Tangle - The $40 billion Ukraine bill.
Episode Date: May 23, 2022On Thursday, the Senate approved $40 billion of additional military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Plus, a question about where traditional Republicans go from here.You can read today's podcast here....You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Discussion (0)
From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast,
the place where you get views from across the political spectrum,
some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else.
I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we are going to be talking about
aid to Ukraine and the $40 billion bill that was signed by President Joe Biden over the weekend.
As always though, before we kick it off, we'll jump in with some quick hits.
First up, a shipment of about 78,000 pounds of baby formula was delivered to the U.S.
by the Air Force on Sunday, enough for over half a million baby
bottles. Number two, one case of monkeypox, a relative of smallpox, was confirmed in Massachusetts.
It's the first known case in the U.S. since 2003. The virus causes fever, aches, and a bumpy rash.
Number three, during a visit to Tokyo, President Biden said the U.S. would respond
militarily if China invades Taiwan. The U.S. also announced 12 countries that joined the Indo-Pacific
Economic Trade Pact. Number four, U.S. gas prices continue to rise, setting a record average of $4.59
per gallon. Number five, a New York judge finalized a congressional map for the state,
setting off a scramble for candidates to decide what districts to run in
and handing a victory to Republicans who had challenged Democratic gerrymandering.
In Washington, the Senate overwhelmingly passing a new $40 billion Ukraine aid bill.
Meanwhile, less than an hour ago, President Biden signed a bill sending $40 billion in aid to Ukraine.
The bill passed in the Senate days ago and was flown to the president in Asia.
That assistance includes money for military and humanitarian aid, as well as medical support for Ukrainian refugees.
On Thursday, the Senate approved $40 billion of additional military and humanitarian aid to
Ukraine. President Biden initially requested a $33 billion package, which the House increased
to $40 billion and then passed. The package passed the Senate by an 86-11 vote and
was signed by President Joe Biden on Saturday. Including aid to Ukraine in March, the bill
brings the total U.S. has invested in Ukraine's defense to $54 billion. The legislation includes
around $9 billion to replenish stocks of U.S. weapons, $6 billion to train and supply the
Ukrainian military, $3.9 billion to train and supply the Ukrainian military,
$3.9 billion to support intelligence and equipment for troops in the region,
$8.8 billion in economic assistance for the Ukrainian government, and $5 billion to address
food scarcity caused by the war. There's about $900 million for refugees, and the Justice
Department will get $67 million to cover the costs of seizing and
selling forfeited property like Russian oligarchs' yachts and artwork. Around $5 million was included
for oversight of the funds, including $4 million for the State Department Inspector General
and $1 million for the U.S. Agency for International Development Inspector General.
The bill quickly moved through the House and
Senate with little debate about how it would be spent or whether it should be sent at all.
While 57 Republicans opposed the bill in the House, compared to other legislation like another
round of $28 million pandemic response still stuck in Congress, this legislation has run into
surprisingly little friction. I applaud Congress for sending a clear bipartisan
message to the world that the people of the United States stand together with the brave people of
Ukraine as they defend their democracy and freedom, President Biden said in a statement.
Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, one of the senators who voted against the bill,
said it was irresponsible to spend the money with so many needs at home and called on other countries to chip in more. The European Union has so far approved just $2.1 billion in assistance
to Ukraine and has said it would spend another $9.5 billion in the coming months. Spending $40
billion on Ukraine aid, more than three times what all of Europe has spent combined, is not
in America's interest, Halley said on Twitter. It neglects priorities at
home, the border, allows Europe to freeload, shortchanges critical interests abroad, and
comes with no meaningful oversight. The battle in Ukraine for the eastern region known as the Donbass
is fierce. On May 11th, Ukrainian forces struck a pontoon attempting to cross the Severesky Bridge
in the region and killed more than 400 soldiers.
Ukraine claims it is now on a counter-offensive,
working to push Russia
out of areas it has taken control of.
Many analysts have expressed cautious
optimism that Ukraine has momentum
in the war, as even the most
loyal Russian propagandists are now
openly questioning the competency of
their military. In a moment,
you'll hear some reactions from
the left and the right to this most recent bill and then my take.
Hey guys, this is Isaac here. If you are listening to this podcast, it's probably because you're
interested in finding some common ground.
