Total U.S. aid to Ukraine in 2022-2023 was 0.33 percent of GDP. The budget deficit was 6.3% of GDP in FY 2023.
>>>The federal budget deficit—the difference between government spending and revenues—
increased from 5.4% of GDP in FY 2022 to 6.3% of GDP in FY 2023.<<<
Simplifying for purposes of discussion, if we lump all Ukraine aid into FY 2023, we could reduce the deficit for FY 2023 from about 6.3% of GDP to about 6.0% of GDP. This might be Putin's plan but I have a hard time seeing how it would make a significant difference in the grand scheme of things.
Also, quite a bit of the spending that has been labeled "Aid to Ukraine" is arguably not really any such thing.
>>>One striking element of the request is that $3.5 billion is, at best, indirectly related to Ukraine and arguably entirely unrelated. The Department of State would receive $1 billion for “transformative, quality, and sustainable infrastructure projects that align with U.S. strategic interests and support U.S. partners and allies. Funding would allow the United States to provide credible, reliable alternatives to out-compete China.” The World Bank through the International Development Association would receive $1 billion “to support the IDA’s crisis response window, which provides rapid financing and grants to the poorest countries to respond to severe crises” and another $1.25 billion through the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for loan guarantees “to provide financing to help countries such as Colombia, Peru, Jordan, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, Kenya, and Vietnam build new infrastructure and supply chains.” Finally, $200 million would go to a new fund in the Department of State to counter “Russian malign actors” in Africa.
While all of these uses might [or might not] be justified, their inclusion in an emergency supplemental was likely opportunistic. The Office of Management and Budget often refers to this as the “Christmas tree” effect, whereby agencies that could not get money through the regular budget try to append the funds to an emergency supplemental.<<<
An additional $24 billion has been requested for the war in Ukraine. This is vital for both military operations and humanitarian relief, but a disappointing Ukrainian counteroffensive makes politics more difficult.
www.csis.org
It's also not entirely clear how much of the military aid to Ukraine constitutes older stockpiles that were slated to be destroyed. For example, the U.S. government stopped purchasing cluster munitions in 2007, and various reports suggest that the remaining stockpiles were apparently scheduled to be destroyed.
>>>[T][he United States hasn’t allotted funds for cluster munition production since 2007 . . . The exact number of cluster munitions in current U.S. stockpiles in unclear, but according to the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor’s 2016
report, the United States had 6 million cluster munitions in its inventory in 2011 and in 2015 had roughly 136,000 tons of the munitions in a stockpile set to be destroyed.<<<
I'm not sure if the purported value of the cluster munitions has been included in the various reports concerning the value of U.S. aid to Ukraine, but it's hard to see how this type of aid would require additional "new" spending that would contribute to the budget deficit.
In one sense, sending older equipment is an accounting issue:
>>>The Pentagon overestimated the value of the ammunition, missiles and other equipment it sent to
Ukraine by about $3bn, an error that may lead the way for more weapons being sent to Kyiv for its defense against Russian forces.
The error was the result of assigning a higher-than-warranted value on weaponry that was taken from US stocks and then shipped to Ukraine, two senior defense officials said on Thursday.<<<
‘Inconsistencies in how we value equipment’ could lead to more weapons being sent to Kyiv to defend against Russian forces
www.theguardian.com
If the government does not need to ramp up current spending to replace equipment sent to Ukraine (e.g. because the equipment would have been destroyed anyway), the aid would not result in an increase in the U.S. budget deficit.
Some of the aid to Ukraine undoubtedly did require "new" government spending that did contribute to the budget deficit, but I have yet to find a reliable breakdown on this.