Professor Snyder and ‘Trump’s Big Lie’

In his recent article reprinted in Kyiv Post “Trump’s Big Lie About Ukraine,” Professor Timothy Snyder has done a superb job exposing US President Donald Trump’s false narrative about Ukraine’s contributions to the US, Europe, and world peace. According to Trump, the US has “done a lot” for Ukraine, but Ukraine has “done nothing” for the US. In other statements, Trump intimated that Ukraine has been a free-loader in receiving “billions” from the US but has given “nothing back”.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. So, here are some estimates of how much the US has saved and how much Russian military power Ukraine has destroyed in exchange for the “billions” it has received. Let’s first agree on how many billions the US has actually provided “directly” to Ukraine. According to a recent New York Post article, direct aid to Ukraine during former US President Joe Biden’s administration totaled $130 billion. Although Congress approved $164 billion in Ukraine-related funding, that included associated US activities, indirect costs, and payments to third parties, not direct aid to Ukraine. A reasonable starting point for calculating US investment in Ukraine’s defense is $150 billion. Trump’s comments indicate that he may have forgotten why Biden gave Ukraine $150 billion. He should review Russian President Vladimir Putin’s oft-repeated insistence on restoring Russian geopolitical influence and control over territory once governed from Moscow. Other Topics of Interest Trump May Consider Major Iran Strike if Republicans Lose Midterms Donald Trump may be more inclined to launch a major military strike against Iran if Republicans lose the midterms. The 2022 US National Security Strategy (NSS) identifies Russia as an existential threat, and states that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrates its willingness to use military force to redraw borders and undermine European security. Had Putin defeated Ukraine, he would have greatly increased Russia’s military power and been emboldened to move against NATO and embroil US forces in NATO’s confrontation with Russian troops. It was only a matter of time. However, Ukraine defied all expectations and, for almost five years, has held Putin’s forces in check and frustrated Putin’s ambition. NATO’s European members acknowledge they were entirely unprepared to face the threat. They have only begun developing their own military-industrial base and increasing their forces. But they will need at least five more years to become independent of the US. As long as Europe and the US continue providing Ukraine what it needs to defend itself, Ukraine will hold Russia back. Putin will not open a “second” (NATO) front while facing a powerful, undefeated Ukraine to its south. But, if Ukraine is defeated, and Russia absorbs Ukraine’s human and material resources into its military, then only US deterrence stands between Russia and Europe. The cost of a Russian victory The conservative American Enterprise Institute, in assuming that the US would honor its NATO commitment to deter Russia, estimated that the long-term cost to the US would likely be far higher than the cost of supporting Ukraine. Without Ukraine, Russian forces would be poised on the borders of a half dozen NATO countries, capable of immense mischief, and undeterred by either a solely European NATO or a Ukrainian “second front.” The Institute estimates that “a world in which Russia prevails would be more dangerous and more expensive for America, requiring an estimated increase of $808 billion in US defense spending over five years.” A separate RAND perspective did not offer cost estimates, but concurred that a Russian victory would impose additional “colossal” costs on the US and its allies. What would it then cost the US to participate with other NATO countries in stopping a much strengthened and emboldened Russia? No publicly available information can be found, but Ukraine’s experience can serve as a model, and artificial intelligence (AI) may have to do the heavy lifting. AI was tasked with the following: “What would it cost the US if American Forces had to fight a conventional NATO-Russia war and absorb casualties and equipment losses on the scale of Ukraine?” We included assumptions such as three levels of US participation in the conflict, the types and costs of equipment, the current versus original value of equipment, potential casualty numbers, duration of hostilities, and, most importantly, comparison with America’s wars of this century. The one factor that made the greatest difference but was most elusive was the probable casualty count and type because the US has the highest veteran life-care cost in the world, but no experience with new-generation warfare. AI’s “reasonable and central” estimate of the costs the US would bear if Ukraine had been defeated and it participated 50% in the fighting to stop Putin’s move into Europe is $2-3 trillion. This may seem high to some and low to others, but it’s not unreasonable compared with the estimated cost of the Afghanistan war ($2.3 trillion), the Iraq war ($1-2 trillion), and even “peaceful” 5-year deterrence ($0.8 trillion). According to Brown University’s analysis of the 20 years of US Middle East wars, the total cost of those wars would be about $8 trillion. The damage done to Russia’s military One final factor we must not overlook is the military loss that Ukraine has inflicted on Russia. Notwithstanding Putin’s bravado in threatening one country or another with extinction, or declaring (as he has done recently) that he is “ready for war in Europe”, the simple reality is that Ukraine has inflicted such damage on Russia’s military capability that it is much weaker than it was before the war. The Center for Strategic and International Security (CSIS) estimates that as of July, Putin’s military force has sustained 1,400,000 casualties, of which 450,000 have been killed. In addition, the CSIS estimates that Russia has lost one third to one half of its pre-invasion major combat equipment and has been forced to draw heavily from Cold War stockpiles to sustain the war. It would take a long time to rebuild Russia’s conventional forces to a level that Putin, known to be a cautious man, would consider ready to launch a “war on Europe.” This should also be credited to Ukraine as a deterrent… and one that is still growing. For those whose minds are open and eyes can see beyond their personal interests, it should be obvious that for every $1.00 that the US has provided Ukraine, Ukraine has “given back”, with its blood and suffering, and in addition to the invaluable boons and blessings listed by Professor Snyder, an estimated $20.00 saving of the costs the US is likely to incur if it were to honor its obligations to deter Russian attacks or in supporting our NATO allies in defeating those attacks. As a side note, it bears remembering that Ukraine had “done a lot” for the US in destroying Russia’s ICBM force targeting hundreds of US cities, but the US had “done nothing” in return except default on its commitments. Had the US honored the terms of the Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty, Putin would not have invaded. Ukraine would not need the “billions” that President Trump is bemoaning. And the five years of bloodshed and destruction need not have occurred. So, Mr. President, which came first... the chicken or the egg? The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.