President Biden on Thursday asked Congress to approve $20.6 billion in additional funding for Ukraine, as that country’s military struggles to achieve a decisive victory in its counteroffensive against Russia.

In a letter to lawmakers, the White House Office of Management and Budget asked for $13 billion in new military aid and $8.5 billion in additional economic, humanitarian and security assistance for Ukraine and other countries affected by the war. The White House also is seeking more than $12 billion for disaster relief and other emergency domestic funds, including hurricanes, as well as tens of millions of dollars to boost pay for firefighters on the front lines of the wildfires that have hit many parts of the country. In total, Biden is asking Congress for about $40 billion in new spending.

The funding tied to the war in Ukraine — now nearing its 18th month — is likely to prove the most controversial item. The United States has already directed more than $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, including more than $40 billion in direct military assistance. That is more than any other country. Biden has vowed that the U.S. government will support Ukraine “as long as it takes,” but Western allies face difficult questions about the state of the war effort, with Ukrainian forces bogged down the east despite new Western weapons and training. “The administration is requesting supplemental security, economic, and humanitarian assistance funding that would support Ukraine, as well as countries and vulnerable properties worldwide impacted by Russia’s unprovoked and brutal invasion of Ukraine,” Shalanda D. Young, the White House budget director, said in the request. Senate leaders of both parties are expected to support the president’s request. Scores of far-right members in the House of Representatives have made clear that they would oppose any new funding to Ukraine, but a large majority of Republicans still want to ensure that some money is sent to aid Ukraine and NATO allies, particularly ahead of a blistering winter that could slow the counteroffensive even more. “What you hear from lawmakers is: Yeah, we should support this. But there are some already saying ‘no,’ and some saying, ‘This can’t go on forever,’ which is a reflection of the American public,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank.

Ukraine’s government faces a budget deficit of about $40 billion for this year, but that is likely to be mostly covered by aid from Europe, the United States and other organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, according to Oleg Ustenko, an economic adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But that does not resolve what the Ukrainians will do to make up the deficit next year, should the war continue. And tens of billions of dollars in damages to critical infrastructure has gone unrepaired, including for Ukraine’s electrical grid and hospitals. The World Bank has estimated rebuilding Ukraine after the war could cost as much as $350 billion. “There’s still a question mark of what the state of our economy will be next year. If the situation is more or less on the same level as now, we could be required again to need the same budgetary and financial support,” Ustenko said.

Beyond the immediate deficit, Ukraine’s government has an estimated $750 billion in direct economic costs from the war, which could be as high as $1 trillion if indirect costs are added. Ustenko added that Western allies should start transferring billions in frozen assets from Russia’s central bank to Ukraine. Some experts have raised questions about the legality of such a maneuver. “This money should not just be coming from our allies,” Ustenko said. “This money should be coming from the frozen assets of Russia. They have to compensate us. Kremlin is fully responsible for all damage. Therefore even from the point of view of justice, that is very important.” New Russian attacks on Ukraine’s grain exports are compounding the economic challenges. Moscow’s forces have attacked grain storage facilities in July and August, following Russia’s decision to terminate a deal that allowed Ukraine to export grain by sea during wartime. Grain is one of the major Ukrainian exports and a key source of revenue for its government, said Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT who has studied the economic impact of the country’s grain industry. “Putin is playing at the levels of billions of dollars, all trying to convince the West it’s not worth their while to stay with the Ukrainians long enough to evict the Russians from Ukraine,” Johnson said.

It is unclear how the House will handle the Ukraine funding request. The GOP-controlled chamber is already bracing for a major fight over government spending when Congress returns in September, as far-right members continue to push for significant budget cuts. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) vowed in June that he would not support any supplemental funding, saying aid for Ukraine should go through the regular appropriations process. Asking to tack on Ukraine funding to a must-pass funding bill would likely only inflame the House Freedom Caucus and its allies further — and they’ve already expressed willingness to shut down the government in pursuit of spending cuts. Republicans can only lose four lawmakers within their ranks to pass legislation through their slim majority without Democrats’ help. Two people familiar with the current thinking among Republican members of the Appropriations Committee, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss legislative strategy, believe the supplemental request would best be tacked onto another must-pass item: the yearly flood insurance reauthorization program, which could put pressure on Republicans to go along with it rather than deny aid to states affected by disasters this summer.

  • star_wraith [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are about 80 million unexploded bombs in Laos that were dropped there illegally (and immorally, ofc) by the United States during their war of imperial aggression. Those bombs have killed about 20,000 people since the end of the war and continue to kill about 50 Laotians each year, and ~40% of those are children.

