After Declaring Empty Pockets, Pentagon Uncovers $300 Million for Ukraine Beneath the Mattress

In a masterful display of fiscal legerdemain, the Biden administration has unveiled yet another episode in the ongoing saga of military aid to Ukraine, this time to the tune of $300 million. This comes after a prolonged chorus of cries from the administration that the coffers were bare, leaving one to wonder about the miraculous apparition of these funds. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, took to the stage at the White House, painting a dire picture of Ukraine’s situation against Russian advances, seemingly justifying this newfound generosity.

Join The DUM Show Live at 7pm Weeknights!

Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon’s spokesperson, detailed the contents of this aid package, including an array of munitions and support equipment. The funding, it seems, materialized from the ether, thanks to “savings” from weapons contracts—a term that might elicit a snort of derision from the skeptical observer. The Pentagon, it turns out, had been sitting on a modest dragon’s hoard of drawdown authority, previously untapped for fear of depleting U.S. stockpiles without means of replenishment.

Enter the stage left, fiscal responsibility, masquerading as “good negotiations” and “bundling funding,” which miraculously unearthed an additional $300 million. This sudden windfall is attributed to cost savings in contracts, a convenient narrative for a department that only months ago lamented its impending insolvency.

US President Joe Biden and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky hold a joint news conference in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House, in Washington, DC, on December 12, 2023. Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

But let’s not kid ourselves. This episode is less a testament to the savvy financial stewardship of the Department of Defense and more an illustration of the ad-hoc, make-it-up-as-you-go approach to funding an ongoing military conflict. The officials themselves admitted as much, acknowledging this scheme as a non-repeatable trick, a one-off that hardly constitutes a sustainable strategy for supporting Ukraine.

The administration insists that this package, while providing a stopgap, is insufficient to meet Ukraine’s needs, a tacit admission that this financial sleight of hand is no substitute for a more robust and reliable funding mechanism. Yet, the narrative continues, with appeals for a bipartisan national security bill to fill the gaping void this package cannot address.

This revelation of sudden savings and the subsequent funding it enables should raise more than a few eyebrows. It highlights not just the fluidity of government accounting but the performative nature of fiscal crises. Today’s penury is tomorrow’s windfall, depending on the political winds and the narrative du jour.

What’s perhaps most galling is the implication that this sort of fiscal gymnastics is something to be celebrated, a model of responsible governance. The reality, of course, is that it’s anything but. It’s a band-aid solution to a hemorrhaging problem, a testament to the reactive, rather than proactive, nature of government financial management.

In the grand theater of international politics and military aid, the latest announcement is less a triumph of fiscal prudence and more a farce of financial improvisation. It underscores the perennial dance between claimed fiscal scarcity and convenient bounty, leaving one to ponder the true cost of such monetary magic tricks and the real price of allegiance in the high stakes game of international diplomacy.

Pentagon spokesman U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder speaks during a media briefing at the Pentagon, Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

As we wrap our heads around this latest financial revelation, it’s essential to remember that the saga doesn’t end here. By all counts, the dance of dollars into and out of the Pentagon’s coffers still leaves a gaping hole, one that spans trillions over the past two decades. This latest act of fiscal acrobatics, while impressive in its own right, doesn’t even begin to address the elephant in the room: the staggering sums of money that have seemingly evaporated from the defense budget.

In this context, the $300 million for Ukraine feels less like a strategic investment and more like a drop in the bucket—a token gesture amidst a broader landscape of financial mismanagement and opacity. It’s a sobering reminder that, while the wheels of government may grind slowly, they also grind exceedingly fine, often leaving more questions than answers in their wake.

4 thoughts on “After Declaring Empty Pockets, Pentagon Uncovers $300 Million for Ukraine Beneath the Mattress

  1. Biden is deleting all our fighting material so that our country will not have one thing to fight off any country that tries to take us over. He is trying to make us a third world country and is doing a great job. Satan is loose and doing a great job with this administration. Wise up people, look into what this administration is doing to us. We lost millions of aircraft, tanks and other military material when Biden messed up when taking our military out of Afghanistan and now he is giving away more of our military money to Ukraine.

    1. We cannot, on the one hand, argue that Biden has coordinated this massive attack on every level of American society with policies that are designed to bring about America’s financial implosion, while on the other hand claiming that he is a mentally diminished, doddering old fool incapable of carrying out the duties of President of the United states. A more likely scenario is that this is in reality proof of this being the 3rd Obama administration, and the real reason Obama never left Washington, DC : He needs to be around to pull the strings on his puppet. Too many current administration officials are left-overs from the Obama administration for this NOT to be possible.

  2. Why the big surprise? Government slush funds are nothing new. Perhaps the real offense to our sensibilities is that it relates to the controversial nature of support for the war in Ukraine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *