US would spend $ 808 bn to defend new 2,600-mile NATO border if Russia wins in Ukraine, report says

A new analysis released by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) reveals that a Russian victory in its war against Ukraine could force the United States to spend an additional $808 billion on defense over five years – more than seven times the current military aid provided to Kyiv. The comprehensive report "Dollars and Sense: America's Interest in a Ukrainian Victory" presents a stark financial and strategic assessment of what America would face if Russia defeats Ukraine. Their analysis suggests that from 2025 to 2029, the US would need to dramatically expand its military capabilities to counter an emboldened Russia positioned directly on NATO's eastern flank.

"Instead, we should be worried about what not helping Ukraine would cost," the authors emphasize. "Right now, by providing aid to Kyiv, the United States is preventing Russia from directly menacing eastern and central Europe—something that would doubtlessly consume more American resources."

2,600 miles of new frontline awaits NATO after Russian victory

The research, conducted using the AEI Defense Futures Simulator and drawing on extensive military planning scenarios, provides the most detailed analysis to date of the financial implications of US strategic choices regarding Ukraine.

The report outlines how a Russian victory would create a new 2,600-mile front between NATO and Russia, requiring massive American military reinforcement. Moscow would gain territory and significant military assets – including the potential to force local people into its army – along with Ukraine's industrial and economic capacity. The analysis projects that Russia would gain the ability to press "hundreds of thousands of highly trained, skilled, and battle-tested Ukrainian soldiers into its force and draw on millions of Ukrainians whom Kyiv had not mobilized to fight."

The new landscape Putin's victory might establish. Photo: aei.org

The projected $808 billion additional defense spending would fund extensive military expansion across all domains. The US would need to add 266,000 military personnel, focusing heavily on ground forces to man 14 new brigade combat teams. The Navy would require 18 more battleforce ships, while the Air Force would need 555 additional aircraft. Space assets and cyber capabilities would also require substantial expansion. By comparison, current US military aid to Ukraine since the beginning of the full-scale war in 2022 totals $112 billion through the Department of Defense – less than 14% of what dealing with a victorious Russia would cost. Moreover, the report notes that most of this aid is spent within the United States on domestic weapons production, effectively reinvigorating the American defense industrial base. The financial commitment to Ukraine represents a small fraction of the overall US budget. Over a two-year period, less than 0.2% of the total US budget has been allocated to aid Ukraine. This investment has enabled Ukraine to effectively counter Russian aggression, serving as a bulwark that enhances regional stability and reduces the likelihood of broader regional instability. The analysis by AEI also projects specific domain requirements: $87.8 billion for land power, $50.3 billion for sea power, $108.7 billion for air power, and $173.1 billion for munitions and air defense systems. Facilities, forward presence, and military readiness would require $248.4 billion, while space and cyber capabilities would need $36.5 billion. The defense industrial base would require $63.3 billion in investments to meet increased production demands.

Cost to the United States of a Russian victory in Ukraine. Photo: aei.org

Regarding military recruitment and retention, the report identifies this as a critical challenge that would require extensive additional funding. The authors estimate that beyond the current compensation packages, an additional $20 billion would be needed across the Future Years Defense Program to build and maintain a total force of 1,459,000 active-duty personnel and 942,000 National Guard and reserve members—numbers deemed necessary to meet the expanded threat environment. The strategic environment would become significantly more complex, as Russia's victory could embolden other adversaries. The report warns that China, Iran, and North Korea might "use the opportunity to wreak havoc against American interests in their own regions, further collapsing the idea of regions at all and emphasizing that there will be no rear, safe areas." A particular concern is Russia's potential military posture after absorbing Ukraine. The report projects that Russian ground forces would be well-supplied with millions of tactical unmanned systems, stockpiled cruise missiles, and thousands of long-range attack drones. The exclave of Kaliningrad, Belarus, and western Ukraine would be , creating a multi-layered threat to NATO.

The hidden costs of abandoning Ukraine

The report envisions a scenario contingent on the West halting Ukraine's support. In this case, by 2026, Ukraine's conventional forces could collapse after losing effective air defense, allowing Russia to conduct large-scale bombing of military and civilian infrastructure. Russian President Vladimir Putin would then deploy Russia's National Guard (Rosgvardiya)—his internal security force—to suppress Ukrainian resistance while reconstituting combat units and fully incorporating the Belarusian military through Union State agreements. The report emphasizes that after victory, Russia would spread its military forces widely across the territory, placing them in small groups over vast areas rather than concentrating them in large bases, making them harder to target. These scattered ground units at various levels would have extensive tactical electronic warfare systems and GPS jamming capabilities. Russia would also likely employ anti-satellite capabilities to degrade NATO communications and GPS systems—first through electronic interference and hacking and later through physical destruction of satellites once the fighting begins. The maritime dimension receives special attention, with the report noting that the entire Mediterranean would become vulnerable to combined Russian and Iranian influence (operating from Mali, Niger, and Syria). The analysis emphasizes that there would be "no rear locations"—every strategic position would be contested, requiring a fundamental rethinking of US naval deployment patterns. The authors also examine an alternative scenario where increased multinational support helps Ukraine achieve victory. This outcome would allow the US to maintain a smaller European presence while focusing more resources on the Pacific and Middle East. A successful Ukraine would emerge as a strong NATO partner with a battle-tested military and revitalized industrial base, contributing to European security rather than requiring massive American reinforcement.

The US military resources planned for FY2029 versus what would be needed if Ukraine loses the war. Photo: aei.org

The report comes at a key moment as President Donald Trump begins his term, highlighting potential shifts in US policy toward Ukraine. The analysis suggests that current aid to Ukraine represents a strategic investment that could prevent much larger military expenditures in the future.

"A world in which Russia prevails would be more dangerous and more expensive for America—and likely much more of both than we capture here," the authors conclude.

The authors note that their $808 billion estimate might be conservative, as it doesn't include potential costs of refugee crises, expanded nuclear deterrence, or classified programs that would likely be necessary in a post-Ukraine-defeat scenario. The AEI report's findings strongly align with a similar analysis published by two prominent Dutch think tanks—the Clingendael Institute of International Relations and The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies—in July 2024. Their policy paper, "Freedom isn't Free | A cost-benefit analysis of support for Ukraine," examined three potential scenarios: Ukrainian victory, protracted conflict, and Russian victory. The Dutch analysis mirrors the AEI report's key finding: while supporting Ukraine now requires significant investment, letting Russia win would cost far more. According to the Dutch think tanks, European NATO allies might need to double their defense spending if Russia wins and the US scales back its European presence. This aligns with AEI's projection that the US would face an $808 billion defense burden. Read more: