Suchergebnisse

The Israel Security Assistance Support Act that passed the House on Thursday is primarily a messaging and political bill — one aimed at emphasizing Republican support for Israel and dividing Democrats between those who want to support President Joe Biden's decision to pause the delivery of a shipment of bombs to Israel and those who prefer to maintain Washington's unconditional support for Tel Aviv's war.Despite reports that up to 40 Democrats could go against Biden and support the bill, in the end, only 16 voted for it. Three Republicans — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — joined with the rest of the Democratic caucus in opposition. To be sure, if the legislation — led by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) — were to become law, it would be consequential, as it would restrict the budgets of the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council if Biden doesn't deliver the withheld weapons. But after Biden pledged to veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk, senate Democratic leadership said it would not it take up. There are plenty of policy, political, and legal reasons to oppose the legislation. "Congressman Calvert's bill would wipe away decades of US law and policy that set clear human rights and humanitarian standards for all recipients of US weapons. No country — including Israel — should get special exemptions from these standards," John Ramming Chappel of the Center for Civilians in Conflict said in a press release on Tuesday. "No legislator who cares about human rights or the rule of law should support this proposal." "Under this bill, it may not be possible for the U.S. to even debate whether or not arms should be provided to units that have committed gross violations of human rights, and would seem to suggest that the U.S. cannot deny anything Israel might request, however inappropriate, from cluster bombs to ballistic missiles," added former State Department official Josh Paul. But some Democrats who oppose passage have instead argued that it would restrict the president's ability to freely conduct foreign policy. "The legislation would constitute an unprecedented limitation on President Biden's executive authority and administrative discretion to implement U.S. foreign policy," said Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the House minority whip, in a note urging her caucus to oppose the proposal. "It prohibits the Biden Administration from withholding or suspending United States arms transfers to Israel. (...) The legislation eliminates any executive oversight or control on the flow of taxpayer funded U.S. arms." The administration repeated this line of thinking in its own statement, saying that the bill "would undermine the President's ability to execute an effective foreign policy," and could raise serious concerns about infringement on the President's authorities under Article II of the Constitution, including his duties as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and his power to conduct foreign relations."Other lawmakers offered more substantive disagreement with the policy. "]P]assing H.R. 8369 and attempting to rubber-stamp all arms sales to Israel regardless of the circumstances isn't only reckless and short-sighted, it's also an affront to our national security," said Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) in a statement. "It would also supersede and nullify the Leahy Law that requires human rights vetting on security cooperation and assistance programs. We have to stay true to our values, especially when it's difficult to do so."As is the case with the Israel Security Assistance Support Act, in the rare instances where Congress does decide to use a check on the president's powers it is when the executive takes steps to claw militarization back.During the Trump years, members of Congress from both parties passed a series of measures aimed at either expressing disapproval or restricting the president's ability to wind down the American military presence in Syria, Afghanistan, and Germany.The step that the Biden administration is taking is even smaller. The "pause" on shipments announced earlier this month is a blip in Washington's continued support for Israel's war, as the White House itself has consistently made clear. Administration spokespeople have walked back the significance of the decision, saying that Israel is still receiving the "vast majority" of what they need. The recent NSM-20 report from the State Department to Congress concluded that the United States was not required by law to suspend arms transfers to Israel. And on Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the administration had notified Congress of a new $1 billion weapons deal.

Headlines out of Ukraine in recent weeks have been grim. Military officers on the front lines say that the situation in the country's east is approaching "critical." The country is facing a serious manpower and weapons shortage. The Russian offensive is reportedly accelerating. Privately, Biden administration officials are wondering whether — even with the latest tranche of U.S. aid secured — Ukraine will be able to win this war. Listening to Secretary of State Antony Blinken's speech this week in Kyiv, however, none of this reality was apparent. The tone of Blinken's speech was optimistic — he referred to the war as a "strategic failure" for Moscow and a "strategic success" for Kyiv. He maintained that Ukraine would win the war and eventually join NATO as a thriving democracy with an economy rebuilt from seized Russian assets. "All of these measures – Ukraine's increased integration with, and support from, NATO; a growing network of security agreements with individual countries; a booming defense industrial base – all of these will ensure that the moment conditions are met and Allies agree, Ukraine's invitation and accession to the Alliance will be swift and smooth," Blinken said. "These measures will also ensure that if Russia is ever serious about negotiating a truly just and lasting peace with Ukraine, your military prowess will be formidable, your hand strong, your path to Europe and NATO secure."As the journalist Leonid Ragozin noted on X, "None of that is on the cards at the moment as the devastated and depopulated country is struggling to prevent a collapse on the frontline."The rhetoric is indicative of an administration that has been unwilling to adapt its approach or messaging on the war regardless of changing dynamics. The administration has said that continuing to support Ukraine to improve its battlefield situation will provide Kyiv with a stronger hand at any future negotiations, but has made no indication that such talks are forthcoming and has avoided answering crucial questions about the war's endgame. Notably, the speech contained no specific reference to Ukraine's territorial ambitions. Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported on leaked talking points from the secretary's trip, which included as a trip objective "highlight[ing] U.S. support for a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace" that includes respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity "within its internationally recognized borders," which would include Crimea and the Donbas. Blinken's speech did not mention either of those regions or include "internationally recognized borders." In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:— During his visit, Blinken also indicated that Washington was open to Ukraine using U.S. weapons to hit targets inside Russia. "We've not enabled or encouraged strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately, Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this war," he said. Until now, the Biden administration has reportedly told Ukraine not to strike inside Russia, which has been a point of tension between Washington and Kyiv.— Russian President Vladimir Putin is traveling to China this week. In advance of his trip, Putin expressed support for China's peace plan. "We are positive in our assessment of China's approach to solving the Ukrainian crisis," Putin said, according to a translation of a Russian transcript on the Kremlin website. "In Beijing, they truly understand its root causes and its global geopolitical meaning." China has tried to portray itself as a peacemaker in the conflict, and has reportedly been urging Western countries to invite Moscow to upcoming peace summits. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was set to go to Spain and Portugal this week, but he canceled his plans on Wednesday. No official reason was provided, but media reports suggest that he decided to stay in Ukraine amid the Russian attacks in the country.— British foreign secretary David Cameron pitched Donald Trump on pursuing a peace deal if he returns to White House in 2025, as part of an effort to convince the former pressident to support aid for Ukraine, according to The Sunday Times. "Cameron's message was simple: 'What are the best conditions in which you as president can make a deal in January? It's both sides holding their lines and paying a price for that.' Trump is understood to have responded: 'No one has set that out for me in these terms. And I'm glad we had the conversation,'" according to the Sunday Times. The suggestion of such a peace proposal would mark a significant shift in the UK's approach to the war. Since the report was published, officials have tried to squash speculation that the West was planning to force Kyiv to the negotiating table. "There is just no sense at all in which Britain would try to persuade, strong-arm or otherwise, Ukraine into accepting giving up some of their territory. That's a decision entirely for Ukraine," defense secretary Grant Shapps told Times Radio on Tuesday. U.S. State Department news:In a Tuesday press briefing, State Department spokesman Vedant Patel reiterated the key talking points from Blinken's speech."The Secretary is in Kyiv to reaffirm what President Biden has said, which is that we want Ukraine to win, and we're committing – committed to helping Ukraine to do just that," Patel said. "And with the support of the United States, our partners and allies, the Ukrainian people can and will achieve their vision for the future: a free, prosperous, and secure democracy, fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community and fully in control of its own destiny."

