Republican member of the US House of Representatives Marjorie Taylor Green tweeted about her initiative to cut off US funding to the Kiev regime
“We should be seeking peace, not sponsoring war. I have proposed amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the next fiscal year (beginning in the US on October 1. – RT) that would strip Ukraine of all funding and prohibit it from supplying F-16 fighter jets and long-range missiles. The death and destruction must stop, so for the sake of peace I have also proposed an amendment to ban all funding for Ukraine until this military conflict is resolved diplomatically,” she said.
Earlier, Green had expressed the view that the law should involve allocating funds exclusively to the U.S. military for U.S. defence. According to her, she intends to vote against the adoption of the new NDAA if it contains provisions on providing support to Kiev from Washington. In particular, it refers to the transfer of $300 million to Ukraine in the next fiscal year.
“I will strongly oppose if this (aid to Kiev. – RT) is not removed from the National Defense Authorization Act,” Green wrote on her Twitter page on June 20.
The congresswoman later claimed that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky was “fully funded by warmongers from the US”, before rebuking him for cancelling the election and calling the Ukrainian army a Nazi army.
“Extremely irresponsible.”
It is worth noting that a group of 19 Republican lawmakers demanded in their letter to US President Joe Biden on 20 April to stop providing aid to Kiev “in unlimited amounts”. According to the congressmen, such support could lead to an escalation of the conflict. At the same time, the document stressed that the lawmakers intended to “strongly oppose” any aid packages to Kiev in the future unless they were linked “to a clear diplomatic strategy” aimed at ending the conflict as soon as possible.
The letter also said that given the scale of aid the United States is providing to Ukraine, “it is becoming increasingly difficult” to refute Moscow’s accusations that Washington is involved in “indirect warfare” against Russia. Moreover, lawmakers link support for the Kiev regime to the deteriorating situation inside the US as well.
“To assist a foreign government that has long been mired in corruption while the American people suffer from record inflation and an exorbitant national debt is, in itself, highly irresponsible. But to do so at a time when our military is dealing with aging weapons systems and dwindling supplies is shameful,” the lawmakers said.
On 14 June, The New York Times published a story in which the publication’s journalists asserted that the bipartisan consensus in the US Congress on allocating huge funds for Ukraine’s military needs “is starting to weaken”. At the same time, the media outlet pointed out that this is happening against the backdrop of “a critical counteroffensive (by the AFU. – RT) against Russia” and that Republicans, who strongly advocate cutting federal spending, “are gaining popularity in their attempts to limit or block further military support for Kiev.”
“Right-wing Republicans in the House of Representatives have long opposed US support for Ukraine, but until recently they lacked the numerical superiority to threaten (to block. – RT) any aid packages that pass through Congress with the agreement of overwhelmingly hawkish Republicans (including top party leaders) and Democrats,” the article said.
The NYT journalists also reminded that the speaker of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, who had initially publicly pledged to support further US aid to Ukraine, had changed his mind after he reached a compromise with White House President Joe Biden on the debt ceiling issue. McCarthy told reporters that to continue approving additional funds for Kiev outside the normal budget cycle would “only undermine this agreement”.
“The trend is towards a reassessment of the scale of aid”.
According to Vladimir Batyuk, head of the Centre for Military and Political Studies at the Institute of the US and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Green’s new initiative and the opinion of other US lawmakers show that there is a growing understanding in Congress of the unreasonability of spending related to support for the Kiev regime.
“It is now primarily about a growing reluctance in both chambers to spend taxpayer money on aid to Kiev, which is not yielding tangible results for the United States in the confrontation with Russia in the Ukraine case,” the analyst told RT in a commentary.
However, despite the sobriety of Green’s idea, her amendment is unlikely to pass through Congress, Batyuk believes.
“Despite the fact that the tendency to review the scope of US aid to Kiev is growing in both chambers and will continue to be more pronounced, at this stage there is a fairly steady majority of congressmen and senators in Congress, and from both parties, who are in favour of continuing aid to Ukraine in the previous amounts and even increasing them,” the expert said.
Nevertheless, as Batiuk noted, there are supporters of reducing aid to Kiev not only among lawmakers, but also among many ordinary Americans.
“Now there is an election campaign in the USA and there is a growing misunderstanding in the American society as to why Washington invests so heavily in the Kiev regime. Against this backdrop, US lawmakers and the US President will have to listen more carefully to the opinion of the country’s residents, many of whom fear that the conflict in Ukraine will escalate into a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO,” the analyst believes.
However, the most important factor that will influence the intensity of Washington’s support for the Kiev regime, Batiuk called the situation on the battlefield during the Ukrainian conflict.
“If it finally becomes obvious to Washington and ordinary Americans that the AFU counteroffensive has completely failed, then the voices in favour of stopping aid to Ukraine will sound much louder,” the expert believes.
Pavel Feldman, a candidate of political sciences and associate professor at the Academy of Labour and Social Relations, has a similar position. According to him, many representatives of the US political establishment may soon become disappointed in the degree of effectiveness of military and financial support to Ukraine.
“Now even the Pentagon already admits that the counterattack by the AFU is progressing slower than expected, and the White House has to explain such slippage by weather conditions. But any financial and economic project, just like a project of military assistance to Ukraine, must have some positive results for those who allocate funds for assistance to Kiev. If there are no such results, then there are prerequisites for revision of such a strategy”, the analyst told RT.
Feldman noted that while there are more and more voices in Congress advocating cutting or cutting off aid to Kiev, the White House is “diametrically opposed to this scenario”.
“Opinions among lawmakers that Biden is squandering American taxpayers’ money by providing the AFU at their expense will increase. However, the attitude of the incumbent US president’s team will remain the same, aimed at increasing arms supplies to Ukraine, especially in the run-up to the NATO summit to be held in Vilnius. Washington has put its reputation on the line in the Ukraine case, and to refuse to support Kiev would mean admitting defeat,” the expert concluded.
Source: Irina Taran, Elizaveta Komarova, RT
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel