The Speaker speaks on the Ukraine

I’ve just read the transcript of the interview US House Speaker Mike Johnson gave CBS the other day.

One of the items under discussion was the aid package for the Ukraine that had been held up in Congress. In common with other Republicans, Mr Johnson insisted on linking that subject with others, mainly illegal immigration across the Mexican border, but also the Gargantuan size of the national debt.

Much of what Mr Johnson said rang true; other things rang alarm bells. Some of his logic stood firmly on its two legs; some other was distinctly lame. But judge for yourself.

“We must secure the U.S. border before we secure anyone else’s,” said Mr Johnson, and any political scientist would give him top marks for understanding the prime responsibility of any government.

A national government must serve its own nation first, before it helps any other. That much is true, or rather a truism. And like any other truism, it should go without saying because saying it invites all sorts of questions and qualifiers.

First, a general statement. Helping other nations can be an essential part of serving one’s own. FDR’s famous metaphor about the garden hose you lend your neighbour whose house is on fire made that point well. If you refuse to share your garden hose, the fire will consume your own house sooner or later – hence, explained FDR, the Lend Lease.

I see a clear similarity between the current situation in Eastern Europe and the Second World War, but I am not sure Mr Johnson does. He seems to treat aid for the Ukraine as merely a matter of moral duty, rather than also one of national security. Yet sending armaments to the Ukraine is better than sending American soldiers to fight overseas, which will have to happen if Putin steps over the body of the Ukraine to pounce on NATO countries.

The second point is more specific. Saying that the US must secure her southern border before helping the Ukraine to repel Russian aggression is tantamount to not helping the Ukraine.

I’ve been watching the situation on the Mexican border for 50 years, the first 10, when I lived in Houston, in close proximity to it. The US has had 10 presidents during this period, and each one crossed his heart and promised to solve the problem once and for all. That each one has failed suggests that either the problem can’t be solved at all or at least that it can’t be solved quickly.

Even President Trump, Mr Johnson’s hero, took a long view of the problem. But a long view is a luxury the Ukraine can’t afford – and neither, I’m convinced, can the West. It’s reasonably clear that Mr Johnson doesn’t share this conviction.

That’s one linkage that lacks the logical rigour one should expect from high-ranking officials. Here’s another: “We have 34 trillion dollars in federal debt,” said Mr Johnson. “This is a very serious matter, to send money to Ukraine to assist them in their conflict, we effectively have to borrow it from somewhere else.”

The factual part of that statement is unassailable. The US federal debt indeed stands at $34 trillion, and it’s not just a serious matter but potentially a lethal one.

During the 2008 crisis, largely precipitated by huge public and private indebtedness, that figure was a ‘mere’ $10 trillion. That it has more than tripled in the intervening 15 years testifies to ill-advised – one is tempted to say ‘criminal’ – fiscal promiscuity.

The US can get away with such carefree spending because the debt is denominated in dollars, the world’s reserve currency. My imagination isn’t vivid enough to picture the calamity that would ensue should the dollar lose that status. The cost of servicing that debt alone would put paid to the American and generally Western economy.

However, what does it have to do with the Ukraine? Most aid to it should come in armaments, not cold cash. Some of those armaments, such as many Abrams battle tanks, not only already exist but are close to decommission. Shipping them over to the Ukraine would entail no financial hardship.

Ditto, previous-generation warplanes being replaced by the US Air Force. These can be a game changer in the war, and yet the US not only doesn’t supply them to the Ukraine, but uses licensing laws to ban other countries from doing so.

So yes, the US federal debt is a very serious matter. However, citing it as a reason for not helping the Ukraine is a non sequitur.   

Especially since it contradicts Mr Johnson’s next statement: “I’ve always said Vladimir Putin needed to be defeated. I’ve never changed my position.”

Everything else he said makes perfect sense. The US must help the Ukraine, that’s a given. “And so what we’re saying is, let’s do this in a rational manner,” said Mr Johnson, touching a sensitive chord in my soul.

Helping a country at war in a rational manner involves a clear understanding of a) the desired outcome and b) the means necessary to achieve it. The Biden administration has no such understanding, which Mr Johnson pointed out in trenchant fashion:

“Of course, we stand for freedom, that’s what the United States is about. But we need accountability for the people who are funding that. The White House has not been forthcoming with those answers. I have begged them in writing, publicly, privately in every way to give us those answers and they have not done it. And so without those answers, it’s very difficult for us to get the necessary funding to do what must be done to stop Vladimir Putin.”

Hear, hear. Joe Biden and his merry men have not issued a single unequivocal statement on the strategy they pursue in the Ukraine. “Not letting Putin win” is about as far as they’ve gone. What does it mean, specifically?

Not letting Putin turn the Ukraine into a province of Russia? Not letting him perpetuate the occupation of Ukrainian territory? Not letting him bomb the Ukraine flat? Like Mr Johnson, I’m desperate to know what Biden’s strategy is. Like him, I fear such questions will never be answered. For the only sensible answer is that not letting Putin win means making sure the Ukraine does.

Joe Biden should be awarded the VC, except that in his case these initials will stand for Vacillation and Cowardice. Add to this ignorance and intellectual vacuity, and you’ll get a fair representation of Joe Biden’s entire political career lasting half a century – this even before senile dementia set in.

Fair enough, when things go smoothly, a country doesn’t need a strong leader. In fact, one could argue it will be better off with a passive nonentity who does nothing of note. A boat inexorably sailing to its proper destination mustn’t be rocked. However, the presence of a nonentity at the helm during a stormy period can be fatal.

The three problems highlighted by Mike Johnson, runaway debt, illegal immigration and the Ukraine, shouldn’t be linked in his illogical manner. But they are all stress points, and they can all be potentially destructive.

Having Joe Biden in the White House at such a time puts at risk not just the Ukraine, but the West in general. I wonder if Mr Johnson realises that Putin’s aggression endangers us all. Probably not: he seems weak on making logical connections.