On Wednesday, President Joe Biden announced that he would stop sending offensive weapons to Israel "'if they go into Rafah." It is the most notable sign of his administration's shift in its support for Israel's war to date, but questions remain over how and when the president will follow through on his words. Meanwhile, the administration paused a recent shipment of bombs to Israel, but it is not a permanent decision, and the president's claim that "they haven't gone in Rafah yet" — despite the fact that Israel is continually striking the southern Gazan city, have tanks positioned on the periphery, and took control of the the Rafah crossing — suggests that U.S. support may otherwise continue so long as the campaign remains relatively limited.Behind the scenes in the U.S. government, there has been a bit of turmoil.At least four federal employees, including three from the State Department, have publicly resigned, explicitly in protest of the administration's response to the war. This comes amid a number of stories about internal tension in the Biden administration concerning its largely unwavering rhetorical and material support for Benjamin Netanyahu's government as it prosecutes a war that has now killed nearly 35,000 Palestinians. In addition, hundreds of civil servants from various government agencies have signed a series of open letters calling on Biden to push for a ceasefire in Gaza and de-escalation in the wider region. Unfortunately, one federal employee with more than 15 years of service in two government agencies told RS, "the internal messaging to staff mirrors the external messages. And that has been a source of both disappointment and deep frustration." (Sources asked for anonymity in order to discuss internal dynamics.) In other words, the informal 'dissent channel' doesn't seem to be moving the needle, seven months into the war.Critics within the administration are not motivated by their moral qualms alone. There is a growing sense among staff, according to another source, that the long-term alliance with Israel does not serve U.S. interests. Specifically, they are worried that Washington is itself being drawn into a regional war, that its actions are increasing instability in the region, and that "ironclad" support for Israel's conduct in Gaza is undermining any claim that the U.S. is a champion for global human rights and democracy. The dissent also extends beyond the departments that are typically considered responsible for implementing Gaza policy, such as the State Department or USAID. It includes officials in other agencies whose work is tangentially related to the war and still others who are simply outraged by American complicity in the rising death toll and humanitarian crisis. "Having worked in the administration during the Afghan withdrawal and also the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so many efforts were spearheaded and led, and normal procedures were bypassed given the urgent humanitarian situation. Here, however, it has been a totally different ballgame. There are systemic issues with how we issue Palestinian cases," says a homeland security official. "Any kind of initiative to expedite help for Palestinians has been blocked or quelled or slowed down dramatically in a way that I've never seen before." The signs were there in the early days of the war, sources say. "The decision was made from the top very early on," says an official with 25 years of national security experience. "Experts have been shut out from the decision-making process, making it very hard to change that policy."Annelle Sheline, a former staffer in the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, who resigned in protest of the administration's Gaza policy in March, says her experience was similar."There are so many people who know the region really well working at State, who were raising concerns from all kinds of angles: the U.S. national interest angle, the legalistic angle or the human rights angle," Sheline tells RS. "People who spent their whole careers working on these things, and nobody was being listened to. Even relatively senior officials inside State who are very concerned and very opposed were not being listened to." (Sheline was previously a research fellow at the Quincy Institute, which publishes RS.) Federal employees who are disillusioned with the approach to Gaza say they have explored multiple avenues to make their position clear. One federal employee told RS that when staffers raised concerns about unconditionally supporting Israel in the early stages of the war, they realized that doing so through formal channels was ineffective."As the months dragged on, it became evident that the dissent channels that the State Department likes to tout are about placating staff more than actually listening to those with deep regional and policy expertise and making changes," says the 15-year federal employee. The dissidents say only a handful of individuals in the upper echelons of the State Department, at the National Security Council and, and ultimately Biden himself, have decision-making power, and no amount of dissent has made a difference. According to one report, Biden's own staunch pro-Israel position has been solidified over five decades in Washington, and his commitment to the Jewish state is not easily shaken. In the months since October 7, a number of staffers have resorted to quieter and more informal forms of protest — having unsanctioned conversations with journalists; changing social media avatars to express solidarity with Palestinians; or wearing keffiyehs during work meetings — to express their unhappiness or distress within the administration.When RS spoke to these federal employees, they noted the importance of May 8, the day the Biden administration was supposed to produce a report for Congress on Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law. It would have been a clear sign of how far Biden and other top officials are willing to go to back the war effort. That date came and went with no report on Wednesday. There are conflicting reports on whether the report is delayed "indefinitely" or whether it is expected to be delivered soon. As the staffers noted, the Israeli blockade of aid — at the very least — has been so blatant that it would be hard to believe that any official acting in good faith would sign a report asserting the contrary. And this is an argument that many other notable individuals have made publicly."The determination regarding compliance with international law is one of fact and law. The facts and law should not be ignored to achieve a pre-determined policy outcome. Our credibility is on the line," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the lawmaker who led the effort to require a report be submitted to Congress, recently said. In late April, more than 90 lawyers signed a letter to the Biden administration calling on it to suspend military aid to Israel. "The law is clear and aligned with the majority of Americans who believe the U.S. should cease arms shipments to Israel until it stops its military operation in Gaza," read the letter. At least 20 of the signatories work in the administration, according to Politico. Politico reported on Tuesday that there has been an uptick in the number of non-public resignations by officials and that more resignations, both public and non-public, will soon follow.Sources tell RS that there have been discussions of larger-scale resignations, though ultimately it remains unclear whether such dramatic steps would make much difference, given how little impact the public dissent has made to date. Many staffers are reluctant to quit their jobs because of family or financial considerations.Sheline, who was the third official to publicly resign over Gaza policy, says that there have been efforts to delegitimize her resignation, as well as those that preceded it. "I think if there were a lot more public resignations, I do think it would be very hard for the administration to pretend that it was just a one-off. So I do hope that there will be more."

Despite the initial optimism that accompanied the passage of billions of dollars in aid for Ukraine in April, there is a growing sentiment among analysts and American officials that it will serve an important defensive function — but might not be a game changer.
And while Ukraine waits for the latest tranche of American assistance to arrive, the situation on the battlefield is becoming increasingly grim. Over last weekend, Ukrainian forces retreated from three villages in the east of the country as it struggles to push back against Moscow's latest offensive.
In an interview with Foreign Policy on Wednesday, Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba did not present a particularly optimistic picture of what the new aid may accomplish. While he expressed gratitude for the aid, Kuleba lamented the slow process and urged Kyiv's Western allies to do more.
"There is a time gap between the announcement of the package and the moment when a Ukrainian artilleryman has more shells to fire back at the Russian invaders," Kuleba told FP's editor-in-chief Ravi Agrawal during the Q&A. "And that moment has not come yet, because everything that was announced—we are grateful and we appreciate it—is still on its way. And therefore, in this time gap, bad things may happen, such as the advance of Russian forces on the ground."
"Unfortunately, I have to admit that Ukraine's allies are behind schedule, despite their efforts. Some of them are making a great effort. But when I look at what Russia achieved in restoring the production of its defenders' industrial base and what the entire West has achieved so far, we have to face the truth and recognize that Russia is more effective in its war effort," he continued. "And this raises a more fundamental question to the West. If it cannot be efficient enough in this particular war effort, then how efficient can it be if other wars and crises of the same scale break out?"
But Ukraine is also confronting a significant manpower problem. The Washington Post reported last week that some in the country believe that President Zelensky's announcement that 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since 2022 is a significant underestimate.
Nonetheless, Kuleba pushed back against the argument — notably made by Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), among others — that Kyiv faced a "math" problem.
"If the war was only about math, you and I wouldn't be talking today because the position of the minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine would not exist anymore; we would have lost the war already," the foreign minister said.
Foreign Policy also asked about the prospect of diplomacy with Russia, wondering why Ukraine had so far neglected to invite one of the two warring parties to a series of "peace summits," including one forthcoming meeting in Switzerland.
"Your point is valid if you address the war that Russia launched against Ukraine with textbook diplomacy, because all textbooks that we learned from tell us that you need two parties to sit down and negotiate," Kuleba said. "Our approach comes from reality, and from the experience that we gained between 2014 and 2022, because the aggression against Ukraine started in 2014. Between 2014 and 2022, we had almost 200 rounds of talks with Russia in different formats, with mediators and bilaterally. But nothing worked. It ended up in the large-scale invasion [of 2022]. So we know that it doesn't make sense to have Russia at the table if you cannot ensure that they act in good faith."
He elaborated that the only ways to get Russia to negotiate in "good faith" are either to win on the battlefield or to build a global coalition of countries that can agree on shared principles and force Russia to agree.
"After that, communication with Russia may take place and Russia can be part of the talks," Kuleba acknowledged. "Because you are right: In the end, you cannot put the war to an end without both parties."
Moscow, for its part, has said that the peace conference in Switzerland is not a serious proposal. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday that it is "completely impossible" that a summit without Russia will yield any meaningful results.
In other diplomatic news:
— Chinese President Xi Jinping will travel to Europe next week for the first time in five years. The trip is seemingly part of an ongoing effort from Beijing to present itself as a global peacemaker. Xi wants to play a "larger role in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine that has upended global political and economic security," according to The Associated Press. Earlier reporting said that one of Xi's goals during his visit will be to convince European leaders to invite Russia to participate in future peace talks.
— Zelensky says that Kyiv and Washington are working toward a long-term bilateral security agreement.
"Also, our teams, Ukraine and the United States, are currently working on a bilateral security agreement, and we are already working on a specific text," he said during an address this week. "Our goal is to make this agreement the strongest of all. We are discussing the specific foundations of our security and cooperation. We are also working on fixing specific levels of support for this year and for the next ten years, including armed support, financial, political, and joint arms production."
— The Ukrainian president also said that he expects his country to join NATO only after the end of the war with Russia. "In my personal opinion, we will only join NATO after we have won," he said during a joint press conference with NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg. "For Ukraine to be accepted into the alliance politically, it needs victory."
— The U.S. State Department formally accused Russia of using chemical weapons during its war in Ukraine on Wednesday. "The US conclusion tallies with testimony from Ukrainian troops who say they have faced increased encounters with gas and other irritant chemicals on parts of their frontline with Russia's forces in recent months," according to CNN. The Kremlin quickly denied the accusation, saying that they were "absolutely groundless, not supported by anything."
U.S. State Department News:
In a Tuesday press briefing, State Department spokesman Vedant Patel denied reports that the U.S. was easing sanctions on certain Russian banks.
"I'm not sure what reports you're referring to, Alex. What I can just say broadly, though, is that when it comes to our efforts to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its infringement on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our Ukrainian partners, we have not taken our foot off the gas, going back to February of 2022 since this invasion occurred," Patel said. "And we will continue to take steps both to continue to support our Ukrainian partners, but also through sanctions, export controls, and other measures hold the Russian Federation accountable."

