$175B: America's Proxy War in Ukraine

Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States has committed approximately $175 billion in total assistance — military, economic, and humanitarian. The military component alone, at $66.9 billion, exceeds a decade of US military aid to Israel. It is the most expensive foreign military assistance program since WWII Lend-Lease.

Whether this constitutes a proxy war or a defense of the rules-based international order depends entirely on who you ask — and whether you believe the United States has a rules-based international order to defend.

The Aid Breakdown

Not all of the $175 billion is weapons. The aid breaks down into three broad categories:

• Military Aid (~$66.9B): Weapons, ammunition, training, intelligence sharing, and Pentagon drawdowns from US stockpiles
• Economic Support (~$68B): Budget support to keep the Ukrainian government functioning — paying salaries, pensions, and maintaining basic services
• Humanitarian Aid (~$40.1B): Refugee assistance, food, medical supplies, and reconstruction support

But here's the accounting trick that rarely gets mentioned: much of the “military aid” doesn't actually go to Ukraine. It goes to American defense contractors to replace the weapons drawn from US stockpiles. When the Pentagon sends Ukraine Javelin missiles from existing inventory, Congress authorizes new production contracts with Lockheed Martin and Raytheon to rebuild those stockpiles — often with newer, more expensive versions. Ukraine gets the weapons. Contractors get the money. Taxpayers get the bill.

Weapons Provided — And What They Cost

Timeline of Aid Packages

The Proxy War Debate

Is the United States fighting a proxy war in Ukraine? The term “proxy war” implies that one power is using another to fight its adversary indirectly. By any reasonable definition, the answer is yes.

The United States is providing weapons, ammunition, intelligence (including real-time satellite targeting data), training, economic support, and strategic guidance to Ukraine in its war against Russia. US intelligence helped Ukraine sink the Moskva, Russia's Black Sea flagship. US-provided HIMARS systems have struck targets identified with US satellite imagery. American instructors train Ukrainian soldiers at bases in Germany and the UK.

The US government rejects the “proxy war” label, insisting it is merely supporting Ukraine's sovereign right to self-defense. But the distinction is semantic. The US is engaged in a conflict with Russia using Ukrainian soldiers as the fighting force. This is the definition of a proxy war.

“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”
— Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, April 2022

Austin's statement was remarkable for its candor — and revealing of the true strategic aim. This is not merely about defending Ukraine. It's about degrading Russia as a geopolitical rival. Ukraine is the instrument.

Who Profits

The Ukraine war has been a windfall for the defense industry. Stockpile replacements, new production orders, and European rearmament have driven record revenues:

• Lockheed Martin: Record $67.6B revenue in 2023; Javelin and HIMARS production ramped up; backlog at $160B+
• RTX (Raytheon): Stinger missile production restarted after years of dormancy; Patriot missiles in massive demand
• Northrop Grumman: 155mm ammunition production tripled; new ammo plants opening across the US
• General Dynamics: Abrams tank refurbishment; massive artillery shell contracts
• BAE Systems: M777 howitzer and Bradley IFV replacement orders

Defense industry stocks surged 25–40% in the first year of the war. The major contractors collectively spent over $100 million on lobbying in 2022–2023, ensuring continued congressional support for aid packages. The companies that profit from the war are spending millions to ensure the war continues to be funded.

Europe's Burden-Sharing Failure

European nations have provided significant aid to Ukraine — collectively matching or exceeding US contributions when measured as a percentage of GDP. But the uncomfortable truth is that European security has been subsidized by American taxpayers for 80 years. NATO's European members have a combined GDP of over $18 trillion and combined military budgets exceeding $300 billion. They are more than capable of defending their own continent.

Yet decades of underinvestment left European militaries hollowed out. Germany's Bundeswehr had fewer operational tanks than the NYPD has patrol cars. France had ammunition stocks sufficient for a few days of intense combat. The UK's Army was at its smallest since the Napoleonic era. European governments built generous welfare states and world-class infrastructure while relying on American military protection. Ukraine exposed this arrangement for what it is: a subsidy.

Escalation Risks and the Nuclear Dimension

The Ukraine conflict carries risks that dwarf any proxy war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia possesses approximately 5,580 nuclear warheads — the world's largest nuclear arsenal. Vladimir Putin has repeatedly referenced Russia's nuclear capabilities, and Russian doctrine explicitly allows nuclear use when the existence of the state is threatened.

