The Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, has brought a glimmer of hope to supporters of the Ukrainian war effort. He suggested to Fox News on March 31 that he would try to rally his divided party behind the so-called REPO Act. That piece of legislation would allow President Biden, working with European allies, to seize Russian currency reserves frozen in the West and use them to aid Ukraine.
Grabbing these reserves would be politically convenient. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and its allies have thrown more than a quarter-trillion dollars into the war, to little ultimate effect. Ukraine has lately suffered a string of battlefield defeats. Prolonging the war is a project that Americans of all political leanings have been steadily less willing to fund through taxes.
Mr. Johnson backs Ukraine’s war effort, and sees supporting it as a responsibility of American leadership. But his caucus — more in tune with the Republican voter base — has stymied him. The REPO Act might offer both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Biden a way to duck controversy.
Thus far, the idea of supplying Ukraine through a spending bill has brought scorn from congressional Republicans who wonder whether Americans’ taxes wouldn’t be better spent on defending the U.S.-Mexico border. The REPO Act, by contrast, could make “Russia foot the bill for its own aggression,” as a group of Brookings Institution scholars puts it. Mr. Johnson himself calls it “pure poetry.” It is a tempting idea.
But…
Read moreThe idea that the US and its allies have seen "little ultimate effect" from the money sent to Ukraine is plain wrong. When Russia invaded, many experts and certainly the Russians themselves predicted the fall of Kyiv within 72 hours.
But more than two years later, it's still there, and so, incredibly, is Kharkiv, while Kherson has been returned to Ukrainian control. Meanwhile the Russian army has been badly bloodied and has lost most of its best armour.
Considering that this came at about one-twelfth the price of the amount frittered away in Iraq achieving nothing but discredit for America, I'd call it excellent bang for the buck.
@RobustTacosRepublican2mos2MO
absolutely correct, saying that our spending has had little effect is very misleading.
Russia has lost $55 billion in equipment (about 50% of their annual military budget) and has sustained nearly 500,000 casualties, at the cost of no US military lives. We've reduced Russia's ability to wage war without a casualty of our own. I would say this has been a success.
@WakefulApplesRepublican2mos2MO
We seized Japans foreign currency after Pearl Harbor. There's no alternative reserve currency to the dollar except the Euro so if both were to seize the assets it will have no effect at all.
Your description of how the war has gone is patently absurd. There was was tremendous effect until Ukraine began running out of ammo at which point they've had to painfully ration everything.
And they've still managed to largely beat back Russian advances despite being at a 7-1 disadvantage in fired shells.
China cannot be the reserve currency. They don't allow it to float, foreign… Read more
This seem a shallow and hastily constructed argument, and I disagree with the conclusions. First if a coalition composed of the US, Europe and any other joiners on who understand why Putin, as opposed to Russia, were to freeze the money, solidarity rather than weakness would result. Putin must be broken if this is what he wants to do. Simply, he must be stopped. It would be one thing if this were the will of Rusdia shown through an honest election. but that is not the case. China has its own problems and is not to be feared in the way portrayed here. Bottom line. dictators need to see what will happen if they try to pull one like Putin has. Take the money.
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
@DeerAndyCA Common Sense2mos2MO
The trap that you describe and risk to the status of the dollar presupposes that countries abide by international law and rules and that seizing of assets is capricious. Russia stands as a prime example of exactly what laws like this would be designed for.
The creation of a regime that offsets a rogue nation’s illegal actions through the use of their foreign reserves creates teeth to what has turned out to be toothless sanctions. We’ve seen this time and time again where rogue nations get around sanctions and military actions become necessary. Strengthen the penalties and speed of sanctions by giving nations the tools to create real penalties is the absolute right way to go.
@ExecutiveCodForward2mos2MO
This is akin to saying that seizing a criminal's weapons might encourage them to hide them under the floorboards, rather than store them in the gun cabinet in their living room. Perhaps rogue governments would think twice about breaking with international law if they felt financial consequences might result from their actions. No man—or nation—is an island financially. In the flat economy we all share, there should be communal repercussions for extraordinarily bad behavior.
@Tr3atyJohnDemocrat2mos2MO
"Ukraine has lately suffered a string of battlefield defeats. Prolonging the war is a project that Americans of all political leanings have been steadily less willing to fund through taxes."
I think the order of these sentences should be reversed:
"Americans of all political leanings have been steadily less willing to fund Ukraine through taxes. This has caused Ukraine to suffer a string of battlefield defeats. It is also prolonging the war."
First shutting down the flow of money and arms, then blaming Ukraine for not being able to hold the line, and finally using this as an argument to say that it's a lost cause anyway so it's OK to withhold further money and arms, is all a bit too obvious. What does the US think to gain from acting like a fickle fair-weather friend?
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
