Ukrainian troops are rationing ammo. But House Republicans plan to take weeks to consider aid

WASHINGTON — Ukrainian drones fly without ammunition. Russian artillery fires deadly salvos from safe positions beyond the reach of Kiev troops. Shortages of ammunition and supplies are causing Moscow to lose ground, US congressional leaders warn, yet the Republican-controlled House has shown little haste to supply Ukraine with military aid.

Across Washington, officials are watching the drop in munitions shipments with increasing concern. It has now been more than two months since the US – which has styled itself as the “Arsenal of Democracy” since World War II – last sent military supplies to Ukraine.

But House Speaker Mike Johnson appears determined to chart his own course away from a $95 billion foreign aid package passed by the Senate — a decision that could delay the package for weeks after an already laborious months of waiting in Congress.

With U.S. military transports halted, Ukrainian troops withdrew last month from the eastern city of Avdiivka, where outnumbered defenders had held off a Russian attack for four months. Delays in military support from the West complicate the task of Kiev’s military tacticians, forcing troops to ration ammunition and ultimately costing the lives of Ukrainian soldiers.

“If Ukraine gets the help, they will win. If they don’t get the help, they will lose – with dire consequences for the United States,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who visited Ukraine last week.

Defense officials are discussing options, including possibly tapping into existing stockpiles before Congress approves funding to replenish them, said Sen. Jack Reed, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And at a meeting at the White House this week, President Joe Biden, the top two Democrats in Congress and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell took turns strongly urging Johnson to pass a Senate-passed package that would provide Kiev with $60 billion worth of aid.

So far, the Republican speaker has refused.

The Republican from Louisiana – only four months into his powerful position as chairman and second in line for the presidency – is under heavy pressure from all sides. The leaders of 23 European parliaments have signed an open letter urging him to approve the aid. And within his own ranks in the House of Representatives, senior Republicans are growing uneasy about the inaction, even as other far-right members have threatened to try to remove him from leadership if he promotes aid to Kiev.

“The House is actively considering options on a path forward, but our first responsibility is to fund the government and our primary, overriding responsibility – and has been for the last three years – is to secure the border,” Johnson said during a meeting. news conference.

Johnson responded to the pressure on Ukraine by saying the House of Representatives had not received the funding legislation until mid-February, after the Senate took four months to negotiate, including on enforcement policies at the US-Mexico border. The border security deal quickly collapsed after Republicans, including Johnson, criticized the proposal as insufficient. Still, Johnson and other Republicans in the House of Representatives hope to secure some policy victories on border security again.

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Congress late last year, he told Johnson that military aid would last until February. But as Congress began in March, Johnson has so far allowed members of the House of Representatives to formulate their own proposals and has revealed little about his plans for the package.

“We are past the time frame that this should have taken, this analysis and careful consideration by the House should have been completed before the end of the year or very shortly after the new year,” said Rep. French Hill, a Republican from Arkansas. .

Hill and several other senior Republicans are pressuring Johnson to act by drafting a new national security package in the House of Representatives. That bill, being drafted by Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul and key appropriators, is expected to be less than the $95 billion Senate package but will contain many similar provisions — including money that Ukraine, Israel and allies of could use the Indo-Pacific to buy US military equipment, as well as some humanitarian aid.

It could also include a version of the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians, or REPO Act, which would allow the US to tap frozen assets of Russia’s central bank to compensate Ukraine for damage from the invasion, Hill said. He said it would save taxpayers money in the long run and help win Republican votes in the House of Representatives.

“This is more a matter of finding the way forward,” said veteran Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., the Rules Committee chairman. “But a substantial majority of both houses of Congress want to help Ukraine. You had 70 votes there, he said of the Senate’s robust support, and the vote here will be well over 300.

Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire, who leads a caucus of centrist Democrats called New Dems, said many in her party are willing to help Johnson pass a military aid package if he brings it up. But she said the bill already passed by the Senate would have the broadest support.

“We are at a critical moment right now and I encourage Speaker Johnson to work with us,” Kuster said. “He has such a small majority.”

Meanwhile, any decision by the Pentagon to send weapons to Ukraine before Congress approves the funding is fraught with risks. With no money to replenish the equipment and weapons shipped, the Army would deplete its supplies and potentially risk affecting units’ combat readiness.

In addition, there are concerns that Pentagon action could prevent Congress from moving quickly on the funding bill.

Reed said it would make more sense for Congress to approve the additional package because then the Pentagon could “immediately order the equipment it wants to remove. Without that, we run the risk of decommissioning the equipment and not being able to replace it or have confidence in replacement.”

But he added: “There may be circumstances in which the president would decide to send equipment like ATACMS, even if it would be a difficult judgment call.”

The US has sent both ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems) and HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems) for medium range. But there has been pressure on the US to send ATACMS over longer distances. The US has resisted out of concern that Moscow would view them as escalating because they could penetrate deeper into Russia and Russian-occupied territory.

However, Ukrainian leaders could use the longer-range missiles to disrupt Russian supply lines – a capability seen as vital as Russian President Vladimir Putin looks to bring in more troops this spring.

Ukraine has also made clear that its armed forces also need additional artillery, including 155mm howitzer rounds, and air defense ammunition.

Ukrainian officials have expressed confidence that they can withstand a Russian offensive for several more months, said Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council, which advocates for U.S. cooperation with Europe. Still, she added that the Pentagon’s consideration of using the drawdown power sent a grim message that officials believe the conflict has direct implications for U.S. national security.

Some warn that if Congress fails to provide the aid, U.S. troops will then be called upon to help defend NATO allies.

Schumer said during his trip to Ukraine, “A leading American said to me that if we don’t get the help, Russian tanks could be at the Polish border by December.”

___

Associated Press writer Lolita C. Baldor contributed.