Is it going to be more difficult for Ukraine to get military aid now that Israel is also requesting aid? [closed]

Question

Number two, Secretary Austin will be discussing Israel's security assistance needs there. And I'd like to provide you an update. The first shipment of our military aid, including munitions, arrived earlier this week. We fully expect to see continuous delivery of U.S. security assistance to Israel in response to their requests.

There are also deliveries and preparation of Iron Dome missile interceptors, and we will continue to be responsive to Israel's requests for air defense, artillery ammunition, and precision-guided munitions. Secretary Austin's commitment to responding expeditiously to Israel's requests is a high priority for his national security team, and he is working with us daily to ensure that we are responsive in moving out.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3555887/senior-defense-official-holds-a-background-briefing-on-israel/

Is it going to be more difficult for Ukraine to get military aid now that Israel is also requesting aid? It seems like the budget needs to go through Congress and there's no way for the U.S. to provide aid by bypassing the Congress, so I was wondering if it's going to be more difficult to provide aid, or no the U.S. president or U.S. military can easily acquire the funds somehow even if Congress blocks it.

Answer 1

Financially, the USA should not have a problem backing both. According to CNBC, when US Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen was asked about this she said that the US can afford to back both countries. The US military budget is larger than the whole GDP of Israel and Ukraine combined according to data, so money is not an issue for the US.

The problem is that the West might not be able to produce enough munitions for both in case of bigger conflict in the Middle East. While the West is much richer than countries such as Russia, western economies are not wartime economies but peacetime economies.

It is not trivial to ramp up the production of complex munitions such as the recently popularized ATACMS missiles sent to Ukraine (which Israel also uses). Israel will also need missiles for the Patriot system (for Iron Dome) which reduces the number of missiles for US Patriot systems.

As reported by BBC, western countries were already running low on stocks of ammo before the Israel-Gaza conflict. Now this may get much worse if a full-blown war starts.

There is also no easy and quick fix for it. It is questionable whether Western voters would support shifts to a wartime economy, which would entail the government intervening in such a way that would reduce the people's standard of living, in exchange for making more resources available for military production. Autocracies like Iran, Russia, and China can do this easily. Democracies can't. For example, during WWII it took about 2 years to switch to a wartime economy, and this was already from heightened military production since the USA was already the 'arsenal of democracy' before it even joined the war.

So to summarize, the problem is not money but military production. Ukraine cannot defend itself by throwing stacks of cash into enemy trenches. They need shells, missiles, and so on. If a two-front war would open in the Middle East (Israel vs Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in South Lebanon), demand for munition from Western suppliers might very well outpace supply. This might put both Ukraine and Israel in danger (in case both are supplied inadequately) or it might put only one of these countries in danger if the West decides to pick one of them as their favorite.

Answer 2

There could be some political linking, but financially Israeli aid will probably be negligible. Today Biden pledged $100 million to Israel, and it seems likely that additional aid packages will be in the same neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the aid we've given so far to Ukraine has been over $40 billion, and billions more are likely in the near future. So Israeli aid will be a fraction of a percent of the combined aid. Not quite pocket change, but when you're talking numbers like these, it's pretty close to negligible.

But on the political side, it's easy to imagine politicians using approval of Israeili aid as a bargaining chip. Someone who is against aid to Ukraine might set them up as mutually exclusive alternatives, expecting that there's more support for Israel (as a long-term ally with lots of public support) than Ukraine (most Americans probably never thought much about it until Russia invaded). But they could just as well use it for some other concession, rather than pitting the two countries against each other.

Answer 3

Yes. No. Maybe. I.e., I'm not sure there's a definitive answer here, until this stuff gets put to a vote.

On one hand, it was suggested in a comment that deal making (logrolling) in Washington will mean it will be easier to pass support for Ukraine, over the opposition of the Freedom Caucus. (Biden at least, appears to be banking on that--sending a combined request to Congress.) On the other hand, the Freedom Caucus doesn't seem in a compromising mood right now. Their nominee for speaker (Jim Jordan) isn't exactly famous for compromises either. OTOH, Axios reported that he might be willing to compromise on that, but other FH members might not.

Four House Republicans walked away from conversations with House GOP speaker nominee Jim Jordan under the impression he'll allow a floor vote on linking Ukraine funding with Israel funding if he wins the gavel, Axios has learned.

[...] "He's not going to block a vote," said one of the House Republicans who spoke with Jordan.

[...] "However you feel about Israel and Ukraine, I think a responsible and reasonable government ought to address those questions separately," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said last week.

Aside from that there are some objective, albeit minor factors to consider, namely that the US gave some of its Israel-based stocks to Ukraine, back in January. Officially Israel didn't protest... much. But the possibility of war on other fronts (besides with Hamas) perhaps makes those [remaining] US stocks less easy to move out of Israel, now.

---

And this is rather orthogonal, but may affect Ukraine:

After three weeks, the House of Representatives has (finally) elected a new speaker, Louisiana’s Mike Johnson, who has mostly opposed funding the war effort, receiving an “F” (“very poor”) grade on the Republicans for Ukraine “report card”, a website that ranks support for Ukraine. The speaker of the house is often considered the second most powerful role in US politics and can make or break the president’s agenda.

And while the House has yet approve new funds for Israel (AFAIK, as I'm writing this) they did pass a resolution of support, as the first thing they did under the new Speaker. And, more relevant, after taking office, the new Speaker said he opposes bundling Ukraine with Israel aid.

Newly elected U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said on Thursday that funding to support Ukraine and Israel should be handled separately, suggesting he will not back President Joe Biden's $106 billion aid package for both countries. [...]

"Israel is a separate matter – we are going to bring forward a standalone Israel funding measure (of) over $14 billion,” Johnson said in the interview. He said House Republicans will look for other areas to cut in the budget in order to finance the funding for Israel.

---

And these are small numbers, but interesting movements, nonetheless

The weapons shipments include a reverse trip for 155mm shells. The 57,000 had been sent from US stocks in Israel to US European Command locations to restock munitions that were sent to Ukraine for its fight against Russia’s invasion. Now the restocked munitions are being sent back to Israel for its use in the conflict with Hamas, according to a congressional aide and US officials.

FWTW, there's also this PBS poll from early Nov, which shows about 35% of Americans support more funding for both, about 36% for neither, and the remainder are split in about 12% supporting more funding only for Ukraine or only for Israel 14% (margin of error plus-or-minus 3.4 pp.):

Answer 4

As I understand, Hamas fighters are long driven out of the territories they took during the initial assault so the immediate conflict is close to over.

The retaliation project "to turn Gaza into a village of tents" is very unlikely to get amount of support from the world comparable to that Ukraine does.

More likely, Israel will punish as much as affordable and this will end.