*** Official Russia vs. Ukraine Discussion - Invasion has begun *** (4 Viewers)

[beer 30]

We'll probably see some sort of peace agreement in the next year.

I'd put it at around 3 months but I'm an eternal optimist

 

[Harry Manback]

We'll probably see some sort of peace agreement in the next year.

I'd put it at around 3 months but I'm an eternal optimist

and "Peace" means Ukraine is now Russia.

 

[beer 30]

We'll probably see some sort of peace agreement in the next year.

I'd put it at around 3 months but I'm an eternal optimist

and "Peace" means Ukraine is now Russia.

It doesn't have to be but I'm guessing the border moves.

 

[Chadstroma]

We'll probably see some sort of peace agreement in the next year.

I'd put it at around 3 months but I'm an eternal optimist

and "Peace" means Ukraine is now Russia.

It doesn't have to be but I'm guessing the border moves.

Which, if it happens, is an absolute huge loss for us and the future. What happens now shapes what happens in the future. If Russia keeps more territory over the Crimea, it further destabilizes the world for the future. It will embolden Russia to gear back up and eye another conquest. But even more dangerous, and more likely is it will move the line to future war in Taiwan closer to happening. It will cost us more money and perhaps more American lives but absolutely, without doubt, will cost more lives worldwide.

 

[the moops]

We'll probably see some sort of peace agreement in the next year.

I'd put it at around 3 months but I'm an eternal optimist

and "Peace" means Ukraine is now Russia.

It doesn't have to be but I'm guessing the border moves.

Of course it has to be. No chance Putin just agrees to a peace deal that results in him not gaining territory

 

[Balco]

We'll probably see some sort of peace agreement in the next year.

I'd put it at around 3 months but I'm an eternal optimist

and "Peace" means Ukraine is now Russia.

It doesn't have to be but I'm guessing the border moves.

Of course it has to be. No chance Putin just agrees to a peace deal that results in him not gaining territory

Do you think he might possibly agree to something not involving the territory? Something financial?

 

[beer 30]

We'll probably see some sort of peace agreement in the next year.

I'd put it at around 3 months but I'm an eternal optimist

and "Peace" means Ukraine is now Russia.

It doesn't have to be but I'm guessing the border moves.

Which, if it happens, is an absolute huge loss for us and the future. What happens now shapes what happens in the future. If Russia keeps more territory over the Crimea, it further destabilizes the world for the future. It will embolden Russia to gear back up and eye another conquest. But even more dangerous, and more likely is it will move the line to future war in Taiwan closer to happening. It will cost us more money and perhaps more American lives but absolutely, without doubt, will cost more lives worldwide.

Yea I don't see that but I'm not an advocate of fighting to the last Ukrainian. Russia, per many articles you have posted in this thread, is imploding and mortgaging it's future for this stupid war. They've lost a generation or more of young men and you're telling me this is going to embolden them to advance further? With what? With who? They have 10,000 North Korean's imported to fight for them now and they are barely moving the line. They've sacrificed the next decade or more for this and they've gained very little.

Bringing Taiwan into the conversation is just silly at this point. We've been hearing about the pending invasion since this war started. Xi isn't going to move on Taiwan, especially now given recent events. We (US) need to get out of the war business. This war needs to end last week before there is no Ukraine left to defend.

Obviously we disagree on this and that's ok. I appreciate all the updates and carrying on Toews good work. Keep it up!

Of course it has to be. No chance Putin just agrees to a peace deal that results in him not gaining territory

Give him what he initially said he wanted, the areas that were beholden to Mother Russia to begin with, he's already got that territory. New border, take it or leave it and move forward. No way Ukraine remains the same as it did when the war started.

 

[Harry Manback]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

 

[SwampDawg]

We'll probably see some sort of peace agreement in the next year.

I'd put it at around 3 months but I'm an eternal optimist

and "Peace" means Ukraine is now Russia.

It doesn't have to be but I'm guessing the border moves.

Of course it has to be. No chance Putin just agrees to a peace deal that results in him not gaining territory

He might get Alaska at this point.

 

[beer 30]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

"We" is what gets me. "We" as the worlds police officer is over. The world has changed and "we" need to change with it. I'm not saying we abandon the world but we don't need to be hemorrhaging billions to these countries when we can't secure our own borders or house our own people.

Bretton Woods America is coming to a close, "we" need to shift our focus away from the worlds police officer. The world doesn't want us to fulfill that function anymore with the strings we attach to providing the world security on the water to allow international trade that we enjoy today. They want the security, without paying for it, and in most cases, want it without any injection of our democracy that "we" allows push on them.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

"We" is what gets me. "We" as the worlds police officer is over. The world has changed and "we" need to change with it. I'm not saying we abandon the world but we don't need to be hemorrhaging billions to these countries when we can't secure our own borders or house our own people.

Bretton Woods America is coming to a close, "we" need to shift our focus away from the worlds police officer. The world doesn't want us to fulfill that function anymore with the strings we attach to providing the world security on the water to allow international trade that we enjoy today. They want the security, without paying for it, and in most cases, want it without any injection of our democracy that "we" allows push on them.

