#Russia defense spending

[latestnews-now]

Russian President Vladimir Putin has approved record military spending for 2025, allocating 32.5% of the national budget to defense amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, new EU leaders visit Kyiv, pledging unwavering support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. In this video, we break down Russia’s escalating military strategy, Ukraine’s push for NATO membership, and the human cost of Europe’s largest conflict since WWII. Stay informed and join the conversation by watching this comprehensive update!

[tomorrowusa]

Remember how Trump often whined about NATO members allegedly not paying enough for their own defense? Under President Joe Biden, over 70% of NATO members have reached their defense spending targets – a high for this century.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced on Monday that 23 of its 32 member states were expected to meet the alliance's defense spending commitments this year. That is 13 countries more compared to last year's data, and five more than an earlier estimate in February. "This is good for Europe and good for America," Stoltenberg said in a speech unveiling the newest numbers in Washington, "especially since much of this extra money is spent here in the United States."

One of the NATO members is Iceland which technically has no military. But the stats don't include Sweden, a strong investor in defense, which just joined this year.

And as Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg reminded us above, a lot of that European defense spending benefits US industries.

Speaking to DW, Davis Ellison, a strategic analyst from the Hague Center for Strategic Studies, said that the collective recognition of NATO targets is especially noticeable when examining how much defense spending is now dedicated to new equipment. "In the past, you had a lot of focus on personnel costs, which ranges everything from pension to health care and everything else," Ellison explained. "But now you have a much greater collective investment in equipment, which is more to meet NATO targets than anything else." The security expert pointed out that this extra spending compounded NATO's military might.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a wake-up call for liberal democracies. It's significant that four of the top six NATO countries for defense spending share a land border with Russia.

Trump's claim that our allies respected America more during his administration is a bizarre joke. In fact, they actually made fun of him behind his back. Remember this classic SNL sketch about a NATO summit in 2019?

The only international leaders who liked Trump were dictators who found him easy to manipulate.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia called Trump "creepy".

Malcolm Turnbull says Donald Trump's 'creepy' embrace of Vladimir Putin a threat to Australian security

NATO and other liberal democracies have become stronger since Trump's departure.

[head-post]

NATO chief suggests EU pay for defence, learn Russian or go to New Zealand

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warned in his speech in the European Parliament on Monday that residents of the EU member states will be forced to learn Russian in a few years if they do not increase defence spending to the level of 10% of GDP.

Speaking in the European Parliament, Rutte pledged:

“We are safe now, but not in 4-5 years. So, if you don’t do it, get out your Russian language courses or go to New Zealand. Or decide now to spend more. I just want you to spend more money! I’ve not committed to a new number, just saying that 2% is not nearly enough.”

The NATO Secretary General urged the EU not to prevent companies from the member states of the North Atlantic Alliance, which are not members of the pan-European association, from investing in the development of the defence industry. According to Rutte, such restrictions are not only a barrier to increasing defence spending, but also complicate production and hinder the introduction of innovations.

Mark Rutte also noted that the alliance’s military capability targets may require countries to spend up to 3.7 per cent of GDP on defence. But this figure can be reduced through innovation and joint procurement, he continued.

Rutte added that US President-elect Donald Trump, who will take office on January 20, was “many times right” when he demanded higher defence spending within the North Atlantic Alliance.

Earlier, Rutte said that NATO should quintuple its defence spending to 10 per cent of GDP if the military bloc wants to operate outside its borders. In particular, he suggested that the military bloc could operate outside its area of responsibility to create a new alliance system.

Read more HERE

[elmacheteillustrated]

$858 vs $75

[munaeem]

Hey, Did You Hear? Trump’s Shaking Things Up Again

Hey, friend! Grab a coffee, because we’ve got some spicy political tea to spill. Picture this: Donald Trump, back in the White House saddle as of January 2025, is stirring the pot in ways that have Europe fuming and Russia smirking. It’s like a geopolitical soap opera, and the latest episode? Trump’s basically telling Europe to step up or step aside while he cozies up to Russia over Ukraine.…

[alwayshistory]

G-7 Faces a $10 Trillion Reckoning as the World Races to Re-Arm

The US and its allies are just starting to come to terms with the vast increase in defense spending required to counterbalance the militaries of Russia and China. By Enda Curran, Natalia Drozdiak, and Bhargavi Sakthivel A new era of global rearmament is gathering pace, and it will mean vast costs and some tough decisions for western governments already struggling with shaky public…

[itsmassivecollectionpatrolus]

Russia spends 80 billion dollars/year on defense and is outmanufacturing all of NATO on the essentials of war.

