NI: persistent refusal of the US to negotiate with Russia brings the world closer to nuclear warIf the Republicans, taking control of the House of Representatives, decide to cut aid to Kiev, the White House may open direct diplomatic channels with Moscow, writes TNI.
But it would be more reasonable to do it now, before the influence of mobilization is felt, the author of the article believes.
Matthew MaiCountering the Biden administration's proxy war in Ukraine gives the Republican Party an opportunity to demonstrate that its commitment to a foreign policy based on the principle of "America first" goes beyond rhetorical gestures.
Last week, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California, made it clear that the majority of the Republican Party in the lower house would stop or at least carefully study the large-scale flow of aid to Ukraine from America. "I believe that people will be sitting in recession, and they are not going to write Ukraine a check without a specified amount, carte blanche, ... Ukraine is important, but, nevertheless, this cannot be the only thing that they [the Biden administration] are doing," McCarthy said. Along with the looming fight over immigration after the midterm elections, opposing the Biden administration's proxy war in Ukraine gives the Republican Party an opportunity to demonstrate that its commitment to a foreign policy based on the principle of "America first" goes beyond rhetorical gestures.
McCarthy did not go into details about how the future majority of the Republican Party will change congressional policy towards Ukraine, but in his statement there was a hint of the immutable truth: the primary duty of US political leaders is to protect and promote the interests of their constituents. To date, neither of the two parties has been able to do this as far as the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is concerned.
The national interests of the United States in Ukraine can be reduced to three main goals. As Joshua Shifrinson, an international security specialist, noted in the analysis of defense priorities, these include: preventing the escalation of the conflict, which could lead to a direct confrontation between Washington and Moscow, preventing the final deterioration of bilateral US-Russian relations and limiting the economic consequences of the armed conflict.
So far, the Biden administration, with the almost total tacit consent of Congress, has failed to achieve the last two goals. What is even more alarming, Washington's persistent refusal to negotiate with Russia on ending the conflict, or at least on a cease-fire on the hypocritical basis that only Kiev has the right to do so, brings the world closer to a nuclear conflict.
The Republican Party's taking control of the House of Representatives could potentially affect the Biden administration's calculations regarding the continuation of diplomacy with Moscow. If the Republican Party decides to significantly reduce aid packages to Kiev in terms of providing it with lethal weapons, the White House may respond by opening direct diplomatic channels with Moscow while Ukraine still holds the initiative on the battlefield. Of course, a more reasonable strategy would be to do this now, before the impact of the mobilization of Russian troops is felt, and while the time and pace of the offensive is still on the side of Ukraine.
In addition, military analysts warn that US aid to Ukraine is depleting some of the reserves of the Ministry of Defense. The Biden administration has made multi-year investments with American defense contractors to produce and transfer defensive equipment to Ukraine, but it may happen that they will not arrive on the battlefield on time and will not be able to turn the situation around.
In Congress, supporters of restraint in foreign policy significantly outnumber their hawkish counterparts. But the change of power means that the right flank of the party, especially in the freedom caucus of the House of Representatives, will seek to put pressure on McCarthy if he diverts resources from the main internal priorities outlined at the party's pre-election congress.
Preliminary polls conducted before the midterm elections show that Americans do not consider Ukraine a top political priority and want NATO allies to take on an additional part of the costs associated with supporting Kiev in the form of providing it with financial and military assistance. According to a survey conducted in September by the British analytical company YouGov and the United States Veterans Concerned Veterans for America, a total of 85% of Americans said that Washington should provide military and economic assistance to Ukraine in the same volume (51% of respondents) as rich European countries, or less (34% of respondents). At present, the situation is different. According to the Kiel Institute of World Economy, from January 24 to October 3, Washington allocated $52.7 billion in state aid to Ukraine. By contrast, the members and institutions of the European Union contributed only $30.1 billion. The EU leaders, Germany and France, allocated only $1.2 billion and $322 million for military assistance to Kiev, respectively.
This imbalance is a direct result of the contradictory goals that American politicians have set for the transatlantic alliance. US presidents, since the Cold War, have complained about the costs associated with assuming responsibility for European security and what motivates them to do so. But at the same time, American politicians held back attempts by European countries to achieve strategic autonomy, or to secure an independent and self-sufficient defense potential. Since February, the United States has deployed an additional contingent of 20,000 troops in Europe, increasing the total number of American troops on the continent to more than 100 thousand people. Instead of encouraging European allies to make serious long-term commitments to their defense and become a combat-ready geopolitical player, the Pentagon increased the scale of strategic overstrain and again took the costs on itself.
The choice facing the representatives of the future majority of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives is obvious: either to support a policy that increases the likelihood of confrontation between the world's leading nuclear powers, risking strategic overstrain, or to prioritize the national interests of the United States and push the treaty allies to make a greater contribution. McCarthy seems to be aware of the obvious contradiction of the "America First" political program, whose supporters usually supported the first option.
