Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is over two years old, and Kyiv is facing a population crisis. According to Florence Bauer, the U.N. Population Fund’s head in Eastern Europe, Ukraine’s population has declined by around 10 million people, or about 25 percent, since the start of the conflict in 2014, with 8 million of those occurring after Russia began its full-scale invasion in 2022. This report comes a week after Ukrainian presidential adviser Serhiy Leshchenko revealed that American politicians were pushing Zelenskyy to mobilize men as young as 18.
“Population challenges” were already evident before the conflict started, as it matched trends existing in Eastern Europe, but the war has exacerbated the problem. The 6.7 million refugees represent the largest share of this population shift. Bauer also cited a decline in fertility. “The birth rate plummeted to one child per woman – the lowest fertility rate in Europe and one of the lowest in the world,” she told reporters on Tuesday.
Combat losses and civilian casualties have been hard to accurately tally, as Kyiv treats them as a state secret. Best estimates from late 2023 put the number around 70,000, and Bauer confirmed that they are in the “tens of thousands.”
Further decline in Ukraine’s population will likely occur as the war drags on and includes draftees aged 18-25. According to Leshchenko, “American politicians from both parties are putting pressure on President Zelenskyy on the question of why there is no mobilization of those aged 18 to 25 in Ukraine.”
When the war ends, Ukraine will need labor for rebuilding and continued losses are likely to have long-term consequences. George Beebe, Director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute, says,
“Demography is not necessarily destiny, but such shocking projections bode ill for Ukraine’s economic prosperity and societal dynamism,” Quincy Institute Director of Grand Strategy George Beebe wrote in RS last year. “The future they portend is a vicious circle of decline. Under such circumstances, simply manning a substantial standing army as a counter to much more populous Russia would be a challenge for Ukraine, let alone mastering and maintaining a large arsenal of NATO-standard weaponry.” Beebe added, “the more resources it must devote to its military, the fewer it will have for launching new commercial ventures and building a productive civilian economy.”
Ukraine is already dealing with war fatigue, evident from shifts in polling, and in the report that a staggering 51,000 soldiers have deserted from the army this year.
Beebe also points to a demographic study that predicts that Ukraine’s working-age population will decline by a third by 2040, with the number of children declining by half, and adds that “mounting damage is likely to discourage many refugees from returning to Ukraine anytime soon.”
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Ukrainian soldiers hold portraits of soldiers father Oleg Khomiuk, 52, and his son Mykyta Khomiuk, 25, during their farewell ceremony on the Independence Square in Kyiv, Ukraine 10 March 2023. The father and son died in the battles for Bakhmut in Donetsk region. (Photo by STR/NurPhoto)
Critics of overspending at the Pentagon were excited to see a Washington Post piece, first published yesterday, that initially gave the impression that the Trump administration was entertaining the idea of imposing substantial cuts in the Pentagon budget.
A revised version of the piece (same link), updatedThursday morning, opens as follows:
“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered senior leaders at the Pentagon and throughout the U.S. military to develop plans for cutting 8 percent from the defense budget in each of the next five years, according to a memo obtained by The Washington Post and officials familiar with the matter — a striking proposal certain to face internal resistance and strident bipartisan opposition in Congress.”
But upon clarification, it became clear that the plan is not to reduce the Pentagon’s top line, but to shift any savings found in one part of the department to pay for other systems and activities more in line with the preferences of the administration.
A clue as to what those priorities are is contained in the internal memorandum itself, which exempts 17 categories of expenditure from cuts, including operations at the southern border, spending on missile defense and a new generation of nuclear weapons, acquisition of submarines, and certain categories of drones and other munitions.
The plan is a far cry from President Trump’s recent observation that the Pentagon budget could be cut by up to one-half, but to be fair, that suggestion was premised on a significant warming of U.S. relations with Russia and China, a condition that does not currently apply.
Given that its budget is soaring towards $1 trillion per year, and that it wastes untold billions on overpriced components and excess bureaucracy, there’s no question that the Pentagon can find money to reinvest in other priorities. But a better approach would be to apply a good portion of the savings to reducing the department’s top line.
Cuts in overall spending could come from the reduction or elimination of dysfunctional, overpriced, or dangerous weapon systems like F-35 combat aircraft, the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, or heavy, vulnerable fighting ships like a new generation of aircraft carriers. It could save billions. It could also clear the way for the development of more reliable, effective replacements that are simpler to operate, easier to repair, and more relevant to the most likely conflicts of the future.
