We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Ukraine joining NATO "is the only option," says Alina Polyakova
GZERO’s Tony Maciulis catches up with Alina Polyakova, President and CEO of the Center for European Analysis, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference to assess Ukraine’s precarious situation two years after Russia's invasion. Polyakova highlights the intensified military strategy employed by Russia, making the situation dire for Ukraine. She stresses the urgent need for more military support and equipment from Ukraine's allies, especially from the United States.
Polyakova also addresses the debate around Ukraine's potential NATO membership, arguing vehemently for its inclusion. “The only way to secure what have been very positive wins of Western support for Ukraine is to solidify that at the NATO summit by extending an invitation to Ukraine, to even a session talks," Polyakova tells Maciulis. She dismisses the notion that Ukraine's membership would escalate tensions with Russia, asserting that NATO serves as a deterrent to aggression. She emphasizes that Ukraine's integration into NATO is crucial for Europe's long-term security.
Polyakova also clarifies misconceptions about Article 5 of the NATO treaty, stating that it doesn't automatically lead to military intervention. She advocates for starting accession conversations with Ukraine, emphasizing its military capabilities and the benefits it could bring to NATO.
Maciulis and Polyakova also touch on the potential impact of the upcoming US presidential election on Ukraine and NATO. She suggests that while President Trump's rhetoric about NATO has been concerning, his actions have largely supported the alliance. However, she acknowledges uncertainty about the future and the importance of maintaining trust and unity within NATO.
- Will Putin invade Ukraine? ›
- Putin has a “noose” around Ukraine, says Russia analyst Alina Polyakova ›
- Why Ukraine is the target of Russian aggression – analyst Alina Polyakova ›
- Ukraine's NATO & EU ambitions ›
- Should NATO embrace Ukraine? ›
- How Russian cyberwarfare could impact Ukraine & NATO response ›
- Sending NATO troops to Ukraine unlikely despite Macron's remarks - GZERO Media ›
US aid for Israel & Ukraine hangs in the balance
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Will the House pass the Senate-approved aid package for Ukraine and Israel?
Well, certainly not if the Freedom Caucus and the Speaker of the House have anything to say about it. So, I mean, as of today, what the Senate has passed with a lot of Republicans on board looks dead in the House. But of course, the ability to jam the House and force them to accept something or there's no government funding, that is a game of chicken that we've seen before and the Senate may well continue to be ready to play. So it is not dead yet, but aid is looking challenging. And let's be clear, irrespective of what happens for 2024, it's going to be very hard to get any more aid for the Ukrainians going forward. And everybody is deeply aware of that reality.
How likely will Israel proceed with a ground invasion of Rafah in Gaza?
Well, keep in mind, this is right on the border with Egypt. The Egyptians have said that this will blow up their peace agreement with Israel if they decide to go into that space full on with a ground invasion. There's already been some incursions, including one that freed two hostages held by Hamas. So clearly that has huge support from the Israeli population as a whole. The Biden administration has publicly said that they don't want to see a ground invasion, especially because there are no circumstances, at least not set up yet, that the Palestinians who continue to be forced to move and move and move will be safe in this environment. I think that we are very close to a temporary cease fire and more hostages being released. So part of this is pressure from Israel to get that done. If you made me bet right now, I'd say we actually see the deal first. But that is not going to end eventual hostilities from ticking back up between the Israelis and Hamas in Gaza.
What are the wider implications for the Indonesia presidential election?
More state influence over key industries in the economy. Probably a little bit more willingness to blow out the budget from a fiscal perspective. But the likely winner, Prabowo, his vice presidential running mate, is the son of Jokowi, the president of Indonesia. And that implies first geopolitically, very similar orientation to have balanced relations between China economically but the US strategically. I don't see that changing at all. There is still a big question about whether they're going to move the capital. This has been a massive effort with a lot of money that is at play and it's not clear that Prabowo is as convinced that that needs to be the legacy as Jokowi has been. That'll be worth watching very carefully when he becomes president, for those that care. I do, hope you do, too.
- Stalled deal on US border security leaves Ukraine in the lurch ›
- Poll: American support for Ukraine aid is falling ›
- Hard Numbers: March shows solidarity for Israel, US Army overturns convictions of Black soldiers, US inflation cools, EU falls short on artillery shells for Ukraine, House passes funding bill ›
- Zelensky's US trip likely to secure aid for Ukraine ›
- US aid for Israel: How much and since when? ›
A collage showing the US Capitol, former US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz.
