No, you're just having a totally different conversation.
I already said there are absolutely ancillary benefits. But that doesn't mean it's not costing money. It's costing a lot of money! The article is trying to make the point that the money is just coming back to the American economy and therefore, in a sense, isn't "costing" us. But that's false. We are spending real money.
Is the money worth it to affect the war effort? Of course. But it's real money being spent. It's not "coming back to us".
As I've restated several different ways, the economic gains from arms transfers are very likely to be a net gain for the US economy. It may not show up neatly on a P+L statement, but the magnitude of the potential gains vastly outweighs any trade-offs.
Ukraine was a growing trade partner with a trade balance that benefited the US and all those numbers go to 0 and stay there if it become a Russian puppet state. That's just one of many examples of how these arms transfers can provide a real, material gain to the US economy, which, as I have stated, cannot be replicated by spending money in any other way. It's not some fluffy "ancillary" benefit.
I already said there are absolutely ancillary benefits. But that doesn't mean it's not costing money. It's costing a lot of money! The article is trying to make the point that the money is just coming back to the American economy and therefore, in a sense, isn't "costing" us. But that's false. We are spending real money.
Is the money worth it to affect the war effort? Of course. But it's real money being spent. It's not "coming back to us".