ADVERTISEMENT

Opinion The GOP’s abandonment of Ukraine makes me ashamed to be an American

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,442
58,934
113
By Max Boot
Columnist|
December 8, 2023 at 6:30 a.m. EST




It’s not often that I feel ashamed to be an American. But I was ashamed this week when the Senate refused to support a supplemental spending bill that would provide about $61 billion in urgently needed aid for Ukraine (along with $14 billion for Israel and $20 billion for border security). All of the Senate Republicans, even those who have previously supported Ukraine funding, voted to filibuster the bill. Their stated position: They won’t provide a penny for Ukraine unless Democrats agree to a sweeping, draconian overhaul of the United States’ immigration laws.


Need something to talk about? Text us for thought-provoking opinions that can break any awkward silence.

I’m sorry, that’s not how a serious political party — or a serious country — behaves during a world crisis. It’s like saying to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941: We won’t support aid to Britain as it battles the Nazis unless Democrats repeal the Social Security Act or rewrite the labor laws.
Of course, most Republicans in those days were opposed to aiding Britain: A majority of Republicans in both houses voted against the Lend-Lease Act, enacted in early 1941, which allowed the U.S. government to provide critically needed war supplies to Britain and other nations deemed “vital to the defense of the United States” without demanding payment in cash. Thank goodness that in those days both houses were controlled by Democrats — and Senate rules did not require a 60-vote supermajority to get anything done.



Most Republicans abandoned their isolationism after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. The GOP commitment to internationalism was renewed after 1945 because of postwar Soviet aggression and then, after the end of the Cold War, by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But since the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Republicans have been increasingly returning to their pre-Pearl Harbor roots.













The party’s leader, former president Donald Trump, has even embraced the “America First” slogan used by the original isolationists. And, just as so many of the 1930s isolationists, such as Charles Lindbergh, were sympathetic to Nazi Germany, Trump is sympathetic to Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Public opinion surveys have reflected a sharp drop-off in Republican support for Ukraine: In a Gallup poll published on Nov. 2, 62 percent of Republicans said the United States was doing too much to aid Ukraine, up from 50 percent in June.


Yet I confess that, until last week, I had remained naively hopeful that Congress would still do the right thing. After all, strong majorities in both houses had supported Ukraine funding bills in the past. Moreover, the current aid request is a pittance in the context of a $6.1 trillion federal budget (0.98 percent, to be exact), and most of the funds would be spent in the United States to support our own defense industry.



 
The new House speaker, Mike Johnson (R-La.), had initially voted for Ukraine aid before turning against it, but in recent weeks he sounded much more supportive of Ukraine, saying, “We can’t allow Vladimir Putin to march through Europe and we understand the necessity of assisting there.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), whose father was a U.S. Army soldier in Europe during World War II, has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine. “Honestly, I think Ronald Reagan would turn over in his grave if he saw we were not going to help Ukraine,” he said last month.
Yet now both leaders have taken the position that — as Johnson wrote this week — “supplemental Ukraine funding is dependent upon enactment of transformative change to our nation’s border security laws.” Good luck with that. The last time Congress enacted a major, bipartisan immigration bill was in 1986, when Reagan was in the White House. Lawmakers from both parties have been laboring for decades to craft another major bill. A decade ago, the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” thought they were close, only to have the deal fall apart. So it’s hard to take Republicans at face value when they insist on making aid to Ukraine dependent on breaking through decades of legislative logjams on immigration.
Why are they linking the two? The excuse heard from Republicans is that they can’t in good conscience support funding to defend Ukraine’s borders when our own borders are so insecure. They think that by invoking the common word “borders” they can pretend that the United States and Ukraine are in analogous situations. That would be true only if the Mexican Army were invading the southwestern United States to annex Arizona, New Mexico and Texas while announcing plans to march on Washington and destroy the United States as a sovereign country.



