Suchergebnisse

As much of the world's attention shifted to the Middle East this week, Russian president Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky staked out contrasting positions on the war between Israel and Hamas.
The Russian president has reportedly not called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since the weekend, and did not release a message of support or condolences following the attacks on Saturday.
Instead, Putin took the opportunity to blame U.S. policy for the latest outbreak of violence. "I think that many people will agree with me that this is a vivid example of the failure of United States policy in the Middle East," Putin said. "[Washington] tried to monopolize regulating [the conflict], but was unfortunately unconcerned with finding compromises acceptable for both sides. It put forward ideas on how it should be done and pressured both sides. Each time, however, without taking into account the fundamental interests of the Palestinian people," he added, according to the Moscow Times.
On Thursday, Russia's foreign ministry called on Israel to agree to a ceasefire and allow goods to come into Gaza. "The unacceptability of the indiscriminate bombardment leading to numerous civilian casualties was emphasized," a Russian statement said.
Putin and Netanyahu have reportedly shared a friendly relationship in the past, but it has deteriorated over the course of Russia's war in Ukraine. Israel has refused to join the Western sanctions regime, abstained from providing weapons to Kyiv, and largely maintained neutrality on the war, but tensions between Moscow and Tel Aviv have grown due to other factors.
For one, the war in Ukraine has brought Russia closer with Iran, who some have been quick to blame for the attacks in Israel over the weekend.
Second, as Moscow's former chief rabbi explained to reporter Pjotr Sauer, many Jewish people are uncomfortable with Putin's framing of the war as a fight against a "neo-Nazi" government.
Sauer elaborates in the Guardian: "Last summer, these tensions first spilled over into the public, when Russian officials accused Israel of supporting the 'neo-Nazi regime' in Kyiv. The spat was ignited after Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, recycled an antisemitic conspiracy theory claiming that Adolf Hitler 'had Jewish blood' – comments that Israel described as 'unforgivable and outrageous.'"
Zelensky, meanwhile, has repeatedly affirmed his country's support for Israel, comparing Hamas's attacks over the weekend to Russia's conduct during the war. "The only difference is that there is a terrorist organization that attacked Israel, and here is a terrorist state that attacked Ukraine," Zelensky said during a speech to NATO on Monday. He later told a French television station that he was confident that Moscow was supporting Hamas "in one way or another."
During his visit to Brussels, the Ukrainian president also acknowledged that "everybody's afraid" that Western attention and support for Kyiv could diminish as focus shifted toward the Middle East.
Zelensky earlier said Moscow stood to gain from tumult around the world. "We have data very clearly proving that Russia is interested in inciting war in the Middle East. So that a new source of pain and suffering would erode global unity and exacerbate cleavages and controversies, helping Russia in destroying freedom in Europe," he wrote on X. "We can see Russian propagandists gloating. We can see Moscow's Iranian friends openly extending a helping hand to those who attacked Israel."
In Responsible Statecraft this week, Mark Katz, professor of government and politics at the George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government, explored these dynamics and analyzed why, contrary to some opinions, a larger war in the Middle East could run counter to Moscow interests.
"While many in the West seem to think that Russia somehow benefits whenever conflict erupts in the Middle East, this might be an occasion when it does not. Moscow may be calling for a ceasefire, then, because it sees this as the best way to protect its interests," he concluded. "The problem for Moscow, however, is that it is not in a strong position to either persuade or coerce Israel or Hamas to agree to one. Perhaps this is why Foreign Minister Lavrov indicated that President Putin would not be making calls to any other leaders about this."
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
—A recent poll conducted by Gallup found that "After 18 months of grinding conflict, Ukrainians remain deeply committed to winning the war with Russia -- although slightly less so than they were in the early months of the war." The number of Ukrainians who would want to keep fighting until "it wins the war" dropped to 60% from 70% in September 2022. The number of respondents who wanted to seek a negotiated settlement "as soon as possible" increased slightly during the same time period, from 26% to 31%.
The poll also found that "In the South (45%) and East (52%) regions closest to the front line, support for continuing the fight is still lower than the rest of the country. As a result, the proportion who favor a negotiated end to the war as quickly as possible is also highest in the South (41%) and East (39%)." Just over 70% of residents of the north of Ukraine, which includes Kyiv, and the West were in favor of continuing to fight.
—Another poll — from the Eurasia Group Foundation — found that a majority of Americans (58%) think the United States should push for a negotiated settlement in the war in Ukraine. As Daniel Larison notes in RS today, "Support for diplomatic solutions [in Ukraine and elsewhere] has majority backing of Americans from across the political spectrum, so it is remarkable how little support for those same solutions can be found among our elected representatives and policymakers in Washington."
The poll also found that a plurality of respondents named "avoiding a direct war between the U.S. and nuclear-armed Russia" as the top goal for the future of U.S. support of the war effort. More respondents believed that the "U.S. responded well to Russia's war in Ukraine than did not," though there was a strong partisan divide on that question.
— A New Yorker profile of national security adviser Jake Sullivan examines the administration's approach to the war in Ukraine, explores some of the internal debates over which weapons to send to Kyiv, and looks into how Sullivan thinks about the question of diplomacy. The piece reports that the White House was "fully briefed" on the Track Two talks that took place between former and prominent Russians in the spring.
"There is little doubt that the Biden Administration has actively considered ways to get Russia to the negotiating table," writes Susan Glasser. "Privately, Sullivan has had extensive discussions about what a peace deal might look like. 'My conversations with him all the way through have been about what can you do to eventually bring this war to an end,' an informal adviser of Sullivan's told me. (...) 'they want to find a way to eventually get to a freeze, to eventually get to a negotiated settlement. But it has to be something that keeps nato together. It has to be something that doesn't isolate the Ukrainians or have them go off and undermine everything that's been done. That's a hard square to circle.'"
—National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said that funding for Ukraine would not be endless. "On the Ukraine funding, we're coming near to the end of the rope. Today we announced $200 million, and we'll keep that aid going as long we can, but it's not going to be indefinite," he said. The White House is reportedly planning to try to get its languishing aid request for Ukraine through Congress by combining it with funding for Israel, Taiwan, and border security, though some Congressional Republicans have balked at the proposal.
U.S. State Department news:During a press briefing on Tuesday focused almost exclusively on the war in Gaza, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said that he didn't have any evidence suggesting that Russia was involved in Hamas's attacks.