How much actual money are we spending in Ukraine? It was my understanding that when people throw around the amount we're "spending" there the majority of that is not actual money, but rather a written "value" on weapons donations for weapons that we were going to mothball anyway, but are still somewhat state of the art for Ukraine.

So we give them old weapons we're no longer using and instead of just scrapping them, we get to help de-stabilize one of our largest geopolitical foes, provide support on the side of democracy against communism, and potentially gain a new NATO ally. Which seems like a pretty good deal for mostly a bunch of weapons we don't really use anymore anyway.

Oh, and as an added bonus get to be on the side of good and protect innocent people from suffering against evil imperialism.

Of course I'm sure there's more to it than that, but doesn't that account for at least the majority of the "spending" numbers we seem floated around Ukraine?

 

[culdeus]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

"We" is what gets me. "We" as the worlds police officer is over. The world has changed and "we" need to change with it. I'm not saying we abandon the world but we don't need to be hemorrhaging billions to these countries when we can't secure our own borders or house our own people.

Bretton Woods America is coming to a close, "we" need to shift our focus away from the worlds police officer. The world doesn't want us to fulfill that function anymore with the strings we attach to providing the world security on the water to allow international trade that we enjoy today. They want the security, without paying for it, and in most cases, want it without any injection of our democracy that "we" allows push on them.

How much actual money are we spending in Ukraine? It was my understanding that when people throw around the amount we're "spending" there the majority of that is not actual money, but rather a written "value" on weapons donations for weapons that we were going to mothball anyway, but are still somewhat state of the art for Ukraine.

So we give them old weapons we're no longer using and instead of just scrapping them, we get to help de-stabilize one of our largest geopolitical foes, provide support on the side of democracy against communism, and potentially gain a new NATO ally. Which seems like a pretty good deal for mostly a bunch of weapons we don't really use anymore anyway.

Oh, and as an added bonus get to be on the side of good and protect innocent people from suffering against evil imperialism.

Of course I'm sure there's more to it than that, but doesn't that account for at least the majority of the "spending" numbers we seem floated around Ukraine?

It's basically the cost of dumping fast fashion clothes in a donation box behind target. You never even wore the stuff and it's just taking up space.

 

[beer 30]

How much actual money are we spending in Ukraine? It was my understanding that when people throw around the amount we're "spending" there the majority of that is not actual money, but rather a written "value" on weapons donations for weapons that we were going to mothball anyway, but are still somewhat state of the art for Ukraine.

So we give them old weapons we're no longer using and instead of just scrapping them, we get to help de-stabilize one of our largest geopolitical foes, provide support on the side of democracy against communism, and potentially gain a new NATO ally. Which seems like a pretty good deal for mostly a bunch of weapons we don't really use anymore anyway.

Oh, and as an added bonus get to be on the side of good and protect innocent people from suffering against evil imperialism.

Of course I'm sure there's more to it than that, but doesn't that account for at least the majority of the "spending" numbers we seem floated around Ukraine?

I'm sure the armed services will draw down their stash of equipment and not replace it, it happens all the time, right?

I'd just be speculating if I told you I knew the breakdown on the funding or how it's being allocated so rather than make myself look like more of a fool than typical. I'm sure its been discussed in this thread by far more knowledgeable folk than me.

what I will address is a new NATO ally and all the good vs evil stuff. Russia will never, ever allow Ukraine to become a NATO country. You want an endless war and a potential opportunity for WWIII? Allow Ukraine to become a NATO member. The good vs evil argument falls flat when you look back on the last 20 years of US involvement in the Middle East. We were the evil imperialists for a good portion of recent history.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How much actual money are we spending in Ukraine? It was my understanding that when people throw around the amount we're "spending" there the majority of that is not actual money, but rather a written "value" on weapons donations for weapons that we were going to mothball anyway, but are still somewhat state of the art for Ukraine.

So we give them old weapons we're no longer using and instead of just scrapping them, we get to help de-stabilize one of our largest geopolitical foes, provide support on the side of democracy against communism, and potentially gain a new NATO ally. Which seems like a pretty good deal for mostly a bunch of weapons we don't really use anymore anyway.

Oh, and as an added bonus get to be on the side of good and protect innocent people from suffering against evil imperialism.

Of course I'm sure there's more to it than that, but doesn't that account for at least the majority of the "spending" numbers we seem floated around Ukraine?

I'm all for destabilizing Russia, but this isn't the cold war. The USSR no longer exists, and we don't need to worry about communists invading Europe anymore.

By all means, let's help out Ukraine, but this isn't a particularly important struggle for the US, and we should prioritize it accordingly.

 

[Chadstroma]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

"We" is what gets me. "We" as the worlds police officer is over. The world has changed and "we" need to change with it. I'm not saying we abandon the world but we don't need to be hemorrhaging billions to these countries when we can't secure our own borders or house our own people.

