WASHINGTON -- Advocates for supporting Ukraine say the current situation underscores how the United States must keep the stream of weapons and financial support flowing. But a potential new GOP majority next year could make it tougher to get such measures passed.
Before leaving for its recess, Congress passed a stopgap spending measure -- opposed by all Texas GOP House members -- that included a little more than $12 billion to help Ukraine.
The Biden administration recently announced details of the latest package of military aid: a slew of additional munitions, armored vehicles and four High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS.
The HIMARS, which have proved key to the fight, come from Grand Prairie-based Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, which builds them at the Highland Industrial Park in Camden.
Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov hailed the arrival of four HIMARS last week, thanking the Biden administration and the American people.
"HIMARS time: good time for Ukrainians and bad time for the occupiers," he wrote.
But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called last week for even more support, stressing the importance of having an air shield to defend against an onslaught of Russian missile strikes.
Advocates for supporting Ukraine say the current situation underscores how the United States must keep the stream of weapons and financial support flowing. But a potential new GOP majority next year could make it tougher to get such measures passed.
GROWING SKEPTICISM
Polling shows that the percentage of Americans who feel there is too much support flowing to Ukraine has increased, particularly among Republicans.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, has voted against Ukraine aid.
He said he is all for finding ways to help Ukraine against the atrocities being committed by Russia, but questioned the amount of money involved in light of other pressing domestic priorities.
Roy said the administration hasn't provided a detailed explanation of why sending money to Ukraine is in the U.S. national interest, how it will be offset in the budget or evidence it will prove effective in the long run.
He said some of his constituents have flown to Ukraine to volunteer in hospitals, assist refugees and adopt children affected by the fighting. But they don't favor a "blank check" for Ukraine, he said, and he's concerned that's what the U.S. is providing.
"We're literally just propping up the government," Roy said. "The Communist Party in China is getting money that we're giving allegedly to Ukraine. Oligarchs in Ukraine are getting enriched off of our taxpayer dollars, because we're just dumping money, like truckloads of money. ... It's just mind-boggling that we operate this way."
FIGHT NOT YET WON
Cynthia Cook, director of the defense-industrial initiatives group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Ukraine's success has been aided by the weapons systems provided by the United States, but that the final outcome hasn't been determined.
"The battle is not won," Cook said. "The amount of territory that they would have to retake to expel Russia from their soil is still pretty substantial, especially if, as it seems, that they would like to recapture Crimea. It's not over until it's over."
Those opposed to more aid need to understand the United States is getting something for its money, she said, namely a more peaceful future if Ukraine's success helps prevent Russian tanks from eventually rolling into Poland.
"The message is one of 'we are spending money on a foreign country,' but at the same time this is a critical fight for democracy," she said. "It's pretty important for Europe ... if Russia is pushed back from Ukraine and that sort of diminishes the chances of future, more worrisome fights."
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, clashed with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., on Twitter earlier this year over his support for Ukraine aid.
In an interview, Crenshaw said that the initial price tag brought a lot of "sticker shock" but that the United States has gotten quite a bit in return.
"Some Republicans would disagree, but their reasoning is, frankly, lacking in substance," Crenshaw said.
He said he would like more details and justification on just where the money is being spent, but that the result of that investment has been "enormous" strategic gains.
"And the fact that that's lost on people blows my mind," Crenshaw said.
CONVINCING REPUBLICANS
Austin Rep. Michael McCaul is the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which puts him in line to chair the panel if his party retakes the majority in the midterms. He has supported Ukraine aid and said the United States could be doing more.
"Once we finally gave them what they needed, like the HIMARS, they started winning and they're beating them," McCaul said. "And I don't understand [opposition to Ukraine aid]. I grew up during the Cold War and I thought killing Russians was a good thing."
But he also said he's discussed the issue with members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and that they are primarily concerned about the cost.
He said it will be his role and those of like-minded members to explain to skeptics and incoming rookie members the importance of keeping the support flowing.
"It's just an education thing," McCaul said. "They may not understand what's going on."
During an interview just before the pre-election recess, Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Sherman, reiterated a point he made at a Rockwall, Texas, town hall in August-- that Ukraine should have enough money to stay in the fight for months to come.
And he said he understands the sentiment from some Republicans who feel more priority should be paid to the southern border -- he certainly agrees much more needs to be done there.
But he emphasized that the United States does not want to see Putin emboldened.
"We don't want Russia to win," Fallon said.