The 2024 presidential candidates are not holding back. Across the board they are issuing strident condemnations of Hamas's brutal attacks against Israel and support for Israel's ensuing war in Gaza.Nearly all are using the events to blame Biden Administration policies in the Middle East.Only one, Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, has urged restraint on the part of the U.S., pointing to his colleagues' anti-Iran rhetoric as a possible slide into war for Washington and a broader Middle East conflagration.Republicans overall offered the most bombastic takes, with Trump proclaiming that his Abraham Accords had brought "peace" to the Middle East before Biden came in and blew it all up.The accords, which sought U.S. normalization with Arab states, were only signed by Morocco, Bahrain, UAE, and Sudan (whose government was overthrown this year and is in the middle of another civil war) before Trump left office. While "peace" is clearly in the eye of the beholder, these agreements were not only upheld, but the Biden White House has praised and sought doggedly to expand them, reportedly offering Saudi Arabia all sorts of concessions to join.That the accords left the actual peace process – between Israel-Palestine – off the table, is being blamed in part for the tinderbox that led to last weekend's attacks.Beyond that, candidates are demanding reprisals, blaming Iran, and warning of terror attacks in the U.S.Cornel West, who is running as an independent primary candidate on Biden's left flank, was the only one to offer a warning against civilian killings on both sides, and lays blame for Hamas's action at the feet of US-Israeli policies.Here's how they all line up:The 2024 Democrats:President Biden: "In this moment we must be crystal clear: We stand with Israel. And we will make sure Israel has what it needs to take care of its citizens, defend itself and respond to this attack. There's no justification for terrorism. There's no excuse."Marianne Williamson: "Innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the actions of the Israeli government are, even as I write this, either being tortured or killed or are dead already. Children have been taken hostage. A nation is terrorized. (...) And yes, I know. These events did not occur in a vacuum. I could write about — and indeed I have, and at length — the myriad injustices Palestinians have endured at the hands of Israel. (...) I will have much to say in the coming days about what is happening in Israel and how I feel the United States should respond. For now, I stand with Israel. And I stand with the Palestinian people. I do not stand with Hamas, nor will I ever. For their cause is not justice. Their cause is terror.2024 RepublicansDonald Trump: "The atrocities we are witnessing in Israel would never have happened if I was president." (...) "less than four years ago, we had peace in the Middle East with the historic Abraham Accords. Today we have an all-out war in Israel, and it's going to spread very quickly. What a difference a president makes."Later he added in a Truth Social post, in all-caps: "CROOKED JOE BIDEN MUST TAKE BACK AND FREEZE THE 6 BILLION DOLLARS RIGHT NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. HOW COULD ANYONE BE SO INCOMPETENT AND STUPID? BIDEN CAUSED THIS WAR, AND IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE!!!This has become a ubiquitous charge lobbed against the White House by Republicans in the wake of the Hamas attacks. The U.S. had unfrozen $6 billion in Iranian oil profits that were being held by South Korea, in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages last month. The money is currently held by Qatar, which was expected to be doled out for humanitarian needs in Iran. None of that money has left Doha, according to reports.Gov. Ron DeSantis: Proposed anti-Iran sanctions for the state of Florida on Tuesday, calling the Tehran government a "clearinghouse for terrorist funding in the region." Meanwhile, he said, "Israel, with the full support of the United States, should kill Hamas members and extinguish their entire infrastructure,"He also blamed Biden for unfreezing $6 billion for Iran.Amb. Nikki Haley: Her message to Israel was simple. "Finish them. Hamas did this, you know Iran's behind this. Finish them.""What happened to Israel could happen here in America," Haley said in a separate interview. "I have been terribly worried about the fact that Iran has said that the easiest way to get into America is through the Southern border … we don't need to wait for another 9/11."Vice President Mike Pence: "Biden should demand the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages in Gaza and direct JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) to be prepared to mobilize US Special Forces with Israeli Defense Forces to get our people home. Hamas gives 'em up, or we go get 'em."In response to a report that Biden is considering sending a second aircraft carrier, Pence said "Just do it!"Pence also attacked what he said were "voices of appeasement" in the GOP, including Ramaswamy, Trump, and DeSantis, who have all urgedrestraint and questioned U.S. interests in the Ukraine War. "This is also what happens when you have leaders in the Republican Party signaling retreat on the world stage."Sen Tim Scott: "The last thing we need is a Joe Biden wing of the Republican Party on foreign policy," echoing Pence on the issue of Israel and Hamas.He also called the attacks "an assault on Western Civilization. The truth is though, Joe Biden funded these attacks on Israel. America's weakness is blood in the water for bad actors, but this is worse than that. We didn't just invite this aggression, we paid for it."Later, he added, "at least 9 Americans have been killed at the hands of evil Hamas terrorists. It's time to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel, who has the resources and the power to wipe Hamas off the map."Gov. Chris Christie: "What I would be doing is making sure, one, that Israel has everything that it needs to be able to take whatever actions it needs to take." In this interview, he also criticizes "irresponsible" GOP House members for removing Speaker Kevin McCarthy and paralyzing the House in a time of crisis.More Christie: "Biden's appeasement of Israel's enemies has invited this war against Israel. Appeasement anywhere never works. We must do whatever it takes to support the State of Israel in its time of grave danger, and we must end the scourge of Iran-backed terrorism. This terrorism is funded by Biden's idiotic release of $6 billion to the Iranians."The Hamas war against Israel is now the second war started under Biden's failed presidency, first by Russia in Ukraine and now by Hamas in Israel. Both could have been deterred by strong American leadership."Christie also blamed U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as signaling weakness.Vivek Ramaswamy: He pushes for strong support of Israel and blasts Hamas, but warns of a wider war that could include the U.S. He presented a 6-point plan on X, which included critiques of Haley and Pence for escalatory rhetoric:"These histrionics are unhelpful & unserious. The U.S. should provide Israel with diplomatic support, intelligence-sharing, and necessary munitions to defend its own homeland, while taking special care to avoid a broader regional war in the Middle East that would *not* advance U.S. interests."The 2024 independentsRobert F. Kennedy Jr.: "This ignominious, unprovoked, and barbaric attack on Israel must be met with world condemnation and unequivocal support for the Jewish state's right to self-defense. We must provide Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself — now. As President, I'll make sure that our policy is unambiguous so that the enemies of Israel will think long and hard before attempting aggression of any kind."I applaud the strong statements of support from the Biden White House for Israel in her hour of need. However, the scale of these attacks means it is likely that Israel will need to wage a sustained military campaign to protect its citizens. Statements of support are fine, but we must follow through with unwavering, resolute, and practical action. America must stand by our ally throughout this operation and beyond as it exercises its sovereign right to self-defense."Cornel West: In an interview with POLITICO, West said that "Israel and [the] United States are primarily responsible" for the violence that took place near the Gaza strip that has resulted in more than 1,000 deaths and hundreds more in retaliatory strikes. But, he added, "Hamas must take responsibility for killing innocent folk.""The United States bears some responsibility, no doubt about that. And I think that Hamas and [Islamic J]ihad bear responsibility for killing innocent people," he said. "Palestinians have a right to defend themselves in the same way that Israel has a right to defend itself. There's no doubt about that. But neither has a right to kill innocent people."He added that "the state of Israel has been doing that for 75 years."Earlier, West said, "I would stop the killing of innocent people — be they Palestinians or Israelis — by calling for an end to the vicious U.S.-supported Israeli occupation. This violent resistance to oppression is the desperate language of an occupied people."

Despite a chilly reception from Republicans on Capitol Hill this week, President Joe Biden is reportedly planning on moving forward with his proposal to combine aid for Ukraine and Israel—along with funding for other policies—into a single package.The White House's emergency supplemental request for Ukraine has been hanging in the balance since August, languishing in Congress as House Republicans deal with internal chaos and opposition to further funding of Kyiv has been growing among GOP members.The question of future aid to Ukraine has been central in House debates over the last month; first, in the battle over continued funding of the U.S. government; and subsequently in the dispute that resulted in the removal of Kevin McCarthy from his position as Speaker. In an effort to potentially get around these roadblocks, the Biden administration has been weighing combining that aid with funding for Israel, Taiwan, and border security.Providing funding for Israel in the aftermath of Hamas' shocking attacks over the weekend will likely garner nearly unanimous support from Congress. As Responsible Statecraft noted on Monday, an emergency package for Israel would "likely sail through Congress, observers say, with or without a House Speaker." The White House is likely hoping that the speed with which legislators will want to pass aid for Israel will push enough Republicans to put their reluctance to supporting more funds for Kyiv to the side. Such a "move could make sense because it 'jams the far right,'" ias an anonymous senior administration official told the Washington Post earlier this week. Biden's planned proposal has received explicit support from some prominent House Republicans, including the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), a strong supporter of continued funding for Ukraine. "There's discussion about putting Israeli funding with Ukraine funding, maybe Taiwan funding and finally border security funding," McCaul said Monday. "To me that would be a good package."The important question is how Republican members who are skeptical of funding Ukraine's war effort will react. After successfully managing to remove $300 million in aid from the Defense Department's Appropriations Act last month, some GOP lawmakers insist that they will continue to oppose support for Kyiv, even if it is tied to aid for Israel."They shouldn't be tied together. I will not vote to fund Ukraine. Absolutely not," said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), one the staunchest opponents of Ukraine aid in the House. "Israel is totally separate."Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) went a step further, suggesting that "any funding for Ukraine should be redirected to Israel immediately." Others have not gone so far as to say that they would oppose such a package if it came to a vote, but have still cautioned against combining what they see as two distinct issues. For some Republicans, contrary to the Biden administration's hopes, the need for swift legislation that supports Israel is precisely why it should be voted on separately."We've got to do something for Israel today if we can, or tomorrow," Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) told NBC News on Monday, whereas the conversation of future Ukraine aid is "an argument that's in process."The Heritage Foundation, the influential conservative think tank that has opposed additional Ukraine aid, has made a similar case. "Lawmakers need to resist attempts to link emergency military support for Israel with additional funding for Ukraine," the group wrote on X. "These conflicts are separate and distinct. They deserve individual debates and votes in Congress."Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who emphasized that it was "morally right" to help both Israel and Ukraine, added that "to hold one hostage for the other wouldn't be right." Rep. Tom Cole, (R-Okla.), who supports aid to Ukraine (in a separate bill) was even more blunt, calling the move "blackmail."Whether or not such a package receives a vote on the House floor may ultimately come down to the future of House leadership. Supporters of Ukraine aid may have received a slight boost on Wednesday, when Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) edged out Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in the Republican conference vote to become the GOP nominee to replace McCarthy. However, the vote to elect the next Speaker did not take place on Wednesday, with Scalise still reportedly short of the necessary 217 total votes to prevail as Speaker.Jordan had earlier stated that he opposed bringing Ukraine aid to the floor, and, when asked Wednesday whether he would be in favor of tying that aid to aid for Israel, he said "We gotta help Israel that's for sure." Some took this response as a signal that aid to Ukraine would take a backseat to supporting Israel. Scalise has not commented on how he would treat Ukraine funding if elected, but he has voted in favor of aid packages in the past.

