Zelensky’s extraordinary visit can’t fix the fact America’s Ukraine aid is dead

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inbox

Get our free View from Westminster email

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

In December of last year, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in Washington as a hero, delivering a joint address to Congress. The select committee investigating the January 6 riot postponed the release of its final report as Congress rolled out the red carpet for the leader of the country pushing back against aggression from Russia.

But the warm welcome underlined the fact that Democrats, who at the time controlled the majority in the House, knew that passing aid to Ukraine would be much harder come January when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives.

And indeed, on Tuesday 12 December, despite arriving in the US Senate in his trademark fatigues flanked by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, most Republicans remained wholly unmoved in their opposition to assisting Ukraine.

There is truly no way around it: Congress is wholly at an impasse when it comes to passing aid to Ukraine, and no dramatic plea from Zelensky can change it.

On one end, there are Republicans who are outright hostile toward supporting Ukraine and will do whatever they can to block spending. Then there are the Republicans who support Ukraine but cynically want to use the fight to extract concessions that radically reduce the ability for people to migrate legally to the United States. Republicans know that they could not get these changes to immigration under normal circumstances while Democrats control the White House and the Senate. So they have exploited Democrats’ support for Ukraine to win concessions.

The longer the stalemate drags on, the less likely it looks that the Senate will be able to pass some kind of relief to Ukraine. Make no mistake about this – were the Senate to leave at the end of this week for the rest of the year without aid to Ukraine, it would be solely the fault of the Republicans.

On one end, there are some Republicans who oppose supporting Ukraine on principle. Sen Tommy Tuberville told me simply, “We don't have the money. We're broke”. Others like Sen JD Vance of Ohio told me, after the meeting with Mr Zelensky, that the war in Ukraine would only end through negotiation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the United States.

“That’s what I find so heartbreaking about this conflict is it was always going to end in some negotiated settlement,” Mr Vance told The Independent.

But Sen Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who has traveled to Ukraine and co-wrote a massive piece of comprehensive immigration reform with his late mentor John McCain and Mr Schumer, pushed back, saying the way to end the war is to put pressure on Russians in Crimea.

“What I'm trying to do is not reward Putin for dismembering Ukraine, to make sure China will be less likely to go into Taiwan,” he said. But when asked about the immigration piece of the negotiations, Mr Graham cited 9/11 and the 7 October attack in Israel by Hamas before saying “there will be no money for anybody else until we get the border more secure.”

Republicans insist on saying their complaints are about “the border.” Everyone from Sen Joni Ernst of Iowa to Susan Collins of Maine to Dan Sullivan of Alaska. This is intellectually dishonest: much of the bipartisan negotiations between Sens Thom Tillis, James Lankford, Chris Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema revolve around rolling back asylum or parole for migrants. These would be broad-reaching changes that would likely last far longer than the war in Ukraine.

“I think we've got to get a different mix to overcome some of these hurdles with the administration,” Mr Tillis told me, saying that the White House needed to get involved, which Sen Joe Manchin also told reporters. But when I asked Mr Tillis if the Senate could finish a bill by the end of the week, he said “no.”

The House of Representatives is arguably more hostile to supporting Ukraine and Republicans there seek to tie more aggressive restrictions on immigration. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries blasted Republicans’ latest effort.

“We are ready, willing and able to move forward with bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. That's not really the issue in terms of why Republicans are trying to take funding for Ukraine,” Mr Jeffries told me. “There is a pro-Putin caucus within the House Republican Conference that actually wants to see Ukraine fail and Russia prevail within the House Republican Conference.”

Even more cynically, all of the negotiators within the Senate talks are white and native-born citizens willing to barter away the ability of migrants seeking asylum or persecution to come freely. Sen Catherine Cortez Masto, the Senate’s first and so far only Latina, faulted Republicans.

“We have to invest in our border, and I think there's a deal to be made if the Republicans are willing to do it and not continue the chaos at the border,” she told me. “I think they want the chaos at the border.”

Similarly, Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) criticised the horse trade of restricting legal immigration for Ukraine aid.

“There are concerns they’re going to sabotage our immigration policy in order to meet unrelated goals,” the progressive lawmaker told me. “It is extremely dangerous to set the precedent of tying domestic policy to foreign aid.”

But whatever deal Republicans and Democrats in the Senate might cut is ultimately moot. The talks appear to be going nowhere and White House involvement might ultimately make Republicans in the House less willing to swallow a deal. If Ukraine were to ultimately not win the war, Republican opposition to legal immigration will be the ultimate culprit.