[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 36 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S817-S818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                UKRAINE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, last week, Putin again invaded the 
sovereign territory of a neighboring country. Sadly, it was long clear 
that attempts to invoke genteel international norms would not move this 
self-styled czar.
  Putin only cares about norms insofar as he wants to rewrite them. He 
only cares about the peaceful international order insofar as he wants 
to disrupt it.
  Like his Soviet predecessors, Putin has always rejected the postwar 
order that held up states' sovereignty and territorial integrity as 
sacrosanct. Putin and Xi of China both want to replace this peaceful 
order with spheres of influence.
  They want to bend other countries to their will and redraw borders by 
force. Make no mistake, this crisis does not and will not end with 
Ukraine. And the reason isn't simply that appetites grow with eating. 
Confrontation with the West is Putin's main objective.
  He wants to restore the Russian empire. He said explicitly, he wants 
NATO rolled back to its 1997 borders. We have a dictator trying to 
dismember a U.S. partner, trying to decapitate its democratically 
elected government.
  Does anybody really think it stops here? Does anybody think that 
Europe, or for that matter, Taiwan, will be safe if the world lets this 
stand?
  We will only deter further Russian and Chinese aggression if Putin is 
made to pay a significant price. Massive and sustained sanctions that 
undermine his ability to wage war, now and into the future, will be 
necessary.
  But sanctions alone will not suffice. Russia has massive currency 
reserves. It has options to blunt economic pain and to impose 
countercosts on America and our partners, at least in the near term. 
The sanctions that would hurt Moscow the most would also have a 
significant impact on our friends in Europe. So there will continue to 
be resistance to maximalist sanctions.
  To date, the Biden administration has sent mixed messages about its 
own sanctions policy. For months, we heard that prospective sanctions 
were being drafted to deter Putin's aggression. But last week, the 
President said he and his advisers never thought sanctions would deter 
Russia. Now, they are finally imposing sanctions but short of 
everything that is available.
  So to what end exactly? What is the administration's coherent plan? I 
believe we should have used more of these tools prior to this brutal 
escalation to deter Putin and to weaken his capacity to wage war. Now, 
we must use these tools aggressively to impose massive costs for 
Putin's aggression, to demonstrate to other aggressors that we mean 
business, and to degrade Putin's longer-term ability to threaten NATO 
and compete with the West.
  But ultimately, sanctions are no substitute for military power. They 
are no substitute for the steps we must take

[[Page S818]]

to help Ukraine now and to defend ourselves in the future. Moscow and 
Beijing will only be deterred from aggression if they see concretely 
that military force cannot achieve their objectives and the cost of 
military aggression will be too high.
  In the immediate term, we must ensure the Ukrainians can adequately 
defend themselves and impose costs on Russia that prove prohibitive. 
The administration brags about giving $650 million to Ukraine last 
year, but the manner in which it did so deserves scrutiny.
  When Putin built up forces along Ukraine's border last spring, the 
Biden administration delayed an arms assistance package, literally, for 
months.
  A headline from last June read: ``White House freezes Ukraine 
military package that includes lethal weapons.''
  Even as Putin began directly threatening Ukraine last fall, an 
assistance package languished for weeks at the White House before it 
was approved. This weekend, the administration rushed to announce 
another $350 million in military assistance. For which weapons? On what 
timeline? And how will the weapons reach the brave Ukrainians who have 
lost ground?
  So Congress must use its oversight tools to ensure we are providing 
Ukraine the weapons it needs as quickly as possible. The same goes for 
helping to shore up our NATO allies' defenses along the eastern flank. 
And we need to identify what shortfalls, redtape, and limiting factors 
have slowed our assistance, so we are better prepared to help the next 
partner in need.
  As I have warned repeatedly, we cannot afford to move at the speed of 
bureaucracy.
  Beyond the immediate crisis in Ukraine, American Presidents, 
beginning with President Biden, must recommit our Nation to the longer-
term challenges that we face. Seventy-two years ago, Harry Truman led 
the West in rebuffing the Communist assault in South Korea, as well as 
contesting Soviet domination over Europe.
  America made sure NATO would not be a toothless political alliance, 
but rather a capable military fighting force. This meant sustained 
investment in American and allied military strength. Defense funding 
was the precondition for impactful diplomacy that kept the Cold War 
from going hot.
  Now, it is this President's job to seriously meet the growing threats 
posed by Russia and China. The United States and our allies and 
partners must understand that the core of our competition with Russia 
and China is the military dimension.
  President Biden's first budget proposed to actually cut defense 
spending in real terms. Congress had to take bipartisan action to beef 
up the NDAA to correct his error. Clearly, more investment is needed. 
Congress must keep strengthening defense capabilities as we work on 
appropriations.
  But President Biden must lead by example. The President's next budget 
request must include at least a 5-percent increase in defense spending 
above inflation.
  Russia and China have prioritized military modernization literally 
for decades.
  They have invested in specific tools like long-range aerial defenses 
and hypersonic weapons that are designed to push the U.S. and our 
allies further away from the fight.
  We are actually behind in this competition. We are actually behind. 
Hypersonic weapons, nuclear force modernization, power projection, 
global presence--these things cost money. It is a small price to pay 
for keeping security threats off of our shores. I have criticized NATO 
allies who failed to contribute fully to our collective security, but I 
am a strong supporter of the transatlantic alliance. I am encouraged by 
how our partners have responded, however belatedly, to the growing 
threat posed to our collective security.

  For example, special praise to the courageous decision by Chancellor 
Scholz this weekend to seek an emergency appropriation of 100 billion 
euros for the German military. This effectively doubles Germany's 
military budget this year--doubles Germany's military budget this year.
  He wants Germany to fulfill its pledge to spend 2 percent of GDP on 
defense. He wants to build liquefied natural gas terminals and make 
other energy investments to finally dial down Germany's dependence on 
Russia.
  If our wary European friends are finally shaking off their slumber 
and getting serious, then certainly the United States of America can do 
the same.
  President Biden must lead the charge and lead it now.

                          ____________________