Bretton Woods America is coming to a close, "we" need to shift our focus away from the worlds police officer. The world doesn't want us to fulfill that function anymore with the strings we attach to providing the world security on the water to allow international trade that we enjoy today. They want the security, without paying for it, and in most cases, want it without any injection of our democracy that "we" allows push on them.

How much actual money are we spending in Ukraine? It was my understanding that when people throw around the amount we're "spending" there the majority of that is not actual money, but rather a written "value" on weapons donations for weapons that we were going to mothball anyway, but are still somewhat state of the art for Ukraine.

So we give them old weapons we're no longer using and instead of just scrapping them, we get to help de-stabilize one of our largest geopolitical foes, provide support on the side of democracy against communism, and potentially gain a new NATO ally. Which seems like a pretty good deal for mostly a bunch of weapons we don't really use anymore anyway.

Oh, and as an added bonus get to be on the side of good and protect innocent people from suffering against evil imperialism.

Of course I'm sure there's more to it than that, but doesn't that account for at least the majority of the "spending" numbers we seem floated around Ukraine?

About 2/3 (my rough estimate) of the spent 'money' has been the depreciated value of equipment donated. Much of it has been equipment at towards the end of it's shelf life, being phased or was phased out or outright obsolete. Most of what is immediately available in the US inventory that would meet that definition has been sent. We could dip into the boneyards, refurbish those up to operational status and then send them but it doesn't seem like we have done much of that. For example, there is about 2,000 M1A1 Abrams in storage at the Sierra Army Depot. Refurbish and send them.

 

[BassNBrew]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

"We" is what gets me. "We" as the worlds police officer is over. The world has changed and "we" need to change with it. I'm not saying we abandon the world but we don't need to be hemorrhaging billions to these countries when we can't secure our own borders or house our own people.

Bretton Woods America is coming to a close, "we" need to shift our focus away from the worlds police officer. The world doesn't want us to fulfill that function anymore with the strings we attach to providing the world security on the water to allow international trade that we enjoy today. They want the security, without paying for it, and in most cases, want it without any injection of our democracy that "we" allows push on them.

How much actual money are we spending in Ukraine? It was my understanding that when people throw around the amount we're "spending" there the majority of that is not actual money, but rather a written "value" on weapons donations for weapons that we were going to mothball anyway, but are still somewhat state of the art for Ukraine.

So we give them old weapons we're no longer using and instead of just scrapping them, we get to help de-stabilize one of our largest geopolitical foes, provide support on the side of democracy against communism, and potentially gain a new NATO ally. Which seems like a pretty good deal for mostly a bunch of weapons we don't really use anymore anyway.

Oh, and as an added bonus get to be on the side of good and protect innocent people from suffering against evil imperialism.

Of course I'm sure there's more to it than that, but doesn't that account for at least the majority of the "spending" numbers we seem floated around Ukraine?

About 2/3 (my rough estimate) of the spent 'money' has been the depreciated value of equipment donated. Much of it has been equipment at towards the end of it's shelf life, being phased or was phased out or outright obsolete. Most of what is immediately available in the US inventory that would meet that definition has been sent. We could dip into the boneyards, refurbish those up to operational status and then send them but it doesn't seem like we have done much of that. For example, there is about 2,000 M1A1 Abrams in storage at the Sierra Army Depot. Refurbish and send them.

Not arguing the pros and cons, but we don't have a Prime membership to get an M1A1 Abrams from here to there for free.

 

[Chadstroma]

Not arguing the pros and cons, but we don't have a Prime membership to get an M1A1 Abrams from here to there for free.

Our boys in logistics can use the training.

 

[Max Power]

And now there are talks of rushing another 9 billion in aid to Ukraine prior to Trump taking over because the current administration isn't sure our government will continue funding their war.

 

[Peggy]

We'll probably see some sort of peace agreement in the next year.

I hear there are "talks" already in the works. Encouraging.

 

[Peggy]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

War, as in life, isn't always fair. At some point there is diminishing returns for all parties versus an endless war. If and when an agreement is made it will be from all sides, that's why it's called an agreement.

 

[beer 30]

Refurbish and send them.

Our boys in logistics can use the training.

I know we are putting money in our own pockets from a lot of this business but I'd like to see that cash/effort directed elsewhere right now. The folks in Western NC could use as much attention.

 

[Redwes25]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

Our country has forgotten the lessons of two world wars that tyrannical governments that threaten their neighbors have to be resisted.

Did we go over board at times in last 80 years (Vietnam, Iraq and a few others) definitely but supplying arms to a democracy to defend itself is not one of those times.

 

[Redwes25]

And now there are talks of rushing another 9 billion in aid to Ukraine prior to Trump taking over because the current administration isn't sure our government will continue funding their war.

This is aid already approved but not sent yet.

 

[Chadstroma]

Refurbish and send them.

Our boys in logistics can use the training.

I know we are putting money in our own pockets from a lot of this business but I'd like to see that cash/effort directed elsewhere right now. The folks in Western NC could use as much attention.

