I agree with M. L. Our's is a good strategy -- Hardly ideal -- but it resonates with history. Great Britain used that strategy, funding European nations allied against Napoleon. And we did the same thing in WW2, funding Russia to keep the Germans tied up on the Eastern Front (Roosevelt's lend lease program).

$76.8 billion is a drop in the bucket when compared with the trillions spent in the two G W Bush wars, with thousands of American lives lost to boot, and for what? The above mentioned fundings cost no American or British lives (until Waterloo in the latter) and helped drain the coffers of the enemy. Make no mistake, Putin is another Hitler and must be made as uncomfortable as possible! He is a threat to the World!!
I think more recent examples are in Afghanistan. In the late 1970s going into the 80s, the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. The US and other countries provided support to militants to help drive them out. As recent as a few years ago, Russia was also helping the Taliban fight against the US forces in Afghanistan as reported in the New York Times.

Of course, that strategy could work in Ukraine against the Russians, as it has in the past conflicts, but I question at what price or how far we should go, esp. if or when things on the ground aren't going as well as expected. That is probably the difference in our views, how far we should go in supporting Ukraine. Sure Russia is a threat, but I don't see them taking Ukraine as being a major issue for the US. I doubt it would embolden Russia to also attack a NATO country because they know the US would get involved in that, with US boots on the ground.