Former President Donald Trump's foreign policy is as murky as ever.He gave a rare long-form interview to journalist Eric Cortellessa for TIME's stark May magazine cover, simply titled, "If He Wins." Alongside the profile, TIME also released the full transcripts of two interviews that Cortellessa had with the former president. Cortellessa grilled Trump on a number of foreign policy topics, including the ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine. As is often the case with Trump's views on international affairs, they raise more questions than answers, leaving uncertainty about what he would do if elected president in November.In general, Trump's foreign policy approach seems motivated by criticizing what he considers to be Joe Biden's failures while avoiding providing clear, discernible alternatives. On multiple occasions, Trump has claimed that neither Russia's invasion of Ukraine nor Hamas's incursion into Israel would have happened under his watch, claims he repeated during Tuesday's interview. Israel and the Middle East Trump's answers to what he would do about wars in the Middle East were largely noncommittal, with one notable exception. When asked in the first interview — which took place the day before Iran launched airstrikes at Israel — Trump said that he would "protect Israel" in the case of a war with Tehran. During a second conversation two weeks later, Trump seemed to endorse the idea that Iran's strikes on Israel in April were telegraphed with the intention of avoiding further escalation — and said that that was a "good thing" — but then affirmed his support for defending Israel. "So it would depend, obviously, but the answer is yes," Trump said. "If they attack Israel, yes, we would be there." Otherwise, Trump played up his loyalty to Israel during his presidential term, touting his withdrawal from the JCPOA, his moving of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and his recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel. But Trump also had harsh words for Benjamin Netanyahu. "I had a bad experience with Bibi. And it had to do with Soleimani, because as you probably know by now, he dropped out just before the attack," Trump said, referring to the January 2020 strike that killed Iranian military officer Qassem Soleimani, in which, Trump claims, the Israeli prime minister declined to participate at the last minute. "And I was not happy about that. That was something I never forgot. And it showed me something. I would say that what happened on—the October 7 should have never happened."He added that Netanyahu "rightfully has been criticized for what took place on October 7," without elaborating on exactly what he meant. Speaking about Israel's reaction to the Hamas attacks, Trump repeated an earlier criticism that Israel had mismanaged its PR approach to the war. "I don't think that the Israel Defense Fund or any other group should be sending out pictures every night of buildings falling down and being bombed with possibly people in those buildings every single night, which is what they do," Trump said, misnaming the Israel Defense Forces. While Trump has previously said that Israel should "get [the war] over with," he did not say what he would do to accomplish that goal. When pressed by Cortellesa over whether he would be willing to condition military aid to Israel to try to end the war, Trump deflected, instead listing the pro-Israeli policies implemented during his presidency. Trump also expressed skepticism over the possibility of a two-state solution, but did not suggest an alternative proposal. He did point to doubts from his former patron and late pro-Israel GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson as a reason for his pessimism."He loved Israel, and he wanted to protect Israel. And he felt that it was impossible to make a deal because of the level of hatred," Trump said. "I disagreed with it. But so far, he hasn't been wrong" The former president was similarly noncommittal about withdrawing troops from the region to focus on other theaters, only saying that the U.S. was "in a lot of places where we shouldn't be," and that "We have a lot of options" when it comes to military deployments. Ukraine, Russia, and NATO Trump has been painted by members of the media, his opponents, and even some supporters as a staunch opponent of aid to Ukraine. And while he earlier pledged to end the war in 24 hours, the former president has never articulated a clear strategy for doing so. He reportedly quietly blessed Speaker Mike Johnson's foreign aid package — which included roughly $60 billion in assistance for Kyiv — and since its passage has continued to praise the Speaker while generally staying quiet on the details of the legislation.In the TIME interview, Trump again provided very few details on his policy preferences. His primary gripe is that Europe has expected Washington to foot the bill while not providing sufficient aid itself."We're in for billions of dollars more than they're in in Ukraine. It shouldn't be that way. It should be the opposite way. Because they're much more greatly affected. We have an ocean in between us. They don't," he said.When pressed about whether he would support cutting off military aid for Kyiv, Trump said, "I wouldn't give unless Europe starts equalizing." He repeated similar talking points in response to a series of further questions trying to pin down his stance on Ukraine aid. Trump also said that he had not yet called for the release of detained Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich because he has "so many things I'm working on." He added that, if elected president, he would secure Gershkovich's release. "I get along very well with Putin, but the reporter should be released and he will be released," he said. "I don't know if he's going to be released under Biden." Other notable quotablesCortellessa also asked Trump about his stance on China/Taiwan, South Korea, and NATO. Asked whether the U.S. should defend Taiwan if China invades, Trump remained ambiguous. "I've been asked this question many times and I always refuse to answer it because I don't want to reveal my cards to a wonderful reporter like you," Trump said. "But no. China knows my answer very well. But they have to understand that things like that can't come easy. But I will say that I have never publicly stated although I want to, because I wouldn't want to give away any negotiating abilities by giving information like that to any reporter."On South Korea, Trump seemed to threaten a withdrawal of U.S. forces if Seoul did not "treat us properly.""They've become a very wealthy country. We've essentially paid for much of their military, free of charge. And they agreed to pay billions of dollars," he said. "And now probably now that I'm gone, they're paying very little. I don't know if you know that they renegotiated the deal I made. And they're paying very little."The 45th president made a similar case for the NATO alliance, which he said he was not interested in re-negotiating. "I don't need to renegotiate the terms of the treaty. All I need to do is have them pay their bills. They don't pay their bills," Trump said, seemingly referring to a certain percentage of GDP NATO countries pledge to spend on defense. There are no NATO "bills." He added that his primary problem with the alliance was that he doubted that NATO countries would come to America's defense if attacked despite the fact that many NATO countries fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan. Trump gave a meandering interview which covered a lot of ground but ultimately didn't reveal much about what another term would look like, instead sticking to his common talking points — perhaps deliberately offering little detail to keep his options open if he returns to the Oval Office next year.

