Winston Churchill probably never said that “Americans will always do the right thing, but only after exhausting all other options.” Yet this sentiment has been vindicated once again with the recent congressional odyssey surrounding the $60.8 billion aid package for Ukraine.
The package, critical for Ukraine’s ongoing struggle against Russia’s full-scale invasion, became ensnared for months in partisan wrangling and procedural delays, reflecting a troubling pattern in U.S. foreign policy. From its isolationist tendencies before World War II to its delayed response to modern global crises, America’s history is punctuated with hesitations that have cost lives and extended conflicts unnecessarily.
The analogy between the current Russo-Ukrainian War and the prelude to America’s entry into World War II is both apt and distressing. Before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. grappled with isolationism, embodied by the America First Committee, which vehemently opposed American involvement overseas, even as European democracies fell to Hitler’s blitzkrieg. President Franklin D. Roosevelt faced significant opposition in supporting the Allies but managed to secure the passage of the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941, a crucial pivot from non-intervention to a stance that would eventually lead the U.S. into the war.
On Feb. 8, 1941, the U.S. House of Representatives cast a crucial vote on the Lend-Lease Act, which was pivotal for supporting Britain during World War II. The vote split largely along party lines: 236 Democrats supported the measure, while 135 Republicans voted against it.
Fast forward to today, when the legislative scenario appears strikingly similar. The $61 billion Ukraine aid package passed with substantial support from Democrats — 210 voted in favor. But the Republican vote was divided, with 101 supporting the aid and 112 opposing. This division within Congress not only reflects ongoing partisan dynamics but also the historical challenges faced by lawmakers when deciding on international aid.
These parallels are not just academic; they have real-world implications. Critics of the current aid package to Ukraine might argue that there is significant opposition within Congress, much like during the Lend-Lease debate. However, historical context shows that such divisions are not unprecedented. The scale of opposition faced by Lend-Lease was even more substantial, yet it passed and profoundly affected the course of World War II.
While legislators debated, Ukrainian lives were lost on the front line. Each day’s delay in receiving aid translates directly to more casualties and gives the Russian aggressor a continued advantage. The slow churn of the legislative process, while a feature of democratic governance, becomes a bug during times of urgent crisis.
Moreover, the rhetoric surrounding the aid often hints at a reluctance to fully commit to Ukraine’s defense capabilities. Discussions about what weapons systems to send and in what quantities often come with cautions against provoking Russia further. This hesitancy is not just a logistical matter but a moral one. It sends mixed signals to both allies and adversaries and potentially emboldens further aggression from Moscow.
Despite these frustrations, Ukraine remains profoundly grateful for the support it receives. Every tank, every missile, and every round of ammunition strengthens Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and push back against a brutal invasion that seeks not just territory but the erasure of Ukrainian identity and statehood.
Yet in Kyiv, the gratitude is alloyed with a certain resolve — a determination to remember the lessons of history and the costs of delayed action. Ukraine does not ask for American boots on the ground; it asks for the tools to defend its sovereignty and democratic choice. It is a request for respect and support in a fight not just for national survival but for the principles of international law and human dignity.
The passage of the aid package, though welcome, must not be the end of the story. It should be a prelude to consistent, timely, and unwavering support for Ukraine and the international order’s broader stability. This means not only providing military aid but also strengthening economic ties, supporting post-war recovery, and reinforcing diplomatic efforts to isolate aggressors.
The world, and particularly Ukraine, watches and waits to see if the U.S. will lead with the urgency this moment demands. In the theater of global politics, the U.S. has the opportunity to once again answer history’s call, not out of last-resort necessity but from a proactive commitment to justice and peace.
The congressional saga of Ukraine’s aid package is more than a political victory; it is a test of moral and strategic clarity. Will the U.S. learn from the past, or is it doomed to repeat it?
This aid not only supports Ukraine but also serves as preemptive peacekeeping to deter further Russian aggression, potentially sparing the U.S. from deploying troops to defend NATO allies in the future. It’s a strategic investment in global stability, aiming to prevent a larger conflict where the stakes and costs would be significantly higher for the U.S. and its allies.
Maksym Skrypchenko is president of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center.
