(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
The Freedom Caucus wish list: From healthcare to the war in Ukraine, can they get what they want? [1]
['Leah Askarinam', 'Dan Vergano', 'Tom Nagorski', 'Joshua Keating', 'Dave Levitan', 'Sophie Tatum', 'Maggie Severns', 'Steve Reilly']
Date: 2023-01-24
Ukraine Lens
Stop Vladimir Putin — but don’t use U.S. funds to do it
The Freedom Caucus has no formal position on Ukraine, but it’s not hard to divine where its members stand, thanks to a steady stream of comments since the war began. The caucus arguments, in a nutshell: less U.S. money (some say no money at all) for the Ukrainian resistance, more accountability for any U.S. funds that are pledged and more work to pursue a negotiated settlement.
Perry, the Freedom Caucus chair, laid down a marker for the group’s approach in the early days of the war, in a piece under the heading: “More Needed from POTUS to Thwart Red Menace.”
Perry took some shots at the Biden administration (among other things, suggesting U.S. weakness had encouraged Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion), but much of what he wrote sounded like White House talking points: He called Putin “a thug, a murderer, and a tyrant,” argued that Ukraine “has the right to defend itself” and said “harsh words … and half-measures” wouldn’t be enough to reverse Putin’s aggression.
Biden and his NATO allies wouldn’t have argued with any of that.
But Perry’s overall prescription was limited to measures that would be cost-free for Washington. He said the U.S. should sell weapons to the Ukrainians rather than gift them, impose heavier sanctions against Russia and urge Germany to pressure Putin — and that these actions could persuade Putin to negotiate. And while Perry argued the U.S. had to “present clear, consistent, and convincing consequences to bullies,” he added this phrase: “without committing American lives or bankrupting our Treasury to do it.”
This has been the mantra of the Freedom Caucus when it comes to Ukraine: Press both sides for a deal, and — most importantly — stop writing checks and sending weapons. It’s an approach that follows in the footsteps of Trump, who often derided U.S. allies for not doing more to pay for their own defense.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) tweeted in September that Biden “needs to understand that we are the USA not the US-ATM.” Greene tweeted a month later that the only U.S. involvement should be “engagement to get Russia & Ukraine to the negotiating table” and that “I have voted NO to every ounce” of U.S. aid to Ukraine.
A slowing of U.S. aid for Ukraine could have devastating effects for the resistance. U.S. deliveries of aid and weaponry have consistently helped tip the battlefield balance, and American generosity has helped pressure other nations to make shipments of their own. Dialing back could turn the tide of the war in the Russians’ favor.
But Perry and his caucus face two fundamental problems when it comes to influencing U.S. policy on the war.
First, Perry’s own prescriptions in that “Red Menace” editorial haven’t aged well. The idea that the Ukrainians could have afforded to buy NATO weapons is nonsensical; the West has indeed imposed heavier sanctions against Russia, but these haven’t persuaded Moscow to negotiate or scale back its war aims. As for countering that “thug” in Moscow, U.S. and NATO weaponry have been essential; whereas one could argue that Perry’s “cost-free” approach to the war would have resulted in a Russian victory by now.
The Freedom Caucus’ other Ukraine problem involves its own party. Most Republicans in Congress have remained firmly hawkish on the war; if anything, the GOP has criticized the Biden administration for not sending enough aid to Ukraine or moving all those weapons too slowly. On Sunday, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the new chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, called for the U.S. to send tanks to Ukraine.
A divide may yet open on the issue; newly minted House Speaker McCarthy supports a harder line on aid for Ukraine. As Grid reported in November, McCarthy made waves when he said — just prior to the midterm elections — that a GOP House would look skeptically at future aid installments: “Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do and it can’t be a blank check.”
But nearly a year into the war, aid to the Ukrainians — amounting to some $100 billion to date — has been a rare point of bipartisan agreement in Washington. And polls have shown that a strong majority of Americans agree that the U.S. should continue to provide support to Ukraine.
Luke Coffey, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, believes the Freedom Caucus positions on Ukraine are shortsighted.
“I think that there’s a very small but vocal segment of the Republican Party who take these more isolationist … views on U.S. engagement in the world,” Coffey told the Hill. “We have to be a little more sophisticated in our approach to foreign policy.”
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.grid.news/story/360/2023/01/24/the-freedom-caucus-wish-list-from-healthcare-to-the-war-in-ukraine-can-they-get-what-they-want/#XCURHHEY35E77HZHBLCY6UUAR4
Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/
