Ukraine is not only fighting Russia, but a group of four autocratic states that all help Putin’s war. They have been dubbed CRINK: China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. China sells micro-electronic components used in weapons systems and is a political partner with Russia. Iran provides explosive suicide drones. And North Korea sends soldiers, ballistic missiles, howitzers, and artillery shells.
A new analysis suggests that failing to support Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression could cost the United States significantly more than current aid levels.
The report, titled Dollars and Sense: America’s Interest in a Ukrainian Victory, was published by the American Enterprise Institute and written by defense experts Elaine McCusker, Frederick W. Kagan, and Richard Sims in January.
It warns that a Russian victory in Ukraine would force the United States into significantly higher defense spending, an additional $808 billion over five years to keep Moscow at bay and protect NATO members.
In the 202-page document, the authors argue that focusing solely on the immediate cost of helping Kyiv is shortsighted.
“Though many Americans are understandably confused and concerned about the cost of this aid, worrying only about what assistance to Ukraine costs is thinking about the issue the wrong way,” the report said. “Instead, we should be worried about what not helping Ukraine would cost.”
The financial calculations indicated that the United States has appropriated $112 billion to the Department of Defense for Ukraine since 2022, which is less than 14 percent of what it would take to confront a victorious Russia on NATO’s eastern flank.
The report maintains that Washington is getting a return on every dollar spent. Most of the funds designated for Ukraine through military channels go toward contracts that bolster U.S. weapons production and upgrade American stockpiles.
“The majority of defense assistance to Ukraine is actually spent in the United States or on our forces,” the report noted.
That spending helps modernize the American military’s hardware. If Ukraine were to fall, the costs tied to stationing more troops in Europe, paying for expanded stockpiles, and modernizing equipment on an urgent timeline would balloon in an era already fraught with global threats and budget constraints.
According to the analysis, the scenario where “the United States decides to stop aid to Ukraine” paves the way for Russia’s success on the battlefield. That would embolden Moscow to push toward NATO borders in Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states, creating a 2,600-mile front with dispersed Russian forces permanently stationed close to key Alliance territory.
“Russia could, according to NATO officials and our own assessments, pose a major military threat to NATO’s eastern flank by 2030,” the report said.
The potential confrontation would lead to spending on personnel increases, next-generation fighter jets, advanced missiles, new satellite constellations, and a vastly expanded network of NATO-aligned industrial bases.
The report’s authors laid out their projected outcomes in a step-by-step fashion. If the flow of U.S. aid to Kyiv dries up, allied support would likely shrink, too.
“Efforts by Europe to mobilize its industrial base cannot offset the loss of American support,” the report said, citing the possibility that European political will would fade in the absence of U.S. leadership.
As Ukrainian hardware and resources degrade, Russia would push forward in 2025, and by 2026 the Kremlin could resume large-scale attacks on the country, “allowing Russia to drive to the NATO border” and incorporate newly conquered regions into its force structure. From there, Russia would accrue new advantages both strategically and industrially.
“Once established in Ukraine, Russia gains more defense industrial capacity, a new resource base, and added economic capacity as it prepares to initiate further conflict by 2030,” the report said.
At that point, NATO would be compelled to reorient itself for a new era of large-scale deterrence in Europe. Citing the “limited design” of current NATO forces to fight a conventional land war on the continent, the report projects that the U.S. military would need to add up to 266,000 personnel, including the expansion of Army brigade combat teams and Marine Corps infantry battalions.
New maritime assets, such as 18 additional battle force ships and three more Virginia-class submarines, would also ensure the Navy remains agile in the Baltic and Atlantic. Meanwhile, an upgraded arsenal of missiles, drones, and air defense systems would be vital, since Russia would be fully equipped with millions of unmanned systems by the end of the decade.
“Evidence of the need for United States industrial base investments and increased global partnerships in manufacturing abound,” the study said.
America’s ability to mass-produce tanks, ships, munitions, and electronics would need to be dramatically improved. The creation of new production lines, modernization of existing factories, and the potential for allied cooperation in defense manufacturing would be vital. The cost to build and maintain that capacity, along with new R&D for unmanned and space-based platforms, falls under the projected $808 billion price tag.
In addition to manpower and hardware, the document highlights a need to reinforce America’s space and cyber domains. It envisions doubling down on low Earth orbit satellites for tactical intelligence, establishing bodyguard satellites to protect vital constellations, and ensuring the communications and navigation layers remain functional under GPS jamming attempts from adversaries.
“In a direct conflict with the United States, Russia may be willing to use reckless and indiscriminate attacks to thwart the American military’s advantage in space,” the report said.
Such a hypothetical future stands in stark contrast to what the report considers to be a better path – a free, modernized Ukraine that ultimately pushes Russia back.
“We should also consider a different strategic environment, one in which a multinational commitment to Ukraine increases, accelerates, and expands. That would allow Washington to turn more targeted resources and attention to the Pacific and consistently ongoing troubleshooting in the Middle East,” the report said.
Supporters of continued military aid to Ukraine often highlight its effect on the American economy. The report agrees, citing the bipartisan consensus of experts who say that keeping Russia contained helps maintain U.S. influence in Europe and deters other regimes from aggression elsewhere.
Critics of continued aid might argue that the money should be channeled to domestic challenges, such as the nation’s southwest border or student loan relief. Yet the report maintains that if Russia succeeds in subjugating Ukraine, U.S. policymakers will have to pivot to an even costlier, multiyear defense buildup.
“It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost,” the report concluded.
© Photo
Oleg Petrasiuk (AP), Jens Buettner (AP), Evgeniy Maloletka (AP), and Alexander Zemlianichenko (AP)
