‘Russia Feels Like They’re Winning’

U.S. Rep. Adam Smith is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, a powerful congressional body that oversees U.S. military funding and strategy. Foreign Policy sat down with Smith for a candid discussion on Ukraine, Israel, and China.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Foreign Policy: What is your assessment of how Congress’s six-month delay in approving U.S. aid to Ukraine has affected the war?

Adam Smith: I am worried. We won’t know for sure for a couple of months what it means. But it really undercut Ukraine’s ability to fight, and then that undercut their morale. Nothing like running out of ammunition to make you feel like your cause isn’t as hopeful as it might be. So I think it’s been incredibly damaging to have had to wait that long, and and psychologically, on the other side, Russia feels like they’re winning.

Now, can the new influx of aid reverse that? Absolutely. The goal and policy here is to stop Russia and convince them that they can’t take over Ukraine and force them to the bargaining table. And that’s our best hope right now for saving Ukraine.

FP: Can Ukraine take back all its territory? If not, what’s the best hope for Ukraine in the war?

AS: I think what is realistic is that Ukraine and our 50-country-plus alliance that is helping and supporting them are able to build enough capacity so that Ukraine can hold on to what they have. There has been a reluctance in the Biden administration and some other places to say that, because you don’t want to concede that Ukraine is going to give up any territory.

I think, realistically, the way to say that is: We are never going to concede that Russia rightfully has Crimea or rightfully has Ukraine. But there are a lot of different ways to handle that other than saying we’re not going to stop the war until we retake those parts.

I think we need to be more aggressive about trying to find ways to negotiate directly with Russia to get an end to the war in Ukraine.

The really crucial part of Ukraine’s survival is for them to maintain what they currently have, to not lose access to the Black Sea, and to not have Kyiv threatened. If you have that, you have a sovereign, democratic country, and that is an enormous success.

I am abundantly aware of Ukrainian politics and Eastern European politics [and the idea] that we have to take it all back. That Russian President Vladimir Putin must fall. OK, in an ideal world, sure.

But in the real world, I think we need to be more realistic about the choices that we face. Now, Sen. J.D. Vance’s argument—which I have nothing but contempt for—that we ought to just let Russia have it all is kind of stupid.

Pulling all support for Ukraine because, “Well, even if we give them all the funds, they’ll never be able to retake Crimea.” OK, how about they hold on to what they’ve got? How about we don’t have Russia in Kyiv and basically taking over and running all of Ukraine? I think that’s worth supporting.

FP: Do the United States and Europe have the defense industrial base to sustain aid to Ukraine in the long run? Are you satisfied with the pace that the West is rearming?

AS: No, I’m not satisfied with the pace. I would have to do a deeper dive to get more precise numbers on this. But if it’s a scale of 1 to 10, when the Ukraine war started, well, let’s just say we were at a 1. All right. We’re now maybe at a 4. You started to see some increases in production. You’ve definitely started to see some partners increase their production.

FP: If the West is at a 4, what is Russia at?

AS: That’s hard to calculate because we don’t have great insight. And I don’t believe everything that Russian propaganda puts out. I will say that I don’t think their economy is anywhere near as strong as everyone saying it is. It’s being propped up, and I think they’ve got some real long-term economic challenges.

FP: Let’s talk about Israel. What’s your assessment of Israel’s current military strategy in Gaza?

AS: I’m deeply worried about it. I’m deeply worried that they don’t understand that the humanitarian situation in Gaza undermines their long-term security and their overall strategy.

They are not going to kill all the Hamas fighters. They’re just not. They can degrade Hamas. They can create a situation where an alternative to Hamas can emerge. But you can’t create a situation where an alternative to Hamas is going to emerge if people can’t eat.

Credit to the Biden administration, they have been aggressively pushing Israel in a different direction. And in the last few weeks, there has been an increase in humanitarian assistance. But I think it’s crucial that you get a cease-fire and a pause so that you can improve the humanitarian situation.

Cutting off aid to Israel, I don’t agree with that. Hezbollah and Iran are sitting there, waiting for a sign of weakness that says they can go at Israel and win. And if we cut [Israel] off, that massively increases the risk that Iran and Hezbollah are going to make that calculation. We have to have an adequate deterrent to them, which is why I don’t support cutting off Israel.

If you get Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States in a security agreement of some kind, and then build that with the United Arab Emirates and Jordan and others as a deterrent to Iran, then you’ve got a possible future.

