Aiexpress – The ability for rational debate in America’s government and politics has been lost for quite some time.
The ongoing debate on addressing the border crisis and providing aid to Ukraine holds immense significance. Speaker Mike Johnson, a prominent figure among House Republicans, has been accused of being under Donald Trump’s influence. According to Johnson and his supporters, resolving the border crisis should take precedence over addressing the situation in Ukraine.
Members of Congress take an oath of office that emphasizes their duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The order in which these enemies are mentioned is significant, as it highlights the importance of safeguarding the nation from external threats.
The border won’t be “fixed” anytime soon, regardless of legislation. It’s important to note that the last significant immigration reform took place in 1986. Addressing the complex issue of the millions of migrants in the United States, both legal and illegal, as well as the challenges posed by “sanctuary cities” experiencing overcrowding due to migrants, will require a considerable amount of time and effort.
In the Trump-dominated Republican Party, there has been a resurgence of isolationism, which is reminiscent of the 1930s. There is a misguided belief that Ukraine should be able to defend itself against Russia, led by Vladimir Putin. Despite the presence of the European Union and NATO, there is no unified Europe. The United States has provided leadership for Europe to rally around.
Trump added political nitroglycerin to those fears with his off-the-cuff remark that Putin “can do whatever the hell they want” after suggesting that the US would not defend NATO unless countries increased their spending. From the standpoint of Ukraine, a Trump presidency would most certainly mean the end of all help, while the present package, if and when it passes through Congress, could be the last.
Why can’t Johnson see that the border situation and Ukraine’s spending are not mutually exclusive? Assume the aid package dies. The ramifications for Ukraine would be devastating. While Europe is attempting to fill deficiencies, particularly in artillery and air defense weapons, it lacks the capabilities of the United States.
Ukraine would face two difficult choices: continue the conflict or negotiate. Its ability to wage war would shift to defense against a resolute Russian opponent. Ukraine may be obliged to increase strikes within Russia as its only offensive choice. This could result in Russian aggression and the danger of using nuclear weapons.
Ukraine would be compelled to decrease the conscription age to 20, or even 18, in order to compensate for a lack of weapons. This would result in even larger Ukrainian casualties. If the fronts fell, Ukraine could launch a guerilla war. Each of these scenarios is bleak.
Putin and Russia would be empowered. While rebuilding a weakened force would most likely take much longer, NATO and EU countries will not base their policy decisions solely on this. It is probable that this would compel an accommodation with Moscow. However, NATO would be weakened as the reliability of the United States was called into question.
John F. Kennedy made the sarcastic remark that the only fate worse than being an enemy of the United States was being a friend. That would hold true in Europe. And regardless of how much President Joe Biden supports NATO, money, not promises, is more important.
Maybe a common reason will prevail this week. However, because the border is likely the single issue that will decide the presidential race in November, Republicans have no reason to compromise. The quest for power will take precedence over all other considerations. As a result, home foes will be far more dangerous than foreign ones.