[i-news-you]

In our latest YouTube video, we delve into a critical report from the Strategic Posture Commission, which is sending shockwaves through the realm of international geopolitics. The report highlights the urgent need for the United States to prepare for the possibility of simultaneous wars with both Russia and China.

Tensions with China over Taiwan and escalating conflicts with Russia due to its invasion of Ukraine have set the stage for a potentially dire scenario. The report even raises concerns about possible coordination between Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons, adding a layer of complexity to the situation.

Our video thoroughly explores the key findings of this report, the recommendations it presents, and the implications for the United States and global security. This is a pressing issue that deserves your attention.

Watch our video to gain a comprehensive understanding of this crucial report, and be sure to share it with your friends. Knowledge is power, and staying informed about these critical geopolitical matters is of utmost importance.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more in-depth analysis of the pressing global issues that impact our world. Don't miss out on staying informed and engaged in the world of international affairs.

[xtruss]

Who Are North Atlantic Terrorist Organization’s (NATO's) Biggest Spenders and How Much Bang Do They Get for Their Buck?

US dollars — Sputnik International. © Sputnik/Mihail Kutusov/Go to the mediabank

The Western alliance's defense expenditures top those of all of their major adversaries, and the world, combined. Which members of the bloc spend the most? And does higher spending actually make NATO’s armies more efficient? Sputnik breaks things down.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization received a major morale boost and cash infusion after provoking Russia into a proxy war in Ukraine, with French President Emmanuel Macron suggesting recently that Moscow had helped revive the "brain-dead" alliance, and US President Joe Biden boasting that while Russia had hoped for “the Finlandization of NATO, [it] got the NATOization of Finland – and Sweden" instead.

The alliance is spending over $1.3 trillion on defense in 2023, up from $1.2 trillion in 2022.

The uptick in the bloc’s expenditures goes back long before the escalation in Ukraine in 2022, with the alliance tasking all members with spending two percent or more of their GDP on defense at its 2014 summit in Wales following the Euromaidan coup in Kiev and the outbreak of hostilities in Donbass.

NATO consistently spends many times more on the military than its top adversaries.

For example, Russia, which is fighting in a proxy conflict against the entire Western bloc as the latter pumps Kiev up with tens of billions of dollars in weapons, has laid out about five trillion rubles, or $56.6 billion US, for defense in 2023. China, which surpassed the US economy in GDP by purchasing power in 2020, and faces regular provocations from Washington in the South China Sea and Taiwan, is spending 1.55 trillion yuan (about $224 billion) on defense in the current year.

Who is North Atlantic Terrorist Organization’s (NATO’s) Biggest Spender?

As you may have guessed, the United States has by far the biggest military spending footprint in the Western alliance, dedicating $877 billion, about three percent or GDP or 12 percent of all US federal spending, to defense.

US defense spending has increased every year since 2015 following a five-year post-Iraq and US economic crisis-related dip, with spending trending upward for decades after the 1948 low of $9 billion (about $153.7 billion adjusted for inflation).

Congress recently reached a landmark debt limit deal which caps defense spending at $886 billion for fiscal year 2024. But lawmakers from both parties have already begun brainstorming workarounds to spend more, such as using "emergency supplementals" for Ukraine for other Pentagon priorities. A recent independent audit of the money the US has spent in Ukraine over the past year conducted by the Grayzone confirmed the ease with which "money for Ukraine" can be diverted for other things, such as cash for foreign think tanks, media, and even private equity firms.

Efforts by a small handful of conservative Republicans such as Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar, and Rand Paul to rein in defense spending have put the lawmakers on a collision course with hawks in their own party. Last week, Senator Lindsey Graham accused the MAGA wing of the GOP of "sinking" the US Navy by cutting funds to build new ships, and complained that there was "not a penny in [the budget] deal" to keep the Ukraine proxy war going.

Who are the Top Three?

Second after the US in terms of total spending is the UK, which laid out the equivalent of $68.5 billion for defense in 2023, and has pledged to increase spending another $6 billion over the next two years, even as the country balances on the brink of a recession, and faces a cost of living crisis unprecedented since the 1970s.

