Republican Party
‘The Joe Biden Impeachment Hearing Says Everything About Republicans and Nothing About the President’
When former US President Donald Trump was impeached, for the first time, the cry from the (far) right was that this was all an act of political theatre. This, of course, was not true, but it may be that Republicans in Congress have come to believe their own lies and see impeachment as simply a political tool to tarnish an opponent. What they have overlooked is that like any other kind of trial against an accused person, getting to conviction requires evidence. The testimony of Lev Parnas at the impeachment hearing related to President Joe Biden on Wednesday brutally exposed the fact that the Republicans leading this charge have absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by either Biden or his son Hunter.
That the bombshell testimony from Parnas has exposed the GOP scam is all the more ironic for the fact that he, a former associate of disgraced former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, had been on the side of those who were responsible for fabricating the whole story in the first place.
The concocted tale revolves around an energy company in Ukraine called Burisma. In short, Hunter Biden had served on its Board while his father was the Vice President and point man for the Obama White House. Ukraine was already at war at that time after Russia created the hot war in the Donbas as well as illegally seizing Crimea in 2014. Biden’s remit related to those hostilities.
The allegations against the Bidens were that they had each received a $5 million bribe from Burisma, and got the then Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, fired for sniffing around Burisma too closely. The big problem here is that not a single part of that story is true. The bigger problem is that, according to Parnas, Fox News host Sean Hannity and several members of Congress were engaged in “knowingly” pushing disinformation from Russia.
It is with alarming regularity that the acts of the Republican Party and the Russian state align. The Russians have several motivations behind their troublemaking. Most glaringly, it would be thrilled by a Trump presidency because another tenure in the White House will certainly lead to chaos in the United States at a time when Russia is involved in a full-scale war against Ukraine. A war that saw 31 missiles fired at the capital city of Kyiv just the night before last. Another reason is that this story deepens the belief that Ukraine is a thoroughly corrupt country, one of the chief issues put forward by those who argue against the provision of further military aid.
The story of Burisma first entered the American body politic in 2020, as I wrote for Byline Times back then it was an attempt to distract from the facts of what Trump was then being impeached for. This is a disinformation tactic called ‘whataboutism’, there’s an allegation from one side, and so the other side screams “what about….?” Whataboutism is one of the standard tools of Russian dis- and misinformation operations, frequently employed by their armies of online trolls and useful idiots, and now the GOP.
The impeachment of Trump and the attempt to find grounds for the impeachment of President Biden could not be more different. The former was based on the “prefect phone call” between the Presidents of the US and Ukraine, in which Trump threatened to withhold a military aid package unless President Volodymyr Zelensky did him “a favour” by announcing an investigation into his political rival. The latter was based on Russian lies readily taken up and believed to be fact by large numbers of people in the US, both in and out of political circles.
As an outsider, and as a person directly affected by Russia’s war against Ukraine, it is astonishing that there are so many American minds polluted by Russian propaganda. Some are genuinely duped, others are engaging in and embracing it for reasons of political expediency. Whatever the reason behind it, toeing the Russian line is something that would have horrified the old school of the Republican Party, who realised full well the danger that Russia, and the Soviet Union before it, represented.
Trump was impeached because he attempted to use a package of weapons destined for an ally at war with an adversary as a tool of leverage for his personal political benefit. As Parnas testified, he was instructed by the personal lawyer to Trump, Giuliani, to deliver a message that “unless Zelensky announced an investigation into the Bidens by Monday, that there would be no cooperation, no aid to Ukraine from the United States.” This was a President who not only believed that manipulating the assets of the nation for his personal benefit was perfectly fine, but who also, being unable to deny the charge because there were witnesses to this crime, insisted instead that the call was “perfect”.
Had the Republicans followed the evidence at that first impeachment (or for that matter at the second one) the inescapable conclusion would have been that Trump was guilty as charged and ruling such, the world would not be facing the theoretical possibility of this man, a convicted fraudster and rapist, reassuming the role of the most powerful man in the world.
The evidence in the hearings trying to establish grounds to impeach President Biden is just not there on the other hand. Again, according to Parnas, “I found precisely zero evidence of the Bidens corruption in Ukraine. No credible source has ever provided proof of criminal activity, not the FBI, the CIA, or the NSA. No respected Ukrainian official has ever said that the Bidens did anything criminal in Ukraine.” And “the only information ever pushed on the Bidens on Ukraine has come from one source and one source only, Russia and Russian agents.”
There was no $5 million bribe. Shokin, the Prosecutor General, was not fired because he was getting too close to finding wrongdoing in his investigation of Burisma, because he was not in fact investigating Burisma. Shokin was fired because he was acorrupt man who would look the other way for the right price. His belated dismissal was greeted with applause by Ambassadors to Ukraine from a great number of countries when it happened.
