Ritz for Forbes: Ukraine Aid Costs Pale In Comparison To The Price Of Appeasement

By Ben Ritz

The current obstacle holding up Washington’s continued aid to Ukraine seems unconnected to the merits. Republicans, many of whom do not share President Joe Biden’s resolve to stand firm against Vladimir Putin’s imperial ambitions, are refusing to approve new funding unless the administration accepts their position on domestic immigration reform. They are cynically using Ukraine’s fate as a chit in an unrelated political battle. But underpinning this decision is another view held by many of them and their constituents: that the money Washington spends on assistance to Kyiv is a poor use of taxpayer dollars.

The critic’s argument, which can frequently be heard on both the right and the far left, is rhetorically powerful: How does it make sense to spend money on Ukraine’s military when we have so many problems here at home? Why should America finance a foreign war when we’re facing ballooning budget deficits, rising consumer prices, and other pressing economic needs? The answer is relatively straightforward: Cutting the Ukrainians off would not only be morally reprehensible, and militarily shortsighted — it would be fiscally irresponsible.

Read more in Forbes.

Jacoby for New York Post: Why the US must stay the course in Ukraine

By Tamar Jacoby

Americans believe they face a choice in Ukraine: we can continue to help with weaponry and funding, or we can stop now, slowly dialing back our aid or simply cutting it off.

President Biden has proposed a robust aid package: $64 billion in humanitarian and military assistance.

But many Republicans in Congress are calling for an end to US support.

Others in the foreign policy establishment, Democrats and Republicans alike, now argue that Ukraine should be pressured to give up land for peace.

But few people seem to be thinking through the full consequences if America were to walk away.

What would this mean for Ukraine or US global leadership?

Read more in The New York Post.

U.S. National Security and Ukraine: A Bipartisan Conversation with Reps. Don Bacon and Chrissy Houlahan

Join PPI and the Hudson Institute

U.S. National Security and Ukraine:
A Bipartisan Conversation with Reps. Don Bacon and Chrissy Houlahan

Friday, December 1, 2023
9:00 to 9:45 a.m.

Hudson Institute
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW #400
Washington, DC 20004
Or watch the event via Livestream!

 

President Joe Biden has stated that Ukraine’s success in defending itself against Russian aggression is “vital for America’s national security.” Seventieth Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has argued that “the outcome of this war will have a direct impact on U.S. national security.” Yet despite significant bipartisan support for Kyiv, the prospect of continued United States aid to Ukraine remains uncertain.

What is the path forward for Ukraine aid in Congress? Can a bipartisan coalition hold in the face of a determined effort to cut off U.S. aid? What would happen if the U.S. ended military support for Ukraine? What policy changes are needed to help Ukrainian forces prevail, and what would success look like?

Please join the Hudson Institute and the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) for a discussion with Representatives Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) and Don Bacon (R-NE) on these critical questions. The event will be moderated by Hudson Senior Fellow Luke Coffey and Tamar Jacoby, who directs PPI’s New Ukraine Project, with brief opening remarks from Hudson President John WaltersThe full schedule and speaker lineup is below. This event is taking place both in-person and online via livestream. 

 

More details here.

Marshall for The Hill: Partisan foreign policy extremists are draining respect for US leadership

By Will Marshall

Storm clouds are gathering around the world. In Europe, Asia and the Middle East, tyrants and terrorists are on the march, while the country most able to stand up to them — the United States — is rancorously disunited.

Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre of 1,200 Israelis was a harrowing display of barbarism cracking through civilization’s fragile veneer. In Europe, Russian “dictator” Vladimir Putin is doubling down on his criminal war to compel Ukraine’s subservience to Moscow.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Jacoby for Los Angeles Times: Kyiv’s dark moment and America’s fateful choice

What a difference a few weeks makes. When I left Kyiv in September for a short trip to the U.S., the late summer weather was perfect and the mood in Ukraine was upbeat and determined. There had been heavy fighting on the southern and eastern fronts — the long-awaited counteroffensive was going more slowly than many had hoped.