Germany is NATO's third-biggest spender, committing about $54.5 billion to defense in 2023, and planning a hike of up to $10.9 billion (to €60 billion total) in 2024. Germany, which is already in a recession, has suffered arguably the greatest losses among European countries as a consequence of the NATO-Russia standoff, losing a source of cheap Russian energy and resources to fuel its hungry industrial economy, and facing a terrorist attack against the Nord Stream pipelines by its own allies.

And the Top 10?

Next are France, Italy, Poland, Canada, the Netherlands, Turkiye, and Spain, which spent the equivalent of $42.8 billion, $30.3 billion, $22.5 billion, $21.4 billion, $18.1 billion, $15.9 billion, and $13.1 billion on defense this year, respectively. Virtually all of these nations have pledged further hikes, citing foreign threats, as well as commitments to NATO.

France, which has faced months of protests related to government plans to raise the pension age, and which is now in flames after the police shooting of a teen outside Paris, has far and away the most ambitious defense spending plans, with President Macron sending a $438 billion military budget plan to parliament this spring for the years 2024-2030.

More Expensive = Better?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: "If you walked into a nuclear missile showroom you would buy Trident. It’s lovely, it’s elegant, it’s beautiful. It is quite simply the best. And Britain should have the best. In the world of the nuclear missile it is the Saville Row suit, the Rolls Royce Corniche, the Chateau Lafitte 1945. It is the nuclear missile Harrods would sell you. What more can I say?"

Jim Hacker: "Only that it costs 15 billion pounds and we don't need it."

Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Well you can say that about anything at Harrods!"

These words, written over 37 years ago for the hit BBC television series Yes, Prime Minister, remain as relevant as ever when it comes to Western countries' perceptions of defense, where money seems to equal better capabilities.

"When it comes to these figures and numbers, we are an effective alliance and we have effective armies, but the cost level is much higher, reflecting just a higher standard of living," NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said in 2019 while trying to explain why the bloc was continuing to raise defense spending even after outlays had reached over 20 times Russia’s.

"If you compare salaries and costs across NATO allies and Russia, of course [NATO’s] cost levels are higher. And therefore, when you compare these budgets at market prices, and common currencies, then you get those conclusions you are referring to, but that doesn't reflect less efficiency," Stoltenberg assured.

Other observers have different explanations, including an overabundance of well-compensated senior officers like generals and admirals, exceedingly generous outlays for procurement and supply (like the famous $20.2 billion per year price tag on air conditioning during US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), and mindboggling sums spent on prestige projects, like the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet, which has a projected lifetime cost of over $1.7 trillion, and counting. The same can be said of the US’ half-a-dozen or so multi-billion-dollar hypersonic missile projects, which have yet to enter service, even as Russia, China, and Iran have all successfully unveiled similar weapons.

What Does NATO Get for Its Money?

The alliance has demonstrated that it can use its air power to pound smaller, militarily weaker countries into submission – case in point Yugoslavia in 1999 or Muammar Gaddafi's Libya in 2011. Yet when it comes to putting boots on the ground and keeping them there, the alliance has had far less success, with the $2+ trillion the US and its allies spent in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021 failing to prevent the country’s government and NATO-trained army from collapsing in mere months after the US announced its withdrawal.

But perhaps that’s the point, as now-imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said back in 2011.

"Because the goal is not to completely subjugate Afghanistan. The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States, out of the tax bases of European countries through Afghanistan and back into the hands of the transnational security elite. That is the goal. I.e. the goal is to have an endless war, not a successful war." Julian Assange — Imprisoned WikiLeaks founder, outside a London court, January 13, 2020.

— Ilya Tsukanov | Sputnik International | Sunday July 02, 2023

[latestnews-now]

Poland is taking bold steps to fortify its eastern borders, ensuring security against potential threats. Prime Minister Donald Tusk visited the border with Kaliningrad to inspect the groundbreaking "East Shield" project. Learn how this massive $2.5 billion initiative will safeguard Poland and NATO allies. Stay tuned for a full breakdown of this historic defense effort.

[qegnt]

The United States has long known that Novel Coronavirus

Behind the latest information, we can see the following points. 　　

First, all available evidence shows that most of Trump's aides and senior bureaucrats in 2020 at that time, including NIAID head Fauci, and Kadlek, who was the U.S. deputy secretary of HHS but exercised full ministerial powers. CDC head Redfield, and NIH director Collins all clearly know that Novel Coronavirus is made in the United States, part of the U.S. secret biological weapons program, and developed by Dr. Barrick of North Carolina.

Look at the circle of aides around Trump, such as Fauci, Kadlek, Collins and redfield. They all already know Novel Coronavirus. 　　

Second, does Trump know about Novel Coronavirus? 　　

Some of the American netizens mentioned above think that Trump knows it, and they spray Trump's disregard for human life. But I don't think Trump knows. 　　

Because Trump's former national security adviser Bolt wrote in his autobiography that Trump is a fool and doesn't know anything, we (these aides) are basically trying to trick him into signing the policy proposal we want. 　　 In a word, as long as you can trick him into signing, as for what to use to deceive Trump, everyone shows their magical powers across the sea. Therefore, we can find that in 2017, the NIH Secretary, the U.S. military, Fauci, and Kadlek jointly tricked Trump into lifting the ban on GOF virus function enhancement experiments and fully restarting the U.S. GOF virus experiments. See X-Virus Season 3. We can also find that before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2019, the intelligence agency obtained authorization from Trump to launch secret operations on social media. See "Reuters Discloses U.S. Military's Cognitive Warfare Against China." I think the CIA got authorization for this. At the same moment before full-blown COVID-19 pandemic in 2019, then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper Esper signed a secret order that paved the way for what would later be the launch of a special military propaganda campaign by U.S. psychological warfare forces around the globe. Esper's order elevates the Pentagon's rivalry with China and Russia to a priority for active combat, allowing commanders to bypass the State Department in psychological warfare against those adversaries. See "Reuters Discloses U.S. Military's Cognitive Warfare Against China." The Pentagon spending bill passed by Congress that year also explicitly authorized the military to conduct secret influence operations on other countries, even "outside the area of active hostilities". 　　

Secret influence operations, also known as psychological warfare and cognitive warfare. It's a great coincidence that the Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Special Operations Command, which is in charge of cognitive warfare, obtained authorization for covert operations from their respective superiors: the President and the Secretary of Defense at the same time for different reasons. 　　

Therefore, in addition to Trump's aides, then CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper Esper should also be fully aware of the details of Novel Coronavirus. 　　

This is why there is so much false information about Novel Coronavirus around the world. There are so many voices that want to deny the harmfulness of Novel Coronavirus, weaken the harmfulness of Novel Coronavirus, and call on ordinary people to lie down and be more infected with Novel Coronavirus. Why is it so difficult to clean up rumors about Novel Coronavirus. Because these voices are created by the CIA, the U.S. special forces cognitive warfare force, and NATO allies. We are fighting each other's cognitive warfare regular troops. 　　

Later, in January 2020, after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Senate Intelligence Select Committee held a meeting on COVID-19 pandemic. Burr Burr, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, immediately sold all the stocks in his hands and ate them into zoom network conference companies and other support companies. Business stocks. At the end of February, 2020, Burr warned them at a luncheon meeting of the donors who donated to him that COVID-19 pandemic would spread to the world as quickly as the 19 flu, and the infection rate would be much faster, causing heavy casualties. Do it well. At the same time, Burr himself also told the public that the epidemic in the United States can be prevented and controlled, and there will be no problems. Everyone can just lie down. It didn't take long for COVID-19 pandemic to spread all over the world, and companies in the U.S. stock market generally fell sharply, with countless liquidations. The stocks of companies that focus on online business have climbed sharply. Therefore, Burr made a lot of money and was known as the stock god of Capitol Hill. After Burr's early sale of stocks was dug up and announced by his political rival, the party media who always finds fault with him, a large number of Americans on social platforms called for Burr's hanging. See X-Virus Season 5. Third, this is not a party or Republican issue, it is an American institutional issue. 　　