Needless to say, that hasn’t happened. What is happening is that millions of desperate immigrants are trying to enter the United States, legally and illegally, in pursuit of freedom and economic opportunity, just like the ancestors of most native-born Americans. The spike in undocumented immigration is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but it can hardly be said to threaten the United States’ survival in the same way the Russian invasion threatens Ukraine’s.
By linking the two issues, Republicans are engaging in a bait-and-switch that gives them an excuse to do what their base wants — abandon Ukraine — while trying to blame Democrats for “jeopardizing security around the world,” as McConnell has charged.
As Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told the New York Times: “You can’t say ‘I’m for Ukraine, but only if I get this wholly unrelated policy enacted.’ You can’t be for stopping Putin from taking over a country by force and then vote against providing Ukraine the resources to do just that.”



It is still possible that Democrats and Republicans will reach agreement on Ukraine funding. But the odds of Ukraine aid being approved look dimmer today than at any point since the Russian invasion, even as the Office of Management and Budget warns that U.S. support for Kyiv is running out: “We are out of money — and nearly out of time.”
Ukrainians will fight on regardless, and they will look for help to Europe, which has already committed twice as much funding as the United States. But, even working together, Europe and the United States have struggled to keep up with Ukraine’s need for ammunition. There is no way that Europe alone can carry the whole load, especially not when Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban — MAGA Republicans’ favorite foreign leader — is trying to block a $55 billion European Union aid package for Ukraine.
The United States has abandoned allies, such as South Vietnam and Afghanistan, before. But this time the costs of support are much lower (no U.S. soldiers are engaged in combat in Ukraine), and the stakes are far higher. Ukraine is fighting the largest war that Europe has seen since 1945. If it loses, Vladimir Putin may be emboldened to attack other neighboring states, such as the Baltic republics and even Poland, which are members of NATO. Other despots may be emboldened to aggression of their own, beginning with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Taiwan. And then we really will be back to the pre-Pearl Harbor world — all thanks to the Republican Party returning to its isolationist roots.
Unless Congress reverses course, and soon, it could be consigning our democratic allies to slaughter — and making the world a far more dangerous place.
 
There will be a deal


I hope this works out because we need both to happen. I actually think Biden is ok with the restrictions but he can't come out and say it because of the election. This is perfect, he can claim victory for getting the money for Ukraine and not take the hit on immigration.
 
This "conflict" started over a year and a half ago. We seem closer to sending American troops than having an exit plan. At one point the conversation was "we are getting a great bang for our buck", anyone still of the belief all this money is actually going to help "Bohdan" kill "Vlad"?



Anyone want to try to say what we are seeing from the Whitehouse is in some way great leadership?


We seem to be a little more worried about Russia taking over Europe than Europe is:



We need an exit plan.
 
Last edited:
I hope this works out because we need both to happen. I actually think Biden is ok with the restrictions but he can't come out and say it because of the election. This is perfect, he can claim victory for getting the money for Ukraine and not take the hit on immigration.
Yep it’s a win/win on multiple levels.

Can assuage those on the left that don’t want asylum touched by blaming R’s for stuffing it into the essential Ukraine aid bill.

Get lower numbers at the border going into 2024.

Get Ukraine funding through.

Triple win
 
There will be a deal

I hope the deal doesn't include a "humanitarian aid" slush fund for Hamas, or funding pensions for Ukrainian government officials.
 
This "conflict" started over a year and a half ago. We seem closer to sending American troops than having an exit plan. At one point the conversation was "we are getting a great bang for our buck", anyone still of the belief all this money is actually going to help "Bohdan" kill "Vlad"?



Anyone want to try to say what we are seeing from the Whitehouse is in some way great leadership?


We seem to be a little more worried about Russia taking over Europe than Europe is:



We need an exit plan.
Your "exit plan" is to let a dictator overrun a democracy. Admit it, if the GOP supported Ukraine, and Democrats didn't, you'd be all for supporting them.
 
Your "exit plan" is to let a dictator overrun a democracy. Admit it, if the GOP supported Ukraine, and Democrats didn't, you'd be all for supporting them.
No. At this point in the game I'm calling out both sides.


The Republicans should have said "we are nor giving them one more cent until countries a,b,c kick in x,y,z a long time ago. **** those idiots also.


And let's make another thing clear. And let's make another thing clear, I'm not saying pull out tmrw, I'm saying a transition plan, which you and I both know will take months if not years.
 
No. At this point in the game I'm calling out both sides.


The Republicans should have said "we are nor giving them one more cent until countries a,b,c kick in x,y,z a long time ago. **** those idiots also.


