[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 31, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S303-S304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Ukraine

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I recently read a book by the great 
historian William L. Shirer--not ``The Rise and Fall of the Third 
Reich,'' which we all read some years ago, but a book about the fall of 
the Third Republic. It was about France between the wars, between World 
War I and World War II.
  One of the most haunting parts of that book--more than a chapter--was 
about the failure of the European allies, particularly France and Great 
Britain, to confront Hitler in the late 1930s when stopping him would 
have been relatively easy.
  Whenever people write to my office, they say: Why are we supporting 
Ukraine?
  I answer: Google Sudetenland, 1938.
  We could have stopped a murderous dictator who was bent on geographic 
expansion at that time--I say ``we,'' the West--at a relatively low 
cost. The result of not doing so was 55 million deaths. That chapter 
has haunted me because it echoes so strongly in what is happening now 
in Ukraine.
  We are going to have one of the most important votes that any of us 
have ever taken--hopefully in the next few days--on support for the 
people of Ukraine, as they fight for our values. This vote will echo 
throughout the history of this country and the history of the world for 
generations, particularly if we fail to meet what I believe is a 
commitment to the people of Ukraine.
  If we back away, walk away, pull out, and leave the Ukrainians 
without the resources to defend themselves, it will compromise the 
interests of this country for 50 years. It will be viewed as one of the 
greatest geopolitical mistakes of the 21st century. Why?
  First, it will embolden Vladimir Putin. He told us in 2005 that he 
felt that the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the 
dissolution of the Soviet Union. He has said that, and he has pursued 
the remedy to that catastrophe--in his eyes--ever since.
  In 2005, he said that the greatest catastrophe was the dissolution of 
the Soviet Union. In 2008, he gobbled up part of what had been an 
independent country of Georgia; in 2014, we all know, Crimea and 
Eastern Ukraine; in 2022, he tried for the rest of Ukraine.
  And I have talked to people about this. I talked to a fellow on the 
street in Maine recently, and he said: Well, he will stop with Ukraine.
  I said: The Finns don't think so. The Swedes don't think so. The 
Baltic countries don't think so. And the Finns and the Swedes know 
Russia. Finland has a long border with Russia. They know Russia better 
than any of us. And they decided to join NATO. They haven't been in 
NATO for almost 75 years. Why did they decide to join this year? It 
wasn't just a coincidence: Oh, yeah. Oh, let's join NATO.
  No. They know what is coming. They see the danger of our failure to 
stop Vladimir Putin in Ukraine.
  Maya Angelou once said: If someone tells you who they are, you should 
believe them. Putin has told us who he is. He is an autocrat. He is an 
authoritarian. And he wants to rebuild the Soviet Union. And I believe 
we wouldn't stop there.
  I don't have much doubt about that, in 2022, when those Russian tanks 
were headed for Kyiv, if Zelenskyy had run and if they had succeeded in 
dismantling and amputating the head of the Ukrainian Government, the 
people of the Baltic states--Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia--would also be 
facing threats from Russia.
  We have to take him at his word. He doesn't like the West. He 
despises the West. He thinks NATO is an aggressive alliance, somehow 
designed to invade or otherwise threaten Russia.
  NATO doesn't want to invade Russia. NATO wants to keep the lines 
where they are. And that is one of the significances of the invasion of 
Ukraine. It was the first crossing of a border of this nature since 
World War II. The lines of Europe had been drawn. He crossed into a 
separate country.
  He doesn't like the concept of democracy. He doesn't like the rule of 
law. He has a nostalgic view of the Soviet Union.
  What we are looking at here is an important piece of a global 
struggle that is really the struggle of the 21st century, in my 
opinion. It is the struggle between the idea of democracy and the rule 
of law and the authoritarianism and totalitarianism. That is what is 
going on here. And Ukraine is the opening wedge in that debate.
  I hate to call it a ``debate.'' It is a conflict, where we have 
authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And they are saying--Xi Jinping 
and Putin and others--are saying our system can't work; it is too 
messy; it is too complicated; it takes too long to make decisions. And 
they are betting--they are betting--that we don't have the staying 
power, that our democracy is too feckless to stick to our guns--in this 
case, literally. We would be rewarding naked aggression. Sudetenland 
1938--the lesson we learned from the `30s was that appeasing 
dictators--appeasing authoritarians--just doesn't work.

