The U.S. government’s decision to pursue an arms race with the USSR was the correct one. The Soviet economy could not withstand the competition and collapsed. Having lost the budget battle, the USSR collapsed in 1991.
But after winning the Cold War and arms race, the U.S. did not change its strategy but instead continued to act as if the USSR existed and the Cold War raged on.
After the collapse of the USSR, Russia’s spending on weapons decreased tenfold. But U.S. military spending has not changed. Today, the U.S. accounts for 39 percent of global military expenditures.
But is it effective? In the modern world, the size of military spending does not guarantee success or that geopolitical rivals will refrain from hostile actions.
For evidence, look no further than Ukraine. Russia spends 10 times less on its military than the U.S. and around 15 times less than all the NATO countries combined. Despite this disparity, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine, that directly challenged the entire NATO alliance.
Two years later, Russia has not been defeated.
Nor has China ruled out a military invasion of Taiwan. U.S. military spending triples China’s, yet the People’s Republic seems undeterred.
Another example is the Houthis. The Yemeni rebel group’s military budget is peanuts compared to the great powers, and they’re using most of it to combat government troops and Saudi-backed coalition forces in their own country. But that hasn’t stopped them from taking on the U.S. Navy. Obviously, they’re not scared of the Pentagon’s budget.
The lesson of the post-Cold War era is clear: no amount of money can compensate for a lack of willpower. It’s not the size of the dog in the fight; it’s the size of the fight in the dog.
Deterrence parity, which was based on the number of nuclear warheads and other expensive military hardware, no longer matters. A small budget can defeat a large one if the country spending less is willing to fight and suffer for its cause.
At the beginning of 2024, there were only two states in this fight club: Ukraine and Russia. Since 2022, these two countries have waged the biggest conflict since World War II. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers are dead or wounded. Millions of Ukrainians have become refugees. Towns and cities across Ukraine have been bombed and shelled into rubble.
Putin, with a military budget of around $86 billion, has spent the last two years openly defying the NATO alliance, which has a combined military budget of $1.2 trillion. And he’s winning.
This is possible because Ukraine’s allies, although they have the greatest military capabilities in the world, are not ready to actually fight. And without this desire, their gigantic budget becomes ineffective. If the situation does not change, Ukraine will lose. The sacrifice of so many of its young men and women will be in vain.
It’s time for the U.S. to leave behind the Cold War era and admit that massive military spending no longer impresses anyone.
Whichever nation wins the war in Ukraine will come out battle-hardened and assertive, ready to fight for its ideals and objectives against any adversary, budget disparities be damned. The big spenders of the world are unlikely to be happy with this newcomer. You won’t be able to scare him off by showing him your spreadsheets.
And yet, it seems like the U.S. hasn’t quite adapted to this new reality. I asked three political consultants whether a Ukrainian defeat might convince the U.S. government to drop its arms race mentality. All three seemed dumbfounded.
“[T]here is zero chance that reducing American defense spending will result in anything other than an outbreak of more territorial aggression around the world,” Targeted Creative Communications founder Dan Hazelwood told me.
It looks like the world will need a few more tragedies before politicians are ready to understand the difference between an expensive military and an effective one. Russia has already learned this lesson. The U.S. can’t afford to take too long to catch up.
Kulyuk Pavel Valerievich is a Ukrainian journalist.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.