Members of Congress asked leaders in the U.S. Department of Defense to define the endgame for American involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war and expressed wariness of open-ended involvement, despite their strong support for the Ukrainian cause.
The exchange took place at a meeting of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense on Feb. 28.
Definition of Success
“This is a fight you have to win. I don’t have any equivocation about that. I think the consequences of losing for the country and in terms of the international order are horrific,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) asked.
“What I do wonder about is how we define winning.”
The answer isn’t simple, according to Wallander.
That’s partly because it depends on how this summer’s fighting plays out, she said. She listed other variables as well, including the ongoing commitment of the international community to enforce sanctions, and the possibility of China supporting Russia.
Wallander did, however, list two criteria for declaring an end to the conflict.
“Our position is that this has to end in a strategic failure for Russia,” she said, which would deter other nations from acts of aggression.
“Second, we have to support Ukraine,” she said. “We owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to the Ukrainians to support their definition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security, and to work with them.”
That answer did not satisfy Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah). An Air Force veteran and self-described “war hawk,” Stewart was unwilling to make an open-ended commitment to supporting Ukranian war aims.
“I’m afraid that our goals and Mr. Zelenskyy’s goals may not be aligned,” he said.
“When he says we will expel every Russian from Eastern Ukraine and from Crimea, that simply may not be possible—not without broadening and expanding this or in a way that I think the American people would not support,” Steward said.
Citing the examples of Afghanistan, Somalia, and Lybia, Stewart said the country should have learned by now that predicting the course of an armed conflict is difficult.
“What does [President Biden] mean when he says we will stay there for as long as it takes?”
The Pricetag
Members also zeroed in on the cost of the war, wondering how much of it should be borne by the American people.Rep. Ed Case (D-Hawaii) pointed out that the United States has contributed $113 billion to the war effort compared to $85 billion from other allies.
“This is Europe’s backyard,” Stewart said. “Europe should be the ones leading on this and once again, we find ourselves having to lead.”
“There is caution in Congress for leading out on this in perpetuity, without a sense that [Europe is] equally yoked with us on this,” he said.
Mike Garcia (R-Calif.) said that if the Ukrainians were to purchase some armaments from the United States rather than asking for free weapons, it would “go a long way with the American taxpayer.”
“I support the efforts of Ukraine,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said, “but it’s difficult to go back to the American people and say, ‘We want you to put your hard-earned money,’ yet they see we don’t take it as seriously as we should.”
Diaz-Baklart mentioned U.S. support for Venezuela and an upcoming diplomatic visit from Cuba, both allies of Russia, as evidence that the administration is not committed to opposing Russia.
Friends Read Free