    Obama committed a whopping $90 million to help clean up those bombs; but IIRC the Trump admin cancelled even that frankly pathetic effort. The bombing of Laos was a horrifically evil act that no one of good conscience can say anything other than it’s the US’ fault and the US’ responsibility to clean up. We can’t even muster the pocket change to prevent the social murder of Laotians but we can fund orders of magnitude more to give Nazis money to fight a losing cause.

  • mufasio@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are just going to keep throwing billions at Ukraine while Americans starve on the street. What a depraved country. Despicable.

    • ihaveibs@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They aren’t throwing billions at Ukraine, they are throwing billions in public funds straight into the hands of the bourgeoisie who are the true intended recipients

        • monobot@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because most of “aid” is not aid as in ‘gift’, but audcas in ‘loan’.

          Ukraine is in huge debt right now and is getting worse. War, many dead, destruction and huge debt as cherry on the top. This vking into EU and nato bussines is too costly.

        • mufasio@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I feel like I’m going crazy as an elder millennial because this stuff used to at least be hidden behind some wall of “plausible deniability” and now it’s just out in the open, and STILL libs are just blindly following along like this is the best possible outcome. Libs piss me off so much because they pretend like they care and virtue signal anti-war stances but ultimately throw up their hands and say what can we do other than bomb those “orcs” and punish the people living under a brutal dictatorship, but also they 100% support the war so it’s ok if we laugh at teenagers dying.

            • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The term has been so whitewashed that regular people think it’s a good thing nowadays. I would bet 9/10 people dont even know the term was coined in Nazi germany.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Remember they see privatisation, even the outright robber privatisation, as an unconditionally good thing - in the liberal dogma private will be always better than public. They don’t have to hide anything here.

              • mufasio@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I agree, but I think what has changed is that they at least spun it as “investments” or “innovation” or some other bullshit in the past. Now it’s just, here’s a war torn country selling off its public assets to fuel a never ending meat grinder. Even YOU can get in on this great investment opportunity. Have you ever wanted to own one of the largest titanium mining companies in the world? What about a factory conveniently located on the Black Sea? They used to be state owned and the profits benefited the people, but in this once in a lifetime opportunity you can have them for pennies on the dollar because their government owes billions of dollars in foreign debt.

                Have some self respect and at least lie to the peasants like you used to.

                I remember when Obama promised to pull out of Iraq and shutdown Guantanamo because that’s what the base wanted. Then everyone made excuses and forgot about it and it was never mentioned again. Now those same people are all “we must destroy every last one of those orcs and their families”. There has been a noticeable Overton window shift in the prevailing anti-war/pro-war opinion in the West over the past 10 years, even above and beyond the ridiculous levels it was at then.

                And when it comes to privatization, it’s not so much that it’s a good thing even, they’ve dropped that charade, it’s that it’s the only thing that we can even conceive of or consider anymore. Why would we want the government running things? We all know government isn’t capable of doing anything. Ours sure isn’t, we made sure of it.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I might push back on that a little bit. While the US is depraved and has its priorities upside down, US public might not be paying for/much towards the resources sent to Ukraine. I’m thinking of Michael Hudson’s interview:

      Military spending may account for 12% of the year’s budget, but 100% of America’s foreign debt is attributable to increased military spending.

      The question that I don’t have an answer to is whether the Ukraine money counts as military spending.

      If not, I would imagine, still, that it’s part of a process whereby the US public will become wealthier for sending the money to Ukraine; foreign aid like this is one of the tools for unequal value transfer. The US ‘investors’ will get their money back and more (eventually) and they’ll use this to pay off enough of a portion of the US public to keep them quiet and on board.

      • Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Shit like this is what puts me in an accelerationist mood sometimes. This charade can’t go on much longer, for the sake of the planet. No more bribes. Let’s hope the Global South can continue to strengthen the pace of breaking their chains. Let the world sanction the US and it’s vassals. It’ll be ugly for us. Our imperialism will turn inward even moreso, but the mask of decorum will be completely stripped off.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Given how much we let billionaires steal through not paying their fair share… we could make adjustments and take care of both plus more.

  • Mzuark@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This makes me fucking sick. Hawaii gets a couple million in disaster relief while Ukraine gets anywhere from 20-100 billion a pop.

  • Dinodicchellathicc@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unpopular opinion here but i feel like we need to either completely back out of this new cold war or go full world police and kick Russias ass.

  • Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Imagine being a country with so much money then when the old enemy invades a future allied country and starts killing civilians you don’t want to give aid to help innocents.

    It’s not like America couldn’t pay for something like free healthcare and send vital aid to a country in need. They easily could, it’s not one or the other. It’s not like there was healthcare before the war.

