“We must support all of our democratic allies,” declared Ronald Reagan during his 1985 State of the Union address. “And we must not betray the faith of those who are risking their lives (…) to defy Soviet-backed aggression and guarantee the rights that belong to us from birth.”
In Reagan's view, the United States had both a moral and a strategic imperative to help free peoples resist authoritarian aggression, as Ukraine is doing now. “If there had been firmer support for this principle some 45 years ago,” the president noted during his famous Westminster speech in 1982, “perhaps our generation would not have suffered the bloodshed of World War II.”
Unfortunately, some Republicans seem to have forgotten this wisdom. After initially enjoying bipartisan support, aid to Ukraine has been met with growing skepticism from Republican voters and their representatives in Congress. For months, some Republicans in Congress have blocked efforts to approve funding for Ukraine for the current fiscal year. This inaction endangers both the future of Ukraine and the vital interests of the United States. This needs to end now.
Last October, the White House requested just over $100 billion in supplemental funding, most of it for assistance to Ukraine and Israel and investments in the U.S. defense industry. But Republicans refused to approve more aid to Ukraine unless it was accompanied by legislation to secure the United States' southern border.
After prolonged negotiations, the Senate appeared to be close to a compromise bill. But that effort may now be doomed due to opposition from some House and Senate Republicans under the influence of former President Donald Trump, who wants to leave the border issue to the campaign trail. Whether Congress will pass a stand-alone aid bill is uncertain. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican Party, Kentucky) continues to support aid to Ukraine, but he will need the cooperation of House Speaker Mike Johnson (Republican Party, Louisiana), whose support among the fringe wing of the party is already wavering.
While Congress dithers, Washington has been forced to halt aid commitments to Ukraine. “We are out of money,” the Pentagon spokesman declared on January 4, a week after the latest assistance package for Kiev was announced.
Ukrainian troops have already had to tighten their belts. Ukraine's artillery fire rate has plummeted due to “shell hunger,” worsened by uncertainty over when more U.S. ammunition will arrive. Officials in Kiev fear Ukraine's air defense units will run out of interceptor missiles as Russia bombs Ukrainian cities.
A permanent end to American aid would be a disaster for Ukraine, as US intelligence has warned. Although European countries have pledged more aid than the United States, especially in terms of financial and humanitarian assistance, Europe cannot bear the burden of military aid alone. And without U.S. leadership, many of Ukraine's European supporters could eventually lose heart and cut off aid as well. Indeed, Congress's inaction appears to have reinforced Vladimir Putin's determination that Russia can resist the Western resolve. Kiev's foreign assistance “will end one day, and it looks like it's already happening,” he scoffed last month.
Meanwhile, Moscow's forces have regained the initiative, driven by rising domestic defense production and supplies from North Korea and Iran. Although Russia has managed to make only small territorial gains in recent weeks, this flow is likely to turn into a deluge if the West pulls the rug from under Kiev's feet. And where Russian forces go, atrocities against civilians tend to follow.
But Ukrainians are not the only ones who would suffer from a Russian victory. By handing over a fellow democracy to an authoritarian bully, the United States would damage its global reputation and open the gate to more aggression.
“History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap,” Reagan warned in 1984. “To keep the peace, we and our allies must… convince any potential aggressor that war would bring no benefit, just disaster.” Abandoning Ukraine now would send the opposite message. Moscow, Beijing, and other adversaries would learn that while Washington may initially resist its imperialist ambitions, it will eventually give up if they persist long enough.
Putin, believing he had resisted the best America had to offer, would only become more dangerous, especially as Moscow rebuilt its military power. Growing instability on the European continent, in turn, would draw U.S. attention and resources away from priorities in the Indo-Pacific. Having witnessed Washington betray Kiev, China may feel more inclined to pursue military aggression against Taiwan. It is no coincidence that Taipei's envoy to the United States said: “Ukraine's survival is Taiwan's survival. Ukraine's success is Taiwan's success.”
Seeming to recognize these threats, even Mike Johnson admitted that aid to Ukraine is a “necessity”, although he insists that the border must be the “top priority”.
Republicans should never have insisted on linking these two issues in the first place, but here we are. If the border aid deal is indeed dead, Johnson must pass a stand-alone aid bill. The president will have to make a choice: does he surrender to his short-sighted supporters or does he do what he knows is in the best interests of the United States and approve more aid to Ukraine?
For any Reagan admirer, the choice should be clear.
John Hardie serves as deputy director of the Russia Program in Foundation for Defense of Democracies[Fundação para a Defesa das Democracias]a nonpartisan think tank focused on national security and foreign policy.
©2024 National Review. Published with permission. Original in English: Ronald Reagan Would Never Betray Ukraine
#Ronald #Reagan #betray #Ukraine #Article #People39s #Gazette
