Zelensky addresses Congress

Volodymyr Zelensky received a hero’s welcome from a Joint Session of Congress this week. The welcome was deserved.

Ukraine’s resistance to Russia is heroic. Against the odds, Ukraine is winning the fight against Putin’s war machine. In the process, it is exposing that machine as creaky and stoppable. If this continues, Europe and the U.S. can rest easier.

Zelensky has played an important role in Ukraine’s resistance. At a time when many considered resistance to be futile, he held the government together and rallied a fractious country.

Ukraine is part of a long line of European nations and wannabe nations that, in the quest for freedom and independence, has resisted larger states. These efforts are nationalistic in the finest sense. Since at least as far back as 1851, the U.S., often viewed as a model, has provided them with moral support.

In the case of Ukraine, the U.S. is providing a huge amount of tangible support. That support is a big reason why, unlike most cases of small state resistance to European powers, Ukraine’s resistance has succeeded so far.

Zelensky’s purpose in visiting the U.S. was to ensure that the huge, tangible support continues.

Ukraine’s heroism in combatting Russia is an argument for continuing the support, but not a dispositive one. It’s tenable to laud that heroism and still want significant limits on the extent of U.S. assistance, tighter monitoring of how the assistance is used, or even an end to the assistance. I favor a continuation of generous aid because I believe it’s in our interest to stymie Russian aggression, but reasonable people can, and do, view the matter differently.

Did Zelensky make an impressive pitch to Congress? The answer is in the eye of the beholder.

Those who favor aiding Ukraine will have been impressed by his presentation. However, his arguments were conclusory. They consisted of assertions that the U.S. has a compelling interest in seeing Ukraine thwart Russia, rather than a demonstration that this is so.

Making such a demonstration was all but impossible in an address like Zelensky’s. This was a speech to Congress, not a White Paper.

What Zelensky could do was thank America profusely and make a strong, positive impression through his presence. The first, he accomplished easily. The second, again, is in the eye of the beholder.

Right-wing opponents of assistance to Ukraine were not impressed. However, they may, at least, be worried that Zelensky, dressed plainly and speaking simply from the heart, made a good impression on most Americans.

That’s the most charitable explanation I can attach to critics’ over-the-top attacks on Zelensky’s appearance. The worst of them are collected here.

The prize goes to Tucker Carlson, who said to Zelensky looked like a “Ukrainian strip club manager.” Maybe Zelensky should have dressed more like a preppy.

On the other side of the divide, some are criticizing certain Republican lawmakers for not standing up and applauding enough during Zelensky’s speech. The criticism is foolish.

Put aside the absurdity of constantly standing and applauding during joint sessions of Congress, which has become a tradition. Members of Congress certainly do not need to stand and applaud when they hear lines that leave them cold, delivered in a speech making arguments they don’t agree with.

However, I think it’s fair to criticize members who didn’t show up to hear the speech. According to the Washington Post, they included Marjorie Taylor Greene and, disappointingly, Josh Hawley.

Even if one strongly opposes additional aid to Ukraine, a decent regard for those who are suffering, and in many cases dying, due to their brave resistance to aggression by an anti-U.S. thug regime should have been enough to warrant an appearance at the joint session.

In the aftermath of Zelensky’s appearance, the lame duck Congress has appropriated an additional $45 billion in aid for Ukraine, as I assume it would have done absent the visit. It’s likely that sooner or later — and I’m guessing sooner — Congress will be asked to appropriate more.

The next go-round will occur when Republicans control Congress, albeit by a very slim margin. Republicans are more skeptical about the value of aid to Ukraine than Democrats, but are supportive enough that, assuming the fight continues to go well for Ukraine, U.S. aid will continue, as well — albeit with increased congressional monitoring of how the money is spent.