Daniel Hannan, the British author and former member of the European Parliament, has taken upon himself the task of being the bearer of grim, if obvious, news. While the world is focused on the Israel-Hamas war, he writes in The Telegraph, Ukraine’s touted counter-offensive has failed, and the specter of a Russian victory looms ever larger. That victory, Hannan writes – and even keeping just some of the land it conquered would count as a Russian victory, however pyrrhic – would be a disaster for the West on the order of the Suez crisis; “a catastrophic loss of prestige for the West and the ideas associated with it: personal freedom, democracy and human rights.”

It is difficult to argue with Hannan’s analysis, either that of the situation on the ground, nor the ultimate impact of Russian success. Ukraine’s chances of a breakthrough were always rather precarious, given their lack of air superiority and smaller numbers. And with the Russians having had plenty of time to dig in, fortify their defenses and sow the length of the battlefront with millions of mines, a difficult proposition was rendered virtually impossible. Add in the new dimension of drone warfare, with both sides being able to see exactly what the other is doing, and where, and what you are left with is a World War I-style trench stalemate, which – absent some serious help for Kiev – tends to benefit the Russians.

This sobering analysis comes to us as the U.S. Congress remains locked in its own stalemate, which benefits no one. The congressional Republicans, as usual, are absorbing most of the media blame for the stalling of military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, on account of their holding out for greater border security measures in the bill. And indeed, they are. But every standoff requires two parties, and it is certainly legitimate to point out that Senate Democrats bear at least as much of the blame for refusing to include significant border security provisions in a national security package.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Now, it oughtn’t be an especially controversial position to insist on beefing up some protections at the border in a supplemental designed to address national security concerns, particularly given the gestating crisis that is unfolding every month at the southern border. The myopic neo-isolationism of some Republicans is indeed troubling – as troubling, really, as the “peace at any cost” attitude that has long prevailed among the left – and Fortress America is not in itself a logically valid approach to foreign policy in the 21st century; but it is a pretty valid precursor for national security policy, in a quite literal sense. Reasonable minds can argue as to the proper scope of government, but we all, save for the fanatical fringe, can agree the primary role and purpose of any government is to maintain and safeguard the integrity of the nation’s borders. And there can be no question the influx taking place on America’s southern frontier is cascading to a scale that risks overwhelming the country’s ability to handle it.

This is hardly an expression of rank nativism. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) – while nonetheless voting for a Ukraine-Israel aid package devoid of border measures, on the uncharacteristically naïve confidence that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) would add border protection in later as an amendment – said quite reasonably “common sense should dictate that we need to secure our own border in addition to helping Ukraine and Israel secure theirs… we do not have to choose between protecting our homeland and defending our allies.”

Or consider what Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. John Fetterman – yes, that Sen. John Fetterman – said in an interview with Politico: “I hope Democrats can understand that it isn’t xenophobic to be concerned about the border. It’s a reasonable conversation, and Democrats should engage.” He continued: “Honestly, it’s astonishing. And this isn’t a Fox News kind of statistic. This is the government’s. You essentially have (the population of) Pittsburgh showing up there at the border.” 

Who had “John Fetterman becomes a measured voice of reason” on their 2023 bingo card? Me either.

But the man is right. Utah U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney backed up Fetterman’s numbers on “Meet The Press” last Sunday, pointing outthe U.S. saw between 1,000 to 2,000 illegal border crossings per day under the last three presidents, a figure which has grown to 10,000 to 12,000 per day currently. “We’re at a rate of incursions into the country of about 4 million a year. That’s larger than the population of 24 of our states. So, we want to solve that to secure the border… any effort that doesn’t do that will be rejected by Republicans.”

That is not an unreasonable position. Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan need our help – Ukraine desperately so -and it is in our strong national interest to do so. But it is not too much to request that while addressing threats outward we make sure the back door is locked.

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.