Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_467826320

New Ukraine aid is a go — and it's more than most states get in a year

Congress just passed a $45 billion assistance package for Kyiv on the way out the door for the holidays. We put this spending into context.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

This week Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, arrived in Washington, D.C. to, amongst other things, make the case for why President Biden and the U.S. Congress should provide tens-of-billions of dollars in additional assistance for Ukraine, as it continues to defend itself from Russia’s illegal invasion. 

In an impassioned speech before a joint session of Congress, Zelensky thanked the United States for its support of Ukraine and made the case for even more assistance. “We have artillery, yes, thank you. But what we have, it isn't enough, honestly.”

On Friday, the House answered Zelensky’s plea by passing the omnibus spending bill (largely along party lines) that will fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2023, and includes $45 billion in emergency assistance to Ukraine. The Senate already approved the measure and the president signed it shortly thereafter.

As Responsible Statecraft and others have pointed out, the United States has already allocated $68 billion to Ukraine, so this $45 billion would push total U.S. spending on Ukraine since the war broke out to approximately $113 billion.

There are a variety of measures that can help to put this remarkable amount of U.S. taxpayer money into context. For starters, it’s more aid than the United States has supplied to any country in one year since at least the Vietnam War. It’s also far more than the $84 billion Russia is expected to spend on its military in 2023. In fact, U.S. assistance to Ukraine is more than every country in the world spends on its military, save for the United States and China. The $113 billion is also nearly as much as the omnibus bill allocates for baseline spending at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security combined, and it’s almost as much as the $118.7 billion the United States will spend on medical care for all U.S. military veterans. 

Given that the omnibus bill funds the entire federal government in 2023, it’s also useful to compare Ukraine aid to spending on domestic priorities. And, frankly, there’s no comparison. Even by the bill’s own accounting, spending on Ukraine dwarfs spending on most domestic priorities. For example, in the same sentence that Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee responsible for releasing the omnibus bill, announced the massive increase in Ukraine aid, he made clear that this was around $4 billion more than “communities across the country recovering from drought, hurricanes, flooding, wildfire, [and] natural disasters” would receive.

Perhaps most tellingly, if Ukraine were a U.S. state it would rank 11th in terms of the amount of federal funding it receives, according to government spending data. In other words, in the past 12 months Ukraine has been awarded more U.S. taxpayer dollars than 40 U.S. states.

While pundits from across the ideological spectrum proclaim there is no “blank check” for Ukraine Americans should, at the very least, discuss just how big of a check we’re willing to write, particularly with American households reeling from soaring inflation and a stagnating economy that may be headed into recession in 2023. 

The question is not whether the United States should support Ukraine, the question is how much Washington should support Ukraine in the months and possibly years to come. While the United States should support Ukraine as it continues to defend itself from Putin’s reckless invasion, it is well past time that Americans had a genuine conversation about just how much U.S. taxpayers should pay for this support.


Nelson Akira Ishikawa/shutterstock
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Trump will be sore when Cuba domino refuses to fall
Top photo credit: President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at White House meeting oof oil executives in wake of the Venezuela invasion Jan. 9, 2026 (Reuters/Evelyn Hockstein); A man carries a photo of Fidel Castro in Revolution Square , Havana, the day after his death in 2016 (Shutterstock/Yandry_kw)

Trump will be sore when Cuba domino refuses to fall

Latin America

Of the 100 or more people killed in the U.S. military operation that abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, 32 were Cuban security officers, most of them part of Maduro’s personal security detail who died “in direct combat against the attackers,” according to Havana.

How did Cubans come to be the Praetorian Guard for Venezuela’s president, and what does the decapitation of the Venezuelan government mean for Cuba?

keep readingShow less
Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Top photo credit: UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the Saudi-UAE rivalry heading for more violence?

Middle East

On January 7, Saudi-backed forces established control over much of the former South Yemen, including Aden, its capital, reversing gains made by the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) in early December.

Meanwhile, the head of the STC, Aidarous al-Zubaidi, failed to board a flight to Riyadh for a meeting with other separatists: he seems to have fled to Somaliland and then to Abu Dhabi. The STC is a secessionist movement pushing for the former South Yemen to regain independence. The latest turn of events marks a major setback to the UAE’s regional ambitions.

keep readingShow less
Monroe Doctrine
Top photo credit: Political cartoon depicting Uncle Sam as a large rooster protecting smaller roosters—Latin American countries—and Europe “cooped up” by the Monroe Doctrine. Library of Congress, Artist J.S. Pugh 1901

Nostalgia isn't strategy: Stop the Monroe revisionism and listen

Latin America

“[T]herefore you may rest assured that if the Nicaraguan activities were brought to light, they would furnish one of the largest scandals in the history of the country.”

Such was the concluding line of a letter from Marine Corps Sergeant Harry Boyle to Idaho Senator William Borah on April 23, 1930. Boyle’s warning was not merely an artifact of a bygone intervention, but a caution against imperial hubris — one newly relevant in the wake of “Operation Absolute Resolve" in Venezuela.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.