If that's the case, I have a great recommendation for you. It's a new podcast called Let's Find Common Ground. They are trying to do the opposite of what a lot of other news organizations do,
which is seize on fear, anger, distrust, and division. Remarkable, innovative people who are
working to bridge differences and reach an understanding with those who see the world
a little differently than they do
are having conversations
on this podcast every day.
You'll hear from politicians,
scholars, activists, journalists,
and everyday people.
They share their personal stories
about finding common ground on race,
the environment, criminal justice reform,
and all the other controversial topics
you can think of.
New podcast episodes
are released every two weeks,
and you can join hosts Richard Davies and Ashley Milne-Tight for Let's Find Common Ground. You can find episodes
at commongroundcommittee.org slash podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. That's
commongroundcommittee.org slash podcast. First up, we'll start with what the left is saying.
The left is divided on the bill, with some supporting it and others questioning what we are doing.
Some praise Biden for deftly handling Ukraine's defense and rallying our allies.
Others question if this is the end of the anti-war left.
The New York Times editorial board said American support won't be indefinite,
and President Biden needs to communicate the goals clearly.
won't be indefinite, and President Biden needs to communicate the goals clearly. In March, this board argued that the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians alike must be
no matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. Ukraine deserves support against Russia's
unprovoked aggression, and the United States must lead its NATO allies in demonstrating to Vladimir
Putin that the Atlantic alliance is willing and able to resist
his revanchist ambitions. That goal cannot shift, but in the end, it is still not in America's best
interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require
Ukraine to make some hard decisions. And the U.S. aims and strategy in this war have become harder
to discern as the parameters of the mission appear to have changed.
Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict through a
settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between
the United States and Russia, it asked? Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia
permanently? Has the administration's goals shifted to destabilizing Vladimir Putin or
having him removed?
Does the United States intend to hold Mr. Putin accountable as a war criminal?
Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war?
And if so, how does crowing about providing U.S. intelligence to kill Russians and sink one of their ships achieve this?
Without clarity on these questions, the White House not only risks losing Americans' interest in supporting Ukrainians, who continue to suffer the loss of lives and livelihoods,
but also jeopardizes the long-term peace and security on the European continent.
In NBC News, Sebastian Roblin wrote about why our military aid is working.
These numbers might seem staggering,
but they pale in comparison to the amounts Washington spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
or in Vietnam for that matter.
Yet the result has been vastly more effective, he said. Ukrainian society as a whole
was willing to fight in defense of its country. The government wasn't relying on the U.S. military
to prop it up and to cajole reluctant recruits to defend it. And despite political divisions,
over time, the Ukrainian people grew to favor closer relations with Western Europe and the
United States. In contrast, arms, money, and the blood of thousands of U.S. troops couldn't infuse Western
oriented governments in South Vietnam and Afghanistan with popular support. Ukraine's
spirit of national resistance has also meant that most of the U.S. arms transferred to local forces
have been used for their intended purpose. In Ukraine, the U.S. and NATO are helping
the country build on its existing strength instead of reinventing the military top to bottom,
as the U.S. had to do in Iraq when it foolishly disbanded the entire military after routing Iraqi
leader Saddam Hussein. In Ukraine, beginning in 2014, when the war in eastern part of the country
broke out, Washington instead enabled Kiev to make
better use of its huge inventory of Soviet artillery and armored vehicles through modernized
training and tactics, Roebling wrote. It also focused on delivering mostly non-lethal systems
that allowed Ukrainian troops to use the firepower they already had more effectively,
such as counter-battery radars that have helped Ukrainian forces detect artillery attacks,
night vision goggles that allow Ukrainian units to operate at times Russian units can't, such as counter-battery radars that have helped Ukrainian forces detect artillery attacks,
night-vision goggles that allow Ukrainian units to operate at times Russian units can't,
and secure communication systems that protect their troop locations.
In his newsletter, Glenn Greenwald said the unanimous support from Democrats killed whatever was left of the U.S. left-wing anti-war movement.
While a small portion of these funds will go to humanitarian aid for
Ukraine, the vast majority will go into the coffers of weapons manufacturers such as Raytheon,
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the usual suspects. Some of it will go to the CIA for unspecified
reasons, Greenwald wrote. To put this $54 billion amount in perspective, it is A, larger than the average annual amount that the U.S. spent on its
own war in Afghanistan, $46 billion, B, close to the overall amount Russia spends on its entire
military for the year, $69 billion, C, close to 7% of the overall U.S. military budget, by far the
largest in the world at $778 billion, and D, certainity so bizarre, even surreal,
is that many of these House Democrats who voted yes have spent years
vehemently denouncing exactly these types of war expenditures, he said. Some of them, very recently,
even expressed specific opposition to pouring large amounts of U.S. money and weaponry into Ukraine
on the grounds that doing so would be unprecedentedly dangerous and that Americans
are suffering far too severely at home to justify such massive amounts to weapons manufacturers and intelligence agencies.
