Billions for Ukraine
After a long and seemingly unnecessary delay, the House of Representatives (the Lower House) of the U.S. Congress approved the Military Aid Bill. The bill is valued at $95 billion. The package includes Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific region, which also covers Taiwan. Additionally, one of the immediate goals is to force the Chinese company ByteDance to sell its American assets related to the TikTok platform or face a ban in the U.S.
Out of the total amount allocated in the bill ($95 billion), $60.84 billion is designated for Ukraine.
That concludes the widely known and dry information. What is interesting is not the allocation of these $60.84 billion across different sectors, but how the financial flow is structured.
The first tranche of $23.2 billion will be used to purchase defense equipment for the American army to replace those transferred to Ukraine, as well as to pay for defense services provided to Ukraine. This means that nearly one-third of the so-called aid does not go to Ukraine but remains in the U.S. These funds, in addition to the existing debts accumulated by Ukrainians, will be used to rearm the American army with modern weaponry. Plain and simple: there’s no one to complain to.
The funds from the second tranche, which is a bit more than another one-third of the total, also do not go directly to Ukraine. These funds, clearly designated for the purchase of weapons, will again stay in the U.S., as most of them will flow into the coffers of the American military-industrial complex.
In the last sector, the money is distributed as follows:
- $11.3 billion is allocated for ongoing American operations in the region.
- $13.8 billion is allocated for the purchase of weapons systems, defense products, and defense services.
Despite the fact that the overall sum significantly exceeds the framework outlined in the bill by as much as $10.66 billion, which is very strange, let’s delve into the details of the plan.
Given that the second tranche of $23.2 billion explicitly designates Ukraine as the recipient of the weapons, these $13.8 billion from the third tranche will clearly be added as an additional item to the American defense budget. This, in itself, is an indication of the expansion of American militaristic programs at Ukraine’s expense.
The direct effect of the military aid program in Ukraine is an overall acceleration and boost to the American economy.
In the third sector, among other things, there is a “modest” $26 million tranche allocated for financing a system to monitor and control the aid and equipment provided to Ukraine. As they say: credit to all, trust to none. In other words, the Americans will cover their expenses for collecting various types of information – military, economic, financial, and political – which will allow them to control the processes but again at the expense of the Ukrainians.
This is a typical American approach, which also applies to the EU, which through NATO has gotten involved in the conflict and is also subject to control.
The $26 million tranche is also indicative in another respect – the Americans clearly have no trust in their “loyal” Ukrainian allies. The corruption in Ukraine, which is one of the highest globally, is well known. But the more important aspect is that these $26 million legitimize close and unconditional monitoring and guiding of not just military but also political processes developing in Ukraine. In other words, the protection of Ukraine’s territorial integrity becomes a convenient form for establishing unconditional American influence in the region, right under Russia’s nose. Under such circumstances, it doesn’t matter whether Ukraine will be accepted into NATO and the EU, because it effectively loses its sovereignty – not only in financial and economic terms due to the enormous debts accumulated during its impressive resistance against Russia, but also politically.
This is an established model that the Americans have consistently followed throughout the 20th century – they flood warring countries with huge loans, resulting in severe indebtedness. This is followed by the implementation of compensatory recovery policies, such as the “Dawes” and “Young” plans after World War I, and the “Marshall Plan” after World War II. On this basis, they achieve not only financial-economic but also heavy political dependence, from which there is no escape. Particularly after World War II, when significant parts of the world, including Europe, were entirely dominated by the U.S.
It’s not clear when and how the war in Ukraine will end. But the Ukrainians are on the verge of finding themselves in a situation similar to King Pyrrhus of Epirus, who, after a battle with the Romans at Asculum in 279 BC, exclaimed: “One more such victory and we are finished!”
Of interest are the 7.85 billion USD in direct financial aid for Ukraine’s budget. What’s interesting here is not so much the fact that the President of the United States will have the right to write off half of this debt at his discretion (i.e., if there isn’t the necessary compliance) – after all, we’re talking about debt and not a grant – but rather that this is the only money Ukrainian oligarchs will receive in cash. However, they will be forced to spend it under the watchful eye of American ‘advisors.’ The condition is that it should not be used in the administrative sector or for pensions.
The result of the widely publicized legislative initiative, intended to support Ukrainian resistance, is that everything listed in the three sectors, except for the 7.85 billion USD in direct financial aid, will be collected by the Americans themselves. Even the 23.2 billion USD from the second sector, allocated for direct arms purchases for Ukraine, will essentially go to buying mainly American weapons and military services – whatever that may mean. Of course, a small portion will be sprinkled to so-called European and other allies – crumbs meant to appease Europe, which is facing hardship precisely because of the war in Ukraine.
