Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • IP24017 | US Faces Serious Security and Strategic Risks if It Abandons Ukraine
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    IP24017 | US Faces Serious Security and Strategic Risks if It Abandons Ukraine
    Kevin Chen Xian An

    13 February 2024

    download pdf


    In the United States, Republicans have held up crucial aid to Ukraine for months while calling for border security reforms, ostensibly aiming to use these issues against President Joe Biden in the November election. While presidential candidates have leveraged foreign policy crises for their own ends in past races, KEVIN CHEN XIAN AN argues that gambling with the fate of Ukraine could create serious security and strategic risks for the United States.

       

     

     

    COMMENTARY

    It took months for the US Senate to negotiate a national security deal that would address southern border security, aid for Ukraine, and other critical issues, and less than a day for Republicans to effectively bury it.

    Since mid-2023, Republicans have demanded that aid for Ukraine be tied to border security measures as border crossings hit a record high. Senate Democrats have agreed to these demands. A US$188 billion Senate bill, unveiled in early February 2023, would have allocated US$20.23 billion for border security measures and limited the number of migrants entering the United States. It would also have included US$60.1 billion in aid for Ukraine, US$14.1 billion in security assistance for Israel, US$10 billion for humanitarian assistance for civilians in conflict zones, and US$4.8 billion to support Indo-Pacific partners against an assertive China.

    However, US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declared that the Senate bill would be “dead on arrival” if it reaches the House, saying that it does not do enough to address border issues. Unsettled by a chorus of similar statements from House Republicans, Senate Republicans turned against the bipartisan bill, preventing its passage. The Senate has since advanced a US$95 billion aid package for Ukraine and Israel, but its future remains uncertain.

    Speaker Johnson’s rejection of the bill has been described as a plan by supporters of former President Donald Trump to kill two birds with one stone. The lack of a border security deal would prevent President Joe Biden from addressing a key issue in an election year, while the blocked aid to Ukraine could tarnish one of his key foreign policy successes.

    This is not the first time American politicians have used foreign policy as a political tool in an election year, but the risks to American security and strategy have never been higher. Even if the revised aid deal is passed, one of America’s main political parties has shown that it is willing to prioritise political gain over European security. Pro-Trump Republicans may triumph in the November election but at a heavy price.

    IP24017
    A mobile fire unit from the National Guard of Ukraine shooting at Russian drones, January 2024. In the United States, opposition from House Republicans has delayed the passage of crucial aid for Ukraine. Yet, abandoning Ukraine would create serious security and strategic risks for the United States, regardless of which political party triumphs in the November election. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

    Not a New Occurrence

    Two presidential candidates have been accused of leveraging or worsening foreign policy crises to benefit their election campaigns: Richard Nixon in 1968, and Ronald Reagan in 1980.

    Nixon was recorded giving instructions to Anna Chennault, a well-connected Republican fundraiser, to persuade South Vietnamese leaders to delay a peace deal until after the 1968 election. The Chennault Affair ultimately thwarted then-President Lyndon B. Johnson’s efforts to reach a peace deal, contributing to the defeat of Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey.

    Twelve years later, a similar situation unfolded as 52 Americans were held captive in Iran. While then-President Jimmy Carter endeavoured to negotiate their release, associates of Ronald Reagan embarked on a Middle Eastern tour with a  message for Iranian leaders: to not release the hostages before the election. The continued plight of the hostages contributed to Reagan’s electoral victory.

    These past cases showcased the lengths that presidential candidates will go to secure victory.

    A Mistake of “Historic Proportions”

    Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns recently warned that it would be an “own goal of historic proportions” for the United States to abandon Ukraine. On one hand, he was speaking from the perspective of the relatively low cost of aiding Ukraine, at less than 5% of the US defence budget, considering the damage they have inflicted on Russian forces. On the other hand, he hinted at serious security and strategic risks the United States could face if it abandons Ukraine.

    As European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said, Europe’s “own security is at stake” in Ukraine. Observers have warned that not only would a defeated Ukraine create a serious refugee crisis for Europe, but a triumphant President Vladimir Putin would likely be emboldened to attack other European countries. This would draw the United States into a broader conflict in Europe, and if Washington declines to intervene, it will call into question the very foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

    As it stands, the outlook on Ukraine appears grim. With the United States running out of approved financial aid for Ukraine in January 2024, the artillery gap between Ukrainian and Russian forces has worsened. Russian forces have slowly made inroads into the town of Avdiivka despite punishing losses, while massing tanks and artillery to retake Kharkhiv. Ukraine is putting up fierce resistance, but its situation has been described as “extremely serious”.

    Even if Ukraine fights Russia to a stalemate, the continued delay in aid to Ukraine poses broader strategic risks for US credibility. As Burns noted, “No one is watching US support for Ukraine more closely than Chinese leaders.”

    Though the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 was rife with tactical mistakes, experts generally agreed with its strategic logic. A continued slowdown of Western aid in Ukraine, however, would reinforce a narrative of American weakness. Adversaries may interpret this as a perfect moment to pursue their own aggressive agendas, adding to a growing list of crises from the Red Sea to the Taiwan Strait. Partners and allies from Europe to the Indo-Pacific would be forced to reassess whether American support can be counted on in a crisis, or if it will wilt under political pressure at home.

    Pro-Trump Republicans could reclaim the White House by sabotaging the Biden administration’s foreign policy. But regardless of who wins the November election, the 2025 world order may not be so accommodating towards US security engagement or interests.

