C1 Environment Climate efforts are making headway–investment is high and emissions are steadily declining–the future seems promising Storrow 23 [Benjamin Storrow is a reporter for Climatewire. E&E News, 1-6-2023, "Will Global Emissions Plateau in 2023? Four Trends to Watch," Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-global-emissions-plateau-in-2023-fourtrends-to-watch/ DOA: 7-7-23 //Ewan + WWU recut Experts say 2023 could be [is] the start of an emissions plateau, as the world’s largest emitters experience slow growth and invest more in renewable technology. But uncertainty reigns—especially on whether the world can begin the emissions dive necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. “I think we’re still in a world of pretty flat global emissions,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist who works at Stripe, a payment processing firm. “It is unlikely that we see deep global emission cuts over the next two years. Flattening was still better than what we were seeing in previous decades, but it is going to take time for the energy transition to pick up steam.” Emissions likely increased in 2022. Carbon Monitor, an academic emissions tracker, estimates that emissions through October were 1.8 percent higher than 2021 levels. That’s far less than the 5 percent bump the Global Carbon Project forecast in 2021, as inflation and rising interest rates tamped down the economy’s recovery. So what does 2023 hold? Below are four trends that will shape the world’s emissions trajectory in the years to come. 1. IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID Historically, the easiest way to predict emissions growth is to check the world’s economic outlook. A growing economy has historically meant more energy consumption and higher emissions. A recession usually spells the opposite. Many prognosticators are cutting growth expectations in 2023. Kristalina Georgieva, head of the International Monetary Fund, recently said she expects slow economic growth in China, the U.S. and Europe, which rank as the world’s first, second and fourth largest emitters, respectively. But just how slow, and whether the world slips into recession, remains to be seen. Three major world economies face large uncertainties. Will the U.S. economy continue to shrug off rising interest rates in 2023? Will Europe be able to repeat its successes of 2022, when it phased out Russian gas shipments thanks to a combination of energy conservation, liquefied natural gas imports and warm weather? Then there’s China. Global emissions growth was relatively muted in 2022, in part due to China’s "zero-Covid" policy and the damper it put on the Chinese economy. But the country recently rescinded that policy—a decision that will no doubt affect the 2023 outlook. “We could see a large rise in global emissions if there is a making up for lost time with the Chinese economy,” Hausfather said. At the same time, he said, emissions growth could be muted if a wave of Covid cases throws China’s economy off kilter. 2. GREEN INVESTMENT SURGE One of the biggest developments in recent years has been the surge in clean energy spending. The International Energy Agency estimates that such spending has risen 12 percent annually since 2020, up from 2 percent per year over the five previous years. In 2021, China led with clean energy investments of $380 billion, followed by the European Union at $260 billion and the U.S. at $215 billion. Oil, coal and gas investment, by contrast, has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels. All that was before the U.S. weighed in with even more clean energy spending in 2022. The Inflation Reduction Act will provide[d] $369 billion in clean energy tax credits over the next decade. Congress has also poured money into the sector through the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the CHIPS and Science Act. Unfortunately, affirming harms the environment, and plays out in two key ways. Scenario one is Biodiversity Biodiversity is recovering and stabilizing – comprehensive studies show Scienedaily 22 Sciencedaily, University of Bristol, 7-13-2022, "Environmental stability on Earth allowed marine biodiversity to flourish," ScienceDaily, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/07/220713114550.htm // ella The findings, published today in Nature, were reached through a pioneering model that reconstructs the diversity of marine animals from their origin -- some 550 million years ago- to the present, based on plate tectonics and environmental factors, mainly ocean temperature and food supply. Unlike the fossil record, the new model is free from gaps and sampling biases, as the history of diversity in the model is numerically simulated rather than being reconstructed from fossil data. The model reveals that the increase[s] in diversity is real and is associated with the development of diversity hotspots during the last 200 million years, when the Earth's environmental conditions were relatively stable. For the preparation of the work, the scientific team used a palaeogeographic model that tracks the movements of continents and the seafloor through geological time and a paleo-Earth system model that reconstructs the environmental conditions of ancient seas. In the model, each