The money spent on training for the US Military will be spent no matter what. Instead of some exercise, having logistics run outdated, unused equipment that is just sitting in a huge field in Northern California/Nevada make sense. There are whole units involved in these activities, they are going to be paid whether they are doing something or not. They can train in make belief or do it for real. From getting the equipment ready to shipping it. The cost is negligible compared to the effectiveness and long term pay off of turning Russia back.

The cash/effort for disaster areas is a straw man. Should more be done and can be done? Yes, but it has absolutely nothing to do with support of Ukraine and refurbishing old unused equipment. It is just a political argument made to score political points.

 

[Chadstroma]

By the way... the known plan is after peace is made that we will continue to supply arms to Ukraine. $$$ will still flow. That is all about that that I think I can safely say and not get too close to the politics line.

 

[the moops]

I know we are putting money in our own pockets from a lot of this business but I'd like to see that cash/effort directed elsewhere right now. The folks in Western NC could use as much attention.

It isn't an either/or though. It's not as if we decide to not fund Ukraine that the money then goes to NC. We should be giving money to NC regardless

 

[thecatch]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

"We" is what gets me. "We" as the worlds police officer is over. The world has changed and "we" need to change with it. I'm not saying we abandon the world but we don't need to be hemorrhaging billions to these countries when we can't secure our own borders or house our own people.

Bretton Woods America is coming to a close, "we" need to shift our focus away from the worlds police officer. The world doesn't want us to fulfill that function anymore with the strings we attach to providing the world security on the water to allow international trade that we enjoy today. They want the security, without paying for it, and in most cases, want it without any injection of our democracy that "we" allows push on them.

How much actual money are we spending in Ukraine? It was my understanding that when people throw around the amount we're "spending" there the majority of that is not actual money, but rather a written "value" on weapons donations for weapons that we were going to mothball anyway, but are still somewhat state of the art for Ukraine.

So we give them old weapons we're no longer using and instead of just scrapping them, we get to help de-stabilize one of our largest geopolitical foes, provide support on the side of democracy against communism, and potentially gain a new NATO ally. Which seems like a pretty good deal for mostly a bunch of weapons we don't really use anymore anyway.

Oh, and as an added bonus get to be on the side of good and protect innocent people from suffering against evil imperialism.

Of course I'm sure there's more to it than that, but doesn't that account for at least the majority of the "spending" numbers we seem floated around Ukraine?

About 2/3 (my rough estimate) of the spent 'money' has been the depreciated value of equipment donated. Much of it has been equipment at towards the end of it's shelf life, being phased or was phased out or outright obsolete. Most of what is immediately available in the US inventory that would meet that definition has been sent. We could dip into the boneyards, refurbish those up to operational status and then send them but it doesn't seem like we have done much of that. For example, there is about 2,000 M1A1 Abrams in storage at the Sierra Army Depot. Refurbish and send them.

Not arguing the pros and cons, but we don't have a Prime membership to get an M1A1 Abrams from here to there for free.

Keeping the Abrams in the field is a far bigger logistical hurdle than just getting them there. I have yet to see any serious analyst argue that what Ukraine needs most right now is advanced tanks.

 

[thecatch]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

Our country has forgotten the lessons of two world wars that tyrannical governments that threaten their neighbors have to be resisted.

Did we go over board at times in last 80 years (Vietnam, Iraq and a few others) definitely but supplying arms to a democracy to defend itself is not one of those times.

Ukraine is going to be forced into a peace that it is unhappy with at some point. We should help them, yes, but we should be even more focused on restoring our capabilities and filling the power vacuum we've created over the last 15 years. That is the root cause of the uptick in global instability in the first place.

 

[Chadstroma]

Keeping the Abrams in the field is a far bigger logistical hurdle than just getting them there. I have yet to see any serious analyst argue that what Ukraine needs most right now is advanced tanks.

The M1A1 was used as a for instance because I remember the rough number of tanks stored at Sierra Army Depot. Yes, the Abrams presents harder support for the Ukrainians than other tanks but the Ukrainians would absolutely take more of them with a big grin on their face.

But let me concede that just for the sake of moving on and state there are 26K tanks, trucks, armored vehicles, MRAPs, IFVs, APCs, etc in Sierra. There are still M113's there. There is zero reason why we need them stored and Ukraine would happily take them.

 

[thecatch]

Keeping the Abrams in the field is a far bigger logistical hurdle than just getting them there. I have yet to see any serious analyst argue that what Ukraine needs most right now is advanced tanks.

The M1A1 was used as a for instance because I remember the rough number of tanks stored at Sierra Army Depot. Yes, the Abrams presents harder support for the Ukrainians than other tanks but the Ukrainians would absolutely take more of them with a big grin on their face.

But let me concede that just for the sake of moving on and state there are 26K tanks, trucks, armored vehicles, MRAPs, IFVs, APCs, etc in Sierra. There are still M113's there. There is zero reason why we need them stored and Ukraine would happily take them.

We only don't need them if we rebuild our industrial capacity to replace them (which is long overdue and is a bigger strategic imperative as I said above). As Ukraine illustrates, we'd chew through that inventory really quick if we had to fight a real war somewhere.

