Kevin McCarthy decided to touch what some pundits have, until now, considered a new “third rail” in American politics yesterday. During an interview with Punchbowl News, the man who is considered to be in line to be the next Speaker if the GOP takes back the House in November said that there wasn’t going to be a “blank check” for limitless aid to Ukraine if the GOP is in charge. He didn’t threaten to abandon Ukraine entirely, of course, but he pointed out that Americans are dealing with record inflation and rising prices that have wiped out any income increases they may have seen over the past year or two. Under those conditions, limits to how much money we flush into the proxy war with Russia must be considered. You can expect to hear the wails about how he’s willing to abandon the poor Ukrainian people to Vladimir Putin starting this morning. (Associated Press)

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy warned Tuesday that Republicans will not write a “blank check” for Ukraine if they win back the House majority, reflecting his party’s growing skepticism about financial support for Kyiv as it battles Russia’s invasion.

“I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” McCarthy told Punchbowl News. “They just won’t do it. … It’s not a free blank check.”

The comments from McCarthy, who is in line to become speaker if Republicans win the House, raised fresh questions about the resiliency of America’s support for Ukraine as a growing number of Republicans, particularly those aligned with Donald Trump’s “America First” approach, question the need for federal spending abroad at a time of record-high inflation at home.

I have to wonder exactly how upset any significant voting block in America is going to be if we start cutting back on the limitless flow of cash and weapons systems to Ukraine while asking other countries to pick up a larger share of the burden. A quick look at the Ukraine Support Tracker will show you the incredible disparity in the numbers. The United States is the mule that has been doing nearly all of the lifting in this effort and nobody else is even close.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about direct military aid, humanitarian relief, or just plain old cash. The United States has given more than three times the total amount contributed by the entire European Union combined. Some of the countries with the lowest levels of contributions (such as France, Italy, and Japan) have restricted their contributions to strictly humanitarian aid, not wishing to provoke the Russian bear while the United States is fighting what amounts to a proxy war against the Kremlin.

And speaking of that proxy war, the concerns being registered by Americans are not limited to the amount of cash we’re flushing into this endeavor while people are facing economic hardships at home. More and more mainstream media outlets have recently begun to at least mention the concerns being registered by people who worry that we are sleepwalking our way into a nuclear war with Russia.

Even if Putin doesn’t lose it entirely and start firing nukes, there is still no assurance that this debacle is going to end any time soon. A conventional war in the eastern oblasts of Ukraine could literally drag on for years and it would not be out of character for Vladimir Putin. Do yourself a favor and read through this thread posted today by investigative journalist Tim McMillan, who works out of Germany and has an excellent grasp on the Russian philosophy of war over the past century.

⚠️ UPDATE 🧵: The Russian occupation administration has begun evacuating civilians from Kherson.
The Russian appointed "governor" for Kherson oblast said the evacuation order came as result of a "large-scale offensive" launched by Ukrainian forces to retake Kherson. pic.twitter.com/xKNmd1sw3Z

— Tim McMillan (@LtTimMcMillan) October 19, 2022

Tim’s basic point is that Putin doesn’t need an outright “victory” in Ukraine at this stage, involving the end of the Ukrainian government. He doesn’t really even need to hold on to all the territory he previously had. Here’s a key portion of the thread.

Now, Russia is simply going to fight the Russian way of war. Namely, in the past 100 years, Russian military successes haven’t come from having vastly superior technology or warfighters. Instead, it has come from Russia’s ability to endure more suffering than its adversaries. To Russia, if they lose 100k, or 200k troops, or all the terrority they’ve gained in the past 8 months, that’s not really a big enough set-back to consider using a nuclear option.

Thanks to its sham referendums, Russia can now usher 250k new conscripts annually to the areas it claims to have “annexed,” which essentially amounts to 18th century Novorossiya. If those 250k troops get killed, Oh well! They’ll just “partially mobilize” more or send the next wave of spring and fall conscripts. Russian economy crumbling due to sanctions? Oh well! There were plenty of areas in Russia before the war where people lived like it was a third-world country. Russia believes at the end of the day it can endure all the cruelties of war far longer than the West or Ukraine.

That’s a depressing interpretation but it has the ring of truth to it. Vladimir Putin doesn’t have to outright “win” the war in Ukraine. He just has to manage to not totally lose and keep grinding on until the other side becomes too exasperated to continue. And if Kevin McCarthy’s statements from yesterday match up with the feelings of enough Americans at that point, that level of exasperation may be quickly approaching. The world is enough of a mess at this point. If Russia can’t be fully “defeated” aside from some sort of world war three scenario and they refuse to back down or offer a settlement, what options are left? Some of the realists in the room should be pausing at this point to ask these questions.