Each escalation — HIMARS, then Patriot, then Abrams, then F-16s, then long-range ATACMS — tested a red line that Russia warned about but did not enforce. The implicit gamble: that Russia's red lines are bluffs. If they aren't, the consequences are civilizational.

There is no off-ramp being discussed publicly. No diplomatic framework. No peace proposal that both sides would accept. The war has become a frozen escalation, consuming lives and treasure at a pace sustainable for the United States but devastating for Ukraine. The longer it continues, the more Ukrainian territory is destroyed, the more Ukrainians die, and the more American money flows to defense contractors.

“European security should be Europe's responsibility. The US has spent 80 years defending a continent with a larger GDP than our own while Americans can't afford healthcare.”

Cold War Parallels

The pattern is consistent: proxy wars rarely produce clean outcomes. They tend to escalate, drag on, produce unintended consequences, and end either in stalemate or the emergence of new threats. The Soviet-Afghan proxy war of the 1980s — America's greatest proxy war “success” — gave birth to both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The weapons America sent to the mujahideen were later used against American soldiers in the same mountains.

The EU Energy Crisis: Europe Pays the Price

The economic consequences of the Ukraine war extend far beyond military spending. European energy markets — built around cheap Russian gas — were upended overnight:

• Natural gas prices in Europe spiked 10× in 2022, from ~€25/MWh to over €300/MWh
• Germany — Europe's largest economy — entered recession as its industrial model (built on cheap Russian energy) collapsed. German industrial production fell 7% in 2023.
• European households faced energy bills 2-3× higher than pre-war levels. The EU spent an estimated €800 billion ($870 billion) on energy crisis mitigation in 2022-2023.
• Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged in September 2022 — the largest infrastructure attack in European history. Investigations by Seymour Hersh alleged US involvement; the German investigation remains inconclusive. Regardless of who did it, the destruction of Nord Stream eliminated the possibility of returning to pre-war energy relations.
• European deindustrialization has accelerated as energy-intensive manufacturers (chemicals, steel, glass) relocate to the US or Asia where energy is cheaper

The irony: European citizens are bearing enormous economic costs for a war that the US helped provoke through NATO expansion, while American energy companies — now Europe's primary LNG suppliers — have reaped record profits. US LNG exports to Europe tripled in 2022. ExxonMobil reported $56 billion in profit. Chevron: $36 billion. The war has been a massive transfer of wealth from European consumers to American energy corporations.

The Human Cost: Ukraine's Demographic Catastrophe

Lost in the geopolitical debate are the actual human costs borne by Ukrainians:

• Military casualties: Estimated 70,000-200,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed or seriously wounded (exact figures are classified by Ukraine). Some estimates run higher.
• Civilian deaths: At least 11,000 confirmed, likely much higher in occupied areas
• Refugees: Over 6.3 million Ukrainians fled the country — the largest refugee crisis in Europe since WWII
• Internal displacement: An additional 5+ million displaced within Ukraine
• Infrastructure destruction: Over $150 billion in damage to housing, schools, hospitals, energy infrastructure, and civilian buildings
• Demographic collapse: Ukraine's population has fallen from 44 million (pre-war) to an estimated 29-35 million. Birth rates have plummeted. The median age of soldiers is climbing as younger men flee or are killed. Ukraine faces a generational demographic crisis regardless of the war's outcome.

The longer the war continues, the worse the demographic catastrophe becomes. Every month of fighting kills more Ukrainians, drives more refugees abroad, and destroys more infrastructure. American military aid sustains the war effort — but at what cost to the Ukrainian people it claims to help?

What Happens When Aid Stops

The six-month congressional delay in 2024 — when House Republicans held up the supplemental — offered a preview. Ukraine's ammunition ran critically low. Russian forces advanced on multiple axes. Morale faltered. The message was clear: without American support, Ukraine cannot sustain its defense indefinitely against a larger adversary.

This raises uncomfortable questions about long-term strategy. Is the United States committed to funding Ukraine's defense for 5 years? 10? 20? What is the endgame? Is there one? And if the aid stops — due to political change, fiscal pressure, or public fatigue — what was it all for?

“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”
— Thomas Jefferson

NATO Expansion: The Root Cause Nobody Discusses

In 1990, as Germany reunified, Secretary of State James Baker told Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward.” Whether this was a binding commitment or a verbal assurance is debated — but the Soviets clearly understood it as a promise.

