Capitol Hill Stands Up to Putin. Senate Delivers Ukraine Aid
A week to remember
The last two weeks will forever remain a significant part of American history. No one, neither in the present nor in the future, will ever be able to erase this moment from the annals of the United States of America.
One hundred years from now, people won’t dwell extensively on the six months the United States hesitated in aiding a fellow democracy against a marauding tyrant. Instead, in times of adversity, when internal divisions loom and evil asserts premature victory, when darkness encroaches, they will turn to this moment for inspiration.
To hold onto the hope that with persistence and belief, they can overcome. They can fight back and triumph, just as the United States of America did in 2024.
I firmly believe, with every fiber of my being, that the United States of America cannot be defeated by an external enemy. The only way to undermine her is from within. And she came dangerously close to that point.
The party known for its staunch stance on national security had 112 representatives vote against the aid bill aimed at thwarting a tyrant threatening democracy. Someone mentioned to me that infiltrating the Republican party stands as the Kremlin’s most significant achievement in the last two decades.
Nataliya Bugayova, writing for the Institute of Study of War, explained why it is important for America to stand up to Russian agression and how Mr. Putin was trying to win this war:
Allowing Russia to win its war in Ukraine would be a self-imposed strategic defeat for the United States. The United States would face the risk of a larger and costlier war in Europe.
The United States would face the worst threat from Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, as a victorious Russia would likely emerge reconstituted and more determined to undermine the United States — and confident that it can. A Russian victory would diminish America’s deterrence around the world, emboldening others with an explicit or latent intent to harm the United States. A Russian victory would create an ugly world in which the atrocities associated with Russia’s way of war and way of ruling the populations under its control are normalized.
Most dangerous of all, however, US adversaries would learn that they can break America’s will to act in support of their strategic interests. The ground truths of this war have not changed: Russia still explicitly intends to erase Ukraine as a concept, people, and state; Ukraine’s will to fight remains strong; Russia has made no operationally significant advances this year; and Ukraine’s will combined with the West’s collective capability (which dwarfs Russia’s) can defeat Russia on the battlefield.
US interests still include preventing future Russian attacks on Ukraine and helping Ukraine liberate its people and territory. Supporting Ukraine is still the best path for the United States to avoid higher costs, larger escalation risks, and a greater Russian threat.
What’s changing is Americans’ perceptions of their interests, not the interests themselves. That American perceptions are changing is not an accident. It is, in fact, precisely the effect the Kremlin has been seeking to achieve. The Kremlin’s principal effort is destroying America’s will by altering Americans’ understanding of their interests, and this effort appears to be working.
I wholeheartedly agree with her perspective.
Some of the arguments put forward by Republican Senators and Representatives in the House against supporting Ukraine and other allies clearly align with a pro-Putin stance. It did not feel like they were aiming to safeguard America; rather, it felt like they were attempting to shield Putin by obstructing American efforts.
It became exceedingly clear to me that House Speaker Johnson had consulted with former President Donald Trump before bringing the Ukraine aid bill to the floor of the House on Saturday.
Many expected Donald Trump to oppose the bill. However, I firmly believe that Speaker Johnson’s visit to Mar-a-Lago on April 12th was him doing what he was supposed to do: assessing all variables before bringing the aid bill to the floor.
As House Speaker, you must maintain that position. You only bring bills, especially contentious ones, when you’re confident they can pass. Every failure weakens your standing and makes you replaceable.
Johnson consulted with former President Donald Trump before bringing the bill to the House. Here is the proof.
Trump also offered a defense of Johnson, who has come under fire by some conservatives for pushing a $95 billion foreign aid package through the House.
“Well, look, we have a majority of one, OK?” Trump said. “It’s not like he can go and do whatever he wants to do. I think he’s a very good person. You know, he stood very strongly with me on NATO when I said NATO has to pay up … I think he’s trying very hard.” Trump told radio host John Fredericks, yesterday.
Trump praised Johnson for securing part of the aid for Ukraine in the form of forgivable loans and he repeated his calls for Europe to “pay up.”