 

[Redwes25]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

Our country has forgotten the lessons of two world wars that tyrannical governments that threaten their neighbors have to be resisted.

Did we go over board at times in last 80 years (Vietnam, Iraq and a few others) definitely but supplying arms to a democracy to defend itself is not one of those times.

Ukraine is going to be forced into a peace that it is unhappy with at some point. We should help them, yes, but we should be even more focused on restoring our capabilities and filling the power vacuum we've created over the last 15 years. That is the root cause of the uptick in global instability in the first place.

If Ukraine wants to settle that is fine with me. I just don't want them to be forced into a peace and want to continue supplying them arms until they make that decision. It is there people fighting and dying there to defend their homeland. If they want to fight then we should support them vs. pulling the rug out from under them.

I also don't disagree with you that we need to work on restoring our military that has been focused on wasteful asymetric warfare in the middle east for way to long. The amount of money wasted in Iraq and Afganistan pales into comparison to aid we have given Ukraine. We also need to learn to be more efficient with our resources vs our current miltary procurement works (especially Navy capital ships, which is a complete disaster).

 

[beer 30]

The money spent on training for the US Military will be spent no matter what. Instead of some exercise, having logistics run outdated, unused equipment that is just sitting in a huge field in Northern California/Nevada make sense. There are whole units involved in these activities, they are going to be paid whether they are doing something or not. They can train in make belief or do it for real. From getting the equipment ready to shipping it. The cost is negligible compared to the effectiveness and long term pay off of turning Russia back.

So point that effort to NC/TN/SC, that's my point. It's going to take years at the pace it is going now. Focus the Army Corp of Engineers and the weight of the US government on the effort and I'm guessing we could make that about 12 months.

I get what you are saying. We have piles of equipment we aren't using, is outdated, is going to be mothballed so why not give it to Ukraine. I'm not sold on it but I get what you are saying. Just seems like we are perpetuating the war by feeding the beast. I guess I'd more in favor of this strategy if everyone was sitting at a table and at least talking about some kind of resolution. We've tried war with no end game / exit strategy. We killed 100's of thousands of people, spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of our own people and injury God knows how many more on top of that, pretty much pissed off a large portion of the Muslim world and for what? The ability to say we beat the Taliban & Saddam Hussein? Well one of them anyhow. All I'm saying is let's go John Lennon this trip and give peace a chance, see how it works out

It isn't an either/or though. It's not as if we decide to not fund Ukraine that the money then goes to NC. We should be giving money to NC regardless

I hear that, I'm just not seeing that.

 

[Redwes25]

The money spent on training for the US Military will be spent no matter what. Instead of some exercise, having logistics run outdated, unused equipment that is just sitting in a huge field in Northern California/Nevada make sense. There are whole units involved in these activities, they are going to be paid whether they are doing something or not. They can train in make belief or do it for real. From getting the equipment ready to shipping it. The cost is negligible compared to the effectiveness and long term pay off of turning Russia back.

So point that effort to NC/TN/SC, that's my point. It's going to take years at the pace it is going now. Focus the Army Corp of Engineers and the weight of the US government on the effort and I'm guessing we could make that about 12 months.

I get what you are saying. We have piles of equipment we aren't using, is outdated, is going to be mothballed so why not give it to Ukraine. I'm not sold on it but I get what you are saying. Just seems like we are perpetuating the war by feeding the beast. I guess I'd more in favor of this strategy if everyone was sitting at a table and at least talking about some kind of resolution. We've tried war with no end game / exit strategy. We killed 100's of thousands of people, spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of our own people and injury God knows how many more on top of that, pretty much pissed off a large portion of the Muslim world and for what? The ability to say we beat the Taliban & Saddam Hussein? Well one of them anyhow. All I'm saying is let's go John Lennon this trip and give peace a chance, see how it works out

It isn't an either/or though. It's not as if we decide to not fund Ukraine that the money then goes to NC. We should be giving money to NC regardless

I hear that, I'm just not seeing that.

I don't see how Ukraine aid is delaying aid to NC. Seems to me that Congress, as is typical, is just sitting on the issue.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4930814-mike-johnson-hurricane-aid/

 

[Chadstroma]

The money spent on training for the US Military will be spent no matter what. Instead of some exercise, having logistics run outdated, unused equipment that is just sitting in a huge field in Northern California/Nevada make sense. There are whole units involved in these activities, they are going to be paid whether they are doing something or not. They can train in make belief or do it for real. From getting the equipment ready to shipping it. The cost is negligible compared to the effectiveness and long term pay off of turning Russia back.

So point that effort to NC/TN/SC, that's my point. It's going to take years at the pace it is going now. Focus the Army Corp of Engineers and the weight of the US government on the effort and I'm guessing we could make that about 12 months.

I am pretty sure that NC doens't need any M113's.

The Army Engineer Corps has nothing to do with Ukraine or refurbishing equipment or logistics.

 

[Stoneworker]

Seems to me that Congress, as is typical, is just sitting on the issue.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4930814-mike-johnson-hurricane-aid/

That's not what the article says.

