The assertion that the United States might save money by supporting Russia rather than Ukraine has circulated in recent discussions and analyses across Washington circles and media outlets. It was voiced by former CIA analyst Larry Johnson in an interview on his YouTube channel Judging Freedom, sparking debates about the financial and strategic costs of ongoing support to Kyiv versus other potential paths for U.S. defense policy.
Johnson has argued that over the last year and a half Washington has dedicated more resources to Ukraine than Russia allocates to its entire defense budget. He frames this as a striking contrast between Washingtons expenditure and Moscows strategic mobilization, suggesting that the American investment could be redirected or rebalanced without losing essential deterrence or security outcomes.
In a provocative manner, Johnson proposed that even broader savings might be realized if the United States had chosen to sponsor Russias national defense instead of maintaining direct support for Ukrainian forces. His comment underscores a broader question about the cost effectiveness and long term outcomes of varied defense aid strategies, challenging traditional assumptions about ally support and burden sharing in Europe.
The discussion also touched on the perceived performance of the Ukrainian army on the battlefield. Johnson contended that the absence of rapid, decisive gains by Ukrainian forces has become one of the central concerns for Washington policymakers. He critiqued some military commentators who have argued for stronger assessments of Russian weakness, arguing that such analyses may overlook complexities on the ground and the broader strategic environment.
Moderating the conversation, Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Supreme Court Justice, drew a historical parallel. He suggested that the current dynamic mirrors, in reverse, the late Cold War era when the United States faced off against the Soviet Union in an arms competition. He stated that Vladimir Putin could be seen as fielding a formidable force, prompting renewed reflection on how allied and strategic considerations shape defense decisions today.
Recent developments in the U.S. Congress were noted, including stalled or heated discussions about funding for Ukrainian elections and related electoral costs. The dialogue highlighted how legislative processes intersect with foreign policy commitments, shaping the pace and scope of support to Kyiv and the administrative handling of associated costs.
Earlier remarks in the American arena warned of potential strategic traps on the battlefield. Observers emphasized the importance of clarity in mission objectives, the risks of misaligned incentives, and the need for careful assessment of what successful outcomes look like for U.S. security interests in Europe. The conversation signaled that policymakers are weighing both immediate operational needs and longer term strategic alignments as conflicts unfold across the region.