As the Russo-Ukraine War approaches its second year with no end in sight, the incoming Republican-controlled United States House of Representatives faces two options regarding America's posture toward the conflict.
First, they can maintain the current Biden administration policy by appropriating large sums of aid and effectively subordinating American interests to a Ukrainian government that seeks to drag the U.S. into a war with Russia.
Alternatively, they can chart a new course that recognizes the hard realities about the current state of the conflict and America's ability to support Ukraine.
Choosing the former would be a disservice to the American people and an insult to a Republican base that is increasingly wary of open-ended support to Ukraine.
The House members should use the appropriations and oversight powers delegated to them by the Constitution to force a course correction for America's Ukraine policy. They should enact a more realistic policy that recognizes the limited American interests at stake in Ukraine and prioritizes more urgent needs at home and abroad. America's future should not be gambled away on a potential nuclear exchange over who controls the Donbas and Crimea—two regions that have repeatedly changed hands from one nation to another.
The status quo is unsustainable. The war is currently an attritional conflict where neither side appears to have a path to decisive victory. Russia and Ukraine are estimated to have suffered 100,000 casualties each. While Russia is clearly unable to conquer the entirety of Ukraine, it is also unlikely that Ukraine will be able to completely expel Russian troops from the Donbas or Crimea without increased Western support that carries the risk of nuclear escalation.
Additionally, the U.S. faces increasing constraints on its ability to support Ukraine. The Pentagon already has a severe shortage of difficult-to-replace munitions such as Javelin and Stinger missiles. Planned increases in American munitions production over the next several years can't replace depleted stocks while also sustaining the current rate of ammunition expenditure by the Ukrainians.
Meanwhile, there is a $19 billion backlog of U.S. arms deliveries to Taiwan, in part due to the prioritization of Ukraine over the more critical East Asia theater. Considering the present strain on the U.S. defense industrial base, Republicans cannot in good faith continue the current policy of delivering large amounts of weaponry to Ukraine while also declaring the threat of China our most urgent geopolitical challenge.
The financial costs to the United States are also increasingly high. As of the end of 2022, the total amount appropriated by Congress in support of the war in Ukraine exceeds $110 billion. This amount is larger than the individual annual budgets of the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and the United States Marine Corps.
Additionally, the U.S. has contributed more in military aid to Ukraine than most other countries combined. This includes wealthy European states that have been free-riding off American defense for decades.
With record inflation and a $31 trillion national debt, it is an affront to American taxpayers to declare these expenditures "low cost."
Urgent policy changes are in order.
First, all aid sent to Ukraine must be accounted for. Ukraine has struggled with systemic corruption and has been a source of illicit arms sales since its independence. There is a real risk that American weapons and cash could be diverted by nefarious actors. A bill introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene(R-Ga.) to audit existing Ukraine aid programs received unanimous support from Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Congress. This legislation should be immediately reintroduced and passed by the new Congress.
The House's most important power is that of the purse. Given the large amount of money already spent and the limited American interests at stake, the House should be wary of appropriating any additional funds to support Ukraine. However, if Congress is compelled to pass another aid package for Ukraine, it should be heavily conditioned.
For example, any future appropriations should be designed to push Europe to take the lead in supporting Ukraine and securing its own backyard. No future American aid packages should exceed the amount of aid being provided by our European partners.
Additionally, the House should not fund the permanent deployment to Europe of the additional U.S. troops sent to the continent after the Russian invasion. Considering the poor performance of Russian conventional forces in Ukraine, Europe is more than capable of deterring Russia on its own, and additional American troops—and perhaps even the pre-war level of American forces—are not needed to secure the continent.
Finally, the House should prohibit the provision of weapons and munitions that are in short supply, that are needed in more critical theaters, or which could be escalatory in nature. For example, the House should block the supply of additional Patriot missile batteries, as those systems are expensive, difficult to replace, and required elsewhere.
Elected officials should not subordinate American interests and the safety of American citizens to foreign governments determined to entangle the U.S. in their wars. Despite the horrors of the immoral Russian invasion, Ukraine should be no exception to this.
Republicans in the new House majority have an opportunity to fundamentally change America's Ukraine policy in a way that prioritizes America. Failure to take advantage will only maintain an untenable policy that is not making America safer and that risks a larger war.