What followed was the most dramatic expansion of a military alliance in modern history:

• 1999: Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary join NATO
• 2004: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia join — NATO is now on Russia's border
• 2009: Albania, Croatia join
• 2017: Montenegro joins
• 2020: North Macedonia joins
• 2023: Finland joins (after Russian invasion of Ukraine)
• 2024: Sweden joins
• 2008 Bucharest Summit: NATO declared Ukraine and Georgia “will become members” — the single most provocative statement in post-Cold War diplomacy

George Kennan — the architect of Cold War containment — called NATO expansion “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” He predicted in 1998 that it would inflame Russian nationalism and lead to a new Cold War. He was exactly right.

William Burns — now CIA Director — wrote in a 2008 cable (leaked by WikiLeaks): “Nyet means nyet: Russia's NATO enlargement redlines... Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).”

None of this excuses Russia's invasion — which was illegal, brutal, and unjustifiable. But understanding the causes of war is essential to preventing the next one. The NATO expansion question is not “was Russia justified?” — it's “was this predictable, and was it avoidable?” The answer to both is yes.

The Minsk Agreements: Diplomacy Sabotaged

The Minsk agreements (Minsk I in 2014, Minsk II in 2015) were the only diplomatic framework for resolving the Donbas conflict. They called for a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and constitutional reforms granting autonomy to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions while keeping them within Ukraine.

In February 2022 — the same month as the Russian invasion — former German Chancellor Angela Merkel gave an interview to Die Zeit in which she stated that Minsk II was used to “buy time” for Ukraine to build up its military. Former French President François Hollande confirmed this in a subsequent interview with Kyiv Independent.

These admissions were explosive. They confirmed what Russia had long alleged: that the Western-brokered agreements were never intended to be implemented — they were a strategic deception to prepare Ukraine for military confrontation with Russia. Whatever one thinks of the invasion, the destruction of diplomatic good faith has consequences. If your adversary believes you negotiate in bad faith, they stop negotiating.

Weapons Accountability: Where Did It All Go?

The US and allies have sent tens of billions of dollars in advanced weapons to Ukraine. Tracking where those weapons end up has been a persistent challenge:

• A 2022 CBS News investigation found that only about 30% of weapons were reaching the front lines — the rest were being diverted, stockpiled, or lost in transit
• The Pentagon Inspector General has issued multiple reports flagging inadequate end-use monitoring — the US cannot verify where many weapons end up
• Europol warned in 2022 that weapons from Ukraine were already appearing on the European black market, including in criminal networks
• Javelins and NLAWs — portable anti-tank weapons designed to be carried by one or two people — are especially difficult to track and easy to divert
• The DOD Inspector General found that over $1 billion in military equipment lacked proper tracking documentation in a 2023 audit

The lessons of previous proxy wars — where US-supplied weapons ended up being used against American forces (Afghanistan's Stingers, Libya's weapons cache flooding the Sahel) — appear to have been forgotten or ignored.

The Libertarian Case: Not Our War, Not Our Problem

The libertarian position on Ukraine is straightforward: Russia's invasion is wrong, and Ukraine has every right to defend itself. But it is not America's responsibility to fund that defense — especially at $175 billion and counting, without a defined objective, exit strategy, or endgame.

The libertarian critique encompasses several dimensions:

• Constitutional: Congress has not declared war on Russia. The aid packages are funded through supplemental appropriations that bypass normal budget scrutiny. The president is conducting a proxy war through executive action.
• Fiscal: $175 billion represents more than twice the annual budget of the Department of Education. It exceeds the GDP of 100+ countries. It adds directly to the $38 trillion national debt. American taxpayers are funding a war that provides no direct benefit to them.
• Strategic: European nations with a combined GDP of $18 trillion are more than capable of defending their own continent. American subsidies for European security have created dependency and disincentivized European military investment for 80 years.
• Risk: The conflict carries escalation risks up to and including nuclear war. No American interest — however defined — justifies risking nuclear exchange.
• Historical: Every proxy war in American history has produced unintended consequences. The mujahideen became al-Qaeda. Libyan weapons flooded the Sahel. The cycle of blowback is well-documented and inevitable.

The libertarian position is not “pro-Russia” — it's pro-American. American taxpayers should not fund other countries' wars. American troops should not be put at risk for other countries' security. American foreign policy should serve American citizens — not defense contractors, not NATO bureaucrats, and not the bipartisan foreign policy establishment that has produced 25 years of catastrophic interventions.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
— George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796