But by and large, the country I left was the Ukraine the world had been rooting for since February 2022: Little David pushing back against the Russian Goliath — plucky, resourceful, resilient and still surprising us with successes on the battlefield.

By the time I returned to Kyiv, the world had turned upside down. Hamas terrorists had launched a 21st century pogrom in southern Israel. Israelis were retaliating with overwhelming force in Gaza. Worst of all for Ukraine, the U.S. aid Kyiv relies on to prosecute the war was in jeopardy, with a largely friendly Senate and far less supportive House on a collision course as they debated President Biden’s request for another $61.4 billion in military and humanitarian support.

The mood in the city was subdued — as one of my friends put it, this is a “dark moment.” An early burst of support for Israel — huge blue and white flags projected on landmarks and billboards across Ukraine — had subsided into worry. Would the fighting in the Middle East steal the world’s attention? With winter approaching and more of last year’s brutal blackouts looming, stores were filled with shoppers buying bottled water and canned goods. The residents of my apartment building chipped in for an industrial generator.

Read more in The Los Angeles Times.

Jacoby for The Messenger: Why Are Europe and America Taking Opposite Approaches to Ukraine?

A good movie director would use a split screen: on one side, Washington, D.C., bitterly divided and uncertain about continuing aid to Ukraine and, on the other, Brussels, where both the legislative and executive arms of the European Union (EU) are standing firm in their support for Ukraine. Last month, members of European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of €50 billion ($53.4 billion USD) in continued aid, and this week, the European Commission recommended that talks about Ukrainian membership in the EU should begin early next year.

Many Americans are skeptical of the EU and loath to admit it might know something we don’t know. Yet, Washington should take a page from Brussels’ book — not just its support of Ukraine’s fight to defeat Russian aggression, but also its understanding of what’s at stake for Europe — and the U.S. — as Ukraine evolves toward a fully democratic market economy aligned with the West.

Ukraine’s long, hard road toward joining the EU began in earnest exactly 10 years ago, in autumn 2013, when a million people took to the streets to support the Maidan Revolution. Crowds brandished EU flags and hand-printed signs declaring, “We are Europe,” “We choose Europe, not Russia.” Then, in early 2014, 100 protesters died in brutal street clashes defending Western values against pro-Russian militants. That year, Russia invaded and annexed the Ukrainian region of Crimea.

Read more.

This story was originally published in The Messenger on November 11, 2023.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Not So Quiet on Ukraine’s Southern Front

Living in Kyiv, you learn to put up with air-raid alerts. Sirens wail over the city, and an app blares from your phone, warning you to shelter from incoming missiles. In the industrial city of Zaporizhzhia, 25 miles from the front line of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, people shrug off the sirens, which sound a half dozen times a day and often more. “It’s just Russian music,” one local official joked when I visited recently, “bad Russian music.”

What matters in Zaporizhzhia: not warnings but actual explosions, which have left ugly scars across the city, including many boarded-up buildings on the main street. Yet few people take shelter even when they hear a nearby blast or see a plume of dark smoke on the horizon. “I used to be afraid,” explained one young woman who runs an online business. “But you get used to it. Everyone is used to it. Now we just get on with our lives.”

For many, “the front” evokes World War I trenches at Verdun and the Somme or the carnage a generation later at Stalingrad and the Battle of the Bulge. Zaporizhzhia isn’t on the line of contact; there are no trenches or firefights in the streets. But the fighting outside town hangs over the city, ever-present and menacing in a way you don’t feel in Kyiv.

I’d been to Zaporizhzhia before—two trips last spring before the start of the counteroffensive—and I returned this fall full of apprehension. It’s a city with a long history of warfare: first, as the home of the 17th-century Cossack fighters who defended the territory that is now Ukraine from Russian, Polish, and Crimean invaders and then, later, the site of bitter battles between the Nazis and the Red Army. What I wondered now: How was the city holding up as the grinding counteroffensive dragged into its fourth month?