Eliminating ICBMs from America’s nuclear arsenal would be a particularly smart move. Not only is the cost of the new system growing at an alarming rate – an 81% increase in projected costs in just a few years time – but independent experts like former Clinton administration defense secretary William Perry have pointed out that they are among the most dangerous weapons possessed by the U.S. military.
That’s because a president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them on warning of an attack, greatly increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear confrontation sparked by a false alarm.
As for the F-35, it is a multi-role system that does not perform any of its assigned roles particularly well. The plane has numerous technical problems large and small, to the point that, 23 years into its development, it still has major unresolved defects, and is only ready to fly about half the time due to maintenance issues. The Project on Government Oversight has rightly pointed out that the F-35 may never be fully ready for combat. For his part, Elon Musk has called the plane “an expensive and complex jack of all trades, master of none.”
He further pleaded that “in the name of all that is holy, let’s stop the worst military value for money in history that is the F-35 program!.”
And aircraft carriers, which can cost up to $13 billion each, are vulnerable to modern high speed missiles. Continuing to build them runs the risk of losing one or more of the ships in a future conflict.
Some of the above mentioned changes will no doubt require reserving some funds for investing in next generation systems, but the numbers of new systems will be determined in part by the strategy they are being produced to carry out. There would also be an opportunity to move away from the Pentagon’s habit of building fragile, gold-plated weapons and instead develop less complex, more reliable systems that would be cheaper to acquire and easier to maintain.
Savings – whether they are used for other Pentagon programs or to lower the department’s overall budget – are by no means guaranteed. If the administration does choose to cancel some major systems as part of its cost cutting drive at the Pentagon, it will run up against members of its own party like Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who are seeking a $150 to $200 billionincrease over currently proposed levels of Pentagon spending for the next four years.
In addition, F-35s, Sentinels, and aircraft carriers all have Congressional groupings dedicated to keeping the programs funded, largely because of the jobs and revenue they supply to states and districts of key members.
If the Trump team – or any administration – really wants to save substantial sums at the Pentagon, it should rethink America’s overly ambitious military strategy, an interventionist approach that is backed up by hundreds of overseas military bases, up to 170,000 troops stationed abroad, and counter-terror operations in dozens of countries.
Add to this near record U.S. arms sales for 2024, and the enormous focus America places on war and preparation for war becomes clear.
A more restrained strategy that refrains from launching unnecessary wars like America’s fiasco in Iraq, or from subsidizing aggression, as the U.S. has done by providing military aid to Israel for its campaign of mass slaughter in Gaza, would not only be less costly, it would make America safer. But a thorough rethinking of America’s national security strategy is a job that neither Congress or the Executive Branch has done in any serious way, either because members are busy fighting to get their jurisdictions the largest possible piece of the Pentagon budget pie, or because “independent” commissions meant to chart a new course are stocked with members who have financial ties to the weapons industry.
Getting rid of waste – whether it involves price gouging, excess bureaucracy, or a simple failure to keep track of the department’s assets – is a worthwhile mission. But the real path towards making America more secure at a lower cost must involve a genuine reevaluation of the nation’s strategic goals that moves away from a primary emphasis on military instruments of statecraft towards a more balanced approach that elevates diplomacy, cooperation, and economic and cultural engagement.
Moving around funds inside the Pentagon is not a sufficient response to the challenges we face going forward.
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
DoD, Meet DOGE
In a reversal of the Pentagon’s usual “unfunded priorities lists” — annual so-called wish lists Congress uses to fatten up an already bloated U.S. military — the services are now putting together hoped-for “defunded priorities lists” for Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency.
The Defense Department has been scrambling to put together a list of lambs to sacrifice on DOGE’s altar. Predictably, among the early candidates are weapons the Pentagon doesn’t want, but that have been shoved down their wallet by lawmakers eager to keep defense plants back home churning out military hardware. They include aging drones, armored vehicles, and small Navy warships.
“In the past, the services put forth lists of potential cuts in a bid to shift funding toward newer programs they wanted to fund instead,” Nancy A. Youssef and Lindsay Wise reported February 14 in the Wall Street Journal. “Lawmakers who sought to preserve military spending in their districts would then routinely reject those proposed cuts. The result has been a steadily growing Pentagon budget since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”
History will repeat itself when DOGE comes calling. The Trump administration reportedly wants to shift 8% of the Pentagon’s $850 billion budget — about $68 billion — largely from bureaucratic bloat to new weaponry. “We welcome DOGE to the Pentagon,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said February 12. “There are waste, redundancies and headcounts in headquarters that need to be addressed.”