  But it wouldn't only embolden Putin; it would embolden Xi Jinping. 
Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are gravely concerned 
about the future of Taiwan. It is inevitable that if we cut and run in 
Ukraine, that will change Xi Jinping's calculus about Taiwan.
  He is going to say: Well, the Americans aren't going to stick. We 
don't have to worry too much about them helping the Taiwanese defend 
themselves.
  That is going to make it easier for him to make that decision because 
he is going to look and take a lesson. We aren't as good as our word. 
We left. We walked away. He is watching this like a hawk--and not a 
friendly hawk.
  Do you know who else is watching us like a hawk? Kim Jong Un. Just in 
the last few days, he is making threatening noises about South Korea 
and about war on the peninsula. Do you think he doesn't pay attention 
to what we are doing or not doing in Ukraine? It will be a signal to 
him: You can't count on those Americans. You can't count on them 
sticking with the South Koreans against aggression from the north.
  It will embolden Iran. It will be the most--I hate to use the word 
``catastrophe'' because that is what Putin used, but it would be a 
catastrophe for this country.
  It would also shatter the confidence of our allies and our 
commitments. Our asymmetric advantage in the world right now is allies. 
China has customers. We have allies. Russia has Iran and North Korea. 
We have allies across the world. But our allies are going to say, Well, 
wait a minute, you are with us now, but when the going gets tough and 
you have to, maybe, have a budget supplemental to stick with us, you 
are going to walk away. And it is going to undermine the confidence of 
our allies.
  And in places like Japan and South Korea, they may say: We can't 
count on the Americans to defend us. Therefore, maybe we better develop 
our own nuclear arms, for example. Maybe we can't count on the famous 
American nuclear umbrella: proliferation, heightened tension--a higher 
likelihood of these unthinkable weapons being used.
  The other reason we can't walk away is, we are undermining our 
ability to negotiate and make deals in the future. Who the heck is 
going to deal with us if they know we can't be trusted, that we can't 
keep our word? People who

[[Page S304]]

don't keep their word, nobody wants to deal with them. Nobody wants to 
make agreements. Nobody wants to make concessions. Nobody wants to work 
together.
  ``We will be your ally when times are good, but don't count on us 
when it gets tough. Don't count on us if it is not easy. Don't count on 
us when times are tough.''
  What an awful thing, what an incredible wound--self-inflicted wound--
on this country, not only on our moral standing but on our practical, 
because the allies are going to go their own way because they say we 
can't be trusted. We would be abandoning the people of Ukraine who are 
literally dying for our values.
  And I was doing a little historic research the other day. The Battle 
of Yorktown, 1788--the battle that ended the Revolutionary War and 
really made America--it was the key battle. It was the French fleet 
that bottled up Cornwallis at Yorktown. It was a French Army, along 
with the Continental Army, that won the Battle of Yorktown.
  What if the French had said: It is going on too long, this war has 
gone too long; we are just going leave, we are to walk away? There is a 
reasonable chance we wouldn't be the United States of America today if 
our ally had walked away.
  ``Ally'' means somebody you can count on. The whole idea of an 
alliance is that you can count on somebody when the times are tough. 
And we are sending ammunition; they are sending lives.
  And, by the way, there is not much doubt if we cut and run, if we 
stop, if we cut off aid--it would be very difficult for the Ukrainians 
to continue to defend themselves. Russia is a bigger country. It has a 
bigger war machine, a bigger army, more wherewithal in terms of 
munitions. Let's not kid ourselves. If we walk away this week, it is 
highly likely that Russia will control Ukraine within a few months.