Calls for a military response against Iran in response to this weekend's attacks in Israel are beginning to percolate in Washington, particularly among long-time advocates for regime change.
While Iran has provided funding and training for Hamas, the militant organization responsible for the attacks, Tehran's direct role in the attacks is not yet clear.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that Iranian security officials played an important role in planning Saturday's attacks in Israel, but many experts have expressed skepticism about the report. Both U.S. and Israeli officials have said that they have seen no evidence Iran was directly involved in this weekend's events.
"Iran is a major player but we can't yet say if it was involved in the planning or training," said an IDF spokesman on Monday.
Nonetheless, many hawkish voices are already floating the possibility of a military response against Tehran.
"How much more death and destruction does the world have to take from the Iranian Ayatollah and his henchman before they pay a real price?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on the social media platform X. "If this 'Israel 9/11' - in which American citizens have apparently died - was in fact authorized and planned by the Iranian regime that would more than justify the use of military force to deter future aggression."
On Monday, during an interview on Fox News, Graham went a step further, saying that he was "confident" regarding Iran's involvement, and that it was "time to take the war to the Ayatollah's backyard."
Nikki Haley, former ambassador to the United Nations and current presidential candidate, said in an interview on Fox News that her message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was: "Finish them. Hamas did this, you know Iran's behind this. Finish them."
"What happened to Israel could happen here in America," Haley said in a separate interview. "I have been terribly worried about the fact that Iran has said that the easiest way to get into America is through the Southern border … we don't need to wait for another 9/11." Washington-based advocacy groups have also been calling for war with Iran in response to the Hamas attacks on Israel..
"We call on our government in Washington, together with Israel, and our allies around the world to launch strikes against military and intelligence targets in Iran, including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) sites, and missile and drone bases, where Iran's proxy and partner network is trained," said United Against Nuclear Iran chair and former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman and the group's CEO Mark Wallace in a statement. "If we do not stop Iran now, its threat will only grow more lethal."
"The Israeli response must be overwhelming and aimed not just at Hamas but at the head of the snake inside Iran," added Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu himself notably did not mention Iran in his address to the nation on Monday.
Many other members of Congress have stopped short of explicitly calling for a military response, but rather placed responsibility for the attacks squarely on Iran. This rhetoric opens the door for escalation that risks bringing the United States into the conflict.
"From a US perspective, it is critical to help prevent further escalation since a direct Israeli-Iranian confrontation will very likely drag the US into yet another major war in the Middle East," says Trita Parsi, executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute. "The US simply cannot afford such a war in the midst of the conflict in Ukraine and the risk of conflict with China over Taiwan."
Others claimed the Biden administration's recent decision to release $6 billion in Iranian funds held by South Korea as part of a prisoner exchange agreement helped fund the Hamas attack.
The White House has pushed back against these accusations, maintaining that the funds were transferred to Qatar and have not yet been spent. "[W]hen it is spent, it can only be spent on things like food and medicine for the Iranian people," wrote National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson on X. "These funds have absolutely nothing to do with the horrific attacks today and this is not the time to spread disinformation."

The historic removal of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from the House Speakership on Wednesday introduced a new roadblock to the prospect of future aid for Ukraine's war effort.Funding for Ukraine emerged as a centerpiece in the negotiations to pass government spending bills and avoid a government shutdown in recent weeks, and McCarthy's maneuvering last weekend was ultimately not enough to save his job. The race for who will take his spot has begun, with Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Steve Scalise (R-La.) already throwing their hats into the ring and others, like Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) are rumored to be interested as well. One attribute that all share is reluctance to provide more aid to Ukraine, at least in the immediate future. "Looking at the Republican candidates for speaker, I have a tough time seeing any of them bringing Ukraine funding to the floor — even with strings," wrote Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman on the social media platform X. Sherman later added that he "would be surprised if the W.H. gets another Ukraine aid package this year." The reluctance stems from the growing opposition in the GOP caucus to continuing to provide aid for Ukraine. During the Pentagon Appropriations Act amendment process last month, just over half of Republican House members voted against including $300 million in Ukraine aid, and a handful of members maintained that they would not vote for any government spending bills that included money for Ukraine. After much back-and-forth, McCarthy had seemingly acquiesced to the bloc of House Republicans who are skeptical of funding Ukraine. The 45-day Continuing Resolution, which passed with the support of 209 Democrats and 126 Republicans over the weekend, did not contain any further money for Kyiv. But the issue was still a major reason for McCarthy's ouster, with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), the leader of the revolt, accusing the former Speaker of working with President Joe Biden behind the scenes to ensure that Ukraine funding would ultimately be brought to the floor. "Members of the Republican party might vote differently on a motion to vacate if they heard what the speaker had to share with us about his secret side deal with Joe Biden on Ukraine. I'll be listening," Gaetz said earlier this week, before introducing the motion to vacate. On Sunday, Biden said that he expected McCarthy to "keep his word and secure the passage of support for Ukraine at this critical moment." McCarthy was eventually removed from his leadership position, with eight Republicans joining forces with every voting Democrat to vacate the speakership. It marked the first time ever that a "motion to vacate" had been successfully employed to remove a House Speaker from power. But if the next Speaker refuses to bring Ukraine aid up to a vote, supporters of sending more aid to Ukraine could have a couple of procedural options that would allow them to supersede the Speaker. One is a petition to discharge, a mechanism by which any House majority can bypass leadership and force floor action on a bill that has been stuck in committee. A petition to discharge would require legislation to first be introduced and be pending in a committee for 30 legislative days. Further, a petition to discharge would require the signatures of a majority of members. Even if all Democrats signed the petition, it would still need six Republicans to reach the necessary 218. There are far more than six Republicans who are in favor of continued aid for Ukraine, but the question is whether there are six who are willing to team up with Democrats and publicly buck their party's leadership. Because petitions to discharge always require members of the majority party to agree with the minority party's legislative priorities, they have rarely been employed successfully.Another option would be a maneuver known as "defeating the previous question." Voting on the previous question is a motion used to end debate on pending legislation and therefore bringing it to an immediate vote.If Democrats — once again with sufficient GOP help — vote to defeat the previous question on a future rule vote, it will leave the rule being voted on open to debate and amendment, which could theoretically be used to add in funding for Ukraine. Both options were floated in the media as ways for Democrats and moderate Republicans to overcome opposition from others in the GOP during the government funding debate. Experts viewed them unlikely to happen, because it would mean that a group of Republicans would essentially declare war on party leadership. At the time, Molly Reynolds of the Brookings Institution wrote on X that any solution that relied on a bloc of Republicans joining forces with Democrats would have to be "implicitly blessed by the GOP leadership."Therefore, bringing future Ukraine-related legislation to the floor over a speaker's public objection would require either rank-and-file Republicans taking a major political risk by going against them, or leadership doing so by privately endorsing the effort.A third possibility, a close observer of the Hill tells RS, is that members who want to continue funding Ukraine strike a deal with the next Speaker, either by pairing it with conservative policy goals like border security concessions, or by trimming down the size of the aid package. In any case, these options are all either unlikely or will take time to progress. The White House and legislators supportive of continued funding for Ukraine have argued that quickly passing another tranche of aid is essential to Kyiv's effort. "We cannot under any circumstances allow America's support for Ukraine to be interrupted," Biden said on Sunday after the stopgap funding measure was passed. "We have time, not much time, and there's an overwhelming sense of urgency," President Joe Biden said Sunday. On Tuesday, eight Senate Democrats sent a letter to House and Senate leadership, saying that "now is not the time to slow our aid to Ukraine.""It is past time for the U.S. Congress to take up and pass legislation guaranteeing Ukraine has the critical resources necessary to continue defending themselves against Putin's illegal war," they wrote. "We urge you to act immediately to advance legislation that will provide critical and sustained security and economic support for Ukraine to the President's desk for his signature."Proponents of expediting the next package argue that the money that Washington has already sent to Kyiv is quickly drying up, though as Responsible Statecraft has reported this week, the reality is more complex. Sen. Mark Warner, (D-Va.) noted on Tuesday that he does not have "100% clarity," on how much of the roughly $62 billion that has been appropriated for military aid remains. Given the events in recent months, the path forward for more Ukraine aid already seemed tricky. With House leadership in turmoil, it now appears to be even more daunting.