As for the underlying (Russian/GOP) message that Ukraine is a fundamentally corrupt country and therefore undeserving of US aid, the clear Russian goal is to leave Ukraine defenceless so that they can prosecute their war even more ruthlessly. But the fact is that a decade ago millions of brave Ukrainians across the country decided to stand up to the corrupt rule of the Yanukovych regime, and much has changed since then in terms of anti-corruption developments in the country.
At the insistence of civil society, under the watchful eye of allies such as the United States and the European Union, a great number of anti-corruption programs have been successfully implemented. Ukraine, as a nation that fights corruption, has created a new national police force from scratch and developed an award-winning app through which pretty much all government services are delivered, efficiently and transparently. In fact, just one month before the beginning of the big war, as it is called here, I wrote for Byline Times that it is precisely because Ukraine is a model for fighting corruption (and a democracy) that war was inevitably coming.
Does American Reluctance to Aid Ukraine Foreshadow a New Isolationism?
While President Biden and many in Congress support continued aid to Ukraine in their fight against Russia, American public opinion on this issue has, like so much else in the United States, become polarized along Democratic/Republican lines. At the moment, Republican opposition in the House of Representatives is holding up American military aid to Ukraine. President Biden has managed to send $300 million in emergency aid to Ukraine funded from cost savings from earlier aid packages. According to Politico, “The Pentagon has been unable to send additional weapons to Kyiv since December, when it ran out of money to replenish its stocks.”
This trend, of course, will directly impact the battle going on in Ukraine. It can also shed light on America’s feelings about NATO and international engagement in general. The question that arises from the polling data is: if the United States is reluctant to provide military aid to Ukraine how willing would it be to defend NATO allies from Russian attack?
Polling conducted by the AP-NORC in late February of this year, found American public opinion split with 37% saying that the US is providing too much assistance to Ukraine while 33% say the US is spending the right amount and 27% say the US is not providing enough assistance. Resistance to providing American aid to Ukraine is driven by Republican opposition. Fully 55% of Republicans say that America is spending too much on aid to Ukraine. Only 17% of Democrats say the US is spending too much on aid to Ukraine.
It would be a mistake to see Republican reluctance to support aid to Ukraine as a single issue. Rather, it can be seen to reflect a larger tend towards a GOP reluctance to respond to Russian aggression. The same February 2024 polling from the AP showed that only a modest 52% of Republicans support defending NATO allies as opposed to 67% of Democrats.
Former president and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has commented that he would not support NATO allies if they did not spend enough on their defence budgets. Though many Republicans may not agree with Trump’s harsh tone, current polling data indicates that many in his own party would be reluctant to defend NATO. Significantly 28% of Republicans in the AP-NORC polling say they would oppose supporting NATO allies in the event of a Russian attack.
Gallup polling also found mixed sentiments on NATO. While a 47% plurality backed American involvement in NATO, 16% argue that the US should decrease its support for NATO while 12% want the US to pull out of NATO entirely.
It is tempting to blame American reluctance to defend NATO allies on Trumpism. Certainly, Trump is a major factor here. However, it is also helpful to take a step back and view this moment in American foreign policy in context. Today, America’s role on the international stage is something that many take for granted. It was not always this way to put it mildly.
America was a reluctant partner to the Allied effort in World War I. Indeed, Democratic presidential candidate incumbent President Wilson successfully ran for re-election in 1916 on the slogan of “he kept us out of war.” Following World War I, America retreated from the world’s stage.
Isolationism was a powerful force in American politics in the 1930s and early 1940s, when the slogan that Donald Trump employed in the 2016 presidential campaign “America First” was widely used. Though the phrase first appeared in President Wilson’s 1916 re-election campaign, it truly came to national prominence when the name was adopted by the America First Committee, established in 1940, which lobbied to keep America out of any foreign wars. The Committee argued that no foreign power could defeat the United States and furthermore that a Nazi victory over Great Britain would not negatively impact the United States.
Support for the Committee was strong at the grassroots level and in the halls of Congress. At the height of its power, the Committee had 800,000 members and was backed by both Republicans and Democrats. Its most prominent champion was the aviator Charles Lindbergh, the first person to fly solo across the Atlantic and regarded by many as a Nazi sympathiser.
The German victories in the spring of 1940 did not put a dent in American isolationism. Only Franklin Roosevelt’s superb political and communications skills allowed the US to support Britain in 1940 and 1941. It took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 to catapult the United States into World War II.
American support of isolationism this time round is less widespread, being based primarily in one political party. This is good news for those who want America to continue to play a role on the global stage. However, given the nature of the American political system, a committed majority in either house of Congress can effectively check a President’s foreign policy initiatives.
So, while the current polling does not necessarily foreshadow a return to American isolationism, it does, along with a reading of American history, strongly suggest that America’s role on the international stage is not guaranteed.