But there’s also hardware worth scrapping. If Musk & Co. want to nip a gargantuan program in the bud, they’ll ground for keeps the Air Force’s fledgling on-again, off-again crewed Next Generation Air Dominance fighter. Yet the service is already spending big bucks to make NGAD a reality: on January 27, it boosted development funding for a new NGAD engine from the original $1.95 billion ceiling, awarded in 2022, to $7 billion.
Beyond that, if Musk and DOGE are truly serious, they’ll put the long-troubled F-35 fighter program out of its misery. It’s more than a decade behind schedule and costs $209 billion(PDF) more than originally estimated. There’s no way buying 2,456 jets for the Air Force, Marines, and Navy for $442 billion (and more than $1.5 trillion[PDF] to fly them) makes sense, given today’s — and especially, tomorrow’s — battlefield. The Pentagon has already bought 36% of the F-35s it wants (at least 881 of 2,456). That’s not a bad batting average when compared to 25% of F-22s (the Pentagon actually ended up buying 187 of the 750 aircraft it wanted), and 16% of B-2s (21 of 132).
“Some idiots,” Musk said in November, “are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.”
Your move, Elon.
Fixing Costs
There are two basic ways the Pentagon buys its hardware: cost-plus contracts, where suppliers bill the Defense Department for their work, plus a profit margin, and fixed-price deals, where contractors keep their trigger fingers crossed and sign up to produce weapons for an agreed-upon price.
Rampant overruns on cost-plus deals in recent years have some in the Pentagon pushing for more fixed-price procurement. That means contractors have to pay for cost overruns. (Boeing, for example, won a $4.9 billion fixed-price contract to develop the KC-46 aerial tanker, but has spent $7 billion more of its own money to complete the task.) Pentagon suppliers are growing increasingly leery of signing up for fixed-price contracts.
The Space Force, fretting about cost overruns in its nearly $30 billion annual budget, is at the vanguard of this shift from cost-plus deals. They account for roughly half of their contracts. “We’re going to look hard at figuring out how to get out of that, and that’s going to be painful on all sides,” Major General Stephen Purdy, the Air Force’s chief satellite buyer, said February 11. “We’re going to have discussions like, ‘Hey, how do we convert this to fixed price?’” Part of that process will be to reduce the military’s reflexive demand for the latest and greatest technology. “We tend to have a lot of pretty harsh requirements,” Purdy conceded. “We’re looking to draw some of those back.”
There have been tidal waves of additional requirements slathered on Pentagon weapons by contracting officers with little accountability. Naval expert Seth Cropsey said forcing higher-ups to approve such changes makes more sense. “The administration can begin to fix this system through executive action, requiring that any design change to a program over a given financial threshold — ideally around $100,000 — gain personal approval from the Navy secretary and chief of naval operations,” he said.
Sounds good to The Bunker. If we can’t hold the brass accountable for their flubbed wars, the least we can do is hold them accountable for their flubbed wares.
What's in a name?
Debra Sokoll said that when her daughter called last week to tell her that Fort Bragg had just been named for Sokoll’s father, “I thought it was a hoax.” Well, let’s just call it a little olive-green Army lie.
The huge North Carolina Army base was named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg in 1922. But in 2023, after a lengthy review by an outside panel of experts, it became Fort Liberty because the idea of honoring traitors seemed, well, un-American. But that was fine by President Trump, who opposed changing Fort Bragg’s name and those of eight other Army posts.
“Bragg is back!” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared February 10 after ordering the Army to revert to the original name. But this time around, the post honors decorated Maine World War II veteran Roland Bragg, Sokoll’s late father. The Army was caught so flat-footed that it didn’t have a photo of Roland Bragg to hand out when Hegseth announced the change.
What’s next? A unilateral diktat upending 400 years of history by changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and punishing a venerable news organization for refusing to salute such geographic garbage?
Despite calling for more defense spending, President Trump sent defense stocks tumbling when he suggested the U.S., China, and Russia should agree to cut their defense budgets in half, CNBC reported February 13.
The Pentagon continues to restrict its V-22s — with an advertised range of 1,300 miles — to hops of no more than 230 miles due to limits placed on the aircraft following a 2023 crash, USNI News said February 11.
The Air Force has created a F(ranken)-35 by stitching together parts of two F-35s wrecked in accidents, Air Forces & Space Magazine reported February 11.
Thanks for reviewing The Bunker this week. Consider forwarding this on to your pals so they can subscribe here.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Ohio partners with Anduril Industries to build manufacturing facility in Pickaway county -- WBNS 10TV (YouTube/screenshot)
A rising weapons tech industry star, Anduril Industries is now coming to Ohio — with the state’s help.
