US Politics and the Ukraine Crisis: A Test of Power and Principles
SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

The reluctance of many Republicans to support Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s urgent request for billions in arms and ammunition funding is a reflection of the “America First” doctrine championed by former President Donald Trump. This stance contrasts sharply with President Joe Biden’s warning that a Russian victory could pose a significant threat to US security.

The 2024 election, therefore, is not just about who will lead the US for the next four years, but also about the future of Ukraine, the shape of the Western world, and the nature of US global power.

In a recent CNN interview, Zelensky urged the Republican-controlled House to release the latest US aid package, as Ukraine marks the second anniversary of Russia’s unprovoked invasion. With Ukrainian soldiers running low on ammunition and the war seemingly tilting in Russia’s favor, Zelensky expressed disbelief at Trump’s apparent alignment with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump’s influence has shifted the party away from its traditional anti-Kremlin stance, represented by conservative stalwarts like Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell. This shift coincides with Trump’s repeated attempts to undermine Biden’s central foreign policy goal while highlighting his perceived failure to address domestic crises.

However, Biden, who has revitalized the Western alliance more than any other president since the fall of the Soviet Union, insists that supporting Ukraine aligns with America’s founding democratic ideals. He warns that a Putin victory could embolden Russia to attack a NATO power, potentially leading to direct US military involvement.

The debate over funding for the Ukraine war underscores how US domestic politics are impacting global affairs. The GOP’s shift towards a more transactional approach to foreign policy reflects growing resentment among its base after years of economic crises and costly foreign wars.

Pro-Trump Republicans argue that the US should prioritize domestic issues, such as the crisis at the Mexican border, over foreign conflicts. This argument, coupled with Trump’s refusal to support further aid to Ukraine, could jeopardize Ukraine’s hopes for additional assistance from Washington.

Trump’s influence also explains why some senators who support more aid for Ukraine voted against a border security bill that included funds for Ukraine’s armed forces. Biden has expressed frustration at this stalemate and has called the top four congressional leaders to the White House to discuss the increasingly dire situation in Ukraine.

Trump’s growing influence, solidified by a recent primary win in South Carolina, is causing unease among European allies. His potential return to the presidency could have far-reaching geopolitical consequences, including a possible US withdrawal from NATO and a threat to the security structures that have maintained peace in Europe since World War II.

Despite opposition from Trump, the White House continues to push for $60 billion in Ukraine aid. However, even if Biden secures a second term, there is no guarantee that Ukraine can rely on continuous US financial support. The recent struggles on the battlefield have sparked debate about the sustainability of Western aid under such circumstances.

As the 2024 election approaches, the balance of power in Congress is likely to be narrow, potentially enabling an increasingly nationalist GOP to block future aid packages. This situation has prompted discussions in the foreign policy community about alternative, more politically sustainable approaches to the Ukraine crisis.

President Zelensky remains determined to fight on, but the question remains: can the same be said of the United States?