Congress Made a Quid Pro Quo and Capped Ukraine Aid in the Proposed FY24 Foreign Ops Appropriations Bill

To Sen. Chris Coons, Chairman of US Senate Appropriations SFOPs Subcommittee

CC: Sen. Marco Rubio, member of US Senate Appropriations SFOPs Subcommittee

CC: Rep. Mario Diaz Balart, Chair of the US House Appropriations SFOPs Subcommittee:

I am writing with regard to the FY 2024 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill.

A poignant detail in the bill, is that during the height of the invasion in Ukraine, out of all of the foreign countries being granted aid in the appropriations bill, only aid to Ukraine will receive a stringent "cost-matching" cap.

The restrictive "cost-matching" framework in the policy would cap funding for US non-defense aid to Ukraine at 50% from that of the total amount of non-defense funds contributed to Ukraine from all sources.

To the naked eye, "cost matching" seems a method to encourage a greater investment from others. But in the case of the bill, it's the opposite. The "cost matching" in this scenario instead places a ceiling on the US funds, based on how much is contributed from elsewhere.

The US government is by far the largest contributor to Ukraine defense. Our funding is not only commesurate with our GDP, which is behemouth compared with the rest of our allies, but it's also commesurate with our national security interest as the worlds leading superpower.

But the cost-matching policy will cause the US to relinquish our leading role in the Euro Atlantic, where our humantiarian and defense aid have been crucial in thwarting Russia's aggression.

If this cap takes effect, we abandon both Ukraine and the rest of our European allies as they reconcile the costs to absorb 10 million displaced refugees in neigboring countries, and sustain lifesaving humanitarian operations in Ukraine.

Devoid of any lasting benefit for Americans, the policy actually would work in synchrony with countries that cozy up to our enemy.

Hungary has habitually taken affirmative steps to block EU aid to Ukraine, block sanctions on Russia, and support Russia since its invasion in Ukraine.

Since May 2023, Hungary has been able to block half a billion ($550.40 million) in EU defense aid to Ukraine, not to mention block sanctions on Russia. The aid has been held hostage since May 2023, as a bargaining chip to pressure Ukraine to remove Hungary's central bank from its blacklist of Russia collaborators. https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2023-05-23/another-hungarian-veto-aimed-ukraine

Under the proposed cost-matching provision, US aid to Ukraine would be tied to amounts rendered by our allies. If Hungary blocks aid from the EU, then US aid could be blocked too, leaving Ukraine without critical funding in which the existence of the country depends on.

How can the US make the delivery of critical funding contingent on other sources, when those international institutions themselves fail to deliver critical aid to Ukraine due to the voice or vote from countries aligned with our adversaries?

The US Congress is one such institution.

On June 22, 2023, Rep. Mario Diaz Balart sponsored the  FY 24 Foreign Ops Appropriations bill. During the July 12 markup hearing, Rep. Diaz-Balart acknowledged in his opening statement that "timing" was important to support human rights where they are most threatened. But Diaz happened to gloss over the critical "timing" of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, and went on instead to laud American support for Cuba, an island 90 miles from Florida's coast, where there is currently an active Chinese spy-base.

"The bill fully funds democracy assistance accounts in support of freedom and human rights where they are most threatened the timing by the way of today's markup is really significant. Yesterday folks marked a two-year anniversary the beginning of the historic Uprising Uprising by the people of Cuba demanding one thing freedom in recognition of this ongoing pursuit of Freedom the blue this bill includes 30 million dollars for democracy programs in Cuba and it also restores critical funding for the office of Cuba Broadcasting." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knBgSTg3NU

It's ironic because Cuban people can understand quite possibly better than anyone what Ukrainians face. Note that in June 2023, Cuba and Russia launched negotiations for military cooperation. What would Cubans say when they realize that the U.S. dropped the ball on helping Ukraine defeat their common enemy?

When the bill got to the Senate hearing on July 20, 2023, the Senate Chairman immediately recognized the need to support Ukraine, noting that the bill needs more work.

"We faced budget constraints that required tough choices when drafting this bill, and the need for supplemental funding to address global humanitarian crises and sustain our support for Ukraine is clear. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address these matters in the coming weeks and months.” stated Senator Chris Coons of the bill.

If we are to get real here, however, the 50% cap on US aid to Ukraine wasn't calculated based on "budget constraints" like other foreign aid allocations. In contrast to other foreign aid programs, due to the emergent situation in Ukraine,  allies have provided aid to Ukraine as needed. Because the situation is rapidly developing, and the stakes are so high, there is no exact formula to predict exactly what foreign aid might be required to mitigate the unprecedented humanitarian crisis caused by Russia's ongoing aggression in Ukraine.

