Ukraine should be a 2024 election issue, particularly in Arizona

Biggs, Crane, and Gosar vote to cut off assistance to Ukraine.

It probably won’t be the case, but continued aid to Ukraine should be a major issue in the 2024 election. That’s the most important global security hinge point extant. 

In particular, it should be a major issue in Arizona. Three of our GOP congressmen – Andy Biggs, Eli Crane, and Paul Gosar – recently voted to cut off U.S. assistance to Ukraine cold turkey.

That was offered as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that recently passed the House. It was overwhelmingly defeated. Just 70 members of the House voted for it. The position of Biggs, Crane, and Gosar was very much a minority view in the GOP caucus. Among Republican House members, 149 rejected the amendment. As did the other Republican members from Arizona: Juan Cirscomani, Debbie Lesko, and David Schweikert. 

Biggs and Crane went so far as to vote against the spending authorization bill for the military itself, which included several GOP measures to dewoke the Pentagon. They were two of only four House Republicans to do so.

Biggs and Crane released a YouTube video defending their failure to vote in favor of funding for the military. Crane cited his opposition to U.S. aid to Ukraine as the reason for his vote against the overall funding measure. Biggs said he agreed with that, and also cited sloppy accounting practices within the military.

Historically, I have been on the side of those who believe that the U.S. has overextended itself geopolitically and gets involved too readily in conflicts in which there is not a true, actionable U.S. security interest. In my view, however, there is such a true, actionable U.S. security interest in assisting Ukraine to repel the invasion and attempted absorption by Russia.

Increasingly, the geopolitical dividing line is between authoritarianism and democratic capitalism. The recent intensified and formalized alliance between Russia and China underscores that. Within that context, it is in the U.S. interest to oppose the expansion of authoritarianism by force. 

But not everywhere or at any cost. This isn’t the Cold War redux. 

In Ukraine, this security interest is presented in a way in which U.S. involvement can be calibrated to be commensurate with our stake in the outcome.

Ukrainians are willing to fight for their independence and sovereignty, and startled and inspired the world with their resoluteness and skill at doing so. They want a future in Europe and a place in the democratic capitalism side of that geopolitical dividing line. If successful, they are geographically positioned to be an extremely valuable buttress against the expansion of authoritarianism by force. They are on their way to rendering Vladimir Putin a spent force, and substantially reducing the risk of Russian expansionism. 

They aren’t asking anyone to fight their battle for them. All they are asking for are the weapons and financial support necessary to make that fight themselves. Europe has developed the will to provide that assistance but, due to decades of neglecting its own security needs, lacks fully the means. The U.S. has an indispensable role in providing those means. If Biggs, Crane, and Gosar were to prevail, the Ukrainian position would deteriorate and the threat of authoritarian expansionism in Eastern Europe would revive.

The Ukrainian counteroffensive seems stalled. The Ukrainians may not succeed in ejecting Russia from all its territory. But a Ukraine of some dimension that is free, independent, and increasingly integrated into the West constitutes a defeat of authoritarian expansionism by force and a sharp diminution of the threat Russia poses to Eastern Europe. Those are security gains commensurate with the U.S. role in bringing them about.

In the video defending his vote against funding the military, Crane deployed a false analogy to other so-called endless wars. 

What the United States is doing in Ukraine bears no resemblance to what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both of those cases, we engaged in direct combat to dislodge the incumbent government and occupied the countries for a long stretch in a futile effort to establish stable and somewhat democratic local governance. 

In Ukraine, we are engaged in no direct combat activity; we are helping an incumbent, sovereign government fight off an attempted invasion and absorption by an authoritarian force; and the country already has stable, democratic, and courageous governance.

Nor is it correct to characterize this, as Crane did, as a proxy war with Russia. Russia invaded the sovereign, independent country of Ukraine, and Ukraine fought back. It’s a war between Russia and Ukraine. The U.S. providing assistance to Ukraine doesn’t make it a war between Russia and us. Ukraine isn’t our proxy and describing it as such is both insulting to the Ukrainians and geopolitically obtuse. 

American elections rarely are significantly influenced by foreign policy issues. But if the U.S. cuts off assistance before a secure and independent Ukraine of some dimension is firmly established, it would be a monumental own goal on the most important global security hinge point currently at stake.      

Right now, the views of Biggs, Crane, and Gosar are a minority among Republican members of Congress and even within the GOP electorate. But it is a growing sentiment. And likely to continue to advance if not directly challenged. There is a smaller contingent in the Democratic Party ready to cut off assistance to Ukraine, and it seems much less likely to grow. 

Continued assistance to Ukraine should be an issue in Republican primaries. And in the general election if the GOP nominee wants to abandon the brave Ukrainians. 

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.