But the mistake that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made is he thought that he could get that and ignore the Palestinians. But he was very wrong about that.

Because whatever Saudi Arabia’s leadership may or may not think about the Palestinian cause, their people consider the Palestinian cause to be important. And that vision of a partnership to deter Iran requires a future for the Palestinian people. That’s what we have to start building. And that’s what Netanyahu has fundamentally been on the wrong side of for his entire career.

FP: How viable do you think the Biden administration’s plan is to have the U.S. military build an ocean pier to deliver aid to Gaza? Should the United States put more pressure on the Israelis to open more land border crossings?

AS: Absolutely, there should be more pressure. Every little bit helps. The pier will help. But the second piece of it is far more important. Going beyond just opening up more borders, Israel is controlling a significant chunk of Gaza right now. Once the aid gets into Gaza, how is it being distributed? Not well. Israel’s got to start taking some responsibility for making sure once it gets in, it is distributed in a secure and coordinated manner.

I was up on the Egypt side of the [Gaza] border two months ago, with the Red Cross, and looking at all the stuff that Israel was rejecting on a day-in and day-out basis. Even if they approved it, once it went in, you know, it was Mad Max territory in terms of how it was being distributed.

FP: Do you think that the pier concept puts U.S. troops at unnecessary risk or raises the scenario where U.S. troops are dragged into fighting?

AS: I’m not thrilled about the plan for exactly that reason. If you’re looking at a risk-reward ratio, I’m worried. Now, we’ve gotten briefed, and the [U.S. military is] being very careful and very cautious. They’re going in with eyes wide open. They’re aware of the threats. They believe they can contain those threats. But, yeah, if there’s an attack on U.S. troops while this is going on, it’s a big problem.

FP: Do you think Israel in the long term is losing the support of the Democrats? It seems as if we are witnessing a tangible shift in U.S. support for Israel on the left.

AS: I got to be honest: Yeah. I would also caution you to say that Israel is certainly losing support of Democrats in the way they’re fighting the war in Gaza. Don’t equate that with, “OK, now people are completely off Israel,” because the other piece of this that does not get widely reported is a lot of the people who are on the Palestinian side don’t think Israel should exist as a country, [that] they are an illegal settler, colonialist, occupying power, [that] the country never should have been created in the first place. OK. That’s not where Democrats are.

Just because you don’t support the way Israel is conducting the war in Gaza doesn’t mean that you don’t support Israel.

FP: If Israel launches an offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah without plans to mitigate civilian casualties, what should the U.S. response be?

AS: If they go in without any concern for the civilian population and a full-on campaign, I would have concerns.

But then it also depends greatly on what the operation is. And at this point we don’t know. I support the Biden administration and their efforts to persuade Israel to take an approach that has more concern about civilians. We’ll have to see how specifically [that] plays out.

FP: OK, I want to move on to China. Washington and Beijing have restarted direct talks, including military-to-military channels of communication, to ease tensions. Do you think that’s actually having any results?

AS: I think it’s a very productive development. A very positive development. China definitely is a threat. But I think we can find a way to work with them if we try. And those talks are just barely starting.

I think there’s some hubris here in the post-Cold War way of us looking at the world. There’s also a ton of hubris in China, that they are determined that it is their destiny to rule the world and that our fall is inevitable.

Both sides need to take that hubris down a bit and say, “You’re not going to have it all. We’re not going to have it all. Is there a way we can work together towards a more peaceful world?” And I think we need to aggressively engage in diplomacy to try to get to that point.

FP: The United States is spending some $900 billion on defense. Is that the right amount?

AS: This is not just about the number. We have $900 billion. What are we doing with it? Could we be doing a lot more with what we have?

I just don’t think we need the ground leg of the [U.S. nuclear weapons] triad. I don’t. What could we do with the $100 billion that would be going into that? This is where we get smarter about how we spend the money that we have.

We are trying to get rid of aging systems, old F-15s, the A-10, a bunch of cruisers, a bunch of [littoral combat ships], all these things that we are spending massive amounts of money to maintain—most of the time fruitlessly, because their level of capability is fairly low.

Where can we look within the budget and say, where would we be better to spend more money on these things that we really do need? So, before I get into a discussion about, “Gosh, it’d be great if we had another $50 billion,” where are we spending the money that we have? I think that’s the first question.

I always use the [famous] quote: “Gentlemen, we’re out of money. Now, we have to think.”