Thinking Outside the Box: Getting Munitions to Ukraine
NATO countries are intensifying their efforts to resupply Ukraine and bolster their defense capabilities, but these efforts alone are insufficient. The $61 billion bill to resupply Ukraine, currently stalled in the U.S. House of Representatives, is unlikely to pass unless the recent Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel prompts a shift in Republican perspectives. With the funding from this bill uncertain, we are urgently compelled to explore alternative solutions. This is a time that demands innovative thinking.
In collaboration with NATO, the Biden administration could devise a plan to engage NATO countries to fund some of the needed munitions as a loan. In return, the Biden administration should commit to repaying specific agreed-upon amounts to individual nations if Congressional approval for those funds is eventually secured. This proposal serves Ukraine's immediate defense needs and presents an opportunity for NATO countries to strengthen their strategic partnerships.
intention behind the funding bill blocked in the House was to purchase much of the ammunition and weapons from American manufacturers. For the most part, these purchases were to be made from American manufacturers because other NATO countries either lacked the capacity for certain kinds of production, particularly for munitions, or specific weapons were American-designed and manufactured. As in the original bill, the purchase by NATO nations would still benefit American manufacturers and workers.
Yet, purchases by NATO nations would be risky to them as no formal contracts could likely be made without congressional approval. If Biden is re-elected, he may still be unable to get Congressional approval for the bill. Yet, there will be a reasonable Congress someday, and the agreed-upon debt could be paid to the nations that stepped up now. The agreement could even include an interest payment on these funds. Even though risky for those who funded these orders, their purchases would be the quickest way to get more munitions and weapons to Ukraine.
This idea that NATO countries would purchase supplies for Ukraine differs from FDR’s push for the Lend-Lease Act in 1941. However, it shares the creativity used to meet that dilemma.
When thinking outside the box, what about a gift solution? A few wealthy persons could pool together to provide several billion dollars toward munitions for the Ukrainians. Such a gift is not likely but possible. Consider John Oliver’s offer of $1 million and a $2.4 million motor coach to Judge Clarence Thomas to retire.
A more likely capitalist solution would be investments in arms production by capitalists in NATO nations. The State Department or some other Federal agency could facilitate any investment deals. Once an agreement is made, other investors may step forward without the assistance of the Federal Government.
A hazardous but perhaps valuable investment would be in Ukraine’s homemade drone production. American or other investors may be able to make technological contributions to the capabilities of the drones and the machinery to produce them. Technologically advanced machinery could increase the quantity and lower the cost of production. Furthermore, the lessons learned through such production might improve the capabilities of the drones. Investors may gain technology that could be used for purposes other than the defense of Ukraine. Engineers are great at coming up with new ideas for design to increase the capability of a product. Also, engineers in close contact with users of a technological device are generally even more creative as they unexpectedly come across information that otherwise would never be available to them.
Of course, arms production in NATO countries would take a small bite out of American defense production profits but not a big enough bite to threaten American producers. Facilities for such production would increase the military strength of the nation hosting the production and again make NATO even stronger.
A moral benefit to strengthening NATO is worth mentioning. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine spurred Sweden to join NATO when such expansion was the opposite of Putin’s expressed wishes. So, too, the pressures from Putin and Trump to stop the supply of munitions to Ukraine could lead NATO countries to upgrade their defense industries and be another unexpected loss for Putin.
Initiatives like those discussed above would warn aggressors that an invasion can threaten the aggressor in the long term. The power of alliances against violent attacks is a message that the U.S. wants China to hear before it decides to invade Taiwan.
If none of the above suggestions prove feasible, Americans must still seek practical solutions to Ukraine’s immediate need for munitions. Looking outside the box may provide a solution to this critical need.