tracked region accumulates diversity over time at a rate controlled by the environmental conditions of each region and at each time. "Our approach resolves some of the previous debates about whether the record of fossils in the rocks is good enough to provide a clear pattern of biodiversity change through deep time," explained co-author Prof Michael Benton of the University of Bristol's School of Earth Sciences. Up to now, understanding of the global-scale history of biodiversity and origins of modern biodiversity have depended on the fossil record, which proves that life on our planet has been hit by at least five great mass extinctions over the last half billion years. The Permian-Triassic mass extinction, the greatest of all time, wiped out more than 90% of marine species, leaving ecosystems on the verge of collapse. Today, 250 million years later, life in the sea is more diverse than ever. Unfortunately, Increased military presence threatens this promising future Caff, 2023, "Key Findings," No Publication, http://www.arcticbiodiversity.is/the-report/report-for-policy-makers/keyfindings//WWU military bases are current and potential sources of pollution, litter, sewage and black carbon within the Arctic. The risk of major oil spills is a serious threat[en] for marine ecosystems, particularly those associated with sea-ice, because response can be difficult and Mining, oil and gas activities, Arctic settlements and legacy sites such as spilled oil is likely to persist for a long time. Oil spills are a lesser, but still very important, threat for terrestrial and freshwater systems. Legacy contaminants and radioactivity military and other human activity have impacted and will continue[s] to impact biodiversity in the region. Arctic communities often have an impact in their local area, and reducing those impacts will benefit the local environment and contribute to global efforts to from past reduce pollution. Biodiversity loss is devastating–The Arctic Ocean is a hotspot that is key to global biodiversity – Collapse of the arctic cascades into global collapse. Petersen-4: The arctic region plays a key role in the biological balance of the globe. The arctic is unique arctic ecology is the foundation of intricate marine food webs phytoplankton and algae are closely linked to the marine ecosystem migratory species breed in the arctic species migrate to the arctic in search of rich food resources migration routes link arctic species to ecosystems throughout the world the arctic’s nutrient rich coldwater are crucial to the survival of fish the link between survival of humans and the environment is obvious and of paramount importance. The impact is extinction–Human life depends on biodiversity Jeannette Cwienk 22, 06/21/2022 https://www.dw.com/en/biodiversity-loss-is-humanitys-greatest-threat/a-62113416 //mac A recent report from the Leibniz Research Network for Biodiversity stressed how the great variety of species on our planet's is essential to just about every aspect of human life. "Whether it is the air we breathe, clean drinking water, food or clothing, fuel, building materials or medications — our life, our health, our nutrition and well-being all depend[s] on the great diversity of resources that nature provides us with," it stated. More than two-thirds of all crops worldwide rely upon natural pollinators such as insects. Without them, our food supply is likely to become less secure. Yet a third of all insect species worldwide are already facing extinction. Losing biodiversity could also spell disaster for the medical sector, as many pharmaceuticals — including close to 70% of cancer treatments — are derived from nature. "The knowledge of 3.5 billion years of natural evolution is stored in biological diversity," said Klement Tockner, director of Senckenberg Society for Nature Research, a group based in Frankfurt, Germany. " The progressive decline of our ecological capital poses the greatest threat to all of humanity — because once it's lost, it's lost forever." Scenario two is emissions Sam Carliner, 6-21-2023, "Arctic military build-up poses new geopolitical and climate risks," Responsible Statecraft, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/08/29/arctic-military-build-up-poses-new-geopolitical-and-climate-risks//WWU Along with risking greater conflict between the United States and Russia, threatens to a U.S. military build-up in the Arctic exacerbate[s] climate change. Though the Department of Defense and various branches of the U.S. military have recently released “climate adaptation” plans, the content focuses primarily on adapting operations, rather than accounting for and reducing emissions. In fact, the U.S. Navy published a climate adaptation plan in May this year that was scrutinized for mostly omitting any mention of its ships and planes, the two main sources of the U.S. military’s pollution. However, much of the impact of military emissions remains unknown because of a loophole in the Paris Climate Agreement which exempts governments from reporting their military’s emissions. Despite the lack of available information, Dr. Crawford used what data is public to calculate U.S. military emissions for the Costs of War Project. According to her research on military emissions published in 