Bill Overview
Title: A bill to provide security assistance for Ukraine, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Defense to provide security assistance, including defense articles and services, to Ukraine or a NATO member country, to assist in the recipient country's defense of its territorial integrity. The authority to provide such assistance shall terminate on December 31, 2022.
Sponsors: Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: People in Ukraine
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill authorizes security assistance to Ukraine or NATO member countries, which directly involves these nations.
- Ukraine is the primary recipient, given its geographic and political circumstances with territorial integrity issues due to ongoing conflict.
- There are 43.8 million people in Ukraine according to a 2021 estimate, all potentially impacted by enhanced security measures.
- NATO member countries collectively have a large population. However, individual impacts may vary significantly and are less direct than those in Ukraine.
- Support to Ukraine could enhance security and stability in Eastern Europe, indirectly affecting neighboring regions and global diplomatic ties.
Reasoning
- The bill primarily benefits Ukraine and NATO member countries by aiding their defense capabilities. Consequently, most U.S. citizens won't directly perceive changes in their daily lives due to this policy.
- Indirect impacts may occur through shifts in U.S. defense related jobs or contracts, impacting employment levels within those industries.
- There's potential for a broader economic impact due to changing geopolitical dynamics, potentially affecting financial markets or trade, which might indirectly affect wellbeing in the U.S.
- People with family in Ukraine or involved in military service may feel differently, worrying more about international stability than the general population.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Contractor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is crucial for Ukraine's defense against aggression.
- It might create more contracts for defense companies, including where I work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might stabilize markets by reducing conflict risks in Europe.
- It's hard to quantify direct personal impact, but stability is good for business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
University Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might redistribute international power balances.
- I'm more optimistic about future stability with policies like this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Homemaker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm unsure how this affects me directly but I support helping allies.
- Indirectly, global stability is beneficial for everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Military Personnel (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strategically, this could strengthen NATO's deterrent efforts.
- Policymaking in defense can be complex but often necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Military assistance is a geopolitical necessity but local impacts are minor.
- I can use this example in class to explain international relations.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cyber security could see more demand due to new global tensions.
- This policy might indirectly fuel innovation in my field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Nurse (Denver, CO)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see direct effects in my field from this policy.
- Focus remains on national policies for community health impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Skeptical of military focus over diplomatic solutions.
- Long-term peace should prioritize negotiation over force.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The impact may reflect in economic models more than in daily life.
- U.S. commitments require careful economic strategy balancing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $300000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Political dynamics in Ukraine and NATO may affect implementation and cost.
- Changes in defense spending priorities in the US could alter cost estimates.
- International diplomatic responses might influence future US commitments.