AEI: Not Supporting Ukraine Would Cost US Over $800 Billion
In a recent analysis a trio of authors, Elain McCusker, Frederick W. Kagan, and Richard Sims, of the American Enterprise Institute state that if the US had not supported Ukraine, it would have had to have increased military spending by roughly $808 billion. But how did the AEI, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, come up with such a number and would the choice not to support Ukraine truly force the US to spend so much?
The authors establish their thesis assuming that any US aid ceased by April 2024. The Ukrainian Army was deprived of aid and was subsequently defeated due to the attritional nature of the conflict. By 2026 Russia had won the war and established some form of indirect control over the country, pressing Ukrainian veterans and its mobilization pool into service. The extended border with NATO enables Russia to disperse its high-value targets over broad territory making it difficult for NATO’s airpower advantage to cope with the large number of targets over a large area with a finite number of precision-strike weapons in stockpiles.
Using simulation tools expecting yearly military spending, the authors predict that in the case of Russia’s victory the United States would invest in several branches and assets. The calculations divide the branches and costs in each of the domains. The largest increase in spending would be in military presence and basing ($248.4 billion). The threat to which NATO’s Eastern Flank would be exposed facilitates with the increase of units and troops on the ground. An increase in stockpiles, combat readiness, and troop training would consume significant funds nonetheless.
The second largest investment would be made in munitions and air defense systems ($173.1 billion) as the new long NATO border would require a significant increase in air defense systems. Besides a rapid increase in guided munitions levels could become a matter of containing operational capabilities by the USAF. Speaking of the Air Force, an increased demand for jets would mean an increase in spending on this service branch as well ($108.7 billion).
The remaining expenditures present themselves as follows:
– Land Power: $87.8 billion,
– Defense Industrial Base: $63.3 billion,
– Sea Power: $50.3 billion,
– Space and Cyber: $36.5 billion,
– Unmanned Assets: $28.9 billion,
– Special Operation Forces: $10.6 billion,
In conclusion, despite being highly speculative, the study does not also factor in the political cost of Ukraine’s fall to the US. An immediate result would be the necessity to increase the number of troops in European garrisons and enhance military presence on NATO’s Eastern Flank for Washington to remain a trusted partner to its allies. It is clear that in this hypothetical scenario the US would have to off-set local Russian advantage by increasing the numbers of systems and ordnance, therefore raising the costs of army maintenance. Additionally, it would significantly split US resources meaning fewer personnel and systems could be deployed to counter the threat from China. Local economies would also be hit hard with enterprise uncertainty due to looming conflict, thus in the long run resulting in a potential economic backfire. Looking from the perspective of a possible increase in US involvement in Europe and the costs therein, the investment of $157 billion in supporting Ukraine seems a much better alternative.