View from Kyiv: Decoupling Ukraine and Israel aid is a bad idea

Recently, Rep. Mike Garcia (D-Calif.), alongside seven of his congressional colleagues, took an alarming step by sending a letter to President Biden. The letter calls for the separation of supplemental funding for Israel from a broader financial package that also includes aid for Ukraine. What makes this development particularly troubling is the increasing number of GOP members who are adopting similar positions, simplifying incredibly complex international challenges into digestible talking points. The letter explicitly questions the Biden administration’s approach in Ukraine, calling it a “blank-check strategy,” and argues that the distinct conditions in both Ukraine and Israel necessitate individualized consideration for aid allocation.

The power to allocate foreign aid unquestionably rests with the American populace. Neither Kyiv nor Tel Aviv desires to direct the American people on how they should allocate their international aid or interfere in internal U.S. policies. However, what needs to be understood is that the challenges facing both countries are not isolated problems. They are issues that, if left unaddressed, have the potential to disrupt not only their respective regions but also the broader international community and U.S. strategic interests.

Ukraine is currently fighting the Russian invasion, a struggle that debunks the myth of a ‘stalemate,’ most recently exemplified by the successful crossing of the Dnipro River by Ukrainian forces. Troublingly, this comes at a time when the Western military aid meant to support these strategic gains has either been delayed or arrived in insufficient quantities. The questions that this raises are numerous. Why, for example, did F-16 training not start in 2022? Why were the commitments for armor and other critical military equipment not only insufficient but also plagued by delays?

The Russo-Ukrainian war is far from a low-intensity conflict. Ukrainian military data indicates that an average of more than 500 Russians are killed in action daily. This level of intense warfare necessitates a rapid reconfiguration and escalation of Western military production lines, particularly as the world stands on the brink of potential confrontations in other global hotspots, like the Indo-Pacific region. The United States and its allies must recognize the urgency of the situation and adapt accordingly.

Israel, on the other hand, is grappling with existential threats from Iranian proxies like Hamas. The gravity of the situation became palpably clear when on Oct. 26, a high-profile delegation from Hamas, led by the internationally recognized and wanted terrorist Abu Marzouk, arrived in Moscow. Russian state-controlled media didn’t just cover this visit; they highlighted it, signaling Russia’s deepening alliance with entities that oppose democratic institutions globally. To connect the dots further, Iran has been supplying Russia with drones used in the conflict against Ukraine, effectively merging these seemingly disparate geopolitical crises.

Sanctions against Russia proved minimally effective. They have thus far been porous, allowing Russia to continue its export of oil and gas, thereby funding its military campaigns. More disconcerting is the fact that Russia managed to resume its pre-war missile production capacities, despite these sanctions. This raises legitimate questions about the efficacy of the current sanction regime and calls for a more comprehensive strategy.

The situation is too critical to compartmentalize aid for Ukraine and Israel. We are witnessing the formation of a dangerous axis that includes Russia and Iran and may potentially extend to other rogue states like North Korea. On Nov. 1, Bloomberg reported, citing South Korea’s intelligence service, that North Korea transferred more than a million artillery rounds to Russia. Limited action or inaction against this emerging axis today will only serve to embolden these actors for the future.

History has shown us the devastating consequences of appeasement. The pre-World War II era provides a particularly glaring example, where attempts to placate authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany led to widespread human suffering and global instability. The U.S. paid a high price during WWII, suffering over 400,000 military deaths. Notably, the economic costs were astronomical as well, exceeding $4 trillion when adjusted for inflation. Early and decisive action against the Third Reich and Imperial Japan could have mitigated these human and financial costs substantially.

Given the mounting geopolitical threats and evolving nature of modern warfare, the pressing need for Western nations to increase their military budgets is undeniable. We have reached a critical moment where the question has shifted from whether nations can afford to amplify their military expenditures, to whether they can afford not to. The costs of maintaining a robust defense infrastructure may seem daunting, especially when viewed in isolation. However, these numbers pale in comparison to the potential costs of inaction—human lives, geopolitical stability, and long-term economic impact.

In an increasingly interconnected world, the boundaries of conflict have become more blurred than ever. Upgrading and maintaining a multi-faceted defense system requires substantial financial resources, specialized personnel, and an ongoing commitment to research and development. As authoritarian regimes and extremist groups continue to invest in state-of-the-art military capabilities, Western nations cannot afford to lag behind in what has become an accelerating arms race.

In conclusion, aid to Ukraine and Israel should be seen not as isolated acts but as part of a cohesive strategy to counter a growing axis of authoritarianism and extremism. Anything less would be a strategic blunder, jeopardizing not just U.S. interests, but the global order as we know it.

Maksym Skrypchenko is president of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center.