>Healthcare, infrastructure, debt relief, housing, white-collar crime enforcement

Ekhm...

>Especially if it's from the DOD/military budget.

Also, the US military doctrine assumes always being ready to fight two superpowers at once. Right now, one of these superpowers is bleeding out after methodically bashing its head against a certain Ukrainian wall.

Don't be fooled into thinking this is a "local conflict" or anything like that - this is 100% a world war (even if it's "weird" and seems local), because the times have changed and these days everything is global. If Ukraine falls and Russia is allowed to rebuild, it WILL go after the Baltic states and Poland, who knows if they'll stop there.

Now, we already know what happens if you let a dictator take land without repercussions, so this cannot stand.

It would be immoral (considering the crimes the russians are committing) AND self destructive (considering how intertwined the global markets are).

>All better ways to spend money than sticking it to Russia.

For RIGHT NOW, maybe. Although it's not like the US is a poor, third world country and can't do both - support Ukraine AND do all the things you listed. I mean, come on, mate - they've sent 0,4% of their GDP so far, it's not like you can reform a whole country for that. Or even just healthcare.

Also, this 0,4% doesn't mean the US has sent that much money, which could be used for, say, housing. That includes the declared value of the equipment they're sending. So tell me, how many hospitals can you nationalise for 150 M777 howitzers?

So, yeah, there are better ways of governing money, if you're USA. But as far as spending your military budget goes - you can't do better than having someone fight for you while at the same time cleaning up your warehouses of old stuff.