What Do the 2024 ‘Super Tuesday’ Exit Polls Tell Us About Trump’s Chances in November?
The number of states across the United States holding primaries on the first Tuesday in March have earned the name “Super Tuesday” for this stop on the electoral calendar. The results on Super Tuesday have traditionally propelled a candidate towards their party’s nomination. The big Democratic winner on Super Tuesday 2020 was Joe Biden, who won decisively over his challenger Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. Biden’s dramatic win was best summed up by CNN analyst Van Jones when he said that because of his performance on Super Tuesday, Biden went from being “a joke to a juggernaut.”
The big Republican winner of Super Tuesday this year is former President Donald Trump who won everywhere except in the liberal state of Vermont. Trump defeated former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley by 50 percentage points or more in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. As a result of her poor showing in the Super Tuesday states, Haley ended her campaign. Furthermore, Senator Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, announced his support for Trump. McConnell had been critical of Trump in the past for his actions in the insurrection at the US Capitol in January 2021. McConnell’s swift endorsement of Trump after Super Tuesday indicates that Trump’s dominance of the Republican party is absolute.
So, now the rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is on.
One of the more interesting aspects of politics on both sides of the Atlantic are exit polls. These are the questions that pollsters put to those who have just voted about what factors went into their decision-making process and what issues are important to them. CNN conducted Super Tuesday exit polling in the states of California, North Carolina, and Virginia. The mix of states gives us a balanced view as California is a solidly Democratic state, North Carolina is a swing state and Virginia leans towards the Democrats. Given the fact that Democrats dominate California, it makes sense to focus this analysis on North Carolina and Virginia as they are both competitive states.
In North Carolina, fully 63% of GOP primary voters feel that Trump would be fit for the presidency even if he is convicted of a crime. 55% of GOP voters in Democratic-leaning Virginia believe the same.
When asked if they were part of the MAGA (“Make America Great Again”) movement, the code word for Trumpism, 57% of voters in Virginia say they are not part of the MAGA movement as do 52% of those in North Carolina.
Some pollsters argue that asking voters about their allegiance to the MAGA movement is a way of measuring their likelihood of voting for Trump. I disagree here. While there are voters who understand the MAGA acronym, most voters do not. A more predictive question is to ask if Biden was legitimately elected in 2020. This question goes to the heart of Trump’s campaign far more than asking about the MAGA acronym. In North Carolina, fully 63% of GOP voters feel that Biden did not win legitimately in 2020 while 50% of Virginia GOP voters hold this view.
Social issues in America also play a role here. Since the US Supreme Court ruled in the Dobbs case in June of 2022 overturning Roe vs. Wade, reproductive rights have been once again thrust into the political debate. Abortion opponents in recent months have been pushing for a national ban on abortions. In Virginia, 54% of GOP voters oppose such a ban while in North Carolina 52% of GOP voters support a national ban on abortions.
Were there any bright spots for Haley on Super Tuesday? She did win the state of Vermont and did better than average with college educated GOP voters (39% in North Carolina and 50% in Virginia) and with GOP voters who describe themselves as moderates (57% in North Carolina and 62% in Virginia). These achievements are meaningless. The bottom line is that Donald Trump trounced Nikki Haley and his control of the Republican party is unchallenged.
Some Washington observers have looked at the Super Tuesday results and concluded that they represent major problems for Donald Trump. Their logic is that if Trump loses 20% of the GOP vote in a swing state such as North Carolina, then it is an enormous potential win for the Biden team. This point of view assumes that the 20% of the electorate who voted for Haley will cross the aisle to vote for Biden. The exit polling data does to some extent support this argument, as 58% of Haley voters in North Carolina say they would not vote Republican regardless of who the nominee is.
President Biden has already begun to reach out to Haley voters. Right now, they may be susceptible to persuasion efforts. The abortion issue is likely to be his best way to reach these voters. Unfortunately, for the Biden team, a long and polarizing general election lies ahead. Come November, I believe few Haley voters will be willing to vote Democratic. That is the bad news for the Democrats. The good news for the Democrats is that the election is likely to be so close that it will not take many disaffected Haley voters to tip the scales in Biden’s favour.
Leaked Israel lobby presentation urges US officials to justify war on Gaza with ‘Hamas rape’ claims
The Grayzone has obtained slides from a confidential Israel lobby presentation based on data from Republican pollster Frank Luntz. They contain talking points for politicians and public figures seeking to justify Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip. Two prominent pro-Israel lobby groups are holding private briefings in New York City to coach elected officials and well-known figures on how to influence public opinion in favor of the Israeli military’s rampage in Gaza, The Grayzone can reveal. These PR sessions, convened […]
The post Leaked Israel lobby presentation urges US officials to justify war on Gaza with ‘Hamas rape’ claims first appeared on The Grayzone.
