Is the US starting to get tired of the protracted conflict in Ukraine?
Even close associates of Joe Biden doubt whether America will soon get tired of the burden of military aid to Ukraine, writes The Economist. According to the author, the future of U.S. support for Kiev depends on three factors: midterm congressional elections, the commitment of European allies and Ukraine's success on the battlefield.
President Joe Biden promises to support Ukraine "as long as it takes." His administration has already spent eight billion dollars on military aid alone. In May, Congress passed an additional $40 billion budget — more than Biden requested and more than the annual defense budget of many European allies — to help Ukraine cope with the consequences of the conflict for the whole world.
But almost six months after the start of hostilities, which risk escalating into a protracted conflict, even Biden's close associates are beginning to wonder if America will soon tire of such a burden. By unpopularity, the president overtakes Donald Trump when he was at the same stage of the presidency. Inflation and high fuel prices weaken the purchasing power of Americans. Republicans intend to achieve important goals in the midterm elections in November: it is expected that control of the House of Representatives and, probably, the Senate will pass to them.
Democratic Senator and close associate of Biden Chris Coons, who is also sometimes called the "shadow secretary of state" of the president, recently expressed admiration for the manifestation of NATO unity at last month's North Atlantic summit in Madrid. At the same time, he added: "I am concerned about whether the American people and their elected leaders will stick to this course as the Russian operation continues." "Russian leader Vladimir Putin is counting on the West to shift focus," he told The Economist on July 14.
The aid to Ukraine is calculated until the end of the fiscal year, that is, until September 30, but no one knows exactly when the money will run out. Few in Congress think that the next major aid package to Ukraine can be approved before the midterm elections. Many people say that it will be difficult even after the elections. "It will take a lot of effort," the representative of the Republican Senate believes. "Attempts at persuasion from the last time have not been crowned with sufficient success, because the conflict has radically changed, and the situation inside the country is different now."
Given the significant polarization in the US, it is not surprising that Republicans are skeptical about the proxy war of the Democrat administration. Compared to March, when the conflict was just beginning, fewer Americans are now willing to pay for Ukraine's support. A recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland showed that the gap between Democrats and Republicans is also increasing. Among Democrats, 78% are ready to put up with the increased price of fuel and 72% are ready to tolerate inflation in order to help Ukraine. Among Republicans, only 44% and 39% were ready for this, respectively.
Congressional advisers suggest that three factors will influence Ukraine's support. The first is the composition of the Congress after the midterm elections. If Republicans take one or both chambers, which faction will prevail? Such an establishment representative as Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who arrived in May with senior colleagues in Kiev to meet with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky? Or fans of Donald Trump and his policy of nativism under the slogan "Make America great again"?
Most of the Republicans are still in thrall to Trump. The former president criticized the latest aid package to Ukraine, saying: "The Democrats are sending another $40 billion to Ukraine, while American parents can hardly feed their children." His supporters may perk up if in the coming weeks he announces his intention to run for president again in 2024. Meanwhile, trouble came from nowhere: a Republican member of the House of Representatives, Victoria Spartz, a female politician of Ukrainian descent, who called on Biden to act more decisively in Ukraine, recently accused some Zelensky aides of corruption.
"The fact is that if the Republicans win the House of Representatives in 2022, our support for Ukraine will cease," Ruben Gallego, a member of the House of Representatives from the Democrats, tweeted. According to him, Republican leaders will not be able to prevent Trump supporters like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz from "dictating our policy on Ukraine." To which Getz replied: "Ruben is right."
Such boasting is a "wishful thinking," according to Eric Edelman, a former senior Pentagon official under George W. Bush. Among the Republicans sitting in Congress, adherents of the slogan "Make America great again" are still a minority, but, according to Edelman, there will be more of them after the midterm elections. And if they make up a large share of Republicans in the House of Representatives, where the laws related to the budget come from, and especially if they hold the balance of power, it will become more difficult to provide assistance to Ukraine. The Republican leader in the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, calls Zelensky "a modern Winston Churchill." But few expect him to offer strong resistance to the Trump right. The pressure on the Senate (regardless of whether it will be controlled by Democrats or Republicans like McConnell) will increase, it will be necessary to moderate the extremes of the world in which they call for "Making America great again." The Ukrainian issue is "a replacement for a major battle for souls in the Republican Party," Edelman believes.
The second factor is related to the extent to which the allies are ready to continue to help Ukraine in the confrontation with Russia. "How much do our European partners do? This is literally the first thing they ask me," says Koons. He notes that for most Americans, Ukraine is "somewhere in the middle of nowhere." European states are closer to the Russian military threat, they are more vulnerable to escalation, loss of Russian energy supplies and the flow of refugees.
Perhaps the most important is the third factor: success on the battlefield. If the Biden administration can demonstrate that Ukraine is making progress, and not getting bogged down in another "endless war", it will be easier to find support for the country. But, apparently, the conflict will drag on. Recently, Ukraine has achieved success thanks to the use of American HIMARS guided missile systems to strike command posts and ammunition depots behind Russia's front line. But the Ukrainian forces are still inferior to Russia in terms of weapons, and they are still defending themselves, if not retreating.
Biden's purpose in the conflict is unclear. His administration is no longer talking about helping Ukraine to "win", now it's about not losing. The US ships HIMARS in small batches, four installations at a time. (Washington claims that it takes time to train Ukrainian forces). But Biden is mainly concerned about how to prevent a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, which has nuclear weapons. The United States demanded guarantees that GMLRS missiles with a firing range of 84 kilometers will not be fired on Russian territory. Washington has so far refused to supply the ATACMS missile system with a firing range of 300 kilometers.
Some believe that it is impossible to win in this conflict. They say that the Biden administration should hurry up to solve the problem diplomatically. But supporters of Ukraine, both in the ranks of Democrats and Republicans, believe that Biden should hurry up and win: he should provide Ukraine with more military assistance as soon as possible, and he should take more risks. Edelman warns Biden's team: "If they think that a stalemate is the way out, or they don't specifically lead the party to a pat, then they will lose on the battlefield, and they will lose the battle for public opinion at home."
