Supporters of the U.S.-NATO proxy war in Ukraine employ a range of dubious justifications. One is a refurbished version of the old domino theory used during the Cold War – if the United States and its allies don’t help Ukraine expel Russian occupation forces, the victorious Kremlin will then launch offensives against other European countries and eventually dominate the Continent. Another popular rationale is that what might appear to be a mundane struggle between two authoritarian regimes is actually an existential conflict between democracy and autocracy, with Ukraine representing the former and Russia the latter.
Both cases are fallacious. The neo-domino theory wildly overrates Russia’s geostrategic prowess. A military that has encountered trouble subduing Ukraine poses no credible threat to larger, more powerful potential adversaries, such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, or even smaller powers such as Poland, Italy, or Turkey. Likewise, the attempt to portray the fighting in Ukraine as a crucial struggle between democracy and authoritarianism falls flat. Ukraine is not a democracy, even if the most expansive, generous definition is used.
Still another frequent argument that American proponents of backing Ukraine use is that sending arms to Kyiv is good for the U.S. economy, not a multi-billion dollar financial drain on taxpayers. Officials in Joe Biden’s administration, including the president himself, increasingly resorted to that justification as domestic discontent mounted regarding Washington’s Ukraine policy. Administration policymakers proudly insisted that most of the aid money ended up remaining in the United States.
During a February 20, 2024, speech at a new General Dynamics factory outside Dallas Texas, Biden made the alleged “economic benefits” argument explicitly. A supplemental spending measure pending in Congress at the time contained a total of $95 billion in foreign aid, including money for Ukraine, Israel, and other countries. Of the $60.7 billion for Ukraine, $38.8 billion would go to U.S. factories that made missiles, munitions and other gear. “While this bill sends military equipment to Ukraine,” Biden emphasized, “it spends the money right here in the United States of America in places like Arizona, where the Patriot missiles are built; and Alabama, where the Javelin missiles are built; and Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, where artillery shells are made.”
Republican pro-Ukraine hawks embraced similar “logic” about why billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine were not only necessary from the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy, but also beneficial to the U.S. economy. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “repeatedly implored his colleagues to understand that the funds from the package are for historic investments “’right here in America.’”
“This is about rebuilding the arsenal of democracy,” McConnell said in a floor speech during the long days of debate, “and demonstrating to our allies and adversaries alike that we’re serious about exercising American strength.”
Other pro-war types echoed that argument. Indeed, newscaster Brit Hume still embraces the theme. Hume rebuked President Donald Trump for saying that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had not expressed sufficient gratitude to the United States for supporting his country. Hume countered:
“With zero American lives lost in battle and less than $375 spent per American (based on a total of $120 billion in aid), Mr. Zelensky’s military and civilian population have helped America and its allies by destroying or disabling thousands of Russian aircraft and land-based vehicles, communication systems and other equipment. Russia’s military command structure, morale and recruiting have been degraded. American defense contractors have tested new weapons systems in wartime conditions and Ukrainian fighters have innovated in unforeseen ways. Our economy has benefited from Americans building war materials in American plants and sending them to Ukraine. Mr. Zelensky has thanked America many times for our support. It is now time to thank him.”
Elizabeth Braw, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, argues that other nations are reaching troubling conclusions about the direction of U.S. foreign policy regarding Ukraine and the rest of the world. “The conclusion that many leaders will draw from the altercation that U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance had with Zelensky is that U.S. security guarantees – a key reason why countries tend to buy U.S. weapons – are not going to be a convincing argument anymore. So far, Trump’s efforts to ‘make America great again’ have been miserable for that all-important U.S. power pillar: the defense industry.”
Braw adds that for U.S. allies, “buying U.S. weapons was a way of buying the United States’ friendship and protection.” She also could not pass up the chance to link her thesis with the stale smear that Trump is overly friendly to the Kremlin. Braw argues that “with Trump now openly appearing to side with Russia and President Vladimir Putin, ‘even the most generous buyers of U.S. weapons can no longer be sure that their money will result in Washington’s benevolence and protection.’”
Such justifications, which should be termed military Keynesianism, are not only erroneous, but also sleazy. The economic benefits rationale ignores the crucial factor of opportunity cost – that money spent on sending weapons to Ukraine was not available for other forms of investment or consumption. If that money had not been spent on U.S. weapons, the U.S. budget deficit would have been lower, leaving more money for other things. Moreover, outlays for military hardware are an especially inefficient use of funds. As an astute analyst once observed, there are only two things that can happen with weapons: they can explode or they can rust. Robert Orben, a speechwriter for President Gerald R. Ford, expressed the proper reaction to that truism: “a toast to the weapons of war, may they rust in peace.”
In making their calculations, though, people such as Biden, Hume, and Braw do not seem to share that hope. Instead, they appear indifferent to the human toll of their pro-war policies. Raytheon and other U.S. defense contractors have done very well financially since the start of the war in Ukraine, but that conflict has extinguished hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, and the longer the war continues, the more casualties there will be.
Other battlefields around the world beckon as well. But for the advocates of military Keynesianism, that prospect is not a bad thing. Their approach constitutes faulty economics and disastrous foreign policy for the United States; it is also profoundly immoral. The hawkish formula regards the inhabitants of other countries – and members of the U.S. military – as little more than disposable units to keep the merchants of death in the bloated “defense” industry flush with cash. Foreign populations and the American people deserve better.
Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter is a contributing editor to 19FortyFive and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and the Libertarian Institute. He also served in various senior policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,300 articles on defense, foreign policy and civil liberties issues. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).
VIDEO: Neutrality Studies: Nicolai Petro: This Is What Moscow Really Thinks About The Trump Plan
Russia’s position on the battlefield is getting better and better, but the US still insists on Moscow forfeiting its advantage to negotiate an end to the entire conflict. Why does Trump think this approach could work and what are the Russian calculations to not flatly reject this idea? To discuss these points, I’m talking again to Dr. Nicolai Petro, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island and the author of the magnificent book „The Tragedy of Ukraine: What Classical Greek Tragedy can teach us about conflict resolution“.