The Senate approved the national security supplemental on Tuesday night, by a vote of 79-18. The legislation combined the four bills that were approved by the House over the weekend. After months of pushing the Biden administration to do more to pressure Israel to change its conduct in its war in Gaza, Democrats in Congress ultimately approved $26 billion in aid for Israel, including approximately $9 billion in global humanitarian aid (how much would go to Gaza, to be determined). In the Senate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tried to introduce two amendments — one that would remove all offensive military aid for Israel and another to restore U.S. funding for UNRWA. "What we are doing today is aiding and abetting the destruction of the Palestinian people," he said on the Senate floor Tuesday night.No Democrats, including some who have raised concerns about Israel's war, supported Sanders's effort, saying that they wanted the package to move forward without delay. In the lead-up to the votes, pushback was more prevalent in the House. Perhaps most notably, on April 5, 39 voting congressional Democrats circulated a letter that urged President Joe Biden to stop sending offensive arms to Israel until an investigation into the strike that killed seven World Central Kitchen staffers was completed. In addition, the members also urged Biden "to withhold these transfers if Israel fails to sufficiently mitigate harm to innocent civilians in Gaza, including aid workers, and if it fails to facilitate — or arbitrarily denies or restricts — the transport and delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza."On Saturday, 37 Democrats (along with 21 Republicans) voted against the Israel aid bill — a significant total given the history of bipartisan support for Israel in Congress. But the large majority of the caucus, 173 in total, voted to advance it (3 Democrats did not vote). Of those in support, 20 of the members had signed that letter to Biden earlier this month. Securing another tranche of aid for Ukraine has been a long-term policy priority for the party, and some Democrats may have been willing to swallow more aid for Israel as a price for accomplishing that goal. But the vote over the weekend gave Democrats an opportunity to follow through on their rhetoric and vote against sending Israel more military aid without compromising any other piece of legislation.But many Democrats nonetheless retreated from the line they had set earlier this month. Signs of a shift in rhetoric from some of these members came in the aftermath of Iran's strikes on Israel on April 13."Iran is a terrorist nation. They have just launched a disproportionate terrorist attack against our ally Israel. The free world and the United States will stand against this terrorist nation and the tyranny that it promotes," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on X on the night of the attacks. "We must pass Biden's supplemental appropriation funding now that covers Israel, Ukraine, and Gaza among others." This followed her signing of the April 5 letter urging Biden to hold aid.Others stayed noticeably quiet following the exchange of attacks between Iran and Israel, but their calculus on aiding Israel clearly changed between April 5 and last weekend. "I will always support our allies against enemy attacks — especially with potential nuclear threats. Iran's attacks against Israel necessitated that we approve the emergency aid package without delay," Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C) told RS on Tuesday. "I additionally chose to do so because it provides for over $9 billion in humanitarian aid. I trust that President Biden will ensure this aid is dispensed to those most severely impacted by this conflict."Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), told RS that the Iran attacks changed her calculus as well. "Earlier this month, I signed a letter asking President Biden to withhold offensive weapons until there was an investigation into the airstrike that resulted in the death of seven World Central Kitchen humanitarian aid workers. I still maintain that any funding the United States provides to our allies must be used in accordance with international law," she said. "The situation changed when Iran launched an attack against Israel and further escalated tensions in the region," she added. "Providing aid to our allies around the world, including Israel, is of vital importance to our national security. This does not negate the need for assurances of how aid will be used. The national security supplemental I voted for last week ensures Israel has the resources to combat Hamas and provides crucial humanitarian aid to vulnerable people around the world, including the civilians in Gaza. We can and must continue to do both."Six of the 20 signatories who eventually supported the bill have not issued public statements about their votes, including Reps. Jackson Lee, Adams, and Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.), and Robert Garcia (D-Calif.)Four others, including Pelosi, as well as Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), and Hayes (D-Conn.) released statements celebrating the passage of the series of national security bills without explicitly explaining or justifying their positions on Israel aid. Pelosi's office published a transcript of her floor speech on Ukraine aid but did not mention Israel."Speaker Pelosi has a long record of strong support for Israel and its right to defend itself. Speaker Pelosi signed the April 5 letter to call for a pause on offensive weapons transfers until there was an independent investigation into the attack on the World Central Kitchen heroes, steps the administration has taken and is taking," a spokesman for Pelosi told RS, explaining her vote. "Speaker Pelosi's position is fully consistent with her vote in favor of the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act." Three other Democrats — Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), and Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.) issued short statements emphasizing the $9 billion in humanitarian aid, some of which will go to Gaza — but not mentioning or explaining their support for the military assistance to Israel. Besides Adams, Hayes, and Pelosi, none of the other members who did not clearly state their rationale for the vote responded to requests for comment. Avoiding an explanation of controversial votes is nothing new for Democrats."The GOP mentioned the country in the title of its press release and sixteen times in its summary of the bill. But the House and Senate Democrats' press releases don't mention Israel at all," Stephen Semler noted in Jacobin when Congress passed a $1.2 trillion funding bill that included almost $4 billion in military assistance for Israel and cut off all funding for UNRWA, the most important supplier of humanitarian aid in Gaza. "Clearly, Democratic elected officials were afraid to cop to the contents of the bill." The other six members who voted for the aid package explained their decisions more clearly to the public. Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) explicitly criticized the inclusion of funds that Israel could use for offensive weapons, but said that the defensive aid for Israel and the humanitarian aid present in the bill were necessary."While I have deep concerns about the bill that includes additional security assistance to Israel, the funding in this bill is urgently needed to address the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza," said Schakowsky. "I am concerned by the inclusion of $3.5 billion in funding for Israel that could be used to obtain offensive weapons. While this funding will not be disbursed to Israel for several years, I reiterate my calls for the U.S. to halt all offensive weapons transfers to Israel until and unless it can be confirmed that U.S. weapons are being used in accordance with domestic and international law and that the Israeli government is not impeding the entry of U.S. humanitarian aid into Gaza.""While I'm deeply concerned about further military assistance to Israel, I couldn't in good conscience vote against this lifesaving humanitarian assistance when millions of people around the world are suffering," added Jacobs. Reps. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Veronica Escobar (D-N.Y.), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), and Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) all supported the measure but urged Biden to keep pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu to follow international law and protect civilians during the war. Stansbury paired her statement on the supplemental's package with a letter she wrote to Biden saying that she understands "that the funding provided in the supplemental is defensive in nature and will not be used to support offensive weapons in Gaza." The legislation earmarks approximately $3.5 billion for buying "advanced weapons systems."Escobar said that her "support for the Israel package comes with [her] continued calls on the administration to use its leverage with Israel to allow more life-saving humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.""I continue to have concerns with Prime Minister Netanyahu's lack of a strategy to protect innocent civilians and bring this war to a swift end. I will continue to press for increased accountability and call for the immediate return of all hostages," added Barragán. "Today, it was necessary to prioritize our national security, deliver critical humanitarian aid to where it is needed most, and ensure America continues to stand with our democratic allies around the world."Democrats who opposed the measure on Saturday made the case that taking the rare opportunity to register clear, widespread opposition to weapons packages like this one is how opponents of funding Israel's war can provide Biden with the necessary leverage to push Netanyahu. "I hope this vote will show the world that there is a really significant segment of the United States that doesn't want to see expanded and widening wars," Rep. Greg Casar told the New York Times before the vote. Following the vote, a group of 19 Democrats who voted against the aid issued a statement stating, in part: "Today is, in many ways, Congress' first official vote where we can weigh in on the direction of this war. If Congress votes to continue to supply offensive military aid, we make ourselves complicit in this tragedy." Editor's note: This story previously said that Rep. Nanette Barragán had not issued a public statement. It has been corrected to include Rep. Barragán's statement.

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed four separate national security supplemental bills on Saturday, clearing the way for the foreign aid package to arrive at President Joe Biden's desk.One bill contained roughly $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, while a second had approximately $26 billion for Israel, and another gave $8 billion for the Indo-Pacific. A final one included a series of other policy priorities like the sale of TikTok and the REPO act that would allow the U.S. to seize Russian assets. The bills will now be rolled into one and are expected to be voted on in the Senate early next week.The Ukraine aid passed 311-112 with seven not voting and one member voting present. The Israel aid bill won 366-58 with seven not voting. The Indo-Pacific aid bill was advanced 385-34. The so-called "sidecar bill" that included the potential TikTok ban, passed 360-58. The more controversial of course were the bills funding the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, with members of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, raising concerns about continuing to fund these efforts. "'As much as it takes, as long as it takes' is not a mission statement, but a recipe for disaster," said Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) on X shortly before the vote. "Bad news does not get better with time. This is a plan to expand the war." Johnson did not get the majority of his party to support the Ukraine aid bill. In the end, 101 Republicans voted in favor, while 112 were opposed. Democrats, whose 210 voting members supported the aid unanimously, treated the result as a major victory. One member passed out Ukrainian flags on the House floor ahead of the vote, and celebrated its passage. "Ukraine aid passes!! Thank goodness. Hopefully this changes morale and results on the battlefield today Dark day for Putin," said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) on X. "Democrats waiving Ukrainian flags on the House floor tells you everything you need to know about their priorities," wrote Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.). "Ukraine first, America last."If the Senate, as expected, passes the package, it will mark the first tranche of aid to make its way through Congress since December 23, 2022. There was some bipartisan opposition on the Israel aid, with Republicans voting in favor by a margin of 193-21; Democrats supported the bill 173-37."We have seen how Prime Minister Netanyahu's government has used American weapons to kill indiscriminately, to force famine. Over 25,000 women and children dead. Tens of thousands of missiles and bombs levied on innocent civilians. We cannot escape what we see before us every day," said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) on the floor. "Are we going to participate in that carnage, or not? I choose not to."Nineteen progressives banded together in a letter to explain their vote to oppose the aid. They said Israel was violating U.S. laws that prevent the transfer of weapons to units that are violating human rights. "This is a moment of great consequence—the world is watching," the lawmakers wrote. "Today is, in many ways, Congress' first official vote where we can weigh in on the direction of this war. If Congress votes to continue to supply offensive military aid, we make ourselves complicit in this tragedy."Meanwhile, Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), one of the GOP opponents to the legislation, said in a statement that his support for Israel remained "unshakeable" but that the aid for Israel should have been accompanied by domestic spending cuts. The House earlier passed an Israel aid bill that included cuts to the IRS, but it stalled in the Senate.

