Follow us on social

51643777157_230130300b_o-scaled

Putting Biden's new whopping $33B Ukraine package into context

His proposal 'would make Kyiv the largest yearly recipient of U.S. military aid of at least the past two decades.'

Analysis | Europe

Today the Biden administration requested a whopping $33 billion aid package for Ukraine. This is on top of a $14 billion Ukraine aid package enacted last month. 

While Russian aggression in Ukraine has been appalling in its violence, this is nonetheless a historically large aid package that is worth putting into context.

For starters, if Congress signs off on this new request the U.S. will have authorized $47 billion in total spending to Ukraine. That’s more than the Biden administration is committing to stopping climate change and almost as much as the entire State Department budget.

The vast majority of this new aid package, $20.4 billion, is for “additional security and military assistance for Ukraine and for U.S. efforts to strengthen European security in cooperation with our NATO allies and other partners in the region,” according to the White House. 

"Coupled with the $3.7 billion in military assistance already made available to Ukraine since Russia‘s invasion, President Biden's proposal of an additional $20 billion would make Kyiv the largest yearly recipient of U.S. military aid of at least the past two decades,” explained Elias Yousif, a security assistance expert at the Stimson Center.

“The amount is more than twice the largest yearly total ever provided to Afghanistan — where the U.S. was actively at war — and approximately seven times Israel's annual military assistance package,” continued Yousif.

This aid package is also more than the U.S. spent on the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account during the first year of the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan, and more than the total amount of money all but 13 countries in the world spend on their military, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 

In addition to Ukrainian fighters, one of the primary beneficiaries of this aid package will be Pentagon contractors, whose CEO’s have explained how the Ukraine conflict is good for business and have seen their stock prices soar since the war began. According to Taylor Giorno of OpenSecrets, the top five defense contractors spent more than $16 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2022 alone, and their CEO’s met directly with Pentagon leadership earlier this month to discuss Ukraine security assistance. 

While Ukrainian fighters will benefit from these arms it’s vitally important for the U.S. to consider the risks of these arms transfers as well, not the least of which is the potential for getting the U.S. into a direct military confrontation with Russia. As Seth G. Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the New York Times, “the risk of a widening war is serious right now . . . Russian casualties are continuing to mount, and the U.S. is committed to shipping more powerful weapons that are causing those casualties.”

There is also the possibility that U.S. arms will fall into the hands of U.S. adversaries, as they have in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere. 

In addition, there is the direct economic cost to U.S. taxpayers who, ultimately, have to foot the bill for this historic aid package. Part of that cost could come from the kinds of fraud, waste and abuse that groups like the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) have uncovered in other cases where billions of dollars were being shoveled out the door in the name of national security without adequate oversight or coordination.

Helping Ukraine defend itself is one thing, but it should be done with an eye towards limiting the risks of escalation and unintended economic and security consequences.  The administration’s latest aid request should be carefully debated and scrutinized before it is allowed to sail through in its current form.


President Joe Biden delivers remarks on ending the war in Afghanistan, Tuesday, August 31, 2021, in front of the Cross Hall of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
Analysis | Europe
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.