    • NoGodsNoMasters [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The question to ask yourself is if this is really helping innocents. Is it really helping innocents to sent the weapons that will be used to kill more civilians, that will prolong the war and multiply its damages, that will subject tens, even hundreds of thousands more conscripts to the horrors of trench warfare?

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s up the the Ukrainian people.

        When an aggressor comes to them starts capturing their land, property, destroying their families and committing genocide. Should we send them support to defend themselves. Absolutely for the good of humanity. People will die yes, the Ukrainians understand that I they have clearly chosen that they would rather deaths than be subjected by the russian again.

        Otherwise what’s to stop countries commuting horrific crimes unopposed?

          • Wanderer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Absolute lol. The president’s first language is Russian.

            But making a country speak it’s own language in schools instead of an occupiers language is absolute no reason for war and genocide.

            • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nobody was occupying anything when the fascists couped the Ukrainian government and started discriminating against Russian-speakers.

            • notceps [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              ‘Occupiers’ language, lol

              I’m swiss, around 30% of the swiss population speaks french mostly, if the german speaking part of switzerland voted to ban italian or french or rumansh from being spoken and discriminated against them would they fight back against italian occupiers in ticino? How about those dastardly roman occupiers in Grisons, or the french occupiers in the romandie would switzerland be justified in killing off 35% of its population to ‘decolonize’?

              The Ukranian government decided that 30% of their own population was foreign and would no long have any rights, they aren’t settlers they aren’t occupiers because a ton of them have been there for generations because nations and nationalism is an incredibly new concept and as a result a ton of nations that aren’t psychotic have all kinds of ethnicities in them. Your thinking literally leads to the kind of shit that went down in Yugoslavia log off.

              • also it absolutly devalues actuall genocide , it is such a primitiv act in has to be pointed out , what a moronic and selfdefeating claim…

                its just tells everybody about you , how you willfully hystericlly and mad you run with the Mob … it marks you as a deeply unserious person. But its functionally understanable , if you grow up beeing bathed 24/7 in this cartoonworld , yo know , where all your "You have shittalk license go wild " Offical Enemy (China , Iran , Rusia , Muslims ) "longs for the System that imprisions the most , kills the most , invades the most and Preaches the Most about the proper way to live while keeping its citizens less valued then Medicine and dying on the streets… if you have a Audience like that , WAR just dont cut it no more it must be GENOCIDE ! , Soon Genocide 3000 ! while 2022 - Today is most “Certainly” a Genocide , i presume this here is not “Genocide”. what says the Hysteria Algortim of yours ?

  • mlfh@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Out of curiosity, why is this self-proclaimed leftist community so pro-Putin, when Putin is a crony-capitalist, imperialist, right-wing autocrat? Just because he’s anti-western?

    • OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not pro-Putin and I don’t think most others here are either. At best you could say we critically support what Russia is doing. The keyword here is critical, meaning we recognize the same attributes you are giving to Putin and Russia and we don’t support those. But we do support his current actions vis a vis NATO.

      We are communists and we support communist revolutions and communist states.

      However, historically, any communist/socialist revolution is quickly besieged and attempted to be destroyed by the Western powers, currently being led by the USA. The US has achieved global hegemony through economic, intelligence and military power projection. So yes, weakening NATO and the US mechanisms of global hegemony do align with our own goals. I guess you could call this “anti-western”, but it’s a vague definition that leaves out a lot of context.

      Furthermore, we recognize that Russia is not the cause of this war. The US organized a coup in Ukraine and installed fascists in government with the express intent of provoking Russia into a proxy war as a means of weakening it (famously Adam Shift said in Congress before all this got started, during Trump’s first impeachment over denying arms shipments to Ukraine: “we fight Russia over there so we won’t have to fight it over here”).

      When the coup was not enough to provoke Russia, the Ukrainians started bombing East Ukraine and caused Russia to annex Crimea in 2014. A peace accord was signed then which stopped further war (the Minsk Accords) and guaranteed the rights of Russian speakers in East Ukraine. Then Ukraine disregarded this agreement and resumed the bombings in 2016. Before this, Lindsay Graham travelled to Ukraine and met with Azov Battalion leaders, and anticipating a Hillary Clinton victory in US elections told them (on video) “this is the year of offense”.

      Finally, when that also was not enough to provoke Russia. NATO tried to induct Ukraine. The Russian response to this (military intervention) is understandable, since that would mean complete encirclement by a specifically anti-Russian alliance.

      And lastly, Ukraine is run by Nazis and we won’t support that.

      Sorry for the long response, but I hope it answers your question.

      • mlfh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a fair question. It just seems to me like there are 2 ways for the war to end (Putin stops invading, or Putin achieves his war goals, crushes all opposition, fully occupies Ukraine, and destroys it as an independent state), and everyone here seems to only be anti-war insofar as rooting for the latter.