2019, “the DOD is the world’s largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly, the single largest institutional producer of greenhouse gasses (GHG) in the world.” She explained that roughly 30 percent of the military’s emissions come from “installation emissions,” meaning the energy use of military bases and other installations. The other 70 percent [of emissions] comes from “operation[s]al emissions,” or the energy use of all training, missions, transport, and other activities. “To boil it down, anything that involves transportation is an emitter of serious significance,” Crawford said. With this context, increased military activities in the Arctic are likely to result in increased emissions if activities are not reduced elsewhere. The arctic is key to prevent global warming–thawing ice releases ghgs and decks any chance of recovery via natural cooling Abc News, 12-24-2021, "Melting Arctic ice will have catastrophic effects on the world, experts say. Here's how.," ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/International/melting-arctic-ice-catastrophic-effects-world-experts/story?id=81588333//WWU Widely considered by polar scientists as Earth's refrigerator due to its role in regulat[es]ing global temperatures, the mass melting of sea ice, permafrost and ice caps in the Arctic is hard evidence of global warming, according to experts. "The Arctic is the frontline for climate change," climate scientist Jessica Moerman, vice president of science and policy at the Evangelical Environmental Network, a faith-basediening in the Arctic. It may seem like it's far away, but the impacts come knocking on our front door." Chelsea Harvey, , 6-7-2023 [elaborates:], "An Ice-Free Arctic Could Be Only a Decade Away," Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-ice-free-arctic-could-be-only-a-decade-away/ They found that greenhouse gases are clearly driving the sea ice declines, not only during the summer months but all year round. But they also found that climate models tend to underestimate the rate at which sea ice is vanishing from the Arctic. So the researchers corrected those trends in the simulations. Then they used the models to make projections for the future, looking at a variety of hypothetical climate action scenarios. The new projections suggest that ice-free summers likely would commence somewhere between the 2030s and the 2050s, depending on how quickly emissions decline in the coming years. That’s even with stringent and immediate efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a departure from previous, uncorrected model projections, which found that ice-free summers could be averted with swifter climate action. Faster action still makes a difference. The study found that slower climate action would produce longer ice-free periods, potentially lasting from June to October in the worst cases. On the other hand, the swiftest efforts to the planet [w]is likely to experience stronger climate consequences as Arctic sea ice dwindles. Bright, shiny sea ice helps reflect[s] sunlight away from the planet. As it disappears, the Arctic warms even faster. cut greenhouse gas emissions could limit the ice-free period to the month of September. Still, scientists warn that Climate Change is existential–the brink is 2050, it’s a try or die for the neg Specktor 19 [Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer, "Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don't Stop Climate Change Now, New Paper Claims," Live Science, 6-4-2019, https://www.livescience.com/65633-climate-change-dooms-humans-by2050.html]//WWU recut It seems every week there's a scary new report about how man-made climate change is going to cause the collapse of the world's ice sheets, result in the extinction of up to 1 million animal species and — if that wasn't bad enough — make our beer very, very the risks of climate change are actually much, much worse than anyone can imagine. According to the paper, climate change poses a "near- to mid-term existential threat to human civilization," and there's a good chance society could collapse as soon as 2050 if serious mitigation actions aren't taken in the next decade. Published by the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate expensive. This week, a new policy paper from an Australian think tank claims that those other reports are slightly off; Restoration in Melbourne (an independent think tank focused on climate policy) and authored by a climate researcher and a former fossil fuel executive, the paper's central thesis is that climate scientists are too restrained in their predictions of how climate change will affect the planet in the near future. [Top 9 Ways the World Could End] The current climate crisis, they say, is larger and more complex than any humans have ever dealt with before. General climate models — like the one that the United Nations' Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used in 2018 to predict that a global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 — fail to account for the sheer complexity of Earth's many interlinked geological processes; as such, they fail to adequately predict the scale of the potential consequences. The truth, the authors wrote, is probably far degrees Celsius) could put hundreds