What's new

US military spending in Ukraine reached nearly $50 billion in 2022 – but no amount of money alone is enough to end the war

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
65,195
Reaction score
-55
Country
China
Location
China

US military spending in Ukraine reached nearly $50 billion in 2022 – but no amount of money alone is enough to end the war

Published: January 18, 2023 8.37am EST

The U.S. Defense Department announced in early January 2023 that it is giving a further US $3.1 billion in military aid to Ukraine in support of its war against the Russian invasion.

This new spending package includes a long list of advanced military weapons systems and artillery.

The U.S. has not formally declared war against Russia, but the battlefield in Ukraine serves as a classic case of a proxy war, waged without a formal declaration. U.S. support for Ukraine has been a constant throughout the first year of conflict, most recently extending as far as inviting Ukrainian forces to train on an Air Force system in the U.S..

I am a scholar of U.S. foreign policy and international security. As the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine approaches on Feb. 24, 2023, I think it is important to put U.S. aid to Ukraine in perspective – both historically and as compared to other current U.S. military aid commitments worldwide.

Doing so may help answer an important question: Is the U.S. prepared to support Ukraine for the long haul, or will its current high level of spending commitment be undone by the whiplash of polarized U.S. domestic politics? Here are three key points about U.S. support for Ukraine to understand, and how the U.S. is signaling it will stand with Ukraine for the long term.

1. US aid to Ukraine is immense

The speed and quantity of U.S. military aid to Ukraine tells a story about how the U.S. and its allies see the stakes in the war’s outcome. U.S. military aid to Ukraine to date has been staggering, especially when compared to how the U.S. has supported other conflicts in modern history. U.S. military aid during the Cold War conflicts was orders of magnitude higher than spending in Ukraine, but those occurred over longer periods of time. The Vietnam War, for instance, cost the U.S. an estimated $138.9 billion from 1965 to 1974, or the equivalent of about $1 trillion today.

In total, the U.S. approved about $50 billion in aid for Ukraine in 2022.

About half of that money – or $24.9 billion – went toward military spending. By comparison, U.S. military aid to Israel – a longtime top recipient of U.S. military aid – in 2020 was $3.8 billion.

The U.S. also gave $9.6 billion to Ukraine for nonmilitary purposes in 2022, such as helping Ukrainians receive medical care and food. This marked a sharp increase from the $343 million total in foreign aid the U.S. gave Ukraine in 2021 – this included both military and economic assistance.

A critical question is whether Ukraine’s success in thwarting Russian military and political objectives will lead to a kind of ripple effect. In this situation, other countries that are similarly threatened by large authoritarian neighbors will ask for more U.S. or NATO military aid. The U.S. would then be faced with the challenge of whether to also give more money to these countries.

2. Most – not all – Americans still want to help Ukraine

For Western allies in Europe, particularly those like Poland that are physically closest to Ukraine, the war has come to be seen as existential – seriously threatening the stability of international politics and the organizations, like the United Nations, that were set up after World War II to prevent a third world war.

Americans do not face the immediate threat of a spillover ground war across borders like people in Europe could face. But most Americans still continue to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

In December 2022, 65% of Americans said they favor supplying arms to Ukraine, and 66% said they supported sending money directly, according to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a nonpartisan political think tank. More striking still, the same poll found that nearly 1 in 3 Americans support the idea of sending American troops into the fight – a number that has shifted only slightly since the start of the 2022 invasion.

But some Republicans in Congress want to see the U.S. cut back on foreign aid to Ukraine, and they are publicly divided about why this should happen.

Early on in the war, when it looked to some observers like Ukraine would fall quickly to Russia, some conservative lawmakers and others espoused fears that U.S. military systems or weapons would end up in Russia’s hands and damage U.S. and NATO credibility.

This concern continues today, despite the fact that U.S. and Ukrainian officials have said that Russia does not appear to have grabbed U.S. weapons found in occupied or contested regions of Ukraine.

Ukraine has, instead, showed over the course of the conflict that it could prevent a Russian victory with only minimal outside support. It has also demonstrated that with additional money and military help, it could even retake lost ground..

And although there is bipartisan support, some Republicans — in particular conservatives aligned with former president Donald J. Trump’s isolationist “America First” stance — have argued that the U.S. cannot afford to support Ukraine and also address high levels of inflation at home.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, said in November 2022 that with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, “not another penny will go to Ukraine.”

A November 2022 Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll also found a significant decline in support for U.S. engagement in Ukraine among Republican respondents, from a high of 80% in March 2022 to 55% in December 2022.

3. US signals long-term aid to Ukraine

The long-term impact of U.S. and NATO military aid on the war in Ukraine remains uncertain. On one hand, it’s clear that U.S. intelligence support, advanced weaponry and Ukraine’s skilled use of both has seriously hurt Russia’s chances on the battlefield.

On the other hand, Ukraine has demonstrated strong levels of national unity, leadership and military competence. So even perfect intelligence support and the most advanced U.S. weaponry wouldn’t have made much of a difference if Ukraine hadn’t shown such skill, courage and grit in the face of Russia’s still overwhelming advantages.

Quite a bit of the promised U.S. aid to Ukraine will be disbursed over a long period. Most of the funds will be spent by 2025, but some will not arrive until 2030. That’s because the bulk of the aid is for weapons that can be purchased from the U.S. and elsewhere, but that haven’t yet been built. This long-term time frame is also a clear indication that the U.S. plans to help Ukraine rebuild its military, even if the war ends in the near term.

Alongside its NATO allies, the U.S. appears committed to supporting Ukraine’s effort to defeat Russia on the battlefield or at least help provide Ukraine with the means to hurt Russia enough to begin to bring the fighting to an end. While Europeans debate supplying Ukraine with tanks, the U.S. also announced in January 2023 that it it is sending a range of armored military vehicles to Ukraine.