Last week's edition of Diplomacy Watch focused on how politics in Poland and Slovakia were threatening Western unity over Ukraine. A spat between Warsaw and Kyiv over grain imports led Polish President Andrzej Duda to compare Ukraine to a "drowning person … capable of pulling you down to the depths ," while upcoming elections in Slovakia could bring to power a new leader who has pledged to halt weapons sales to Ukraine.
As Connor Echols wrote last week, "the West will soon face far greater challenges in maintaining unity on Ukraine than at any time since the war began."
A piece in Politico this week outlining the challenges facing the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff C.Q. Brown as he prepares to take over from Gen. Mark Milley suggests that the divisions may be even more widespread.
"As Ukrainian forces push for a breakthrough before winter sets in, there is a growing sense in Washington and Europe that the West may be weary of the fight," wrote Lara Seligman. "On Capitol Hill, hardline Republicans oppose sending additional aid; across the Atlantic, Poland recently said it could not send any more weapons to Ukraine in the short term, and French officials recently hinted the country would soon reach that point as well."
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been busy trying to win over skeptics around the world, but there is not much evidence that his audience in the Global South or the GOP caucus in Washington has been particularly receptive to his message.
In the U.S. Congress, future funding for the war in Ukraine has taken an outsized role in the ongoing battle for government funding, and little progress has been made this week. A small but growing (and increasingly vocal) group of Republicans in both the House and Senate have vowed to hold up government spending legislation if it includes more aid for Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal indicated that others are watching these fights closely.
"Intertwined with those contentious negotiations in Washington are rising concerns in European capitals about the war, particularly if Washington's support shows signs of flagging," the Journal reported. "While European backing for Ukraine generally remains solid, cracks are starting to surface as weapons stockpiles from some allies dwindle and others hesitate to fill the gaps."
This infighting in various capitals around the world comes at what Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies described to Politico as a turning point in the war. "If the counteroffensive fails, or if the counteroffensive does not get through the Russian defensive zone in a major way, I think that fears of a forever war will get stronger," said Cancian.
From the perspective of the incoming U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman, it will likely become increasingly difficult to navigate both the domestic political and battlefield realities. "Milley was in the enviable position of having a lot of stuff and a lot of political support so that makes it easy," Cancian told Politico. "Brown is in the position of having less stuff and less political support."
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
—Some Western politicians are pushing the government in Kyiv to hold elections, despite the ongoing war and the imposition of martial law. Visiting Ukraine's capital last month, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that it was"time for Ukraine to take the next step" in the "development of democracy, namely to hold elections in 2024." But Ukrainian officials have expressed serious skepticism that new elections would be prudent, or even possible. "Ukrainian officials say that in order to hold a major vote during wartime, considerable financial, logistical and legal hurdles must be overcome," the Washington Post reported. "In private, some say that the prospect is outright impossible, and could provide Moscow's security forces with a means to infiltrate and weaken Ukraine from within." The Biden administration has maintained that the timing for a new election will be Ukraine's decision.
—Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky met with defense ministers from France and Britain, as well as NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg ahead of an arms production forum in Kyiv. The forum, according to Ukraine's foreign minister, will bring together representatives of 165 military contractors from 26 nations.
"It will be an important opportunity for Ukrainian companies to forge new partnerships with the industry across the alliance and beyond," Stoltenberg said at a news conference with Zelensky on Thursday. "The stronger Ukraine becomes, the closer we come to ending Russia's aggression."
—Significant territorial gains have been hard to come by for either side this year, according to a new study by the New York Times. "Despite nine months of bloody fighting, less than 500 square miles of territory have changed hands since the start of the year. A prolonged stalemate could weaken Western support for Ukraine," the Times reported. The Times' analysis of data from the Institute for the Study of War showed that August 2023 was the month in which the least territory changed hands since the invasion last year.
—Ukraine is continuing to search for safe alternatives for its grain exports following Russia's withdrawal from the Black Sea grain initiative in July. Last week, Ukraine successfully tested a new route, and a second ship made it through this week. Three more vessels have safely entered Ukrainian waters in recent days, officials told the New York Times. In the past week, the Times reported, "it appears that Russia has made no public attempt to impede the progress of commercial vessels along the new route."
U.S. State Department news:
In a press briefing on Tuesday, State Department spokesman Mattew Miller spoke about the state of Ukraine support amid the ongoing disputes on Capitol Hill."We have been encouraged by the bipartisan support that we have gotten from Congress since the beginning of this war. I think it is quite clear, if you look at the debate in Congress, that there are bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress that support continued aid to Ukraine," Miller said. "Now, look, there's a process that we have to go through in working with Congress. I think it was important that President Zelenskyy was able to travel to the Hill last week and communicate directly with members of Congress about what is happening on the ground. We have been able to talk to Congress about accountability mechanisms that we have in place for the aid that we've provided. We've heard them say we want to hear accountability; we've made clear we have accountability mechanisms and we're happy to talk to you more about what those look like."