of millions of people at risk worse than any models can fathom. How the world ends What might an accurate worst-case picture of the planet's climate-addled future actually look like, then? The authors provide one particularly grim scenario that begins with world governments "politely ignoring" the advice of scientists and the will of the public to decarbonize the economy (finding alternative energy sources), resulting in a global temperature increase 5.4 F (3 C) by the year 2050. At this point, the world's ice sheets vanish; brutal droughts kill many of the trees in the Amazon rainforest (removing one of the world's largest carbon offsets); and the planet plunges into a feedback loop of ever-hotter, ever-deadlier conditions. "Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability," the authors hypothesized. Meanwhile, droughts, floods and wildfires regularly ravage the land. Nearly one-third of the world's land surface turns to desert. Entire ecosystems collapse, beginning with the planet's coral reefs, the rainforest and the Arctic ice sheets. The world's tropics are hit hardest by these new climate extremes, destroying the region's agriculture and turning more than 1 billion people into refugees. This mass movement of refugees — coupled with shrinking coastlines and severe drops in food and water availability — begin to stress the fabric of the world's largest nations, including the United States. Armed conflicts over resources, perhaps culminating in nuclear war, are likely. The result, according to the new paper, is "outright chaos" and perhaps "the end[ing] of human global civilization as we know it." If anything Climate Change is scalar Aranoff 21 finds that millions of people would die after every tenth of a degree increase in global temperature past 1.5 degrees The U.S has successfully defended Ukraine. However, due to current congressional gridlock and limited defense spending there will be hard tradeoffs with Ukraine. This leads to Russia invasion which 1) hurts U.S cred 2) lets Russia expand into other regions triggering miscalc and nuke war. Contention Two is Ukraine Tradeoff The US is currently prioritizing Ukraine Lolita C., 4-4-2023, "US is providing Ukraine with $2.6 billion in military aid," AP NEWS, https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-security-aid-billionse02b957dc15fcb1004bf54a2232c1f5e, accessed 6-25-2023//IB The U.S. will send Ukraine about $500 million in ammunition and equipment and spend more than $2 billion to buy an array of munitions, radar and new weapons to help Kyiv counter drones in the coming months, the Pentagon said Tuesday, as Ukrainian troops gear up for a spring offensive against Russian forces. The aid to be taken from military stockpiles so it can be in the war zone quickly includes “ammunition for U.S.-provided HIMARS, air defense interceptors, and artillery rounds that Ukraine is using to defend itself,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement. HIMARS are multiple rocket launchers. The package includes at least two new weapons systems that are designed to counter drones — specifically the Iranian-made Shahed, which Tehran has provided to Russia and has been heavily used in attacks on Ukrainian cities. The U.S., for the first time, will send nine 30mm gun trucks and an undisclosed amount of ammunition for them, and 10 mobile laser-guided rocket systems, also developed to counter drones. The wide array of ammunition being sent from Pentagon stocks includes 155 mm artillery rounds for howitzers as Ukraine burns through the rounds fighting back against Russia’s ground invasion. The Pentagon does not provide the amounts of munitions in most cases. The immediate assistance also includes anti-armor systems, small arms, heavy equipment transport vehicles, 61 fuel tankers and maintenance support, the Pentagon said in a statement. A senior defense official said the focus is on helping Ukraine change the dynamic on the ground. Right now, the official said, the battle lines are relatively static and neither side has gained much territory. The official, who briefed Pentagon reporters on condition of anonymity to provide military details, said the U.S. wants to help Ukraine advance and hold its positions in the expected counteroffensive. “We very much appreciate everything that the United States has done specifically in the last month to help our army prepare itself for the counteroffensive,” said Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, speaking at NATO headquarters in Brussels before a meeting with with Blinken. The Biden administration has upheld its commitment to provide Ukraine with a lot of what we need and set an example to other allies.” “ And, American efforts have been successful. Roh. Senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Research associate at the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies in Brussels, PhD, political economy, King’s College London. "Republicans must stand with Biden for additional Ukraine aid". New York Post. 9-8-2022. https://nypost.com/2022/09/08/republicans-mustDalibor stand-with-biden-for-additional-ukraine-aid/, //recut SJID The administration’s approval of $675 million in military aid to Ukraine is good news, as is President Biden’s request to Congress