‘As long as it takes’: US aid to Ukraine is sustainable, say experts | Russo-Ukrainian War

[ad_1]

Washington, DC — The words “as long as it takes” have become a rallying cry for US officials as they support Ukraine’s fight against the Russian invasion, signaling an unlimited commitment to help Kiev.

US President Joe Biden put it bluntly on Tuesday when he said in a speech that the United States and its allies “will not tire” of supporting Ukraine – a message apparently intended for his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin .

Since Russia launched its assault a year ago, the United States has provided billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, which experts say is needed not only to support Ukrainians, but also to advance US national interests.

Despite opposition from some US politicians, Washington should be able to maintain this level of support for kyiv in the long term, analysts say.

“This policy is definitely sustainable,” said Simon Miles, assistant professor at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy.

Miles told Al Jazeera that while the aid seems significant in terms of dollar amount when placed in the context of the entire US government budget, the numbers are “not too large chunks of the whole cake”.

“The amounts of money we’re talking about is, I think, a pretty small price to pay if you look at what the alternative is – what it would mean for Vladimir Putin to succeed, not just for the United States and its place in the world, but in fact for all the global commons.

“Appeasement Doesn’t Work”

Washington marked the first anniversary of the invasion on Friday by announcing new aid to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia – the two main tools it has used to support kyiv.

“The United States will continue to work with our allies and partners to provide Ukraine with the capabilities necessary to meet its immediate battlefield needs and its longer-term security assistance needs for as long as ‘it will have to,’ the Pentagon said on Friday.

Last year, the US Congress approved more than $100 billion for Ukraine through four spending bills – funds that the Biden administration has distributed through military, humanitarian and periodic budget in Kyiv.

According to the Treasury Department, the US government spent a total of $6.27 trillion in fiscal year 2022.

“We have learned over and over again in the 20th century that appeasement or hiding from reality does not work. It only emboldens the aggressor,” said Igor Lukes, professor of international affairs at Boston University’s Frederick S Pardee School of Global Studies.

Lukes added that if Putin were to conquer Ukraine and reach its western borders, Russia would be “eye to eye” with several NATO countries, including Poland and Romania.

The US-led alliance has a collective defense pact, meaning an attack on one country is considered an attack on all.

“Opposing Putin now and opposing him in Ukraine is an American national interest,” Lukes told Al Jazeera.

He said the war in Ukraine is “clear” foreign aggression by one sovereign nation against another, making it a global affair. “The war is not just about Ukraine. It’s also about us,” he explained.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed that assessment at the UN Security Council on Friday.

“Nations around the world continue to support Ukraine because we all recognize that if we abandon Ukraine, we abandon the Charter of the United Nations itself and the principles and rules that make all countries safer and more secure. “Blinken said.

Some right-wing US lawmakers criticized Biden’s visit to Ukraine [Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP Photo]Far-right dissent

Yet a small but vocal contingency of far-right lawmakers in the US Congress have increasingly criticized Washington’s aid to Ukraine.

Ultra-conservative lawmakers slammed Biden earlier this week for his visit to Ukraine, accusing him of ignoring domestic crises in favor of a foreign conflict.

Lukes said these voices are “waiting for an opportunity to put on a show” and remain on the sidelines, pointing out that Ukraine has been a unifying issue in a deeply divided Washington.

I think Senator Romney would be the first to tell you that we don’t always agree.

But he knows what I know: that standing with Ukraine – and standing up for freedom – advances our national security. https://t.co/X67SkDIL6W

— President Biden (@POTUS) February 24, 2023

Matthew Pauly, an associate professor of history at Michigan State University, said no one could make a “reasonable argument” that a Russian victory in Ukraine wouldn’t threaten US interests.

Russia launched its all-out invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 – a year ago – after a months-long stalemate that saw Moscow amass troops near Ukraine’s borders as Putin demanded an end to Ukraine’s expansion. NATO in the former Soviet republics.

But Washington stresses that the invasion is not about NATO or Russian security interests, but rather a push by Putin to erase Ukraine’s national identity.

“It is a war that is imposed on a sovereign nation by another nation. And if the Ukrainians are ready to fight for the security and peace of Europe, the least the United States can do is support them in this effort because it is in the direct strategic interest of the United States. said Pauly.

He described the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a “perceptible” threat to the United States.

“The defense budget – some may argue its nature, but why does it exist if not to protect the United States? So, in my view, this is where the expense is absolutely justified because the security threat is real,” Pauly told Al Jazeera.

A “just and lasting” peace

Pauly stressed that Ukrainians desperately want peace.

On Friday, Blinken called on the international community to seek a “just and lasting” peace in Ukraine.

“History teaches us that it’s the nature of peace that matters,” Blinken said.

“For peace to be just, it must respect the principles at the heart of the United Nations Charter: sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence. For peace to be lasting, it must ensure that Russia cannot simply rest, rearm and go back to war in a few months or a few years.

Pauly said a just peace would involve “liberating all Ukrainian territory”, including Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014.

For his part, Miles, a professor of public policy at Duke University, said it would be up to the Ukrainian government to decide where to draw the line.

“The mood in Kyiv today really doesn’t seem to be that they are interested in giving ground,” he added. “They’re going to follow this through, largely because they don’t want some sort of frozen conflict or simmering gray area conflict playing out on their borders.”

But Putin has signaled that Russia will not back down and continue the conflict for the long term.

Miles said that although the Russian military has been “significantly degraded” after “being beaten” over the past year, Putin will still have a say when the war ends.

Some proponents of accommodating foreign policy and European leaders have cautioned against pushing Putin too hard, noting that — despite its setbacks in Ukraine — Russia remains a nuclear power.

Russian officials have hinted at the risk of nuclear war over the past year, but Washington says no change has been detected in Moscow’s nuclear stance.

Pauly said that while the threats should be taken seriously, Russia’s intention is “to weaken [the] unified resolution” of the United States and its allies.

Miles also downplayed nuclear threats from Moscow or the risks of a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia.

“What message does it send to other nuclear powers, to other potential nuclear powers, if they believe you can get away with anything just by clicking the nuclear saber?” Miles said.

“I think a world in which there are no consequences for nuclear-weapon states for preposterous misbehavior, like Vladimir Putin right now, is a more dangerous world.”

[ad_2]