After the Senate voted in favor of a $60 billion military aid package for U.S. allies that included Ukraine early Tuesday, all eyes are now on House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). Known mostly (if known at all) for his unusual legal history in support of creationism, Johnson was thrust into a position of power in a war of geopolitical importance amid a very chaotic — and very American — period of political instability.
Johnson now holds a great deal of global power in his hands, and he is ready to use it. The House Speaker has already preemptively said he will block the Senate bill from hearing, citing a lack of progress on U.S. border security issues. “America deserves better than the status quo in the Senate,” Johnson said in a statement on Monday.
Ukraine and its allies are carefully monitoring the situation and are acting cautiously. in A video message was released on TuesdayPresident Volodymyr Zelensky He praised the Senate vote and offered a message to home. “We hope to get initial support,” Zelensky said. “We believe that America will continue to play the role of leader.”
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron joined the calls on Wednesday, appealing to the shared history of World War II and the US-UK fight against ISIS. “As Congress debates and votes on this funding package for Ukraine, I will forego all diplomatic niceties,” he added. “I urge Congress to pass it,” the former prime minister wrote to The Hill. “We must all ask ourselves: Who is watching?” he added, noting that Not only to Moscow, but also to Beijing and Tehran.
But the Speaker's most concerned observers are on the battlefields of Ukraine, where shortages in all their forms are already being deeply felt. There, debates are followed via Telegram channels in trenches and tanks. “Our children’s lives depend on American funding,” Oleksandr Kocheryavenko, a Ukrainian soldier fighting near Ocheretin in Donetsk, told the Wall Street Journal.
For these Ukrainians, understanding the political nuances of American aid is an increasingly complex task. Before becoming Speaker, Johnson joined other hardline Republicans in voting against sending money to Ukraine several times. Then, shortly after taking office, he spoke in support of Kiev.
“Now, we cannot allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine, because I don’t think it will stop there, and that will likely encourage and enable China to make a move on Taiwan,” Johnson said in October during an interview. With Fox News' Sean Hannity. “We have these concerns. We will not abandon them.”
But Johnson changed his tune again and demanded that Ukraine's funding be tied to US border security resources, delaying the process in the Senate for months. After meeting with Zelensky during his visit to Washington in December, the House speaker praised Ukraine for being “on the right side of this fight” but quickly turned to criticizing the Biden administration over immigration.
Whatever his beliefs, Johnson does not represent the real problem for Ukraine. Opinion polls show growing skepticism about aid to Ukraine among Republican voters. Meanwhile, Johnson faces pressure from former President Donald Trump, who is campaigning for a return to the White House on the border and has little sympathy for Ukrainian needs. At a rally last weekend, Trump seemed open to the idea of allowing Russia to attack a NATO ally if it didn't spend enough on defense, suggesting he would encourage Russia to do “whatever they want” to Russia. his mom.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has led calls to remove Johnson as speaker if the Ukraine funding bill comes to a vote. Greene is a controversial ally of Trump, but even some staunch Ukraine supporters are beginning to align with the former president. Lindsey Graham, a longtime foreign policy hawk who visited Kiev last year, made what my colleagues called “a head-to-head change on Ukraine aid” and voted against the Senate package this week.
The Senate voted 70 to 29 in favor of the package, with 22 Republicans joining Democrats to support it, thus challenging Trump. But this does not mean that the House of Representatives has to vote on it. Even if it is voted on, there are many difficult contingencies. Funding for Ukraine is being combined with funding for Israel, which may see more progressive Democrats voting against it.
If some solution is reached that includes security measures on the US border, as Johnson has repeatedly claimed he wants, Republicans will likely be the ones to blow it up: they have already rejected a bipartisan bill that attempted to do both after pressure from Trump.
The United States is not the only country with a chaotic and divisive legislature. Cameron may be tough on Ukraine, but he knows all too well the power of backbench populist politics after pushing the Brexit vote, which ultimately led him to resign as Prime Minister. If there is any benefit at all to Kiev, it is that it makes the Ukrainian parliament – the Rada, with its recent history of squabbles and fistfights – look relatively benign.
But one indirect effect of being the most powerful country in the world is that the world will get to know your political system well — along with all its petty quirks and partisan divisions. There is no doubt that America is the most powerful nation in the world militarily: just this week, the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated that the United States accounted for more than 40% of global military spending in 2023, a record $2.2 trillion.
The long-term impact of America's political dysfunction and creeping isolationism may push countries to look for other options, whether these are moves toward self-sufficiency in Europe or policies in the Global South that favor China or Russia. But these changes will take time. For now, the world must continue to monitor the US political system – whether it likes it or not.
Following this week's Senate decision, the head of the Kyiv School of Economics and former Ukrainian Minister of Economy Timofey Milovanov wrote on social media He is “very disappointed” with the US political system regarding Ukraine, but has new hope after the vote. “Is this a sign that reason will prevail, and that although democracy is messy, it will ultimately lead to doing the right thing?” he asked. he wrote.
He'll have to keep watching.