And let's make another thing clear. And let's make another thing clear, I'm not saying pull out tmrw, I'm saying a transition plan, which you and I both know will take months if not years.
So a "transition plan" then, which means Russia just has to lay low until we have fully turned our backs on Ukraine, then they're free to do whatever they want.

The United States is the only country with the power to stop this. We're the only ones. Yes, other countries can and should help, but without US support, Ukraine falls, period.
 
So a "transition plan" then, which means Russia just has to lay low until we have fully turned our backs on Ukraine, then they're free to do whatever they want.

The United States is the only country with the power to stop this. We're the only ones. Yes, other countries can and should help, but without US support, Ukraine falls, period.
No... not at all. That's why you need a plan. And we are not the only ones,we are enabling them.
 
No... not at all. That's why you need a plan. And we are not the only ones,we are enabling them.
So what's your plan, then? Seems pretty vague. To me it seems that unless we're willing to put boots on the ground, the only way to significantly help Ukraine is to send technologically superior weapons and armor. And spending $61 billion to stop Russia from recreating the USSR without endangering US troops seems like a hell of a deal.
 
The United States is the only country with the power to stop this. We're the only ones. Yes, other countries can and should help, but without US support, Ukraine falls, period.
Conventional military power, yes.
But the problem the neocons run into is there isn’t sufficient political willpower in the American public to keep up with their dreams.
whether it’s Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or now in Ukraine, where 67% of Democrats want a ceasefire.
The public’s thirst for war never runs as long as Max Boot’s wishes it would, and it shames him.
 
So what's your plan, then? Seems pretty vague. To me it seems that unless we're willing to put boots on the ground, the only way to significantly help Ukraine is to send technologically superior weapons and armor. And spending $61 billion to stop Russia from recreating the USSR without endangering US troops seems like a hell of a deal.
While simplistic my plan would be to have our leader meet with the leaders of the concerned European countries and say something to the extent of we will match whatever you contribute, if you don't contribute, you are making the decision to allow Russia on your door step. If you are unable to contribute, we will garnish your exports as a repayment option.


Or something to this extent.

I'm not there.


We need an exit plan that isn't just "daddy USA will keep you safe".

We have paid more for them to be safe than all of them combined, it's time they put more skin in the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
While simplistic my plan would be to have our leader meet with the leaders of the concerned European countries and say something to the extent of we will match whatever you contribute, if you don't contribute, you are making the decision to allow Russia on your door step. If you are unable to contribute, we will garnish your exports as a repayment option.


Or something to this extent.

I'm not there.


We need an exit plan that isn't just "daddy USA will keep you safe".

We have paid more for them to be safe than all of them combined, it's time they put more skin in the game.

So what's plan B when they call our bluff and say they won't contribute, do we let Ukraine fall to Russia?

Your plan is about as stupid as the plan the left has for handling hamas. It's funny to see how much alike the left and the right have become. Both of you want to back away from the fight and hope the bad guys magically goes away.
 
So what's plan B when they call our bluff and say they won't contribute, do we let Ukraine fall to Russia?

Your plan is about as stupid as the plan the left has for handling hamas. It's funny to see how much alike the left and the right have become. Both of you want to back away from the fight and hope the bad guys magically goes away.
Also why are you avoiding the point that the Dems aren't tying Israel aid to some pet project like the Rs are doing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Plenty except for the Dems who are actually in charge. Your both sides is stupid.

Head over to some the Israel threads and you'll see plenty of people who want Israel to retreat and let hamas continue.
 
So what's plan B when they call our bluff and say they won't contribute, do we let Ukraine fall to Russia?
Really.... calling our bluff equates to them.learning how to speak Russian. On a site full of dumb shit that was top notch.


Or, see below

Your plan is about as stupid as the plan the left has for handling hamas. It's funny to see how much alike the left and the right have become. Both of you want to back away from the fight and hope the bad guys magically goes away.
Quite the contrary. The other option is, we go save the day, drop more bombs than Ukraine has sunflowers, cut out all the middle men that are skimming the pot and as part of that America annexes a shit ton of land.

And again, I'm just a guy in Iowa with a 9-5. But continuing to pay for the safety of Europe, when they are not even matching 1 for 1, should no longer be an option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT