Ukraine Aid is Finally On its Way. Will it Be Enough?

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on April 25, 2024.

This analysis examines Ukraine Aid is Finally On its Way. Will it Be Enough? in historical and strategic context. It traces how the core developments unfolded, which institutions and actors shaped outcomes, and what those decisions changed on the ground. Rather than repeating headline-level claims, it focuses on concrete mechanisms, constraints, and tradeoffs that explain the trajectory of events. The discussion moves from Key Developments through Strategic Implications to Risk and Uncertainty, then evaluates wider consequences. The goal is to clarify not only what happened, but why these developments still matter for current planning, risk assessment, and policy decisions.

Key Takeaways

The moment that hundreds of millions of people across Ukraine, Europe, and America had been praying for.
Crafting such a compromise bill took months, only for the GOP to tank it for not being strict enough.
The article is grounded strictly in the source video script and listed references.
Key developments are organized in sequence to clarify what changed and why it matters.
The closing sections focus on strategic implications and scenarios to monitor next.

Key Developments

The moment that hundreds of millions of people across Ukraine, Europe, and America had been praying for. On Saturday, April 20th, the US House of Representatives finally voted on three separate bills that would provide funding for US allies Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, as well as a fourth designed to force the sale of Tik Tok in the US. While all four bills were important in their own way, it was the one on Ukraine aid that everyone was watching. The one that was set to determine whether 2024 would become the year Vladimir Putin won his brutal war of conquest. First proposed back in October as part of a mega-package including the Israel and Taiwan bills, Ukraine aid had long been held up in Congress. Originally, Republicans had refused to pass the supplemental without Democrats agreeing to new enforcement measures at the US border. Crafting such a compromise bill took months, only for the GOP to tank it for not being strict enough. The Senate then passed the aid in full with an overwhelming majority, only for the Speaker of the House - Mike Johnson - to refuse a floor vote. Ukraine aid had therefore languished since February, seemingly another victim of America's partisan gridlock. Despite vowing to never advance the Ukraine bill without securing concessions on border enforcement, Speaker Johnson had an abrupt change of heart. According to reporting by the New York Times and AP News, he was swayed by intelligence reports that predicted Ukraine would lose by Christmas without the aid, and that Putin would next attack NATO allies. In Speaker Johnson's own words: “I really do believe the intel. I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. I think he might go to the Baltics next. I think he might have a showdown with Poland.” Added to this was likely the fact that the Speaker's own son is joining the Naval Academy this fall. To quote Johnson again: “This is a live-fire exercise for me, as it is so many American families. This is not a joke.” Separately, he added: “To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys.” Whatever the cause of the Louisiana Republican's road to Damascus moment, the results were the same.

Strategic Implications

Crafting such a compromise bill took months, only for the GOP to tank it for not being strict enough. The Senate then passed the aid in full with an overwhelming majority, only for the Speaker of the House - Mike Johnson - to refuse a floor vote. Ukraine aid had therefore languished since February, seemingly another victim of America's partisan gridlock. But not anymore. Despite vowing to never advance the Ukraine bill without securing concessions on border enforcement, Speaker Johnson had an abrupt change of heart. According to reporting by the New York Times and AP News, he was swayed by intelligence reports that predicted Ukraine would lose by Christmas without the aid, and that Putin would next attack NATO allies. With the backing of Democrats, Speaker Johnson managed to maneuver around his party's isolationist wing, get the bill out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. There, 311 voted in favor of aid to Ukraine, versus a mere 112 against. With that, the last major obstacle to unlocking over $60 billion for Kyiv to defend itself had fallen away. Ukraine-based Guardian journalist Luke Harding summed up the reaction in the trenches: “Palpable relief among outgunned Ukrainian troops on the frontline, and in Kyiv. The most important moment of the war in 2024.” To be fair, it was a moment that came with some caveats. Despite left-wing Democrat opposition to sending aid to Israel, the Ukraine bill received by far the largest number of 'No' votes. While a majority of House Republicans voted against the Ukraine bill, only 58 Representatives voted against the Israel one, and a mere 34 against the Taiwan bill. Still, the vote sent a signal to Moscow. One which apparently annoyed Vladimir Putin. According to BBC Russia correspondent Steve Roseberg, Kremlin-backed newspapers have since denounced Speaker Mike Johnson as a “brainwashed” man with “the look of a traitor”. In short, it was a weekend of high drama. One which may well have forestalled a devastating victory later this year for Russian forces. But rather than relive the excitement, or dig into the motivations of those involved - like Donald Trump, who chose not to urge House Republicans to tank the bill - we want to instead use this video to explore what the aid package is, and what effect it might have on the war.

Risk and Uncertainty

In Speaker Johnson's own words: “I really do believe the intel. I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. I think he might go to the Baltics next. I think he might have a showdown with Poland.” Added to this was likely the fact that the Speaker's own son is joining the Naval Academy this fall. To quote Johnson again: “This is a live-fire exercise for me, as it is so many American families. This is not a game. Because one thing is certain: while a welcome relief for Kyiv and its allies, the $61 billion supplemental alone won't be enough to win the war. In fact, there are some who are worried it has come too late to stave off even near-term disaster. That was the opinion of the Financial Times, which wrote that (quote): “the delivery of the US aid is unlikely to dramatically alter Kyiv's situation on the frontline.” That situation is what we in the business call “dire”. Since the eastern fortress town of Avdiivka fell to Putin's forces, the Ukrainians have been falling back, struggling to stop the Russians from making a major breakthrough. Key strategic towns like Chasiv Yar are under withering attack - and may have fallen by the time you see this. In some sectors, the Russian artillery advantage has reached an eye watering ten-to-one. Lacking air defense interceptors, Kyiv has been forced to watch as the Kremlin's attack jets operate in the skies with near-impunity. By some reckonings, this moment is the biggest threat Ukraine has faced since the conflict's opening days in early 2022. Frustratingly for Kyiv's supporters, this grim situation could have been avoided if only the House of Representatives had gotten its act together and voted a few months ago. Here's the Economist's defense editor, Shashank Joshi: “Sad truth is that had a supplementary passed six months ago Ukraine would have lost less ground (though it would still have lost some), inflicted greater casualties on Russia during that time & incurred fewer of its own - both important in an attritional war.” This feels doubly-true when you realize that things don't magically change with Joe Biden signing the bill into law.

Outlook

This is not a joke.” Separately, he added: “To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys.” Whatever the cause of the Louisiana Republican's road to Damascus moment, the results were the same. With the backing of Democrats, Speaker Johnson managed to maneuver around his party's isolationist wing, get the bill out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. There, 311 voted in favor of aid to Ukraine, versus a mere 112 against. With that, the last major obstacle to unlocking over $60 billion for Kyiv to defend itself had fallen away. Ukraine-based Guardian journalist Luke Harding summed up the reaction in the trenches: “Palpable relief among outgunned Ukrainian troops on the frontline, and in Kyiv. The most important moment of the war in 2024.” To be fair, it was a moment that came with some caveats. While the Pentagon had positioned stocks in Germany ahead of the vote in order to ship them quickly to the Ukrainian border, getting new weapons and ammunition to frontline Ukrainian units at a large enough scale to make a difference will still take time. Former commander of the US army in Europe, Ben Hodges, has said (quote): “it may be weeks before we see significant battlefield effects.” For its part, the Institute for the Study of War predicts that Russia will step up attacks to take advantage of this short window, and may make substantial gains before enough materiel arrives to stabilize the front. Among those new gains for the Kremlin may be Chasiv Yar: a city on a hill outside Bakhmut that acts as a key defensive point for Ukraine's forces. Analyst Rob Lee has suggested it might fall before help can arrive - a massive setback, since taking it would allow Russia “fire control” over nearby strategic cities. Other gains may be expected in the Donbas. As we were writing this on Tuesday, social media was alive with news about the sudden Russian capture of Ocheretyne, a village 50 km south of Chasiv Yar. By the time you see this, they may have advanced further-still. For all the worries, though, there does seem to be a general assumption that the House passed this package in nick of time.

Congress Finally Acts: The Vote on Ukraine Aid

Per Reuters: “The influx of weapons should improve Kyiv's chances of averting a major Russian breakthrough.” Of course “averting a major Russian breakthrough” is not the same as winning the war. For all $61 billion may sound like a spectacularly large sum, no-one thinks it is enough to do any more than - at best - keep Ukraine in the fight until the end of 2024. Speaking to the Financial Times, one anonymous Ukrainian official didn't even think it would help Kyiv's forces hold the territory they have right now, saying: “(the aid) will help to slow down the Russian advance, but not stop it.” So, if this gigantic spending bill is only going to prop up Ukraine in its fight for a few more months, you might reasonably ask: well, what's the point? We'll circle back around to answer that later. For now, though, we want to take a quick look at the key things the package will likely include, and talk a little about why they're necessary. We mentioned earlier how Ukraine's artillery shortage had gotten so acute that Russia was firing ten shells for everyone one Kyiv's forces fired, but even this doesn't reflect just how bad shell hunger on the frontlines has become. In some sectors, the Guardian reports that: “Shortages were so acute that some Ukrainian gunners reported they were reduced to firing smoke shells to scare the Russians because they had no shells left.” This deficit is partly due to the supplemental getting held up in Congress. But it's also due to the EU promising to manufacture and ship one million shells to Ukraine by this spring, and then falling short by a spectacular margin. As a result, even this latest influx of aid won't be enough to erase Russia's shell advantage. Analyst Rob Lee notes that, after American shells arrive on the frontlines: “Russia will still have an artillery advantage, it just won't be as great.” Still, there's a huge difference between Russia having a ten-to-one artillery advantage, and Russia having a three-to-one or two-to-one advantage. As things stand now, Russia can just grind slowly forwards, blasting away and annihilating all in its path. After the new shells, spare parts, and howitzers arrive, Ukraine should be able to arrest that advance. Here's analyst Franz-Stefan Gady, writing on X: “Artillery ammo deliveries should soon be in place to support a defensive-oriented strategy for next ~12 months.” In this, Kyiv is likely to be further helped by a long-simmering Czech initiative to source shells from outside Europe. So far, 300,000 have been brought and paid for, while over a million in total are theoretically available if Prague can raise the cash. The first batch should arrive in Ukraine in June. So, that's a bit of good news.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did Trump stop giving aid to Ukraine?

See the full article for details on Why did Trump stop giving.

How many Ukrainians have left due to the war?

See the full article for details on How many Ukrainians have left.

Is Ukraine getting less corrupt?

See the full article for details on Is Ukraine getting less corrupt?.

Is the Russo Ukraine war ending?

See the full article for details on Is the Russo Ukraine war.

Is $100 a lot of money in Ukraine?

See the full article for details on Is $100 a lot of.

Related Coverage

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →