Bill Overview
Title: Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes security assistance for Ukraine, requires sanctions against Russia if it escalates hostilities in or against Ukraine, and addresses related issues. The bill (1) authorizes the Department of Defense to use various authorities to provide and expedite the delivery of defense articles to support Ukraine's armed forces, (2) allows the President to exercise drawdown authority to provide defense articles to Ukraine, and (3) authorizes the Department of State to provide International Military Education and Training assistance to Ukraine. The President must periodically determine whether Russia's government is significantly escalating hostilities in or against Ukraine and whether such an escalation has the aim or effect of undermining Ukraine's government or interfering with Ukraine's sovereignty or territorial integrity. If the President determines that Russia's government has engaged in such escalation, the President must impose sanctions on (1) certain government officials, including Russia's president and prime minister; (2) certain Russian financial institutions; (3) entities involved in certain transactions involving Russian debt; (4) entities (and corporate officers of such entities) involved in constructing or operating Russia's Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline; and (5) certain entities involved in Russian resource extraction industries. The President may terminate such sanctions after certifying to Congress that Russia's government has taken certain actions, such as entering into an agreed settlement with Ukraine's legitimate democratic government. The bill also authorizes Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to explore opening new bureaus to reach new audiences on Russia's periphery. The State Department must establish an initiative to deepen and foster ties with the Baltic states.
Sponsors: Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by geopolitical actions involving Ukraine and Russia
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The primary target population of this bill includes the citizens and armed forces of Ukraine, as the bill aims to provide security assistance to Ukraine and strengthen its military capability.
- The bill will impact Russian government officials and economic entities due to the potential imposition of sanctions aimed at deterring hostilities against Ukraine.
- Entities involved in Russia's financial, pipeline, and resource extraction sectors may also be affected by the sanctions imposed under this bill.
- The broader population in Russia could experience indirect impacts through economic sanctions affecting the country's economy.
- The population in the Baltic states is another target due to initiatives aiming to deepen ties with these states.
- A global audience, especially in regions near Ukraine and Russia, may be exposed to influence operations via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's expansion of operations.
Reasoning
- The primary target population, as identified, includes residents of Ukraine directly affected by the policy's military and economic aspects. For this simulation, we focus on how this policy indirectly affects a select group of American citizens, given the policy's broader geopolitical impact.
- The individuals simulated here reflect a range of American citizens who may face economic or social impact due to changes in global markets or geopolitical influences, such as gas prices or global trade alterations.
- Considerations about the policy's budget constraints include focusing on feasible outcomes for diverse American demographics dealing with energy market fluctuations and economic consequences.
Simulated Interviews
Financial Analyst (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could introduce volatility in energy markets, affecting investments.
- Closer monitoring of Eastern Europe is necessary, which is both challenging and exciting professionally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Tech Industry (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The expansion into Ukraine is positive but requires cautiously observing geopolitical tensions.
- Travel safety and project timelines might be impacted under heightened tensions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Journalist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The expansion of Radio Free Europe is vital for reliable reporting in Eastern Europe.
- I'm concerned about misinformation and its impact on the public's perception.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Oil Industry Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sanctions could alter the global energy landscape significantly.
- Our business might benefit or suffer depending on market shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Government Advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act is critical for influencing Russia's strategic decisions.
- It fortifies U.S. alliances, but requires diplomatic precision.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our projects depend on the political stability in Ukraine.
- There's a risk to project timelines and team cohesion.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any increase in fuel prices affects my budget significantly.
- I'll have to adjust my expenses depending on policy outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is an important case study for my knowledge.
- It strengthens my area of interests but adds stress due to global impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy gives real-world insights that enhance teaching materials.
- It encourages engagement among students interested in current affairs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Logistics Manager (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy impacts logistics planning, introducing potential delays.
- Any instability could increase transport costs and risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 2: $2550000000 (Low: $2100000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 3: $2600000000 (Low: $2200000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 5: $2700000000 (Low: $2250000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 10: $2750000000 (Low: $2300000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 100: $3000000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $3550000000)
Key Considerations
- The U.S. defense industries may see increased demand from both this act and potential allied countries seeking similar assistance.
- The geopolitical context—evolving relations between U.S., Ukraine, and Russia—may alter cost implications significantly.