for $11.7 billion in further assistance. However divided America’s politics might be at the moment, a decisive Ukrainian victory is in the interest of both parties — and it just might be within reach. Missing this opportunity could be disastrous. Ukraine’s current predicament is characterized by a tension between two conflicting imperatives: a military-tactical one and a political one. On the battlefield, the counteroffensive in the south, aimed at retaking Kherson, is moving forward successfully. Similarly in the north, outside Kharkiv, Ukrainian forces have been slowly chipping away at the Russian forces. Not being in Ukrainian command is acting patiently. Rather than obsessing about territorial gains, it has gradually degraded Russian capabilities and supply lines. It is thus far from obvious that the coming cold weather will favor Russian defenses — the Russians are fighting in unfriendly territory, and a position to retake its territory in a sweeping Blitzkrieg, their own logistics would have been disastrous even without Ukraine’s concerted efforts at disruption. Much like bankruptcy, a Russian defeat is likely to come about very slowly Give it a few more weeks, or months, and Russian positions are bound to become unsustainable, forcing a withdrawal — or perhaps a mass mobilization in Russia, which would carry dramatic political risks for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime. The problem, however, is that the Ukrainians do not necessarily have months to pursue this tactic, which relies on Western support of their military and economy, as well as on the continuing pressure of sanctions against Russia. As Putin is squeezing Europe’s energy supply, it seems only a matter of time until political forces calling for appeasement start gaining momentum on the continent. In Germany, a typical household is expected to pay more than $500 extra in gas bills per year following the and then all at once. recent price hikes, prompting the government to adopt unprecedented relief measures, including price caps. In the United Kingdom, the new prime minister, Liz Truss, announced a cap on annual energy bills for a typical household at GBP2,500 — close to $3,000. Whether such measures will be effective in easing the pain is debatable. What Nobody knows what a dose of real economic hardship and cold will do to the Europeans’ resolve to confront Putin, but it is a good bet that it won’t help, particularly in countries where Ukrainian suffering is seen as a distant and abstract concern. In Germany, a parliamentarian from the Putin-fri∆ endly Alternative for Germany (AfD) party publicly wished for as cold a winter as possible , knowing well that the backlash would be good for AfD’s political prospects. Even in the Czech Republic, a country with direct experience of Russian aggression and a government fully committed to supporting Ukraine, pro-Putin and anti-NATO groups managed to bring as many as 70,000 people to the streets of Prague to protest high energy prices over the weekend. Of is not debatable is that Europe is headed for a harsh winter. course, the energy crisis is largely of Europeans’ own making, resulting from years of misguided energy policies that have tied the continent to Russian sources. Yet the blame game does not help the Ukrainian case. Rather, US leadership does. Given the fragility of the transatlantic alliance’s commitment to confronting Putin and the hard budgetary constraints that Western European nations are running into, it’s wise to frontload as much US military assistance to Ukraine as possible so that the country’s military can build on the current momentum and achieve significant victories — say, retake Kherson — before the looming fracture of Western allies becomes paralyzing. With the midterm Biden’s request for more money does put congressional Republicans in a bind. But opposing additional aid to Ukraine at a time the elections just weeks away, resources might well achieve Putin’s total defeat in Ukraine — and possibly the end of his brutal regime in Russia — is bound to inflict far graver damage to the GOP’s political standing than taking one for the (national) team. A responsible party, seeking a mandate to govern America, should not have any hesitation about the right choice. While additional assistance to Ukraine is inevitable in the status quo, it requires prioritizing limited resources – the aff forces a “substantial” tradeoff from brittle aid commitments. Bergmann '23 – (Max; NATO expert & director of the Europe Program and the Stuart Center in Euro-Atlantic and Northern European Studies @ Center for Strategic and International Studies, formerly @ Secretary of State policy planning staff, master’s degree in comparative politics, bachelor’s degree in political science; 3-3-2023; "U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine is Going to Get Complicated;" War on the Rocks; https://warontherocks.com/2023/03/u-s-security-assistance-to-ukraine-is-going-to-getcomplicated/) NT-ML As the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine approached, Senate Republican Whip John Thune warned, “every time we’ve had to do additional funding [for Ukraine], it’s gotten harder. I mean there is a constituency out there that doesn’t see the value of it.” The United