Reality and Defense Spending

There is an air of unreality surrounding Progressives’ objections to providing adequate funding for America’s defense. The Pentagon budget accounts for about 13% of federal spending, but in a press release, the Progressive Caucus criticized the amount of the appropriation, and called for increased dollars for domestic programs. Sen. Bernie Sander argues that “we do not need a massive increase in the defense budget.”

On the other hand, supporters of adequate military preparations point to the fact that the dramatic inflation rate hampers the ability of the Pentagon to gain the resources necessary to carry out its mission.

The Washington Post notes that the most recent Biden budget “doesn’t even match our 7.9 percent inflation much less our urgent needs. At the very least, Congress should double that hike. Ideally, it would do much more.”

The warnings come also from Defense News “America’s military leaders state time and again that China’s forcible assault on Taiwan, and therefore our response to it, is a near-term challenge. Given the lengthy time to plan, program, build and field credible combat power, a 2027 problem is really one of today. Alarm bells should be ringing in Congress as the president’s latest defense budget cuts readiness. Given that ongoing support for Ukraine is straining some key U.S. military supplies and munitions, everyone should be concerned the China fight would demand even more and faster.”

Opponents to an adequate defense budget treat military spending as just another government program that Washington can deal with on its own time table.

Inflation is a key challenge, but the greatest problem confronting the Defense Department is far more serious, and certainly not something under U.S. politician’s control. The growing Russian-Chinese alliance, and the blatant belligerence on the part of both Moscow and Beijing, places America in unprecedented jeopardy. Never before has Washington faced an adversary that has greater industrial might, a larger nuclear force, and the planet’s largest navy. In addition, the population and geography of the two nation dwarfs that of the U.S.

A Russian news article describes the latest development in the Chinese-Russian Axis:

“China is willing to continue to offer mutual support to Russia on issues concerning our core interests such as sovereignty and security, intensify strategic coordination between the two countries, and strengthen communication and coordination in major international and regional organizations such as the United Nations, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,” Xi was quoted as saying by China’s state media outlet CCTV. In the phone call, which fell on Xi’s 69th birthday, the two leaders noted that relations between Russia and China “have reached an unprecedentedly high level and are constantly improving,”

Neither the Kremlin nor the ruling Chinese Communist Party has been shy about their aggressive intentions. Russia’s war on Ukraine and China’s dramatic armed expansion throughout the Indo-Pacific region are clear examples.

Officials in both nations have made clear their threats. Two top Chinese colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, in a book entitled Unrestricted Warfare, made the case for assaulting America, while voicing contempt for U.S. military competence, contemptuously noting that the America has been unable to actually succeed in combat since the Second Gulf War.

And from Moscow, officials have unabashedly threatened the U.S. with advanced nuclear missiles. The most recent example: The head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin has threatened the use of Moscow’s Satan-2 intercontinental ballistic missile, a repeated theme of Vladimir Putin

The size and scope of the threats, combined with the inadequate funding of the Pentagon, has led some to sound alarm bells. The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that American national security is “staring into an abyss” unless the trend of not keeping spending levels up with inflation is halted.

The calendar may read 2022, but in historical terms, today is December 6, 1941, the day before the Pearl Harbor attack.

Photo: “Pearl Harbor” U.S. National Archives

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.