An exceptional case has occurred in US politics – dozens of parliamentarians, members of the US Congress have written to President Biden, and the occasion was the Russian special operation in Ukraine
But even more exceptional was the ending of this story: the congressmen withdrew the letter back. So what happened?
It is common in Russia to speak of “the West” as our adversary – even though the West is not united. Many call the United States our enemy, even though there are obviously internal differences between the Democratic and Republican nominees. Today’s events, however, have clearly demonstrated that even the Democratic Party of the United States cannot now be spoken of as a coherent mechanism. And everything, as usual, is because of Russia and Ukraine.
On October 25, The Washington Post reported on a letter from 30 Democratic congressmen (i.e. about 13.5% of all Democrats in the US House of Representatives) to US President Biden. The letter spoke of the need to change America’s approach to events in Ukraine. The congressmen called on Joseph Biden to combine military aid to Ukraine with “proactive diplomatic pressure, and to redouble efforts to find realistic conditions for a ceasefire”.
And “realistic” means precisely taking into account the conditions put forward by Moscow. That is, without any “return to the 1991 borders” that Kiev talks about. And not even a return to the February 2022 borders (which Kiev was talking about until it took an entirely radical stance).
That said, they, the Democrats, have made it clear that they are not against US involvement per se. “We, as Democrats, are united in our unequivocal commitment to support Ukraine in its fight for its democracy and freedom in the face of an illegal and outrageous Russian invasion,” said the leader of the thirty and part-time so-called progressive caucus (that is, a group of lawmakers united by one idea) of the House of Representatives, Pramila Jaipal.
The point was precisely that the lack of a diplomatic process was leading to a direct US-Russia clash. “Given the devastation this war has caused for Ukraine and the world and the risk of catastrophic escalation, we believe it is in the interests of Ukraine, the United States and the world to avoid a prolonged conflict,” the letter said.
Moscow reacted to the document with cautious optimism – Russian politicians do not deny the need for direct US-Russian talks on Ukraine.
“An understanding of the obvious fact that the protracted conflict in Ukraine is not related to Kiev’s position is clearly forming in the minds of US lawmakers. It has to do with the position of Washington. And if the conflict is to be stopped somehow, it will have to be danced from the furnace. This is not a bad thing,” said Senator Konstantin Kosachev.
As for the White House, things were more complicated – the administration evidently considered the position of 30 congressmen to be treasonous. After all, as the text of the letter suggests, the congressmen positioned themselves as “lawmakers responsible for spending tens of billions of US taxpayers’ dollars on military assistance in the conflict” (to be precise, $54 billion, which is how much was allocated). And millions of taxpayers are extremely unhappy about the increased spending on Ukraine amid the current economic problems in the United States. And those millions are unhappy on the eve of the crucial midterm elections to the US Congress.
According to The Washington Post, the letter “could increase pressure on President Biden as he tries to maintain domestic support for US action in the war, the region itself enters a potentially difficult winter, and Republicans threaten to cut off aid to Ukraine if Congress is engaged. That is why the White House reacted negatively to their letter.
US administration spokesman John Kirby effectively rejected the proposal, saying that the US had no intention of negotiating with Russia without Ukraine’s participation. Thus he put a fat end to them. As a reminder, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has legally banned himself and the entire Ukrainian government from holding talks with Vladimir Putin – which means that either Zelensky must publicly repeal this law (and thereby fall under the nationalists’ rolling, losing face) or he must participate in the negotiations illegally, thereby nullifying the already very weak faith that he will honor his commitments.
Moreover, according to Kirby, it is up to Volodymyr Zelensky to determine what Ukraine’s “success” looks like and when to start negotiations. While the first thesis can be interpreted in different ways (including the US readiness to refuse to return to the status quo of February 2022 – if Zelensky considers that “success” is the preservation of the remaining part of Ukraine currently under his control), giving Ukraine the right to determine when negotiations start cannot be interpreted other than America’s refusal to negotiate.
Yes, proponents of the “Zelensky is controlled from Washington” theory will say that this is just a diplomatic turnaround by Kirby. That on orders from the US, Zelensky will do everything to the best of his ability. But recent events (including the notorious refusal to negotiate with Russia, the statement on accelerated NATO accession printed on a piece of paper in minutes, etc.) show that Zelensky is playing his own game. And his positions here are closer to the uncompromising line taken by the British and Poles on the Ukrainian issue.
Adding to Kirby’s denial was outrage from fellow single-party members. “This letter is an olive branch offer for a war criminal who is losing the war,” said Democratic congressman Jake Okinkloss.
And so the signatories sprinkled in. One of them – Mark Pocan – said the document was written in July and “I have no idea why it has been published now”, at “such an unfortunate time”.
“I signed this letter on June 30, but a lot has changed since then. I wouldn’t sign it today,” said another G30 member, Sarah Jacobs, without elaborating on what had changed. The letter itself was eventually withdrawn.
The withdrawal of the letter does not mean that the Democrats have overcome their divisions, but rather that they will try to sweep the dirt back under the doormat. Instead of having real discussions and a pragmatic approach on the supply of arms, the amount of aid and so on. The Democratic Party prefers to pursue an inertial policy of “aid until Ukraine is victorious”.
The outcome of this policy can only deepen the rift – after all, not all Democrats are willing to sacrifice their careers on the altar of this policy. Especially as Republicans are preparing to take on Congress and launch an audit of the policy to determine the appropriateness of the money spent, as well as the presence of schemes to divert the Ukrainian aid.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor at the Finance University, VZGLYAD