The global implications of the U.S. debate over Ukraine military assistance

Amna Nawaz:

For more on the debate over Ukraine funding and its global implications, we're joined by our congressional correspondent, Lisa Desjardins, and foreign affairs and defense correspondent Nick Schifrin.

Lisa, your reporting is that this was already a precarious moment when it comes to that funding for Ukraine. It got even worse today with a very explosive meeting on Capitol Hill. Why the impasse and why this incredible tension?

Lisa Desjardins:

Amna, President Biden proposed a national security funding bill to include money for Ukraine, for Israel, and for border funding.

But Republicans say there needs to be a change in border policy, and they said they don't think that Ukraine should be funded until that is taken care of. That's the basic impasse.

So, come to today, there was a briefing on Ukraine, its security needs, but it got off to the wrong start immediately when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was to be there by Zoom, canceled on the senators. And then what resulted after that was senators pushing back at the secretary of state, at the secretary of defense, Republicans standing up, shouting, including at the Army — the chief of staff to the Pentagon.

This was an extraordinary moment, where Republicans had been told that there wouldn't be questions about the border allowed. And some stormed out, including Mitt Romney. There are two very different versions of what happened.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT):

There's no reason to sit and listen to people talking about how important it is to help Israel and Ukraine. We know that. We get basically pabulum that's been available for weeks, which, by the way, we agree with, and an unwillingness in the part of Leader Schumer to discuss what it's going to take to actually get a deal done.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY):

When I brought up the idea that they could do an amendment and have the ability to get something done on border, they get stuck. They got stuck. They didn't like it. And even one of them started — was disrespectful and started screaming at the general — one of the generals and challenging him to why he didn't go to the border.

Question:

Screaming at a general, Senator?

Sen. Chuck Schumer:

Yes.

Lisa Desjardins:

That's right, screaming at generals. This is incredibly unheard of here in the Senate.

But it just shows you, Republicans, including in the Senate, are digging in on border demands, Democrats saying, no, it's not time to discuss that. Let's fund Ukraine.

Amna Nawaz:

Nick, when it comes to that funding for Ukraine, you heard Jake Sullivan telling Geoff earlier what he says the Biden administration sees as the stakes.

What do Ukrainians say about the stakes for this funding?

Nick Schifrin:

The bottom line is, they admit they cannot continue to fight the way they have been fighting without this money.

Take a listen to Andriy Yermak, President Zelenskyy's top aide, in Washington today admitting that U.S. support was the difference between victory and defeat.

Andriy Yermak, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine: It make with very high possibility impossible to continually liberate and give the big risk to lose this war.

Nick Schifrin:

Yermak admitted that, without more American weapons, Ukraine couldn't even try and recapture the 20 percent of territory that Russia continues to occupy, and would have to move to some kind of defensive crouch, essentially ceding, for now, at least, that 20 percent.

You also heard Jake Sullivan make this point, that Ukraine's air defense system, which is mostly American, mostly European, could run out of interceptors if this money is not sent. And that's critical for protecting Ukraine's critical infrastructure, cities, but also preventing Russian jets from flying over and bombing at will.

And, lastly, Amna, without U.S. budgetary support, Ukraine's government cannot pay its bills, and that is from everyone from teachers to troops. And so that's why Ukraine thinks this money is critical.

Amna Nawaz:

But, Nick, even if Ukraine were to get this funding and the weapons they have requested, could they themselves meet the goals they have set?

Nick Schifrin:

It's such a good question, because the argument that Ukraine and its supporters make is this, that if only the U.S. and Europe had been giving them more weapons, if only the U.S. continued to give weapons today, then Ukrainians would be able to seize back all their land.

But the bottom line is that Ukraine has failed to overcome Russian defenses, especially in the south. Units in Ukraine with the least combat experience got the most advanced training and weapons. And there is a civ-mil divide. There is a divide between the military and the civilian leadership that has become very public, while Russia is increasing its production of artillery and tanks.

So the bottom line, it's not clear that Ukraine could achieve its own goals, as you put it. Zaluzhnyi, the commander in chief, admitted it himself. There is a stalemate.

Amna Nawaz:

So, Lisa, as you have been reporting, Republicans are holding up this funding over funding for the U.S.-Southern border.

What do the two sides want and what happens now?

Lisa Desjardins:

That's right. There is agreement of more funding, but it's really these policy differences.

So look at the changes, the differences here. Republicans, when they're talking about border talks, what they want is a deal on the border, including asylum policy and parole, basically shutting down those to policies to most of the Southern Hemisphere.

Democrats, what they want is Ukraine, Israel, and border together in a bill that looks like President Biden's bill, no border policy or limited border policy. Now, Republicans, what they would like to do at the border is to sharply restrict asylum and parole.

As we're saying, people would not be able to apply directly from Mexico, most people, versus Democrats. They say, hey, if we're going to open this up, we should be talking about DACA and including more status for people and maybe up some new asylum limits, but not going as far as Republicans want to go.

Now, Amna, we have been here before. They disagree all the time, Republicans and Democrats, but I have to say, I have not seen them this far apart on such a core issue with as such little time as I do right now.

Amna Nawaz:

Lisa, as you have also been reporting, at least one impasse was resolved tonight after nearly a year, right?

Senator Tommy Tuberville has released his hold on more than 450 military promotions and nominations. Why the change now?

Lisa Desjardins:

How about that? I think the pressure has been on Senator Tuberville, including from Republicans, who say you can no longer hold up these flag officers, as you say, over 400 military commanders who were not being promoted because of his hold having to do with the Pentagon's policy paying for travel for service members who needed to travel for abortion and other reproductive services.

He's held this up the whole time. But, today, he did a full — almost a full 180, a surrender on this. They will still need to go through him for four-star generals. That's just 11. But, today, Amna, he went ahead, gave up his holds, and, within just a few hours, they passed these promotions.

Now 425 members of the U.S. military, as I speak to you now, have been promoted just today. They have been waiting for 10 months.

Amna Nawaz:

All right, Lisa Desjardins on Capitol Hill, Nick Schifrin here with us in studio, thank you to you both.