The RAND corporation's Samuel Charap and Johns Hopkins University professor Sergey Radchenko published a detailed timeline and analysis of the talks between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators just after the Russian invasion in February 2022 that could have brought the war to an end just weeks after it had begun.
Much of the piece confirms or elucidates parts of the narrative that had previously been reported. In the spring of 2022, the two sides appeared relatively close to a deal, one that, according to the authors, would "have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU."
But due to a combination of changing battlefield dynamics that convinced Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he could win the war militarily, Western allies' hesitance to engage diplomatically with Russia and simultaneous ramping up of military support for Ukraine, and the discovery that Russian forces had committed atrocities in Bucha, the talks eventually fell apart.
On some of these points, the authors contend that earlier accounts have been overstated. The idea that the U.S. and the UK "forced" Zelensky to back out of peace talks is "baseless," say Charap and Radchenko, though they acknowledge that "the lack of Western enthusiasm does seem to have dampened his interest in diplomacy."
On the suggestion that the discovery of war crimes convinced the Ukrainian president to abandon negotiations, the authors note discussions "continued and even intensified in the days and weeks after the discovery of Russia's war crimes, suggesting that the atrocities at Bucha and Irpin were a secondary factor in Kyiv's decision-making."
But taken together, these factors, along with certain details of the agreement that were never finalized, were enough to imperil the negotiations.
In the two years since Ukrainian and Russian interlocutors last convened, the realities on the ground have changed. By April 2022, Vladimir Putin had likely realized that he would fail to achieve his most maximalist war aims. Now, with Western aid stalled and the war tilting in Moscow's favor, Ukraine is in a less favorable negotiating position than it was and Russia may be less inclined to enter talks.
But, as George Beebe and Anatol Lieven detail in a recent Quincy Institute paper, all sides still have a reason to pursue a diplomatic solution, one that could both end the war and provide for a new European security architecture once the fighting ceases.
As Charap and Radchenko note in their Foreign Affairs piece, one of the reasons the original talks broke down was because the two sides were more focused on the broader endgame rather than on shorter-term solutions.
"A final reason the talks failed is that the negotiators put the cart of a postwar security order before the horse of ending the war," they write. "The two sides skipped over essential matters of conflict management and mitigation (the creation of humanitarian corridors, a cease-fire, troop withdrawals) and instead tried to craft something like a long-term peace treaty that would resolve security disputes that had been the source of geopolitical tensions for decades."
The two years of war have only increased distrust between Russia, Ukraine, and Kyiv's Western backers, and diplomacy appears to be more difficult today than it was in 2022. But, say Charap and Radchenko, Zelensky and Putin surprised us once before with the concessions they may have been willing to make, and perhaps they will do so again. The consequences of that failed first effort at diplomacy are clear, as Thomas Graham, former senior director for Russia on the National Security Council staff, argued this week.
"The great tragedy of the Russian-Ukrainian war is that it will ultimately prove to have been futile. The likely outcome — territorial adjustments in Moscow's favor, security guarantees for Ukraine and Russia — could have been peaceably negotiated beforehand had leaders had a firmer grasp of the real balance of power or greater political courage," he wrote in the Hill. "The cost of failed diplomacy is already hundreds of thousands of lives lost and hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of property destroyed."
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
— After months of waiting, the House may hold a vote to give Ukraine another tranche of aid over the weekend. On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) introduced four separate bills, including one that will provide approximately $60 billion in aid for Kyiv. The House Speaker is already facing backlash from members of his own party, but the legislation is likely to have enough bipartisan support to pass if it is brought to the floor for a vote.
— There are reportedly increasing points of tension between Washington and Kyiv as Ukraine awaits more aid and its war effort falters. Zelensky was frustrated that Washington has not offered his country the same missile defense help as it provided to Israel during Iran's strikes over the weekend. "European skies could have received the same level of protection long ago if Ukraine had received similar full support from its partners in intercepting drones and missiles," Zelensky wrote in a post on X. "Terror must be defeated completely and everywhere, not more in some places and less in others."
Moreover, Kyiv has expressed frustration over Washington's recommendations that Ukraine not strike Russian oil refineries, according to The Washington Post. Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly privately made the suggestion to Zelensky in February at the Munich Security Conference.
"The request, according to officials familiar with the matter, irritated Zelensky and his top aides, who view Kyiv's string of drone strikes on Russian energy facilities as a rare bright spot in a grinding war with a bigger and better-equipped foe. Zelensky brushed off the recommendation, uncertain whether it reflected the consensus position of the Biden administration, these people said." according to the Post. "Instead of acquiescing to the U.S. requests, however, Ukraine doubled down on the strategy, striking a range of Russian facilities, including an April 2 attack on Russia's third-largest refinery 800 miles from the front."
— Russia and Ukraine nearly struck a deal late last month to renew the agreement that allowed for the safety of shipping in the Black Sea before Kyiv suddenly pulled out, according to Reuters.
"A deal was reached in March 'to ensure the safety of merchant shipping in the Black Sea', and though Ukraine did not want to sign it formally, Kyiv gave its assent for Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan to announce it on March 30, the day before critical regional elections, the sources said," reports Reuters. The reason for Kyiv's withdrawal is unclear. Russia and Ukraine previously struck a deal to allow for safe shipping in June 2022 but Moscow withdrew from that agreement after one year.
U.S. State Department News
In a press briefing on Wednesday, State Department spokesman Vedant Patel urged the House to pass the aid bill for Ukraine quickly.
"So it certainly would not be hyperbole to say that every day matters, and the House, we believe, needs to act this week to support Ukraine and Israel as they respectively defend against Putin and the Russian Federation and the Iranian regime. And so this is something that we need Congress to provide urgently," Patel said.