States has been counted on to help fund Ukraine’s war effort and to provide material support to blunt the Russian military’s invasion However, the future of U.S. funding may be in doubt. In the coming months, new Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, who holds a razor-slim majority, will face a choice of whether to bring a new Ukraine funding bill to the floor for a vote. McCarthy is unlikely to bring any legislation to the floor that divides his caucus and could endanger his tenuous speakership. That unfortunately includes another supplemental appropriation for Ukraine, which a small but vocal minority of Republicans oppose. Instead of hoping that this political dynamic will magically change, both the Biden administration and Europe need to start preparing for this new reality. Congressional gridlock in the United States since 2022. will require the Biden administration to get creative in how it provides military support to Ukraine. The absence of a supplemental appropriation will not end the Biden administration’s ability to support Ukraine, but it will make it more require the administration to make tough tradeoffs, something it has not yet had to do when considering how to fund the transfer of U.S. weapons to Ukraine. The administration will need to reallocate funding, use obscure authorities, and work creatively with Congress. This will also demand the Biden administration not just prioritize Ukraine but also politically assert itself to break through bureaucratic barriers and disputes. There will inevitably be issues that cause delays and bureaucratically challenging to keep doing so. It will also place greater limitations on what the United States can provide. However, there are six potential options that the Biden administration could consider, should current funding for U.S. assistance end. These six options will also require more European support, and a creative approach to asking for and then allocating monies in the U.S. defense budget. State of Play. Unless there is a collapse in Russian forces or a change in regime in Moscow, Ukraine will need to keep arming itself — either to maintain the current fight or to recapitalize and modernize its military to prepare for potential future Russian aggression. Not only will Ukraine continuously need to be resupplied with ammunition, but Ukraine will need to continuously recapitalize its forces with Western equipment — the Western tanks that are sent to Ukraine will experience losses and will need to be replaced. This cycle requires constant U.S. involvement and resupply. The United States has allocated more than $48 billion in supplemental appropriations for security assistance for Ukraine since the war began in February 2022. This includes more than $20 billion as part of the $45 billion appropriation that was completed by Congress in December 2022. This funding gives the administration a good runway to continue providing weapons to Ukraine. But it is unclear how long the funding will last. At some point, likely before the fiscal year ends on Oct. 1, 2023, the administration will need more security assistance funding for Ukraine. Congress up until now has stepped in to pass supplemental spending bills to support Ukraine. However, these requests came at a time of single-party Democrat rule in the United States. This has changed, with the Republicans taking control of the House of Representatives following the November 2022 mid-term election. The next time the administration runs out of funding and requests more from Congress, McCarthy may choose not to bring a new Ukraine supplemental spending bill to the House floor. The legislation could divide his caucus and could prompt funding opponents to challenge his speakership, replaying his tortuous week-long election to the position in early January. This raises the potential for a potential lapse in funding for security assistance. Funding for the Ukrainian government at this point has not demanded any tough bureaucratic tradeoffs between funding priorities. The funding has been all additive, as the administration has been extensively using its presidential drawdown authority. This authority allows the president to take equipment directly from U.S. forces or Department of Defense stocks and send it to foreign partners. This authority was normally capped at $100 million worth of equipment per year. But in response to the war in Ukraine, Congress increased the limit to $14.5 billion for this fiscal year. The supplemental appropriations thus gave the Department of Defense funds to backfill equipment sent to Ukraine in order to make it “whole” after drawing down stocks. Thus, the U.S. military could ship out older equipment and put in orders to replace it with brand-new equipment (although this will take time to contract for and build). The appropriations also gave the Defense Department’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing more funding, but this aid must be used to buy equipment from U.S. defense companies and is therefore often slower. In other words, the funding thus far has not required balancing needs for Ukraine hasn’t required reducing security assistance for the Indo-Pacific. It did not require shifting funding from weapons procurement. Instead, the funding enabled