Read more in Washington Monthly.

Marshall for The Hill: Hamas is an occupying force blocking peace in Gaza

By Will Marshall

After 16 years of living next door to a terrorist enclave, a badly shaken Israel is massing its forces to crush Hamas in Gaza. Palestinian civilians are caught in the crossfire — which is exactly what Hamas wants.

As it has done after provoking four previous incursions by Israeli forces, Hamas is counting on images of death and destruction in Gaza to trigger outrage throughout the Middle East and bring international pressure on Israel to stop the fighting and withdraw its forces.

The pattern is grimly familiar: Terrorists commit atrocities, then hide behind civilian populations to escape punishment. Limited incursions and ceasefires only pause the violence, allowing Hamas to regroup and set the clock ticking toward the next terrorist explosion.

And every time, ordinary Palestinians suffer as Israel strikes back at Hamas’s rocket factories, depots and elaborate network of tunnels, cuts the number of border crossings and takes other security measures that make day-to-day life for Gazans ever more difficult.

Read more in The Hill. 

PPI Statement on Hamas Terrorism

Today, Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released the following statement in response to this weekend’s heinous attack on Israel and the Israeli people.

“The more we learn about Hamas’s barbaric slaughter of civilians in Israel, the more civilized people everywhere should resolve to reject the sickening moral equivocations voiced by apologists for Palestinian terrorists. No cause on earth justifies the orgy of sadism, rape, and mass murder we have just witnessed. And let us have an end to evasive euphemisms like ‘militant’ — the perpetrators of this crime against humanity are terrorists and should be so named and treated.

“We are grateful to President Biden for forcefully condemning Hamas’s depraved violence and pledging America’s steadfast support for the Israeli people at this terrible moment. The contrast between Biden’s moral clarity and unifying leadership and Donald Trump’s dishonest attempts to divide our country by politicizing the tragedy in Israel could not be more telling.

“Israeli forces are now trying to rescue hostages, bring terrorists to justice, and degrade Hamas’s ability to launch further outrages. This is a monumental task made more difficult by Hamas’s cynical tactic of using Palestinian civilians as human shields, which is yet another war crime. It’s imperative that Israeli forces proceed both resolutely and carefully, demonstrating the humanity and respect for innocent lives that their terrorist attackers lack. We see no military justification for depriving Gaza residents of food and fuel.

“The Progressive Policy Institute stands with Israel, and endorses the bipartisan congressional resolution, signed by over 400 Members of Congress, supporting Israel and outrightly condemning the terrorist attacks launched by Hamas against Israeli civilians.

“Standing with Israel against terrorism in no way implies support for Israeli government policies. Indeed, we are concerned by the authoritarian drift of recent Israeli politics. But there will be ample time and occasion to debate these matters once the immediate crisis has passed.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C., with offices in Brussels, Berlin and the United Kingdom. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

Find an expert at PPI.

###

Media Contact: Amelia Fox, afox@ppionline.org

Ukraine’s Other Front: The War on Corruption

INTRODUCTION

Before the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022, many Americans could not place Ukraine on a map. Still, they knew one thing: it was a country plagued by corruption — deeply, thoroughly, perhaps even intrinsically corrupt.

Few Ukrainians would quarrel with the underlying charge. Ukraine has struggled with a toxic legacy of corruption since it declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Where most Ukrainians would disagree: with the notion that the problem is endemic — somehow intrinsic or inherent and, by extension, immutable. On the contrary, Ukraine has been fighting fiercely for more than a decade to root out corruption and strengthen the rule of law.

Progress has been intermittent, often one step forward, two steps back, and there remains much to be done. But many of the breakthroughs seen in recent years would have been unthinkable a decade ago. And contrary to expectations — most observers anticipated that reform would stall in wartime — the war on corruption has intensified since the 2022 invasion.