"FEMA officials say they have sufficient resources to respond to the pair of hurricanes until Congress returns"

They've only spent half of the $20 billion approved before Helene made landfall.

Congress then needs FEMA to come back to them with an actual damage assessment before requesting more.

Seems like responsible fiscal management to me

 

[beer 30]

I don't see how Ukraine aid is delaying aid to NC. Seems to me that Congress, as is typical, is just sitting on the issue.

I am pretty sure that NC doens't need any M113's.

The Army Engineer Corps has nothing to do with Ukraine or refurbishing equipment or logistics.

You'd be surprised what NC needs. Ukrainian aid probably isn't holding anything up to NC but the optics of it are ****.

Let's play this mind game, say Ukraine and Russia are kumbaya and none of this is going on, where is the money that is currently going to Ukraine going? It's not just sitting in a vault or waiting to be printed, we are spending it on something because $36 trillion dollar debt so could we send piles of it to those effected by Helene and maybe goose the effort to help them along? God bless the folks sending farm supplies from Kentucky to feed animals and West Virginia miners who are taking weeks off to make roads into areas nobody can get into. You think a billion or two to a company like Haliburton might not get that done just a bit quicker? Haliburton can't get into Ukraine until they figure out where the border is going to be to start rebuilding the country on guaranteed contracts that I'm guessing we will be paying for.

Don't want to come off as blaming you all. You believe in the Ukrainian cause and are passionate about it. I don't think we should completely abandon them but I also don't think continuing to fill the stockings with bullets & bombs without at least sitting across the table from the adversary and discussing what it would take to bring this to a close is a good strategy.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Let me try and explain something to everyone without making it all vile politics

Back when someone was POTUS, thru NATO as I recall there was a defense system set up all along Eastern Europe with missiles basically pointed to the East and I believe most of you know what country is directly East of Europe and I said back then "That's gonna be a problem"

In theory it seems great but it was used as a line of Do Not Cross and I think it's obvious Russia has been trying to push that invisible border further and further West.
Another reason why he doesn't want some of those countries joining NATO

You might think it's a moot point or irrelevant but every time I go back and look at what was set up, never once did I think Putin was going to stand still for it. This isn't the first time he's attacked the Ukraine, he grabbed Crimea before he ever started this mess.

I'll stop right there so I don't ruffle many feathers, we can't dive deep on the topic anyways

 

[Chadstroma]

I don't see how Ukraine aid is delaying aid to NC. Seems to me that Congress, as is typical, is just sitting on the issue.

I am pretty sure that NC doens't need any M113's.

The Army Engineer Corps has nothing to do with Ukraine or refurbishing equipment or logistics.

You'd be surprised what NC needs. Ukrainian aid probably isn't holding anything up to NC but the optics of it are ****.

Let's play this mind game, say Ukraine and Russia are kumbaya and none of this is going on, where is the money that is currently going to Ukraine going? It's not just sitting in a vault or waiting to be printed, we are spending it on something because $36 trillion dollar debt so could we send piles of it to those effected by Helene and maybe goose the effort to help them along? God bless the folks sending farm supplies from Kentucky to feed animals and West Virginia miners who are taking weeks off to make roads into areas nobody can get into. You think a billion or two to a company like Haliburton might not get that done just a bit quicker? Haliburton can't get into Ukraine until they figure out where the border is going to be to start rebuilding the country on guaranteed contracts that I'm guessing we will be paying for.

Don't want to come off as blaming you all. You believe in the Ukrainian cause and are passionate about it. I don't think we should completely abandon them but I also don't think continuing to fill the stockings with bullets & bombs without at least sitting across the table from the adversary and discussing what it would take to bring this to a close is a good strategy.

Explain to me how NC can use M113'S, artillery shells, and fighter Jets. Thanks.

 

[Harry Manback]

How much actual money are we spending in Ukraine? It was my understanding that when people throw around the amount we're "spending" there the majority of that is not actual money, but rather a written "value" on weapons donations for weapons that we were going to mothball anyway, but are still somewhat state of the art for Ukraine.

So we give them old weapons we're no longer using and instead of just scrapping them, we get to help de-stabilize one of our largest geopolitical foes, provide support on the side of democracy against communism, and potentially gain a new NATO ally. Which seems like a pretty good deal for mostly a bunch of weapons we don't really use anymore anyway.

Oh, and as an added bonus get to be on the side of good and protect innocent people from suffering against evil imperialism.

Of course I'm sure there's more to it than that, but doesn't that account for at least the majority of the "spending" numbers we seem floated around Ukraine?

I'm all for destabilizing Russia, but this isn't the cold war. The USSR no longer exists, and we don't need to worry about communists invading Europe anymore.

By all means, let's help out Ukraine, but this isn't a particularly important struggle for the US, and we should prioritize it accordingly.

What a bad take

 

[Harry Manback]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

War, as in life, isn't always fair. At some point there is diminishing returns for all parties versus an endless war. If and when an agreement is made it will be from all sides, that's why it's called an agreement.

I'd say the same thing if I were a puppet to said invading country.

