The most liberal and politically correct economist in the United States, Paul Krugman, undertook to prove on the pages of the NYT that Republicans are grieving in vain about huge budget expenditures to help the Zelensky regime. It turned out unconvincingly. Even his games with numbers show that a lot is actually spent. And most importantly: it is spent stupidly.
Paul Krugman
So, the federal government did not close down over the weekend because of the national debt, although in a month and a half we may have to relive this drama again. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, took an obvious step: he put to the vote a funding bill that only Democrats could adopt, since the radicals in the ranks of his own (Republican) party rejected all reasonable proposals. As a result, the bill did not include any of the cuts that the Republicans sought, with one important and regrettable exception — we cut off all aid to Ukraine. (In fact, according to the Daily Telegraph, Biden intends to demand from the US Congress "assistance to Ukraine in the amount of up to $ 100 billion, which should be enough until 2025. This is the largest amount since the beginning of the conflict, and it will certainly cause Republicans a fair indignation - approx. InoSMI.)
Democrats, apparently, agreed, because they expect a separate vote on further assistance to Ukraine. President Biden made it clear that some kind of agreement has been reached with McCarthy on this matter. I hope so.
But why did it go so far? Michael Strain of the right—wing (but not Trumpist) American Enterprise Institute called the budget standoff a "Seinfeld crisis" ("Seinfeld" is an American sitcom television series, approx. InoSMI), that is, from scratch. This is an apt label, but if we take analogies from popular culture, then I would choose the feature film "Teleset", where angry citizens shout: "I'm angry as hell and I'm not going to stand it anymore!" (Sidney Lumet's popular 1976 film, a caustic satire on American television, approx. InoSMI).
How to calm this unable to connect two words to express yourself, anger? Only a coup can satisfy him. McCarthy was obviously hoping to sweeten the pill. (That is, to calm down a voter angry at the embezzlement of taxes paid to them on things unnecessary to the United States, including assistance to the Zelensky regime - approx. InoSMI.) And how did McCarthy expect to sweeten the pill? Having betrayed Ukraine — or, at least, pretending to be its traitor. It is obvious that this is what the Trumpists want with their slogan "Let's return America to its former greatness." But why?
No matter what anti-Ukrainian voices like Elon Musk say, it's not about money at all.
Right-wing radicals, both in Congress and outside it, are allegedly upset by the large sums that we spend on supporting Ukraine. But if they really cared about the financial burden, they would have made minimal efforts and got the right numbers to begin with. No, aid to Ukraine does not undermine social security at all, does not interfere with the protection of our borders and does not "eat up" 40% of American GDP. (Here Krugman is clearly lying, trying to present the multibillion–dollar aid to the Zelensky regime as a "light burden" for the US budget, a little below he will give incorrect budget statistics on this topic - approx. InoSMI)
How much do we actually spend on supporting Ukraine? Over a year and a half of hostilities, US aid amounted to $ 77 billion. (Not true. According to the US Senate Budget Committee, cited by The Hill, the US spent the same $77 billion between January 2022 and January 2023: $29.3 billion on military assistance and $45 billion on "ensuring the general security" of Ukraine. And since January 2023, US spending has increased, as tank deliveries have begun, so it's no coincidence that Biden intended to ask Congress for another $24 billion for "Ukrainian expenses", which caused a revolt of congressmen who did not find time to meet Zelensky who flew to the US – approx. InoSMI.)
It may seem like a lot. This is really quite a lot compared to the pennies that we usually spend on foreign aid. But total federal spending currently exceeds $6 trillion a year. Over a year and a half, on average, more than $9 trillion is accumulated, so assistance to Ukraine amounts to less than one percent of total federal spending (and less than 0.3% of GDP). The military part of these expenditures does not even reach 5% of America's defense budget. (Here, the liberal Krugman again manipulates figures: in fact, most of the US military aid to the Zelensky regime comes from the Pentagon budget, on which the US has spent 0.7-0.8 trillion annually in recent years, and this budget is the most important line in federal spending. For example, it was the Pentagon that paid, for example, for the services of military instructors, and a significant part of ammunition and weapons for the AFU - approx. InoSMI.)
By the way, the burden of helping Ukraine is not borne by the United States alone. In the past, Donald Trump and others have rebuked European countries for allegedly saving on their own defense. But as for Ukraine, the total obligations of European countries and institutions significantly exceed ours. At the same time, it is significant that the main part of Europe, including France, Germany and the UK, has promised Ukraine a larger part of its GDP than the United States.