This vote and their silence about it is particularly confounding.
One could, without hyperbole, even say chilling,
given how rapidly Democrats' rhetoric about Ukraine is escalating.
All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to the right's take.
So the right is also divided, with some arguing the money is in our best interest and others saying it is putting America last. Some were critical of where the money was going in Biden's strategy. Others said it is a
good deal for the U.S. to support Ukraine in this way. In Politico, Rich Lowry wrote about why even
America first conservatives should support the aid. We would have saved tens of billions of
dollars, at least initially, if we had never aided Ukraine and contented ourselves with letting it
get overrun, Lowry wrote. But a victorious Vladimir Putin would have posed a more direct threat to NATO, precipitating and necessitating an even
bigger military buildup than we are seeing now, and one that we would have to participate in,
unless we were to simply give up on our leadership of the world's most important alliance.
If Putin were ever tempted into a direct confrontation with NATO, we would be faced
with the disillusion of the alliance or the involvement of U.S. troops in an even more costly conflict. The Ukraine war might
be expensive, but it is the Ukrainians who are doing the fighting. They are degrading the military
of an adversary of the United States and trying to push it away from NATO's borders without a
single U.S. or Western soldier firing a shot or being put directly in harm's way.
All things considered, this is a deal, Lowry wrote. GOP Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has
said his biggest concern with the bill is that it doesn't represent a nationalist foreign policy.
What constitutes a nationalist foreign policy is open to debate, but the bill,
and our broader support for Ukraine, falls comfortably within a common-sense definition.
Assisting a
sovereign country in defending its borders against the nation bent on regaining imperial glory,
while ensuring other sovereign countries are better able to deter that would-be imperial
power from further aggrandizement is a broadly nationalist project. James J. Carifano said this
bill puts America last. Continued support for Ukraine's self-defense against Russia is in U.S. interests.
Russia's use of military force to redraw sovereign borders in modern Europe has global consequences,
including making President Biden's self-inflicted economic crisis even worse back home, he wrote.
However, it is just as true that the $40 billion proposal is fiscally irresponsible
and the first epitome of everything that is wrong
with how Washington works today.
First, House leaders gave members only a few hours
to review the proposal before voting.
This should be a red flag to everyone
that there are problematic proposals
buried in the spending package
that leadership didn't want Americans to have time to find.
Second, even as inflation surges to record highs
and Americans are suffering from
higher prices on just about everything, Washington cannot seem to curb its addiction to reckless
spending that is an offset. Third, while the bill contains important spending that will bolster
Ukraine's defenses, it also authorizes nearly a billion dollars in unlawful immigration benefits
and roughly nine billion dollars for things like funding Ukrainian government official salaries and pensions. If we truly want to help Ukraine achieve victory in its
immediate crisis, and we should, our response should be focused squarely on that effort,
not helping pay foreign bureaucrats retirement bills. In the American Conservative, Peter Van
Buren criticized the harebrained diplomacy of President Biden.
The goal is not just to have Russia leave Ukraine in defeat, but to attrit them to the last possible man in doing so, Van Buren said. Among the many problems of this bleed-em-dry strategy is that
it sets the U.S. and Russia on a direct collision course. The only reason the United States'
provision of targeting data to sink flagships and kill generals in the field didn't spark a war is because a Ukrainian finger was presumably on the trigger, not an American one.
This strategy has provoked the first serious mention of the use of nuclear weapons of the 21st century.
Suddenly, what could have faded into the distance as a semi-failed incursion into Ukraine became the first struggle of the new Cold War.
Nancy Pelosi said the struggle is
about defending democracy writ large for the world. It's Top Gun 3, with everything from
Russian pride to the Putin regime's survival on the line, Van Buren said. And when everything is
on the line, you invoke the everything weapon, nukes. Putin is a cautious man, but accidents
happen and miscalculations with nukes sting. While Biden is talking up the
bleeding strategy as a common-sense response to Russian aggression, the shift amounts to a
significant escalation. By canning diplomatic efforts in favor of a more violent war, the
United States greatly increased the danger of sparking an even larger conflict, the atomic
threats from Moscow. The risk way outweighs any realistic reward.
