Jackpot for Arms Contractors, Pain for Ukraine: Who Gets What From Congress' $61 Bln Bag of Goodies?
The House of Representatives held a rare Saturday session to vote on $95 billion in proposed aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, with the vote, desperately sought after by the White House, Democrats and neocon Republicans since October, coming after months of efforts by pro-MAGA lawmakers to focus resources on the crisis at the US’ southern border.
SputnikThe House approved nearly $100 billion in assistance to Washington’s overseas allies, partners and client states on Saturday, with supporters of the aid managing to overcome opposition after a six-month deadlock in the chamber.
Passing the House, the aid package is now set to be voted on by the Senate, where leaders from both parties have been clamoring for months for the foreign assistance to be urgently passed. If it passes the Senate, the legislation will end up on President Biden's desk for signature.
Supporters and opponents of the foreign aid package gave stirring speeches ahead of the Saturday’s House vote restating their positions.
“I often say it’s never too late to do the right thing. But waiting to do the right thing comes at a cost,” Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer said. “We saw that cost in Israel this week as an emboldened Iran launched an unprecedented attack on our ally. For Ukraine the cost of our inaction is great if incalculable. It is measured in Ukrainian lives, towns and territory lost…Today we act. We act to make it clear to the world that America is still the defender of freedom, democracy and international law.”
Georgia Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a staunch opponent of further US assistance to Ukraine, military or otherwise, proposed an amendment to slash support for Kiev to zero.
“The United States taxpayer has already sent $113 billion to Ukraine, and a lot of that money is unaccounted for,” Greene said. “The federal government continues to fund the military-industrial complex, and this is a business model that requires Congress to continue to vote for money to fund foreign wars. This is a business model that the American people do not support. They don’t support a business model built on blood and murder and war in foreign countries while this very government does nothing to secure our border. The American people are over $34 trillion in debt and the debt is rising by over $40 billion every single night while we all sleep. But yet nothing is done to secure our border or reduce our debt.”
Pointing to polling indicating that a majority of Americans disapprove of new aid to Ukraine, Greene said Congress has chosen to vote to “protect Ukraine” instead of protecting “the American citizens that pay your paycheck.”
“Ukraine is not even a member of NATO. But the most important thing you hear in Washington, DC is that we have to send Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars over to Ukraine and keep the money going, to continue to murder Ukrainians, wipe out an entire generation of Ukrainian men…What kind of support is that? It’s repulsive,” the Georgia Republican said.
Victory for the MIC, Loss for Ukraine
The tens of billions of dollars in new US aid doled out via the legislation passed by the House Saturday may prolong the Ukrainian crisis, but won’t be able to secure a NATO victory in the proxy war against Russia, says former DoD senior security policy analyst Michael Maloof.
“Now, the money that’s going to Ukraine for the most part will probably go to US defense contractors in various states, but to make newer equipment for our own stockpiles, which will then allow the US to unload older stuff for Ukraine,” Maloof told Sputnik.
“It’s not going to be enough for Ukraine to overcome its current geostrategic position at this point, simply because they don’t have a consistent ability to arm,” the observer added, pointing out that along with the weapons themselves is the ability to find the men to use them, something the Kiev regime is having increasingly severe difficulty doing as it is.
"Other money to be provided to Ukraine is intended to pay government employees," US Air Force Lt. Col. (ret.) Karen Kwiatkowski, a former DoD analyst, told Sputnik. "Thus presumably it will include meeting soldiers' needs but it goes to Kiev bureaucrats first. Given how it will be allocated, very little change will be noted by those actually fighting," Kwiatkowski believes, estimating that of the $61 billion allocated, $45 billion will remain in the US and $16 billion will be sent to Ukraine as so-called direct aid.
"Likely the $16 billion that makes it to Ukraine will be instantly absorbed to pay government bills rather than the war effort," she said, pointing to Kiev's massive budget deficit.
“They have no means to undertake a counteroffensive, and just given the amounts of artillery that they burn through, what even the US is proposing probably wouldn’t last more than six months at best. And it’s undetermined what Europe is going to provide. So I think the Ukraine basically is over. It’s just a mop up [operation for] the Russians. And it’s just going to take time for that reality to sink in to Zelensky, who should begin considering getting out of there fast because I don’t think the country is going to politically last much longer,” Maloof said.
As far as immediate support for Kiev goes, Maloof emphasized that the US doesn’t have the existing weaponry, nor the production capability, to outgun Russia, with Ukraine’s military resorting to desperate tactics, like strikes targeting Russian infrastructure.
“That’s tantamount to an insurgency, which is not going to turn the strategic tide, in any way, for Ukraine. Every time Ukraine does it, the Russians seem to come back with about three times more response. And I think that right there is a message to the Ukrainians that they’ve got to settle this thing once and for all and try to hold on to what they’ve got,” Maloof urged.
No Amount of Weapons Can Save Zelensky
There’s really “no amount” of artillery and other munitions and weapons Ukraine could receive at this point and remain intact, Maloof argues.
Kwiatkowski agrees, saying expectations that the US will be able to resolve artillery shell and air defense missile shortages by throwing more money at the problem is "not realistic at all and we found this out two years ago with news of the real rates of US artillery, ammunition and missile production. The US defense production system is not oriented to high volumes of lower value items, but low volumes of high cost units along with a lifetime of maintenance and logistics support with upgrades."
The US aside, “Europe is in no financial position economically to deal with” the Ukrainian crisis over the long term, either, Maloof noted.
“They’ve got their own problems now as a result of this crisis, and try to come back economically and politically and regain the quality of life that they had before. But right now, Europe’s in a recession. They’ve cut off their energy sources. And it’s going to take a long time and a lot of capital to regain some semblance of that. What they had before I doubt that they’ll be able to replicate on any near term basis. Europe has got its problems and the US has got its problems, and we’re trying to resuscitate a dead dog,” Maloof stressed, referring to the Zelensky regime.
Victory for the 'Uniparty'
Asked to comment on sentiments expressed by some hardline MAGA Republicans, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz and others, that Speaker Johnson "betrayed" the conservative wing of the party and voters by prioritizing aid to foreign countries over the crisis at the southern border, University of Iowa political science professor Timothy Hagle said there's something to be said for that.
"It's certainly true that some on the political right feel that Speaker Johnson has 'betrayed' them. A portion of the Republican base and those on the right have long been unhappy with what is now often referred to as the 'uniparty'. The term refers to the notion that many elected Democrats and Republicans are more interested in preserving their government power and status than working for the interests of the people," Hagle told Sputnik.
"As for the prioritizing aspect, it's not really a matter of suggesting that one is more important than the other. Rather, it's likely more a matter of which can be done. Along those lines, given the position of the Biden administration and the Democrats' control of the Senate, there doesn't seem to be much that the Republicans in the House can do. Sometimes they can hold votes even when they know something will be killed in the Senate, but even that can be hard with such a small majority," the academic explained.
On top of that, supporters of aid for foreign wars can count on the sense of "urgency" in Washington regarding funding, and the comparative 'ease' with which it can be sent, something supporters of urgent measures to stem the migration crisis cannot count on.
"There's an urgency related to aid to Israel and Ukraine that doesn't seem to be present in the border situation. For both countries the lack of aid could dramatically affect the wars in which they are involved. Second, it's simply easier to give aid to a country than to sort out how to solve what is going on regarding the US border," Hagle summed up.