Congressional Republicans Will Sacrifice Ukraine If It Means Helping Trump Reach The White House

Some Republican senators are in favor of providing assistance to Ukraine— like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham— and some are opposed, especially JD Vance and Josh Hawley and others from MAGAdonia. McConnell laid out the reasons for assisting Ukraine clearly enough so that even the dimmest bulb among the Republicans— say Tommy Tuberville or Marsha Blackburn— would be able to understand. This from an October 26 speech on the floor of the Senate:

For too long, the world has stood by and watched as Vladimir Putin has bullied and threatened his neighbors. He has invaded sovereign countries, including Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. He has interfered in elections and poisoned political opponents. He has even launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II.

But the Ukrainian people have refused to back down. They have fought bravely and fiercely against the Russian invaders. They have inspired the world with their courage and their determination.

We must not let them down. We must stand with Ukraine in its hour of need.

Why is supporting Ukraine in America's national security interest?

There are several reasons why supporting Ukraine is in America's best interest.

First, we cannot allow Putin to succeed in Ukraine. If he is allowed to conquer Ukraine, he will not stop there. He will continue to invade other countries in the region, and eventually, he will threaten our own allies and interests.

Second, supporting Ukraine is an investment in our own security. A strong and independent Ukraine is a valuable partner for the United States, and it is a bulwark against Russian aggression.

Third, by providing Ukraine with the military and humanitarian assistance it needs, we are helping to ensure that it can continue to be a free and independent country, and that it can continue to be a partner of the United States.

What can we do to support Ukraine?

There are a number of things we can do to support Ukraine.

First, we can continue to provide Ukraine with military and humanitarian assistance. This includes providing weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to the Ukrainian military, as well as providing food, shelter, and medical care to the Ukrainian people.

A few weeks later, Lindsey Graham went even further, warning his colleagues that “If we don't stand with Ukraine, we're going to have a war with NATO.” But the MAGA wing of the party had other priorities, serving the interests of Trump and Putin. JD Vance (R-OH), a notorious scumbag, has been the worst of the lot, demanding that all aid stop and that Ukraine cede land to Russia. He backs Putin’s desire to reconstitute the Russian empire, a threat not just to Ukraine but to a dozen countries: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. (I didn’t include Belarus because it is already virtually absorbed back into Russia in all but name, giving Putin a second vote in the UN.) Just this week, Vance said “We need to bring this war to a close. What's in America's best interest is to accept Ukraine is going to have to cede some territory to the Russians.”

Other MAGA senators have reflected an evolving GOP position— far advanced in the House— that backs the Kremlin’s position. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), for example, went from “The USA stands with Ukraine in March of 2022 to “We need to find a way to bring this war to an end; it's not sustainable for either side” this past Sunday. Same for Tuberville (R-AL), who has worked all year to weaken the U.S.military and repeats Kremlin-scripted talking points: “We need to find a way to bring this war to an end; it's not sustainable for either side.” Sound familiar? And “I support the Ukrainian people, but I'm not convinced that sending more military aid is the answer. We need to be careful not to get drawn into a wider conflict with Russia.” MAGA members of Congress parroted this words the first week of December.

Josh Hawley (R-MO) is another leading Putin-patsy. On October 20, he was already hissing “We've poured billions of dollars into Ukraine, and it's not clear what we've achieved. It's time to focus on our own problems here at home.” He reminds me of right-wing isolationists who came before him and who have influenced his thinking:

• Sen. Gerald Nye (R-ND)- “The United States is being dragged into another European war by the international munitions makers and the bankers who are anxious to collect the debts owed them by the European nations.” (Oct. 15, 1935)

• Charles Lindbergh- “The three most important groups which have been pressing this country towards war are the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration.” (Sept. 11, 1941)

• Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI)- “If America is to avoid the tragic mistakes of World War I and World War II, then we must avoid all alliances, entangling commitments, and guarantees that would involve us in the military affairs of Europe.” (Jan. 10, 1947)

• Sen. Robert Taft (R-OH)- “The United States has become the policemen of the world. We are sending our troops everywhere, and we are spending billions of dollars to support foreign countries. This is not in the best interests of the American people.” (June 10, 1952)

• Rep. MarjorieTraitor Greene (R-GA)- “America First! Stop spending money on wars that aren't our problem! Let's bring our troops home and focus on fixing our own country!.” (August, 2020)