Alright, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take.
Even from my perch here in the US, the war in Ukraine has just done a number on me.
Vladimir Putin slaughtered 300 civilians sheltering in a theater in Mariupol. In Bukha, evidence of torture, rape, and mass graves were
left behind when Russian forces were pushed out. Over 50 civilians were likely killed in Kramostork
while waiting in a train to flee the city. These are just a few of the known atrocities that have
happened in recent weeks in a war where getting reliable information to the outside world is still extremely difficult. I have to concede that my emotions
might be too close to the issue on this one. One of my closest friends is Ukrainian who spent time
living in Kiev and working for the government there. Distant relatives of mine have had to flee.
The images of dead civilians and dead soldiers are in front of me during every work day.
In the most basic sense, I feel anger, real anger, toward the man I believe is responsible for this war, Vladimir Putin.
And that anger turns to a moral clarity that we should do everything we can to help Ukraine win,
whatever that now means, with so much of their country already leveled and so many Ukrainians already killed.
Given that, I'll first make the most
concise case that I can that this bill is worth it and was handled correctly, and then I'll explain
what I fear. Even from a non-interventionist perspective, there is a good argument for the
money. The worse this goes for Putin's army, the less likely they are to look beyond Donbass or
Ukraine as a whole for that matter. There is a reason Sweden and Finland are
joining NATO, and it is not because they think Putin is a rational actor whose vision for the
world ends with only Ukraine in his grasp. If Ukraine had fallen in days or weeks, it's totally
reasonable to believe Putin would have set his sights on the rest of Eastern Europe. The weaker
his army is and the weaker Russia looks at the end of this war, the safer the rest of the region probably is from invasion. Biden also deserves some credit. I have criticized
many of his foreign policy blunders, but this is not one of them. The administration was careful
not to hand over jet fighters or Patriot missiles before the war because they knew it could be seen
as a provocation, and they knew if Ukraine fell, the weapons would end up in Russia's hands.
Instead, the administration gave Ukraine defensive weapons until the initial defense was solidified,
and can now move confidently and hand over advanced weapons to push Russia back.
If you're going to arm a vulnerable ally to the teeth, this is probably the best way to do it.
There's also no reason to pretend this money was going to be spent elsewhere.
Many Republicans in opposition decry $40 billion to Ukraine with a baby formula shortage,
inflation, and a border crisis here at home. But if the baby formula crisis or inflation could be
solved with $40 billion, the Biden administration would have done that long ago. And our border
policies aren't our border policies because of money, but the chosen policies of President
Biden. This bill wouldn't change them one way or another. It appears, plainly and simply, to be
about defending Ukraine and bleeding Russia, both militarily and economically. Which brings me to my
concerns. On top of the death and destruction in Ukraine, this war is already starving the world,
literally. Its extension, one way or the other, with no diplomatic solutions even on the world, literally. Its extension one way or the other with no diplomatic solutions
even on the horizon is horrifying. While failed incursion may humble Putin's plans for global
domination, it could just as easily turn him into a cornered, wounded animal. Given that his rational
and calculated actions appear bloodthirsty and suicidal, it's frightening to imagine what comes
when the threat of failure is truly realized. It's also impossible not to see the war machine churning on.
Glenn Greenwald, Nan Levinson, and all the America First pundits and left-wing writers have a point.
The weapons manufacturers are about to get a whole lot richer.
The dozen or more members of Congress with over $50,000 invested in those manufacturers should have a good year.
The squad and other far-left members
who vowed not to blindly rubber stamp billions for war just did. Additions to the bill added
money for inspectors general and some oversight, but the Pentagon and State Department are both
missing permanent internal watchdogs to monitor this cash. Watchdog experts say decisively that
that's a huge problem. As I've said before, it's important not to lose
the plot. With no threat to his own people's safety or sovereignty, Putin invaded a free
country of 40 million people and brought this horror on the world. While my heart supports
every dollar to make him regret that decision, and my gut believes truly ensuring Russia loses
this war the sooner the better will keep the rest of the West safe. My head knows that the
process of passing this aid and the sheer size of the bill was not a responsible government in
action. I just hope and pray it works as intended. All right, that is it for my take. That brings us
to your questions answered. This one is from Jim in Rogers, Arkansas. Jim
said, now, where do us no longer mainstream Republicans go? It seems the party moved much
more to the right than a lot of us like, but we can't stand the nanny state left that is passing
the mortgage on to our grandkids. Well, Jim, I'm not sure I have a great answer for you.
