Calls Mount to Scale Down US Role in Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The United States has provided assistance to Kyiv since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

Official sources say that the U.S. contribution total to the Ukrainian war effort is now around $113 billion. This is far greater than the contributions made by Kyiv’s allies.

However, as the bills continue to mount there has been a call for greater oversight of how these funds were being spent. Recent corruption scandals in Kyiv raise concerns that U.S. taxpayer funds are being wasted because there is no accountability.

What’s more, dissident voices are pointing out that the war shows little–if any–sign of ending soon, despite the West’s seemingly boundless support for Ukraine.

It’s time to break it down

The Epoch Times asked the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a Washington-based committee for a responsible federal budget, to confirm that the $113 billion figure had been confirmed. “still accurate.”

This is how it explained. “includes only the funding packages Congress approved through December 2022, and Congress has not approved any further packages in 2023 thus far.”

According to CRFB, three-fifths (or $67 billion) of $113 billion has been allocated. “defense needs,” While the remaining two-fifths of $46 billion have been earmarked for “non-defense concerns.”

It can be confusing to see more detailed breakdowns, as there are many official and semi-official sources (state agency, think tanks media outlets etc.). Sometimes, they appear to contradict one other.

“The confusion tends to be in how money is appropriated and spent by the government,” The CRFB, a nonpartisan organization with the stated aim to “educating the public on issues with significant fiscal policy impact.”

According to the group, Congress was created. “has constitutional authority to decide how much federal spending there should be–the “Power of the purse”–while the Executive Branch (the president and other agencies) are charged with spending that money.”

“Depending on when you account for that spending will get you different amounts,” The CRFB was also added. “because it takes the Executive time to actually spend the money Congress appropriates.”

Complex Channels

It is common for disbursements to be made through complex bureaucratic channels that often involve multiple agencies.

In the case of military aid, for instance, these channels include–but aren’t limited to–Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), and Foreign Military Financing (FMF).

According to the CRFB, the PDA lets the president send U.S. weapons straight to Ukraine, while the USAI lets the government–in tandem with the private sector–provide equipment and training to Ukraine’s military.

The FMF allows the government to replenish NATO allies’ stockpiles that have provided their military hardware to Ukraine.

Non-military forms of assistance–including economic, humanitarian, and government aid–are funneled to Ukraine through similarly complex channels.

Since the conflict began, USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development) has given Kyiv $13 Billion in aid. “direct budget support.”

USAID reports that the funds were intended to be used to pay for Kyiv’s expenses on the one year anniversary of the Russian invasion. “basic public services,” These include education and healthcare.

They are also intended to aid Ukraine in maintaining its sovereignty “a well-functioning state with strong institutions free of corruption” And “a vibrant, inclusive economy, a free press, and robust civil society.”

Mounting Concerns

These lofty goals seem well-intentioned. However, recent corruption scandals in Kyiv have raised questions about whether U.S. aid was being used as intended.

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability wrote a strong letter to USAID, State Department and Defense Department heads two days before USAID published their report.

James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, addressed the February 22 letter to the committee and asked the heads of three federal agencies to make sure that Ukraine funds are being used. “for their intended purposes” To prevent “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

This letter refers to a Jan. 25, statement by John Kirby (NSC spokesperson), in which Kirby claimed that the NSC had lied. “not seen any signs” The U.S. had provided budgetary support to Kyiv “fallen prey to any kind of corruption.”

Kirby’s statement, as the letter continues to note, was made one day after high-ranking Ukrainian officials were dismissed amid corruption allegations.

According to the letter Kirby’s observation suggested that the NSC might be “unaware” The corruption scandal in Kyiv is thus “heightening concerns that U.S. agencies are not conducting oversight of taxpayer assistance to Ukraine.”

They were granted until March. 8 to give a wide variety of “documents and information” How they were made “conducting oversight of these funds.”

Comer was notified by the Bureau of Legislative Affairs of State Department two days prior to the deadline. It emphasized the commitment of all three agencies to complying with the deadline. “working closely” His committee ensured that the funds were being used. “effectively, efficiently, and for its intended purpose.”

The agencies replied in writing that they would hold an “interagency briefing” Members of the Oversight Committee “to address your questions and to provide requested information.”

