3

I'm aware that opposition for more aid to Ukraine mostly comes from the Republican camp these days. Nonetheless, some House Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did oppose some earlier omnibus bills that contained such provisions. Alas, as with opposition to such (omnibus) bills in general, it can be hard to tease the exact reasons, unless they were made explicit in some statement.

So, have any Congresspersons from the Democratic Party explicitly say they were against more aid for Ukraine (in itself), and for what reason?

(N.B.: I'm aware of extra-parliamentary "hard left" opposition, and their arguments that the US is looking to transform Ukraine into 'Big Israel' etc.)

1 Answer 1

2

There have been earlier attempts by a small minority of the House Democrats in October of 2022 to direct the US policy towards peace negotiations with Russia instead of supporting continued Ukrainian resistance against the Russian invasion. The reasons given were stated somewhat briefly and somewhat cryptically, referring vaguely to the financial aspects of the aid to Ukraine, as well as to reducing "harm" to Ukrainian people.

The original letter was retracted shortly afterwards. According to the press, at least some of the original signatories did not change their point of view even after the retraction. So we cannot exclude the possibility of the repeated calls of the same nature in the future.

I could not find any official statement on this topic by the original signatories since then. The original signatories did not show any evidence of a change of their views since then - they simply stopped making (much of) any official statements on the issue.

For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had not condemned any of the multiple Russian atrocities and war crimes committed since the time of her signing the "peace" letter. But neither did she call for negotiations with Russia since then. This is my impression from casually reviewing her X/Twitter posts.

References:

But as legislators responsible for the expenditure of tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars in military assistance in the conflict, we believe such involvement in this war also creates a responsibility for the United States to seriously explore all possible avenues, including direct engagement with Russia, to reduce harm and support Ukraine in achieving a peaceful settlement.
...
In conclusion, we urge you to make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties, which will allow for a sovereign and independent Ukraine, and, in coordination with our Ukrainian partners, seek a rapid end to the conflict and reiterate this goal as America’s chief priority.

We need direct talks with Russia and a negotiated settlement | Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Barbara Lee, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and others | The Guardian


A group of left-wing Democrats in the US Congress has withdrawn a letter that called for a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine.
...
White House officials said in response that diplomacy is only possible when all sides are prepared to negotiate, and that is not currently the case.

Massachusetts Democratic congressman Jake Auchincloss denounced the letter as "an olive branch to a war criminal who's losing his war", in reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Another Progressive Caucus member, Ruben Gallego, responded: "Russia doesn't acknowledge diplomacy, only strength.

"If we want Ukraine to continue as a free and democratic country that it is, we must support their fight."

Ms Jayapal, a Washington state congresswoman, said on Tuesday that she still supported an end to the war "with diplomacy".

Democrats retract call for Biden change of course on Ukraine


Two of the known X/Twitter accounts of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

7
  • The letter apparently had 30 "Member of Congress" signatories. And while it suggests offering Russia sanctions relief in exchange for negotiations, it doesn't suggest anything about reducing (or threatening to do so) aid for Ukraine. So, nominally at least, that letter doesn't seem to seek to force Ukraine that way. Although "vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement" and "seek a rapid end to the conflict and reiterate this goal as America’s chief priority" might be interpreted as a more coded version of that. Mar 13 at 21:32
  • 1
    @Dolphin613Motorboat The letter is pretty clear: "we urge you to make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, ... seek a rapid end to the conflict and reiterate this goal as America’s chief priority." The chief priority of Ukraine & the US up until then was forcing Russia to move back to the 1991 borders, using American aid. Thus, the letter's intent is clear. The letter called, in essence, for this: "Priority one: bring peace to Ukraine. All other priorities rescinded. Ukrainian land & Ukrainian people captured by Russia expendable." Mar 13 at 22:03
  • ICYMI, the reference to the Weyland-Yutani Corporation is from "Alien" (1979). Mar 13 at 22:06
  • @TimurShtatland It's possible to favor both. "We really want a negotiated peace, but we won't withhold aid as a hostage."
    – Barmar
    Mar 14 at 0:07
  • @Barmar Re: "It's possible to favor both": then why don't they say so? I don't remember AOC, Omar, etc calling for rapid and massive weapons delivery to Ukraine. Why? Because they never did. Nor did they mention this in the letter. Not a single word. Moreover, this: "seek a rapid end to the conflict" could only be interpreted as "let us force Ukraine to give Russia what Russia has so far managed to chop off in terms of both people and territory". Mar 14 at 1:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .