By Arming Ukraine We Arm Ourselves

Remembering the lessons of World War II.

By
51
Cases of TNT and gunpowder shipped from the United States under Lend-Lease are stacked in a tunnel in western England. (Photo by: HUM Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Images.)

On Wednesday Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made an impassioned plea to Congress and America to continue providing support in general—and military aid in particular—for his country’s defense against Russia’s invasion. Congress and the administration look ready to answer that plea to the tune of $45 billion in the latest omnibus bill.

Skeptics are quick to say that’s money America’s heavily indebted federal government can’t afford to spend. In fact, it’s money the U.S. can’t afford not to spend. America has a clear national interest in preventing a Russian victory in Ukraine, but keeping the young democracy armed also ensures that the American defense industrial base keeps our own military armed and ready.

The war in Ukraine has been a crucial stress test for our defense industrial base, which has been in the doldrums since the end of the Cold War. The war on terror made few demands on that base’s ability to manufacture conventional arms like tanks, artillery, and missiles. Enthusiasts (including myself) stressed the importance of investing in next-generation systems as the key to victory in future wars. That meant billions for new technologies like autonomous systems or drones, directed-energy weapons, hypersonics, and artificial intelligence.

Now the threat of a major conventional conflict with China over Taiwan—or a wider war between Russia and NATO—looms large. A revived defense manufacturing base supporting Ukraine will be critical for our own ability to defer antagonists and protect our interests elsewhere.

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
51
By
Comments (51)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Good article.

    Collapse
  2. Borkus Flimflam

    When I see Republicans holding forth, I feel the need to projectile vomit in their faces. The Holy Spirit moves whence it will.

    Collapse
  3. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  4. Jfan

    I am still astounded that we shut down the F-22 production line.

    Collapse
    1. Edward Moffett

      The F-22 is nearing obsolescence. The Air Force has already disclosed a prototype 6th Generation Fighter. The Russians learned how to track stealth fighters in the Bosnian proxy war, and managed to shoot down a F-117 Nighthawk.

      Collapse
      1. Jfan

        If that is true, add it to the list of important news which has been underplayed. I do wonder, given how long it takes the government to produce new fighters, how long it will take to get the new aircraft.

        Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    When you're running a production line, you really want to get it sized for a steady rate of output. You get the process running, build experience to make it as efficient as possible, and keep it running with continuous improvement. A production line with excess capacity tends to run inefficiently - you're either in a start and stop mode, or operating at a fraction of total capacity. Either way, there's a learning curve involved in actually cranking it up to full capacity steady output. That's the problem with defense production: ideally, you're not needing to use your weapons and munitions, and at most you need to build replacements for expiring stock.
    Probably the best way to approach this problem is to design production lines so they can be easily cloned if production needs to ramp up. Having the ability to do that requires using as much dual-use hardware and production approaches as possible, so that you can make use of higher-volume civilian supply chains.
    One other area where a Cold War approach is needed is doing what it takes to eliminate single choke points in supply chains. In the Cold War, the idea was to build redundancy in case of nuclear attack. Today, we should be more mindful of natural disaster. A hurricane, earthquake, or wildfire in the wrong area could take out a key production resource and bring an entire system grinding to a halt. For example, there's still just one forge in the US capable of producing large titanium structural components used in military aircraft. Lose that, and it'd take years to replace and/or require massive redesign of aircraft to use alternative materials.

    Collapse
    1. Chek6Man

      Natural disasters are the least of our worries. There is only one production line for most of these systems, and the ability for sabotage by enemy agents or even direct attacks at these locations could shut down production for months. The Pentagon must seriously look at increasing security against physical attacks at these plants. It is just not damaging facilities and equipment. It could be the deaths of workers who cannot be easily replaced.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    JimK

    This is simply continuing to employ the strategies we have used since the emergence of the Soviet Union at the end of WWII - deterrence through the empowerment of allies and friendly nations, and keeping the "enemy" as far from the US as possible. Failure to empower Ukraine to continue the fight against Putin is absolutely the most cost-effective investment we can make in stopping his aggression. It would be foolish - or worse - for anyone to assume that Putin will voluntarily stop his efforts to expand Russia's holding. Either he will be stopped by an external force or he will continue his land grabs. Making the investment is the best thing we can do for the future of the entire free world.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Mattjabour

    The war in Ukraine allows us to:

    - Disarm the country that's been our sworn enemy for almost a century
    - Strengthen NATO
    - Test out how our weapon systems work in modern warfare
    - Improve our overseas image, both in terms of strength and justice
    - Give China second thoughts before trying to swallow up Taiwan
    - Nurture a budding democracy in a country that had been at risk of rule by oligarchs
    - Humiliate one of a handful of 'strong'men still clinging to power
    - Stimulate our economy with new defense contracts

    All without a single drop of American blood being spilled. We'd be fools not to invest in that.

    Collapse
    1. Borkus Flimflam

      I suspect most Republicans would rather mutually masturbate with Putin.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Carl Sidor

        It is difficult to be both disgusting and highly prejudiced at once, but you manage to pull it off. Congratulations! I think….

        Collapse
        1. Borkus Flimflam

          Go sit on the various Republican message boards like Fox News. You will see a mix of support for this mass murderer. You might not want to go there. Any sense that Republicans have a Christian witness shy of apostasy will leave you in the first five minutes.

          The reality of Republicans in bed with this criminal, placed there by fawning over dreams of winning a culture war by authoritarianism, makes my gross little example quite clean by comparison.

          Some trans freak screaming about their tits and identity pales next to sleeping with a mass murderer of children. Jesus Christ knows this, so shouldn’t you?

          And haven’t Republicans been making the argument for prejudice as a part of classical conservatism for quite some time?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Carl Sidor

            In case it escaped your notice, BF, I was not suggesting anything with respect to Putin or anyone else. Nor was I attempting to compare and contrast trans activism and mass murder, ridiculous as that assertion is. What Republicans have been or are still doing is also not my point. I was commenting on your elegant phrasing. If, by “elegant phrasing” I mean anything but. You single-handedly brought the level of discourse down to a level that teenage boys would be embarrassed by. And they have pretty strong stomachs for that kind of thing. You bring back many memories. I have not discussed something with ninth graders since I entered tenth grade. That would be nearly 50 years ago. Thanks for the memories.

            Collapse
    2. Pohl

      Not one of those is a licit reason for supporting the war as a non-combatant. I wish we’d just stick to proper war aims. I’m fine with ensuring Ukraine’s survival and peace in Europe. Your list is an excellent summary of desirable effects, but we don’t require any enticements to “invest.”

      Collapse
      1. Tom Doniphon

        All of them are justified.

        Collapse
    3. DTruitt

      Boy, you sure don’t know your history.

      You forgot that the Soviet Union was FDR’s ally in World War Two. And during the decade post breakup of the USSR we were Allies again.

      And you sure didn’t and still don’t mind that Iran and North Korea and the PRC and Venezuela and Cuba are all sworn enemies of the US today. So where is your determination to go and fight those guys?

      As for contending that supporting a war against Russia is “free” with no spilling of American drops of blood, that was what FDR said of supporting China against Japan in the period 1937-1941 … and what Truman sad of supporting the ROK against DPRK in 1949-1950 … and what JFK said of supporting South Vietnam against North Vietnam in 1961-1963.

      Funny how all those “we’re supporting other nations in their wars without spilling American blood” situations all managed to somehow turn out the same way.

      Collapse
      1. GenZConservative

        The USSR was never an ally, and certainly not after the war. How did the Lend-Lease program go after?

        Of course we're enemies with those regimes...which is why we ally with and supply arms to the Saudis, South Korea, and Taiwan. Your choice of DPRK is particularly poor, as we are actually at war with them, with a ceasefire in place, and have active duty troops on the border there.