Last week, the Ohio Controlling Board approved a whopping $70 million from the Ohio Department of Development’s All Ohio Future Fund for a prospective weapons factory called Arsenal-1, a proposed five million-square-foot “hyperscale” production facility that Anduril wants to establish near Rickenbacker airport in Columbus, Ohio.
The funding was approved at the Controlling Board meeting with no objections and to little fanfare, outside State Rep. Tristian Rader’s (D-Lakewood) acknowledgement that “a lot of public money” was “going to a private development.”
Anduril and Ohio leadership depict Arsenal-1’s development as paramount for the economy and U.S. national security interests alike. But behind the rhetoric lies a greater battle over the future of controversial autonomous military technologies — and Americans’ role in producing them.
Ohio goes all in for Anduril
Arsenal-1 proponents tout the project’s economic benefits for Ohio residents. Promising 4,000 jobs, Arsenal-1 has been lauded as the largest job-creating project in Ohio's history. Going all in, the state is approving about $450 million in tax breaks for Anduril, which itself will invest about $1 billion into the project. And the plant, to start operations by mid-2026, will even be able to test and develop products at the nearby Rickenbacker airport.
"We welcome Anduril and celebrate the creation of thousands of new jobs in cutting-edge defense manufacturing,” Ohio Lt. Gov. Jon Husted said in January after Anduril announced intentions to come to Ohio. “This investment reinforces Ohio's position as a leader in advanced technology and national security.”
Going largely unscrutinized is what Anduril actually proposes to make at Arsenal-1. But its plans to mass produce ethically questionable autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons warrant scrutiny.
Broadly, concerns about autonomous weapons systems involve the outsourcing of lethal decisionmaking from humans to perhaps less discerning, and often inaccurate, machines. AI researchers also fear that the militarization of AI technology, by shifting the responsibility of fighting — and dying — from humans onto warfighting autonomous machines, may make countries less conflict averse.
These concerns have not stopped the proliferation of AI-backed weapons in places like Gaza, where Israeli forces have infamously utilized AI military targeting systems in their onslaught against the Palestinian people.
And now, proceeding further with autonomous weapons production, Arsenal-1 is part of a larger defense tech push by military contractors, especially a newer generation of defense tech startups, towards a revamped American defense industrial base able to mass produce orders of magnitude more weapons and military platforms —“hyperscaling,” as Anduril puts it— especially AI-backed ones.
Ramping up mass weapons production through new, U.S.-based facilities like Arsenal-1 and defense-minded, industrial automation startup Hadrian’s “highly automated precision component factories,” defense tech startups are tying key economic opportunities to militarism in the process. Along these lines, Hadrian explicitly described its work as an effort to “transform America's advanced manufacturing industrial base” in a 2022 fundraising announcement.
To proponents, the effort is crucial for U.S. national security amid increasingly tenuous geopolitical conditions. Along these lines, Anduril head Palmer Luckey has been railing against a military industrial complex favorite — the China threat — to sell Arsenal-1 and other weapons production efforts to the public.
“We don’t have time for business as usual…the fact that we are predicted to run out of munitions within the first eight days of a potential conflict in China means that we need to hyperscale manufacturing [with projects like Arsenal-1],” Luckey said in a late January interview about Arsenal-1, pointing to war with China as a distinct possibility.
Some fear these weapons companies’ militarist strides, when strewn together with promises of economic opportunity, can direct public opinion in the same direction. “[Palmer] Luckey’s Cold War convictions are becoming increasingly prevalent in the Midwest,” journalist Taylor Dorrell observed in Columbus-based Matter News. “The construction of the Intel plant in New Albany [Ohio], for example, has been cast as a new Cold War effort to beat China in a chip war.”
Debate over Arsenal-1 brews
But not all Ohioans are happy to see Anduril set up shop. Calling Arsenal-1 “a high stakes gamble in national defense,” the Scioto Valley Guardian’s Jay Salley highlighted local skepticism surrounding the “significant” public subsidies allocated to the project.
In fact, Veterans For Peace Chapter 183 and other Ohio-based advocacy groups will protest Arsenal-1 outside Ohio’s Rickenbacker Airport on Sunday. The groups take issue with the project’s substantive public funding, its possible environmental impact, and aforementioned ethical ramifications surrounding the ongoing militarization of AI perpetuated by companies like Anduril.
As Ohioans wrangle over Arsenal-1’s arrival, critical debate over the mass proliferation and future of autonomous weapons systems, and their prospects to make the future of warfare more dangerous, is sorely needed.
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.