Harlan Ullman<\/p>\n
America\u2019s government and politics have long lost the ability for rational debate. The current crisis over how to \u201cfix\u201d the border and provide vital aid to Ukraine could not be more relevant. House Republicans, led by Speaker Michael Johnson who many believe has become Donald Trump\u2019s puppet, argue that the border crisis must be addressed as the priority before dealing with Ukraine.
\nThe oath of office for Congress shows why this political standoff is based on a fool\u2019s choice. Specifically members \u201csolemnly swear (or affirm) \u2026to\u2026 support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic\u2026\u201d While no priorities are set between foreign and domestic, it was no accident which came first.
\nThe border will not be \u201cfixed\u201d in the short term, no matter the legislation. The last major immigration reform was made in 1986. Dealing with the many millions of migrants in the US, legally or not, and so-called \u201csanctuary cities\u201d where overcrowding due to migrants has reached crisis proportion must take time.
\nAbout Ukraine, the return to isolationism, reminiscent of the 1930s, has broken out within the Trump-dominated Republican Party. The quaint and misguided thinking is that Europe should be able to defend itself against Putin\u2019s Russia. Despite the EU and NATO, there is no \u201cEurope.\u201d The presence of the US has indeed given \u201cEurope\u201d a leader about which to band.
\nIn the 1930\u2019s the world could not have been more different from today. The US, like most European states, were powerfully affected by World War I. However, the US had not suffered the destruction and deaths that made foreign states unwilling to engage in another war. The US had turned inwards. That FDR\u2019s Lend Lease and renewal of the draft bills passed by single votes in Congress reinforced the strength of the nation\u2019s isolationist mood.
\nIt took Pearl Harbor to shock the nation back to a state of reality. Whether or not the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a 21st-century version of Pearl Harbor, it has motivated NATO and the EU to act in response to Russia\u2019s attack. Now, NATO members are openly discussing the likelihood of a Russian attack west against the alliance with some suggesting a compressed timetable of several years for that to occur.
\nDonald Trump has added political nitroglycerin to those concerns with his off-the-cuff comment that \u201che (Putin) can do whatever the hell they want\u201d after threatening that the US would not defend NATO if members do not spend more on defence. From a Ukrainian perspective, a Trump presidency would likely end all aid although if or when the current package goes through Congress, it may well be the last.
\nSo why can\u2019t Speaker Johnson understand that the border crisis and Ukraine spending are not either issues? Then suppose the aid package dies. The consequences for Ukraine would be disastrous. While Europe is trying to fill the gaps, particularly in artillery and air defence munitions, it lacks the capacity of the US.
\nUkraine would have two impossible choices: continue the war or negotiate. Its ability to wage war would shift to defence against a determined Russian enemy. Ukraine could be forced to increase strikes inside Russia as its only offensive option. That could lead to Russian escalation and the threat of using nuclear weapons.
\nUkraine would be forced to lower the draft age to 20 or even 18 to use the increase in manpower to compensate for the lack of firepower. This would produce even far greater Ukrainian casualties. And if the fronts collapsed, Ukraine could wage a guerrilla war. Each of these possibilities is grim.
\nPutin and Russia would be empowered. While rebuilding a depleted army will probably take much longer to accomplish, NATO and EU members would not rely on that alone for determining policy. Whether this would force an accommodation with Moscow is not impossible. But NATO would be weakened as US reliability would be questioned.
\nJohn F. Kennedy\u2019s cynical comment that the only fate worse than being an enemy of the US was being a friend would ring true in Europe. And no matter how much President Joe Biden embraces NATO, money not promises counts more.
\nPerhaps common sense will prevail this week. But because the border presents for Republicans perhaps the single issue to decide the presidential elections in November, no incentive exists for compromise. The pursuit of power will trump all else. And the consequence will be that domestic enemies have become far more dangerous than foreign ones.
\nThe writer is a senior advisor at Washington, DC\u2019s Atlantic Council and a published author.<\/p>\n
Courtesy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Harlan Ullman America\u2019s government and politics have long lost the ability for rational debate. The current crisis over how to \u201cfix\u201d the border and provide vital aid to Ukraine could not be more relevant. House Republicans, led by Speaker Michael Johnson who many believe has become Donald Trump\u2019s puppet, argue that the border crisis must […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[1915],"class_list":{"0":"post-391420","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article","7":"tag-harlan-ullman"},"yoast_head":"\n