The loud militant efforts of the French (Emmanuel Macron), declaring they could send military forces to Ukraine, are nothing but a desperate attempt to obtain a larger share of these crumbs. Similar actions are being taken by other NATO member states, who promise to give the Ukrainians whatever they can, even their morally outdated F-16s and Leopard tanks. They hope to renew their aging aviation and armored potential with the blood money they earn.
When examining the U.S. bill on military aid, two important points emerge. First, what does ‘aid’ mean? Is it repayable or non-repayable? Given the phrasing related to the 7.85 billion dollars, where the president has the right to reduce this aid – which is unequivocally described as ‘debt’ – the answer to this question is clear. And this doesn’t apply only to the mentioned sum of 7.85 billion. Evidently, the aid will be repayable for the entire package, which aligns perfectly with the overall philosophy Americans adhere to regarding the movement of money, both in general and specifically concerning the war in Ukraine, i.e., entirely in their interest.
Unlike the bill on military aid, which American parliamentarians delayed for a long time, while Ukraine was literally struggling for life in the fall and winter of 2023/24, the U.S. Congress, without unnecessary delay and with broad agreement (417 in favor and 10 against), restored on May 3, 2022, the law from World War II – Lend-Lease (loan-lease). For reasons unknown, this law caused wild enthusiasm among the liberal-democratic community in Europe. Despite the fact that, under this law, the provision of defense means is intended as a loan or lease. Full stop!
And even though the U.S. isn’t sending weapons to Ukraine under this program, the key point of the lend-lease is its formula – loan-lease, which unequivocally excludes any form of non-repayment. This should be emphasized.
As to why the lend-lease program isn’t in use, given that Ukraine is receiving American weapons on a broad basis, is another question. In the formulation of the lend-lease law, there is a significant clause: the U.S. supplies warring nations with weapons without upfront payment and with long-term deferred payments at the president’s discretion, without the application of stipulated democratic procedures.
The difference lies in that, while during World War II, American legislators trusted President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and granted him expanded powers, in today’s circumstances, President Joe Biden evidently does not enjoy the corresponding trust of American legislators. Hence, he doesn’t receive the necessary trust to apply the means and mechanisms of the lend-lease law concerning Ukraine without direct parliamentary oversight.
The second, more significant question is: why was the bill for military aid delayed for so long without any obvious reason? The answer must be sought in ‘its majesty,’ interest. It’s clear that behind this bill are major financial and military-economic appetites. As shown earlier, the vast majority of this so-called ‘aid’ remains in the U.S., which by no means exempts Ukraine from the obligation to pay for everything, with interest. The issue is that the financial-economic interest itself is not monolithic. It is not a unified whole, which turns the bill into an arena of unprecedented lobbying clashes, not only between Republicans and Democrats but also within intra-party circles.
The ultimate approval of the bill (on April 19, 2024) by the Lower House of Congress with a vote of 309-110 (mostly Republicans against) shows that in the end, the “assembly” between the main lobbyist currents was reached. Indicatively, a few days later, on April 23, the U.S. Senate quickly approved it, and the funds began flowing toward respective financial-economic players and their lobbies.
And peace? ‘Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.’ /Dante Alighieri, Inferno – Canto III/.
Under the prevailing pragmatic approach of the Americans, peace as a concept remains merely for populist use. A mere illusion for the naive. This is the true nature of capital – insatiable!
Awareness comes sooner or later. Shattered by the details of the financial flows outlined in the military aid law, leading Ukrainian politicians have started talking about territorial concessions to Moscow. Recently, in an interview with the Italian newspaper ‘Corriere della Sera,’ Kyiv’s mayor, Vitaliy Klitschko, unequivocally stated: ‘… it is necessary to give up parts of our territory…’ He suggested that President Volodymyr Zelensky ‘might have to hold a referendum’ on potential territorial concessions to Russia.
This is not an isolated statement detached from reality, linked to political ambitions and appetites, as analysts close to the ruling circles in Kyiv would like to portray it. It resonates with the dire situation in Ukraine and directly correlates with the results of sociological surveys of public opinion, according to which ‘since the spring of 2023, the country has seen a gradual increase in the number of people willing to make territorial concessions in the name of achieving a swift peace’ /Vesti.bg/.
Comments
No comment yet.