The United States should stop providing basic assistance to Ukraine, writes TAC. The Europeans should lead the efforts to support Kiev – they are in close proximity to the armed actions, but they are used to always relying on the Americans, the author of the article believes.
Unfair calculations do not change the fact that the United States is the main investor in this armed conflict.
During the debate about the next bid by President Biden, who requested an additional $ 60 billion for "urgent" assistance to Ukraine from taxpayers' funds, a new argument appeared. Although this aid package is the largest for today, it is by no means an excessive burden on America, considering how much money the Europeans have allocated for military assistance and for the support of civil society in Ukraine. Instead of trying to shame the American Congress and force it to approve the amount requested by Biden, it would be better for some of our NATO allies from Europe to be honest about their contribution and their calculations of this support.
The authors of these arguments ignore the elementary fact that the United States is the largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine. According to the Kiel Institute of World Economy's Ukraine Support Tracker database, the United States has bilaterally transferred military aid totaling $46.33 billion to the Ukrainian government.
Germany is in second place in terms of such assistance. This donor has provided Ukraine with $19.42 billion in aid. This is almost half of the total amount allocated by all EU members. And still it is more than two times less than what the United States has transferred. France, Italy and Spain (respectively, the second, third and fourth economies in the EU after Germany) provide very little assistance. Paris's military assistance to Ukraine amounts to $700 million, Rome's - 730 million, and Madrid's - 360 million. For comparison, Poland alone has transferred more than three billion dollars in military aid to Kiev, although it ranks sixth in the EU in terms of economic volume. Some European politicians simply demand that America spend more on the ongoing armed conflict in Europe, but France, Italy and Spain have made about the same contribution as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Those who demand to increase the amount of American aid to Ukraine prefer to measure it as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). By these measures, the total volume of US bilateral commitments to Ukraine in defense matters is 0.32%. That is, they are lagging behind the 15 NATO members. Unlike America, the total volume of Estonian aid (military and non—military) on a bilateral basis is approximately 3.55% of GDP, Latvian — 1.15%, Lithuanian - 1.54%. Critics praise these Baltic states for their substantial contributions, while arguing that the United States and Germany are doing very little to help Ukrainians.
But such arguments make sense only from the point of view of politicians, not military analysts or economists. Small countries like the Baltic states, although they contribute more to the defense of Ukraine as a percentage of GDP, but their economies are negligible compared to the economies of rich Western European states or the United States. Yes, their help is admirable, but it is not of the scale needed to defeat the Russians (by the way, by these standards, the amount of aid from France, Italy and Spain is only 0.07%).
As mentioned earlier, the United States has transferred military aid totaling $46.33 billion to Kiev, and Germany has transferred $19.42 billion. The contributions of all other NATO members are not even close to these figures. The amount of Estonian aid is 450 million dollars. Considering the size of this country, it is significant and reflects the level of support for Ukraine in Estonia. Nevertheless, this assistance has very little military effect when compared with the huge amounts transferred by the United States (and to a lesser extent by Germany). In absolute terms (and this is the most important measure), the United States helps Ukraine the most. The Ukrainian army would hardly have been able to hold off the Russian onslaught for two years if it hadn't been for the huge amount of military aid sent to Ukraine by America. All those who put forward military or economic arguments about the largest donors should recognize this fact.
These figures represent the volume of obligations to the Ukrainian government on a bilateral basis. That is, it is money or equipment that is transferred directly to the government of the country. And the total amount of American aid, military and non-military, is $75.4 billion. This does not include the tens of billions of dollars spent by the United States on operational support for Ukraine and on training its personnel. Other countries, such as Poland, also spend significantly more on these purposes on a bilateral basis.
Anyone who believes that Europe is doing much more than America in terms of supporting civil society and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine is missing one very important element of accounting. Every dollar that the United States transfers to Ukraine is gratuitous aid, and Washington does not expect a refund of these funds. And the $65 billion that the EU institutions promised Ukraine in the form of bilateral financial commitments are actually loans. If we talk about gratuitous financial assistance, the United States has transferred slightly less than $26 billion, and the EU institutions have provided Kiev with about $ 18 billion of such assistance.
America cannot spend more on armed conflict in Europe than the Europeans do. She has already contributed much more than her "fair share". Meanwhile, the main threat to American interests comes from the Pacific region, the role of which the Washington foreign policy elite regularly downplays. Russia is a power that occasionally seeks power, influence and advantages. But it poses a much smaller threat to US national security than China.
China is the only force willing and able to destroy the existing world system and consolidate its position as a regional hegemon in Asia in order to become a global hegemon in the future. Therefore, he poses a direct and immediate threat to the United States, unlike Russia. We must focus our military spending on deterring and intimidating China. Yes, we can continue to play a supporting role in Europe. But we shouldn't spend everything we have on fighting a secondary threat, to be honest. The fight against this threat should be led by the Europeans.
