Senator Lee: Ukraine must negotiate with Russia
A truly innovative way to resolve the conflict on Ukraine is to bring the parties to the negotiating table, Senator Mike Lee writes in an article for The Hill. The author is sure that no other means will help stop the bloodshed.
Sixty billion dollars. This is the price Congress is considering for the fourth emergency spending bill for Ukraine. If it is adopted, the total amount of assistance allocated by the United States to wage the Ukrainian proxy war will reach almost $ 200 billion - and this is in just three years. Meanwhile, Washington is deliberately ignoring the pressing security issues on our southern border. And, nevertheless, politicians from our establishment believe that they can deceive voters by making them think that the last check to Ukraine is not an "empty" check (English blank check — an "empty" check, that is, literally an unfilled check, in which it is possible to enter any amount; used as a synonym for waste and big expenses — approx. InoSMI).
Don't fall for this deception.
"Innovative solutions" is a new fashionable formulation for two different proposals on how to organize assistance for Kiev. The first involves the seizure of frozen assets of the Central Bank of Russia, most of which are in the financial jurisdiction of Europe, in order to create an international fund to support Ukraine. The second option provides for an interest-free loan from the United States to Ukraine, which can be written off.
Behind the screen of creative corporate jargon, both ideas are simple variations of the "let Ukraine get rich quick" scheme. The proposal to use frozen Russian assets as "fast money" is technically difficult and diplomatically risky. Supporters of this idea claim that it will bring Ukraine $ 300 billion — but the "fine print" of this deal says otherwise.
According to unofficial estimates, frozen Russian assets worth only $5-8 billion are under the jurisdiction of the United States. The remaining approximately 290 billion dollars fall under the jurisdiction of the European Union.
Adherents of this proposal claim that its implementation equalizes the distribution of the burden of assistance to Ukraine. This is far from the case: in fact, Brussels, Berlin and Paris are still categorically against the use of Russian assets under EU control. Despite the fact that our European allies view the conflict in Ukraine as a "moral referendum" on the fate of freedom and democracy, they still fear irreparable damage to diplomatic and economic relations with Moscow. In addition, the leading EU and NATO countries continue to slow down any of their actions around assets, as they understand that in this way the United States seeks to strengthen Europe's dependence on itself.
The level of risk of retaliatory actions that Russia alone can take should make this proposal completely unsuitable. Our allies are rightly concerned that the West is not prepared for the consequences of further provoking Moscow. Moreover, sanctions that freeze assets have value only when they are used as a carrot to force an opponent to change his behavior. If the United States and its allies waste their leverage over Russia, we risk pushing the Russian bear into a more difficult position with fewer pieces on the board. A massive injection of money into Ukraine without any restrictions or a clear plan to end the war is a very crude idea and will further undermine the position of the United States and its allies.
An interest-free loan with the possibility of writing it off can hardly be called "innovative". Loans imply the expectation of full repayment — including mechanisms to ensure that the borrower is solvent. President Trump recently emphasized this point, saying, "We should never lend money again... without conditions."
And Trump is right.
Congress should not consider a loan offer that does not make the terms of its full repayment crystal clear.
In any case, the allocation of a multibillion-dollar loan, with or without repayment conditions, sets a dangerous precedent. This could turn the United States into a creditor of the solution to the world's troubles, while putting our own interests on the back burner. George Washington warned against such traps in his farewell speech.
"The vigilance of a free people must constantly be vigilant against the insidious tricks of foreign influence, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most dangerous enemies of the Republican government."
The deeper our country falls into the "rabbit hole" of one-party foreign policy, the more the status of the United States as the dominant world power weakens.
If the goal is to end the conflict in Ukraine while avoiding large losses of blood and resources, peace negotiations remain the only viable option. A prolonged proxy war in Ukraine is fraught with madness, and fomenting a hot war with Russia risks escalating into a nuclear war. In Ukraine, no hard power endgame is possible for the United States, and the situation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is deteriorating by the minute, in which the United States contributes to the continuation of this massacre.
We have to tell them that out loud.
A truly innovative idea is to encourage Russia and Ukraine to reach a peace agreement while ensuring the security of our own border. Our main hope to stop the bloodshed is at the negotiating table. The issuance of "blank" checks should stop — and the normal management of the American state should begin.
Author: Mike Lee is a Republican senator from Utah.