 

[beer 30]

I don't see how Ukraine aid is delaying aid to NC. Seems to me that Congress, as is typical, is just sitting on the issue.

I am pretty sure that NC doens't need any M113's.

The Army Engineer Corps has nothing to do with Ukraine or refurbishing equipment or logistics.

You'd be surprised what NC needs. Ukrainian aid probably isn't holding anything up to NC but the optics of it are ****.

Let's play this mind game, say Ukraine and Russia are kumbaya and none of this is going on, where is the money that is currently going to Ukraine going? It's not just sitting in a vault or waiting to be printed, we are spending it on something because $36 trillion dollar debt so could we send piles of it to those effected by Helene and maybe goose the effort to help them along? God bless the folks sending farm supplies from Kentucky to feed animals and West Virginia miners who are taking weeks off to make roads into areas nobody can get into. You think a billion or two to a company like Haliburton might not get that done just a bit quicker? Haliburton can't get into Ukraine until they figure out where the border is going to be to start rebuilding the country on guaranteed contracts that I'm guessing we will be paying for.

Don't want to come off as blaming you all. You believe in the Ukrainian cause and are passionate about it. I don't think we should completely abandon them but I also don't think continuing to fill the stockings with bullets & bombs without at least sitting across the table from the adversary and discussing what it would take to bring this to a close is a good strategy.

Explain to me how NC can use M113'S, artillery shells, and fighter Jets. Thanks.

Guessing that could get to a lot of places in the hills The jets and the shells I'll give you, those folks have suffered enough, no need to strafe and lob artillery shells at them.

 

[Chadstroma]

Let me try and explain something to everyone without making it all vile politics

Back when someone was POTUS, thru NATO as I recall there was a defense system set up all along Eastern Europe with missiles basically pointed to the East and I believe most of you know what country is directly East of Europe and I said back then "That's gonna be a problem"

In theory it seems great but it was used as a line of Do Not Cross and I think it's obvious Russia has been trying to push that invisible border further and further West.
Another reason why he doesn't want some of those countries joining NATO

You might think it's a moot point or irrelevant but every time I go back and look at what was set up, never once did I think Putin was going to stand still for it. This isn't the first time he's attacked the Ukraine, he grabbed Crimea before he ever started this mess.

I'll stop right there so I don't ruffle many feathers, we can't dive deep on the topic anyways

And other territory was captured with military force before the Crimea with basically no consequences.

If you need assistance on what I refer to, please see Transnistria and then Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

 

[Chadstroma]

Guessing that could get to a lot of places in the hills The jets and the shells I'll give you, those folks have suffered enough, no need to strafe and lob artillery shells at them.

I thought you were a veteran? You really think an M113 is useful in hilly, wooded and muddy areas?

 

[beer 30]

Guessing that could get to a lot of places in the hills The jets and the shells I'll give you, those folks have suffered enough, no need to strafe and lob artillery shells at them.

I thought you were a veteran? You really think an M113 is useful in hilly, wooded and muddy areas?

Let's be clear, as if it wasn't readily apparent, I am an idiot. Never served much to the joy of all armed services I'm sure.

It's a tracked vehicle, yea they coulda used it. Probably didn't need the Bushmaster on top of it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Anyone who's been around these boards since old Yellar knows I'm anti-war. I argued vehemently pre-invasion that Iraq was a mistake, while several of the anti-Ukraine folks in this thread cheered GWBush and **** Cheney on to what is undoubtedly our biggest post Vietnam mistake from a foreign policy standpoint. The case for war in Iraq was not persuasive.

The case for supplying Ukraine aid is persuasive in my view. Zero American blood, only $. And as others have pointed out, that spending has largely been to American manufacturers.

US spending on the war in Ukraine is also revitalizing the US defense-industrial base, which has atrophied since the Cold War’s end. As Sen. Mitch McConnell has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of funds Congress has approved for Ukraine have gone directly to American manufacturers, totaling some $70 billion across 38 states. As obsolete US weapons are shipped to Ukraine, they’re replaced by modern systems made in the USA. Our allies are buying American, too.

Paradoxically, the Ukraine supplemental is an upfront investment that will actually reduce the costs of supporting Ukraine over time. That’s because Ukraine’s success on the battlefield today places a smaller economic burden on the West tomorrow. As they’ve donated their weapons to Ukraine, Europeans have placed big orders with US suppliers to refill their arsenals or upgrade their capabilities — to the tune of $90 billion to date.

Not only is supporting Ukraine the right thing to do morally and geopolitically, I believe when you add the economic value of a crippled Russia, discount for the the economic benefits of our weapons manufacturers, and consider the added value in upgrading our defense systems, it's no brainer.

 

[culdeus]

So we set the precedent that if you invade a sovereign nation, rape and murder their people, you are rewarded with a slice of their land? America!

Our country has forgotten the lessons of two world wars that tyrannical governments that threaten their neighbors have to be resisted.

Did we go over board at times in last 80 years (Vietnam, Iraq and a few others) definitely but supplying arms to a democracy to defend itself is not one of those times.