UPDATE: 9/28 11 p.m. EST: A similar amendment to the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, offered by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Jim McGovern (R-Mass.) was defeated on the floor on Thursday night. The amendment received more votes than original effort, with 178 members voting in favor. Ninety Republicans and 88 Democrats supported Thursday's measure. "Cluster bombs undermine our effort to promote human rights and dignity everywhere. ... Unexploded cluster munitions have maimed or killed countless civilians over the last few decades, including an outrageous number of children," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) during the floor debate. "We are still spending millions of dollars to clean up cluster munitions used in Southeast Asia decades ago. We cannot be complicit in their further spread.""We shouldn't be providing [cluster munitions] to any other country," added Rep. Massie. "And certainly not under the guise of 'world peace,' because they last for years and years in many cases." A bipartisan amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act which would have banned the transfer of cluster munitions introduced was defeated on the floor on Wednesday. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), was rejected by a vote of 160 - 269. It was the latest in a series of Congressional efforts to reverse the Biden administration's July decision to provide Kyiv with the controversial weapon."These cluster bombs are indiscriminate," Gaetz said on the House floor Wednesday. "They've killed tens of thousands of people... and when this is all done, we'll be right back here on the floor appropriating money to de-mine the cluster bombs that we're now sending, which seems ludicrous to me."The effort on Wednesday was a bipartisan one, with 75 Democrats and 85 Republicans voting in favor of the measure. Twenty-six more Democratic members supported this amendment than did one introduced over the summer, which would have specifically barred the transfer of cluster bombs to Ukraine."Many of us have this idea of American exceptionalism, that America is set apart from the rest of the world. Well, that's certainly true when it comes to cluster munitions —and not in the way that we want. America is an outlier," said Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), the lead Democratic co-sponsor, during a debate over the amendment earlier on Wednesday. The United States is not among the 112 state parties that signed the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. "These weapons maim and kill indiscriminately. (...) These bomblets are small, colorful, and interesting shapes, so to children they look like toys. So when kids find these unexploded bomblets found in trees, or in the water, or simply on the ground, and try to pick them up and play with them, they can lose a limb or their life in the blink of an eye," added Jacobs. ""The human cost is far too high to justify."Since World War II, cluster munitions have killed an estimated 56,500 to 86,500 civilians and they often detonate months or years after the conclusion of a conflict . The House first attempted a similar maneuver in July, when Jacobs and Rep. Ilhan Omar (R-Minn.) introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have prevented the export of cluster munitions. The effort created some bipartisan momentum, but was eventually derailed after the House Rules Committee elected to block the bipartisan proposal in favor of a new amendment sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) that would only stop transfers to Ukraine. The last minute switch prompted speculation that supporters of transferring the munitions had put a "poison pill" into the amendment by making the controversial Greene the lead sponsor.Opposition to cluster munitions is one of the only places that the Biden administration has faced any pushback from its party over Ukraine policy. "The decision by the Biden administration to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine was unnecessary and a sad mistake," said Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) during the debate on the floor. "Cluster ammunition into the battlefield in Ukraine undermines our moral authority. The legacy of cluster munitions is misery, death, and expensive clean up after generations of use."

Parallel efforts in the House and Senate hoping to find a short-term funding solution have advanced at a snail's pace this week, and it continues to look likely that no agreement will be struck and the federal government will shutdown on October 1. Central to the major battles being fought right now between and within both chambers is the future of Ukraine aid. While majorities in both the House and Senate still support both humanitarian and weapons assistance to Kyiv, an increasing number of Republicans have expressed skepticism or flat-out oppose additional funding beyond the $113 billion allocated by Washington last year. A few have vowed to reject any government funding measures that include more aid or have pushed to attach more conditions to future support. In the latest in a series of flip-flops in recent weeks, House Republican leadership decided late on Wednesday night to remove $300 million in security assistance for Ukraine from the Defense Appropriations bill, and will vote on the aid separately, according to reporting from Juliegrace Brufke. The Senate, which has been more generally more supportive of President Joe Biden's $24 billion emergency supplemental request for Ukraine, has put forward a proposal for a continuing resolution containing $6 billion in funding for Ukraine (coming up short of Biden's ask). The trimming down of aid is likely an effort to placate skeptical Republicans. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for example, has pledged "to do everything in [his] power to block a bill that includes funding for Ukraine," and he will likely use procedural tools that can delay the resolution from arriving on the House floor until the weekend, all but ensuring a shutdown. Even if the stopgap measure does eventually make its way through the Senate, it is likely dead on arrival in the House. "I don't see the support in the House," Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said on Wednesday. The Speaker reportedly told Sen. Mitch McConnell, the GOP leader in the Senate, that he would not bring a bill to the House floor that funded Ukraine while ignoring problems at the United States' southern border. McCarthy's apparent refusal to entertain the Senate proposal continues his back-and-forth stance on how to handle further aid for Kyiv. The Speaker is in a tricky political situation, balancing a desire to avoid a shutdown with the fear that he will face a "motion to vacate" — in which one member could force a vote on removing him from his job — if he ignores his right flank's demands. As a result, he has continued to be ambiguous on his own stance on aid to Ukraine. After turning down both the Biden administration's offer to hold a briefing with various high-level officials on the status of the war, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's request to address a joint session of Congress during his visit to Washington last week, McCarthy met with Zelensky in a smaller, private group. His brief comments following the meeting suggested that it was a productive one.But a few hours later, Jake Sherman of Punchbowl News posted on X that House Republicans were "considering removing any Ukraine-related funding from the Pentagon spending bill in order to attract GOP holdouts." On Saturday, the Speaker had again reversed course, saying that removing the funding was "too difficult" to do, and that it would therefore stay in, before changing his mind once more on Wednesday. The Ukraine-related funding in the DoD spending bill amounts to approximately $300 million, part of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). An amendment to the bill that would have removed this money, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), was defeated 104-330, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans.It is now unclear if McCarthy, who controls a very narrow majority, can get spending bills that contain any money for Kyiv through the House. After two failed attempts, House Republicans finally managed to vote to approve the rule that will allow them to begin debate on their defense appropriations bill (along with three other single-subject spending bills). The only dissenting GOP vote on the defense appropriations rule was from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who argued that "voting yes means more money for Ukraine." Once the rule was approved, Greene posted on X that she was "the ONLY Republican to vote NO on the rule yesterday that contained appropriation bills with unlimited funds for Ukraine." Other Republicans who voted in favor of the rule may try to strip any Ukraine funding from the legislation (as Rep. Matt Gaetz has already attempted, through the amendment process) or eventually vote against the spending bill. Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) posted a video on X over the weekend, saying "people all over the country are tired of funding never-ending wars." Appearing on Washington Journal on Friday, Biggs said that he would continue to oppose more aid, since "there is no exit plan," out of this conflict.Greene told Cami Mondeaux of the Washington Examiner that the defense spending bill was "dead on arrival" when it gets a vote on the House floor, because there are enough Republican members opposed specifically to Ukraine funding. It appears she was correct, as GOP leadership's decision on Wednesday indicates that they knew that there were not enough votes for the spending bill to pass. Greene, Crane, and Biggs are three of the 29 Republican members of Congress (six Senators and 23 House representatives) who signed a letter last week arguing that "The American people deserve to know what their money has gone to. How is the counteroffensive going? Are the Ukrainians any closer to victory than they were 6 months ago? What is our strategy, and what is the president's exit plan? What does the administration define as victory in Ukraine?"Until those questions were answered, the signers pledged to oppose any future expenditures for the war. "It would be an absurd abdication of congressional responsibility to grant this request without knowing the answers to these questions," they wrote. Twenty-nine members represents a small total of the GOP caucus (though earlier measures making similar demands have garnered more support). As a recent story in Semafor points out, this dynamic puts a majority of Republicans in Congress at odds with their constituents. "Among the GOP base, skepticism of U.S. involvement in the conflict runs deep," reports Semafor. "Fifty-nine percent of Republicans say the U.S. is doing too much to help Kyiv, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released over the weekend, similar to earlier results from Gallup and CNN." Republicans in Congress are slowly shifting in that direction. Gaetz's first attempt to prohibit security assistance for Ukraine had 70 Republicans voting in favor. A similar amendment introduced by Gaetz on Wednesday received 93 votes. If congressional leadership can find a way to break the logjam on other parts of the government funding debate, it's possible that bipartisan and bicameral support for new Ukraine monies will stream forward in future legislation. But the tumultuous events of the last few weeks show that the political pressure in the Republican caucus is moving against future funding, that debates over Ukraine are becoming increasingly thorny, and that the issue will remain central to political disputes for the foreseeable future.