Washington chaos rings alarm bells in Ukraine and Europe
You’ve heard the news. Rebel Republicans and unsympathetic Democrats ousted House Speaker Kevin McCarthy from his job yesterday. That post is now officially “vacant.” For now, Patrick McHenry (R-NC) holds the post of Speaker Pro Tempore to ensure there’s someone there to keep the lights on and the process moving toward the election of a new speaker.
Americans (and the world) are now trying to figure out what it all means. But keep in mind, this has never happened before. The only previous attempt to fire a speaker of the US House of Representatives failed, and that was 113 years ago. The cliché “uncharted waters” fits perfectly here.
But … you’ve got questions, lots of questions, and I’m here to give you the best available answers.
We just survived a shutdown threat last weekend. Should we expect more of these congressional showdowns?
Absolutely. Current funding for the government runs out on Nov. 17, and we may not have a speaker to make a deal by then. Even if the House is able to elect a new speaker well before then, that person may feel obliged to continue this game of legislative chicken well into next year by continuing to offer only short-term government funding deals in exchange for concessions from Democrats. In short, the “shutdown showdowns” have only just begun.
Who will be the next speaker?
Get ready for a potentially bloody fight among Republicans. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), conservative Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Kevin Hern (R-OK) have already made moves to enter the race, but there will be more names. For now, Scalise has the most friends with votes, so he’s the early favorite.
Can McHenry, the temporary speaker, get stuff done while we wait?
Again, we’re in uncharted waters. McHenry, McCarthy’s hand-picked successor, has an open-ended ability to preside over House business. There are no rules that prevent him from holding the job indefinitely.
But because this has never happened in American history, the limits of McHenry’s authority aren’t clear. The House parliamentarian is the person with the responsibility to tell us what the rules say. (Be glad you don’t have that job.) Whatever the rules-interpreter/rules-keeper decides will create a precedent.
What does all this chaos mean for Ukraine?
It’s bad news for Volodymyr Zelensky, to be sure. It’s possible that Congress will approve new money for Ukraine before the end of the year, but it’s looking a lot less likely now than it did a few days ago. There are a sizeable number of House Republicans who don’t want the US to send more money to Ukraine, certainly not the additional $40 billion that President Joe Biden wants.
Step back for a moment to last weekend, when most of us were breathing a deep sigh of relief that the shutdown had been averted. To get that deal, pro-Ukraine Democrats had agreed (at least temporarily) to pull new Ukraine funding from the budget deal. They fully intended to fight over that another day, but they set a precedent that Ukraine aid was a bargaining chip they were willing to put on the table.
Anti-Ukraine-aid Republicans saw that, and now they’ll want that concession every time they bargain with Democrats to keep the government open.
OK, so why didn’t Democrats save McCarthy yesterday? They could have done that, right?
Yes, they could have. But the Dems felt McCarthy had backed away from too many promises to deserve saving. From the Dems’ point of view, McCarthy went from condemning Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol and calling for an investigation of his responsibility to backing Trump and then to launching an impeachment process against Biden. Democrats made clear early yesterday they had no intention of bailing out a speaker they neither liked nor trusted.
But the Democrats do want to support Ukraine, right? Haven’t they left Ukraine in a precarious place?
Yes, they have.
Here are the scenarios that could protect near-term US aid for Ukraine …
- Republicans could elect a speaker who’s willing to defy dozens of his fellow Republican members of Congress to pass a bill that includes billions more for Ukraine.
- Or Democrats in the Senate could refuse to compromise on Ukraine aid and dare Republicans to shut down the US government.
Neither is all that likely.
By the way, it’s not that all US financial help for Ukraine has stopped. The Pentagon still has $5 billion in additional aid and drawdown authority in its budget. That will meet some of Ukraine’s needs in the coming months.
So, what’s the lasting damage from all this?
Ukraine’s leaders now know the US isn’t a reliable long-term backer, even with a supportive president and the backing of most members of Congress. And they know they’ll have to fight their war differently now. They’ll have to keep more firepower in reserve to be sure they don’t run out of weapons and ammo at a time when new supplies aren’t coming.
They knew that was a risk tied to Trump and next November’s US election. But now, Kyiv must deal with this risk immediately.
