Key takeaways

  • U.S. military aid to Ukraine, about $40 billion so far, equals about 0.4% of GDP, within the 0.3% to 1.0% peak-year range of US wars since Vietnam.
  • Comparing Oryx loss data with 2021 IISS figures suggests Russia has lost nearly 70% of its prewar active-duty main battle tanks and about 45% of its infantry fighting vehicles.
  • Historical benchmarks exceed Ukraine aid: World War II Lend-Lease equaled about $700 billion in today’s terms, and US support for Israel since 1946 an estimated $260 billion.
  • The 1991 liberation of Kuwait cost the US nearly $140 billion inflation-adjusted, while US spending in Ukraine’s higher-intensity war is about half that so far.
  • Gabriel Collins argues sustained Ukraine funding tells Moscow it cannot wait out the West and warns China that territorial conquest will invite a crushing response.

The initial $48 billion US military aid package for Ukraine that Congress approved in December 2022 is, accounting adjustments notwithstanding, approaching its end. As debate commences in earnest over the level of future support, contemporary and historical data points can help anchor the conversation.

First, consider the positive impacts for American security from a war effort that in financial and equipment terms, has been supported by the US more than any other country (or group of countries, for that matter).

Comparing data from Oryx, a respected external observer of equipment losses in the ongoing war, to 2021 military balance data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies suggests that Russian forces have lost nearly 70% of the active-duty main battle tanks they had prior to the war, about 45% of their infantry fighting vehicles, roughly a quarter of their multiple launch rocket systems, and about 20% of their armored personnel carriers and self-propelled guns.

In other words, a military supply effort led by U.S. taxpayers to the tune of about $40 billion thus far and bolstered by generous contributions of billions more from NATO allies and partners has substantially degraded the second-largest land army in Eurasia after China’s. As such, ensuring a continued flow of equipment and ammunition to Ukraine as it fights for survival is not only the right thing to do, but also substantially supports core US security interests across NATO and the strategic Eurasian landmass. Reducing Russia’s ability to coerce neighboring states and carve off their territory is an abiding US national interest.

Two charts: US security aid to Ukraine climbing to nearly $40 billion by June 2023, and Russian losses led by tanks near 70%

Second, what we are spending thus far is well within the bounds of what US policymakers and the voters they answer to have been willing to support in the past when doing what’s right aligns with American strategic interests. During World War II, the US provided Lend-Lease support to allies that in today’s terms would amount to about $700 billion.  Between 1946 and Fiscal 2023, the United States has supported Israel to the cumulative tune of an estimated $260 billion (inflation-adjusted). To liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny in 1991, the U.S. spent nearly $140 billion (inflation-adjusted). We’ve only spent about half that much so far in Ukraine, a much higher-intensity conflict.

For our wars and security actions since Vietnam, the data show expenditures during the war’s peak year that ranged from 0.3% of GDP (Gulf War I) to 1.0% of GDP (Iraq 2002-2010). U.S. aid to Ukraine thus far during this conflict has been equal to about 0.4% of GDP.

It’s a substantial amount to be sure, but one our dynamic economy can sustain. It’s also much cheaper than the alternative of direct great power conflicts that are far more expensive in blood and treasure (Korea cost 4.2% of U.S. GDP in its peak year, World War I cost 13.6%, and World War II cost nearly 36% of GDP in its most intense year).

Finally, funding Ukraine’s war effort long-term and more intensively communicates to Moscow that it cannot wait out the West and that the costs of trying to retain conquered Ukrainian territory will become unbearable. It also lets China know that attempts at territorial conquest will invite a crushing response. American voters recognize this and Congress should feel empowered to proceed boldly with the next round of Ukraine support appropriations.

Frequently asked questions

How much military aid has the US given Ukraine?

As of June 2023, US taxpayers had provided about $40 billion in military aid to Ukraine, according to Gabriel Collins. Congress approved an initial $48 billion US military aid package in December 2022, and that funding was approaching its end. NATO allies and partners have added billions more on top of the US contribution.

How does US aid to Ukraine compare with past wars as a share of GDP?

US aid to Ukraine has equaled about 0.4% of GDP, which falls inside the range of US wars and security actions since Vietnam. Peak-year spending ran from 0.3% of GDP in Gulf War I to 1.0% for Iraq 2002-2010. Korea cost 4.2% of GDP in its peak year, and World War II nearly 36%.

How much military equipment has Russia lost in Ukraine?

Comparing Oryx loss data with 2021 IISS military balance figures suggests Russia has lost nearly 70% of its prewar active-duty main battle tanks. The same comparison points to losses of about 45% of infantry fighting vehicles, roughly a quarter of multiple launch rocket systems, and about 20% of armored personnel carriers and self-propelled guns.

What would World War II Lend-Lease cost in today’s dollars?

World War II Lend-Lease support to US allies would amount to about $700 billion in today’s terms. Collins pairs that figure with an estimated $260 billion in inflation-adjusted US support for Israel from 1946 to fiscal 2023 and nearly $140 billion for the 1991 Kuwait liberation to show Ukraine aid is within historical bounds.

Why does continued Ukraine aid serve US security interests?

Collins argues aid to Ukraine serves core US interests by substantially degrading the second-largest land army in Eurasia after China’s. Reducing Russia’s ability to coerce neighbors and seize their territory is an abiding US interest, he writes, and long-term funding tells Moscow it cannot wait out the West while warning China against conquest.

One response to “Military Support for Ukraine–Some Historical Perspective”

  1. […] historical perspective on military support for Ukraine […]

Leave a Reply

Trending