Biden Can Deliver ‘Urgent’ Aid to Ukraine Without Congress – So Why Point Fingers at Republicans

Amidst⁣ a backdrop‌ of international volatility,⁤ President Biden’s State of the Union address has sparked a fiery debate, directing the⁣ spotlight on‌ the balance between domestic challenges and the urgent needs ‌of a distant ally.

In recent months, a relentless effort from the White House to corner House‍ Republicans into ⁣greenlighting ⁣the “Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024” has unfolded, with administration officials framing it ⁢as a lifeline for Ukraine.

Top‌ brass in the Biden⁣ administration have championed this bill fiercely. When Ukrainian defenses faltered in the‍ vital stronghold of Avdiivka, the blame was laid squarely ⁤at Congress’ doorstep.‌ In a poignant meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda,‌ Biden emphasized that passing⁣ the aid package was ⁢now a race against ⁣time.​ CIA Director ⁣Bill ⁤Burns sent a stark​ warning to Congress: fail to pass the bill, and Ukraine’s losses—and America’s blunder—would be grave.

So ​what’s the deal with this bill? What ⁢are the specifics, the actual figures pledged for Ukraine, and what might the real impact⁣ be come 2024?

The Bill Deciphered

Advocates of the bill wave a banner claiming $60 billion in military aid is headed Ukraine’s way. But has anyone really dug into the details?

The supplemental bill earmarks funds ‍along⁢ three avenues: the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA).

Allocations for the USAI stand at $13.8 ⁤billion until September 2025, covering both 2024 and 2025. FMF⁤ sees ​$1.6 billion designated for Ukraine and others caught in the conflict’s ripples, again until September 2025. The​ PDA spans globally, ‍not just Ukraine, with a budget‍ of⁤ $7.8 billion until September 2024.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Orders via USAI and ‌FMF will likely roll out over ​the next⁢ decade—a long wait ⁣for tangible aid to Ukraine. A report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) illustrates this staggered ​outlay, meaning the much-touted $60 billion won’t be ‍bolstering Ukraine’s defense any time soon.

Historical⁣ data paints⁣ a concerning picture of previous appropriations: a consistent lack of urgency. Of the $18.9 billion of⁢ USAI funding for 2022 and⁣ 2023, the administration ‌only utilized $12.3 billion for production orders, leaving over a⁢ third untouched.​ What’s⁢ more,⁤ out of the $23.2 ⁣billion in USAI ​and FMF⁢ funds ​for those years, a mere $1.6 billion—just 7%—actually‍ reached Ukraine.

Cutting⁤ through the projections and promises reveals an unsettling truth: ‌The lion’s share ​of what’s been approved by Congress ⁤hasn’t made the journey to the Ukrainian front lines. It’s unlikely the current “emergency” bill⁤ will see a dramatic shift from this trend in the coming year.

Unpacking the Presidential Drawdown Authority

The PDA is a critical lever, allowing the president to dispatch arms from U.S. reserves. It’s flexible,‌ swift,‍ and historically has ⁢been a ⁢cornerstone of urgent aid. After the 2022 invasion ⁣of Ukraine by Russia, Congress bumped the PDA⁣ limit up massively, reflecting the dire need for immediate support.⁤ This bill, however, slashes ‍that limit for the remainder of FY2024—and not just for Ukraine, but for all‍ potential recipients. ‍Deterioration ​in other global flashpoints could divert ‍these resources further​ from Ukraine’s cause.

Assuming‌ stability elsewhere​ and a persistent conflict in Ukraine, estimates suggest only $5-6 billion of​ the PDA might be directed to Ukraine, vastly under​ the previous‌ years’ allocations. Coupled with historical patterns of undersupplying military ⁢support, the true figure‌ of aid likely to reach​ Ukraine’s hands in 2024 hovers ⁤between $4 billion and $5 billion—far⁣ from the headline-grabbing $60 billion.

Even now, ​the administration retains the capacity ⁢to ⁣ship out $4.2 billion in military aid ⁤from 2023’s ​approvals without ​fresh Congressional action. A more proactive stance earlier in the year could have spared Ukrainian forces from significant setbacks.

Resisting the supplemental⁣ bill isn’t the Russian boon Biden suggests, but rather, it’s the delay in deploying already-approved military aid that plays into⁢ adversary ‌hands.‌ This ⁤is a puzzling contradiction at the ⁣heart of the administration’s strategy—one still in need of a clear explanation.