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.
So this type of argument comes up a lot. Let's take Putin at his word of what it means for his success, because his success was not defined solely in terms of Ukraine. It was defined in terms of partitioning the global economy and setting up a major new economic group including China and railing against the US/EU as part of the "golden billion" https://infosec.exchange/@frontier/109564875467342115
frontier (@[email protected])

@[email protected] if we didn’t give any assistance to Ukraine the war would have been over much sooner, likely this spring. In fact isn’t the strategy here to bleed the Russians out? To turn it into a war of attrition for them?

Infosec Exchange

Ignoring whether or not it's achievable, pushing the US out of the "golden billion", would mean reducing it's average salary by *60%*. That's not $1700 a year anymore. That's on the order of $56k per person.

So, yes, sure, you can give Putin everything he wants. But if you do, you also have to bother to listen to what he's saying: his long-term *explicit* goal, at its maximalist position, would cost the average American 60% of your personal income.

It comes up a lot that Americans get confused what the "American interests" in the Ukraine war actually are. But that's the basic part of it.

Ignoring morality or principles or practicalities entirely, and going solely by Putin's own statements and pure dollars, that's what the war's maximalist position was, and why throwing merely double-digit billions to prevent it is *absurdly* cheap at the price.

@Pwnallthethings Even if you are the most heartless capitalist or #gop lawmaker, the indirect costs of Rus invasion of #ukraine, cannot be ignored. Just take oil as an example- if Rus hadn’t invaded Ukraine would crude and light products have spiked? How much did that cost the global economy or even our individual pocket books. In hindsight there were plenty of bad political and economic decisions that encouraged Putin to take this action. The direct costs are low at this pt
@daniecleme The basic answer is that Putin's war cost the global economy in the order of $3tn, or about 3% of global growth. That's not evenly spread, and decoding it is a lot of work (the US is more insulated from grain prices, but more vulnerable to, say, oil prices), but the comparable figure in the US is somewhere in the region of $600-$700bn a year in lost growth, or roughly equivalent to the entire US GDP growth for 2022.
@Pwnallthethings @SwiftOnSecurity does this mean we can blame inflation on Putin?

@twipped @Pwnallthethings @SwiftOnSecurity

For sure, not forgetting the other recent inflationary pressures:

  • COVID
  • (In the UK at least) Brexit
  • Extreme weather (destruction of crops, etc.)
  • Sanctions against Chinese technology (I'm not saying this was wrong, BTW)
  • Semiconductor shortages (with all its causes)