Ukraine is going to be forced into a peace that it is unhappy with at some point. We should help them, yes, but we should be even more focused on restoring our capabilities and filling the power vacuum we've created over the last 15 years. That is the root cause of the uptick in global instability in the first place.

If Ukraine wants to settle that is fine with me. I just don't want them to be forced into a peace and want to continue supplying them arms until they make that decision. It is there people fighting and dying there to defend their homeland. If they want to fight then we should support them vs. pulling the rug out from under them.

I also don't disagree with you that we need to work on restoring our military that has been focused on wasteful asymetric warfare in the middle east for way to long. The amount of money wasted in Iraq and Afganistan pales into comparison to aid we have given Ukraine. We also need to learn to be more efficient with our resources vs our current miltary procurement works (especially Navy capital ships, which is a complete disaster).

You mean we don't need 11 carrier fleets that are now obsolete due to advancements in ASWMs?

 

[Stoneworker]

The argument that "all we're spending money on is just getting rid of old stuff and replacing it with new" isn't real compelling.

Congress has approved a total of $174.2 billion for the Russia-Ukraine war.

Of that amount, just $33.3 billion (19%) has been drawdowns of the so-called "obsolete" DoD stockpiles. And these are subject to an annual cap of approx. $10 billion, so it will likely never become a majority of the expenditures.

Other big ticket items include over $60 billion to the State Dept, $32.7 billion of security assistance (intelligence, training, logistics, etc) and $11.6 billion for a "European Defense Initiative" (increased U.S. presence in the region).

Ukraine Oversight Report

 

[beer 30]

Anyone who's been around these boards since old Yellar knows I'm anti-war. I argued vehemently pre-invasion that Iraq was a mistake, while several of the anti-Ukraine folks in this thread cheered GWBush and **** Cheney on to what is undoubtedly our biggest post Vietnam mistake from a foreign policy standpoint. The case for war in Iraq was not persuasive.

The case for supplying Ukraine aid is persuasive in my view. Zero American blood, only $. And as others have pointed out, that spending has largely been to American manufacturers.

US spending on the war in Ukraine is also revitalizing the US defense-industrial base, which has atrophied since the Cold War’s end. As Sen. Mitch McConnell has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of funds Congress has approved for Ukraine have gone directly to American manufacturers, totaling some $70 billion across 38 states. As obsolete US weapons are shipped to Ukraine, they’re replaced by modern systems made in the USA. Our allies are buying American, too.

Paradoxically, the Ukraine supplemental is an upfront investment that will actually reduce the costs of supporting Ukraine over time. That’s because Ukraine’s success on the battlefield today places a smaller economic burden on the West tomorrow. As they’ve donated their weapons to Ukraine, Europeans have placed big orders with US suppliers to refill their arsenals or upgrade their capabilities — to the tune of $90 billion to date.

Not only is supporting Ukraine the right thing to do morally and geopolitically, I believe when you add the economic value of a crippled Russia, discount for the the economic benefits of our weapons manufacturers, and consider the added value in upgrading our defense systems, it's no brainer.

"Ukraine is also revitalizing the US defense-industrial base, which has atrophied since the Cold War’s end."

We just came out of two 20+ year conflicts largely supported just by us (US). I don't believe the above for a second. I get all the rest, we're killing people with old weapons so we get to replace them with newer, better weapons to all of our NATO allies who when they join, get the grocery bill for all of the like-kind weaponry they sign up for when they join NATO which is supplied by...the US defense industrial base (not solely I know but a big chunk).

So at some point this war will end, either as a peace agreement between the parties, or Russia finally steam rolling Ukraine or Ukraine pushing Russia back to the point that Russia finally just quits. What then? We need another war to keep the industrial complex humming. And then another and another. It never stops and we just keep feeding Audrey.

 

[Chadstroma]

Guessing that could get to a lot of places in the hills The jets and the shells I'll give you, those folks have suffered enough, no need to strafe and lob artillery shells at them.

I thought you were a veteran? You really think an M113 is useful in hilly, wooded and muddy areas?

Let's be clear, as if it wasn't readily apparent, I am an idiot. Never served much to the joy of all armed services I'm sure.

It's a tracked vehicle, yea they coulda used it. Probably didn't need the Bushmaster on top of it.

I dunno... how many rounds does it take to clear some trees?

(I think that is an M2 Browning- Bushmaster is significantly bigger)

 

[beer 30]

Guessing that could get to a lot of places in the hills The jets and the shells I'll give you, those folks have suffered enough, no need to strafe and lob artillery shells at them.

I thought you were a veteran? You really think an M113 is useful in hilly, wooded and muddy areas?

Let's be clear, as if it wasn't readily apparent, I am an idiot. Never served much to the joy of all armed services I'm sure.

It's a tracked vehicle, yea they coulda used it. Probably didn't need the Bushmaster on top of it.

I dunno... how many rounds does it take to clear some trees?

(I think that is an M2 Browning- Bushmaster is significantly bigger)

If you've ever been in the mountains of Appalachia, there isn't one of them that live there that wouldn't love the opportunity to find out.