It is not a secret that the US financial support for Ukraine is enormous. It seems that the main task of it is to give impetus to the development of American defense industry.
The reality is that the money approved by Congress for Ukraine’s defense is not being directly transferred to Ukraine. Instead, it’s being utilized in the U.S. to develop new weapons or to replace those already provided to Kyiv from American stockpiles.
An analysis revealed that nearly 90 percent of the $68 billion of military and related aid approved by Congress since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine has been allocated to Americans.
Similar to the effects of foreign military assistance, US support to Ukraine is not just generating employment opportunities in the United States but is also revitalizing the severely weakened defense industrial sector. Thus, U.S. lawmaker J.D. Vance (R) said that “the condition of the American defense industrial base is a national scandal. Repairing it is among the most urgent priorities.” Thus, the authorities have found the decision.
For instance, since 2005, the United States hasn’t manufactured a single new Stinger antiaircraft missile. However, the Pentagon agreed to a $624.6 million deal to produce Stinger missiles in Tucson, intended to replace approximately 1,400 missiles sent to Ukraine. Had it not been for US efforts to supply Ukraine, the production of Stinger missiles might have stalled.
So, the US support for Ukraine is not just compelling the Pentagon to quickly enhance American weapon production capabilities; it’s also updating the U.S. military.
By transferring weapons and gear to Ukraine, the Armed Forces would receive more modern weapons in return. The existing budget wouldn’t be able to afford this needed modernization of equipment on its own.
The United States is also offering rewards to NATO partners to contribute their outdated U.S.-manufactured and Soviet-era military equipment to Ukraine by allowing the purchase of newer, state-of-the-art U.S.-developed systems to take their place. For instance, Poland has contributed 250 older Soviet and German armored vehicles to Ukraine and agreed to a $4.75 billion contract in April 2022 for the acquisition of 250 M1A2A Abrams replacement tanks, which will be manufactured at the Lima, Ohio, facility. In its turn Poland has finalized a $1.4 billion agreement for more tanks. Additionally, Poland has donated its Soviet-built Mi-24 attack helicopters to Ukraine and then agreed to a $12 billion contract for the acquisition of 96 Apache helicopters, which will be manufactured in Mesa, Ariz.
The push to supply and equip Ukraine has also significantly increased the demand for U.S.-built F-35 fighter jets.
Providing military assistance to Ukraine is rejuvenating the manufacturing sectors in various parts of the United States, generating quality employment opportunities domestically and rebuilding America’s ability to manufacture armaments for the national security. It should be said that almost every single state in the U.S. contributes to this effort.
The US authorities believe that supporting Ukraine is the correct action for the security of the United States and it is also the correct action for American employees.
Some experts may dispute the conclusion that the main beneficiary of the financial support is not Ukraine, but the US itself. Let’s look at the facts that show that financial support for Ukraine is much less than funds for military support.
So, it is in the United States’ vital interests to arm Ukraine.
US
The reality is that the money approved by Congress for Ukraine’s defense is not being directly transferred to Ukraine. Instead, it’s being utilized in the U.S. to develop new weapons or to replace those already provided to Kyiv from American stockpiles.
An analysis revealed that nearly 90 percent of the $68 billion of military and related aid approved by Congress since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine has been allocated to Americans.
Similar to the effects of foreign military assistance, US support to Ukraine is not just generating employment opportunities in the United States but is also revitalizing the severely weakened defense industrial sector. Thus, U.S. lawmaker J.D. Vance (R) said that “the condition of the American defense industrial base is a national scandal. Repairing it is among the most urgent priorities.” Thus, the authorities have found the decision.
For instance, since 2005, the United States hasn’t manufactured a single new Stinger antiaircraft missile. However, the Pentagon agreed to a $624.6 million deal to produce Stinger missiles in Tucson, intended to replace approximately 1,400 missiles sent to Ukraine. Had it not been for US efforts to supply Ukraine, the production of Stinger missiles might have stalled.
So, the US support for Ukraine is not just compelling the Pentagon to quickly enhance American weapon production capabilities; it’s also updating the U.S. military.
By transferring weapons and gear to Ukraine, the Armed Forces would receive more modern weapons in return. The existing budget wouldn’t be able to afford this needed modernization of equipment on its own.
The United States is also offering rewards to NATO partners to contribute their outdated U.S.-manufactured and Soviet-era military equipment to Ukraine by allowing the purchase of newer, state-of-the-art U.S.-developed systems to take their place. For instance, Poland has contributed 250 older Soviet and German armored vehicles to Ukraine and agreed to a $4.75 billion contract in April 2022 for the acquisition of 250 M1A2A Abrams replacement tanks, which will be manufactured at the Lima, Ohio, facility. In its turn Poland has finalized a $1.4 billion agreement for more tanks. Additionally, Poland has donated its Soviet-built Mi-24 attack helicopters to Ukraine and then agreed to a $12 billion contract for the acquisition of 96 Apache helicopters, which will be manufactured in Mesa, Ariz.
The push to supply and equip Ukraine has also significantly increased the demand for U.S.-built F-35 fighter jets.
Providing military assistance to Ukraine is rejuvenating the manufacturing sectors in various parts of the United States, generating quality employment opportunities domestically and rebuilding America’s ability to manufacture armaments for the national security. It should be said that almost every single state in the U.S. contributes to this effort.
The US authorities believe that supporting Ukraine is the correct action for the security of the United States and it is also the correct action for American employees.
Some experts may dispute the conclusion that the main beneficiary of the financial support is not Ukraine, but the US itself. Let’s look at the facts that show that financial support for Ukraine is much less than funds for military support.
So, it is in the United States’ vital interests to arm Ukraine.