In Friday's subscribers only post, I wrote about
the state of third parties in the US. One of the things I noted was that many pundits have written
about how we really have four political factions right now. We name them differently, but roughly
speaking, they're the Trump Republicans, the moderate Republicans, the establishment Democrats,
and progressive Democrats. I think this is a pretty fair and accurate portrayal of where we are, and all four factions are stuffed into two parties. This ends with Joe Manchin squabbling
with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Liz Cheney fighting with Donald Trump. What I think is
interesting is that progressive Democrats are probably the weakest of the four factions in
terms of power. Given that Biden, Pelosi, and Manchin seem to hold the White House and reins
of Congress, I could argue that center-left Democrats are the most Pelosi, and Manchin seem to hold the White House and reins of Congress,
I could argue that center-left Democrats are the most powerful, and I think we are currently witnessing the new Trump Republicans overwhelm the more moderate traditional caucus.
Trumpism is ascendant, and he seems largely in control of the party's direction.
At the same time, I think this can also be overstated. Mitch McConnell is still the most
powerful Republican in Congress, his allies in Congress are still incredibly loyal, and he still controls the
Senate. This midterm season is going to be one of the biggest tests of Trump's powers yet, as well
as our first look at the kinds of politicians Republican voters want to send to office in the
post-Trump world. So far, it looks like more Trump-type Republicans are headed for Congress,
but there are a lot of elections on the board, and Trump has actually taken a few dings along the way.
I'm not sure if the friction between these factions shakes something loose in our politics and ushers in a powerful third party, but it's possible.
What I do think is that for now, there is still plenty of room for the quote-unquote no longer mainstream Republicans in the tent.
So as long as a few of the traditional conservatives survive
the next few years of elections, I think you'll have some people to support in Congress.
All right, that is it for your questions answered, which brings us to a story that matters.
The Supreme Court is nearing the end of its term, with 35 cases still awaiting resolution.
Among them include the Roe v.
Wade decision that was leaked last month, a case on when someone can carry a concealed weapon in
New York, the separation of church and state and school, two cases related to immigration,
a challenge to the authority the EPA has to combat greenhouse gases, and a voter ID law in North
Carolina. Many consider this one of the most consequential terms
in Supreme Court history.
The Wall Street Journal has a roundup of what's coming
and there's a link to it in today's newsletter.
All right, next up is our numbers section.
The percentage of Americans who said the United States
should provide more humanitarian support to Ukraine
in early May was 76%. The percentage who said we should provide more military support to Ukraine
was 55%. The percentage of Americans who said the United States should take direct military action
against Russian forces in Ukraine was 21%. The percentage of Americans who said the economy is
bad, according to a new CBS poll, is 69%. The percentage of Americans who said the economy is bad, according to a new CBS poll, is 69%.
The percentage of Americans who say things in the U.S. are going badly, according to the same poll,
is 74%. The percentage of Americans who said they are optimistic about the efforts against COVID-19
is 53%. All right, that's it for our numbers section. Next up is our have a nice day section.
Last but not least, Shazab Anwar is getting married in Pakistan this weekend,
and the entire city of Birmingham, Alabama is invited.
A 31-year-old diagnosed with hyperparathyroidism, I think I'm saying that right,
Anwar was unable to get surgery in Pakistan
because of limited technology. So he began looking for help outside his home country and eventually
ended up in Alabama for the procedure. After spending some time there and being embraced by
the local community, he said he feels like Birmingham's second son. When he found out he
was getting married, he posted an invitation on Reddit to the entire town.
Though he's unsure who will show up, the gesture went viral.
CBS 42 has the story.
There's a link to it in today's newsletter.
All right, everybody.
That is it for today's podcast.
As always, if you want to support our work, please give us a five-star rating, subscribe,
readtangle.com slash membership, or just share
the podcast with some friends. We need your help to stay independent. We need your help to spread
the word, all that good stuff. Either way, we'll see you tomorrow. Same time. Peace.
Our newsletter is written by Isaac Saul, edited by edited by bailey saul sean brady ari weitzman
and produced in conjunction with tangle's social media manager magdalena bakova who also helped
create our logo the podcast is edited by trevor eichhorn and music for the podcast was produced
by diet 75 for more from tangle subscribe to our newsletter or check out our content archives at www.readtangle.com.