This week:
- New episode: Should Congress authorize more money to help Ukraine fight Russia?
- A closer look at how aid to Ukraine compares to other U.S. spending
- Your Sunday reading list
In step with breaking news and in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations, we offer timely insights about whether Congress should stop funding the war in Ukraine.
The Stakes: Congress has returned to Capitol Hill following the Easter break to consider a bill to aid Ukraine, Israel, and other partners that passed in the Senate, but has stalled in the House — $60 billion is allotted to assist Ukraine. Earlier this week, The New York Times Editorial Board opined that Ukraine is already suffering from faltering U.S. support and would not be able to defend itself for long. Meanwhile, former President Trump discussed a deal he says would end the war, that would push Ukraine to cede Crimea and the Donbas region to Russia.
Ukraine By the Numbers:
- The U.S. has given approximately $75 billion (or €68.7 billion) in aid, which accounts for $1.6 billion in humanitarian aid, $26.4 billion in financial support, and $46.3 billion in military assistance.
- 10,582 civilians have died in Ukraine since the invasion began, although the United Nations notes the actual number of casualties may be higher.
- 31,000 Ukrainian and over 315,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in battle, but the exact number of military deaths is disputed.
- 178 billion dollars of total aid has been supplied to Ukraine from all allies.
- The Senate has passed a $95.3 billion bill for aid to Ukraine, Israel, and partners in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as other humanitarian assistance.
Arguing that Congress should stop funding the war in Ukraine are political science professor John Mearsheimer and Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis, who both say the war is unwinnable for Ukraine and that Congress’ continued support is amoral, as Ukrainians will lose more lives and territory if the war is prolonged. Making the case that continued Congressional funding is vital to Ukrainian and American interests and essential to preserving global democracy are former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky and German Marshall Fund president Heather Conley (three of the four debaters are members of the Council on Foreign Relations).
As Congress weighs whether to stop funding the war in Ukraine, is it possible that our debaters could change minds ahead of a vote? Listen to this debate now on your favorite podcast platform, on WNYC, and on YouTube. As always, let us know what you think.
ARGUING YES
Political Science Professor
at the University of Chicago
ARGUING YES
Retired Lieutenant Colonel; Senior Fellow and Military Expert at Defense Priorities
ARGUING NO
President of the German Marshall Fund
of the United States
ARGUING NO
Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky
Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security; Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
MODERATOR
Host and Moderator-in-Chief
DEBATING THE DATA
How Does Ukraine Spending Compare to Other Budget Priorities?
POINT/COUNTERPOINT
Should Congress Stop Funding the War in Ukraine?
YES: John Mearsheimer
“The Ukrainians are doomed. The principal reason is because of the military balance of power. The Russians now have a decisive advantage over the Ukrainians, and that advantage is going to increase, not decrease. There’s nothing the West can do to rectify that balance… What we should do is get the Ukrainians to engage in diplomacy with the Russians and try to settle this conflict.”
YES: Daniel L. Davis
“There is no path to military victory for Ukraine. It doesn’t matter whether the cause is right. It’s not just the 60 billion dollars that Congress is trying to get; it’s the lives of the Ukrainians. If you play this game further and you give more money, it will extend the war [but] it will not change the outcome. More Ukrainians will die. More Ukrainian lands will be going to the Russian side. They’re going to win. The question now is do we fold and preserve what Ukraine has now and end the dying? Or do we keep playing in the hopes that we win and instead more Ukrainians die?”
NO: Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky
“Our aid to Ukraine must continue because it’s vital. It’s also determinative: cutting aid to Ukraine will benefit Putin. If Russia gets a pass on its brutal aggression against Ukraine, the fact is that you’re going to have an emboldened Russia that will be exponentially tougher. Abandonment of Ukraine will also inexorably encourage China and other authoritarians in the Middle East and in the Indo-Pacific to launch aggressions of their own. Continuing to support Ukraine now is one of the most effective courses of action for… maintaining U.S. credibility with our allies, our partners, and the global community, and maintaining our leadership.”
NO: Heather Conley
“Congress should not stop funding Ukraine. Ukraine is not doomed. Ukraine has held the second-largest military in the world at bay. They pushed them back substantially in September of 2022. This is existential. This is Russia’s responsibility. Russia has absolutely destroyed every legal treaty they’ve ever signed. They should be held accountable, and Congress must support freedom and prosperity.”
WEEKLY POINTS OF VIEW
For the sake of all of us, Sonia Sotomayor needs to retire from the U.S. supreme court
Mehdi Hasan | April 1, 2024
The Guardian
Watch Mehdi’s conversation on what it means to “win” an argument
Mandatory DEI Statements Are Ideological Pledges of Allegiance. Time to Abandon Them.
Randall L. Kennedy | April 2, 2024
The Harvard Crimson
Watch Randall’s debate on whether DEI mandates for university faculties are a bad idea
Who’s Going to Buy All This Matzo?
Spencer Jakab | April 3, 2024
The Wall Street Journal
Watch Spencer’s debate on whether small investors can beat the street
Beyoncé’s new album demands respect — and highlights an American travesty
Karen Attiah | April 3, 2024
The Washington Post
Watch Karen’s debate on whether cancel culture is toxic