The post Leaked Israel lobby presentation urges US officials to justify war on Gaza with ‘Hamas rape’ claims appeared first on The Grayzone.
As US Aid to Ukraine Stalls, Europe Takes the Lead
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak travelled to Kyiv this month to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the session, Sunak reiterated Britain’s unwavering support for Ukraine, and said that the United Kingdom would form a new United Kingdom-Ukraine Security Cooperation Agreement. The UK also said it will continue to do whatever it takes to help Ukraine during its time of need.
Britain’s new defence package to Ukraine, listed at £2.5 billion, will include drones, long-range missiles, air defence systems, and ammunition. The UK will also train Ukrainian soldiers on cyber security, medical practices, and defence matters.
The UK’s announcement came at a welcome time. For weeks, some Republican officials in the United States House and Senate have delayed a new aid package to Ukraine. They argue that the United States must first address its internal matters before providing foreign assistance to other countries. As the quarrels persist, Ukrainians continue to die due to Russia’s ongoing invasion. Some have also reported that while the United States prolongs the delay to its aid, Ukraine is running low on ammunition.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States has provided more than $75 billion to Ukraine. This has spanned from defence equipment and medical materials to humanitarian aid and financial assistance.
But some critics have said that America has sent too much aid to Ukraine. They also argue that other countries should be doing more.
These takes are incorrect. To date, the European Union has collectively provided over €85 billion in aid to Ukraine since the Russian invasion began in February 2022. This assistance has helped Ukraine defend itself from Russian forces. The EU has also provided assistance to Ukrainian refugees who fled due to the war. Finally, the Europeans are helping Ukraine enhance its energy, transportation, and industry sectors.
Outside of the aid that has already been provided, the EU is also working on a new €50 billion package for Ukraine. The proposed assistance bill seeks to boost Ukraine’s economy. Hungary currently opposes the new aid deal, but European officials are working with the Hungarians to reach an agreement. The Europeans have also stated that if a settlement is not reached with the Hungarians, then the rest of the EU bloc will find another way to send the new aid package to Ukraine. Either way, the Europeans are committed to helping Ukraine. The EU is scheduled to discuss this new aid package in further detail during next month’s summit in Brussels.
Like the EU, the UK is also giving assistance to Ukraine without delay. To date, the British have provided over £9 billion in assistance to Ukraine. Nearly half of this aid has been spent on defence equipment. Of note are long-range precision strike missiles. The UK was one of the first countries to give the Ukrainians this capability to strike Russian ammunition depos and military targets. Destroying these areas has halted Russia’s ability to manufacture weapons and other equipment used for its invasion. It has also stalled Russian developments in southern and eastern Ukraine.
The UK has also prioritized training programs. Over the past two years, British soldiers have trained their Ukrainian counterparts to help Ukraine modernize its military. The British are also training Ukrainian fast jet pilots. This training will help the Ukrainians defend their skies.
Overall, at a time when domestic politics in the United States is interfering with its assistance to Ukraine, the British and Europeans have stepped up their involvement by increasing their aid efforts to Ukraine. This assistance suggests that the British and Europeans will not back down in their partnership with the Ukrainians. It also highlights that they will do whatever it takes to help the Ukrainians during their time of need. British and European politicians and their constituents strongly support Ukraine, and they want this Eastern European country to succeed.
No one is certain how the Russian invasion will continue to unfold. But history has shown that the British and Europeans will stand firm with Ukraine. This continued cooperation will ultimately make a difference, and it will help Ukraine win the war.
Why Is Boris Johnson Endorsing a Second Trump Presidency in the Name of Ukraine?
In his lucrative column for the Daily Mail, Boris Johnson backed the return of Donald Trump to the White House, primarily because he expects the former US President to be the man to stand up to Vladimir Putin by enabling a Ukrainian victory in the war Russia has been waging against it. “My thoughts, of course, go first to Ukraine,” Johnson wrote.
The former Prime Minister observed that it was under the Trump Administration that Ukraine received Javelin anti-tank weapons that proved to be invaluable in fending off the Russian attack on Ukraine’s capital city, Kyiv. This is partially true. Ukraine did get those weapons but not because of Trump, who actually attempted to withhold this congressionally-mandated military assistance package.
Ukraine had already been fighting against the Russian invasion of its eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014, by the time President Trump attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into doing him political favours before sending the weapons. That resulted in Trump's first impeachment.
But it was not the first time Trump wanted to hobble military support to help Ukraine thwart President Putin’s violent aims. In July 2016, when Trump was formally designated the Republican Party’s candidate for the presidential election that year, language that had called for the United States to provide “lethal weapons” to Ukraine was deleted. The Trump campaign was being managed by Paul Manafort, who tried to use his involvement to “get whole” on a debt owed to a major Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.
