The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Our best hope to stop the war in Ukraine is at the negotiating table

Volodymyr Zelensky speaks during a media briefing.
STR/NurPhoto via Getty Images
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky is speaking during a media briefing with President of Finland Alexander Stubb in Kyiv, Ukraine, on April 3, 2024, amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Zelensky and Finnish President Alexander Stubb are signing a security agreement between the two countries. Finland is allocating the 23rd aid package to Ukraine, worth EUR188 million, which includes air defense systems and large-caliber ammunition. The President is noting that Finland has provided a total of EUR2 billion in military aid and EUR700,000 in humanitarian aid, which means that it allocates EUR900 million a year, as the Ukrinform news agency reported.

Sixty billion dollars. That’s the price tag Congress is weighing for the fourth emergency spending bill to Ukraine. It would bring U.S. support for the proxy war to nearly $200 billion in just three years if passed. Meanwhile, the U.S. willfully ignores pressing security issues on our own southern border. And yet, establishment politicians believe they can deceive voters into thinking the latest check to Ukraine isn’t blank.  

Don’t fall for it.   

“Innovative solutions” is the new buzzword for the two Ukraine aid proposals. The first would liquidate the Russian Central Bank’s frozen assets, the majority of which are held in Europe’s financial jurisdiction, to set up an international support fund for Ukraine. The second would provide a no-interest, waivable loan from the U.S. to Ukraine.  

Beneath the creative corporate jargon, both ideas are simple variations of a “get Ukraine rich quick” scheme. The proposal to use frozen Russian assets as fast cash is technically challenging and diplomatically risky. The idea’s proponents claim it unlocks $300 billion for Ukraine, but the fine print suggests otherwise.  

Unofficial estimates suggest only $5-$8 billion in frozen Russian assets are held within U.S. jurisdiction. The approximately $290 billion remaining falls under the jurisdiction of the European Union. 

Proponents of the proposal say it increases burden sharing. Far from it — in fact, Brussels, Berlin and Paris remain outright opposed to leveraging the Russian assets under the EU’s control. Despite our European allies framing the war in Ukraine as a moral referendum on the fate of freedom and democracy, they remain wary of the irreparable damage to diplomatic and economic relations with Moscow. Further, the EU and NATO powerhouse countries continue to stall any independent action because the U.S. enables European dependency.  

The level of retaliatory risk posed by Russia alone should render the proposal a non-starter. Our allies rightly worry that the West is unprepared for the repercussions of further Russian provocation. Moreover, sanctions that freeze assets have value only when dangled as a carrot to compel behavior from an adversary. If the U.S. and its allies spend away leverage, we risk pushing the Russian bear into a weaker position with fewer chips on the board. A massive cash infusion, without any restrictions or clear plan to end the war, is a half-baked idea and further erodes the posture of the U.S. and her allies. 

A no-interest, waivable loan is hardly “innovative.” Loans carry the expectation of full repayment, including mechanisms to ensure the borrowing party is on track. President Trump emphasized this point recently, saying, “We should never give money anymore…without strings attached.”  

Trump is right. 

Congress shouldn’t consider a proposal that doesn’t make the terms and conditions on full payback crystal clear. 

A multibillion-dollar loan, with or without strings attached, sets a dangerous precedent. It would turn the U.S. into a payday lender for the world’s woes while relegating our own interests to the backburner. George Washington warned against such pitfalls in his farewell address.

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.” 

The deeper our nation falls down the uniparty’s foreign policy rabbit hole, the more U.S. status as the preeminent world power wanes.  

If the goal is to bring the war in Ukraine to an end while avoiding greater loss of blood and treasure, peace talks remain the only viable option. A prolonged proxy war is fraught with folly, and instigating a hot war with Russia risks going nuclear. No hard power endgame is viable for the U.S. in Ukraine, and the terms for Ukrainians get worse every minute the U.S. enables the continuation of this war. 

We owe it to them to say that out loud.    

Encouraging Russia and Ukraine to reach a peace deal, while securing our own border, is the truly innovative idea. Our best hope to stop the bleeding is at the negotiating table. The blank checks must end, and American statecraft must start.  

Mike Lee is the senior senator from Utah.

Tags peace negotiations Russia Ukraine

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed..

Main Area Top ↴

More Opinion News

See All
Main Area Middle ↴
Main Area Bottom ↴

Most Popular

Load more

Video

See all Video