        If you know of ways to degrade the armed forces of those other countries with relatively little money and no lives, don't bother telling me, go tell the intelligence community.

        Collapse
      2. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

  8. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

    1. GenZConservative

      Right?? It's been incredibly disheartening to see many of my supposed fellow Republicans uninterested in the cheapest and safest (in terms of American lives) opportunity we've ever had at neutering the Russian conventional military. I only wish we had such an opportunity with China, DPRK, and Iran.

      Collapse
    2. DTruitt

      Your selective outrage against Putin, but not directed at any other tyrants around the world, makes one wonder if it is nothing but petty payback for Putin’s efforts against HRC in 2016.

      Collapse
      1. Bdecicco2001

        Threat level. Putin and Russia are a much larger threat.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Rajeev

        You are right there are many tyrants that act against US interests. However, the return on our investment in Ukraine is disproportionate to any of the other military investments we've made across the world. The reality is that the Ukrainian people have combined our weapons technology with a desire to fight to the death against Russia. That wasn't the case in Afghanistan, Syria, and other places (maybe for good reason in their case). If Ukraine hadn't shown this resolve from the beginning we would not be backing them.

        Humiliating and defeating Russia will send a message to smaller hostile countries. The reality is China and Russia are the only countries that can seriously challenge NATO. And Ukraine is a much less morally conflicted cause to support than the others we engage in (Yemen, Libya, etc.)

        Collapse
      3. Bobby D

        What other tyrants around the world invaded a sovereign state and sought to take it over?

        It's the populist right that owes everyone else an explanation. Why is the populist right so defensive about Putin? Perhaps it's because Putin's Russia served as a model for what they wanted the US to become.

        Collapse
      4. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

    3. Avatar photo
      Picov Andropov

      Nothing to add here. Sad that you're right. Especially your comment about "cost" being the lamest excuse the pro-Putin and anti-anti-Putin crowd have against funding Ukraine.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Chris L

    Putin's increasingly obvious maximalization of his revanchist/imperial goals should make the axiom even more relevant - namely, every tank destroyed now is one less we will have to destroy later. That time *will* come, whether through Russian nukes on Kyiv if they fail, or invasion of the former Eastern bloc if they regain initiative, both of which will lead to the invocation of Article 5. This will happen whether it's Putin in power or, if he gets ousted, Prigozhin (it is evident that he is preparing for a coup if Putin fails).

    Also keep in mind that, as much as we know that China is paying attention to this all as they prepare for invading Taiwan (which they will be increasingly desperate to do if CCP continues to founder due to ... well, everything), we should be doing the same. This article sums it up really well about how this should be a klaxon for logistical war readiness for the inevitability of Russian escalation in the short-term, and Chinese Taiwan invasion in the long-term.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Jfox1354

    Herman drives home the point that funding Ukraine against Russia is in our national interest. Still, I think he is being way too kind to Congress at the end of the column. True, McConnell and the GOP were able to get concessions on defense spending that we need but in return they funded cadres of liberal advocacy groups for the foreseeable future, piled on trillions more in to iur national debt during a time of high interest rates and the better medicine from the Fed to treat it, and failed to secure our own border amidst a record surge of illegal immigrants pouring across our border. It is laudable that the GOP convinced the Dems to do the minimum for the national interest on defense and we should support Ukraine but the Left in this country still seems hell bent on wrecking it in every conceivable way possible.

    Collapse
    1. GenZConservative

      We should pass separate appropriations bills over the year rather than a last-minute omnibus. But neither party is interested in that.

      Collapse
      1. Bdecicco2001

        In my experience, the GOP is the obstructing party.

        Collapse
        1. GenZConservative

          In passing omnibus, yes. The GOP is more temperamentally opposed to shoving everything in a giant dictionary length bill and more likely to see stopping everything as an acceptable leverage.

          But it certainly ain't the GOP who is the more opposed of the two to separate bills, as the founders intended.

          Collapse
Load More