These quotes illustrate the persistent presence of isolationist sentiment in the country’s political discourse, sentiment that is shared by Hawley and Vance and others like them today. Remember, during WWII, our initial isolationist stance— driven primarily by conservative Republicans— delayed our entry into the war, allowing Germany and Japan to gain significant territory and power, highlighting the dangers of neglecting international threats. And has David Frum explained yesterday, the GOP doesn’t really want a deal on Ukraine and the border. It’s just a MAGA setup. He reported that last week Schumer “issued the following invitation to Republicans: Write an amendment detailing everything you want, and the Democratic Senate majority will let you bring it to the floor for a clean vote. That offer was rejected by Senate Republicans. How do you get to ‘yes’ when the other side refuses to state its terms?… As well as anyone not in the negotiating room can figure, the impasse on the Republican side is powered by four main impulses:

1- A lot of House Republicans do not much care about enacting laws and solving problems. They are in Congress to strike poses and score television hits. They do not want to make deals. They want to position themselves as the one true conservative too pure for dealmaking. The only things they’re willing to say they want are the things they know to be impossible.

2- On December 4, Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas told reporters: “There’s a misunderstanding on the part of Senator Schumer and some of our Democratic friends. This is not a traditional negotiation, where we expect to come up with a bipartisan compromise on the border. This is a price that has to be paid in order to get the supplemental.” For many Republicans, what mattered was not what they got but how they got it: We demand, you comply; we win, you lose. A deal, no matter how juicy, is less interesting to them than a ritual of submission. If they cannot enforce that ritual, they are not interested in any deal.

3- The border is Biden’s single greatest political vulnerability. A recent NBC poll puts the Republican advantage on immigration at 18 points and border security at 30 points. Suppose Republicans did extract a big border concession in 2023; suppose they got everything they wanted. Then suppose their policy worked, and the flow of asylum seekers really did taper off dramatically in 2024. Would not the result of that success be only to strengthen Biden’s reelection chances and hurt Donald Trump’s? Maybe the reason Democrats are having so much difficulty getting to “yes” with Republicans is that many Republicans are committed to “no,” regardless of what the offer is.

4- The premise of much of the reporting about the negotiation is that Republicans sincerely care about the border and are using Ukraine and Israel as leverage in order to get their way on their higher priority. But for some Republicans, at least, stopping aid to Ukraine seems a priority in itself. A few actively subscribe to the pro-Putin politics of the far right. Others— including Speaker Johnson himself— started as supporters of Ukraine but have bent their view under the influence of anti-Ukraine party spirit. (Johnson supported the initial tranche of Ukraine aid in March 2022 but had defected to the anti-Ukraine side by May of that year.) Whatever each member’s motives and story are, the result has delivered them to the point where immigration-for-Ukraine no longer looks to them like a win-win deal.

Frum concluded that “We’re headed to a ‘no’ that will doom Ukraine and disgrace the U.S., while doing nothing to remedy the crisis at the border. A ‘yes’ on both Ukraine and the border is still within reach, if only pro-Ukraine Republicans will press their colleagues to grasp it. If leadership was ever needed, it’s needed now.”

On Sunday, former and future New York Congressman Mondaire Jones was a guest on Katie Phang’s show. “This gamesmanship that we are seeing Republicans play with respect to important aid to Ukraine and of course our ally Israel,” he said, “is emblematic of the chaos that the Republicans in the House have embraced all year long. It’s why they’re the most unproductive Congress since the Great Depression, by a number of measures… This is about making sure we get aid very quickly to our allies who need American leadership.”

Los Angeles, Congressman Ted Lieu was frustrated about the gameplaying when I spoke with him yesterday. “The American people overwhelmingly support the people of Ukraine in their valiant fight against the illegal and immoral invasion by Putin’s Russia. President Biden and his Administration strongly support Ukraine. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and in both chambers overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Yet a small number of extreme MAGA House Republicans are preventing vital aid from getting to the Ukrainians. Rarely in history has the obstinance of a few out-of-touch individuals had such a massive geopolitical impact. It is time for Republican leadership to show some actual leadership and ignore the most extreme members of their party in order to support the Ukrainian people. The fate of millions hangs in the balance.”