Manafort was also involved in another aspect of the Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential Election – one that culminated in an infamous meeting at New York's Trump Tower with a delegation of Russians. The meeting came about after a series of email exchanges between Donald Trump Junior and a music promoter working for the pop star son of another Russian oligarch, Aras Agalarov. The ties between the Trump and Agalarov families go back some years, with their most prominent interaction happening when Trump took his Miss Universe pageant on the road to Moscow.
When the representative from the Agalarov family reached out to Donald Trump Jr on 3 June 2016, the contact was very deliberately worded. The email explicitly stated that what was being offered was “very high level and sensitive... part of Russia and its Government’s support for Mr Trump”. The appropriate reaction would have been to contact the FBI, but Trump Junior replied: “I love it!”
On 7 June 2016, another email stated that there was a “Russian Government attorney who is flying over from Moscow” for the subsequent meeting attended by Manafort alongside Trump Junior and Jared Kushner.
While in office, Trump flew to Helsinki for a summit with Putin. The two men sat behind closed doors for a period of time, after which Trump ordered the translator to destroy her notes. The press conference did not go well. A leading Russian expert in Trump’s administration, Fiona Hill, described it as “mortifying”, with Trump publicly taking Putin’s words over those of his own security agencies.
These examples are evidence enough that Donald Trump has not stood up to Vladimir Putin. That he will not stand up to Putin if he returns to the White House. It is not unlikely that the Russian President has kompromat on Trump, which means the businessman cannot stand up to Putin.
Though Trump claims that the multiple court cases he faces are a political witch-hunt, they are nothing of the sort. One current legal proceeding against him is determining the degree of damages to be awarded for defamation and sexual assault. In another case, Trump and his children are accused of a series of financial crimes spanning decades.
Then there are the multiple cases that are linked to the events of the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol. The most significant legal battle here is whether having incited insurrection, Trump is banned from holding office again in line with the Constitution.
So why did Boris Johnson feel the need to endorse Trump on the basis of Ukraine?
Both men share one characteristic: they are both liars. Perhaps Johnson's endorsement is, as usual, in his own self-serving interests. Because it is certainly not in the interests of the United States, Ukraine or the world.
Nikki Haley’s Slavery Omission Typifies the GOP’s Tragic Pact with White Supremacy
Nikki Haley’s headline-generating incident at a town hall in New Hampshire is the perfect metaphor...
The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future – review
In The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future, political reporter Franklin Foer unpacks the first two years of the Biden presidency, spanning the Covid crisis, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Though stronger on domestic than foreign politics, Foer has produced a well-wrought and detailed insight into Biden’s premiership, writes Michael Cox.
The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future. Franklin Foer. Michael Cox. Penguin Press. 2023.
Find this book: 
Whatever critics might like to say about Joe Biden – that he lacks gravitas or is just too old – there can be no doubt that he has been one of the most successful politicians of his generation, first as a senator, then as Vice President, and finally in beating Trump in 2020 where Hilary Clinton failed in 2016. Moreover, if the author of this not uncritical study is to be believed, he has not done a bad job as President either. Coming to power in the middle of a pandemic, and only three weeks after the January 6th attack on Congress, he has at least steadied the ship of the State, without, however, overcoming the US’s deep divisions.
Coming to power in the middle of a pandemic, and only three weeks after the January 6th attack on Congress, [Biden] has at least steadied the ship of the State, without, however, overcoming the US’s deep divisions.
But Biden has also brought something else to the table that previous Democrats – like the cerebral Obama and the crowd-pleasing Clinton – did not: a belief that the Democrats had to do more than just manage globalisation. Rather, they had to be bold enough to stand up for those working people “without college degrees” and use the power of government to rebuild the American economy from the ground up. Thus far, the strategy has worked reasonably successfully, and might even deliver Biden a second term.
For a book which is much stronger on domestic politics than the world outside the US, Foer nonetheless does a fair job in assessing Biden’s various foreign policy challenges, the most long-term of which is China – and here, at least, he has something in common with Trump – but the most immediate, of course, being Putin’s Russia.
After the fiasco that was the withdrawal of the US’s military presence in Afghanistan in 2021, Biden dared not fail. And according to Foer, he didn’t.
This is a story that has been told many times before. However, Foer tells it well. After the fiasco that was the withdrawal of the US’s military presence in Afghanistan in 2021, Biden dared not fail. And according to Foer, he didn’t. In fact, having concluded by October that year that Russia was planning an invasion, the Biden team acted in a most decisive fashion by letting Putin know that Washington knew precisely what Moscow was up to. Thereafter, his team did everything it could to warn Putin of the possible consequences of an invasion – he even sent his CIA chief to Moscow to meet Putin – while making sure it did not hand the Russian leader a pretext for attacking Ukraine. The trick was to do this while at the same time reassuring Ukraine and its President, Volodmyr Zelensky of US support.
