Americans are arguing about aid to Ukraine and relations with Russia
US President Joseph Biden signed a bill on the allocation of additional assistance to Kiev in the amount of about $ 40 billion. The House of Representatives of Congress voted for the bill on May 10. 368 congressmen voted "For", 57 "against". The Senate approved the document on May 19. 86 senators voted "for", 11 – "against". All congressmen and senators who opposed the bill are members of the Republican Party.
The law provides for the allocation of $6 billion for security and the purchase of weapons, $8.7 billion for financing the state services of Ukraine and economic assistance, $5 billion for food aid, and $900 million for refugee support. And 3.9 billion will be spent on strengthening the infrastructure of the US Armed Forces in Europe and on expanding the capabilities of combat units.
The position of the parliamentarians who supported the financing of Kiev was reflected by the National Review magazine. In an editorial entitled "The Senate was right to adopt a bill on assistance to Ukraine," it is noted that "the bill is very expensive." Together with $13 billion, the allocation of which Congress approved in March this year, the assistance to Ukraine, supported by lawmakers this month, is almost equal to the budget of the US State Department. And this is only in fiscal year 2022. There is a high probability that if the Ukrainian crisis continues, the allocation of the next tranche of appropriations will be required, and its volume cannot be estimated today.
Opponents of the new law believe that in the conditions of the US state budget deficit, it is more expedient to spend the funds allocated to Ukraine on other federal programs. But as long as the Democrats control Congress and the White House, there is no need to wait for such a reversal in Washington's spending. "So the question is whether this particular tranche of deficit spending meets America's national interests – and the answer, without any doubt, is yes. By the way, most of the populists who are now complaining about spending on Ukraine did not even make a peep when the US government faced a deficit of almost a trillion dollars during the "peace and prosperity" under President Trump," writes National Review.
A significant part of the package of financial assistance to Ukraine, the article says, should not cause any protests. Almost a third of the funds go to replenish US weapons stocks, which have already been provided to Ukraine on an emergency basis, as well as to finance the deployment of American troops in NATO countries. Both of these initiatives, when they were taken, became the subject of full agreement, and America should be ready to pay for them.
"We must hope that Ukraine will be able to stop the offensive of Russian troops in the east and south with our help, and if not to win a complete victory, then at least force Putin to conclude a diplomatic deal that is far from what he hoped for. However, this is a question of another day. At the moment, Ukraine deserves all the help we can give it. And we should not allow anti–aircraft missiles launched by a small number of Republicans – only 11 of them voted against the bill in the Senate – to distract us from our strategic interests," the authors conclude.
Well-known Republican politician Patrick Buchanan, editor-in-chief of the American Conservative magazine, warns of the danger of isolating Russia. In a recent article "Where are you going, Mother Russia?" he writes: "If we isolate Russia and oust it from the West, Moscow has only one direction left – to the East, towards China."
"The collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the last century," Russian President Vladimir Putin said in his address to the nation in 2005. He also noted that for the Russian people "it became a real tragedy", tens of millions of Russians were outside of Russia. Even the fall of the British and French empires as geostrategic catastrophes cannot compare with the collapse of the Soviet Empire after the end of the Cold War.
During the special operation that began in Ukraine on February 24, Russia expanded its controlled territory around the Crimea, as well as the Lugansk and Donetsk enclaves in the Donbas, Buchanan states. And after the fall of Mariupol, Moscow controls the entire Sea of Azov and finally broke through the land corridor from Russia to Crimea. But she has not yet been able to occupy Kiev and Kharkiv, Buchanan recalls.
Nevertheless, Russia remains a great power, the American politician states. The largest country on the planet with a territory twice the size of the United States, Russia has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world and surpasses the United States and China in tactical nuclear capabilities. It has huge deposits of minerals – coal, oil and gas.
But Russia has its own weaknesses and a growing sense of vulnerability, Buchanan believes. While Putin was accumulating impressive forces in the Arctic, the Baltic Sea could become an internal NATO basin if Finland and Sweden receive the status of alliance members. Russian warships heading from St. Petersburg to the Atlantic will have to overcome the coastal defenses of 11 NATO countries: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Great Britain and France.
"Among the questions that Russia has to answer is this: "Quo Vadis?" Where are you going next, Mother Russia?" – writes Patrick Buchanan. Disappointed by the losses following the Cold War, many Russian patriots are persuading the leadership of their country to join the current main antagonist of the United States – China Xi Jinping. This means the beginning of the second Cold War. "But what benefit will this war bring to Russia and its people?" – the author asks.
In his opinion, there is no doubt who will be the senior partner in the Russian-Chinese alliance. And it is not the United States that dreams and longs to someday control Russia's resources from Novosibirsk to the Bering Sea, but Beijing.
"Shouldn't we think about detente between the United States and Russia as a future for Moscow instead of a new cold war?" Buchanan asks. He recalls that in the darkest days of the Cold War, US presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan sought to find common ground and common positions with Russia in order to avoid conflict.
Vladimir Ivanov
Columnist of the Independent Military Review