At the time of writing, however a date has not been set. “interagency meeting” Publication of this information has yet to take place.

Scandal in Kyiv

Before Russia invaded, western media didn’t hesitate to report on corruption in the Kyiv government. The Guardian, a British newspaper, famously called Ukraine “The Beast” in 2015. “the most corrupt nation in Europe.”

After Russia invaded Ukraine, however, the media changed their tune abruptly, and Kyiv was rarely portrayed in any other way than glowing terms.

According to the mainstream narrative, Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, were defending the West and its democratic ideals–almost single-handedly–from the depredations of “Russian autocracy.”

Zelenskyy is a former comedian and TV actor. He pledged to end corruption in government and won the presidency for 2019.

Time magazine celebrated Zelenskyy–and the amorphous “Spirit of Ukraine”–as its “person of the year” For 2022. All criticisms of Kyiv and its TV-friendly wartime President were branded Russian by mainstream media pundits “disinformation.”

This aura of infallibility, however, took a major hit on Jan. 24, when a raft of top Ukrainian officials abruptly resigned–or were sacked–amid corruption allegations.

After allegations that he procured rations to troops at exorbitant prices, the deputy defense minister was forced to resign. Meanwhile, a deputy minister of infrastructure was charged with receiving kickbacks for generators sold at high prices.

A number of other high-ranking officers, including regional governors, were also forced from their posts by similar allegations.

“Internal problems that interfere with the state are being cleaned up,” Zelenskyy spoke at the time. “It is necessary for our protection and helps our rapprochement with European institutions.”

‘Black Hole’

The NSC responded to the dismissals with praises for Zelenskyy’s performance “quick action … to ensure effective monitoring and accountability of public procurement and to hold those in positions of public trust to account.”

CNN, whose pro -Kyiv bona fides cannot be doubted, cited an anonymous intelligence source who claimed that U.S. weapons fell last April “into a big black hole” After crossing the Ukrainian border.

CBS News aired an August documentary called “The Unknown.” “Arming Ukraine,” Interviews with Jonas Ohman (head of a pro-Kyiv group) were featured in this issue “NGO” It funnels Western arms and equipment into Ukraine.

Ohman claims only 30 percent of these weapons and equipment actually exist in the documentary “reaches its final destination.” Later, he attributed the alleged shortfalls to interference by local authorities “powerlords, oligarchs, and political players.”

Ohman asserts that his organization was bringing arms into Ukraine. “since the summer of 2014.”

Despite the documentary’s overtly pro-Ukraine stance, it was swiftly retracted by CBS–two days after it aired–following an outcry by Kyiv.

Dmytro Kuleba was accused by the Ukrainian Foreign Minister of having been in contact with the broadcaster. “misled a huge audience by sharing unsubstantiated claims and damaging trust in supplies of vital military aid to a nation resisting aggression and genocide.”

Kuleba spoke on Twitter and demanded “an internal investigation into who enabled this [documentary] and why.”

‘Long History’ of Corruption

However, despite Kyiv’s protestations it wasn’t the first time such claims were made.

The Kremlin repeatedly warned that western weapons bound for Ukraine would end up in terrorist gangs or criminal gangs. Jurgen Stock (the secretary-general of Interpol) issued a similar warning in June last year.

The House Armed Services Committee heard from Robert Storch, Pentagon Inspector General. He was asked about his concerns that U.S. weaponry could be falling into the wrong hand at a Feb. 28 hearing.

Storch said that although there was no evidence, his office found it. However, he added that the investigation is still in its early stages.

He said that his office would be available for any inquiries. “continue to make independent oversight of assistance to Ukraine a matter of the highest priority.”

“And we will continue to keep the Congress and the public informed about our work,” He added.

Storch complied with Congressman Matt Gaetz (R. Fla.), an outspoken critic of unfettered Kyiv assistance. “There’s a long history of issues with corruption in Ukraine.”

Not only are there concerns regarding possible diversions of western arms or equipment bound for Ukraine, but so have the United States.

The Ottawa Citizen published the following July 2022: “multiple defense sources,” Canada was reported as being “has no idea about the whereabouts of the equipment it has provided to Ukraine as it does not actively monitor the distribution of gear.”