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed a joint session of Congress last December, Republicans were a critical node in continued U.S. support for his country's fight against the Russian invasion. "Zelensky's speech found a sympathetic ear among members of Congress, who frequently rose to their feet in standing ovations throughout his address," wrote Responsible Statecraft's Connor Echols at the time.Zelensky returns to a vastly changed landscape in Washington Thursday, as a growing number of GOP lawmakers have expressed their reluctance — or outright opposition — to continued funding for Ukraine. "It's not just far-right members," a House Republican aide granted anonymity to speak freely told POLITCO. "(Mainstream Republicans are) sympathetic to the cause but we're throwing money at a conflict that can last for years." This may be the reason why Zelensky will be meeting behind closed doors with selected bipartisan members of Congress — including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — and the White House, and not making another televised address to both chambers. Congress is currently weighing President Joe Biden's $24 billion aid request for Ukraine, part of a larger battle over funding the U.S. government for the next fiscal year, which begins October 1. As the New York Times' Andrew Kramer put it: the last time Zelensky was in the nation's capital, he was given a "hero's welcome." This time around, he added, the Ukrainian president is on a "more delicate political mission," both because of a slow-moving counteroffensive in Ukraine, and domestic politics in Washington. McCarthy, whose position on funding Ukraine has been mixed since he assumed the speakership in January, told reporters that he had some questions to ask the Ukrainian President when they meet. "Where's the accountability on the money we've already spent? What is the plan for victory? I think that's what the American public wants to know," he said. The Speaker would not commit to whether or not he would support another tranche of aid. Other members of his caucus have been more direct. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) — a rare member of the party's far right flank who has been a consistent ally of McCarthy in a number of disputes over the past year — is opposing his efforts to broker a short-term spending deal between the party's warring factions because she refuses to vote "to fund a single penny to the war in Ukraine." Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) told reporters on Wednesday that his message to Zelensky is that there is "no money in the House, right now for Ukraine," and that "it was not a good time for (Zelensky) to be here quite frankly." Other reactions have said that they will oppose aid unless the Biden administration provides a clear strategy and mission for the war. These reactions are indicative of a larger movement in the GOP against supporting additional, unconditional aid. The party has been "trending that way since last summer and has accelerated in the last month or so," according to Dan Caldwell, Vice President of the conservative Center for Renewing America.The increased opposition to aid reflects shifts in Republican public opinion outside of the Beltway. A CNN poll from last month showed 71 percent of Republicans believed that Congress should not authorize new funding. However, while some of the loudest voices in the House are speaking out against more aid, advocates of continuing support are trying to paint a more nuanced picture. The group Defending Democracy Together, which is led by neoconservatives Sarah Longwell, Bill Kristol, and others, and which has launched an effort aimed at putting pressure on Republicans to support Ukraine, released a report card on House GOP members in advance of Zelensky's visit. Judging by votes on five pieces of legislation along with its own analysis of their past statements, the group gave out 82 As, 43 Bs, 8 Cs, 17 Ds and 72 Fs.On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Republicans have been more steadfast in their backing of Kyiv. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has endorsed the White House's proposal. On Tuesday, during remarks about the looming government shutdown, McConnell added that he was "looking forward to seeing President Zelensky on Thursday," and that it was "always good to remind everyone that a good portion of the money allocated to Ukraine is being spent in this country to rebuild our industrial base."But even in the Senate, efforts may become more complicated. On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who single-handedly delayed an effort to send $40 billion in aid to Ukraine last May, published an op-ed in the American Conservative saying that he "will do everything in (his) power to block a bill that includes funding for Ukraine." "No matter how sympathetic we are to the Ukrainian people, my oath of office requires me to put the American people first," Paul wrote. "I encourage my colleagues to oppose any effort to hold the federal government hostage for Ukraine funding."Zelensky is confronting a different political reality than the one that greeted him last year. On the battlefield, Ukraine's counteroffensive has not yielded the results that many analysts and officials predicted, raising the prospects of a protracted conflict. In Washington, not only has the push against continued funding from Congressional Republicans grown in number and in intensity, but the debate over sending more money to Ukraine is only a part of a larger battle over the government budget. Conservatives in the House have threatened to force the government to shut down if a list of demands, including no "blank check" for Ukraine, are not met. There have been few signs of progress in Congressional disputes over legislation to fund government agencies and Biden's request for more aid now hangs in the balance.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), one of the strongest critics of Saudi Arabia in the Senate, raised concerns Wednesday morning about the possibility of offering Riyadh a security guarantee in exchange for the normalization of relations with Israel.
Appearing on CNN, Murphy said that he supported the idea of the Biden administration brokering a deal in the Middle East, saying it would be "good for the United States if there is peace between the Gulf and in particular between Saudi Arabia and Israel," but questioned the price that Washington is willing to pay to accomplish that objective.
Murphy ticked off a list of human rights abuses that Saudi Arabia has been linked to, specifically the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the recent reported killing of hundreds of migrants crossing over the country's border with Yemen. Under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's leadership, Saudi Arabia also launched the war on Yemen, which continues to be one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in the world today. In 2018, Murphy was one of the lead co-sponsors of a War Powers resolution that would have ended the United States' involvement in that war.
"Is this the kind of stable regime that we should commit American blood to defending?," asked Murphy on CNN.
In separate comments to reporters on Wednesday, Murphy noted that "there's a reason why we generally only sign up countries for defense treaties with the United States who share our values."
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that the Biden administration was considering modeling the agreement with Riyadh after defense treaties with Asian allies Japan and South Korea. "Under such an agreement, the United States and Saudi Arabia would generally pledge to provide military support if the other country is attacked in the region or on Saudi territory," reports the Times. "Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, regards a mutual defense agreement with the United States as the most important element in his talks with the Biden administration about Israel."
Murphy is skeptical of such an arrangement. "I would be very wary of committing the United States, through a treaty, to the defense of Saudi Arabia," he said.
Many Americans agree with Murphy's assessment, according to a recent poll from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Sixty percent of Republican respondents and 54 percent of Democrats said that offering a defense pact to Saudi Arabia would be a "bad deal for the U.S. and there is no justification for committing U.S. soldiers to defend Saudi Arabia."Murphy said that he would wait until he saw details to issue a final judgment on the deal, and told Jewish Insider that he had extensive conversations with the Biden administration about "what I think would constitute a good deal, and what would be a bad deal for the United States."

