A majority of House Republicans voted against sending more than $60 billion to Ukraine. But it passed anyway, and it now heads to the Senate.
  • The House passed a more than $60 billion bill that provides more military aid to Ukraine.
  • It’s part of a larger foreign aid package that’s likely to pass the Senate and be signed into law.
  • 112 Republicans voted it against — the most ever, and a majority of the GOP conference.

…

Saturday’s vote marked the first time the House had approved billions of dollars in Ukraine aid since December 2022, when Democrats still controlled the chamber.

In the two years since Russia’s invasion, opposition to aiding Ukraine has grown from a fringe position to a majority view among House GOP lawmakers. Many argue the money should be spent domestically or that policy changes at the US-Mexico border should take precedence.

Here are the 112 House Republicans who voted against the bill.

  • computerscientistI@lemm.ee
    472·
    8 months ago

    Is this supposed to be some kind of public shaming? It’s not as if there weren’t any reasons not to issue a blank check to Ukraine.

    A comprehensible way to view this war is: One corrupt shit-hole country, formerly part of the Soviet Unions has attacked another corrupt shit-hole country, formerly part of the Soviet Union.

    I am German and I am happy with giving the Ukraine plenty of funds and other means in order for enabling them to stop Russia expending in my general direction. I don’t really see that much benefit for the US so. But thanks, every US dollar spent is about 1€ less we have to spend. Go for it.

    • Famko@lemmy.world
      26·
      8 months ago

      Every dollar spent by the US on Ukraine helps undermine Russia’s global influence and protects NATO, which was the US’s goal for like 70 years now.

    • xionzui@sh.itjust.works
      251·
      8 months ago

      Making it very clear to the world you can’t just march into a neighboring sovereign country and take it over is very important for global security. That matters to all of us. We as a society should not accept that.

    • zik@lemmy.world
      21·
      8 months ago

      It’s a very cheap and low effort way to reduce Russia’s ability to invade across Europe and stomp a bunch of NATO countries.

    • uienia@lemmy.world
      12·
      8 months ago

      Sounds very much like your opnion is formed based on general ignorance on the subject, sprinkled with a good dosage of egotism

    • cynar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      8 months ago

      At the very least, they should help because they promised to. In 1994 Ukraine gave up its nukes (it had the 3rd largest arsenal). It did this with assurances that the US, UK and Russia would all respect its existing borders.

      By not helping Ukraine resist Russia, the US is reneging on that promise (by letting Russia change the borders).

          • lobotomo@lemmy.world
            31·
            8 months ago

            So few people understand this. It’s akin to the Jan 6 morons puking about the Capitol building being “our house”. Not it fucking isn’t, it’s the government’s building. Chanting “we the people” like morons only points out that you haven’t read or don’t understand the rest of the fucking preamble.

        • cynar@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          8 months ago

          I’m all for countries standing by their commitments, long term. The risks of not disarming Ukraine, particularly back then, is more than worth the cost now.

          Appeasement is rarely a good idea, long term, no matter which warmonger it’s aimed at.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      5·
      8 months ago

      The US has the same benefits as Germany. It is bad for an aggressive adversarial state to invade their way through Europe.

      The US gives them funding by selling them equipment the US was done with. The country gets to collect shitloads of data on using the weapons in a proxy war they don’t have to commit to.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      3·
      8 months ago

      It’s also a huge benefit to our economy and (eventually) military readiness. We’re giving mostly older but still useful weapons, and most of the money goes to US defense companies to replenish our supplies with the latest and greatest.

      Yeah, we’ve been running way too much debt and need to get a handle on it but this is a good use of debt and the problem is much bigger than this one “minor” part