What arguments do Republicans make against aid to Ukraine?

Veteran reporter William Dowell has been at the game since the Vietnam War. In a recent column¹, he describes and refutes Republican arguments for reducing or eliminating assistance to Ukraine in its current war with Russia. And in the process provides some helpful information about the kinds of equipment that the West is providing to Ukraine.

Dowell cites three Republican arguments against the US supporting Ukraine:

1. "Why spend money on Ukraine when our annual debt and deficits keep growing?"

2. "[T]he US has no direct strategic interest in Ukraine."

3. "[G]iving the Ukrainians weapons to defend themselves is somehow prolonging the war and leading to even more civilian casualties."

My own observations about those three:

1. No actual voters care about The Debt or The Deficit. At least they are not decisive issues for anyone. Because almost no one actually understands them that well, even though both Republicans and Democrats talk about them endlessly.

2. If that means that US territory would suffer no direct and immediate injury if Russia stays in control of the Ukrainian territory they now hold, that’s true. But since support for NATO is central to US European policy, that’s obviously not the case because it does have huge meaning for NATO’s preparedness. There actually was some serious high-level consideration of abolishing or at least fundamentally redefining the NATO commitment after 1991. It didn’t last that long. And the 2008 NATO declaration that Georgia and Ukraine would definitely become NATO members effectively ended any such considerations for the immediate future.

3. Dowell’s third point is stated in a murky way. It’s a blunt fact that the longer the war goes on, the more civilian and military casualties Ukraine will incur. There is a legitimate question always about whether prolonging a war if there is little hope of winning is right or not.² But Russia and Ukraine both seem very far from willing to even consider ending the conflict at this point. So, in practice, that’s largely a moot consideration for now.

MSNBC and many Democratic-leaning commentators are still fairly stuck on a Russia-Russia-Russia narrative that often clumsily tries to make Russia to blame for every bad thing the Republican Party does. Which gives the Republicans too little credit for their own considerable ability to make mischief. But these comments from historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat are worth hearing³:

Dowell also observes that some of the equipment the US has shipped to Ukraine may not be exactly state-of-the-art. The 300 M113 armored personnel carriers, for instance:

These were used extensively in the Vietnam War, and they had disturbing vulnerabilities even then. … [T]hey were easily taken out by a shoulder-fired B-40 rocket grenade. The explosive shaped-charge of a B-40 cut through the M113’s armor like butter and literally shredded everything inside. As a result, most GI’s who served in Vietnam rode on top using sandbags as their only protection. I was there. It was a frightening experience. The chances that any US soldier would be asked to rely on an M113 in future combat is highly unlikely,

Dowell reports that Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and FOX News have been exaggerating the amount of aid that the US has so far provided to Ukraine. Those folks lying? Say it ain’t so!

The most reliable source these days is Germany’s Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Kiel regularly updates the amount of aid flowing into Ukraine and offers an online “support tracker.” The estimated total US contribution so far is around $76.8 billion. The US contribution to Ukraine is actually less than the global amount given by institutions of the European Union, which already tops $80 billion. Germany and Britain have each given substantial sums independently. [my emphasis]

That is an important marker. The official and actual US foreign policy perspective is that balancing against the rising power and influence of China is the country’s top priority. They expect the EU to carry most of the financial burden for Ukraine, although obviously the deterrent effect of NATO is heavily based on US participation.

Dowell is dubious about concerns that Poland is wavering in its support for Ukraine, suggesting that recent comments from Polish Prime Minister Andrzej Duda are mostly fluff for the upcoming Polish elections:

The fact is ... that Poland has already transferred most of its last-generation hardware to Ukraine and has nothing left to give. ... The Poles have no illusions about Russia, their large and aggressive neighbor, and they know that it is in their interest to see Ukraine succeed.

1. Dowell, William (2023): The Real Cost of Ukraine. Who What Why 10/03/2023. <https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/ukraine/the-real-cost-of-ukraine/> (Accessed: 2023-03-10).

2. Walt, Stephen (2023): The Morality of Ukraine's War Is Very Murky. Foreign Policy 09/22/2023. <https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/22/ukraine-war-ethics-morality-murky/> Accessed: 2023-22-09).

3. How the political fight over aid to Ukraine exposes the GOP’s anti-Democratic sympathies. MSNBC YouTube channel 10/02/2023. (Accessed: 2023-03-10).