Progressives Push for a Ukraine Ceasefire

A group of Democrats is urging the White House to pursue a diplomatic end to Russia’s war as Republican support for Ukraine aid may be waning.

By
45
Rep. Pramila Jayapal speaks with reporters after a vote on Capitol Hill. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

UPDATE: Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal announced Tuesday afternoon that members were retracting their letter calling for the Biden administration to negotiate for a ceasefire in Ukraine. The group faced backlash from Democratic lawmakers and criticism from members who signed the letter over the summer but did not agree with the timing of its release. In a statement, Jayapal lamented the letter’s conflation with recent Republican statements questioning future aid to Ukraine, saying it had created a distraction. Still, she appeared to stand behind the substance of the letter.

The upcoming Congress may bring new scrutiny to America’s response to Russia’s war in Ukraine, regardless of which party picks up more seats in November.

Last week, House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy predicted new Ukraine aid will be more difficult to pass in a Republican House than the current Democratic Congress. This week, 30 Democrats are pressing the White House to seek a negotiated end to the war, including through direct diplomacy with Russia.

Since Russia launched its invasion earlier this year, lawmakers have overwhelmingly backed the Biden administration’s supportive stance toward Ukraine, sending weapons and other aid to the Ukrainian military and passing sweeping sanctions to punish Russia. But members of both parties are now more urgently looking for an off-ramp to the brutal conflict that has caused thousands of deaths, displaced millions of people, and strained global energy supplies.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
45
By
Comments (45)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    I wish Uphill would have asked, "Was this whole fiasco really caused by a staffer going rogue, or did Pramilla throw congressional staffers under the bus?"
    https://twitter.com/RobbieGramer/status/1584949409405861889/photo/1

    Collapse
  2. R. James

    Just remember whatever happens in Ukraine, China will see it and come to a conclusion about America's resolve. Peace at any price will only encourage future war. Unlike Ukraine, any conflict over Taiwan will require a direct US response or an abandonment of past promises of protection, which would be seen by many as the collapse of US leadership and invite further challenges to the Post WWII international order.

    Collapse
  3. BenP

    I was on the so-called "isolationist" side of the foreign policy debate for the past 20+ years. I am for full engagement on Russia vs. Ukraine, and I think our objective should be total Russian defeat. And, I don't think it is right to put opposition to our involvement there and opposition to our decades-long perpetual involvement in the Middle East into the same bucket. Russia have nukes, and are threatening to use them. They are allied with China, who have the world's second most powerful military. Both states are aggressively and unapologetically expansionist. China are not going to back down unless they are faced with having to battle a superior military, which means the USA and our European allies. They are paying very close attention to how we respond in Ukraine.

    Compare this to 2001 Afghanistan or 2003 Iraq. For 20 or so years, the "hawks" said that terrorism was the greatest threat we faced. That didn't move me at all; terrorist attacks are horrible but they pose no existential threat to our country or to our allies. I opposed America's Middle East missions because I didn't think we faced an enemy fearsome and threatening enough to justify war, and I didn't buy the "spreading democracy and American values" stuff. What we face today is different. It would be funny if it weren't so sad... we went, nearly overnight, from "be scared of a terrorist attack" to "be scared of nuclear holocaust". Puts things in perspective.

    So, yeah, let's not suppose that the "hawks vs. doves" split we saw post 9/11 ought to have the same makeup post Russian invasion, or that the "isolationist" argument against our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan transfers coherently to Ukraine.

    Collapse
    1. R. James

      "But they pose no existential threat to our country"

      People from the New York area of a certain age may disagree with you. If a country will not go to war to defend the lives of its citizen, what good is it?

      Collapse
      1. BenP

        3,000 deaths is a horrible tragedy, not an existential threat. We very briefly launched a justified retaliation against the Taliban, who harbored the mastermind behind the attack, and then we turned that into a war on "terrorism". Russia's invasion of Ukraine has reminded us what real existential threats look like.

        Collapse
    2. Tom Doniphon

      So you believe we shouldn't have fought back after terrorists sheltered by Afghanistan killed 3,000 Americans?

      As for Iraq, what about Saddam's refusal to abide by the cease-fire agreement?

      Collapse
      1. BenP

        At the time I supported our retaliatory strikes against the Taliban, yes. In hindsight, it's tough to see what was accomplished.

        Regarding Iraq, I don't think it was the USA's duty to enforce that agreement all alone. To the extent Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, I was fine with us supporting those neighbors. I never bought the argument for us going in effectively on our own.

        But, I know that reasonable people disagree. The point of my post wasn't to convince anyone to take my position on our previous wars in the Middle East. It was to draw a strong distinction between the case for American involvement there and the case for American involvement in the Russia vs. Ukraine war.

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Mike B

    I don't know how you negotiate a settlement with a proven bad faith actor who believes they have more to gain by continuing the war.

    At this point anything short of a total Ukrainian victory, with all territory, including Crimea and the eastern Donbas, returned, all Ukrainian citizens repatriated, and Russian reparations, is a de facto victory for Russia.

    A ceasefire doesn't stop the murder, rape, pillage, theft, oppression, mass deportations, taking children and indoctrinating them to hate their mother country, obliterating their language and culture - in short, genocide - occurring throughout the occupied territory; it only allows Russia breathing room and a chance to regroup and rearm before relaunching their war of conquest.

    Aside from the moral question, in terms of pure American national interest, military and humanitarian aid going to Ukraine is money well spent (and is a pittance compared both to the domestic military budget and the desperate need). A large portion of the money appropriated so far, from what I've read, actually goes to backfill weapons stocks depleted by sending them to Ukraine; besides, a Stinger missile that destroys a Russian tank does more to further US interests than ten thousand in a shed somewhere.

    Collapse
  5. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

    1. Tom Doniphon

      Negotiate how? What should be on the table in negotiations for the sake of peace?

      And what "blank check"?

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Thank God they repudiated this garbage. Still a colossal screw up though.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Mudskipper

    This Democrat believes that engagement with Putin at this point is futile and counter-productive.

    Collapse
  8. Warren

    The war is Ukraine has devolved into a siege of the country, with a frustrated Putin and a defeated army resorting to long range missile and artillery attacks on civilian and infrastructure targets.

    The cost is rising to defend against a one-sided onslaught where Ukraine cannot strike back at civilian targets in Russia. Putin and his army may be humiliated, but a dictator who cannot allow himself or his country to lose will conduct war on terms of his choosing and care little that his methods are considered unconscionable to those he demonizes and attacks.

    Collapse
  9. Bob.Simrak

    Someone should buy them a history book.

    Collapse
  10. Dancrist13

    If the far left flank of the Democrats came out against Ukraine aid, it might actually help it pass ...

    So much of our current political state is negative polarization, that saying "AOC opposes it" will be enough to get Republicans lining up to support it.

    Collapse
Load More