Most of that money has been spend in the US and to replace old stocks of munition. I also guess that European countries (who have contributed together even more when including civilian support) are buying a lot of weapons from the US. The war also has shown that certain types of weapons are superior, the best kind of advertisement you can get, probably leading to additional sales of those weapons systems.
Next, Ukraine is not waste land, but an important source of grain that is feeding large parts of the world. If those would come under control of Russia, it would lead to a lot of political influence. Russia (and China) are already getting more and more control over countries in Africa. The greatest growth of population and wealth is taking place in Africa at the moment. If those markets are lost to the East it will have a negative impact on the economy of the US.
There must also a reason why the US is dragging this war on. The US in the past year has been very slow to deliver certain weapons systems (such as the F-16) and putting restrictions on the use of certain weapons systems (such as the restriction that military targets further away than 100 km (60 miles) from the border of Ukraine may not be hit). Although the F-16 is delivered by a coalition of European countries, the US had to give an export permit, and the US also has delayed the training of Ukrainian pilots. All these delays have permitted Russia to gain win on the battle field.
There are even people who believe that the US government does not want Ukraine to win, because the war is causing so much damage to the economy of Russia.
It's not just the money the US govt is spending in the US. The US and western military export industry is also getting a huge boost. Russia played a big part in exports before the war. The combination of needing to use their factories for the war in Ukraine and their equipment being demonstrably not great has decimated their export market.
> There are even people who believe that the US government does not want Ukraine to win, because the war is causing so much damage to the economy of Russia.
The US has absolutely, cynically, benefited from this war. It could have been stopped diplomatically, the US made no secret they believed Russia was preparing for an invasion. It was either calculated or pussyfooting, in my opinion.
How could it have been stopped diplomatically? When Russia took Crimea in 2014, the western world include the USA did nothing except for some rather symbolic sanctions. Before the invasion of 2022, not a single threat was expressed. There was nothing of threat of a closed airspace. And even now there is non such things, while almost daily Russia throws heavy glide bombs civilian building and infrastructure killing civilians on a daily basis. International companies, including many from the USA, are still free to operate in Russia and serve the wealthy in Moscow. [1]
By agreeing to Russia's demands for a "friendly" regime to be installed in Kyiv, and that Russia be allowed to annex whatever regions of Ukraine it set its fancy on.
Would you have been in favor of such a "solution"?
No, why would you assume that? I mean diplomatically like publically saying if Russia invades then The US and UK will close and defend the airspace as their commitment to the Budapest agreement, while moving some forces around the area. Russia wouldn't have dared if the west had made moves they believed.
Because in the vast majority of cases, when someone posts some version of "The US/West could have prevented this war if they wanted to" (or "It could have ended with the March 2022 negotiations") that's exactly what they mean (territorial concessions), either tacitly or explicitly.
But of course I'll take your word that this wasn't the sense you were intending.
As to what you're now saying:
For one that doesn't like a diplomatic solution, but an overtly military one.
More importantly, the Budapest Memorandum doesn't establish that the US has any "commitments" to come to the aid of any of the 3 countries (BY, UA, KZ) should they come under attack (and Russia would never have signed it if it did). It merely asks that the signatory powers respect the newly established sovereign status of these countries; to refrain from using force or economic coercion against them; and to not nuke them, please. And that the signing powers will consult each other in situations that pertain to these commitments.
That's why the language was specifically chosen to read "Security Assurances" and not "Guarantees". The latter implies a commitment to some kind of a military response, like NATO's Article 5. But the former does not.
You can still maintain the position that the US/UK should have done something different in 2014 or 2022 -- but the simple fact is, there was no commitment expressed in the Budapest Memorandum which required them to do so. And this is probably the main reason they ultimately did not.
This, and a perfectly reasonable desire not to stumble into a direct and intrinsically risky confrontation with their main nuclear rival. Or a protracted / large-scale conflict of any kind with no clear signal of public support.
I know that the wording of the Budapest Memorandum didn't require a commitment but it could have been a basis for "you signed this and by breaking this agreement we have grounds for a defense". A defense pact could also have been made with Ukraine without them being made a NATO member.
> This, and a perfectly reasonable desire not to stumble into a direct and intrinsically risky confrontation with their main nuclear rival
But now the situation is worse, a hot proxy war. By making an agreement with Kiev before the war it would have been Russia who needed to avoid a confrontation.
> For one that doesn't like a diplomatic solution, but an overtly military one.
It might be closer to gunboat diplomacy, but rather that than the senseless loss of life we've had since then.
The thing is -- the response you're retroactively advocating here (aggressive brinkmanship) would have been by definition a major gamble. And it does seem that you're basically assuming that the "dice" would have turned up your way.
Whereas most likely the US/UK mindset was: "Yeah, it could go our way, if we went that route. Or it could trigger a nuclear escalation, either as an intentional response from their side -- or a purely accidental one. The odds for this are quite high -- at a bare minimum 10 percent, according to our analysts, though some say the risk is far higher."
The current situation has a recurring risk of escalation also, of course -- though objectively a far lower one.
I don't think they were thinking about a long-term proxy war at the time (as they generally thought Ukraine would be simply overrun if not defended). But we can be very sure they were thinking about the categorically more important issue of avoiding response that could trigger a nuclear escalation -- especially in very short term.
no - you have no idea what you're talking about
search for VVX post invasion speech on YT - it's about an hour long - in full
- the insanity is clearly on display there
I did not mean negotiation. Diplomatically can be showing force but not using it. Like publically saying if Russia invades then The US and UK will close and defend the airspace as their commitment to the Budapest agreement, while moving some forces around the area. Russia wouldn't have dared if the west had made moves they believed.
moving troops to show decision/support is already not (well - just) diplomacy, though
otherwise yes - on all your points above, but the current rasha leader counted exactly on lack of all of those steps - similarly as before/after annexation of crimea
(and even after some limited physical display of western armed forces support would have happened that wouldn't have stopped him IMHO - this is based on extremely bad intel about overall mood towards invaders/occupiers of common ukrainians and his own mad delusion)
Next, Ukraine is not waste land, but an important source of grain that is feeding large parts of the world. If those would come under control of Russia, it would lead to a lot of political influence. Russia (and China) are already getting more and more control over countries in Africa. The greatest growth of population and wealth is taking place in Africa at the moment. If those markets are lost to the East it will have a negative impact on the economy of the US.
There must also a reason why the US is dragging this war on. The US in the past year has been very slow to deliver certain weapons systems (such as the F-16) and putting restrictions on the use of certain weapons systems (such as the restriction that military targets further away than 100 km (60 miles) from the border of Ukraine may not be hit). Although the F-16 is delivered by a coalition of European countries, the US had to give an export permit, and the US also has delayed the training of Ukrainian pilots. All these delays have permitted Russia to gain win on the battle field.
There are even people who believe that the US government does not want Ukraine to win, because the war is causing so much damage to the economy of Russia.