​Biden funding request will tell the tale for Ukraine’s future

According to Jake Sullivan who heads President Joe Biden’s National Security Council, Biden will ask Congress for more money for Ukraine.  The fate of this request, if it is actually put forward, will likely be a bellwether for Ukraine’s future.

So far neither the White House nor the NSC has provided any actual numbers for a Ukraine money request.

Biden and his advisors hope they can ram through a measure for Ukraine with a still friendly Congress.  It is, however, not at all certain he can be successful.

If the measure is submitted and rejected, or just not acted on, Zelensky in Ukraine will be faced with a hard three-way choice: negotiate with the Russians, go down in flames or resign from office.

The current Congress, which will be replaced in January with at least one and probably both chambers under Republican control, has been relatively friendly to supporting Ukraine.  Previous measures have passed both the Senate, which currently is controlled by Democrats but will be Republican-dominated starting in January, and the House of Representatives, which is led by Republicans and expected to continue that way. 

A key issue will be what Trump will support even before he takes office. If Trump opposes further Ukraine aid, which is a distinct possibility, he may ask his Republican colleagues in the House to simply decline to move a measure in that body, essentially putting off its consideration until his administration takes office.

As this is written there remains around $3 billion in congressionally approved funding available for Ukraine support.

In January of this year, Biden requested an additional $60 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine. This bill was part of the “supplemental spending” package, which also included funding for other government priorities such as disaster relief, border security and defense spending. The $60 billion was specifically allocated for Ukraine’s continued military and humanitarian support.

The key elements of the bill included:

• $24 billion in military aid, including ammunition, weapons systems (fighter jets, air defense systems, etc), training and logistics support;
• $14 billion in economic aid to stabilize Ukraine’s economy and help maintain essential government functions;
• $8 billion in humanitarian assistance for refugees, displaced persons, and medical aid; and
• other funding for energy infrastructure, reconstruction and bolstering Ukraine’s long-term defense capabilities.

House of Representatives vote

The House of Representatives, particularly under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson (who took over after Kevin McCarthy’s ousting in October 2023), faced fierce debates over the Ukraine funding. By January 2024 opposition from within the Republican Party, especially from more conservative factions, had solidified around ending or reducing US aid to Ukraine.

Vote outcome: The House voted 216-212 to approve the $60 billion Ukraine funding package as part of a broader supplemental funding bill.

• Republican opposition: A significant number of Republican members voted against the aid package, particularly those from the Freedom Caucus and other conservatives who opposed continued foreign spending. They argued that the US should focus on domestic priorities such as border security, inflation and debt reduction.
• Democratic support: Most Democrats voted in favor of the package, with Ukraine aid being a central issue for them as part of their broader foreign policy priorities.

The vote in the House was extremely close. At the time of the vote the administration claimed that Ukraine was winning the war. That claim can no longer be sustained, and there is a general view in the national security community that Ukraine will have to negotiate with Moscow.

Senate vote

The Senate, which has traditionally been more supportive of Ukraine’s defense efforts, passed the same $60 billion aid package with greater bipartisan support, though there were still some Republicans who voted against it.

• Vote outcome: The Senate voted 74-22 in favor of the bill, with bipartisan support largely coming from the Democratic caucus and moderate Republicans.
• Republican opposition: While the opposition was still significant in the Senate, especially from conservative Republicans such as Senators Rand Paul, Josh Hawley and J.D. Vance, who have become vocal critics of U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict, the majority of Republicans voted in favor of the package.
• J.D. Vance is now the Vice-President Elect.
• Democratic support: Most Senate Democrats voted in favor of the bill, consistent with their support for Ukraine.

It isn’t clear if there would be overwhelming Republican support in the Senate for more money for Ukraine.  Trump could argue that he needs maximum leverage over Ukraine and request that the Senate and House hold off passing any funding measure at this time.

Money bills traditionally have to originate in the House of Representatives. If the House does not move a funding measure, the Senate may never take up the Biden request.

Consequences

Under current conditions, President Biden’s funding request for Ukraine is unlikely to be approved, at least not now.  Even if the money becomes available, the US has few weapons it can afford to share with Ukraine.  

What weapons the US has in some cases are needed by allies. For example, in late 2020, the US authorized the sale of 64 ATACMS and 11 HIMARS M142 launchers to Taiwan. Following adjustments to its defense priorities, Taiwan later increased its order, ordering an additional 18 HIMARS systems and raising its ATACMS order from 64 to 84 units.

The HIMARS launchers arrived in early November and, as this is written, the first deliveries of ATACMS missiles for HIMARS have been delivered to Taiwan. Other countries including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Morocco also have requested HIMARS and ATACMS missiles. While the Pentagon and White House claim there are enough HIMARS and ATACMS,  the fact is that if an actual conflict occurred elsewhere, particularly in the Pacific, HIMARS and ATACMS missiles would be needed.

Likewise there are shortages of anti aircraft systems, missiles for Patriot and ammunition in various calibers .  It will take some time, measured in years, to replenish stocks of ammunition and weapons.

The US could hand over its weapon’s stockpiles in Europe, but doing so would effectively disarm US troops and weaken NATO crucially.  Therefore doing that is highly unlikely.

In the end, Biden’s request is mostly a Hail Mary pass before he is replaced in late January.

Zelensky will surely see that support for Ukraine from the United States is at a crucial crossroads, and Ukrainian attempts to squeeze more out of Washington won’t be successful. Whether that will be enough to persuade him to be willing to talk to the Russians we don’t know. But as Ukraine is on the verge of collapse, Zelensky may take the diplomatic route, or he may resign.

Stephen Bryen is a former US deputy under-secretary of defense and is a leading expert in security strategy and technology. This article originally appeared on his Substack, Weapons and Strategy. It is republished with permission.