Thread by @MMazarr

Fascinating day on which both @KatrinaNation and Heritage Action raised concerns about the Ukraine aid package. Shows rising bipartisan unease with automatized US security policies--but also highlights the dilemmas we're stuck in, because there simply isn't a clear alternative🧵

Both note that total Ukraine aid will probably end up being north of $50 billion, and compare it with other national priorities. That will be more than the State Dept's annual budget, vanden Heuvel notes, and more than US climate funding 2/
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/…

The Heritage statement says the aid package would have a "higher cost than the Dept of Justice’s annual budget, and is even greater than the funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Labor, and Department of Commerce combined" 3/
heritageaction.com/press/ukraine-…

vanden Heuvel also rightly worries about the risks of global famine and recession, and the effect of essentializing the confrontation. The war will "strengthen hawks" on both sides. "To justify the growing costs, each must rouse patriotic fervor and emphasize the stakes." 4/

Real concerns: Long-term effects of uncontrolled climate change pose greater threats than almost any war. But wanting an end to this war + demanding talks is easy enough. Being pro-negotiations does not = being anti-war if there is no just + moral deal to be had 5/

Russia's invasion is an assault on human freedom and dignity, and the norms of deterrence, that ought to offend both progressive and conservatives. So the answer can't be to just "stop the fighting at any price," including turning eastern Ukraine over to Putin 6/

vanden Heuvel says: "If Russia conquers the whole of Donbas, as now seems Vladimir Putin’s intent, Moscow may well be readier to talk about a settlement." Well, sure--a settlement that normalizes its conquest, removes sanctions, and emasculates Ukraine's free national choice 7/

We can't know the extent of war crimes in Russian-occupied areas. To conspire in a "negotiated solution" that allowed such conduct to continue indefinitely would be unconscionable--but that's exactly what would be required to rapidly "end the war" 8/
hrw.org/news/2022/04/0…

Our demands have to include at least Russian withdrawal to pre-Feb 24 lines, general sec'y guarantees, and a return of any seized people and POWs. A lot of other stuff has been on the table and should be. But it's just not clear Russia will buy in to these, especially now 9/

When an aggressor invades a country + makes the price of a negotiated peace the acceptance of its fait accompli, that does = "peace at any price." Avoiding that price may be worth aid equal to 6 - 7% of US defense budget. Cheaper than extra NATO mil buildup after RU win 10/

I'm skeptical of domino theories, but Russia experts have convinced me that Putin's ambitions run beyond eastern Ukraine. There's decent reason to think if we ratify his gains now w/a "peace" deal, we'll be confronting new coercion soon enough. It wouldn't "end war" at all 11/

Finally, if Ukraine won't sign a deal, it won't matter how badly we want it. Do we order them to sacrifice their east + south and if not, we'll abandon them? I doubt they'd listen. If we did, US credibility would be gone at that point. Which = threat to peace elsewhere 12/

There's some middle ground here. The US can talk up a settlement more, publicly acknowledge Russian interests, propose other attractive elements of a deal, signal willingness to compromise. But if RU won't bend from conquering a major part of Ukraine, we can't accept that 13/

Bottom line, saying "end this war" isn't enough. The burden for skeptics of US aid + "continuing the war" is this: If you want to end it, describe the peace deal that (1) Putin will sign and (2) doesn't brutally violate principles of freedom, dignity, and--yes--peace 14/