Much is at stake on this second front for both Ukraine and the West. Corruption took a heavy toll in Ukraine’s early years as the country struggled to free itself from the Soviet past, establishing a market economy and forging ties to the West. Funding that should have been used to grow the economy was diverted into private hands. Fearful foreign investors stayed away even as they flocked to other Central and Eastern European countries like Poland and Czechia. Powerful vested interests erected barriers to entry in vital industries, suppressing competition and choking growth. Meanwhile, a lack of public trust in government stymied the development of democracy.

The 2022 invasion raised the stakes further still, including for Ukraine’s Western backers. In the past 18 months, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the U.S. has committed $74.5 billion in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Together, the European Union (EU) and its member states have committed nearly twice that much — $141.3 billion. (See Figure 1.) The bill for postwar reconstruction is already being estimated at more than $1 trillion, and Kyiv hopes much of this funding will come from private investors, ideally backed by Western governments and international financial institutions.

Any unlawful diversion of any of this support would have disastrous consequences for Ukraine’s future, crippling reconstruction and the national political renewal Ukrainians hope will come with it.

European integration also depends on beating back corruption. It’s no accident that five of the seven conditions the EU has asked Ukraine to meet before moving forward with accession trace back to anticorruption reform and the rule of law. Failure could block Ukrainian membership in both the EU and NATO, further discouraging foreign investment and democracy building.

Bottom line: The struggle to root out corruption will be as important to Ukraine’s future as driving Russian soldiers from its territory. Failure on either front would put an end to the dream of a fully democratic, independent nation ready to take its place in Europe — an unimaginable disappointment for Ukrainians and a profound risk for the West, which can ill-afford a faltering, unmoored state on its border with an emboldened, rapacious Russia.

But none of this means that fighting corruption is easy or that success is guaranteed. The past decade has been a long, hard struggle: reforms introduced and then scuttled, implementation blocked at every turn, charges filed and then ignored by the courts, anticorruption activists beaten and murdered. Those with a vested interest in the old order have stopped at nothing. And Ukraine will need its allies’ support as much on this front as on the battlefield — financial support, technical assistance, exacting standards and, when necessary, a refusal to compromise or relax standards. Reform advocates say Ukraine has been transformed in the past decade. “The corruption of 10 years ago and now — it’s two different worlds,” says Viktor Nestulia, the Open Contracting Partnership’s team lead in Ukraine. Yet no one in civil society thinks the fight is over. “There will always be someone in government trying to block reform,” Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC) executive director Daria Kaleniuk explains. “We need our international partners to help us combat this obstruction by conditioning their support on our progress.”

Read the full report.

Marshall for The Hill: Xi’s losing bet on Putin is backfiring

By Will Marshall

Since Xi Jinping rose to power in 2013, China has pursued an increasingly self-isolating diplomacy of jut-jawed belligerence. Nothing better illustrates the damage done to Beijing’s global standing than Xi’s declaration of a “no limits” partnership with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

For starters, it was spectacularly mistimed. Xi announced the new Sino-Russian alliance during the Beijing Olympics in February 2022, just 20 days before Russia invaded Ukraine.

There’s no indication that Putin gave Xi a heads up about the attack, though President Biden had repeatedly warned the world it was coming. The invasion put the Chinese leader on the spot because it brazenly violated two principles Beijing supposedly holds sacred — territorial integrity and non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Marshall for The Hill: ‘America Firsters’ pose a false choice on Ukraine

By Will Marshall

Republicans seem to be racing backward in time, resurrecting old tenets that defined their party’s outlook in the 1920s and 1930s: Christian fundamentalism, nativism, protectionism and isolationism.

Long discredited by events, these reactionary shibboleths are risen from the dead and lurching like zombies across the U.S. political landscape. We hear their echo in today’s red state crusade to stamp out women’s reproductive rights, the hysteria over immigrant hordes “replacing” whites and the Trump administration’s high tariff policies, which remain on the books despite having failed to reduce U.S. trade deficits.

