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.


Photo credit: Pentagon, Defense Department
Pentagon, Defense Department
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Viktor Orban Peter Magyar
Top photo credit: Viktor Orbán (shutterstock/photoibo) and Peter Magyar (Shutterstock/Istvan Csak)

Could this be the election that brings Hungary's Orban down?

Europe

With two months remaining before the April 12 parliamentary elections, Hungary’s Prime Minister Victor Orban and his Fidesz party face by far their toughest challenge since winning power in 2010.

Many polls show challenger Peter Magyar’s Tisza (Respect and Freedom) party with a substantial lead. Orban’s campaign has responded by stressing his international clout, including close relations with U.S. President Donald Trump, and the prominent role he plays among right-populist Eurosceptics in Europe.

keep readingShow less
Trump hasn't bombed Iran yet. He must be reading these polls.
Top photo credit: Members of the media raise their hands to ask questions as U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (not pictured) hold a joint press conference in the State Dining Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Trump hasn't bombed Iran yet. He must be reading these polls.

Middle East

When the George W. Bush administration invaded Iraq in March 2003, that war had 72% support among Americans, according to Gallup.

If Donald Trump now wants to start a U.S. war with Iran, the president would not remotely enjoy that level of support. He doesn’t even have half of it. Scratch that, not even a quarter of Americans want him to bomb Iran today.

keep readingShow less
Us-army-soldiers
Top photo credit: U.S. Army Soldiers, from the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team depart for Afghanistan from Italy on Feb. 25, 2005. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Staff Sgt. Bethann Caporaletti)

Could the US win a war with a near-peer adversary today?

Military Industrial Complex

“One should never assert a power that he cannot exert,” said British statesman and wordsmith Winston Churchill. My hometown football coach expressed a similar thought: “The man with an alligator mouth and a hummingbird ass” would get more than his share of whippings.

The U.S. military today has a hummingbird’s ass. Despite decades of sky-high military spending, our force is incapable of defeating a peer or near-peer adversary in today’s complex, dangerous world. If we continue on our alligator-mouth-sized trajectory, the consequences will be catastrophic.

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.