Who Benefits From Our Prolonged Financing Of The Ukraine War?

As we approach the first anniversary of the Russian military’s invasion of Ukraine, it’s becoming increasingly important for Americans to ask: Who benefits?

America’s open checkbook for Ukraine is more likely to produce a long war than a swiftly decisive outcome. Three groups support a long-term war in Ukraine: China, Vladimir Putin, and the global industrial defense system.

Putin will achieve his goal: Ukraine will not join NATO if a state war in Ukraine continues, even at a simmer. As President Eisenhower cautioned, an overly powerful military-industrial complex risks putting its own interests and the truth at odds with America’s interests. China has benefited greatly from America’s post-Cold War era. American foreign policy must be strategic and not based on the same flawed approach which has made America less free, more secure, and more heavily indebted.

Pundits and intelligence professionals have attributed a host of motives to explain Putin’s unjust invasion of Ukraine. I won’t explore them here, but they all share one common theme. Putin does not want Ukraine to become a member of NATO or part of the European Union. Even if a state-of-war persists in Ukraine it will not end.

A catastrophic failure could result from the expectation that America will fight or finance another interminable war. Moreover, since our rational objectives do diverge, it provides no incentive for Ukraine’s President Zelensky to pursue more limited objectives or alternatives to America’s blank check.

It is clear that the people who produce our weapons and ammunition profit from more ammunition and weapons. America’s defense industrial base is and must remain the best to preserve America’s advantage on the battlefield. But, post-Cold War has seen a lot of strategic blunders and unforced erroneous errors that have hurt our national security.

Nearly $7 trillion was spent by the United States on a poorly-focused, but necessary war to respond to 9/11 attacks. The contrast between the original war on Iraq and the more focused and efficient effort to defeat ISIS is clear. Finally, after years of ill-defined missions, the rational approach — using the economy of force (an enduring principle of war) — prevailed.

China has a comprehensive approach to its interests, which has outperformed the West and America in the post-Cold War period. While America has been engaged in endless wars throughout its history, the Chinese Communist Party has tripled the size of its economy and grown its middle class. It is now focusing on a global strategy to ensure that everyone, except the U.S., has closer relations with China. It’s time to focus on America’s interests — interests that empower our own government to deliver results for our own citizens.

Neither our diplomats, nor our soldiers, can be held responsible for their success or failure if they don’t have clear, principled goals. This lack of clarity leads to low-grade wars and long delays that do not lead to decisive results. Ukraine is witnessing the same type of failure.

As we