Yes, this is a battle of the lesser of several evils.
By no means am I condoning the many actions committed by these countries.
By less dirty, I think that under the direction of US officials, the military has usually not been called to simply take the lives of non combatants. To further clarify, the US government’s aim has not been to commit a genocide. Doesn’t mean groups were not killed and I am not saying it makes it better or worse because of the motive.
Russia/Soviet, France, Germany, Belgium (not a super power but an example), China & Japan have all just straight up massacred swaths of people under direction of their leaders. All committed genocides.
The UK is the worst of the worst and I think they take the #1 spot.
Now there undoubtedly have been many people killed by the US military however I don’t believe at any point that was the goal. The situations in which those things happened also were horrible as well. So cases like the trail of tears, the US in the Philippines and of course (indirectly) we destabilized many Latin American countries that caused (continues to cause) a bad situation for many.
You have to keep in mind that a majority of the Atlantic Slave Trade was committed by the Europeans and the US stopped it shortly (comparatively) after their founding. There were of course domestic issues that we’re allowed to go on for some time but those actions were or directly taken by people acting as agents of the government. Not saying it makes it worse or better, just not what I’m going over this time.
In short… the US has a lower direct body count.
Intro & Expanding on title
To expand on the title: I'm not saying that it's exclusively in our interests, I do think that it's also in Ukraine's interests and I also happen to think this is the morally correct thing to do. I'm saying that this also happens to align with our personal interests, i.e. destroying the military and economy of one of our largest rivals.
Main post
I want to clarify that the focus of this discussion is not on the tragic human toll this war is taking on Ukraine, which is both unfortunate and saddening. The Ukrainian people, who are directly affected, are the true experts on this matter. If they choose to continue the fight, it is not for us to discourage them. Instead, I aim to discuss the specific monetary cost of U.S. support to Ukraine.
Let's delve into the substantial assistance provided by the United States to Ukraine from January 24, 2022, to May 31, 2023, totaling $76.8 billion:
-
Humanitarian Aid: $3.9 billion (5%)
-
Financial Aid: $26.4 billion (34%)
-
Total Military Aid: $46.6 billion (61%)
A significant portion of this aid falls under 'Total Military Aid,' much of which has been provided through presidential drawdowns.
What have we gained from donating this money?
Russia has incurred substantial losses, including personnel, armored combat vehicles, tanks, artillery, aircraft, helicopters, and ships, underscoring the effectiveness of this support. In just one year, the Russian military has experienced losses that could take decades to recover from.
Why is this beneficial?
Russia has long been a geopolitical rival to the United States, making a strong Russian military against American interests. Russia is one of China's main military allies. Weakening Russia also weakens China which is in our interests.
The $USD figures reported could be misleading
However, the reported USD figures may be misleading. I'm going to use cluster munitions specifically as the example but this is true for much of the aid.
The U.S. currently stockpiles approximately 3 million cluster munitions, valued at around $3,700 per round. If donated, this could be recorded as an $11 billion aid package to Ukraine. But, has the money truly been spent? These munitions were produced long ago, and letting them expire without use would represent an $11 billion cost to the U.S. with no benefit to its interests.
Donating these munitions to Ukraine, which are already manufactured and expiring, not only provides practical value aligned with their intended use but also opens the door to replenishing our stockpiles with more modern munitions, thus contributing to the economy and national security.
In essence, supplying aging equipment to Ukraine, which we would eventually replace with newer stock, is a strategic win-win. It strengthens Ukraine's defense capabilities, weakens Russia, and generates economic benefits by stimulating new munitions production.
This example applies to much of what we've provided to Ukraine—older equipment that may never see battle. Instead of allowing it to rust in a scrapyard, we can donate it to Ukraine, where it will be used to neutralize Russian equipment and personnel, creating real value for the United States.
A unique opportunity to test systems and gather data.
Furthermore, this conflict presents a unique opportunity to test equipment and gather crucial data on performance in a peer-to-peer conflict, which is highly valuable to the U.S. military. We've spent the last two decades preparing for counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism missions and are now adapting to confront near-peer adversaries like Russia. Evaluating these systems in real-world conditions allows us to fine-tune and enhance them before they are employed by U.S. service members against such adversaries.
In recent weeks, concerns have been raised about the performance of equipment like the F-16 sent to Ukraine. It's far better to discover any limitations or issues now, in a conflict without U.S. servicemembers at risk, than in a full-scale war with a near-peer adversary.
Why make this post? Why does it matter?
I think it matters because I do not think our politicians and leaders are doing a good job in their messaging. For some reason they're avoiding talking about how aid also benefits American interests. I don't know why they're refusing to do this but the only exception I've seen is Mitt Romney's video that he put out a couple of weeks ago. If US leaders were more forthcoming about how this benefits the country I think a lot of the hesitancy or weakening support would be mitigated.
Mitt Romney finally said the quiet part out loud recently, here's part of his statement: "Some will argue that this Ukraine bill is too expensive. Think about it: We spend about a trillion dollars a year—that’s $1,000 billion a year—on our national defense. A lot of that is due to the fact that Russia has 1,500 nuclear warheads aimed at us. So spending $20 billion—that’s 2% of our military funding—to help Ukraine defeat and weaken Russia is one of the smartest and most economic investments we can possibly make."
We're spending 2% of our defense budget to destroy the Russian military all while costing zero American lives. There's no better deal than that.
In conclusion
while the human tragedy in Ukraine remains paramount, the discussion here revolves around the significant monetary support provided by the United States and the strategic benefits it offers. It's an intricate dance between utilizing existing resources, aiding an ally, and obtaining invaluable data that strengthens U.S. national interests and security.