Ukraine Aid Packages Leave Many Unanswered Questions | Opinion

It didn't even last a month.

In late April, Congress waved Ukraine's colors once again while appropriating another $60 billion for the Ukraine war. Within days, though, the same people who pushed for the package on the Hill, in the White House, and throughout the Washington establishment began saying our aid wouldn't be enough for Ukraine to stop Russian advances.

They're already beating the drum for more support.

Make no mistake. My organization, the Heritage Foundation, wants Ukraine to win and America to flourish. So do the American people. What most Americans don't want, however, is for Washington to prioritize Ukraine's security to the detriment of our fiscal health and other pressing domestic priorities, such as the crisis at the southern border.

A recent poll we conducted of voters in battleground states found that three out of four respondents opposed sending more aid to Ukraine without fortifying our own border. Most (56 percent) also felt that the United States had already sent too much aid to Ukraine—and that was before this latest package passed.

They're right. Since 2022, Congress has designated more than $173 billion for the conflict in Ukraine—nearly as much as the Army's annual budget and about $1,300 per American household—and there is still no plan for victory or peace from the commander in chief. All of this, of course, comes on top of an $895 billion budget for the Department of Defense this year.

The lack of serious thought behind this massive investment is startling, and merits further scrutiny. Even as Democrats and Republicans inside the beltway congratulate one another on doing "the right thing" by shoveling another unpaid-for tranche of taxpayer dollars at the problem, there remain many unanswered questions on the war in Ukraine.

First of all, we need to ask about the goal of our aid. Are we hoping to keep Ukraine hanging on to its current territory, or to retake all its lost territory? Does Congress intend to continue providing aid until Ukraine takes back all its territory from Russia?

If recent reports are true and a full victory in Ukraine isn't possible, what is the endgame? Is a negotiated settlement with Russia the goal? Is the goal pre-2022 borders, or pre-2014?

In the meantime, does this aid package simply perpetuate the conflict, or does it move the needle on the ground in Ukraine? If so, how? How many additional rounds of aid would be necessary to achieve "victory" in Ukraine?

And will the Biden administration put American boots on the ground to help oust the Russians if necessary?

Second, we need to ask about accountability for the tax dollars Congress has spent. How will the Biden administration ensure every American dollar goes toward winning the war rather than lining the pockets of Ukrainian oligarchs like former defense minister Oleksii Reznikov, who was removed from his position after reports of corruption and military graft?

A portion of the aid was packaged in the form of a loan. Does President Biden plan on exercising his privilege to excuse Ukraine from paying that amount back? What does the administration plan to do if Ukraine simply defaults?

The Biden administration has failed to account for billions of dollars in Ukraine aid—how does it intend to improve the way it tracks aid? If further corruption is discovered, will our approach to providing aid change?

How does the REPO Act provision of this latest package—which empowers the president to seize Russian assets in the U.S. and send them to Ukraine—change the rules and circumstances under which we can seize other countries' assets? What will prevent Russia from doing the same to us?

Finally, lawmakers must answer key questions about our overall strategy. What is the role of our European allies in supporting Ukraine? How can we expect them to do more to defend their own backyard if we keep bailing them out?

If we have a limited supply of 155-millimeter artillery shells and Patriot missile systems, we will have to make tough decisions. How does deterring a Chinese attack on Taiwan impact our resource capability in Ukraine? Can the president commit to providing Israel everything it needs for the war against Hamas and still fulfill obligations to Ukraine and Taiwan?

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) promised to secure our border before sending additional aid to Ukraine. Why is he making securing Ukraine's borders a higher priority?

Leaders in Washington should have answered all these questions, and more, before sending billions to Ukraine. The truth is, though, few have even considered them.

The American people deserve better.

And so do the Ukrainians. After all, perpetuating this deadly conflict without a plan doesn't do them any favors. And doing so for the sake of creating jobs in the U.S. or restoring the defense-industrial base is downright wrong. Shouldn't we seek to bring jobs back to Detroit regardless of what happens in the Donbas? Shouldn't we revitalize our defense industrial base for its own sake?

The answers to those questions—unlike many of the ones I mentioned above—are obvious, but as is so often the case today, no one in Washington is even raising them. That's because it's easier for them to keep spending everyday Americans' hard-earned tax dollars and then asking for more.

Dr. Kevin Roberts is the president of The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.