Even the slightest hint of a softening of American resolve could comfort Putin.
For many months, Russian President Vladimir Putin waited and watched, hoping for the collapse of the strong Washington consensus created by President Joe Biden on the need to do everything possible to protect democracy in Ukraine.
Now the first cracks may appear, writes Steven Collinson in analytics for CNN.
There is no sign that the $18 billion in US military aid that helped Ukraine fend off Russian onslaught is now in jeopardy. But with only two weeks to go before November's midterm elections, the political opposition's anxiety about an endless U.S. role in the war is growing on both sides.
Even the slightest hint of a softening of American resolve could comfort Putin as the Kremlin leader prepares to accommodate a Ukrainian peace a very painful winter for residents and Europeans who depend on Russian gas.
Tuesday quickly turned into a political disaster: progressive Democrats published and then retracted a letter signed in June calling on the White House to support efforts to arm Ukraine with powerful diplomatic leverage to engage Russia in negotiations and seek opportunities for a ceasefire. It comes days after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the likely next speaker, warned that if the Republican Party comes to power, Kyiv may not expect a “generous check” for aid.
Later, the leader of the Republican Party insisted that he does not want to cut aid to Ukraine, but only wants to guarantee , that taxpayer dollars will not automatically be stamped for war. The outrage caused by his remarks shows that if the Republican Party wins the majority, McCarthy will have to solve this problem.
For example, former president Donald Trump, the potential future Republican nominee in the next presidential election, has complained about government spending to support the fight against his hero Putin, and that his first impeachment was due to coercion of military aid.
However, after the midterm elections, Trump will have a huge impact on any future Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
Also read: Ukraine split among Republicans —The Guardian
It is clear that there is still a bipartisan consensus in Washington regarding aid to Ukraine. But rumors that Biden's tough line on Russia will not always have near-unanimous support come at a particularly sensitive time, when the West is trying to discredit Russia's latest round of nuclear rhetoric — a warning that Kyiv could use a dirty bomb. These statements have already led to high-level talks between the US and Russian military leadership and are interpreted by many as either a scare tactic or perhaps an attempt by Moscow to conduct, under the cover of the Ukrainian flag, an operation that could be used as a pretext for using weapons of mass destruction.
Seeking to emphasize the commitment of the US and the West to Ukraine, Biden on Tuesday issued a new warning against Russia's use of lower-power nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
“Let me just say this: Russia would be making an incredibly big mistake if they used a tactical nuclear weapon,” Biden told reporters after being asked if Russia was preparing to use a dirty bomb.
“I can't say for sure if this operation will be conducted under a false flag, but it will be a serious, serious mistake,” he added.
The president's comments were a reminder that Washington's maneuvering on aid to Ukraine is taking place in a critical context: There is still concern over a possible escalation of the war, which could lead to direct confrontation between the US and Russia and put the world on a catastrophic path to full-scale nuclear war. escalation.
That is why the signs of weakening political resolve in the United States and in some allied states are so significant. They apparently give Putin reason to believe that a war of attrition in winter could sooner or later cause fatigue in the West and, therefore, weaken Ukraine's fighting capacity.
Also read: Ukraine issue split Republicans —The Guardian< /p>
Still, some of the questions raised by those wary of the US position are relevant and important. A foreign policy operation to confront the United States against its former Cold War enemies and nuclear rival must be continually evaluated and vetted by the president, taking into account its costs and risks.
The fact that there is no diplomatic approach to the conflict – Biden has said several times in private that he does not know what Putin's “concessions” might be – deserves discussion and, potentially, verification in contacts with Moscow. And at a time of rampant inflation and economic hardship in the United States, the administration and its supporters must prove to American taxpayers why a war on the edge of Europe is draining billions of public money, even if it's not the same “bounty check” McCarthy mentioned.
The risk, however, is that such debates still play into the hands of Putin, who has already demonstrated his ability to exploit and widen political divisions in the US with his 2016 election meddling scheme and the power he wielded over Trump, even forcing him to criticize US intelligence services at a joint press conference.
Sooner or later, the political battle in Washington over how long the U.S. should be involved in arming Ukraine and how much it will cost will run into critical questions that could decide the war and could motivate Putin's use of up-stakes rhetoric, including the use of nuclear weapons.
Is the West as committed to helping Ukraine as Putin, whose political survival may depend on winning or losing, is committed to his war? And do Ukraine and its allies really want to enter a dangerous cycle of escalation that could threaten a large-scale nuclear war?
