Gonna write this up in longer form, but folks complaining that the $45bn Ukraine costs are high miss two key points:

1. The direct costs in (US) military aid are surprisingly small; in the order of $19bn this year, and $10.8bn committed (so far) for next year

2. The indirect economic costs of the Russian war to the US economy (i.e. to the private sector not via the government) are in the order of $600-700bn per year. To pick a random company, it's nearly $6-10bn in costs to Apple *alone*.

In other words, if the US upped it's spend by, say, 25% and that reduced the length of the war by *just a whole week*, it would *make money*.

It's a good example of how the size of war economics harms get truly insane really quickly, and get you to unintuitive places about just how much of the war costs end up as indirect, rather than direct costs.

Or if you want it put another way, every American is spending in the order of $50 a year in direct lethal assistance to Ukraine, but losing about $1700 a year in indirect economic costs caused by that war.

If you had a company that sold a widget that upped a business cost from $50 to, let's say, $100, but doing so saved the customer $1700 a year, how quickly do you think VCs in Silicon Valley would jump in to invest in that widget?

Economic costs get into stratospheric numbers when you start looking at global dampening effects, and get really hard for the human brain to comprehend. So you end up having to do the translation into comprehendible numbers.

So if you want to put it another way, the indirect costs of the Ukraine war is equivalent to, say, 6 million American jobs a year.

How much would Congress pay in subsidies to get 6 million people into new jobs? Idk. But $45bn sounds super cheap at those scales.

Taking OECD numbers of the cost of the war at 3% of global GDP, give or take, and assuming that's uniformly spread globally, ending the war would *double* US GDP growth.

So why is the US investing only $10.8bn of lethal aid next year into getting that to happen sooner?

Anyway, that's why it's super disingenuous for folks to say the numbers are way too big. Yes, the direct costs are large. But if you take it as an investment into ending the war sooner, and looking at the indirect costs, it quickly looks insanely small for what it's trying to achieve.
@Pwnallthethings I also reflect on how much this stuff was literally stockpiled to... destroy the Russian military in event of an invasion of Europe. Like what else were you planning to do with it.
@SwiftOnSecurity @Pwnallthethings
I’m all for evicting russia from Ukraine as quickly as possible. $50 a year seems pathetically small

@JDN5IX @SwiftOnSecurity @Pwnallthethings

After two decades, the US couldn't even evict the Taliban from Afghanistan. And you think evicting Russia from Ukraine is a feasible goal? When Russia has nukes?

@grumble209 @JDN5IX @SwiftOnSecurity @Pwnallthethings The Taliban lives in Afghanistan (and Pakistan). It’s a native insurgent movement. Putin’s invading force doesn’t live in Ukraine.

@MisuseCase @JDN5IX @SwiftOnSecurity @Pwnallthethings

My point is that the US military seems unable to convert success in battles to achieving geopolitical goals.

I am not convinced that Putin would concede defeat before launching an ICBM or two. Is that a price the US should pay to help Ukraine?

I'm not seeing huge domestic support, especially as this drags on.

@grumble209 @MisuseCase @JDN5IX @SwiftOnSecurity @Pwnallthethings
at the risk of also destroying the entire sovereignty he so desperately clings to? not so sure...
@starbleat @grumble209 @JDN5IX @SwiftOnSecurity @Pwnallthethings Yes, because when you get to a certain level of power and isolation as autocrats do, you don’t have anyone around you telling you “no” or “maybe that’s not such a good idea” anymore and you get pretty bananapants.