Things did not go so well this time around. When the worn Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy turned up banging on the doors of Washingtons powerful on September 21, he found fewer open hearts and an increasingly large number of closed wallets. The old ogre of national self-interest seemed to be presiding and was in no mood to look upon the desperate leader with sweet acceptance.

Last December, Zelensky and Ukrainian officials did not have to go far in hearing endorsements and encouragement in their efforts battling Moscows armies. The visit of the Ukrainian president, as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierrestated at the time, will underscore the United States steadfast commitment to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes, including through provision of economic, humanitarian and military assistance.

Republican Senator from Utah, Mitt Romney, was bubbly with enthusiasm for the Ukrainian leader. Hes a national and global hero Im delighted to be able to hear from him. Media pack members such as the Associated Press scrambled for stretched parallels in historys record,noting another mendicantwho had previously appeared in Washington to seek backing. The moment was Dec. 22, 1941, as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill landed near Washington to meet President Franklin D. Rosevelt just weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Then House Speaker, the California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, also drew on the Churchillian theme with a fetishists relish. Eighty-one years later this week, it is particularly poignant for me to be present when another heroic leader addresses the Congress in time of war and with Democracy itself on the line, shewrotecolleagues in a letter.

Zelenskyy, not wishing to state the obvious, suggested a different approach to the question of aiding Ukraine. While not necessarily an attentive student of US history, any briefings given to him should have been mindful of a strand in US politics sympathetic to isolationism and suspicious of foreign leaders demanding largesse and aid in fighting wars.

How, then, to get around this problem? Focus on clumsy, if clear metaphors of free enterprise. Your money is not charity,he stated at the time, cleverly using the sort of corporate language that would find an audience among military-minded shareholders. Its an investment in global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way. Certainly, Ukrainian aid has been a mighty boon for the US military-industrial complex, whose puppeteering strings continue to work their black magic on the Hill.

Despite such a show, the number of those believing in the wisdom of such an investment is shrinking. In a US capital that has undergone an ideological shift since he was last here just before Christmas 2022,remarkedStephen Collinson of CNN, it now takes more than quoting President Franklin Roosevelt and drawing allusions to 9/11, to woo lawmakers.

Among the investors, Republicans are shrinking more rapidly than the Democrats. AnAugust CNN pollfound a majority in the country 55% firmly against further funding for Ukraine. Along party lines, 71% of Republicans are steadfastly opposed, while 62% of Democrats would be satisfied with additional funding.

Kentucky Republican and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnellcontinues to claimthat funding Ukraine is a sensibly bloody strategy that preserves American lives while harming Russian interests. Helping Ukraine retake its territory means weakening weakening one of Americas biggest strategic adversaries without firing a shot.

The same cannot be said about the likes of Kentuckys Republican Senator Rand Paul. While Zelenskyy was trying to make a good impression on the Hill, the senatorwas having none of it. I will oppose any effort to hold the federal government hostage for Ukraine funding. I will not consent to expedited passage of any spending measure that provides any more US aid to Ukraine.

In_The American Conservative_, Paulwarnedthat, With no end in sight, it looks increasingly likely that Ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the American taxpayer. President Joe Bidens administration had failed to articulate a clear strategy or objective in this war, and Ukraines long-awaited counter-offensive has failed to make meaningful gains in the east.

Such a quagmire was also proving jittering in its dangers. There was the prospect of miscalculation and bungling that could pit US forces directly against the Russian army. There were also no effective oversight mechanisms regarding the funding that has found its way into Kyivs pockets. Unfortunately, corruption runs deep in Ukraine, and theres plenty of evidence that it has run rampant since Russias invasion. The Zelenskyy government, he also noted in aseparatepost, had banned the political parties, theyve invaded churches, theyve arrested priests, so no, it isnt a democracy, its a corrupt regime.

Republicans such as Missouri Senator Josh Hawley are of the view that the US should be slaying different monsters of a more threatening variety. (Every imperium needs its formidable adversaries.) The administration,he argued, should take the lead on China and reassure its European allies that Washington would be providing the nuclear umbrella in Europe.

On September 30, with yet another government shutdown looming in Washington, the US House approved a bill for funding till mid-November by a 335-91 vote. But the measure did not include additional military or humanitarian aid to Ukraine. In August, the Biden administration had requested a $24 billion package for Ukraine but was met with a significantly skimmed total of $6.1 billion. Of that amount $1.5 billionis earmarkedfor the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, a measure that continues to delight US arms manufacturers by enabling the Pentagon to place contracts on their behalf to build weapons for Kyiv.

The limited funding measure proved a source of extreme agitation to the clarion callers who have linked battering the Russian bear, if only through a flawed surrogate, with the cause of US freedom. I am deeply disappointed that this continuing resolution did not include further aid for our ally, Ukraine, huffedMaryland Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer. In September, the House held seven votes to approve that vital funding to Ukraine. Each time, more than 300 House Members voted in favor. This ought to be a nonpartisan issue and ought to have been addressed in the continuing resolution today.

As Hoyer and those on his pro-war wing of politics are starting to realise, Ukraine, as an issue, is becoming problematically partisan and ripe. The filling in Zelenskyys cap is inexorably thinning and lightening.

First published in COUNTERPUNCH October 3, 2023