Washington’s chaos is also ringing alarm bells across Europe, where leaders know that, particularly on the weapons front, they can’t backfill what will be lost if supplies from Washington begin to run dry.
And the Europeans have to think about their own security. What, they wonder, does all this mean for NATO if this is the future of the Republican Party in America?
In short, a lot of trust has been lost, and it takes much longer to rebuild trust than it does to lose it.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
Republican showdown over Ukraine
Kyiv is likely on tenterhooks after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday rebuffed the prospect of Congress passing a supplemental funding bill for Ukraine, saying that such a proposal “isn’t going anywhere.”
This is a big deal for two reasons. First, it is an obvious blow for Kyiv, which has become reliant on US economic and military aid – Washington has doled out $110 billion since the war started. The timing is also less-than-ideal considering that Kyiv has just gotten its much-anticipated counteroffensive off the ground.
It also highlights the deepening ideological rift within the Republican Party that has proven to obstruct legislating efforts, a turnoff for voters.
As part of last week’s debt ceiling bill to avoid the US defaulting on its debt, House Republicans capped defense spending at $886 billion for the next fiscal year. And in order to get that bill through the upper chamber, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell assured defense hawks in his caucus – who argue that the Pentagon needs a bigger budget – that Congress would pass an additional Ukraine aid bill. But now McCarthy is saying that’s a no-go and that any future aid to Ukraine should be drawn from the Pentagon’s allocated funds.
Meanwhile, several hawkish Republicans – like Senator Lindsey Graham – say they will fight it out until they get what they want. Taking aim directly at McCarthy, Graham said Tuesday that “the speaker will never convince me that 2% below actual inflation is fully funding the Defense Department … That cannot be the position of the Republican Party without some contest.”
Yet again, the stakes are sky-high for the embattled McCarthy, who has personally backed additional aid to Ukraine but is navigating a vocal anti-Ukraine faction within his caucus that will seethe – and potentially punish the speaker – if he goes back on his word.Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washignton, D.C.
Zelensky made his case to Congress. What happens next?
In a historic address to a joint session of the US Congress on Wednesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky pleaded his case for why the US should continue greenlighting security aid to his country. So what’s Zelensky getting and what does he still want? The Biden administration announced this week that it was earmarking another $45 billion – part of a sprawling $1.7 trillion government spending bill that passed the Senate on Thursday and awaits a House vote – in military assistance to Ukraine. Half of the funds will go toward arming Ukraine’s army and replenishing US stockpiles. Crucially, an additional $1.85 billion package was announced on Wednesday that includes the Patriot air defense system that Kyiv has long been requesting to help protect its energy infrastructure from Russian bombardments.
Zelensky in Washington for arms & aid, not just symbolic support
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC shares his perspective on US politics.
What will the Ukrainian president's visit to Washington this week accomplish?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is meeting with President Biden in Washington this week and addressing a joint session of the US Congress, his first known trip out of the country since the beginning of the Russian invasion last February.
This visit is more than a symbolic one, as bipartisan support for Ukraine has been the key to the more than $60 billion in military and humanitarian assistance the US has provided to Ukraine since the beginning of the war, far more than any other country and a key ingredient in helping the Ukrainians resist the invasion. Zelensky is going to get more commitments from the US this week, including a Patriot missile system to help them shoot down Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure and an additional $45 billion in military and humanitarian aid that is designed to last through at least the end of Q3 next year.
This massive aid package, which comes on top of three aid packages already approved in March, May, and September, is likely to be the last new American commitment for some time. Congress is entering a period of divided government next year, which means that generally, not a whole lot's going to get done. The next realistic place for lawmakers to do more for Ukraine, if the Ukrainians need it, will be next September when the Biden administration is likely to be dealing with several issues that are all going to mature at roughly the same time late in the summer.
An ongoing humanitarian migrant crisis at the border, the need to fund the government for fiscal year '24 and increase the country's borrowing limit and a possible US recession induced by interest rate hikes that could lead to calls from lawmakers to deliver support for a flagging US economy. This means the next most important inflection point to test the durability of the US commitment to Ukraine is likely to come late next summer. And this commitment will be challenged by Republican lawmakers who see the US sending money overseas but not securing the southern border, and by Democratic lawmakers who will question why more isn't being done to fight a potential economic slowdown here.