Relations with Zelensky were not always easy, though they were nowhere near as disastrous as they had been under Trump. Most obviously, Biden and his team failed to persuade the Ukrainian President that Moscow was actually going to invade.
As Foer shows in some of the more revealing sections of the book, relations with Zelensky were not always easy, though they were nowhere near as disastrous as they had been under Trump. Most obviously, Biden and his team failed to persuade the Ukrainian President that Moscow was actually going to invade. Zelensky moreover always seemed to be asking for more than Biden could deliver and was forever complaining (according to Foer at least) that the US wasn’t doing enough to support Ukraine, either by allowing it into NATO, or by supplying it with all the most up-to-date military equipment. As more recent events have shown, these are arguments that look set to run well into the future as the war grinds on towards its third year.
Foer’s volume only covers the first two years of the Biden presidency and leaves the story hanging on a somewhat optimistic note in late 2022. Whether he would be so optimistic a year on given Biden’s still very low ratings is not so clear. Nor is it at all clear how he would write about the impact the deepening crisis in Israel and the impact its war against Hamas might have on the presidential race. But it could be significant given Biden’s determination to support Israel and “hug Bibi [Netanyahu] tight”. Indeed, with many in the US – including its around one million Muslim voters and a large tranche of younger people – asking whether they are still willing to vote for a party whose leader has thus far has been reluctant to call for a ceasefire, Biden may come to rue the day that he got quite so close to “Bibi”.
In 2024, the Democrats will need every vote they can muster. It would be ironic if a war the US did not anticipate, in a region it felt was beginning to settle down, turned out to be decisive and delivered victory to its opponents.
The outcome of the race for the White House in 2020 was in the end determined by just under 45,000 votes in three key swing states out of five. In what promises to be an even tighter race for the White House in 2024, the Democrats will need every vote they can muster. It would be ironic if a war the US did not anticipate, in a region it felt was beginning to settle down, turned out to be decisive and delivered victory to its opponents. We are often told by political scientists that foreign policy never determines the outcomes of US elections. In 2024 it just might.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
You can watch a video for LSE featuring Professor Michael Cox, “2024: A year of unpredictable elections” on YouTube here.
Image Credit: Executive Office of the President of the United States via Picryl.
Malicious, Stupid, Or Compromised? The MAGA Republican Position On Support For Ukraine
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
On the afternoon of Sunday 10 December I saw that Republican Senator J D Vance was due to appear on CNN’s State of the Union show with Jake Tapper. Expecting that the interview would be laced with falsehoods, I stood by with a notepad in hand to live tweet corrections, however, considering the volume and speed of them a deeper analysis of his remarks is in order.
A video of the exchange can be found here. With time stamps from that video, let’s set the record straight.
1:10 – Vance says in his first response to why he opposes aid to Ukraine, “everybody knows, at least everybody with a brain knows that this was always going to end with negotiation. The idea that Ukraine was going to throw Russia back to the 1991 borders was preposterous, nobody believed it.”
Both parts of this are wrong. The notion that all wars eventually end with negotiations is simply false. The absolute evil that was the Nazi regime required that they be comprehensively defeated to bring the Second World War to an end. Putin’s Russia is no less evil and their defeat is equally required. And the vast majority of Ukrainians believed and believe in returning the borders of Ukraine to those that are internationally recognised. Vance can drop in his qualifiers like “anyone with a brain” or that “nobody believed” something to make it sound like he’s speaking for the reasonable folks out there, he’s not, this is simply a bullying tactic.
1:32 – Vance declared “you need to remember Jake that Ukraine is functionally destroyed as a country.” Despite the best efforts of Putin and his army, this is not true. Despite fighting this awful war, Ukraine is and will continue to be a functioning and developing state. As the substantial progress towards preparing the country for membership of the EU, during war time, clearly demonstrates.
1:56 – “we are getting to a place where we are going to be functionally on the hook to pay for Ukrainian pensioners, to rebuild the entire country, we need to bring the killing to a stop and that’s what American leadership should be doing, not writing more blank cheques for the war.”
Ukraine isn’t asking for the United States to pay pensions, nor will the US be on the hook to foot the reconstruction bill after the war ends. Ukraine’s economy will meet state obligations through taxation after the enormous cost of fighting this war has ended. As for the reconstruction costs, many reasoned voices are calling for the bulk of that to be met through allocating the reserves of Russia’s Central Bank that have been frozen in the west since the full-scale war, some $350 billion, be used to fund the reconstruction of what they destroyed. It won’t be enough, but it is a good start.
How Vance moves then to “we need the killing to stop” is puzzling, it is an obvious non-sequitur. But for the record, no-one wishes for the killing to stop more than those of us who have love and affection for those facing the very real prospect of being killed.