Trump made his views public one day before the Senate gathered to vote on the bill. Perhaps we can forgive the 112 congressional Republicans for voting against the bill because Trump had not yet made his views public.
But how do you explain this group of Republicans who voted against the bill in the Senate?
John Barrasso Wyoming, Marsha Blackburn Tennesse, Mike Braun Indiana, Ted Budd N.C., Ted Cruz Texas, Bill Hagerty Tennesse, Josh Hawley Missouri, Ron Johnson Wisconsin, Mike Lee Utah, Cynthia Lummis Wyoming, Roger Marshall Kansas, Marco Rubio Florida, Eric Schmitt Missouri, Rick Scott Florida., and J.D. Vance Ohio.
If these individuals voted in this direction because they believed that’s where the MAGA votes had shifted, then we do indeed have a significant problem. However, for six months, we believed this issue was so substantial that America would never extricate itself from the isolationism embraced by the right wing.
Whether Putin fed them isolationism or they intoxicated themselves with it makes no difference. Isolationism is what Putin seeks from America, and the right wing keeps delivering it to him.
The Democratic Party deserves credit for consistently standing on the right side throughout. While we may argue that their actions were not always sufficient, we cannot dispute that they were consistently aligned with the correct principles. It was the Republican Party, particularly the right wing Republicans in the House, who found themselves on the wrong side of the river.
That’s why House Speaker Johnson deserves our respect for standing up at this crucial moment, alongside President Biden, Donald Trump, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, and a host of Republicans and Democrats.
The 15 Republican Senators who voted against the aid bills and the three Democratic Senators deserve no commendation. They were fully aware of their actions and proceeded nonetheless. They chose the opposite direction, assuming it aligned with popular sentiment. They prioritized their political futures over the welfare of the nation.
From the start, there was one thing I was very curious about: whether the number of votes in the Senate would increase or decrease. In the previous passage of the aid bills, 70 senators voted yes. This time, the number increased by nine votes.
- The funding cleared with the support of 46 Democrats, 31 Republicans and 2 independents. 79 votes
- 2 Democrats, 15 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it.
- 3 Republicans did not vote. Rand Paul Kentucky, Tim Scott South Carolina and Tommy Tuberville Alabama.
It was one heck of a rebuke to Mr. Vladimir Putin, who had been counting on the dysfunction in Capitol Hill and the isolationism within the Republican party to bolster his failing war campaign. Instead, they took him on a highway ride and dropped him by the side of the road.
Now he needs to walk the rest of the way.
On his own.
And pray to his version of the god that he makes it all the way.
What happens next?
The aid bill was cleared by the Senate without any amendments. It will now head to the President’s desk, where President Biden has already promised to immediately sign it.
Over the weekend, after Congress cleared the aid bill, the Ukrainian president requested America to expedite the bill as the situation on the frontline remains critical due to ammunition shortages. One day after his request, President Biden called him and promised that the aid package would be swiftly moved.
He will.
According to a recent report by politico:
The Biden administration is preparing a roughly $1 billion package of military aid for Ukraine, as the Senate is poised to pass a bill to provide urgently needed funding for Kyiv, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions.
The tranche will include artillery, air defenses and armored vehicles — Bradley Fighting Vehicles, as well as potentially older Humvees and M113 armored personnel carriers POLITICO first reported on Monday. The Pentagon is still putting the finishing touches on the package, but the total will be roughly $1 billion, said the people, one of whom is a U.S. official. Both were granted anonymity to speak ahead of an announcement.
I believe the Pentagon has already determined what to send, and they have likely prepared the shipment. Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer mentioned artillery shells and air-defense missiles during his speech in the Senate, indicating a clear direction in the aid package.
Can’t be an accident.
The home work is already done.
And please don’t worry that one billion is way too small. If we rewind all the way back to 2022, the United States of America kept pumping aid every month. Sometimes they made multiple announcements in a single month. The first aid package will have only one aim: To stabilize the front.
You do that first; then, the rest follows.
This story is in the public domain, free for everyone to read.