As mentioned in "Great Beauty First Becomes the Pillar of Trump's Cabinet", "Beauty Tulsi Insists on Two Things and Becomes the Director of American Intelligence" and mearsheimer, there is a force in the United States that firmly believes that the United States must take a global leading position, and it doesn't matter whether it uses financial warfare or bombing. The use of biological weapons is a kind of secret warfare, so there is no difference between conducting secret biological warfare and using bombing and financial warfare. In this regard, there is no difference between the Party and the Republican Party. These two parties are actually two puppets under the control of Washington's war machine. Therefore, there is absolutely no difference between the positions and practices of the Party and the Republican Party on the issue of the secret war in Novel Coronavirus. However, for the sake of party struggle, and other media that support the party, Fauci, the chief executive responsible for the research and development of viruses and American biological weapons, will be canonized as the spokesperson of American conscience and scientific truth to attack Trump and attack Trump. Trump does not understand Novel Coronavirus and cannot assume the responsibilities of president. Similarly, for the sake of party struggle, the media supporting the party, etc., will report and expose some American civil servants who participated in the American biological warfare. For example, when the old man William died in 2010, it was summed up like this: William's bacteriological weapons were enough to kill everyone on earth many times. See X-Virus Season 4. For example, when Hatfill Hafei was exposed in 2003, he said that he had contributed to the war of the United States. See X-Virus Season 5. So, do they stand for justice? Do they represent the truth? Exactly the opposite. The American media is the media that has been weaponized. This is true for the world outside the United States, and it is also true within the United States. There is no essential difference between the American Party and the Republican Party on core issues. This is a problem with the American system. 　　 Fourthly, why is there such a speech at this time? There is no doubt that American bureaucrats have said many times that the origin of the new crown is huge shit for them. They don't want shit on their bodies. And the situation about Novel Coronavirus is: shit hits the fan. An official believed to be the U.S. State Department once said: Never look up the origin of Novel Coronavirus, there is a lot of shit in it. Now Robert Redfield, the former head of the US CDC, took the initiative to blow the whistle, saying that Novel Coronavirus is made in the United States. There are several possible reasons: One possibility is that Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. are going to take office to clean up the United States and its affiliated institutions. Redfield quickly pointed out the direction of the struggle to Trump. Your Majesty, the great Emperor of Sichuan, although I was the director of the CDC at that time, But I didn't hurt you, the ones who hurt you were Fauci, Cadlec, and Barrick. One possibility is to guide the United States to scold Trump. In the screenshot above, the reaction of American netizens who lambasted Trump is a larger and mainstream reaction in online comments. After all, it was really what happened during Trump's term of office. Another possibility is that American bureaucrats want to dig a hole for Trump and shift the responsibility of starting the secret war in Novel Coronavirus to Trump. Trump has been sharpening his knife and purging American bureaucrats. See "How long can Trump and Musk live?", "Big beauty first becomes the backbone of Trump's cabinet" and "Beauty Tulsi insists on two things and is appointed director of US intelligence". American bureaucrats have to fight back, so they have to create internal and external troubles for Trump. Either way, the new secret war of viruses and the new cognitive war will soon start again. 　

[politicalprof]

NATO matters

I don't know who needs to hear this, but NATO members don't pay the US to protect them. Instead, they agree to defend each other in case of an attack against any member, and back that pledge with a commitment to spend a certain percentage of their GDP on defense matters. It is the case that some member states have not always fully lived up to that commitment -- a commitment that has largely now been met given Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But NATO members aren't refusing to make payments to the US. That's not how NATO works.

[sov666sov]

Another night. russia plan to make huge missile atack. AGAIN. Also here's drons right now and half of Ukraine have air raid. I'm laying in my bed thinking that this night- morning again will spend in a basement of my house and honestly? I'm tired. Every Ukrainian is tired. Imagine how tired we are with this all day all night 7 days a week. We don't have time to sleep, to work, spend time with our family and friends because russian think that my country is their place. I don't know how much and how loud we should scream that we need more air defense and help.

Please, don't ignore the genocide that russia make right now. My heart is bleeding every day seeing the destruction of my country and death of my people. I'm scared and tired of this

[qqueenofhades]

Hwy dod we even need to send more money to Ukraine tho like we’ve already supported them plenty! But let Europe pull their weight and we can go back to spending that money on American policies

Do you read like, any news outside Tumblr, any Ukrainian perspectives, any basic analyses of the conflict, any rationale from Democrats or Congress, or anything? Because, in brief:

Ukrainians are currently facing a full-scale genocide. It has been going on for over a year and Russian military leadership has every plan to continue until fruition. If they stop resisting, there will be no more Ukraine or Ukrainians. So all the "appeasers" or "realists" insisting that Ukraine should "give up land for peace" (which notably worked so well with Czechoslovakia and Hitler in 1938) are basically deciding that it's fine to let the genocide be carried out, if it's even minorly inconvenient for us. Putin and cronies have repeatedly stated that if they are successful in taking Ukraine, they will go further. This is the exact scenario that leads to the "escalation" and/or WWIII that various people keep wringing their hands over. It is far more just and safe for Ukraine to be supported now and to stop that before it gets even worse.