the U.S. military to buy new weapons systems to replace those sent to Ukraine. The against domestic spending. It one “cost” from the Department of Defense’s perspective was that supporting Ukraine depletes equipment stockpiles, which could impact U.S. military readiness if the defense Without a specific Ukraine appropriation, the administration will likely have to redirect or reallocate industry is unable to deliver in a timely fashion. That is a risk, but a manageable one, especially given the strategic importance of Ukraine aid. money from within the Department of Defense or State Department. This will require congressional approval. However, this does not require a full vote of the House. The leadership of congressional committees — on foreign affairs, armed services, and appropriations — all must give their approval to the potential reallocation of funding. The new Republican heads of these committees will play a critical role. Foreign Affairs Committee chair Michael McCaul favors heavily arming Ukraine, but with oversight. Kay Granger of the Appropriations Committee is a Ukraine supporter and a defense hawk. Mike Rogers, who will chair the Armed Services Committee, is also a Ukraine supporter. Should the administration get their approval (as well as that of their corresponding committees in the Senate) to redirect funds to Ukraine, the House or Senate could vote to block funding. But it is highly unlikely that opponents would have the majority needed to override, as Congress has never passed a joint resolution of disapproval to block an arms transfer advocated by the executive branch. Options to Keep Security Aid Flowing There are a number of ways in which the U.S. government can keep providing significant support to Ukraine without a specific appropriation. To do so, the Biden administration should begin contingency planning now. First, the administration could keep using presidential drawdown authority to take equipment from Department of Defense stocks and send it to Ukraine. But instead of ensuring that there is funding available to replenish this equipment, the president could simply move ahead and instruct the Department of Defense to send it. The president and the military could then approach Congress and ask for additional funding to replace equipment already given to Ukraine. There are several complications with this approach. First, there is a $14.5 billion limit on how much equipment can be given away per fiscal year — a limit that the administration is fast approaching. Second, the U.S. military may be more hesitant to cede equipment to Ukraine without knowing it has the funds to replace its stockpiles. While the president can overrule these concerns, this would create significant bureaucratic opposition and resistance, particularly from the impacted military services. Furthermore, if Congress refuses to appropriate additional funds to replace equipment sent to Ukraine, the U.S. military could face shortfalls that impact the readiness of the force. Second, the Biden administration could redirect some of the Department of Defense’s $816.7 billion defense budget toward Ukraine. The most recent defense budget was plussed up by an additional $45 billion above the administration’s request. The Department of Defense could likely find $10–20 billion to reallocate to fill gaps created by sending equipment to Ukraine. This is, after all, how European countries are aiding Ukraine, through their regular defense While most program retransfers within the department are fairly routine, finding funds of this magnitude would require hard tradeoffs. The reaction is unlikely to be as negative as when the Trump administration reprogrammed $3.8 budgets. billion from the Department of Defense to help pay for the border wall. But reprograming this much funding will certainly create bureaucratic challengers that will push back strongly against how money is being spent. Congressional appropriators and Defense Department planners no doubt have designs on this funding, such as strengthening the U.S. military’s force posture in Asia. This might lead to some further loss of support amongst China hawks in Congress. Nevertheless, as noted above, the leaders of key congressional committees are strong supporters of Ukraine and would likely support redirecting funds for military aid. Third, the administration could reallocate funding from other U.S. security assistance programs in the State Department and the Department of Defense. This may seem the most straightforward place to find funding but there are significant limitations. Most problematic, however, is there is just not that much funding in these accounts that’s available or flexible enough to transfer to meet Ukraine’s needs. It is unlikely that key partners like Israel, which receives the largest portion of U.S. security assistance at $3.3 billion, will be content with reductions and will make that known on Capitol Hill. While there have been significant increases in security assistance funding after the invasion of Ukraine, much of this funding is planned for other partners in Europe, with the United States helping to backfill countries that have aided Ukraine, such as by providing Sovietera tanks. The United States could reallocate some of this funding to