If you want to argue "this costs the US money, but it's worth the cost, because it has a benefit to our preparedness", that's one thing. But from the article:

If you want to argue "this costs the US money, but it's worth the cost, because it has a benefit to our preparedness", that's one thing. But from the article: > This makes it “a misnomer” to call the $68 billion he calculates we have spent to arm Ukraine “aid.” I really think the article, and people commenting in this thread, are blurring the lines between idea "this might be good for US military preparedness" (arguably true) with "this is a free lunch because it's paying american workers" (just false). To summarize my position as unambiguously as possible: there may be second-order benefits, but aid to Ukraine is an economic cost to the US, not a free lunch. If you want to argue for non-economic benefits, I'm not saying anything in this thread that contradicts you.