By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent study by Economists for Ukraine reveals that the actual value of US military aid to Ukraine significantly differs from official figures. The discrepancy stems primarily from the overvaluation of supplied US arms stockpiles and indirect aid transfers through allies. While the US claims over $60 billion in aid, the study estimates the true value of military aid at $18.3 billion, with an additional $32.6 billion in direct budget support. This total of $50.9 billion, though substantial, represents a small fraction of the US federal budget.
Read the original article here
The economic value of US aid to Ukraine, as officially reported, significantly overstates the actual benefit received by Ukraine. Instead of the publicized figure exceeding $60 billion, a more realistic estimate places the true value closer to $18.3 billion. This discrepancy arises primarily because a substantial portion of the allocated funds didn’t directly reach Ukraine; rather, they flowed into the US defense industry.
This inflated figure stems from the high pricing practices prevalent within the US defense sector. The aid packages often involve the transfer of existing military equipment, much of which is older generation hardware, perhaps even surplus or soon-to-be-decommissioned. While reported at its original acquisition cost, the actual value of these items to Ukraine is far less, considering their age and condition. Many of these weapons were likely already paid for decades ago, and their transfer to Ukraine represents the reallocation of pre-existing assets, not a direct expenditure of fresh taxpayer dollars.
This practice effectively masks the true cost of the aid. The US government’s accounting methodologies use the initial acquisition cost, inflating the reported amount significantly. A more accurate accounting would consider depreciation and the fact that much of this equipment was slated for disposal or already obsolete. Think of it like donating a ten-year-old car that was once worth $100,000. While the book value might still show that figure, the real-world value is substantially lower, potentially even close to zero, especially considering the cost of shipping is far less than disposing of it. The official accounting fails to reflect this reality.
Furthermore, the significant portion of the funds allocated for new equipment purchases indirectly benefits the US economy. The money funnels into the military-industrial complex, creating jobs and boosting the American economy. This internal economic benefit is often overlooked when assessing the aid’s overall cost to the US, creating an unbalanced portrayal of the situation. The US government, by using the original purchase price for older weapons, essentially inflates its reported expenditure, while simultaneously benefiting its domestic industry.
The discrepancy in figures has sparked concerns about transparency and accountability. The vast difference between reported and actual value raises questions about the clarity and accuracy of government reporting on aid allocation. This lack of transparency contributes to the ongoing debate surrounding the true cost and effectiveness of the US aid to Ukraine. The current reporting methodology might intentionally create a stronger public image of generous support than the reality suggests.
This situation also complicates the broader narrative surrounding international aid. The inflated figures could lead to a skewed understanding of the relative contributions of different countries to Ukraine’s defense effort. If the US aid is substantially less than reported, it changes the perception of the EU’s role, potentially making its contribution seem more impactful.
The issue of “twice lower” phrasing itself is noteworthy. Such ambiguous language further obscures the true picture and potentially serves to downplay the actual assistance provided, even if unintentionally. Clearer, more precise communication is crucial for accurate public understanding and informed policy discussions. While the aid’s actual cost may be less than advertised, the benefit to the US economy through domestic job creation and a strengthened military-industrial complex isn’t always factored into the equation, further muddying the waters of accurate assessment.
The discrepancy isn’t necessarily a matter of intentional deception, but rather a matter of differing accounting methods and a lack of transparency about the nature and condition of the equipment being transferred. Regardless of intent, however, the effect is the same: a misrepresentation of the actual economic burden borne by the United States in supporting Ukraine’s defense efforts. It remains crucial to utilize more transparent and accurate reporting methods to foster a better understanding of the true economic value of US military aid to Ukraine, and to avoid situations that fuel distrust and political polarization.