🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
With five months remaining before actual voting gets under way in the primary elections for both parties, it's easy to remain steeped in the pressing issues of the current calendar year. Daily news reports feature stories on economic ups and downs, while images of border incursions and urban decay swirl amid debates over who is at fault.
But once the various states get down to the business of tabulating primary results in the early months of 2024, one growing factor may prove to be a benefit to some candidates and a detriment to others: the public view of what will surely be a continuing stalemate in Ukraine.
The billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars sent to dislodge Russia from Ukrainian soil in the last 18 months is not a flashpoint of controversy at the moment. There is a full spectrum of opinion, from those who insist we must remain engaged "for as long as it takes" (whatever that means) to others calling for an end to aid right now.
The vast majority of Americans can be found between those two poles. There has been broad support for an American role in siding with Volodymyr Zelensky as he seeks the world's help in keeping his nation whole. But it is attached to an even broader belief that our role should not rise to the level of committing American troops.
As Republicans and Democrats file into polling places in the new year, we will still be hearing hawkish politicians tell us that Ukraine is a "vital" national interest, and that failure to repel Putin would be akin to letting Hitler overrun Europe.
"Vital" has a meaning. It means essential, necessary, indispensable. The people affixing that adjective to our continued Ukraine involvement will have a choice to make as 2024 unfolds with its parade of campaign developments. Presuming Russia will neither occupy all of Ukraine nor absorb defeat, supporters of further aid will either admit they were hyperventilating or be compelled to come clean about their intent to slowly nudge us toward putting U.S. boots on the ground.
There is no other choice. If our obligation in this war resembles a 1930s-style crusade to fend off an approaching continental disaster, they must tell us it deserves not just American money, but American blood. If, on the other hand, that obligation falls somewhat short of "vital," it will eventually be time to say we did our best and focus our efforts on facilitating a negotiated settlement.
One wonders what the remaining presidential candidates will be saying after the early primaries winnow the field. On the Republican side, it is no accident that the consistently dominant Donald Trump and his two closest pursuers, Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, do not spend their days lecturing us about the crucial need for waves of new Ukraine aid. The noteworthy GOP candidates making that push—Nikki Haley, Mike Pence and Chris Christie—will have a hard time breaking out of single digits with a view not widely embraced among voters.
In one of the sharpest political shifts of this young century—one of many led by Trump—Republicans are no longer a party that can be reliably expected to lean into deploying the American military as a force for good across many corners of the world. Prioritizing direct American interests over global concerns, today's Republican majorities set a higher bar for sending billions in aid or for even suggesting that we send our sons and daughters into harm's way. For a growing percentage in 2024, Ukraine will fall short.
The simple reason is fatigue. It is remarkable that the gutsy Ukrainians have staved off Russian aggressors for this long, but there is no reason to expect their smaller military to press Putin's forces into definitive retreat in the first half of 2024, if ever. Yes, F-16s are on the way, but training Ukrainian pilots will take the better part of a year, and even if they do successfully scramble, the second-largest air force in the world will meet them in the skies.
So as the presidential campaign brings additional attention to this foreign policy debate, voters will be reminded how long and expensive our participation has already been. They will be discerning which candidates seek our indefinite continued commitment and which will be seeking an exit strategy.
It is impossible to envision President Joe Biden losing enthusiasm for his Ukraine operation, and equally impossible to see success for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose challenge to the incumbent has attracted more affection from Republicans than from actual Democrats. So unless a Ukraine-cheerleading Republican leaps over Trump and other skeptics to claim the nomination, the November election will feature one candidate asking us for enduring patience and continued sacrifice, while the other commits to ending the war in a way that may not give us a defeated Putin but at least avoids a costly quagmire.
It is hard to know where Ukraine will rank among voter priorities late next year. But it is not hard to imagine voters losing much of their remaining appetite for endless entanglement in Eastern Europe.
Mark Davis is a talk show host for the Salem Media Group on 660AM The Answer in Dallas-Ft. Worth, and a columnist for the Dallas Morning News and Townhall.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
