Opinion | Johnson delayed the Ukraine aid vote for months. He’s no hero

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) put it well:

When the vote on Ukraine aid finally came, it was overwhelming, 311-112. That raised the question: Why in the world did such a popular measure take so long? It could have been done long ago, when President Biden requested the aid in October, had Johnson simply ignored the histrionics from pro-Putin House members who take their cues from Donald Trump.

A week … a month … six months ago, the vote to deliver critical aid could have prevented countless Ukrainian deaths. Just last week, Russian missiles struck an apartment building in the northern Ukrainian city of Chernihiv, killing 17 people and injuring at least 61. That was merely one strike among many Russia has successfully carried out in recent months while Ukraine has been hampered by munitions shortages and inadequate antimissile defenses.

The delay had serious, widespread consequences for Ukraine. Max Bergmann, a former State Department official and director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, tells me, “Their power sector has been decimated by lack of air defense, which will be incredibly costly to repair.” He adds that on the front “Ukrainians have lost a lot of soldiers because if you don’t have artillery you have to hold the line with men.” In other words, Ukraine has “lost a lot of people simply because we stopped providing them ammo.”

Amnesty International, tracking one of Russia’s many ongoing human rights violations, reported just days before the vote, “In what may be cumulatively one of Russia’s most destructive series of strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, several power facilities were attacked, resulting in further suffering and disruption to Ukrainian civilians.” The organization noted, “Deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure, such as power stations and electricity supplies, and causing overwhelming harm to civilians is a violation of international humanitarian law.” Count that among the consequences of delayed U.S. aid.

The shortages of ammunition and antimissile systems for Ukraine meant Russia paid little price for continued aggression. The American Enterprise Institute’s Kori Schake tells me that Ukrainian losses “can be counted in bodies, in lost territory, in squandered momentum on the battlefield.” Those losses are at least in part attributable to Republicans’ dithering.

The damage, in part, can be quantified. “We assess that Russian forces seized 583 square kilometers since Oct. 1, 2023, approximately 100 square kilometers more than what the Ukrainian forces liberated during the 2023 counteroffensive,” George Barros, head of the Russia and Geospatial Intelligence teams at the Institute for Study of War, tells me. He adds, “We continue to assess that material shortages are forcing Ukraine to conserve ammunition and prioritize limited resources to critical sectors of the front, increasing the risk of a Russian breakthrough in other less-well-provisioned sectors and making the front line overall more fragile than the current relatively slow rate of Russian advances makes it appear.”

Given Ukraine’s ammunition shortages, Barros says, Russia gained “flexibility in how they conduct offensive operations,” which can lead to “opportunities for Russian forces to make operationally significant gains in the future.” In particular, the Institute for the Study of War reported on Friday, “Russian forces recently made confirmed advances near Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and Donetsk City.”

Moreover, the damage attributable to this U.S. delinquency extends beyond Ukraine. “The greater loss is that of U.S. credibility, to use that old term,” veteran diplomat Daniel Fried tells me. “Trumpist Republicans have damaged it and that will not be easy to repair.” He says, “Some countries may hedge, including in Asia. Russia and China are exploiting this new opportunity. Iran as well, likely.”

These losses to Ukraine and to U.S. national-security interests were entirely avoidable. Had Johnson simply listened to U.S. intelligence experts or even traveled to Ukraine, as several House and Senate members did, and witnessed the carnage, he would have quickly grasped the urgency of a vote.

Not until last week did Johnson issue a full-throated defense of Ukraine aid. “I think Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed,” he told reporters. “I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys.” He stressed, “This is a live-fire exercise for me as it is so many American families. This is not a game, this is not a joke.” And yet for months, Republicans let the fire rage; they treated their solemn obligations like a joke.

Although Johnson insisted to Jake Tapper on CNN that Republicans “know the urgency in Ukraine and in Israel,” they showed no concern for roughly six months for the price Ukraine paid for Republicans’ dawdling. Either Republicans were extremely slow to learn about the harm they were causing, or they knew all along the danger they were visiting on Ukraine but didn’t care. Johnson’s apparent fear of Trump’s wrath or an attempt to oust him as speaker — in which no Republicans other than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) appeared much interested — seemed to outweigh concern for a U.S. ally.

The fact that Johnson finally relented merits a sigh of relief, not celebration of him as a profile in courage. If anything, Johnson and the GOP’s dillydallying have signaled to friends and enemies alike that if aggressors work fast enough, U.S. aid might not arrive until too late.