By Stephen Bryen
According to Jake Sullivan who heads President Biden's National Security Council, President Biden will ask Congress for more money for Ukraine. The fate of this request, if it is actually put forward, will likely be a bellwether for Ukraine's future.
So far neither the White House nor the NSC has provided any actual numbers for a Ukraine money request.
Biden and his advisors hope they can ram through a measure for Ukraine with a still friendly Congress. It is, however, not at all certain he can be successful.
If the measure is submitted and rejected, or just not acted on, Zelensky in Ukraine will be faced with a hard choice: either negotiate with the Russians, go down in flames, or resign from office.
The current Congress, which will be replaced in January with both Houses under Republican control, has been relatively friendly to supporting Ukraine. Previous measures have passed both the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, and the House which is led by Republicans.
A key issue will be what Trump will support even before he takes office. If Mr. Trump opposes further Ukraine aid, which is a distinct possibility, he may ask his Republican colleagues in the House to simply not move a measure in that body, essentially putting off its consideration until his administration takes office.
As this is written there is around $3 billion remaining in Congressionally approved funding available for Ukraine support.
Last January 2024, President Joe Biden requested an additional $60 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine. This bill was part of the "supplemental spending" package, which also included funding for other government priorities, such as disaster relief, border security, and defense spending. The $60 billion was specifically allocated for Ukraine's continued military and humanitarian support.
The key elements of the bill included:
$24 billion in military aid, including ammunition, weapons systems (e.g., fighter jets, air defense systems), training, and logistics support.
$14 billion in economic aid to stabilize Ukraine’s economy and help maintain essential government functions.
$8 billion in humanitarian assistance for refugees, displaced persons, and medical aid.
Other funding for energy infrastructure, reconstruction, and bolstering Ukraine’s long-term defense capabilities.
House of Representatives Vote
The House of Representatives, particularly under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson (who took over after Kevin McCarthy's ousting in October 2023), faced fierce debates over the Ukraine funding. By January 2024, opposition from within the Republican Party had solidified around ending or reducing U.S. aid to Ukraine, especially from more conservative factions.
Vote outcome: The House voted 216-212 to approve the $60 billion Ukraine funding package as part of a broader supplemental funding bill.
Republican opposition: A significant number of Republican members voted against the aid package, particularly those from the Freedom Caucus and other conservatives who opposed continued foreign spending. They argued that the U.S. should focus on domestic priorities such as border security, inflation, and debt reduction.
Democratic support: Most Democrats voted in favor of the package, with Ukraine aid being a central issue for them as part of their broader foreign policy priorities.
The vote in the House was extremely close. At the time of the vote the administration claimed that Ukraine was winning the war. That claim can no longer be sustained, and there is a general view in the national security community that Ukraine will have to negotiate with Moscow.
Senate Vote
The Senate, which has traditionally been more supportive of Ukraine’s defense efforts, passed the same $60 billion aid package with greater bipartisan support, though there were still some Republicans who voted against it.
Vote outcome: The Senate voted 74-22 in favor of the bill, with bipartisan support largely coming from the Democratic caucus and moderate Republicans.
Republican opposition: While the opposition was still significant in the Senate, especially from conservative Republicans such as Senators Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, and J.D. Vance, who have become vocal critics of U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict, the majority of Republicans voted in favor of the package.
J.D. Vance is now the Vice-President Elect.
Democratic support: Most Senate Democrats voted in favor of the bill, consistent with their support for Ukraine.
It isn't clear if there would be overwhelming Republican support in the Senate for more money for Ukraine. Mr. Trump could argue that he needs maximum leverage over Ukraine and request that the Senate and House hold off passing any funding measure at this time.
Money bills traditionally have to originate in the House of Representatives. If the House does not move a funding measure, the Senate may never take up the Biden request.
Consequences
Under current conditions, President Biden's funding request for Ukraine is unlikely to be approved, at least not now. Even if the money became available, the US has few weapons it can afford to share with Ukraine.
What weapons the US has in some cases are needed by allies. For example, in late 2020, the US authorized the sale of 64 ATACMS and 11 HIMARS M142 launchers to Taiwan. Following adjustments to its defense priorities, Taiwan later increased its order, ordering an additional 18 HIMARS systems and raising its ATACMS order from 64 to 84 units. The HIMARS launchers arrived in early November and, as this is written, the first deliveries of ATACMS missiles for HIMARS have been delivered to Taiwan. Other countries including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Morocco also have requested HIMARS and ATACMS missiles. While the Pentagon and White House claim there are enough HIMARS and ATACMS, the fact is that if an actual conflict occurred elsewhere, particularly in the Pacific, HIMARS and ATACMS missiles will be needed.
Likewise there are shortages of anti aircraft systems, missiles for Patriot, and ammunition in various calibers . It will take some time, measured in years, to replenish stocks of ammunition and weapons.
The US could hand over its weapon's stockpiles in Europe, but doing so would effectively disarm US troops and weaken NATO crucially. Therefore doing that is highly unlikely.
In the end, Mr. Biden's request is mostly a Hail Mary shot before he is replaced in late January.
Zelensky will surely see that support for Ukraine from the United States is at a crucial crossroads, and Ukrainian attempts to squeeze more out of Washington won’t be successful. Whether that will be enough to persuade him to be willing to talk to the Russians we don’t know. But as Ukraine is on the verge of collapse, Zelensky may take the diplomatic route, or he may resign.
Trump's selection of Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor concerns me.
Waltz has been a consistent Ukraine hawk. Like the late John McCain, Waltz views Russia as a "gas station with nuclear weapons." His take on the Russo-Ukraine War is that we need to escalate to put Kyiv in a better negotiating position and force Russia to negotiations. And he had advocated allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike targets deep in Russia. He also believes that more and better enforced economic sanctions will collapse the Russian economy. Well, this is exactly what the Harris/Biden Regime thought three years ago and how has that turned out?
I would classify Waltz as a neocon warmonger. I might be overstating it, but not by much.
Waltz discussed his position vis-a-vis Ukraine as recently as Nov 4th on NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/04/nx-s1-5173551/what-would-foreign-policy-look-like-under-a-second-donald-trump-term
The people did not elect Trump a week ago to double-down on the National Security State's overseas wars. He won because those who elected him thought he would do more than Harris to improve their lives and the lives of their families. Trump had best not blow his chance to do what is best for America.
Why not? The transfer of taxpayer $$ into crony pockets can proceed. Too few in Congress actually oppose it. Election is over, no reason to pretend. Trump already brought in utterly standard Republican figures (aka "swamp" as his supporters would have categorized them). Besides, I'm not even sure that Congress giving gifts to contractors is a process that needs physical goods to change hands - at least not this year or next. Finally, don't think we're actually out of obsolete Ford-Reagan-Bush1 era hardware. Can also be purchased from third countries if necessary ($$), can be refurbished ($$), transported in style ($$), and passed around a few times within Ukraine ($$). To be blown up by a $200 drone after a couple round trips to the front. Why would the outgoing Biden admin do anything else?