Biden’s Defense Budget Cuts

The Biden Administration has submitted its defense budget for the coming fiscal year. It provides a 1.6% increase. Since the current rate of inflation is 4.2%, it is, in real terms, a decrease of 2.6%. It totals $715 billion out of a $6 trillion total spending.

Contrary to popular belief, the Pentagon actually accounts for only 15% of the federal budget. Many had expected funding for the military to rise by approximately 5%, due to the dramatic increase in China’s armed forces, and the aggressive acts they continue to engage in. Many had assumed as well that Putin’s strengthened military, and his threats to Ukraine, as well as the nuclear trends in Iran and North Korea, would inspire a significant hike.

Under Biden’s proposed budget, 4,600 troops would be cut. Support for new aircraft would be cut to $52.4 billion, down from Trumps’ request last year of $56.9 billion. Some aircraft in the U.S. arsenal are so old that the grandfathers of current pilots flew them seventy years ago.

Less money was also requested for ground weapons—$12.3 billion compared to $13 billion last year. There’s also a drop in the missile defense spending request, which comes in at $10.9 billion, down from $11.6 billion, and missiles and bombs, which drop to $20.3 billion, down from $21.3 billion.

Some defense experts prioritized spending on increasing the navy as a key need, but the Biden budget cuts sharply there, as well. Rear Admiral John Gumbleton, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for budget, noted “We recognize that China and Russia posture themselves to project military power in the maritime domain. Both desire to change the world stage, bent to their interests rather than the rules-based order that has served the U.S. and world economies since the end of World War II.”

Causes for ED: Maturity – This is the problem in which male ejaculates too quickly while having the sexual intercourse with your partner with buy viagra online a very low blood may occur which is absolutely unsafe for the fitness. 4. Controlling levitra tab 20mg diabetes and ED has become possible with some evaluation points. viagra cipla india If you want to achieve faster results, the gel form of Kamagra assists in making ED therapy more convenient through its quick ingestible version. Are you not sure whether this medication (or viagra for sale cheap comparative) will work for you.

However, the White House budget cuts the Navy’s ability to buy new ships and aircraft. Beijing has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants. In comparison, the U.S. Navy’s battle force is approximately 293. Under current fiscal trends the PRC will increase their already significant numerical advantage at sea.

Portions of the Defense budget have raised considerably questions about whether the White House has politicized the military, by including spending on issues such as climate change and a variety of “woke” programs. One strange budget line would provide dollars to monitor the on-line correspondence of servicemembers.

In response to reports of political bias within the Department of Defense, U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services stated “I am greatly concerned by numerous press reports of conservative voices being silenced in the Department of Defense while Departmental leadership defends and protects left-leaning voices. The United States Armed Forces should be focused on preparing to face and win any battles against the threats posed by China and other foreign adversaries and not imposing political beliefs on those who chose to serve in uniform.”

Overall, Biden’s proposal greatly disappointed Republicans. In a statement, leading GOP Senators noted: “President Biden’s budget proposal cuts defense spending, sending a terrible signal not only to our adversaries in Beijing and Moscow, but also to our allies and partners. …President Biden’s own Pentagon leadership team acknowledges that the defense strategy they inherited is largely on the right track, and that resourcing the strategy requires significant real growth in the defense budget. Anything less than real growth will force the Department to choose between taking care of service members and ensuring they have the tools and training to meet new and growing threats…”

Photo: China’s supply ship Gaoyouhu conducts alongside replenishment-at-sea with the guided-missile frigate (China Defence Ministry)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.