Speaker Mike Johnson is facing international criticism over his lack of swift action on Ukraine aid, which is ratcheting up pressure to make a critical decision that will not only have massive implications for his rookie speakership but also for Ukraine’s ongoing war effort against Russia.

So far, Johnson has resisted calls to bring a Senate-passed aid package up for a quick vote – a move that would require Democratic support and almost certainly spark a revolt from his right flank, something Johnson is eager to avoid. The speaker has said the legislation, which includes over $60 billion in assistance for Ukraine, would not pass in its current form, and privately told Republicans during a closed-door meeting last week there is “no rush” to address the issue, with Congress since having left town for a nearly two-week recess.

The stakes of the high-profile debate – and Johnson’s pivotal role in a legislative response – came into even greater focus over the weekend. Global leaders gathered at the annual Munich Security Conference just as news broke that Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny had died in prison, while Ukraine suffered a significant setback to Russian forces on the battlefield – twin developments that have injected a new sense of urgency for Congress to act as the second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine approaches this weekend and as the Ukrainian military warns it is running out of resources to resist.

  • GreenAlex
    link
    fedilink
    2010 months ago

    While I’m not surprised and I’m not sure if the current proposals are any different, I hate how dishonest the framing around our aid so far has been. Even in non-right-wing news, it’s regularly talked about as a dollar amount, implying that it is or will be a strain on our economy. In actuality, we are primarily supplying old equipment that, while better than what Russia has, is not the best we own and would use ourselves. All that to say, this is not some big drain on the country like some people would like us to believe.

    • partial_accumen
      link
      1210 months ago

      In actuality, we are primarily supplying old equipment that,

      I don’t know this for a fact, but sending this old equipment may actually save the USA money because it won’t have to be stored and maintained anymore. Maintenance, even on mothballed equipment isn’t free. Certain environmental controls are required to prevent corrosion and rusting. Certain fluids have to be changed even with little to no use of the equipment because of chemical breakdown over time. We’re talking years sometimes decades, but lots of this stuff we’re sending is from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, so at least 2 decades old but as much as 5 decades.

      Clearing out all this stuff means we don’t have to pay the bill to maintain it.