How Biden Emerged as the Clear Winner in the Battle for New Ukraine Aid*

*Editor’s note: On March 4, 2022, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.

Vitaliy Ryumshin discusses why America’s new Ukraine aid package will cause further division among Republicans and won’t save Kyiv.

The months-long dispute over providing military aid to Ukraine has finally come to an end in the U.S., as the House of Representatives finally approved almost $61 billion in aid for Kyiv. In true Hollywood style, the process was filled with dramatic twists and turns, as House Speaker Mike Johnson’s version of the Ukraine aid bill was dragged to a vote through blood, sweat and tears, against significant political opposition and Republican protests along the way.

Johnson’s arch enemies — the Democrats and Joe Biden — helped him win the final vote. However, most Republicans who voted against providing aid to Ukraine now feel let down. Some are perplexed and question the reason behind Johnson’s “great betrayal,” while others are fuming and demanding his immediate resignation.

From the Republicans’ perspective, the biggest issue with the Ukraine aid bill is that it fails to address their concerns while fully meeting the demands of the White House.

Republicans have been pushing for aid to Ukraine as part of a broader package that includes tougher border security measures. Johnson himself vowed that Kyiv wouldn’t receive a dime until Biden dealt with the border issues. However, when the final bill was put to a vote, it did not make any mention of strengthening the southern border, which Biden had wanted.

Johnson’s bill also failed to reduce federal spending, facing opposition from the Democrats. Therefore, financially, Johnson’s bill is similar to the Senate initiative, which the House of Representatives rejected in February, with both bills allocating approximately $60 billion for Ukraine.

Johnson’s promise to provide funding to Ukraine in the form of a loan, which he highlighted as the central feature of his revised approach, does not change the situation much. The “loan” mechanism will apply only to $7.9 billion worth of economic aid; the president will have the power to write off 50% of the debt after Nov. 15, 2024, and write it off entirely after Jan. 1, 2026. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that Ukraine will repay even half of the loan.

Johnson attempted to appease Republicans by adding some additional measures to his version of the bill. However, these measures are mere formalities and do not affect the essence of the bill. For instance, it requires the White House to present an endgame strategy for Ukraine within 45 days, but there are no provisions for sanctions if it fails to meet the deadline. Additionally, there is an obligation to provide Kyiv with Army Tactical Missile Systems, but it is worded in such a way that the requirement can be disregarded. Consequently, the White House isn’t bound by any real commitments.

So, it’s clear that the Republicans did not achieve the outcome they wanted. But did Ukraine get what it wanted? At first glance, yes, as Kyiv has been requesting additional aid for many months, and now the weapons will pour into Ukraine again. However, a closer look reveals that the situation is more complicated than it seems.

Out of the $61 billion promised to Ukraine, nearly half ($30.1 billion) will be used to replenish U.S. military stockpiles, fund America’s intelligence operations, and support its European allies. After subtracting a further $7.9 billion of economic aid, only $23 billion is left for direct military assistance. This amount is intended to cover 17 months of military aid until Sept. 30, 2025. Therefore, the U.S. must deliver an average of $1.3 billion of direct military assistance every month to Ukraine.

For reference, the previous aid package of $45 billion, approved in December 2022, included $24 billion allocated for military aid. In fact, the final figure exceeded $30 billion. This amount was designated for a one-year period, meaning that throughout 2023, Ukraine received an average of $2.5 billion per month for military purposes. This amount is almost double what Ukraine is set to receive now.

If we dig deeper, the situation is even more interesting. In 2023, Ukraine received $17 billion under the Presidential Drawdown Authority provisions, which the U.S. president can use to allocate urgent aid from the Pentagon’s stocks. However, only $7.8 billion of the direct military assistance in the 2024-2025 aid package will be funded through PDA. Conversely, almost $14 billion will be financed through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, under which the U.S. government procures military equipment via longer-term contracts with the defense industry. As a result, Kyiv will have to wait indefinitely to receive the bulk of its military aid.

Moreover, it is important to note that the U.S. approved the new aid package very late. Merely allocating money for military aid is not enough, as the weapons must be prepared, transported to Ukraine, distributed among the units, and only then sent to the front. Even in the most optimistic scenario, this entire process could take several weeks. However, the situation in Ukraine is dire, and the army urgently needs equipment and artillery shells. The big question is whether U.S. military aid will be crucial in saving Ukraine, as Western capitals hope.

In general, Biden emerged as the clear winner from the situation with the approval of new aid to Ukraine. He demonstrated his ability to navigate the most complex domestic political crises and achieved his objectives despite fierce opposition. In fact, the Republican Party leadership ultimately surrendered and voted for a package that included no real concessions.

Furthermore, the approval of Ukraine aid could lead to further chaos within the Republican ranks. As Democrats seek to regain a majority in the House as part of the 2024 election campaign, a Republican revolt against Johnson might provide them with a significant advantage. At the same time, Republican squabbles could also benefit Biden, giving him an opportunity to turn the tide in his favor in the run-up to the presidential election in November.

The author expresses a personal opinion that may not reflect the views of Gazeta.ru’s editorial board.