The “no more blank cheques” is a common trope from the extreme voices of the Republican Party, it is not true. The amount of US support for Ukraine is not only well known and publicly available information, it is also a fact that this money does not actually go to Ukraine, by and large. 90% of the sum “spent” on US military aid to Ukraine stays in the United States and benefits American citizens.
In his next response, answering Tapper’s point of the Russian threat to other countries, Vance states that this is “preposterous”. It is anything but, ask anyone in the Baltic countries how they view the threat of reoccupation by Russia.
3:35 – Vance then says that “[America’s] Ukraine policy just doesn’t make a ton of sense” and asks “what are we trying to do here, what is the end goal? Until the President can articulate an answer to those questions, I don’t think we should write another blank cheque.”
While it is true that the Biden Administration has not done enough to effectively communicate the reasons for supporting Ukraine, leaving that void to be filled with disinformation about “blank cheques” and the like, the goal is very clear, it is the not-preposterous idea of ejecting the Russian invaders from all of Ukraine, and continuing to make the occupation of Crimea untenable for Putin is very much not only a key to that, but it is already underway with Ukraine’s repeated targeting of Russia’s naval assets in that area.
4:10 – Vance then utters “we can’t take strategic decisions based on stark morality tales.” Really? The GOP of old would shudder to hear such words. “We have to figure out what is in America’s best interests” Vance goes on to say. Well, alongside China, unchecked Russia was, is, and will continue to be a strategic threat to the United States, that is why spending a measly 5.25% of your defence budget to eliminate that threat is not only in the best interests of the US, it is also a bargain.
4:25 – “what’s in America’s best interests is to accept that Ukraine is going to have to cede some territory to Russia.” Why? The occupied territories were seized by military force, in 2014 and 2022, and the idea of rewarding Russia for that is reprehensible. This kind of thinking is also rooted in a partial buy-in to Russian propaganda, that they had some kind of justification in taking these lands because “Russian-speakers” live there. This is the kind of thinking that appeased Hitler in the lead up to World War Two, at the eventual cost of millions of lives.
After meandering through some responses to questions on abortion rights and access to birth control, the conversation then turns to Trump. “He was an effective successful President, I think he will be an effective successful President again, that’s why I have endorsed him” Vance says. To outside observers the cult of Trumpism is really quite bewildering. His record was not one of effective leadership, nor success. He spent his four years in the White House mainly lying and promising great things, but not actually delivering on anything other than the party that he led passing massive tax cuts to their own donors.
We Need to Move Beyond ‘As Long as it Takes’ in Ukraine’s War Against Putin
After two years of stoic resistance against Russian forces, Ukrainians feel they are being abandoned and false narratives of failure are damaging their campaign
Paul Niland
Trump repeatedly promised a great healthcare policy would be announced “soon” but that never materialised. There was always going to be an infrastructure week, and it was always going to be next week, that never happened either. These are facts. The only reason why some Republicans continue to back Trump is that he is the key to a large block of voters, and they are the key to power for them.
Back to the question of Ukraine. Why is Vance, and others of like minds, so wrong on Ukraine? Are they being malicious? Are they playing politics with the fate of a nation and the 40 million inhabitants of that nation, because the default is to automatically argue against anything that is Biden Administration policy?
Are they arguing for Ukraine to cede territory out of stupidity, believing that in some way Russia is entitled to parts of their neighbouring country? Or are they compromised by their knowledge of the fact of Russia having helped Trump into the White House in 2016 and they are making a blatant attempt to repeat that feat in next year’s election? If they are compromised in this way, they are not only gambling with the fate of Ukraine, they are also gambling with the fate of the United States of America, too.
There’s a word for those who collude with an enemy, it is treason.
Congressional Gridlock: The Impact of Trump’s Impeachment on Ukraine’s Military Support
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
In the frontline city of Kherson, South Ukraine, Victoria told Byline Times about her disappointment in the United States' foreign policy. A longtime resident, she survived the Russian occupation, flood, and lives through daily shelling. To the ongoing cannonade of artillery fire, she said, “We are deeply offended. We are dying here daily and did not expect the stab in the back”.
Victoria’s claim is hardly an exaggeration. Kherson has been deeply affected by the ongoing conflict. From 1 to 11 December 2023, the Kherson Region witnessed 836 attacks, averaging 86 per day, with 4,834 shells, including missiles, targeting civilian areas. Nine civilians were killed and 48 injured. The political deadlock in the US Congress has left many, like Victoria, feeling betrayed and disheartened.
Ukrainians see the US Congress blocking of the military aid as the failure of Biden’s foreign policy that undermines US credibility on a global scale. Many worldwide would agree. The geopolitical consequences of the US indecision are dire, and the implications extend far beyond Ukraine. Just hours after the meeting between Zelensky and Biden and the press conference in the White House, Kyiv faced a ballistic missile attack, with 51 civilians injured: a non-verbal response to the US indecision. Kremlin propagandists openly express their gratitude to the US Congress. Other countries like China will take note.
