Declawing the Bear

There seems to be a growing chorus of voices, especially from Republicans, that we're spending too much money in Ukraine and that there's no accountability for where it's going. The concern seems, however, to be based upon a misunderstanding, a misunderstanding that Jim Geraghty clears up in his "Morning Jolt" column today.

According to Geraghty, who's currently touring eastern Ukraine, Republicans "become more supportive when they learn that one, the amount of aid is not that much relative to defense spending; two, Ukraine is winning; and three, Russia’s war-fighting capabilities are being severely degraded."

Take the first point.

[A]s of last week, the U.S. government had provided $43.8 billion worth of military support to Ukraine...[and] it is worth reminding some people that this kind of aid is not cash. It is all kinds of vehicles, guns, and ammunition that the Pentagon largely had in storage. (As I wrote back in April, there are certain weapons systems in short supply — HIMARs, Javelins, and Stingers, in particular — that the U.S. should not send any more of until our stockpiles are replenished to sufficient levels to deal with other potential threats, including one particular threat with a Great Wall. But the majority of weapons, ammunition, vehicles, and equipment that the U.S. is sending Ukraine is in great supply. Some of it was going to be scrapped!)

This $43.8 billion in aid sent to Ukraine since the beginning of the war is a drop in the bucket of the $5.3 trillion our government has spent on all expenditures just in fiscal year 2023

In other words, all military aid to Ukraine since the beginning of the war a year and a half ago adds up to about four-fifths of 1 percent of all U.S. government spending this year. Military aid to Ukraine since the start of the war is about half of what we spend on the U.S. Department of Transportation alone in one year. It is about a quarter of what we spend on the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is about one-sixth of what we spend on the U.S. Department of Education.

That Russia's ability to wage war is being severely degraded can be assessed in several ways. One is the difficulty the Russians are having in recruiting soldiers, another is the aborted Wagner Group mutiny a few months ago and the low morale it revealed among Russian forces. Another is the enormous manpower losses Russia has suffered 300,000 casualties including 120,000 dead.

Geraghty doesn't mention the loss of manpower but he does focus on the depletion of Russia's material assets:

[T]here is confirmed visual evidence of 11,906 Russian military vehicles being taken out, with 8,188 destroyed, 475 damaged, 444 abandoned, and ... 2,869 captured by the Ukrainians. (If you think the U.S. has given the Ukrainians a lot of vehicles, think about how many the Russians have given them.)

The comparable numbers for Ukraine are 4,322 vehicles taken out, with 2,901 destroyed, 331 damaged, 148 abandoned, and 942 captured.

Ever since the 1930s American strategists have predicted that the West was going to eventually face the Soviets/Russians in direct conflict*.

It's not likely that anyone expected the conflict to occur the way it has, but if war had to come, if the Russian bear was going to be declawed and rendered less of a threat, it's very fortunate for us that it's only costing Americans money and not costing American blood.

*Actually, Alexis deToqueville predicted it in Volume I (1835) of Democracy in America.