UPDATE 4/17, 12:45 PMThe House Republicans released three of the bills on Wednesday. The supplemental package includes approximately $26 in aid for Israel, $60 billion for Ukraine, and $8 billion for the Indo-Pacific. The fourth bill, which Johnson says will include the "REPO Act, TikTok bill, sanctions and other measures to confront Russia, China, and Iran," has not yet been introduced. The legislation will reportedly include an "open" amendment process and is expected to be voted on on Saturday night.After months of waiting, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) is expected to unveil an ambitious foreign aid plan this week. According to a one-pager that contained an incomplete list of the items in the bill posted on X on Monday by PBS News correspondent Lisa Desjardins, the plan includes at least $48 billion for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel, as well as money for allies in the Indo-Pacific and operations in the Red Sea. As far as the foreign aid is concerned, details of the plan are remarkably similar to the bill that the Senate passed in February, and which Johnson has thus far refused to bring to the House floor for a vote. That bill contained roughly $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, and $14 billion in security assistance for Israel. Johnson's plan is reported to also include other Republican sweeteners such as legislation that could ban TikTok and permit the U.S. to seize Russian assets to increase the scale of aid for Kyiv. The House is planning to vote on each of the elements separately later this week, and then send one single package to the Senate containing each approved piece. While the aid for the Indo-Pacific figures to be uncontroversial and a version of the TikTok ban has already passed the House, the other parts of the legislation face a more complicated situation.A number of congressional Democrats have raised concerns about approving more unconditional aid to Israel as it continues to carry out its war in Gaza which has killed more than 33,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children. But, in the aftermath of Iran's strikes on Israel over the weekend, a sufficient number of Democrats are likely to vote in favor of the aid. And, as Politico noted this morning, "there's an understanding that [sending aid to Israel] will be the price of finally securing Ukraine funding." The biggest holdup, as has been the case since Johnson assumed the speakership, is additional assistance for Ukraine. Regardless of the "important innovations" that Johnson hopes to include in the legislation, getting a package through while surviving politically remains a difficult needle to thread. The problem for Johnson has never been procedural or substantive — the Speaker will likely need Democratic support to bring the legislation to a vote, and each element of the package should have enough votes to pass on its own. But none of Johnson's maneuvering over the past few months is likely to relieve him of the accompanying political headache. After the House passed a bill to fund the government last month, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) filed a motion to vacate, a process that could result in a vote to remove Johnson from the speakership. Following Johnson's announcement to the GOP conference that he was moving forward with his foreign aid proposal, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said that he would co-sponsor Greene's motion. Massie has told reporters that there will be more GOP votes to remove Johnson than the eight that voted to oust then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy last October. Some members of the Freedom Caucus, who have been opposed to continued funding for Kyiv, have also expressed concern over Johnson's plan, but it is unclear whether they would support removing him.. The group put out a statement on Monday saying that "under no circumstances will the House Freedom Caucus abide using the emergency situation in Israel as a bogus justification to ram through Ukraine aid with no offset and no security for our own wide-open borders" Johnson appeared Tuesday to take on his detractors. "I am not resigning," he said after a morning meeting of fellow House Republicans on Capitol Hill. Calling himself a "wartime Speaker," he called efforts to oust him "absurd ... not helpful."The Republican Party's margin in the House is so narrow — it will drop to 217-213 when Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) resigns on Friday — that Johnson can only afford two GOP "no" votes before having to rely on Democratic members to save his job. Some Democrats have already said that they were open to helping Johnson if the Speaker allows a vote on Ukraine aid.Massie, who has already called on Johnson to resign, said that this outcome would not work for Johnson. If he relies on Democrats, "He goes further in the hole with Republicans. He becomes toxic to the conference," Massie said, according to NBC News' Sahil Kapur. "For every Democrat who comes to his aid he'll lose 2-3 more Rs." The Biden administration and prominent Senate Democrats have so far reserved judgment on Johnson's proposal, saying that they wanted to see the final details before weighing in, but they appeared open to supporting the eventual package. "It does appear at first blush that the Speaker's proposal will in fact help us get aid to Ukraine, aid to Israel and needed resources to the Indo-Pacific," National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said. "We just want to get more detail." Biden and Johnson spoke by phone on Monday night, and, given the hurdles that the speaker will have to overcome to get his plan through the House, he is likely to want to ensure that whatever does get through has support in the Senate and White House. Johnson also met with former President Donald Trump over the weekend in Florida, but the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee's praise for the Speaker does not appear to have won over skeptical Republican members. Trump was noncommittal about supporting Johnson's aid request, though he maintained that any future money sent to Kyiv should be "in the form of a loan rather than a gift." Some Republicans may be determined to advance a foreign aid bill to the floor regardless of how the votes on the looming legislation go. "One House Republican made the point to me that if this GOP plan doesn't pass, the floodgates will open and they'll just sign the Senate bill discharge petition," said Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman on X.The discharge petition, which would send the bill to the floor over the Speaker's objections, currently has 195 of the necessary 218 signatures. Only one Republican, the recently retired Rep. Ken Buck, has signed on so far.House rules typically allow 72 hours for members to review bill text before voting. If that procedure is followed, Johnson's foreign aid bill could be brought to a vote as soon as Friday night.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) offered a rare Democratic rebuke of the Biden administration's rhetoric on the war in Ukraine during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.


Smith, the ranking member on the committee, was following up on questions from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla) to Celeste Wallander, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, on whether the administration considered the repatriation of Crimea and the Donbas as necessary for a Ukrainian victory.


"It's a fascinating world we live in because I actually agree with Mr. Gaetz on something around Ukrainian policy," Smith said. "Realistically, Crimea is not coming back to Ukraine and we can absolutely win this war and absolutely make a difference even in that reality. We do not have to have Crimea to make it 1000% worth it to give Ukraine the money, okay? We need a sovereign democratic Ukraine that can survive."


During her exchange with Gaetz, Wallander repeated the Biden administration refrain that it would be up to Kyiv to decide what constitutes a Ukrainian victory, and that Washington's ultimate goal was to ensure "Russia's strategic failure," which includes "reinforcing the international law that borders cannot be changed by force."


"I've heard this phrase over — 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.' Forgive me. That is a ridiculous thing for any U.S. diplomat or person in U.S. policy to say," Smith said. "We got partners all over the world and, yes, we listen to them, but when we're footing the bill, when we are spending so much money over there, we have a say." Watch:





Smith, who has been a staunch supporter of continuing aid to Ukraine, made clear during his comments that approving the next tranche of funding for Kyiv was vital to accomplishing his goal of having a "sovereign democratic Ukraine that can survive."


The congressman asked earlier in the hearing how Washington would handle the delicate situation of pushing Kyiv to negotiate and accept territorial concessions.


"What would you say is the scenario and the administration's position on negotiations? So we get them the aid, we stop Russia so that Russia cannot achieve their maximalist goals. I see risk if at that point we continue (...) to keep fighting because we got to get it all back." he said. "I mean Ukraine should have pre-2014 borders, but what should happen, isn't the same as what can happen. How do you handle that discussion to get to a peace in Ukraine?"


Wallender responded that the administration would not force Ukraine to the negotiating table and that thinking that territorial concessions would placate Vladimir Putin misunderstood the Russian president's goals.


"He's not after territory, he's not after Bakhmut or Avdiivka or even Odesa, he's after Ukraine," she said.


As George Beebe of the Quincy Institute has argued, finding a way to end the war quickly is an essential step to upholding Kyiv's democracy.


"It is a mistake to believe that Ukraine will emerge from the war as a strong and prospering democracy no matter how it ends or how long it takes. The longer it continues, the bleaker will be Ukraine's future," Beebe wrote in RS last August. "It is time to combine our defensive support for Ukraine — which is essential to preventing further Russian territorial gains and pushing the Kremlin toward negotiations — with a diplomatic offensive aimed at a compromise settlement. The sooner we do, the better off Ukraine will be."


A growing group of congressional Republicans have expressed skepticism about the Biden administration's policy, with some focusing on the lack of a clear mission or endgame. Smith's comments mark the first time that a Biden congressional ally has conveyed similar misgivings about the administration's strategy.


The national security supplemental that the Senate passed in February and includes approximately $60 billion in aid for Ukraine remains stalled in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said that his chamber will address the issue soon, though it is unlikely that the House will vote on the Senate bill. The Speaker has instead floated "important innovations" to address some of his caucus' concerns, but what exactly those look like are unclear.

USAID administrator Samantha Power presented a bleak picture of the humanitarian situation in Gaza and international efforts to alleviate it during a Senate hearing on Tuesday, prompting some senators to question whether Israel's conduct during the war was in compliance with U.S. law. Power was testifying in front of the Senate Appropriation subcommittee State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs to discuss her agency's budget for the upcoming fiscal year. But a majority of senators — all but one of whom were Democrats — focused their questions largely on the crisis in Gaza. Power said that according to many aid workers that she met in Israel last month, this was the worst humanitarian catastrophe that they had experienced in their careers. "Unprecedented was the word they used," she said.During her remarks, Power noted that nearly the entire population is living under the threat of famine, ,that Israel has not done enough to facilitate necessary humanitarian access into Gaza, and that aid workers in Gaza were not able to do their work safely or reliably."Right now, the inability to get to the north in a sustained way has limited our ability to provide ready-to-use therapeutic food," she said."I think that is a stunning statement," replied Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) "We know children are starving to death. And the most fundamental, life-saving substance that we can transport to this country, we cannot get to the most serious areas."In recent weeks, the Biden administration has maintained that it has no evidence that Israel has violated international law as it prosecutes its war in Gaza, including with respect to the provision of humanitarian assistance."I think it's essential that those who are responsible in the department for the delivery of humanitarian aid have a strong voice within that process," said Sen. Chris van Hollen (D-Md.), referring to a report that the Biden administration must submit to Congress in early May on whether or not Israel is complying with international law. "One of the key factors of [National Security Memorandum] 20, as you know, is whether a recipient of U.S. military assistance is facilitating and not arbitrarily restricting the delivery of humanitarian assistance." As Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) pointed out, Section 620I of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act also prohibits the U.S. from providing military assistance to states impeding the delivery of humanitarian aid. Power declined to answer Merkley's question about whether she or others in the Biden administration had advocated the president to invoke 620I to cut off military aid for Israel. Following a phone call between Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week in the aftermath of the IDF strike that killed seven World Central Kitchen staffers, Tel Aviv has taken small steps to increase the flow of humanitarian aid. Israel opened three aid corridors and the number of trucks allowed into Gaza has increased from under 100 per day, according to Power, to 433 on Tuesday."It should not have taken the death of foreign aid workers to get the world to really say, enough is enough," said Van Hollen.Additionally, according to the Maryland senator, these changes also demonstrate that Israel was restricting humanitarian aid prior to this week. In February, following the International Court of Justice's ruling that Israel had to do more to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International accused Israel of defying the ruling and blocking the passage of sufficient aid. "I'm glad to see the Netanyahu government say it's going to open the Erez crossing. This is something those of us on this committee who are here right now have been calling for for months. as has the president," he said. "I'm glad to see over 400 trucks cross into Gaza yesterday. To my mind, it has been possible all along."Power will continue to speak about the USAID budget this week, testifying in front of both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations committee on Wednesday, where she is sure to face more questions about the crisis in Gaza.

The Biden administration's policy toward Gaza has come under increased pressure from Democrats on Capitol Hill. When Congress returns from a two-week recess on Monday, these members will have an opportunity to follow through on the sternly-worded letters and statements they have issued in recent weeks.Despite an apparent shift in tone following the Israeli strike that killed seven World Central Kitchen staff last week, the Biden administration maintains that Israel is complying with international law — both in its war conduct and in its provision of humanitarian assistance. As a result, Washington continues to send weapons to Tel Aviv unimpeded. In March, The Washington Post reported that the Biden administration had greenlit more than 100 weapons packages for Israel that fell under the $25 million threshold that would necessitate that it notify Congress. Since then, the administration has continued to sign off on weapons packages, including as recently as the day of the strikes that killed the WCK staff. The Biden administration is also reportedly close to approving an $18 billion arms package to Israel that would include as many as 50 F-15 fighter jets. While the delivery of the jets would not be immediate — one unnamed U.S. official told Al-Jazeera that even if the approval process were completed as soon as possible, the aircraft would not be delivered until 2029 — the announcement of such a large weapons package could provide Congress with a rare opportunity to debate arms transfer policy in public.The $18 billion package would mark the largest sale to Israel since the start of the war in October. It is difficult for Congress to block an arms transfer. Any legislative vehicle used to halt the sale would require a veto-proof majority in both chambers. Congress has never successfully blocked a sale under either the Arms Export Control Act or a Joint Resolution of Disapproval. But a large number of Democratic members have expressed disapproval or concern over continuing to provide Israel with weapons as it prosecutes its war. On March 11, Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.) sent a letter to Biden describing how the Israeli government has interfered with humanitarian operations. The senators reminded the administration that under U.S. law, the president "should not provide military assistance to any country that interferes with U.S. humanitarian assistance." In the House, Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) circulated a letter last Friday that called on the president to "reconsider [his] recent decision to authorize the transfer of a new arms package to Israel, and to withhold this and any future offensive arms transfers until a full investigation into the airstrike [that killed the WCK staff] is completed." The letter also called on the suspension of weapons transfers if Israel fails to make changes to mitigate civilian harm in Gaza. By the end of the day on Friday, 37 other members had signed on to the letter, including former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).The looming debate over the sale of the F-15 package could allow these members the opportunity to follow through on their words. RS reached out to the offices of each of the Senators to see if they would pursue legislation that would halt arms sales to Israel. None responded (though Van Hollen told Politico that he was "strongly considering" a variety of options to place conditions on aid, and Warren said on CNN on Thursday that it was "clear that Congress has a responsibility to act. We have legal tools here. And as I said, we cannot approve the sale of arms to a country that is in violation of our own laws on this.")Sanders in January introduced a resolution that would have forced the State Department to issue a report detailing whether Israel was using weapons provided by Washington to commit human rights violations. The resolution failed in the Senate by a vote of 72-11. As Stephen Semler of Security Policy Reform Institute has documented, all the senators who signed the letter, with the exception of Sanders, voted on March 23 for a spending package that included a total of $3.8 billion in military aid for Israel and cut off all U.S. funding for UNRWA, the U.N. agency which performs vital humanitarian work in Gaza. "That this bill passed with overwhelming Democratic support belies the party's increasingly vocal criticisms of Israel's behavior and expressed concern for compliance with US and international law," Semler wrote in Jacobin following the vote.

As the foreign ministers of NATO member countries gathered this week in Brussels to celebrate the alliance's 75th anniversary, the war in Ukraine is at a crossroads.
On the one hand, despite incremental movement in recent weeks, the latest tranche of aid for Kyiv remains stalled in the U.S. Congress. And while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to urge Washington to approve the package, Ukrainian military officers are now acknowledging that even if that aid ever arrives, it is unlikely to shift battlefield dynamics that currently favor Russia.
"There's nothing that can help Ukraine now because there are no serious technologies able to compensate Ukraine for the large mass of troops Russia is likely to hurl at us," an anonymous military source told Politico this week. "We don't have those technologies, and the West doesn't have them as well in sufficient numbers."
So far, however, NATO appears unmoved by these realities. Instead of pivoting its strategy, the alliance is leaning into a military-only solution to the war. To mark the anniversary, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Poland co-authored an op-ed in Politico, celebrating NATO as "the most successful defense alliance in history" and playing up the stakes of the war in Ukraine.
"For Europe to be at peace, Russian imperialism must be stopped. We cannot allow for any 'gray zones' because Putin sees them as an invitation to undermine territorial integrity and sovereignty, draw imaginary lines on the map and, ultimately, use military force," the foreign ministers wrote. "His full-scale invasion of Ukraine has also proven that a policy of concessions vis-à-vis Russia, in the hopes that it could bring peace or stability back to the Continent, is naive."
Given the possibility that Donald Trump returns to the White House in 2025 — and considering his and many in his party's apparent skepticism to continuing funding Ukraine's war effort — NATO is planning for ways to overcome Washington potentially taking a step back on the issue.
"Under a proposal being discussed this week at the military alliance's headquarters, NATO would oversee the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a group currently led by the United States that coordinates the donation and delivery of weapons to the battlefield," according to the New York Times. "Discussions are also underway about a plan floated by Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general, to secure an additional $100 billion from the alliance's 32 member states for Ukraine over five years."
The $100 billion fund has been described by other media outlets as a way to "Trump-proof" future aid for Ukraine. Sources close to NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg told the Financial Times that he had framed the proposal as a way to "to shield the mechanism against the winds of political change."
Both the long-term funding structure and the plan to shift the leadership of the Defense Contact Group are in their early stages and could run into roadblocks. Hungary, which was the lone hold out on a recent European Union long-term aid package for Kyiv before eventually acquiescing, is again expected to raise opposition to Stoltenberg's suggestion.
And the U.S. may not want to take a step back from its leadership role in coordinating military support for Kyiv. While the Biden administration has refused to comment directly on the proposal, U.S. officials "appeared dubious," according to the New York Times. Both Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and National Security Council spokesman John Kirby lauded the success of the group under Washington's leadership.
"The contact group has been very, very effective," said Kirby. "We're going to continue to lead and convene it. And we know that our leadership of that contact group is valued, it's important."
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
— Zelensky signed a law this week lowering his country's draft age from 27 to 25, bringing an end to a battle that started when the law was first passed last summer. "Discussion over who and how many people to mobilize has been divisive in a society that has otherwise been united by a common Russian foe," according to the The Washington Post. "Although support for the military is extremely high among Ukrainians, few people who haven't already volunteered to fight want to. Meanwhile, Ukrainian commanders have said they are in desperate need of reinforcements, especially in the forwardmost positions. Some soldiers have been fighting for more than two years with few breaks."
— In another sign of turmoil in Kyiv, Zelensky fired a number of aides last weekend. According to the Associated Press, Zelensky removed Serhiy Shefir from his post of first assistant, as well as three advisers and the presidential representatives in charge of volunteer activities and soldiers' rights.
— U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) pledged to address the Ukraine aid package quickly once Congress returns from a two-week recess on Monday. It remains unlikely that the House takes up the national security supplemental that passed the Senate in February that contains about $60 billion for Kyiv, with the Speaker instead saying he would propose alternatives with some "important innovations." In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Johnson floated three possible innovations: sending aid to Kyiv in the form of a "loan" instead of a grant; using seized Russian assets as a way to fund Ukraine; and tying the passage of more aid to legislation that would end a hold on new exports liquefied natural gas. Whether any of these options will be able to get through a fractured House remains unclear.
—Russia's defense minister warned his French counterpart on Wednesday against sending French troops to Ukraine while also noting that Moscow was prepared to take part in negotiations, according to the Associated Press. This was the first time since October 2022 that the two defense ministers had spoken and came in response to comments from French President Emmanual Macron in February in which he did not rule out the possibility of NATO troops being sent to Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal published a profile of Macron on Wednesday that sought to explain how he had gone to one of the leading NATO proponents of having dialogue with Vladimir Putin to floating the possibility of having Western boots on the ground.
"In recent weeks, Macron has begun using dark rhetoric to prepare the French public for the possibility of a more direct confrontation with Moscow, warning that if Ukraine falls then a host of Central and Eastern European countries would be next," according to the Journal.
U.S. State Department news:
— In two press briefings held this week, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller fielded few questions on the war in Ukraine. In Monday's briefing, he was asked about an upcoming meeting between Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
"So we have made clear that we have concerns with the, I think, full-scale partnership – I'm going to get the words exactly wrong – that we have seen between Russia and China," Miller said. "We have made very clear that we don't want to see China do anything to help support Russia's aggression in Ukraine, and we will continue to make that clear."

