Bipartisan support for Ukraine is stronger than the speeches of individual Republicans

Who opposes aid to Ukraine in the US Congress and why?

Against the background of statements by Ukrainian political elites about unconditional bipartisan support from the United States, it seems strange that the Russian establishment and propagandists through federal channels continue to express high hopes for the Republicans. Apparently, the latter will refuse financial and military aid to Ukraine.

The elections to the US Congress, held in November, somewhat weakened the position of the Democrats, but not as much as the Republicans had hoped. The latter won a majority in the House of Representatives, and the former retained a shaky advantage in the Senate. This fact already means that we should not expect a change in the US foreign policy course.

Mike Turner, a Republican, said that «President Volodymyr Zelensky will have bipartisan support in the next Congress», so the disagreement with the Democrats is not in support per se, but in form and reporting.

“We need to make certain we work with partners and pull together an air defense system … to defend Kyiv, to defend their infrastructure”, — Mike Turner.

Now let’s understand why the Russian elites hope for a neutral position of the Republicans regarding the war in Ukraine, which, given the open aggression with elements of terrorism against a peaceful European state, would actually be pro-Russian.

Thus, MP from the Republican Party Marjorie Taylor Greene called Ukraine the 51st state of the USA and expressed indignation at the amount of aid provided to Ukraine. However, the main focus of her speech was the transparency of the procedure for providing financial support. Green also touched on a number of internal problems of the United States, such as illegal migration. Similar views are held by a certain number of Republicans, who are considered to be the most radical wing.

Of course, it is possible to compare the threats of illegal migration and the problems of street safety in individual states with a large-scale war in the center of Europe against the background of the nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation. However, pre-election statements of politicians should be considered in the context of the intra-American electoral process.

Another thing is more important here: Russian propaganda presents similar statements as the general position of the Republican Party, thus trying to shape public opinion that not everyone in the States is so unambiguous about the so-called «SVO»*. Unfortunately, some Western mass media also commit this sin.

*SVO (СВО in Russain) — «special military operation«.

At the same time, the statement of the influential Republican congressman Michael McCaul about the mandatory further increase of aid to Ukraine, as well as the provision of the ATACMS systems, which are highly expected by the Ukrainian defense forces, was less noticeable.

“We see that when they get the weapons they need, they win. The Russians are going through washing machines in search of semiconductors, they are begging Iran for drones, and North Korea for artillery shells,” — McCall said.

He also added that the more radical members of his party will not be able to block another aid package to Ukraine. McCaul is expected to chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Another Republican Mike Turner takes a similar position, who stated on the air of the ABC channel about the need to provide Ukraine with air defense systems as soon as possible to protect against missile strikes of the aggressor, in particular, on civilian infrastructure.

Objectively, not all Republicans in the public sphere are ready to talk about increasing aid to Ukraine, which is not an absolutely winning position against the background of internal problems in the United States. However, they do not talk about the termination or significant reduction either, emphasizing more on the mechanisms of control over those funds allocated from the budget. That is, they try to balance between the current internal political tasks of the party and a rational understanding of today’s world challenges.

Another important point: it is common knowledge that the history of American state-building and public policy ideologically replaced Democrats and Republicans. So for right-wing conservative Republicans, the current Russian regime, which is still largely based on Soviet values, is absolutely ideologically incompatible.

An obvious conclusion suggests itself: the individual statements of some of the less influential members of the Republican Party are to some extent flirting with the electorate. The state policy of the USA will not undergo major changes, and the majority of Republicans fully support the Ukrainians in their struggle for their existence, this is confirmed by the answers of American parliamentarians to their voters*.

* The Ukrainian Review sent letters to many parliamentarians, none of those who responded were in opposition to providing Ukraine with compassionate military aid.