The former president also dredged up the hoary isolationist slogan, “America First” to signal his rejection of key pillars of America’s post-war internationalist strategy — open trade, security alliances and the formation of world bodies dedicated to collective problem-solving.

Read more in The Hill.

Jacoby for Bulwark: Why Ukraine Fights

By Tamar Jacoby

One of the most popular memes circulating on Ukrainian social media in the past year used an image, first popularized on Russian social media, of a grotesque creature with the body of a fish and the snout of a pig—a shvino karas, or pig fish. “A few decades ago, almost all Ukrainian popular culture was derivative of something Russian,” online meme curator and web developer Bohdan Andrieiev, 32, explained. “Before independence and for more than a decade afterward, we had no popular culture of our own.” This has changed dramatically in recent years, culminating in a burst of new Ukrainian creativity since the Russian invasion in February 2022. Social media, meme culture, pop music, and viral jokes have emerged as powerful tools of national solidarity—the bottom-up, ironic Ukrainian equivalent of old-style totalitarian propaganda.

According to Andrieiev, virtually none of this new popular culture draws on Russian sources—that’s now widely seen as inappropriate. “But this is an exception,” he said, “because we’re inverting the reference. It’s like the word ‘queer.’ What was a slur is now a badge of pride. Russians call Ukrainians pigs and pig fish and look down on us. But if we’re so pathetic, how come we’re beating them on the battlefield?”

Even after a year of intensive media coverage of the war in Ukraine, it’s easy to forget how new the Ukrainian nation is. In 1987, when Ronald Reagan admonished Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union—the rough political equivalent of a U.S. state. Ukrainians had their own language and folk traditions and there had been a few short-lived attempts over the years to form a Ukrainian government. But not until 1991 did Ukrainians establish an independent nation—and even then, the shadow of the Soviet Union hung heavily over the new country, both politically and culturally.

Read more in Bulwark.

Marshall for The Hill: Dictators stalk the free world again

Almost exactly a century ago, Benito Mussolini seized power in Italy and Joseph Stalin took control of the Soviet Union. These events marked the origins of fascist and communist totalitarianism, which soon gave rise to Adolf Hitler in Germany and lit the fuse for both World War II and the Cold War.

That era seemed to come to an end in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union started to implode. Popular uprisings toppled tyrants, and liberalizing winds swept the globe.

But the totalitarian idea is making a comeback today thanks to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping. Like their predecessors, these dictators are dangerous because they have designs on others’ territory, few domestic checks on their power and contempt for the resilience and resolve of free societies.

Read more in The Hill.

Jacoby for American Purpose: Safeguarding Ukraine’s Civil Society

By Tamar Jacoby, Director of the New Ukraine Project

Following a wave of Russian attacks, there was no electricity in Kyiv’s Obolonskyi district administration building—essentially a neighborhood town hall—on the day the local council was formed. I had come to Kyiv to explore how the democratic reforms and nation-building so vibrant in Ukraine before the Russian invasion were faring in wartime; this was my first stop. Some three dozen nonprofit volunteers, legal aid lawyers, municipal officials, and people displaced from their homes in other parts of Ukraine—what experts call internally displaced persons or IDPs—sat in the dark in the ornate Soviet-era meeting hall. The wan winter sunshine filtering in past brocade curtains barely cast enough light to see by, but the activists didn’t seem to notice—they were so excited to be moving forward.

This ad hoc coalition of city officials and civil society advocates had gathered to talk about the needs of the estimated 30,000 IDPs who had settled in Obolon in the year since the Russian invasion. Their vision for the “IDP Council” they were launching: that activists would collect information about the migrants’ needs, and government would use it to tailor more effective services. The nonprofit organization spearheading the project, Charity Foundation Stabilization Support Services, was providing humanitarian aid to displaced people across Ukraine. The group says that it has distributed food and other basic supplies to more than 300,000 internal migrants since last February. But this was different, a step up the food chain—humanitarian help combined with grassroots democracy building. The new council’s motto: “Nothing about IDPs without IDPs.”

Read more In American Purpose