  We can't have this fantasy that somehow this isn't a big deal and, 
oh, it will all get fixed. We are sending ammunition. They are sending 
lives. They are not asking us to fight their battles. They are not 
asking us to send troops. All they are asking is for the means to 
defend themselves.
  And, by the way, most of the money that we are talking about here 
ends up going back into our economy for the arms and ammunition that we 
are sending them. It ends up back in our States, in our communities.
  What is another argument not to do it? Corruption--I hear this--
corruption. I have been there. I spent an entire day in Kyiv. And my 
principal mission was: What about corruption? How serious is it? And I 
met with everybody from Zelenskyy to officials who were running 
software to keep track of every bullet that goes into their war effort.
  I am satisfied that it is one of the best and strongest and most 
closely accounted for provisions of aid ever. Does that mean it is 
perfect or that there might be a scandal here or there? I don't think 
there will be. But nothing is ever perfect.
  But I looked President Zelenskyy in the eye. My question was, If you 
have a scandal, Mr. President, it is going to kill us; we can't support 
you. And I didn't know what he was going to say. But his answer was, I 
know. And they are working on that.
  And, by the way, another point that I think is important is, who is 
supporting--I hear this: We are giving all the money. What about the 
rest of Europe?
  Well, actually, here is the chart of support for Ukraine. Here is 
Poland, and here is the United States. We are No. 14 in percentage of 
GDP in support of Ukraine. The blue line is actual military and 
financial support. The gray line is refugees.
  In Poland, they have taken in millions of refugees. They are in their 
schools, in their communities. They have made an enormous commitment. 
It is up to 2.5 percent of their GDP. We are at .3 percent. So the idea 
that nobody else is contributing and Europe isn't doing its part is 
just bunk. I think that is very important to consider.
  Democracy matters. Values matter. Freedom of expression, the rule of 
law matter. And that is what is at stake. That is the point I am trying 
to make. This is a historic struggle between authoritarianism, 
arbitrariness, surveillance, and the radical idea that people can 
govern themselves. That is what this is all about. This is a battle for 
the soul of our democracy in the world.
  Democracy is an anomaly in world history. It is unusual that the norm 
is dictators, Pharaohs, Emperors, Kings. What we are doing in this 
country is an anomaly. But it is a glorious idea. It is a huge, radical 
idea. It was radical in 1776. It had to be fought for in 1865. And it 
had to be fought for in the plains of Europe and the Pacific in World 
War II. It is worth fighting for. And, in this case, we don't even have 
to do the fighting; we just have to supply the arms and ammunition. So 
I have a question for my colleagues: When the history of this day is 
written, as it surely will be, do you really want to be recorded as 
being on the side of Vladimir Putin? All those in favor of Putin, say 
aye. That is what is at stake here.
  Or on the side of China, as they contemplate the invasion of Taiwan, 
all those in favor of invading Taiwan, say aye.
  No, we don't want that. But history is going to record this vote as 
one of the most important votes that any of us has ever made.
  One final note--my wife says I say ``finally'' too much; it gets 
people's hopes up.
  Finally, people say: Well, secure our border before we worry about 
Ukraine's border.
  OK, a group of the best of our Senate have been working on that for 
months. Apparently, they have come to an agreement. I am told by those 
who know that it is the strongest border security legislation in 
something like 40 years. So we have that.
  Do you want to secure our border before we do Ukraine? Hey, we can do 
them both in this bill. We can do them both in this bill. And if we 
don't do the border now, who knows when this opportunity will come 
again.
  The dictators are betting we can't do it. They are betting against 
our system. They are betting that democracy can't work, that we can't 
make tough decisions and tough commitments and live up to them.
  I want to stand on the side of resisting authoritarianism, on the 
side of democracy, on the side of the values that the country has stood 
for and that people have been fighting for, for 250 years.
  There is a wonderful hymn that we sing in my church, and it starts 
out like this, and it just seemed to me to fit the situation so well:

       Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, in 
     the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil 
     side.

  This is our moment: ``Once to every man and woman and nation comes 
the moment to decide.''
  On December 1, 1862, in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln 
came to the Congress, and he was trying to shake them out of the 
politics--and, by the way, the politics is what we are talking about 
here, politics--to focus on the crisis of the Civil War and what it 
really meant. And he wanted to bring that home to the Members of 
Congress, and here is how he ended that speech. On December 1, 1862, 
here is what Abraham Lincoln said:

       [My] fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this 
     Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite 
     of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, 
     can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which 
     we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the 
     latest generation.

  ``The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor 
or dishonor, to the latest generation.''
  Mr. President, I deeply hope we choose honor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, a huge thanks to my colleague from 
Maine and for his scholarly and passionate presentation of the 
challenge that we face at this moment. And, as he summarized the end, 
may we choose honor and sustain our support and partnership with the 
people of Ukraine.

                          ____________________