To Arm or Not to Arm Ukrainians?

Unfortunately, the only leverage US weapons sales provide is the type that recipient countries use to receive ever more arms, despite their risks. According to academic studies, foreign aid for influence and arms for influence attempts are unsuccessful.

The Cato Institute’s arms sales risk index project sees similar results. For example, Saudi Arabia has the largest recipient of American-made weapons since 2009. Riyadh has used these weapons against US interests to continue ravaging Yemen and an “anti-corruption purge” to crack down on those fighting government corruption.

Former President Donald Trump ironically understood the follies of arms providing influence. Congress attempted to cancel sales to Saudi Arabia after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. But Trump argued that “we would be punishing ourselves” by canceling these weapons transfers. He believed that stopping the weapons flow would hurt the United States more than the Saudis, and as a result, these sales would continue.

Weapons sales instead created a “reverse leverage.” In other words, any exertion of leverage by the United States became self-harming because economic and political blowback from canceling a sale is significant. Further, if the United States cancels a sale, there is a risk that the recipient will seek arms from a US competitor. Research finds that US military aid causes recipient states to be oppositional instead of cooperative. Yet, the weapons continue to flow. For example, the Saudis asked for and received weapons to defend their homeland but used them to wage human rights abuses in Yemen.

Ignoring risk gives other countries leverage over the United States, not the other way around. “Arms for influence” becomes a self-licking ice cream cone. The more weapons that are transferred to risky countries, the more the United States becomes complicit in human rights abuses and unnecessary conflicts.