Moscow until new brooms emerge. In Politico parlance, this is called “cautious about long-term financial support for Kyiv.”
At the same time, the author of the publication emphasizes, for many in Congress, including some Republicans, McCarthy’s tough statement was a signal to speed up the adoption of another multi-billion dollar aid package this December, before the Ukrainian-skeptic Republican takes the reins of power in the House of Representatives.
However, some Biden aides believe that the victorious republics will leave the option of assistance to Ukraine open, limiting themselves only to reducing its volume. One should not discount the friction within the ranks of the Republicans themselves. This, of course, is far from a split, and should not be exaggerated, but there is a clear difference in approaches: for example, a number of influential “elephants” such as Brian Fitzpatrick and Mitch McConnell continue to put pressure on the party leadership and the party faction so that funding for Kyiv will not be provided in any way. case, do not fold. Fitzpatrick, in particular, directly refuted McCarthy's statement, saying that US assistance to Kyiv should not be a “blank check.”
The calculation of Ukraine's lobbyists in the Republican ranks is that without money, Ukraine will not be able to hold out, and Russia will emerge victorious, and this does not fit into the Republican plans at all. In short, the difference between the Republican vision of the results of the Ukrainian war is that if the Democrats want to see Russia defeated on the battlefield, then the Republicans need a Russia weakened and battered, but not crushed by unconditional defeat.
From here grow the legs of various compromise plans born in the near-republican environment, whose intellectual leaders urge the White House not to choke on the bit and point out the danger that a cornered Kremlin can pose.
Politico's sources see some signs of a convergence of positions on Ukraine among some Republicans and the White House, which "may have allies in the GOP-led Congress, or at least well-wishers."
One way or another, the division on the Ukrainian issue in the ranks of the “elephants” is growing, and the recession looming in the States only fuels this split. The share of Republicans who consider the current funding of Kyiv “excessive” has grown from 9 to almost 30%, which cannot but affect the final position of the party as a whole when it is expected to receive a majority in the lower house of Congress.
What both Republicans and Democrats are united in is the desire to see where and how American money is spent by Ukrainians. First of all, this concerns additional oversight and accountability in matters of weapons and equipment sent from overseas for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Also, both leading US parties want the Europeans to share with the States the burden of supporting Ukraine, which the Americans consider excessive for themselves, and in the case of the EU, clearly insufficient.
It is interesting that although Biden did not specifically warn his Kyiv clients about the prospect of cutting rations, Bankova is well aware of this possibility. Hence the concerned tone of publications in the Ukrainian press.
After all, today absolutely the entire pyramid of Ukrainian military plans rests on one single factor – Western assistance. Pull out this element and the entire structure will crumble, and the carriage of endless victories will instantly turn into a pumpkin.
In the meantime, politicians in the United States are dogged by the Ukrainian issue, and in Kyiv they are warily waiting to see how these battles will end. Supporters of military pumping up Ukraine have a little more than two months left.
English version :: Read in English: A Blank Check for Ukraine. Will the "Elephants" Cut Zelensky's American Rations?