It is with these questions that the drama unfolded on Tuesday around a letter signed by 30 progressive Democrats. Most of its signatories did not support the publication of the letter this week, and some said they would not sign it now, given the serious turn the war has taken in recent days. The outrage over the letter prompted Congressman Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, to retract it, saying it was written months ago and issued by staff without vetting.
Read also: Now is not the time to falter in the fight against Russian aggression – The Washington Post
The episode didn't just threaten to expose untrustworthy lawmakers just two weeks before an election in which Democrats increasingly fear losing the House. This could give McCarthy grounds in the upcoming Congress to argue that opposition to Biden's multibillion-dollar arms packages is not just a Republican concern.
And while the letter was retracted, some of its sentiments could be relevant again.
It says lawmakers are under no illusions about the difficulty of bringing Russia into negotiations, given its “outrageous and illegal invasion of Ukraine.” But it also says: “If there is a way to end the war while preserving a free and independent Ukraine, America must use all diplomatic options to support such a solution that will be acceptable to the people of Ukraine.”
The problem, however, is that the conditions that Russia imposes on any peace agreement include the fixation of its gains on the battlefield. Now that Putin has illegally annexed several Ukrainian regions, it is impossible for Kyiv to agree to any conditions he would set. And the rejection of these positions will lead to the defeat of the Russian leader, which he very much wants to avoid. So, while the idea of negotiations may seem attractive, it is not clear how the US can change the calculations of either side. And Biden has repeatedly insisted that he will not conduct negotiations behind the back of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as Putin would like.
One of the progressive Democrats, congressmanRoe Hanna of California said he did not support the decision to withdraw the letter.
“I think there is a point in the letter,” he said. — I support the fact that we arm Ukraine, supply weapons to Ukraine and continue to finance it, but I also believe that the president is right that we are at risk of nuclear war.”
He believes that that the United States should talk to Russia to be sure that the situation does not escalate.
There is also the risk that diplomacy at this stage could become a reward for Putin for the terrible human carnage he has committed in Ukraine.
“There is a moral and strategic danger in sitting down with Putin at the negotiating table too soon. It risks legitimizing his crimes and handing over part of Ukraine to Russia in a deal that Putin won't even honor,” Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy tweeted on Tuesday.
In his opinion, sometimes a bully should be shown the limits before diplomacy will work.
Read also: NYT: It is increasingly difficult for Biden to maintain a coalition to support Ukraine
The only thing that the drama surrounding the letter of the Democratic Party has achieved parties on Ukraine – demonstrated that while support for Ukraine is bipartisan, there is also anxiety about war, even if such skeptics are still in the minority.
The prospect of a post-midterm House, and therefore more GOP senators, aligning with Trump's ideological image and his America-first worldview worries the administration.
“I think people will sit through a recession , and they're not going to write a 'big check' to Ukraine,” McCarthy said in an interview with Punchbowl News last week that was picked up by Democrats.
But that didn't necessarily mean California lawmakers were determined to end aid. Perhaps he was simply creating a certain political space for himself, realizing the sensitivity of the issue in his pro-Trump party. In theory, Speaker McCarthy could pass a bill on financing Ukraine using the votes of Republicans and Democrats.
But another question is whether his own position at the Republican convention will allow him to do so. That's one reason there's growing talk in Washington that Democrats may try to pass a massive bill to prop up Ukraine's war for the rest of next year during a transition in Congress while they still control it after the midterm elections, even if the GOP the party will win.
Read also: WP: Europe may turn its back on Ukraine if the US does so after the election
McCarthy is not the only Republican to express skepticism. Ohio Republican Senate candidate Jay D. Vancesaid he was not concerned about what happened to Ukraine after the invasion, and that the US should be worried about the influx of migrants from its southern border. His comment has already been used by his Democratic opponent, Congressman Tim Ryan, who is looking to win re-election thanks to the state's large Ukrainian immigrant community.
Vance represents a new breed of potential Republican senators. , who may be more skeptical about helping Ukraine than the old guard of senior leaders, such as the Senate Minority LeaderMitch McConnell and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.
Also read: Congress and Biden after the midterms: Reuters on the good, bad and terrible scenarios< /strong>
Sentiments similar to Vance's are often heard in the conservative media. But these opinions usually ignore the wider consequences of the war in Ukraine.
The conflict is so important because it is more than a territorial dispute on the fringes of Europe. This is actually a struggle for democracy. If Ukraine falls, Russia will establish the principle that a large authoritarian nation can easily wipe a smaller neighbor off the map.
Related video
This would have serious consequences. in other conflicts, such as over Taiwan, which China may try to take back by force. And Russia's victory in Ukraine could directly threaten America's NATO allies and, in the end, still bring the United States closer to a direct conflict with Russia.
