Krugman is a politician, not an economist. I used to like him/follow him, but he has become 100% politicised.

Sorry, but your argument as to why sending $150 billion to Ukraine is actually good for the US economy made me chuckle. It i ludicrous.

You base your argument on a faulty assumption: namely, that Russia poses a threat in Europe. Russia does not pose a threat in Europe, and did not pose a threat until the US created one by expanding NATO.

Expanding NATRO required a threat and enemy, so the US created one.

This is just more "Ukraine is the center fo the universe" thinking. Sorry, but Ukraine is unique only in that it serves as a buffer between Russia and the West. In this, it is truly unique and constitutes a unique red line for Russia, as they have been telling us for decades. Russia wants Ukraine to be neutral, and insists that Ukraine remain neutral. This is what Zelensky agreed to last April, but the US and UK killed the deal because THEY WANTED WAR.

"War is good for business". It enriches the MIC, the companies that fund US political campaigns. But it is not good for the economy, and nothing you say will change that.