This reality is confirmed by the Senate committee's report submitted on July 20, 2023, which states, "The Committee notes the critical importance of continued assist-ance for Ukraine and countries impacted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and anticipates a supplemental funding request from the Executive Branch for fiscal year 2024 to address such needs. The Committee notes that any request for supplemental funding that is submitted to the Congress should include significant levels for hu-manitarian assistance, among other purposes, given the growing global needs." https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy24_sfops_report.pdf

Since the cap is based on a future dollar amount that we do not yet understand, clearly, the Appropriations committee crafted the cost-matching provision not based on the debt-ceiling or a pre-forecasted amount, but instead on a completely arbitrary number pulled absolutely out of thin air.

Without any factual basis, it is evident that the Committee's proposed cost-matching cap is the result of "feel good" law-making, and a harebrained one at that, done at the expense of what is actually required to meet the critical needs of Ukraine's dire humanitarian crisis.

The House Appropriations committee released a report on July 12, 2023 which stated the following,

"Pursuant to the requirements of section (b), the Committee directs the Secretary of State and Administrator of USAID to ensure that accountability for all funds provided is the highest priority, including rigorous monitoring, evaluation, oversight, and prevention of waste, fraud, abuse, and diversion." https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20230712/116228/HMKP-118-AP00-20230712-SD002.pdf

And thus calls for oversight has become more important to Congress than the actual need for aid.

"The Committee directs continued high-level diplomatic engagement to ensure European allies and partners are providing aid to Ukraine in amounts greater than the United States.", the report continued.

In other words, the Committee told the public the intent of the proposed cap, a rationale which goes no further than political fad, that "Europe, not America, should keep Ukraine afloat."

What was a the priority of the Subcommitee? Making sure the U.S. does not give more to Ukraine than Europe? Or ensuring Ukraine gets what it needs?

In the wake of Russian aggression, the committee found it more necessary to pressurize our European allies than Russia itself. But the proposed cost-matching restricts the expectations so tightly, that it blows the gasket and releases all of the pressure. How can this policy encourage Europe to do more for Ukraine when the US disincentivizes aid to Ukraine by sending the message that "we are only going to go halfway from where you go." In no way can the US pressure Europe to do more, when we make policies that fix our spending based on other nations, and effectively removes the US from its leading role in foreign leverage.

From a negotiating standpoint, under the proposed policy the European support will be the driving force for the US, which is a poor negotiating position to be in.

That being said, we can pretty much rule out the Comittee's so-called "high-level diplomatic engagement" pressure campaign as an authentic attempt to "increase " European support for Ukraine.

The strategy is clear, it actually screams in our faces, that the effect of this policy would actually decrease support for Ukraine.

During the House Appropriation committee's mark-up hearing on the bill, Rep. Andy Harris passionately demonstrated the logic to cut foreign aid.

"When I go into my district I don't have a lot of people coming to me and saying you know what let's increase that foreign aid I don't pay enough taxes our debt isn't high enough let's go ahead and increase foreign aid" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knBgSTg3NU8

A follow-up question might be, who is coming to Rep. Andy Harris and asking him to cut foreign aid? And how does it serve them in particular?

Did hard-working Americans think up the idea of a "cost-matching cap" on Ukraine aid? On the other hand, how likely is it that the measure could be a scheme hatched by a more lavish "foreign operation".

The idea that helping Ukraine is somehow hurting Americans is the most aggressive campaign against  foreign aid in modern history. It's not difficult to wonder if this is propaganda meant to weaken a sovereign nation against tyrannical enemy. We saw this same idealogy when Hurricane Ian hit the region of SW Florida. While the grid was down, and everybody was worried about the roof over their heads, the Kremlin's hand in the GOP was instead preoccupied with aid to Ukraine. 

“How about we get every single Floridian back into their homes and back to normal before we send one more cent to the Ukraine.” Donald Trump Jr. said on Twitter.

“Why don’t we focus on the Floridians down here who have been catastrophically hurt by what just occurred with this hurricane and send some of that funding down here to Americans and not be focused on places like Ukraine?”Congressman Greg Steube said on Fox News.

“Dear Congress: On behalf of my fellow Florida Man in grave need of assistance…. Just send us like half of what you sent Ukraine. Signed, Your Fellow Americans,” said Congressman Matt Gaetz  on Twitter.

Meanwhile, it was very clear that these were ideas projected onto the public, because none of these complaints or sentiments against "aid to Ukraine"  were echoed throughout the community when poople came together to help clean up eachother's neigbhorhoods, or wait on humanitarian assistance lines where many of the workers were Cubans, Hatians, Venezuelans, and other latin-American people - many who happened to be refugees- who served side-by-side humanitarian workers, cooking meals for people waiting in line, scrapping metal, and tarping roofs. 

I know the people in my country to jump in and get their hands dirty when someone needs help.

At the end of the day, informed Americans understand that inflation is high and economy strained as a direct result of Russia's invasion in Ukraine. Meanwhile, global stability is being challenged, military alliances are being tested, and worldwide security is at stake amid spiraling threats from China and Russia. These are threats to our "national security interests".