    Kevin CHEN is an Associate Research Fellow with the US Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

    Categories: IDSS Papers / Conflict and Stability / International Politics and Security / Americas / Europe / Global


    In the United States, Republicans have held up crucial aid to Ukraine for months while calling for border security reforms, ostensibly aiming to use these issues against President Joe Biden in the November election. While presidential candidates have leveraged foreign policy crises for their own ends in past races, KEVIN CHEN XIAN AN argues that gambling with the fate of Ukraine could create serious security and strategic risks for the United States.

       

     

     

    COMMENTARY

    It took months for the US Senate to negotiate a national security deal that would address southern border security, aid for Ukraine, and other critical issues, and less than a day for Republicans to effectively bury it.

    Since mid-2023, Republicans have demanded that aid for Ukraine be tied to border security measures as border crossings hit a record high. Senate Democrats have agreed to these demands. A US$188 billion Senate bill, unveiled in early February 2023, would have allocated US$20.23 billion for border security measures and limited the number of migrants entering the United States. It would also have included US$60.1 billion in aid for Ukraine, US$14.1 billion in security assistance for Israel, US$10 billion for humanitarian assistance for civilians in conflict zones, and US$4.8 billion to support Indo-Pacific partners against an assertive China.

    However, US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declared that the Senate bill would be “dead on arrival” if it reaches the House, saying that it does not do enough to address border issues. Unsettled by a chorus of similar statements from House Republicans, Senate Republicans turned against the bipartisan bill, preventing its passage. The Senate has since advanced a US$95 billion aid package for Ukraine and Israel, but its future remains uncertain.

    Speaker Johnson’s rejection of the bill has been described as a plan by supporters of former President Donald Trump to kill two birds with one stone. The lack of a border security deal would prevent President Joe Biden from addressing a key issue in an election year, while the blocked aid to Ukraine could tarnish one of his key foreign policy successes.

    This is not the first time American politicians have used foreign policy as a political tool in an election year, but the risks to American security and strategy have never been higher. Even if the revised aid deal is passed, one of America’s main political parties has shown that it is willing to prioritise political gain over European security. Pro-Trump Republicans may triumph in the November election but at a heavy price.

    IP24017
    A mobile fire unit from the National Guard of Ukraine shooting at Russian drones, January 2024. In the United States, opposition from House Republicans has delayed the passage of crucial aid for Ukraine. Yet, abandoning Ukraine would create serious security and strategic risks for the United States, regardless of which political party triumphs in the November election. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

    Not a New Occurrence

    Two presidential candidates have been accused of leveraging or worsening foreign policy crises to benefit their election campaigns: Richard Nixon in 1968, and Ronald Reagan in 1980.

    Nixon was recorded giving instructions to Anna Chennault, a well-connected Republican fundraiser, to persuade South Vietnamese leaders to delay a peace deal until after the 1968 election. The Chennault Affair ultimately thwarted then-President Lyndon B. Johnson’s efforts to reach a peace deal, contributing to the defeat of Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey.

    Twelve years later, a similar situation unfolded as 52 Americans were held captive in Iran. While then-President Jimmy Carter endeavoured to negotiate their release, associates of Ronald Reagan embarked on a Middle Eastern tour with a  message for Iranian leaders: to not release the hostages before the election. The continued plight of the hostages contributed to Reagan’s electoral victory.

    These past cases showcased the lengths that presidential candidates will go to secure victory.

    A Mistake of “Historic Proportions”

    Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns recently warned that it would be an “own goal of historic proportions” for the United States to abandon Ukraine. On one hand, he was speaking from the perspective of the relatively low cost of aiding Ukraine, at less than 5% of the US defence budget, considering the damage they have inflicted on Russian forces. On the other hand, he hinted at serious security and strategic risks the United States could face if it abandons Ukraine.

    As European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said, Europe’s “own security is at stake” in Ukraine. Observers have warned that not only would a defeated Ukraine create a serious refugee crisis for Europe, but a triumphant President Vladimir Putin would likely be emboldened to attack other European countries. This would draw the United States into a broader conflict in Europe, and if Washington declines to intervene, it will call into question the very foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

    As it stands, the outlook on Ukraine appears grim. With the United States running out of approved financial aid for Ukraine in January 2024, the artillery gap between Ukrainian and Russian forces has worsened. Russian forces have slowly made inroads into the town of Avdiivka despite punishing losses, while massing tanks and artillery to retake Kharkhiv. Ukraine is putting up fierce resistance, but its situation has been described as “extremely serious”.

    Even if Ukraine fights Russia to a stalemate, the continued delay in aid to Ukraine poses broader strategic risks for US credibility. As Burns noted, “No one is watching US support for Ukraine more closely than Chinese leaders.”

    Though the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 was rife with tactical mistakes, experts generally agreed with its strategic logic. A continued slowdown of Western aid in Ukraine, however, would reinforce a narrative of American weakness. Adversaries may interpret this as a perfect moment to pursue their own aggressive agendas, adding to a growing list of crises from the Red Sea to the Taiwan Strait. Partners and allies from Europe to the Indo-Pacific would be forced to reassess whether American support can be counted on in a crisis, or if it will wilt under political pressure at home.

    Pro-Trump Republicans could reclaim the White House by sabotaging the Biden administration’s foreign policy. But regardless of who wins the November election, the 2025 world order may not be so accommodating towards US security engagement or interests.

    Kevin CHEN is an Associate Research Fellow with the US Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

    Categories: IDSS Papers / Conflict and Stability / International Politics and Security

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info