Putin gains every day that Ukraine does not get the resources it needs
In the weeks following the second anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the machinery of American democracy found itself caught between urgency and obstruction. A $95 billion aid package — already passed by the Senate with bipartisan support — sat idle in the House, blocked not by a majority but by a faction loyal to a former president. As Ukrainian soldiers died and Russian forces pressed forward, the question before Washington was not whether the votes existed, but whether the will to use them would arrive in time.
- Every day Congress delays, Jake Sullivan warns, is a day Vladimir Putin exploits — and Ukrainian forces feel the absence of American ammunition in real time.
- Zelenskiy, speaking on the invasion's second anniversary, says millions will die if US military aid does not arrive within a month, with 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers already killed.
- The Senate passed the $95bn package; a bipartisan House majority is ready to vote yes — but Speaker Mike Johnson, under pressure from pro-Trump hardliners, refuses to bring it to the floor.
- A discharge petition could force a vote over Johnson's objection, but the slow parliamentary process would push aid delivery to April, surrendering another month of military ground.
- Europe is moving toward unity — Macron convening allies in Paris — while Washington remains paralyzed by Republican infighting over border concessions that the same party blocked weeks earlier.
On a Monday in late February, national security adviser Jake Sullivan delivered a pointed warning on CNN: every day the House failed to act on Ukraine aid was a day Vladimir Putin could use. Congress was returning from a two-week recess with the question of military support for Kyiv unresolved — not for lack of votes, but for lack of leadership willing to call one.
The Senate had already passed a $95 billion package supporting Ukraine, Israel, and other American allies. Bipartisan support in the House existed too. But Speaker Mike Johnson, pressed by the Trump-aligned far right, refused to bring the measure to the floor. Sullivan's message was unambiguous: delay was not neutrality — it was a gift to Moscow.
On the invasion's second anniversary, Zelenskiy warned that without American aid within a month, millions would be killed. Ukrainian military deaths had already reached 31,000. Ammunition was running low. Russian forces, sensing the gap, were making incremental gains.
In Washington, the fracture ran deeper than party lines. Representative Brad Sherman told CNN that Johnson needed only to schedule a vote — it would pass decisively. If he refused, Sherman predicted, Republicans would eventually join Democrats in a discharge petition to force one. But that path led to April, costing Ukraine another month of vulnerability.
Sherman framed Ukraine's survival as inseparable from American security, noting that the absence of US artillery had already hampered Ukrainian forces. Trump's threats to abandon NATO allies who hadn't met spending targets only sharpened the stakes. Meanwhile, Emmanuel Macron convened European leaders in Paris to reaffirm the continent's commitment — a pointed contrast to a House paralyzed by hardliners demanding border concessions, even after Senate Republicans had themselves killed a bipartisan border deal weeks prior. Sullivan's challenge to Johnson was plain: bring the bill to the floor, and let history record the answer.
Jake Sullivan sat down with CNN on a Monday in late February with a stark message: every day the House of Representatives failed to act on Ukraine aid was a day Vladimir Putin could exploit. The national security adviser's warning came as Congress prepared to reconvene after a two-week recess, facing not only the question of military support for Kyiv but also the threat of a government shutdown. The immediate obstacle was not a lack of votes but a lack of will from House leadership to bring the measure to the floor.
The Senate had already done its part. Earlier in the month, the Democratic-controlled chamber passed a $95 billion package that would funnel resources not only to Ukraine but also to Israel and other American allies. The money was ready. The bipartisan support existed. But in the House, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson faced pressure from the far-right wing of his party—those aligned with Donald Trump—to block any new spending on Ukraine. Sullivan's point was simple: delay meant deterioration. "The reality is that Putin gains every day that Ukraine does not get the resources it needs and Ukraine suffers," he told the network.
