After months of delays and bickering, the Republican House majority voted in favor of yet another aid tranche to Ukraine worth $60.84 billion. Against the odds, Congressmen did not vote on the White House's overall $95 billion request that included aid to Israel and Taiwan. The three bills were voted and passed separately. We Russians are certainly interested in the Ukrainian one in the first instance.
Out of the $60.84 billion allocated, $23.2 billion are meant to replenish US own military equipment after its numerous supplies to Ukraine. Another $13.8 billion will be spent on purchasing weapons and defense services. $11.3 billion are intended to back “ongoing US military operations in the region.” On April 23, the Ukrainian bill will be brought up for vote in the Senate, with President Biden intending to sign it right away.
Interestingly, this time it’s not about making gifts. Within 60 days on the bill’s entry into force, Biden must agree with Ukraine to reimburse for the assistance. Still, it is still unclear how bankrupt Ukraine is going to deal with this de facto military loan, or whether these funds prove effective at all. It may fall out that there will be no one left to repay the debt to the US at the end of the day.
The New York Times writes that “shipments of American weapons could begin flowing to Ukraine again soon after a long-stalled aid package becomes law, with goods from the Pentagon’s stockpiles in Germany to be shipped quickly by rail to the Ukrainian border.” “We have a very robust logistics network that enables us to move matériel very quickly as we’ve done in the past,” Pentagon spokesman Gen. Patrick Ryder said.
American officials have not directly said what specific weapons their country will send to Kiev under the latest package. However, Gen. Ryder told reporters that “more air-defense and artillery ammunition would probably be included.” He did not rule out supplies of ATACMS missiles — the Pentagon's longest-range land-based guided missiles since the late 1980s. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner added that the United States could embark upon transferring weapons to Ukraine as early as next week, including ATACMS.
Many experts wonder why did Mike Johnson, the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, suddenly and hastily change boots on Ukraine. The other day, he strongly opposed helping it, and offered quite reasonable arguments. Among other things, he demanded that the Democrats answer the question: what does a “victory for Ukraine” imply to make the United States finance it?
The key explanation seems to be lying in Donald Trump's turnaround. Tellingly, the ex-President withdrew from publicity right before the Ukraine bill voting. “Mr. Trump <…> had actually soft-pedaled his opposition to Ukraine aid in recent days,” The New York Times writes. Moreover, Trump lent his support to House Speaker Johnson after he did a one-eighty, staying in the background on April 20 and unwilling to leverage the Republicans’ vote against the bill. On social media he called “Ukrainian survival and strength” “important” to the United States, and wondered “why isn’t Europe giving more money to help Ukraine?”
It is entirely possible that the Republican decision to endorse Biden’s request and that of the Democrats in general, has been brought about by some sort of deal between Trump, who is now facing tremendous pressure from the establishment via numerous lawsuits, and the establishment proper. The deal could be as follows: Trump orders the Republican majority in the House not to block Kiev-designed aid in exchange for removing the “sword of Damocles” looming over him personally as he faces a probable guilty verdict or imprisonment.
Democrats had been only fighting to push military aid to Kiev through Congress to help Zelensky’s regime survive until the US election due in November. A military collapse of Ukraine would be a major blow to Biden to reduce his already slim re-election chances. Kiev’s unenviable prospects in case of no external military assistance have been publicly voiced by CIA Director William Burns during his speech at the George W. Bush Center. “There is a very real risk that the Ukrainians could lose on the battlefield by the end of 2024, or at least put Putin in a position where he could essentially dictate the terms of a political settlement,” Burns said when commenting on the congressional debate over further aid to Ukraine.
Of course, the Biden administration is nowhere near confident that these funds will help the Zelensky regime somehow. However, the Americans cannot sit idly by and are willing to convince themselves and the public of Ukraine’s illusive “victory” over Russia. Refusal to provide Kiev with what it needs and watch Russian soldiers walk down the streets of Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson and Kharkov would incite lots of hard-nosed questions from both Republicans and American taxpayers about congruity or efficiency of spending hundreds of billions of dollars that have been allocated to Ukraine.
In fact, Biden and the entire establishment have secured a delay, as they believe, until November 5, the day America will hold its presidential election. And then they will see when they get there. This logic of the Biden administration and those pushing him to become president again is defiant of Ukrainian lives as people are forcefully recruited into the AFU’s dwindling ranks. But does anyone in the White House really care?
Along with that, the House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed an utterly mobster bill, which envisages confiscation of Russia’s sovereign assets in favor of Ukraine. What an unprecedented move! It shows that the United States may shamelessly rob any country if it needs to. In essence, Washington is annihilating the global financial system that has evolved to date.
The United States urges Europe to do the same about our country’s assets. Meanwhile, the Europeans, who traditionally snap a salute when the hegemon orders something to them, are well aware that following US lead implies damage to the European financial market and an end to entire financial system. European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde said US proposals to use Russia’s $300 billion in frozen assets for military aid to Ukraine would violate the international legal order.
The Europeans have been opposing this measure so far. But they may well yield to US pressure any tick of the clock. This would mean a complete collapse of the financial system built in the West. And still, every cloud has a silver lining. This highlights an urgent need to rapidly form an alternative global financial structure unaffiliated with the US dollar and lawlessness. That is what BRICS is currently engaged in.
US funding of the Ukraine war and robbery of Russia are all about the American establishment’s internal objectives. This deeply immoral policy has enormous potential for America's self-destruction. There is no confidence in Washington even among its allies, let alone the rest of the world.