aid Ukraine directly. However, this will leave other partners in the lurch and reduce their incentives to support Ukraine. There are two impacts: First, US credibility. Moyar '23 – (Mark; William P. Harris Chair of Military History @ Hillsdale College; 2-22-2023; "Ukraine war tests the credibility of credibility;" Hill; https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3864949-ukraine-war-tests-the-credibility-of-credibility/) NT-ML Ukraine differs from Vietnam in that far fewer observers consider it vital to America’s national security. Whereas North Vietnam and its Soviet and Chinese allies possessed formidable military and economic power and a contagious ideology, today’s Russia is not a superpower and is not bound to other powers by common values. This reality does Over the past year, the Biden administration hascommitted so much aid to Ukraine that it has put its credibility on the line.Ukrainian military successes thus far have allowed the United States to preserve Ukraine without sending in American combat troops. But with a large offensive not let the United States off the credibility hook, however. looming, by a Russian military that has a larger recruiting base and a high tolerance for casualties, we must assume that American forces at some point could be needed to Should the United States commit ground forces, it will incur heavy costs and risks, including the risk of nuclear war. Should it stay out, it will encourage China to believe that the United States will not fight for Taiwan, either. The United States, therefore, has a spare Ukraine from total defeat. If it comes to that point, the United States will face a decision comparable to Johnson’s decision on Vietnam. strong interest in ensuring that the war ends before Ukraine reaches the verge of defeat. Given Putin’s will and ability to persist, ending the war may require leaving parts of Ukraine in Russian hands. It would be a bitter pill; seizing sovereign territory by force is an affront to international stability as well as to human dignity. But the world has stomached Russia’s conquest of Crimea, and it can probably weather additional Russian gains better than it is likely to endure either a Russo-American war or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Second, global stability. In the event of a russian victory—Shalom-22 writes: Shalom 8-23. Professor of political science at William Paterson University, where he has been a faculty member since 1977. "Ukraine and the Dangers of Nuclear War". New Politics. 8-23-2022. https://newpol.org/ukraine-and-the-dangers-of-nuclear-war/, //recut SJID Imagine what would happen if Washington responded to Putin’s nuclear bluster by stopping its weapons supplies to Ukraine or lifting its sanctions. The Kremlin, now with a proven method of getting its way, could then demand surrender from Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet republics where Russian troops currently hold contested territory. And when the United States and NATO refused to provide arms to these governments (because, after all, one doesn’t want to risk nuclear war), the two countries would have little option but to submit. But why stop there? If Russia then demanded (with appropriate rhetoric and missile tests) that NATO troops be removed from the Baltic states, would it be worth risking madman Putin escalating to nuclear war? So best comply. And if it then further demanded that no NATO arms be provided to these former components of the Soviet Union, again, why provoke the Bear? But at some point, either Moscow or Washington will miscalculate – will NATO back down? is Russia bluffing? — and we’ll be in the midst of a nuclear war. And Putin wouldn’t be the only one to try to take advantage of this strategy. Would his success encourage[s] other nuclear bullies? Might Israel then make demands of Iran, to which Tehran would have to give in lest it face Armageddon? Might China demand that the United States stop arming and even trading with Taiwan, facilitating a bloodless conquest? Might North Korea demand that South Korea and Japan subsidize its economy? But giving in to Putin’s threats wouldn’t only encourage continuing acts of nuclear extortion. It would also provoke the potential victims of this extortion to rush to acquire nuclear arms of their own as a means of self-protection. South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, and others would inevitably seek to become nuclear weapons states (if they are not already doing so). Some experts have claimed that widespread nuclear proliferation would be great, because no one would ever go to war again, fearing nuclear retaliation. But as most analysts understand, the risks of accidental, inadvertent, or escalatory war, or terrorism, or sabotage increases exponentially with the number of nuclear weapons states. Stephen R. Extinction, Starr-14 Even a “small” nuclear war would produce millions of tons of smoke that would encircle the earth creating ice age conditions. No crops could be grown. which would cause the side that “won” to perish in nuclear famine, just as would the rest of humanity. Conventional War is still deadly. Payne-16: A war using “only” such modern non-nuclear weapons would cause death levels far beyond 80 million. Thus we negate.
