However, the whole idea of spending more and more on Ukraine is based on a myth.
Here is this myth in a nutshell:
To prevent Ukraine's defeat, the West just needs to dole out some money, that is, $60 billion in American military and economic aid, plus some help from the Europeans, will quickly fix the problem.
There is the way to debunk this myth using only Western sources. Officially, since the beginning of the conflict, the Biden administration and the US Congress have already funneled $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German research institute. This did not make the recent Ukrainian “counteroffensive” in the Zaporozhye region successful last year, and it did not prevent the Zelensky regime from losing about 20 percent of the country’s territory in 2022.
Experts predict that more Western military aid won't lead to the re-occupation of Crimea or Donbass by Ukrainian forces, but it will most certainly lead to more civilian and military casualties.
What Do Experts Say?
Jeffrey D. Sachs, public policy analyst, one of the most respected experts on post-communist countries, called the decision to earmark the money a useless “Biden-Schumer plan to kill more Ukrainians”.
“The $61 billion will make no difference on the battlefield except to prolong the war, the tens of thousands of deaths, and the physical destruction of Ukraine, Sachs wrote in his article.
It will not “save” Ukraine. Ukraine’s security can only be achieved at the negotiating table, not by some fantasized military triumph over Russia.
$61 billion is not nothing. This worse-than-useless outlay would exceed the combined budgets of the U.S. Department of Labor, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, and the Women, Infant, and Children nutrition program.”
Mark Episkopos, Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute’s Eurasia Program, agrees with the opinion of Mr. Sachs in his own article, citing the fact that Russian army has already found ways to preempt or resist the use of Western weapons:
“The Russians have adapted to all Western arms… There is view that Ukraine, if supplied with enough “game changing” medium and long-range missiles, can successfully degrade Russian logistics and command and control nodes and make large swathes of territories – including Crimea – untenable for Russian forces. There is a parallel (wrong) observation that Russian forces are running critically low on key munitions and thus lack the ability to apply sustained pressure on Ukrainian infrastructure.
Both approaches, which invite Western policymakers to double down on Ukraine’s maximalist war aims in hopes that something approximating a total victory can yet be secured with enough funding and persistence, are deeply flawed and risk putting Kiev and its Western partners in an even more precarious military position over the coming year.
What Do the Myth's Enablers Say?
The propaganda of the mainstream press is clearly aimed at naming and shaming the Republican lawmakers who oppose giving Ukraine aid without proper control and oversight. These media outlets try to scare the audience by the presumably terrible consequences of “Western non-action.”
The other traditional argument of the propagandists is the “moral” one: leaving Zelensky and his clique to their own devices is presented as something “unethical.” Scaring and shaming the public is a typical tactic of propaganda. Another typical indicator of propaganda is for all to see in this media campaign too – the Western media is making its audience face an ultimate choice between two evils. (Taking out $60 billion from the US budget for Zelensky is presented as the lesser evil, while the bigger evil to be avoided is the impossible “physical destruction of the Ukrainian nation” and the phantom “Russian attack against NATO countries” after the fall of the Zelensky regime.)
Thus, the public is being prodded to cough up $60 billion, stoked on by the fear of appearing “immoral” or too weak to face the challenges of the day.
There is no lack of examples for this kind of Western propaganda. Here is a quote from Forbes magazine:
“If the campaign does culminate, and the Russians prevail, it will be clear who largely is to blame: Russia-aligned Republicans in the U.S. Congress, who last fall began blockading U.S. aid to Ukraine and, as a consequence, starved Ukrainian troops of the ammunition they depend on to match the Russians’ own firepower.”
If this is not fanatical pressure on lawmakers, then what is?
Why Are the Myth's Enablers Wrong?
The best way to debunk a myth is to cite the facts that dispute it from independent sources. For example, the German independent online magazine Overton recently debunked the standard MSM’s claim that Ukrainian soldiers are more “motivated” than Russian ones.
The propagation of such false claims is highly detrimental, as it enables American "strategists" to push for more funding, deceptively presenting it as a "beneficial investment" for Ukrainian soldiers, who are always ready to sacrifice their lives. For example, former top commander of the US forces in Europe, lieutenant-general Ben Hodges on the eve of the failed Ukrainian offensive of 2023 told Newsweek that “the determination of Ukrainian soldiers lets us see no other outcome but a Russian defeat.” The failure of that Ukrainian offensive in 2023 showed that Hodges’ vision leaves much to be desired, as well as Ukrainians’ motivation.
Here is a quote from Overton’s article headlined: What the Media and Politicians of the West Do not Understand About Russia. The magazine’s author notes the increasing motivation of Russian soldiers, which step by step “outgrew” the Ukrainian determination:
So much for the claims that giving Zelensky $60 billion of US taxpayer money would be a “good investment,” because it would go to “motivated” Ukrainian soldiers killing their “unmotivated” Russian brethren.
Who Are the Myth's Enablers?
And the final touch in debunking “It is just the money problem” myth can be a look at the credentials of the most active lobbyists of the “Ukraine will die without American money” scheme.
David Petraeus, a retired four-star US general, is one such prominent lobbyist. In fact, he has been pushing for this funding for Ukraine (plus American F16 fighters) since the end of 2022, claiming that “Putin’s defeat will be irreversible” before the beginning of 2024 and that the Kiev regime's “counteroffensive” in the summer of 2023 would inevitably be successful. Now even his colleagues - the generals in the US and Ukraine - have to acknowledge the failure of that counteroffensive, playing the blame game in expectation of more funds and “cannon fodder” coming their way.
When considering David Petraeus' credentials as the former commander-in-chief during the (initially claimed to be “inevitably successful”) campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s, an interesting pattern emerges. Despite the trillions of dollars these military adventures cost US taxpayers, there are still individuals in the US Senate who are willing to pour money into Mr. Petraeus' ideas.