[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 184 (Tuesday, November 7, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5374-S5375]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
American Leadership
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have had no shortage of reminders in the
last couple of years that we continue to live in a dangerous world.
Vladimir Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine, increased Chinese
belligerence, and Hamas's October 7 attack, enabled by Iran, are all
powerful reminders of the fact that there will always be malign actors
in this world who must be confronted. These events are also a powerful
reminder of something else, and that is the need for American
leadership on the global stage.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and if the United States and other free
countries don't lead, other countries will fill the void--countries
like Iran, Russia, and China.
I don't need to tell anyone that all three of these countries have
been flexing their power in recent years and seeking to expand their
footprint. Iran, as Hamas's recent attack so pointedly reminded us, is
supporting terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East: Hamas,
Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis in Yemen, Shia
militias that are attacking U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. And the list
goes on. Nor is Iran confining its sphere of activities to the Middle
Eastern countries.
Iran has provided Russia with weapons to use in its war on Ukraine,
and it is helping Russia to build its own drone-manufacturing facility
to dramatically increase Russia's drone supply.
Russia, of course, is currently providing the world with a clear
illustration of its imperial aspirations in its war of aggression in
Ukraine. And Putin has made it clear that his ambitions don't end
there. He is also occupying territory in Georgia and seemingly working
on asserting Russian influence in Moldova and the Balkans.
And as for China, whether it is increasingly aggressive threats
against Taiwan, efforts to expand its military and economic hold over
the Indo-Pacific, menacing U.S. military aircraft, or sending a spy
balloon across the United States in an attempt to gather information on
sensitive military sites, China has made it very clear that it is set
on expanding its power--and woe to anyone who gets in its way.
And it is backing up its determination with an aggressive military
buildup that has seen the Chinese military outpace the U.S. military in
modern capabilities like hypersonic missiles.
So it is abundantly clear that bad actors are flexing their power.
And, as I said, our response to that must be a renewed commitment to
American leadership internationally.
Now, American leadership doesn't mean attempting to fix every
country's problems or to get militarily involved in every conflict
around the globe. We neither can nor should attempt to become the
world's policeman. But that doesn't mean that we should retreat from
the global stage or confine our focus to one or two areas.
There is a lot that we can do while not attempting to play global
policeman or to solve every conflict. In the first place, we can and
should project the kind of strength that makes bad actors unwilling to
tangle with us--or with our allies. That means first, and foremost,
having a strong military prepared to meet and defeat any threat, backed
up by resilient supply chains. But it also means things like a strong
economy and developing our energy resources so that we don't have to
depend on hostile countries or hostile areas of the world for oil.
Military and economic strength is a powerful deterrent. But it is not
enough. We also have to engage on the global stage. We need to build
and maintain relationships with allies, support free nations, and stand
against hostile actions by hostile countries.
The stronger the bonds of free nations and the more united our
response to belligerent countries, the less scope these countries will
have for their aggression.
The world stage is going to be dominated by someone. And when free
countries abdicate a leadership role, malign actors are likely to end
up controlling the playing field.
Some might suggest that the United States should only engage globally
when events directly and immediately affect us. But, unfortunately,
that thinking often involves underestimating just how much we are
affected by world events, even those that are not a direct and
immediate attack on U.S. interests.
Some, for example, would question our continued support for Ukraine.
[[Page S5375]]
Well, I question what will happen if we don't support Ukraine.
Withdrawing American support for Ukraine could very well end up with a
victorious and newly emboldened Putin on the doorstep of four former
Soviet satellite states--now NATO members whom we are bound by treaty
to protect.
If Putin wins in Ukraine, it is not hard to imagine him viewing
incursions into one or more of these former Soviet states as a good
idea. And given our treaty obligations--and the imperative to prevent a
Soviet Union 2.0--it is not hard to imagine American troops being drawn
into the resulting conflict.
Supporting Ukrainians' efforts to defend themselves against Putin's
war of aggression is a way of preventing a conflict that would require
a far greater commitment from the United States--not to mention warding
off a likely catastrophic economic fallout in Europe from a wider war,
which would take a heavy toll on American businesses and consumers.
Furthermore, there is little question that a Russian victory in
Ukraine would embolden not just Putin but other malign actors--notably
China.
If Russia is successful at taking over part or all of Ukraine, why
shouldn't China think it can successfully take over Taiwan? We should
be supporting Ukraine--not just because peoples fighting for freedom
against tyranny are worthy of support, but because supporting Ukraine,
like supporting Taiwan and Israel and other free countries, is in our
national interest.
We should support Ukraine with an endgame in mind. Saying we will
back Ukraine ``for as long as it takes,'' as the President likes to
say, is noble. But not being intentional about the resources we send
risks prolonging this war without advancing toward that end state.
We can't expect Ukraine to tread water indefinitely. And I am hopeful
that the arrival of M1 Abrams tanks, longer-reaching ATACMS missiles,
and soon--soon--F-16s, while too late to meaningfully contribute to
Ukraine's summer counteroffensive, will enable Ukraine to make new
battlefield gains.
The Senate will soon take up a supplemental spending bill to address
defense issues. And any such bill should promote security abroad by
providing support for our allies--specifically, right now, Ukraine,
Israel, and Taiwan.
And after three successive years of recordbreaking illegal
immigration at our southern border, we should make sure that any
supplemental also focuses on building up our security here at home by
tightening security at our borders, in addition to addressing military
priorities like ramping up munitions production.
Senators Graham, Lankford, and Cotton have produced a substantive
plan to help secure the border and stem the historic level of illegal
migration under this President's watch. And we should take up their
proposal to address this essential aspect of our national security.
We can't solve every problem or bring peace to every conflict around
the world. But the United States can be a powerful force for good, if
we are willing to lead. And we should use our strength and influence to
contain evil actors and advance peace and freedom around the globe.
Failing to do so may have consequences for our national security now
and long into the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from Kansas.