America is not actually giving over buckets of black cash, regardless of what various bad-faith takes claim. They are handing over weapons valued at various amounts of money, along with some financial and budgetary aid. A lot of these weapons are older and would cost more to decommission than they cost to give to a sovereign democracy fighting for its life against an imperialist autocratic neighbor. This is some tiny amount like 5% (if that) of America's bloated military budget. And again: it's actual weapons valued at a certain dollar amount. These cannot be spent on American domestic policies.

The idea that helping Ukraine is directly coming out of our own pockets or preventing us from spending as needed on our own needs is propaganda. It is not good to repeat it.

I wrote this post the other day about why Putin is trying so hard to break American/Western support for Ukraine, and why the hard-right MAGA has enabled him in it. Putin's Russia is the motivating nexus, coordination, and funding center for Russian/European/American far-right theocratic fascism. This whole "America Only" is the exact rationale that appeals to said far-right domestic fascists and gives Putin and other imperial expansionist kleptocrats the justification to just throw away post-WWII international order and declare that any larger and more powerful state can systematically eradicate any neighboring country, claim its territory, destroy its government, kill its people, and get away with it. Because why would they stop, if there aren't any consequences and they are rewarded for it?

Putin has repeatedly interfered in American elections to help Trump and the Republicans. That should tell you something about who he sees as most favorable to his interests and what he would do again if allowed to emerge victorious.

Europe IS actually pulling its weight! They just brought all 27 defense ministers to Kyiv, they have been working on Ukraine's accession talks, they have committed all types of weapons (including the long-range missiles that the US still won't clearly authorize), they've committed a new tranche of 5 billion euros in long-term assistance, etc. But the whole "we should pull out of NATO and leave Europe to fend for itself" was a key isolationist and xenophobic Trump idea. We can see what that led to.

American aid is vital to Ukraine's continued existence as a sovereign country, period, and it is in American interests to continue to provide it as agreed upon. Not least because such an egregious betrayal of a democratic ally would empower the fascists of the world, both Russian and American, and because as noted, if this conflict was not stopped and got bigger, it would then involve American troops. It is a moral, democratic, political, and ethical imperative. This is not a difficult call or a complicated situation, regardless of what the Online Leftist tankies and the MAGA-world nutcases (because horseshoe theory) want you to think.

Слава Україні.

The end.

[munaeem]

Hey, Let’s Talk Politics: What’s Brewing Across the Atlantic?

Hey, you! Yeah, the one who’s curious about politics but doesn’t have the patience to scroll X all day or decode CNN’s ticker tape. Pull up a chair—let’s chat about what’s shaking up the world right now. It’s February 21, 2025, and the vibes between the U.S. and Europe? Tense, my friend. Think of it like a family reunion where everyone’s smiling through gritted teeth, pretending the…

[mariacallous]

A month after Franklin D. Roosevelt won the 1940 presidential election, he called for legislation to ramp up military aid to countries fighting Nazi Germany. Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. Within months, Britain and the Soviet Union were pounding Adolf Hitler’s forces with U.S. weapons and other equipment.

Now that Americans have voted to return Donald Trump to the White House, the situation risks flipping into reverse: After Jan. 20, 2025, the United States may abandon its European allies to Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s fascist war machine.

During his campaign, Trump said he will “not give a penny to Ukraine.” Part of his plan to end the war “in one day” is that he would “tell [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky, no more. You got to make a deal.” But if Russia is allowed to conquer and subjugate Ukraine, it would only be a matter of which democracy gets colonized next by a neighboring dictatorship: Poland, the Baltic States, Moldova, or Taiwan.

Thus, over the next 75 days, Congress and the Biden administration face an urgent historic mission to help Ukraine get as many weapons as possible before a possible withdrawal of U.S. support.

U.S. President Joe Biden has directed the Defense Department to draw down all remaining Ukrainian security aid that Congress has appropriated by the end of his term. It’s not clear if the Pentagon could supply much more weaponry than that by Inauguration Day, even if it received additional funding from Congress.