But, by itself, I believe the most that military aid can accomplish is to feed a war of attrition. Ending the war will require more than smart weapons and grit. It will take political acumen and diplomatic efforts to help Ukraine continue to secure its independence and protect against future Russian threats.

 
.

Pentagon asks US forces in S. Korea to give Ukraine equipment​

Reuters

January 19, 2023 3:50 PM

SEOUL: The US department of defence has asked its forces stationed in South Korea to provide equipment to help Ukraine in the war against Russia, the US military said today, adding the move has “zero impact” on its operations in the Asian country.

US Forces Korea (USFK), which has some 28,500 troops in South Korea, said the move is part of US efforts to help Ukraine with its inventories.

“This has zero impact on our operations and our ability to execute on our ironclad commitment to the defence of our ally, the Republic of Korea,” USFK spokesman colonel Isaac Taylor said in a statement.

USFK declined to provide further details, including what types of equipment and how much has been requested or already transferred.

The statement comes after the New York Times reported earlier this week the US was diverting munitions in Israel and South Korea to Ukraine for use in the war against Russia.

Moscow calls its actions in Ukraine “a special operation”.

Asked about the report, Seoul’s defence ministry said it was closely coordinating with the US to maintain readiness posture.

South Korea’s policy is not to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine.

Seoul has sought to avoid antagonising Russia, both for economic reasons and because of the influence that Moscow can exert with North Korea.

A US official said in November Washington was in talks with South Korea to buy artillery shells to send to Ukraine, though Seoul insisted that the US must be the ammunition’s end-user.

 
.
Just 50 Billions USD?

I am underwhelmed. They were spending taht much per year in Afghanistan. One would have thought, with all the hoopla about Ukraine, the cost of the war effort must be in the hundred of billions.
 
.
Just 50 Billions USD?

I am underwhelmed. They were spending taht much per year in Afghanistan. One would have thought, with all the hoopla about Ukraine, the cost of the war effort must be in the hundred of billions.
Already unsustainable for them.
 
.
Already unsustainable for them.

Nah - What we are witnessing is the destruction of the Russian military in Ukraine and the global destruction of the Russian military manufacturing industry - and the price for that privledge is very cheap.

Russia will take decades to recover from Ukraine - if ever - and is now relegated to a minor regional power ..

It takes russia off the board - and leaves the USA to focus solely on China from now on.
 
.
Just 50 Billions USD?

I am underwhelmed. They were spending taht much per year in Afghanistan. One would have thought, with all the hoopla about Ukraine, the cost of the war effort must be in the hundred of billions.
I think we spend around or close to 200 billions in Afghanistan a year. 50 Billions is peanuts really.

Nah - What we are witnessing is the destruction of the Russian military in Ukraine and the global destruction of the Russian military manufacturing industry - and the price for that privledge is very cheap.

Russia will take decades to recover from Ukraine - if ever - and is now relegated to a minor regional power ..

It takes russia off the board - and leaves the USA to focus solely on China from now on.
50 billion and mostly with secondhand hand me down equipment to F Russia up......That's a bargin.

I mean, we really should have just given 1/3 of our military budget to Ukraine and let them do the dirty work.

Meanwhile Europe increase their budget so we can probably close down a few bases in Europe and relocate them to Asia.
 
.
Ukraine needs tanks

and Leopard 2 is the best tank for Ukraine

not Abram, M1 is way to sophisticated

and Challenger 2 is too small in numbers

but sending in the Leopard 2 against T90 will be like Panzer tanks against the T34

it will ignite memories of WWII and can lead to a truly global conflict
 
.
When will see US tanks in Ukraine?

微信图片_20230121204758.png
 
Last edited:
.
Just 50 Billions USD?

I am underwhelmed. They were spending taht much per year in Afghanistan. One would have thought, with all the hoopla about Ukraine, the cost of the war effort must be in the hundred of billions.
That is really chump change compared to hundreds of billions spent training and equipping the ANA, maintaining aircraft, ammo, feeding and equipping American forces and building bases, etc. per year.

And 50 billion spent for Ukrainians to destroy the Russian military even damaging and destroying their strategic bombers along with intelligence gathering on their equipment and killing their officer corps, something even the USAF and the rest of the military has never done in under a year. Its worth it in the long term. Especially after spending trillions during the Cold War against the Russians.

I think we spend around or close to 200 billions in Afghanistan a year. 50 Billions is peanuts really.


50 billion and mostly with secondhand hand me down equipment to F Russia up......That's a bargin.

I mean, we really should have just given 1/3 of our military budget to Ukraine and let them do the dirty work.

Meanwhile Europe increase their budget so we can probably close down a few bases in Europe and relocate them to Asia.
And the rest of the European nations especially Germany needs to be reminded why they spent on their military and being in NATO in the first place. Eliminating the Russian threat for a very long time. Putin won't be able to shift he aims after Ukraine in his pre war plans dealing with Poland and the Baltics as well. Which would have the U.S. involved in the war themselves with American lives.
 
.
Russia is still united for a single purpose, UKraine and its western supporters are not, they all have their own conflicting motives, we already see cracks between them.
 
.
Russia is still united for a single purpose, UKraine and its western supporters are not, they all have their own conflicting motives, we already see cracks between them.
Russia united? Hundreds of thousands of Russian men fled, where is that dying for the Motherland philosophy that is supposedly ingrained into them when fighting Nazis?
 
.
Russia united? Hundreds of thousands of Russian men fled, where is that dying for the Motherland philosophy that is supposedly ingrained into them when fighting Nazis?
They have just one government, the leadership is united for a single purpose, which is not true for Ukraine and its western supporters.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom