After two years of fighting, Russia’s recent offensive successes following months of stalemates forecast a dangerous future for Ukraine as Western military aid stalls. In 2024, Russia gained substantial ground in Ukraine, most recently seizing the eastern city of Avdiivka. With Russian forces gaining momentum and Ukraine’s weapon supplies dwindling, the question arises whether this stall will catalyze critical losses for Ukraine.
Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the U.S. has provided $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine with $44.2 billion of this aid in weapons. The U.S. has provided Ukraine with some of the world’s most advanced arms systems, including Abrams tanks and the Patriot missile system. U.S. and other Western aid has proved crucial to Ukraine’s military efforts and survival since the start of the invasion and remains critical to its future.
Since December 2023, U.S. assistance to Ukraine has stalled as Republicans in Congress have blocked a $61 billion military aid package from passing. This stall is not a result of strong opposition, but rather a “legislative hostage-taking” strategy used by Republicans to achieve concessions from Democrats on their domestic border security goals. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen expressed anger at House Republicans, comparing their inaction to “‘nothing short of a gift,’ for Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Recent NATO reports cement this message, painting a picture of dwindling ammunition and weapons in Ukraine with Russian leaders all too aware.
While most Republicans favor continued aid, there is a growing sect of conservative politicians who have called for a halt of U.S. military aid to Ukraine. For this group, the Ukraine-Russia conflict is emblematic of NATO being overly reliant on U.S. military support. In recent weeks Trump has claimed that if re-elected, he will stop military aid to Ukraine believing Europe has borne less of the war’s cost and been insufficient in developing military capabilities of their own. Since the conflict started, 47 countries have contributed military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, with U.S. military aid exceeding double that of any other nation. While there is no doubt the U.S. has borne the majority of the military burden, Professor Gannon, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt, contends that at the heart of this controversy is the question of what benefits the US seeks to gain from NATO membership, and therefore, what the purpose of an alliance is.
Professor Gannon argues that instead of viewing alliances as having the sole purpose of providing mutual defense, we should understand them as “different countries getting different things out of an alliance.” The U.S. does not need small countries for protection but rather reaps benefits from gaining influence over their policy and or power in their regions. Furthermore, Professor Gannon contends that “we [often] forget that after the last bullet is fired that is not when … assistance ends.” While the US may be providing the majority of military aid now, when the conflict ends, there “will be huge humanitarian and economic” implications that the U.S. will not “spend a penny on.”
Congress’s lack of action and Trump’s opposition to aid if elected have cast doubt on the U.S.’s international credibility and future dependability for Ukraine and our allies. Not only has aid to Ukraine been critical to its fight against Russia, but it has also demonstrated to Putin and the international community that the U.S. is unequivocally committed to supporting Ukraine and our European allies.
The ability of domestic political squabbles to drastically affect our foreign relations and commitments emboldens Putin, weakens the international perception of the U.S., and hurts our allies. Professor Gannon explains that there “used to be the idea that [domestic] politics would stop at the water’s edge” which ensured that regardless of internal dissent, the government would “speak with one unified national voice.” In a democratic nation with frequent turnover of elected leaders who are not bound to past public statements or actions, “perceived continuity and reliability” of U.S. aid is critical to Ukraine’s success and to projecting a unified, lasting front.
If the U.S. fails to support Ukraine, not only will this increase the likelihood of Russian victory, but such inaction will have far broader implications for international order and future conflict. Until now, the West’s unified support of Ukraine has served as a message to larger nations that the invasion of smaller, neighboring countries will not be tolerated. Professor Gannon argues that unified support is especially critical as China watches and deduces what the Ukraine-Russia conflict says about the “capabilities and resolve of the West.” If the U.S. abandons Ukraine, it could signal to China that invading Taiwan will be met with impunity.
The stakes of the Russia-Ukraine conflict are too high for U.S. commitment to crumble in its most critical moments. Washington must leave their political disagreements at “the water’s edge” or risk irreparably harming Ukrainian efforts, international order, and U.S. credibility.
Image by Алесь Усціна on Pexels