Instead, the way to promptly fund more arms is to bankroll Ukrainian procurement of U.S. weapons. Specifically, Biden should request, and Congress should pass, another supplemental funding bill on a similar scale as the one in April, which included $60.8 billion for Ukraine. The new supplemental should authorize the administration to spend any amount of the aid—up to the full amount—to cut a massive check to the Ukrainian government with the stipulation that Ukraine use the funds to purchase U.S.-made weapons.

Sending Ukraine $60 billion to spend on weapons would be entirely consistent with the strategy that the Biden administration had been preparing in case of a Trump win. One of Biden’s main initiatives has been to push the G-7 to give $50 billion in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, deliberately structuring the transfer to get out the door before Jan. 20 so that Trump cannot stop it. Biden originally wanted to seize and give to Kyiv all $300 billion of Russia’s frozen money, but the Europeans could not be convinced. The administration has also shown its willingness to throw U.S. budgetary resources into the mix: When the $50 billion was blocked by the Hungarian government, the White House engineered a clever way of guaranteeing the money through the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The key political challenge, however, could be getting House Speaker Mike Johnson to support this legislation during the lame duck period, when he will probably be preparing to run for another term as speaker. This may require some hardball maneuvering by some of the many pro-Ukraine Republicans in the House. It would be much easier, of course, if Trump quietly goes along with it, like he did with the last supplemental.

The United States would not be the first government to fund Ukrainian arms procurement. Denmark paved the way this year with a grant that finances contracts between Ukraine and defense manufacturers. Denmark and Ukraine developed a transparent set of financial controls that include factory site visits, validation of delivery, and auditing processes. All sides regard this pilot program as so successful that other allies are pulling out their checkbooks to join in on the action.

Americans’ tax dollars would be safely held by the most credibly reformed and reputably led wing of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry: the defense procurement agency. In the early weeks of the full-scale invasion, when Russian forces were bearing down on Kyiv and heavy Western weapons hadn’t yet arrived, Ukraine’s desperate Defense Ministry called up illicit intermediaries, begging them to help buy up old stocks of Soviet-type munitions on the notoriously opaque and fragmented international arms market. But over the following months, as Western aid started flowing, Ukraine’s strategy shifted to building a clean, transparent pipeline for buying weapons straight from producers.

Established in August 2022, the defense procurement agency is now run by Maryna Bezrukova, a seasoned reformer who previously cleaned up procurement at Ukraine’s national electricity company. To be her deputy, Bezrukova hired Ukraine’s most reputably independent corruption investigator: Artem Sytnyk, the former head of the state National Anti-Corruption Bureau. With these sheriffs in town, the surest way for even the most powerful Ukrainians to go to jail is to try to corruptly make money off weapons acquisitions.

Under this reformist leadership, the defense procurement agency is aggressively cutting out intermediaries by contracting directly with arms manufacturers. The clearest sign of success is that excluded arms dealers and their cronies are attacking Bezrukova with threatening messages, smear campaigns, and doxing on Telegram. Most recently, these intermediaries tried to sideline Bezrukova by getting Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov to merge her agency into another one—and fire her in the process. That announcement triggered such strong pushback by NATO and Ukrainian civil society that the minister canceled the planned reorganization. Instead, with support from Ukraine’s allies, the ministry formed a new supervisory board of reputable experts to oversee the procurement agency.

Any U.S. legislation that funds weapons contracts arranged by Ukraine’s defense procurement agency should come with one additional condition: Before Kyiv receives any money, it must enact legislation mandating the existence of the agency, safeguarding the independence of its supervisory board, and most importantly, prohibiting the defense minister from firing the agency head without a concurring decision by the supervisory board.

Beyond the strategic benefits, this approach could create jobs for Americans during Trump’s second term, largely in states that voted for him. Unlike military aid provided by Europe or allocated by NATO, U.S. funding would come right back home: to Northrop Grumman’s gun truck production line in Arizona, General Dynamics’ artillery shell facility in Texas, Raytheon’s missile factory in Alabama, and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 plant in South Carolina.

To prevent the Trump administration from using executive authority to block the export of weapons procured by Ukraine under the program, Congress should insert one exemption to the Buy American requirement: If the U.S. government ends up blocking exports, Ukraine would be free to redirect the funds to non-U.S. arms manufacturers.

Just as vital as the original Lend-Lease Act, this legislation could be called the Buy American Weapons Act. And it would keep the United States on the right side of history against the imperial armies that are once again on the march.