Over the last few months, Ukraine and its allies have pursued multiple efforts to convince unaligned nations to endorse their concept of a peace deal. President Volodymyr Zelensky and other high-ranking Ukrainian officials have made trips to Africa and the Middle East in hopes of winning over countries in the Global South. In June, senior officials from Kyiv, a number of European countries, and a number of important neutral countries, including Brazil, India, Turkey and South Africa, met in Denmark to discuss Zelensky's ten-point peace plan.Last month, Saudi Arabia hosted a follow-up summit, which was notable mostly for the presence of Chinese officials, who were absent from the first meeting. The Wall Street Journal reported in advance of the Jeddah confab that "Ukraine and Western officials hope the efforts could culminate in a peace summit later this year where global leaders would sign up to shared principles for resolving the war."Now, with the G-20 meeting having just concluded and the annual UN General Assembly meetings taking place next week, the Journal took stock of what these efforts have accomplished. The conclusion? "Western efforts to craft an international consensus on peace terms that would benefit Ukraine have made only incremental progress.""U.S. and European diplomats argue that they have chalked up some significant successes in global diplomacy on Ukraine," writes Laurence Norman. "But in recent months, diplomats and observers say, the international willingness to call out Russia publicly has diminished. A number of emerging countries have come out against calls from Ukraine and its backers to seek reparations from Russia over war damage and create an international tribunal targeting Russia's leadership."Signs of this tension were clear at last week's G-20 summit in New Delhi. The signatories of the leaders' declaration could not agree that the conflict was a war "against" Ukraine and instead referred to it as a war "in Ukraine." The statement spoke out against territorial conquests in general terms but did not directly condemn Moscow for its aggression. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called the statement "a step in the right direction," while the Ukrainian foreign ministry said it was "nothing to be proud of."As the Journal report notes, Moscow has still been largely marginalized on the international stage. But because much of the Global South has suffered the economic consequences of the war, they are more motivated to seek a conclusion to hostilities. "At next week's gathering of world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly, developing countries appear eager to shift the global focus onto their priorities: global inequality and debt relief," writes Norman. As for Ukraine's government, it may look to take advantage of the presence of world leaders in New York to build on this summer's discussions to pursue a more unified international position in any eventual negotiations. "The U.S. and its allies have accepted that they are not going to win over some of the big non-Western powers completely," Richard Gowan, the U.N. director at the International Crisis Group, told the Journal. "But the international view of how the war should end…may help frame whatever solution is eventually available."In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:— NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made remarks detailing discussions between Russia and NATO from before the war:"President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And [it] was a pre-condition for [him to] not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that. The opposite happened." Stoltenberg said. "He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite." —Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the BBC that he believes that Ukraine has approximately 30 more days before weather conditions begin to hamper Ukraine's counteroffensive. An anonymous French diplomat agreed with this assessment, telling Politico that the counteroffensive would likely have to conclude by late October or early November.—North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made a rare trip abroad, visiting Vladimir Putin in Russia. Politico's NatSec daily newsletter reports that "It's widely believed that the autocrats met to hash out a deal where Moscow gets conventional weapons for the war while Pyongyang gets food aid as well as advanced technology for satellites and ballistic missiles." — The Pope's peace envoy, Matteo Zuppi, is visiting China this week, following trips to Washington, Kyiv, and Moscow earlier this summer. "On the issue of Ukraine, China has always been committed to promoting peace talks," said Mao Ning, a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign minister. "We are ready to work with all parties and continue to play a constructive role in promoting de-escalation and cooling of the situation." The details of Zuppi's trip are not clear, although the Italian newspaper La Repubblica reported that he was likely to meet with Premier Li Qiang. Reuters notes that Beijing hosting a papal envoy is significant given Beijing's cool ties with the Holy See.U.S. State Department news:State Department spokesman Matthew Miller responded to a question about Stoltenberg's remarks during a press briefing in Wednesday's press briefing. "We always made clear in the run-up to that war that we were willing to engage in diplomacy with Russia. The Ukrainians made clear that they were willing to engage in diplomacy with Russia about legitimate regional security concerns. But we were not going to compromise one of NATO's founding principles," Miller said. "Ukraine did not want to seem to want to compromise their own right to determine their future as a country."

The House returned to session this week after the summer recess and only has until the end of the month — two weeks — to pass the 12 funding bills necessary to avoid a government shutdown. In lieu of a long-term spending bill, the White House has urged lawmakers to pass a continuing resolution, a stopgap measure which would maintain current funding levels until a larger agreement is reached. In addition to the money needed to keep the government running, President Joe Biden's $25 billion supplemental spending request for Ukraine also hangs in the balance. The House Freedom Caucus, the roughly 50-member bloc of Republicans, has voiced strong opposition to a stopgap measure. In August, the group released a list of demands that would be necessary for them to approve the spending bills on the table. Included in the group's statement from last month — which required the support of 80 percent of its members — is a rejection of "any blank check for Ukraine in any supplemental appropriations bill."Meanwhile, the Biden administration and Senate Republican leadership have endorsed legislation that ties Ukraine-related assistance with increased disaster relief funding in an emergency spending package. Last Thursday, Punchbowl News reported that McCarthy was considering attaching the disaster relief to a continuing resolution while omitting aid to Ukraine from the short-term spending bill, setting up a potential showdown with the White House and Senate. McCarthy has sent mixed signals about his position on Ukraine aid since saying that there would be no "blank check" for Kyiv prior to ascending to the speakership. By deciding to separate Ukraine aid from the stopgap funding bill and reportedly instead tying it to controversial immigration policies, McCarthy has leaned closer to the right flank of his party on this question. This maneuver may open the door for more debate over funding for Ukraine, though the group is not necessarily in agreement over what precisely "no blank check" means. A spokesperson for freshman Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), for example, told Responsible Statecraft in an email that the congresswoman does not and never will support any aid package to Ukraine. Other Republicans who are not formally a part of the Freedom Caucus, have made similar statements. Prior to the midterm elections, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said that if the GOP were to win the House, "not another penny" would go to Ukraine. And Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) has introduced legislation that would cut off all funding to Kyiv. Others have called for the conditioning of aid. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), one member of the Freedom Caucus who in the past consistently supported unconditional support for Kyiv, has changed his tune in response to the stalled counteroffensive. "I'll be blunt, it's failed," Harris said at a town hall meeting last month. "I'm not sure it's winnable anymore." Asked in an interview following the town hall about what this analysis meant for his support for the next tranche of funding, Harris said, "If there is humanitarian monies, nonmilitary monies, or military monies without an inspector general, I'm not supporting it."Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) expressed hesitancy about whether and when it was worth it to pass a funding measure at this point in time. "Why are we talking about Ukraine supplemental when we can't figure out how to fund our own operation of government to do what it's supposed to do?" he asked during a press gaggle on Monday morning. "I want to see what claim there is for actual success in Ukraine," he added. "And I want to know how every dollar that $113 billion is going to be spent. Come present that to me as a member of Congress, and then talk to me about" what future funding should look like. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) earlier this year introduced an amendment to the NDAA that would have required the Biden administration to clearly define and assess its war strategy before Congress approved any more funding. The restriction would have only applied to the funds doled out in the NDAA each year.As RS's Kelley Vlahos reported at the time, "[r]ight now that includes several hundred million budgeted for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), but would not impact the vast bulk of money that might be passed in a supplemental package." The amendment eventually failed, with a vote tally of 129-301. Now, Davidson, who has not voted in favor of any aid package to date, tells RS, "A blank check to Ukraine is off the table. There shouldn't be any consideration of future aid until the Biden administration provides Congress with a clear mission." Until then, Davidson says, he will continue to oppose any further aid. The looming debate could set up a clash between McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). McConnell has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine's effort. As a recent profile in Politico noted: "Just since McCarthy's debt ceiling deal at the end of May, which sent a chill through the ranks of Congress's defense hawks, McConnell has used eight speeches on the Senate floor and five news conferences to address the importance of supporting the Ukrainians."A number of other prominent Senate Republicans, including John Thune (R-S.D.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) — both members of McConnell's leadership team — and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) all expressed their disappointment at McCarthy's reported decision to keep Ukraine funding out of the continuing resolution. According to Punchbowl, Graham has been "trying to impress on House Republicans that pulling the plug on Ukraine would amount to 'creating chaos in the world' and rewarding Vladimir Putin."But, as the Washington Post reported earlier this week, tensions are continuing to grow among the GOP over how long Washington can continue to fund Ukraine, and some members of the GOP caucus have begun to worry that the effort can become another "forever war." Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, who one month after Russia's invasion released a statement strongly supporting the defense of Ukraine and sending aid to Kyiv, saying "America should always choose the side of democracy and freedom. I'll continue to make that choice every day that I represent you in Congress," now tells the Post that he will not support any further aid absent a clear strategy."I can support something, but I can't support nothing," he said. "That's how you get what happened in Afghanistan."

