Now I’m not one of those people who yell at their TVs. But from time to time something so outrageous assaults my eyes and eyes that I can’t help calling foul—in a raised voice, possibly employing expletives. I experienced just such a psychotic break this morning when Monica Crowley appeared on FNC’s Fox and Friends Weekend to discuss the Russo-Ukrainian War. Ms. Crowley is a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, a former lobbyist and political pundit, and a vocal conservative critic of the Biden Administration.
FaFW has evolved into a haven for opponents of US involvement in the war, and that’s fair enough. But it also affords a cordial welcome to those whom I would classify as Ukraine truthers—a group that includes Ms. Crowley.
The interview began with the usual litany of complaints. The hosts and Ms. Crowley agreed that the Biden Administration was derelict in its duty, having failed to create an “off ramp” that would end the war. As usual, there were no specifics appended to this criticism: For all the talk of an off ramp, its proponents seem disinclined to describe what it might look like. This, I suspect, is because what they really want is for the Biden Administration to put the squeeze on Ukraine, cutting a deal with V. Putin and telling the Ukrainian government that further US support depends on its acceptance of the necessary territorial and other concessions. There’s a word for this, appeasement, and it’s an ugly one that Ms. Crowley and people who share her view understandably prefer to avoid. Still, it’s arguable point.
But as the interview proceeded, it devolved into a mutual admiration society of demented conspiracy theorists.
Opponents of US involvement in the war make much of the dollar value of the aid this country has provided to Ukraine. Why are we spending billions to defend Ukraine’s borders when we refuse to control our own borders? Where is all the money going? What about the crying needs of the American people? Why should we bankrupt ourselves for the benefit of a bunch of foreigners? These rhetorical questions are non sequiturs, of course: US policy on Ukraine should be judged on its merits, period.
As for the question of cost, the dollar value of the US aid provided directly to Ukraine so far is around $13 billion. This total does not include indirect costs, such as money spent to replenish US stocks of military material, but even so it’s basically a rounding error in the context of this country’s $6 trillion+ FY 2022 federal budget. Social Security and Medicare are bankrupting the federal government at a much faster rate than assistance to Ukraine ever could. Could we talk about that?
But Ms. Crowley went even farther, describing US aid to Ukraine as a “slush fund” and suggesting that it’s really a gigantic money-laundering operation designed to benefit shadowy elites and arms manufacturers. I haven’t heard this kind of crap since the salad days of the New Left—but now it’s coming from someone who describes herself as a conservative!
You will not be surprised to learn that the FaFW hosts smiled and nodded along with Ms. Crowley’s rant.
There’s certainly a case to be made that Biden & Co., having squandered their credibility in other areas, are partly to blame for the skepticism with which their Ukraine policy is viewed. I get that; no one could ever describe me as a fan of our hapless president and his comically incompetent administration. But when they do wander down the right path, as they mostly have on the Russo-Ukrainian War, I’ll swallow hard and support them.
For some conservatives, though, an off ramp for V. Putin is preferable to a helping hand for Joe Biden. Call that what you want, but it’s not patriotism. I’m looking at you, Monica Crowley…
Thomas, lamenting the absurdities of pundits on cable news channels or in the comment sections of internet sites is a fools errand. My advice is forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown.
As for the content of Ms Crowley’s comment, she’s about fifty percent right and, of course, half wrong.
Claiming that Biden’s motive (or the motive of the bipartisan crew that agrees with him) has anything to do with enriching defense contractors is absurd. Almost anytime government spends any money on anything someone or some entity is enriched. If enriching private individuals or companies was off the table, the Government wouldn’t be able to spend any money on anything.
As for her other point, it’s far more valid than you give her credit for. The direct spending on Ukraine may be a minuscule percentage of total U.S. Government spending but it’s a more substantial percentage of discretionary spending; it’s still small but not so small.
As your yourself acknowledge, the cost to replace the equipment shipped to Ukraine will be anything but insignificant. That spending will be measured in the tens of billions and if things continue as they are, hundreds of billions.
Then there’s the tens of billions in expenditures that will be needed to refill our strategic petroleum reserves. Why were the reserves depleted? The idea was to lower prices that were sky high because of reduced Russian supplies because of the war. By the way, Trump wanted to begin refilling these reserves towards the end of his presidency when oil was going for $28 a barrel. The Democrats in the House and Senate refused to allocate the funding. What do you suppose refilling the reserves will cost at today’s prices?
Besides all of this, there’s the negative economic impact that the war is having on tens of millions of Americans and billions of other people around the world. A serious analysis can’t ignore these costs.
You’re right, the airwaves and the internet are filled with clowns. But there are serious reasons to question whether a different approach back at the beginning of 2022 and even now, might be preferable to the approach Biden has adopted.
It’s fine with me if you question Crowley’s motives; I presume that like her brethren, her overriding ambition is to get ratings. My question isn’t about her motives, it’s about Biden’s motives. Did he really try to discourage Putin’s invasion or was he more interested in encouraging it?
Having lived and worked in Ukraine for 11 years I have opinions on both sides of this. Make no mistake the government is not a small 'd' democracy and Zelinsky is not anywhere like our George Washington. As we got into this neo-quagmire (remember that word from Vietnam?), there was an effort made early-on, I think by Sen. Rand Paul, who wanted a provision in the legislation that the appropriate inspectors general be given authority to oversee that the monies we had sent to Ukraine were spend effectively. The Democrats blocked that. Knowing the history of the oligarchs in Ukraine, there has been money siphoned off. Do I have proof? No. I just know that's how the system works there. Our mafia in the U.S. calls it "vig". And Zelensky has run things pretty much as a dictator even per-invasion. I remember one bold move by Oligarch Akmentov. He had a lot of interests in banking. A particular tranche of $1 billion came in for USAID projects. It was deposited into one of Akmentov's banks and mysteriously disappeared. The excuse was the some accounts had been "hacked" and the criminals found this large deposit of dollars. The money was laundered several times and the trail ran cold. Akmentov became a richer man. This kind of crap happens all the time. It's corrupt government at it's best.
The other side of this is: The Ukrainian military has fought valiantly and stopped thug-Putin in his tracks. You gotta root for the good guys here. Ukraine (even with the oligarch thugs), if left to its devices, can prosper. I think there is a lot of basic jealousy on Putin's part as Mother Russia has not progressed as well as Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet framework.
We have to also remember Lloyd Austin early on saying they wanted to use the Ukrainian forces to "wear down" the Russian forces - I think to bleed them dry slowly so they would be useless in the long run. I believe we should have kicked the crap out of Putin asap and not dribbled out the donations of arms incrementally, which is what happened. This slow decimation of Russian forces has got to humiliate Putin. He basically was hosed by his military industrial complex. They hadn't modernized his forces at all. Now we are faced with a possible nuclear retribution from him since we have backed him into an embarrassing corner.
Exit strategy? The options are running out.