Over the weekend the U.S. House passed a $60 billion-plus bill that provides more military aid to Ukraine. The U.S. has already provided $44 billion to Ukraine since the Russian invasion began in 2022. This was part of a quartet of bills combining military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan with humanitarian assistance to Gaza and other global war zones. A majority of the Republican conference – 112 members – voted against it. Meanwhile, the $26.4 billion package of aid to Israel and humanitarian aid to Gaza passed, with all but 21 Republicans voting for it. This is in addition to the $3.8 billion in military aid, yearly, that the U.S. provides to Israel.

Some critics have been apoplectic about these results. Ukraine and Israel are both allies of the U.S.; shouldn’t the Republican votes be identical?  And aren’t those Republicans voting dissimilarly on these bills playing politics, or being “isolationist”? 

Of course, the answer to each of these questions is no. Each foreign policy decision should be assessed separately, and opposing one proposed amount of foreign aid does not necessarily mean one is playing politics or flirting with isolationism.

I believe that U.S. policymakers need to focus on three factors when evaluating any potential foreign policy action: 1) does this decision further the U.S.’s national interest(s); 2) is this decision going to actually achieve its objectives; and 3) is the decision, overall, a positive thing for the U.S.?

First, let’s discuss the U.S. aid to Israel. The legislation gave around $26 billion to Israel (but also including humanitarian aid to Palestinians, which is quite different, and should be evaluated separately). The U.S. clearly has some important national interests in supporting Israel in their war with Hamas, the other Palestinian terror groups, and Iran. The latter three are clearly enemies of the U.S. Also, we know that if the U.S. gives Israel the aid it needs, Israel will defeat Hamas and Iran. This is obvious – look how successful the Israeli operations have been in Gaza, and in Iran, with relatively few civilian casualties, versus the weakness of the Hamas warfare against Israel or the Iranian attack on Israel. Finally, delivering the U.S. aid to Israel does not seem to damage the U.S. The amount (of the munitions and the money) is generally small (especially compared to U.S. funding of Ukraine), so there have not been any credible critics about the U.S. deplenishing its stocks of munitions, while the success of Israeli operations provides excellent feedback to the U.S. research and development, and a great advertisement to the world on how effective U.S. arms and equipment is.

Second, let’s discuss the U.S. aid to Ukraine. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has continued to be a rival and enemy power against the U.S. (especially under Putin). Russia supports the enemies of the U.S., including China and Iran, it threatens U.S. allies in Europe, like the Ukraine, it violates treaties signed between the Soviet Unions and the U.S., it grabs U.S. hostages, and it conducts malicious cyber warfare against the U.S. It seeks to harm the U.S. in other ways as well – Russia seems to have inspired mutinous soldiers in Niger to oust the country’s democratically elected president and set up a pro-Russia regime, which then demanded that the 1000 U.S. troops, stationed in that nation to fight jihadists in that area, be removed.

Meanwhile, Ukraine, while by no means a nation of angels and saints, is still a far friendlier country towards the U.S. than Russia is, and is by no means a rival.

So, based on the above, the U.S. clearly has some important national interests in backing Ukraine over Russia. The following four national interests, in particular, are implicated here in favor of the U.S. opposing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: 1) the U.S. has a primary interest in ensuring its own physical security and that of its citizenry from foreign attack, 2) the U.S. has an interest in bolstering the interests and security of its allies—i.e., positive reinforcement—and alternatively, in undermining or punishing its opponents so as to incentivize pro-U.S. policies; 3) the U.S. has an interest in balancing power in every region so as to deter future wars and help stabilize the world, and 4) the U.S. has an interest in aiding the victims of aggression and opposing the aggressors because the U.S. doesn’t want to incentivize violence throughout the world.

Then, we should move on to the next stage – is this aid going to actually achieve its objectives? Without a doubt, this U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine is bleeding Russia, which is clearly in the U.S.’s interest. In the fighting:

“(T)he Russian military has suffered significant losses in personnel and equipment… U.S. intelligence agencies reportedly estimated in December 2023 that the Russian military had suffered 315,000 killed and injured...Overall, the casualties represent 87% of Russia’s estimated pre-war ground strength of about 360,000 personnel.”

And the U.S. is also harming Russia economically, with plenty of sanctions, for initiating the conflict and for its human rights abuses.  So, if the U.S. is providing the aid just to harm its superpower rival Russia, then it is accomplishing its objective.

However, if the U.S. is providing foreign aid to Ukraine to “win” the war for Ukraine, then things change. Simply put, this aid, and the sanctions the U.S. has also passed against Russia, will not be enough for Ukraine to win this war. Russia is doing the same thing it did against the Nazis and the French (under Napoleon); exhausting the Ukrainians. In fact, some believe that already Ukraine is weakening in its morale, and supply of soldiers, and thus a loss is inevitable now.

Finally, is the aid the U.S. providing to Ukraine, overall, a positive for the U.S.? Certainly, the U.S. has economically gained from providing the aid. Also, there is no question that “(s)ending military aid to Ukraine has enabled the United States to modernize its own military to be better prepared to fight the next war.” The negative, however, is that the U.S. may or may not be struggling to replenish its munitions stockpiles because of the conflict.

In the end, lacking some of the above information that I am, I cannot make a final decision on whether it is worthwhile for the U.S. to continue funding Ukraine in the war that Russia is waging against it. What I can do is state with certainty that U.S. funding for Israel is a much easier call to make and that House Republicans (and others) should back it. And, I can definitely state that those Republicans who oppose U.S. funding for Ukraine are not necessarily playing politics or succumbing to isolationism.

Foreign policy-making is never so easy, or so obvious.

Adam Turner is a national security and political professional, with over two decades of experience on the campaign trail, and on Capitol Hill in Washington DC.  He can be followed on X @AdamEdwTurner.