The administration is currently pledging to support Zelensky for as long as it takes to win the war. But given the enormous expense of this effort, they will need an ongoing political commitment that will be tested next year. Russia is no doubt aware of these dynamics, as it attempts to weaken the civilian infrastructure of Ukraine during a cold winter and break down morale. And who ultimately wins the war will come down to the country that has the wherewithal and the resources to endure a long conflict.
- Three hundred days of war in Ukraine ›
- The Graphic Truth: Who's arming Ukraine? ›
- Is US support for Ukraine waning? ›
- Will the 2022 midterms affect US support for Ukraine? ›
- Zelensky tells Congress US aid is only path to war resolution - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Bremmer: US support for Ukraine vs fear of Russian escalation - GZERO Media ›
- Biden’s visit to Ukraine signals US commitment, but war gets tougher - GZERO Media ›
Will the 2022 midterms affect US support for Ukraine?
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC shares his perspective on US politics.
How is the US policy towards Ukraine shifting?
With Republicans well positioned to take control of the House of Representatives next year, the next likely Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, recently warned that the US would no longer give a "blank check" to Ukraine when Republicans were in charge. This has lots of folks worried about a softening commitment to financing the Ukrainian defense against the Russian invasion.
But should they be? The United States has committed over $60 billion in aid so far to fund the military effort, humanitarian aid, and to directly finance the Ukrainian government. That is a lot of money that passed very quickly with little debate in the US, though it is broadly in line with US public opinion. A poll from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 80% of Americans continue to support US economic and diplomatic sanctions against Russia.
Over 70% support providing additional arms and military supplies to Ukraine, as well as economic assistance. But as the war is dragged on, a debate in Washington about this money and the overall US strategy is starting to grow.
Republicans so far have been more outspoken in criticizing the funds. The criticisms have ranged from Senator Rand Paul trying to create an inspector general to oversee where the funds are going to Ohio Senate candidate and likely future senator JD Vance saying he didn't really care about Ukraine and other Republicans openly worrying about being baited into a nuclear exchange with Russia.
A group of 30 House progressives recently sent a letter questioning the administration's open ended policy towards Ukraine. Turns out the letter was over three months old and was quickly disavowed by their signatories who were criticized from the left for helping the Russian cause. But this does raise a question: what is the Biden administration's endgame in Ukraine? So far, the US commitment has been seemingly limitless with the US providing material and intelligence support to give the Ukrainians an advantage when facing an underwhelming Russian army.
White House Spokesman, John Kirby, recently said that it would be up to the Ukrainians to decide what success looks like and when to negotiate. But Kirby doesn't get to decide how much money to send to the Ukrainians. Congress does. The Chicago poll found that Americans were split on the degree of US commitment, with 60% saying that Americans should support Ukraine "for as long as it takes", while 40% want the US to settle for peace as soon as possible.
For its part, the White House is preparing for the increased resistance to open ended Ukraine aid next year by considering asking Congress to send an enormous additional appropriation of money, $50 billion, potentially in the lame duck session of Congress before the new crop of Republicans come in.
But the White House also does not have a good public answer for how it will respond should the war escalate further. As the Russian military has faced setbacks, the Ukrainians could potentially be emboldened to try and retake Crimea, which was annexed by the Russians in 2014 and would be seen as a major escalation by Moscow that the US would probably not support. And the Russians could be emboldened to take a step that has never happened before, which is using a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield, a move that would be universally condemned by other countries, but would essentially force the US to respond and probably get involved directly militarily.
No matter how you feel about the importance of Ukraine to American voters, these are legitimate questions that should be a matter of public debate. A debate has not happened so far as the US has aggressively backed Ukraine.
- The Graphic Truth: Who's arming Ukraine? - GZERO Media ›
- Zelensky ups the ante - GZERO Media ›
- What We're Watching: Ukraine's gains, Democrats' midterm odds ... ›
- Jon Lieber: What's different about the 2022 midterms is 2024 Trump ... ›
- US midterms: Biden, Trump, or abortion/guns/race? - GZERO Media ›
- Inflation is top issue for US voters ahead of midterms - GZERO Media ›
- US voters think GOP can fix the economy, but can they? Not likely - GZERO Media ›
- "Red wave" coming in US midterms ›
- Zelensky in Washington for arms & aid, not just symbolic support - GZERO Media ›