The State Department said on Monday that it has found no evidence that Israel is violating a recent directive that recipients of U.S. military aid comply with international human rights law.In February, partly due to pressure over support for Israel's war on Gaza, the Biden administration issued a national security memo that required any country receiving military aid from Washington while participating in an active armed conflict, to issue "credible and reliable written assurances" that they will use weapons funded by the U.S. in accordance with international law, and that they "the recipient country will facilitate and not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance and United States Government-supported international efforts to provide humanitarian assistance."Sunday was the deadline for Israel, along with the six other countries deemed to meet the criteria — Colombia, Iraq, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia and Ukraine — to issue these assurances. "For these seven countries (...) we have received written assurances that are required in the memo," State Department spokesman Matt Miller said during a press briefing on Monday. "In each case, these assurances were made by a credible, high-level official in the partner government who has the ability and authority to make decisions and commitments about the issues at the heart of the assurances." "We've had ongoing assessments of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law," Miller added. "We have not found them to be in violation, either when it comes to the conduct of the war or the provision of humanitarian assistance. We view those assurances through that ongoing work we have done." The announcement came shortly after the U.S. abstained from a resolution that demands an immediate ceasefire in Gaza — the first sign of public disagreement between Washington and Tel Aviv. The Biden administration will now have 90 days to provide Congress with a report on whether the Israeli government has abided by its assurances.This determination by the administration comes despite recent opposition from progressives in Congress to rule that the Israeli government's assurances were credible."The current circumstances on the ground in Gaza, the many statements made by the President and other senior Administration officials, and the recent IPC assessment that:'famine is imminent' – make it abundantly clear that Netanyahu's government is not doing nearly enough to allow aid to reach starving and otherwise desperate people in Gaza," 17 senators wrote the White House on March 22. "As a result, we believe it would be inconsistent with the letter and spirit of NSM-20 to find that assurances made by the Netanyahu Government meet the required 'credible and reliable' standard at this time. Such a determination would also establish an unacceptable precedent for the application of NSM-20 in other situations around the world."The letter's signatories included Sens. Chris van Hollen (D-Md.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)Six House Democrats made a similar case in a letter sent on March 23. "[T]he Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has restricted the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza by placing onerous burdens on the oversight of aid, severely limiting entry points for aid delivery, and arbitrarily preventing food, medicine, and other supplies from entering Gaza," wrote Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). "Given the catastrophic and devolving humanitarian situation in Gaza, we urge you to enforce the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act (Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act) and, as required by that law, make clear to the Israeli government that so long as Israel continues to restrict the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, the continued provision of U.S. security assistance to Israel would constitute a violation of existing U.S. law and must be restricted." The determinations match with assessments made with leading humanitarian organizations and human rights groups.Miller maintained that the current assessment was part of an ongoing process that "requires a fact-intensive analysis of relevant factors related to international humanitarian law," but that "as of yet, we have not made a conclusion that Israel is in violation of international humanitarian law."Reports last week suggested that officials at the State Department and USAID had expressed "deep skepticism" over ambassador to Israel Jack Lew's assertion that Israel's claims of compliance with international law were credible.

As the nearly $100 billion Senate-passed national security supplemental continues to stall in the House of Representatives, lawmakers are looking for alternatives. One idea that has been circulating Capitol Hill this week: formatting the next tranche of funding as a waivable loan instead of a grant in an effort to convince skeptical Republican members. But so far, the plan seems to have caused confusion among supporters of further aid to Kyiv, and has seemingly not meaningfully moved its opponents — and Johnson's striking of a deal with Democrats to fund the government has put him in an ever more precarious political position. The House passed its government funding legislation on Friday before heading off on a two-week recess. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said that he expects to tackle the foreign aid supplemental next without committing to what the legislative vehicle will do."There's a number of avenues that we've been looking at to address that. And I'm not going to say today what that is," Johnson said about how he will approach the bill. "I have not specifically talked about the mechanism of funding Ukraine. We're talking about the whole supplemental and all these pieces, whether they would go individually or as a package, all those things are being debated and discussed internally."The speaker has refused to bring the Senate-passed supplemental package — which includes $60 billion for Kyiv, $17 billion for Tel Aviv— to the House floor. While he has maintained that the House GOP conference was searching for other ways to pass foreign funding, his dithering inspired two groups of House members to pursue discharge petitions that would force a bill to the floor over leadership's objections. One, introduced by Rep, Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), would bring the Senate-passed bill to the House floor, currently has 186 signatures. On Thursday, Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who is retiring on Friday, became the first Republican member to add his name to the petition. The other, a bipartisan measure led by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) that would provide $66 billion in defense-only funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan — removing the humanitarian assistance for Kyiv and Gaza that is in the Senate bill — and includes border security provisions, has 15 signatures. Either petition would need 218 signatures in order to succeed,Former President Donald Trump floated the idea of loaning aid to Ukraine in February amid the Senate battle over the supplemental. "They want to give them $60 billion more," Trump said. "Do it this way. Loan them the money. If they can make it, they pay us back. If they can't make it, they don't have to pay us back."Although at first it appeared like just another off-the-cuff idea from the 45th president, a series of reports this week indicate that congressional proponents of sending more aid to Ukraine are either supportive of the idea or understand that it may be the only way to get enough members on board to pass Ukraine-related legislation. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the few senators to endorse the idea during floor debate in February, said he raised the idea with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a recent visit to Kyiv. Graham, in a statement released on Monday, said that he told Zelensky "no-interest, waivable loan is the most likely path forward."According to reporting from Politico, about $12 billion of the $60 billion in aid would be loaned, since the remaining funds will technically be spent to support the U.S. weapons industry. Johnson has also offered support for the idea, calling it "a common sense suggestion." But he will likely continue to feel political pressure from both sides over Ukraine aid. Members of the Freedom Caucus sharply criticized Johnson for his handling of government funding negotiations, which could limit his political capital on other issues. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has already filed a "motion to vacate" that could possibly remove Johnson from the speakership, though it is unclear whether the motion will ever be voted on. Some Democratic members have already pledged to save Johnson if he agrees to bring the national security supplemental to the floor. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has also come out in opposition to the loan idea, telling reporters that the process would take too long and "the best way we can get Ukraine the help they need is for the House to pass the Senate bill." Democrats have offered similar hesitations. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) both noted that time was of the essence and passing already-existing legislation was their preferred path.Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said that it was "one of those back-of-the-napkin ideas that sounds really good until you actually try to operationalize it." Nonetheless, the Democratic members were not willing to completely dismiss the plan. Murphy said he would be "interested to hear more" and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said it would be "worth considering."Given that the plan is associated with Trump, many Democrats have neglected to wholeheartedly back it. But if they sense that it is a way to win over enough Republican votes it's possible that they could change their minds. "If there's a way to structure money to Ukraine in a way that gets Republican votes, then I'd sure take a hard look at that," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) "Democrats support aid to Ukraine. Whether you call it a loan, or whatever, get 'em some resources," added Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. "You've got to get them some help. So if it comes in a loan, it's help; if it comes as an aid package with no requirements, it's still help."The U.S. occasionally offers foreign aid in the form of a loan. Approximately 10% of the post-World War II Marshall Plan, which totaled about $13.3 billion in aid — or more than $200 billion adjusted for inflation, was implemented through loans. On Monday, the State Department announced that it will loan $2 billion to help Poland rebuild its military. It represented the first use of a military aid loan via the State Department's Foreign Military Financing since 2017, according to Defense One. As Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), has already acknowledged, the loan will ultimately serve the same purpose as a grant. "If that gets some people over the line, fine, because ultimately, Ukraine is not going to pay back the loan to the U.S., it's going to be a loan that's forgiven," he said. That reality seems to pose a problem for long-time opponents of Ukraine aid. ""My question would be, what are you going to collect? You've got a war-torn country that basically doesn't have an economy," Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) told Business Insider on Thursday. "So how do you get paid back?"While the growing popularity of this option signals that supporters of Ukraine aid are searching for a Plan B, so far those who have voiced support for it are primarily those who already supported aid to Ukraine to a certain extent. Ultimately, if Johnson wants to keep the support of his caucus, and perhaps his job, he will need to convince long-time skeptics of aid to go along with this proposal. So far, there is little evidence of movement on that front.