Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1475534549-scaled

DoD finds another $2B accounting 'error' to boost Ukraine aid

It will take more than a little budgetary sleight-of-hand to set the stage for a settlement

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

The Pentagon has announced that it has again undervalued ammunition, missiles and other military equipment provided to Ukraine, opening the door to supplying $2 billion in new military support for Kyiv.

This brings total aid tied to such re-valuations of systems provided from U.S. stocks to $8.2 billion, a considerable sum in light of the current political bottleneck in Congress over providing new assistance to Ukraine.

The latest revision in the estimated value of U.S. equipment comes at a critical time for the Ukrainian government, as the continuation of large-scale deliveries of U.S. weaponry is in doubt not only due to divisions in Congress but due to the possibility of an aid cutoff should Donald Trump win this fall’s presidential election.

In the meantime, the Government Accountability Office has argued that there needs to be a clarification of how weapons provided from U.S. stocks should be valued, a move that would preclude the kind of accounting shuffle that has once again opened the way to additional billions in aid to Ukraine.

It’s hard to begrudge Ukraine additional assistance in its effort to defend against further Russian territorial gains, but arms alone, on whatever scale, will not be enough to resolve the conflict in a way that allows that nation to rebuild itself from the devastation caused by the Russian invasion. Nor will it enable Ukraine to construct an economically viable democracy. The best hope for salvaging such an outcome is a diplomatic initiative, as challenging as that may be.

Ultimately, the Pentagon’s statistical maneuvering to free up funding for Ukraine is likely to have a limited impact on the outcome of the war. It is important that Kyiv get the support it needs to defend itself. But the notion that Ukraine can win a decisive military victory, if only there were a steadier flow of weapons aid, is dangerously misguided.

It will take more than a little budgetary sleight-of-hand to set the stage for a settlement of the conflict on terms acceptable to Ukraine. It’s long past time to abandon the approach of providing weapons to Ukraine and hoping for the best, as a number of key U.S. officials are coming to recognize.

They now believe that the purpose of military aid should be to strengthen Ukraine’s hand in negotiations to end the war, not to subsidize “total victory” on the battlefield. In this context, a one-time tranche of $2 billion in military aid, while useful in the short-term, will ultimately have a modest impact on the outcome of the conflict. The Pentagon and the administration need to focus on the big picture — how to end the conflict in Ukraine — rather than cooking the books to provide a one-time infusion of military support.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Photo credit: Pentagon, Defense Department
Pentagon, Defense Department
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Cuba Miami Dade Florida
Top image credit: MIAMI, FL, UNITED STATES - JULY 13, 2021: Cubans protesters shut down part of the Palmetto Expressway as they show their support for the people in Cuba. Fernando Medina via shutterstock.com

South Florida: When local politics become rogue US foreign policy

Latin America

The passions of exile politics have long shaped South Florida. However, when local officials attempt to translate those passions into foreign policy, the result is not principled leadership — it is dangerous government overreach with significant national implications.

We see that in U.S. Cuba policy, and more urgently today, in Saturday's "take over" of Venezuela.

keep readingShow less
Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.
President Donald J. Trump participates in a pull-aside meeting with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark Mette Frederiksen during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 70th anniversary meeting Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019, in Watford, Hertfordshire outside London. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.

North America

The Trump administration dramatically escalated its campaign to control Greenland in 2025. When President Trump first proposed buying Greenland in 2019, the world largely laughed it off. Now, the laughter has died down, and the mood has shifted from mockery to disbelief and anxiety.

Indeed, following Trump's military strike on Venezuela, analysts now warn that Trump's threats against Greenland should be taken seriously — especially after Katie Miller, wife of Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, posted a U.S. flag-draped map of Greenland captioned "SOON" just hours after American forces seized Nicolas Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Trump White House
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump Speaks During Roundtable With Business Leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Washington, DC on December 10, 2025 (Shutterstock/Lucas Parker)

When Trump's big Venezuela oil grab runs smack into reality

Latin America

Within hours of U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and the capture of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, President Trump proclaimed that “very large United States oil companies would go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”

Indeed, at no point during this exercise has there been any attempt to deny that control of Venezuela’s oil (or “our oil” as Trump once described it) is a major force motivating administration actions.

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.