Facts from the Ground

The United States has supplied Ukraine with an extensive array of offensive equipment since Russia’s invasion last year. These include tanks, artillery system and munitions of all sizes.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary from western mainstream media, there is not much evidence that Ukraine is winning.

Most people hailed last year’s Ukrainian counteroffensives in Kharkov & Kherson as victories.

Since then, however, Russian forces have shored up their positions–especially in the eastern Donbas region, which remains the primary focus of its “special military operation.”

In recent weeks, Russian forces have captured several Donetsk positions, including Bakhmut, a strategic Ukrainian transport hub.

Russia annexed Donetsk & Luhansk (which together make up Donbas) last September. All four regions are now considered Russian Federation territory.

Last year’s annexations were accompanied by the mobilization 300,000 additional troops. Many of them will likely be part of an anticipated springtime offensive.

While the majority of the media plays down Russian battlefield successes, a few dissenting voices, such as respected military experts have made clear warnings about the future course of the conflict.

Douglas Macgregor, a retired army colonel, advised Donald Trump’s secretary of defense in November 2017. “heavy” Ukrainian casualties “dangerously” It has weakened Kyiv’s combat abilities.

Macgregor wrote in The American Conservative magazine: “Contrary to the western media’s popular ‘Ukrainian victory’ narrative, which blocks any information that contradicts it, Ukraine is not winning and will not win this war.”

‘As Long as It Takes’

However, the prospects of a diplomatic solution seem more remote than ever.

Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, stated that Moscow saw a change on March 10. “no chance for holding talks at the moment.”

Six days later U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken shared these sentiments. “I see no evidence that, right now, Russia is interested in a diplomatic resolution … that would end this war,” He stated.

It begs the question: What is the United States’ willingness to continue to give money and arms to Ukraine in the absence of a military or diplomatic solution?

According to most U.S. officials–and their like-minded counterparts in Europe–the answer is obvious: “For as long as it takes.”

“We are committed to standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” A spokesperson for the State Department, Ned Price, stated this at a press briefing on March 13. “We are committed to our Ukrainian partners.”

Price responded to The Epoch Times’ question and added: “It’s important for the United States to be resolute, along with the dozens of countries around the world who have not only stood with Ukraine but endorsed the UN system, the UN Charter, international law, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.”

Ukraine Fatigue

Others in government, however, aren’t willing to wait as the cost to arm and finance Ukraine continues to rise.

On Feb. 10, a handful of Republican lawmakers, led by Florida’s Gaetz, unveiled a bill in Congress calling for an end to U.S. assistance–military and financial–to Kyiv.

The 11 bill’s proponents tried to justify the bill by citing the steadily increasing cost to taxpayers, risk of an escalation with Russia nuclear-armed, and erosion of U.S. Military stockpiles.

The resolution has been dubbed “The” “Ukraine Fatigue” Bill calls for all parties to the conflict to come to a negotiated settlement.

“We must suspend all foreign aid for the war in Ukraine and demand that all combatants in this conflict reach a peace agreement immediately,” Gaetz stated this in a press release.

The United States claimed that it was in a period “managed decline,” The fiery congressman warned that Washington would continue to deteriorate. “hemorrhage taxpayer dollars” By prolonging the war.

The bill’s text includes a long list U.S. military donations to Ukraine. It asserts that they have “severely depleted U.S. stockpiles, weakening U.S. readiness in the event of conflict.”

‘On the Precipice’

The bill has little chance of being adopted and its sponsors still represent a minority opinion–even among fellow Republicans. It does however reflect growing public opposition to the unending support for Ukraine.

Days after the bill was introduced, a poll conducted by the Associated Press found that public support for U.S. assistance to Kyiv had fallen–from 60 to 48 percent–since the opening months of the conflict.

After Russian warplanes shot down a U.S.-controlled drone in the Russian-controlled Crimean Peninsula on March 14, Gaetz reaffirmed his call for help “end our involvement in this conflict.”

“With today’s loss of a U.S. Air Force MQ-9 Reaper drone in the Black Sea, we are once again reminded of the treacherous reality of our involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war,” He said it on Twitter.

“It is impossible to ignore the dire risk of total war with Russia as we teeter on the precipice of direct conflict.”