Americans concerned about the economy or national debt understand that the United States has far more to lose if we continue to permit Russian aggression, than if we stop it now. Taxpayers have a vested interest in Ukraine. It would be fiscally irresponsible and a waste to go only halfway, instead of going all the way to get the job done now. The job, that is, defeating Russia and restoring Ukraines territorial boundaries, which is the only path that can bring about justice and peace in Europe, lest we shatter international law and order as we know it.

If we look at the sheer result of policy-making, the cost-matching measures are more likely to endanger our national security interests rather than gain us short-term negotiating power or make any long-term fiscal savings.

If one is to consider the imbalanced outcomes of the appropriations bill cap on US support to Ukraine, it's hard to ignore the possible ulterior motive.

"It is true that Ukraine continues to depend on assistance from the United States and our allies and partners and that will be true for some period of time so yes if the world walked away from Ukraine then the balance would tip in Russia's favor.” said Dr. Colin H. Kahl with the US Dept. of Defense in March 2023 https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings/full-committee-hearing-oversight-us-military-support-ukraine

Let's face it. Without US funding, Ukraine would have been wiped off the map, and a hostile Russia with it's already massive territory would encroach further westward towards Europe.

Defense funding is hands down the most critical funding. But war is not only fought on the battlefields. Critical nondefense funds cannot go to the wayside, let alone be used as a bargaining chip.

If Congress is justified to implicate Trump or Biden in their quid pro quos on aid to Ukraine, then they should first take the gargantuan woodchip out of their own eye, as their own policy-making hangs Ukrainian soverignty, and our national security over our heads.

The appropriations bill states that "Funds appropriated under titles III through VI of this Act and made available for assistance for Ukraine to . . . defend their sovereignty and withstand the impacts of Russia’s invasion".  

Impacts such as these include the humanitarian response from the bombing of the Nova Kakhovka dam, a tragic emergency which necessitated immediate life-saving rescue missions.

During the event, as Russia's soldiers opened fire at humanitarian rescuers, Ukrainian soldiers fired back to defend them.

Our non-defense funding works in tandem with defense funding to mitigate human suffering caused by Russia's terrorist dictatorship.

If we allow trivial politics to restrict non-defense funds today, then tomorrow our defense funds will be next to go.

Already we can see the chessboard lined up for this exact strategy.

Under the proposed law by Congress, Hungary would be even more empowered to use underhanded foreign policy tactics. Whenever Hungary decides to use its voting power to stall Ukraine funding from the bloc, the US could be gridlocked from providing funds to Ukraine, as any US funds must be matched.  With the cost-matching provision, US funding to Ukraine can become completely obstructed.

Why did the the Appropriations Committee find it necessary to cripple US support for Ukraine during a heightening global conlict? Why couldn’t they muster up a little more ingenuity to continue  funding critical initiatives which our national security interest depend on? For instance, right now there is $300 billion in frozen assets worldwide which were seized from Russia. Senate Foreign Relations proposed the "REPO ACT" which will repurpose these frozen assets to be used by Ukraine to defend its country against Russia. https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/06-14-23_repo_act.pdf 

It makes perfect sense to use Russian assets to pay for their own destruction. Under the guise of “fiscal conservatism”, how can one possibly reject such a sustainable initiative? But certainly there will be those "useful idiots" who try.

Let's take a moment to recap.

What exactly is the objective of the cost-matching policy in the foreign ops bill? - Giving Ukraine what it needs to defend itself against Russia? Pressuring Europe to do more for Ukraine? Making budget cuts amid the looming US debt ceiling? Actually, the policy would achieve none of these.

The provision for cost-matching aid to Ukraine is politically irrational, and Congress has provided no financial rationale to back it either. If Congress fails to strike the language regarding cost-matching, then we will dull our influence in Europe at a time when every political system in the Euro-Atlantic hinges on US support to Ukraine, and we will become beholden to adversaries who at every corner seek to undermine the US efforts toward a balanced, freer world. 

Foreign aid has historically been used as a longstanding mechanism of leverage, influence, and national security. With that, it’s also been the target of scrutiny, especially during fluctuation in economy.  

But now more than ever, we simply cannot afford to help less.  Frankly, the U.S. is not helping enough.

As Russia inches into Ukrainian territory, coming closer to a hot war with NATO, we now have hundreds of thousands of American servicemen lined up on NATO's Eastern border, getting ready precisely for the purpose of kicking Russia's ass. 

Right now, who do think it truly serves if the US cuts support to Ukraine? The American people? Or Russia?

This is no time for US support to Ukraine to wane.

We have waited long enough for the US government to deliver on it's promises from the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and 2008 Bucharest Summit.

With nearly half a million people dead or injured from one year of war in Ukraine, it’s high time we make good on our promises.

Right now, give Ukraine what it takes to defend its country against Russia- even if that means giving Ukraine more than we have ever given them thus far. If the US Congress can't do that, then we very likely will be left with only one other option, to face the consequences of going to war with Russia ourselves.

 

Sincerely,

Alexandra Zakhvatayev

SW FLORIDA

Tell Congress to Stike the cost-matching cap on Ukraine aid from the 

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations Bill