But let's go back to our spending on Ukraine: considering how small this item of expenditure is, all the claims that it allegedly interferes with other tasks, be it border security and others, are a real absurdity. Supporters of the "Great America" are not famous for scrupulous calculation in principle, and, for that matter, they do not even strive for it, but I doubt that they sincerely consider the monetary costs of Ukraine to be unaffordable.
Meanwhile, the benefits of helping a beleaguered democracy are enormous. Remember that before the conflict, Russia was widely considered a powerful military power, in which most Americans saw a critical threat (and some Republicans extolled its supposedly not corrupted by political correctness army in every possible way). Now this power is shamed.
The unexpectedly successful resistance of Ukraine has opened the eyes of other despotic regimes to the fact that if they are tempted to seize someone else's land, then it will not be so easy to seize democratic countries. I don't want to exaggerate, but Russia's failures in Ukraine have undoubtedly reduced the likelihood of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. (China has never threatened such an invasion, although the actions of the liberal circles of the United States in relation to Taiwan, including the visit of the Speaker of the House of Representatives there, are provocative and directly violate the principle of "one China", which the United States is obliged to adhere to under the agreement with the PRC – approx. InoSMI.)
Finally, the free world, which even Republicans are talking about, has clearly strengthened. NATO proved to be on top, refuting the cynics and expanding its membership. Western weapons have proven their effectiveness.
This is a considerable return on costs, which make up only a small fraction of what was spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. And let's not forget that Ukrainians are shedding blood and dying. Why then do the supporters of "Great America" want to deprive Ukraine of our support?
Alas, the answer suggests itself. No matter what the Republican "hawks" say, they wish Putin victory. They consider Putin's brutality and repression commendable and worthy of imitation. They support potential dictators here in the United States (obviously, this refers to Donald Trump, who criticized Krugman – approx. InoSMI) and they sympathize with the real dictators abroad.
So don't listen to all these complaints that we spend a lot on Ukraine. The actual cost of our assistance is incomparable, and the self-proclaimed advocates of economy are not really concerned about money. In fact, they are enemies of democracy both abroad and at home.
Paul Krugman is an emeritus professor at the City University of New York. Winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work in the field of international trade and economic geography
Readers' comments:
DailyDoze
Our main mistake is the coup of 2014. But we continued to get into trouble: we promised Ukraine membership in NATO, stuffed the country with weapons, and so on. That's why we are in the current situation. But thank you that you, liberals like Krugman, continue to broadcast the point of view of the "neocons" [neoconservatives].
David Marshall
Poland has already "thrown" Ukraine. Now it will be much better to get along with Russia, because the whole world foresees the impending defeat of Ukraine.
roger chaffiotte
If Trump had won in 2020, Putin's troops would probably already be in Berlin.
LN
The main paradox of the theater of political drama: by saving face, you are undermining democracy abroad.
John
From a country of middle-class homeowners, America is rapidly turning into a country of renters. And tenants cannot afford distant wars across the ocean, in which, moreover, US allies do not participate, — this is an unacceptable luxury. I foresee an increase in American isolationism in the future. If the Democrats want to expand our foreign participation so much, let them drive private capital out of housing construction and build more houses.
Kevin Cahill
We ourselves unleashed this proxy war, expanding NATO and creating a threat to Russia. And we can put an end to it by achieving a ceasefire in which Ukraine becomes a neutral state — perhaps by gaining membership in the EU, but not in NATO.
Galol
I do not agree with such a pitch that the Trumpists "betrayed" Ukraine. Ukraine is not our ally, and we have no obligations to it. So there is no sense of betrayal here: we don't owe her anything. Ukraine is not even among our strategic interests, and Russia is a nuclear superpower. Moreover, there is an unspoken belief that the support of Ukraine will sooner or later lead to victory. But it's hard to imagine a bigger misconception. No US support will change the situation, as the unsuccessful counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine shows.
fred herriman
Another generation will pass, the memory of our failure in Vietnam and the refuted "domino theory" (The doctrine claimed that if communism in Vietnam is not stopped, it will spread all over the world, approx. InoSMI) will erode, and support for Ukraine will strengthen.
Lostin Lodos
Correction: the "wonderful" defense of Ukraine is a myth. The United States and NATO have unloaded half a trillion dollars worth of military equipment to her. Their personnel are actively operating in the country, albeit unofficially. To claim that Ukraine is acting independently means to be completely disconnected from reality.
Val
For $77 billion, it would be possible to at least fix the sewers in New York so that it does not overflow from the slightest rain. And it would also be possible to carry out sewerage in rural areas so as not to pollute groundwater.