“Ukraine is a border,” says Olga, a small business owner in Kherson. Her grocery store was flooded after the Russian troops blew up the Nova Khakhovka Dam and has been shelled four times during the last nine months. “How can you not protect your border? The Russian Federation will not stop in Ukraine.”
Protecting borders is the very reason the US Republicans use to put a plug in the military aid to Ukraine. A closer look at the situation will reveal it is not so.
BREAKING
Swing seats could be decided by Brits living in Moscow or Iran following changes to election rules
Josiah Mortimer
Emergency Appropriations Bill Blockage
On 6 December 2023, all 49 Republican senators blocked the White House's emergency appropriations bill, including $61 billion aid to Ukraine, $14 billion aid to Israel, $14 billion for southern US border security, appropriations for Taiwan, and US submarine fleet modernization.
The blockage stems from several reasons. Republicans question the effectiveness of additional aid for Ukraine, citing uncertainties in war aims and spending, and doubt the impact of more assistance following a less successful summer offensive. However, the predominant concern among Republicans seemingly centers on US border protection needs. House Speaker Mike Johnson firmly links US aid to Ukraine with immigration reforms, citing national security as the primary motivation.
Republicans condition the bill adoption on immigration law changes. Requirements include a ban on third-country nationals seeking asylum or refugee status after illegally crossing the US-Mexico border; cancellation of the President's right to grant temporary asylum with work rights to foreign citizens (based on this right, the US President Joe Biden approved the programme for accepting 100,000 refugees from Ukraine in the US); tightening conditions for asylum applications and internment of asylum seekers during processing. President Biden accused Republicans of holding Ukraine funding “hostage for a partisan border agenda.”
The Republicans’ goal is limiting immigration to satisfy the party electorate during the election year. Despite studies disproving a link between rising immigration and crime in the US, the isolationist Republican Party persists in associating the two. Republicans aim to limit entry opportunities for immigrants from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Haiti, and Venezuela. This long-standing goal also aligns with the former US President Donald Trump's promises.
It’s Really That Bad at the Front, Say Russian POWs
A Russian soldier said that he was told that it’s better to use a grenade to kill himself and any enemies approaching rather than surrender and face “torture”
Kateryna Zakharchenko
Trump Influence and Primaries
The influence of former President Trump looms large over these proceedings. Trump's likely dominance in Republican primaries starting in February 2024 may further hinder support for aid to Ukraine.The Congress, including moderate Republicans, may deter from contradicting the party leader—and border protection is not the deciding factor in this development.
In the dynamic and eventful political landscape of the past five years, it may escape the memory of the US mass media and the public that the blockage of military aid to Ukraine did not originate in 2023. Recall Trump’s impeachment over a Ukraine scandal in 2019.
The former US President blocked a $400 million military aid package to Ukraine, attempting to secure quid pro quo cooperation by seeking damaging narratives on the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and misinformation about Russian interference from Ukraine. Trump conditioned official acts on Ukraine's announcement of investigations, withholding a White House meeting with Zelensky and military assistance to Ukraine. Trump’s surrogates, including Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, pressured Ukraine into the deal.
After Trump's actions were revealed by a whistleblower complaint, the aid to Ukraine was released. An impeachment inquiry prompted by concerns about foreign interference followed in September 2019. Formal charges included abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House Intelligence Committee report detailed Trump's solicitation of Ukraine's interference for personal gain. House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment, but Trump was acquitted by the Senate. In January 2020, the Government Accountability Office concluded that the White House violated federal law by withholding Congress-approved military aid to Ukraine.
Mark Temnycky
Zelensky’s Visit
Seeking a compromise on the bill, Zelensky made a personal appeal to Biden and lawmakers on Capitol Hill during his 11-12 December visit to the US. Meetings with senators and Speaker Johnson were held to seek support. The results of the meetings are unclear. Speaker Johnson, post-meeting, urged the White House to offer "clarity and detail" on Ukraine's strategy against Russia before endorsing additional funding. Given that the US Congress is going on holiday until 2-3 January 2024, the resolution of the conflict is unlikely.
Positive developments followed the visit, including Biden’s approval of allocating $200 million in support, with the aid package including “very important equipment, ammunition, artillery.” During his visit, Zelensky discussed creating a European defense hub with US defense companies, considered by some analysts a critical step. He also noted Ukraine's decreasing dependency on aid.
The unblocking of the military aid bill remains a burning priority. “If there’s anyone inspired by unresolved issues on Capitol Hill, it’s just Putin and his sick clique,” Zelenskyy told the audience at National Defense University. “They see their dreams come true when they see the delays and scandals. They see freedom falling when the support of freedom fighters goes down. People like Putin shouldn’t even hope to conquer freedom.”