On the second anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion, Volodymyr Zelenskiy delivered his own warning, this one more dire. Speaking at a conference in Kyiv, the Ukrainian president said that without American military aid arriving within the next month, millions would be killed. He expressed bewilderment at the prospect of American inaction, asking what world such a decision would leave him in. The toll was already staggering: Ukrainian military deaths had reached 31,000. Ammunition was running short. Russian forces, sensing weakness, were making incremental gains across a grinding stalemate.
The political dynamics in Washington revealed a fracture that extended beyond simple party lines. While Trump's influence over congressional Republicans had hardened opposition to new Ukraine spending, a bipartisan majority in the House stood ready to vote yes if the bill reached the floor. Brad Sherman, a California Republican and senior member of the foreign relations committee, made this explicit. He told CNN that Johnson needed to bring the measure up for a vote—and that it would pass decisively. Sherman also issued a warning: if Johnson continued to block the aid, Republicans would eventually tire of the obstruction and join Democrats in using a discharge petition, a rarely invoked parliamentary maneuver that could force a vote. But that path would be slow. Sherman predicted aid would not reach Ukraine until April if Johnson refused to relent, costing another month of military disadvantage.
Sherman framed Ukraine not as a distant concern but as a bulwark protecting NATO countries the United States was obligated to defend. The absence of American artillery shells and other systems had already hamstrung Ukrainian forces over the previous month. Trump's repeated threats to abandon NATO allies who he believed had not paid their share only underscored the stakes. The Republican nominee had even suggested he would encourage Russian attacks on such countries. For Sherman and others, Ukraine's survival was inseparable from American security.
Meanwhile, European leaders were preparing their own show of unity. Emmanuel Macron announced that French leadership would convene a meeting in Paris to discuss Ukraine, seeking to demonstrate that the continent stood behind Kyiv even as Washington gridlocked. "Russia cannot win in Ukraine," Macron said. The contrast was stark: while Europe moved toward consensus, the American House remained paralyzed by internal Republican division, with hardliners demanding concessions on border and immigration policy—even though Senate Republicans had themselves blocked a bipartisan border deal just weeks earlier. Sullivan's challenge to Johnson was direct: put the bill on the floor and history would judge whether the speaker had given Ukraine the tools to survive, or whether he had handed Putin the advantage.
Citas Notables
Putin gains every day that Ukraine does not get the resources it needs and Ukraine suffers.— Jake Sullivan, National Security Adviser
Millions will be killed without US aid, and the failure to pass aid would leave me wondering what world we are living in.— Volodymyr Zelenskiy, President of Ukraine
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Sullivan keep saying Putin gains "every day"? What exactly changes in a week or a month of delay?
The military situation on the ground is fluid. Without ammunition and weapons, Ukrainian forces lose ground, lose soldiers, lose the ability to hold territory. That's not metaphorical—it's measurable. Every day of shortage is a day Russia advances.
But the Senate already passed the money. Why can't Johnson just bring it to a vote?
Because he's caught between two forces. His party has a bipartisan majority that would vote yes. But the Trump wing of his party has made it clear they'll punish him if he does. He's choosing to block his own members from voting.
Sherman mentioned a discharge petition. Why is that such a last resort?
It's a nuclear option that takes weeks to execute and requires coordination across both parties. By the time it works, you've lost a month. Ukraine doesn't have a month to spare.
What does Zelenskiy mean by "millions will be killed"? That seems like hyperbole.
It's not. If Ukrainian forces run out of ammunition and can't defend territory, Russia advances. Civilians in occupied areas face deportation, violence, worse. The math is brutal but not invented.
Is there any chance Trump's influence over House Republicans actually breaks?
Sherman suggested it might, but only if the pain of obstruction becomes worse than the pain of defying Trump. That's a high bar. For now, Trump's hold is tight enough to paralyze the chamber.
What does Europe's unity meeting actually accomplish if Congress is still stuck?
It's a signal. Macron is saying: we're not waiting for Washington. We're committed. It's also a subtle rebuke—showing that America's allies are moving while America stalls.