The recent merger between the PGA Tour and Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF)-backed LIV Golf is not simply a business deal, but rather a part of a long-term foreign influence effort, warned the Quincy Institute's Ben Freeman during his testimony in front of the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations on Wednesday.
"We'd be naive to believe that the PIF's actions related to the PGA Tour are not part of the Kingdom's much larger lobbying, public relations, and broader influence operation in the U.S," Freeman said.
In June, the PGA Tour and LIV Golf — having been embroiled in a legal fight for over a year — announced that they were joining forces. According to the official announcement of the merger, the PIF, chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, would "initially be the exclusive investor in the new entity," and, going forward, "have the exclusive right to further invest in the new entity."
Freeman says this so-called sportswashing is the latest means by which authoritarian regimes and other foreign actors look to launder their reputation in the U.S. "Foreign powers spend more than a half billion dollars every year on lobbying and public relations firms," he previously wrote in Sports Business Journal. "Dozens of former senators and representatives and hundreds of former high-ranking U.S. military officers are on their payrolls. They donate tens of millions of dollars every year to influence the nation's top think tanks and give billions to America's colleges and universities. "
Saudi Arabia's sportswashing campaign has already moved beyond golf, and beyond the U.S., including recent investments into soccer and tennis. Four soccer teams owned by the PIF spent a combined $886 million on player transfers this summer, with three of the the 10 biggest spending clubs in the world being owned by the Saudi fund, according to CNBC.
The Saudi Arabian government has been accused of committing gross human rights abuses, a number of which were described during the hearing, including the killing of hundreds of asylum seekers at the country's border with Yemen, the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, and the recent death sentence for a retired teacher who criticized the Saudi government on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. Questions have even been raised about the Saudi government's links to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. But, says Freeman, their goal is to get the general public to ignore these violations. "They want Americans to associate Saudi Arabia with golf, and not with 9/11."
Business-wise the PIF is unlikely to see a positive return on investment from the golf merger. "If the Saudi government is not buying into a profitable investment what are they buying?" Freeman asked. "In short, silence. They want to muzzle Americans critical of the regime. And, they want to rebrand themselves. "
These rebranding efforts can have serious implications for American foreign policy, as many foreign governments seek to affect Washington's agenda. As Freeman pointed out, the hearing takes place as the Biden administration weighs offering Riyadh a security guarantee in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel.
How Washington reacts also has consequences beyond Saudi Arabia, said Freeman. "If the U.S. once again offers little resistance or oversight of an authoritarian regime's sportswashing efforts, this could become a blueprint for how to garner influence in the U.S."

The idea of going to war with Mexican cartels to address the fentanyl crisis has been growing in popularity among Republican members of Congress and GOP presidential candidates this year.QI's Adam Weinstein spoke to journalist and author Ioan Grillo on why the idea of declaring war on Mexican drug cartels has gained steam in Washington but why it won't solve the crisis.Grillo, who is the author of three books including 2021's Blood Gun Money: How America Arms Gangs and Cartels, says those proposing military action have that right diagnosis. "They're right when they say the fentanyl problem is a really serious, severe problem that should be at the top of the political agenda," he says. "There is a really serious organized crime in Mexico and they are working with corrupt government officials."However, warns Grillo, "where they're wrong, and very seriously wrong, is you can't simply send in a couple drones and send in a couple American military and solve this. It just doesn't work strategically. "In January, Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) and Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) introduced an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the cartels. A number of Senators have endorsed similar proposals, with, for example, J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) telling NBC News in July that he wants to "empower the president of the United States, whether that's a Democrat or Republican, to use the power of the U.S. military to go after these drug cartels."During the first primary debate of the election cycle last month, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said that, if elected president, he would send U.S. special forces into Mexico on "day one." Other candidates, including former president Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy, have said that they, too, support a military solution to the fentanyl crisis.Weinstein and Grillo also discuss the history of Mexico's wars against drug cartels, how cartel violence has affected life in Mexico, and more.

In the New Yorker this week, journalist Keith Gessen wrote a piece disentangling what he called "the painful and knotty arguments" over whether and when Washington should pursue negotiations in Ukraine.


He uses the example of Samuel Charap, a researcher at the RAND corporation — who has made the case for the United States to seek an endgame to the war — to explore the calls from a small group of experts in Washington, who, in Gessen's formulation "argue that there might be a way to end the war sooner rather than later by freezing the conflict in place, and working to secure and rebuild the large part of Ukraine that is not under Russian occupation"


The piece answers what the author sees as the four key questions about when and whether diplomacy can be successful, analyzing the debates over nature of negotiations, the military outlook for the foreseeable future, Vladimir Putin's ultimate intentions, and, as Gessen put it on Twitter, if there is "any acceptable solution, even a temporary one, that leaves parts of Ukraine occupied by Russian forces?"


On the first question, Charap offered his thoughts on what diplomacy looks like, and what it hopes to achieve. "Diplomacy is not the opposite of coercion," he told the New Yorker. "It's a tool for achieving the same objectives as you would using coercive means. Many negotiations to end wars have taken place at the same time as the war's most fierce fighting."


Charles Kupchan, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has also argued that Washington needs a plan to get to the negotiating table, is quoted in Gessen's piece describing what the initial stages of such diplomacy at the conclusion of the current counteroffensive could look like.


"I wouldn't say, 'You [referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky] do this or we're going to turn off the spigot.' But you sit down and you have a searching conversation about where the war is going and what's in the best interest of Ukraine, and you see what comes out of that discussion."


On Thursday, the New York Times released a podcast titled "Is it Time to Negotiate with Putin?," which seeks to answer similar questions, and comes to the conclusion that the war will not end with a decisive victory for either side.


"We've sort of moved well out of the kind of the fairy tale stage of this conflict," said New York Times opinion columnist Lydia Polgreen, who added that it was time for a new frame for discussions. She also noted that there were other countries with an interest in this war, and their views may contrast with those in Washington and Kyiv. "You have a lot of different power centers, or emerging or aspiring power centers in the world seeing this conflict through lots of different lenses, you know, and jockeying for their own interests," she said. "And this kind of no negotiation at all position that the Ukrainians have is, I think, increasingly running up against this multiplicity of interests that are pressing on lots of different pressure points around the globe."


Part of what seems to be animating these assessments is the realization that Kyiv's counteroffensive will not end in an overwhelming win, and that, as a result, the alternative is a protracted war in Ukraine.


In mid-August, Politico's NatSec daily newsletter reported that a growing number of U.S. officials are wondering whether Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was right when he called for the beginning of negotiations with Russia last November, when Ukraine had clear momentum on the battlefield.


"Most people now recognize that Plan A isn't working. But that doesn't mean they're prepared to discuss Plan B," Charap says in the New Yorker story. For him, what that Plan B should be is clear: "It would be a diplomatic strategy."


In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:


—For the second time since Russia left the Black Sea grain deal in July, a ship safely left Ukraine through a temporary humanitarian corridor. The ship, which departed from the port of Odessa last weekend, was carrying steel bound for Africa. Meanwhile, the Turkish and Russian foreign ministers met on Thursday to discuss possibilities for reviving the deal, but the talks ended without any meaningful progress according to the New York Times.


The meeting was reportedly a preparatory meeting for a future summit between the two countries' leaders, though a date has not yet been set. The Times says that the discussion was centered around "a plan that [Moscow] casts as an alternative to the deal, one that appears aimed at helping its own exports. (...) In its proposal, Russia says it envisions sending one million tons of grain to Turkey — at a price subsidized by Qatar — that would then be transported to countries that need it."


—The Wall Street Journal reports that "The Biden administration and its European allies are laying plans for long-term military assistance to Ukraine to ensure Russia won't be able to win on the battlefield and persuade the Kremlin that Western support for Kyiv won't waver." According to the report, Western officials are seeking ways to make pledges for Ukraine's defense more permanent in case Donald Trump or another candidate who is skeptical of sending more aid is elected president of the United States in 2024.


—The Quincy Institute's Anatol Lieven wrote in the Guardian this week about Russian public opinion over the war in Ukraine and the prospect of future negotiations. "From conversations I've had, it appears that a large majority of elite and ordinary Russians would accept a ceasefire along the present battle lines and would not mount any challenge if Putin proposed or agreed to such a ceasefire and presented it as a sufficient Russian victory," Lieven writes. "The general elite aversion to pursuing total victory in Ukraine is however not the same thing as a willingness to accept Russian defeat – which is all that the Ukrainian and US governments are presently offering. Nobody with whom I have spoken within the Moscow elite, and very few indeed in the wider population, has said that Russia should surrender Crimea and the eastern Donbas."


U.S. State Department news:


The State Department did not hold its regular press briefing this week.