4 ms·

The quote implies that the spending is harmful. However, if Ukraine had spent less on defense over the last 5 years, it’s people would be worse off today, cloth

The quote implies that the spending is harmful. However, if Ukraine had spent less on defense over the last 5 years, it’s people would be worse off today, clothed worse, less well fed, under Russian (possibly genocidal) occupation. If they had tripled their spending, perhaps Russia would not have even tried

pmyteh 4y ago
Eisenhower's point was also about arms races. If Ukraine and Russia had spent less on defence over the last five years, both would be better off and there still wouldn't be an occupation. As it was, his administration still spent an astronomical amount of money on defence (albeit less than Truman's Korean War expenditure) because he recognised that the Soviet Union wouldn't disarm if the US did. Would the world have been better off if the South American dreadnought race had carried on? Doesn't seem very likely. Even the UK/German naval race at the same time cost a preposterous amount of money on both sides for an inconclusive result, even while we were fighting a hot war.
E4YomzYIN5YEBKe 4y ago
Or maybe if they spent less Russia would have defeated them sooner, the war would be over, people could return home, and there would be no more casualties. Or maybe if they spend(really received from US) less then Russia would not have felt threatened and invaded at all. Perhaps if their military spending had ramped up faster then Putin would have decided to invade sooner.
- gentleman11 4y ago
  Russia is public ally talking about re-education, and they are shipping thousands of Ukrainians into Russia. Mass graves all over and public statements for years about how the country and its people are illegitimate. Russia never once felt threatened, putin has invaded a new country every 5-10 years his entire reign. Stop justifying it
colinmhayes 4y ago
> The quote implies that the spending is harmful. I don't think it does. It implies that overspending is harmful, while implicitly acknowledging that some level is spending is necessary for law and order.

pmyteh 4y ago

Eisenhower's point was also about arms races. If Ukraine and Russia had spent less on defence over the last five years, both would be better off and there still wouldn't be an occupation. As it was, his administration still spent an astronomical amount of money on defence (albeit less than Truman's Korean War expenditure) because he recognised that the Soviet Union wouldn't disarm if the US did. Would the world have been better off if the South American dreadnought race had carried on? Doesn't seem very likely. Even the UK/German naval race at the same time cost a preposterous amount of money on both sides for an inconclusive result, even while we were fighting a hot war.

E4YomzYIN5YEBKe 4y ago

Or maybe if they spent less Russia would have defeated them sooner, the war would be over, people could return home, and there would be no more casualties. Or maybe if they spend(really received from US) less then Russia would not have felt threatened and invaded at all. Perhaps if their military spending had ramped up faster then Putin would have decided to invade sooner.

gentleman11 4y ago
Russia is public ally talking about re-education, and they are shipping thousands of Ukrainians into Russia. Mass graves all over and public statements for years about how the country and its people are illegitimate. Russia never once felt threatened, putin has invaded a new country every 5-10 years his entire reign. Stop justifying it

colinmhayes 4y ago

> The quote implies that the spending is harmful. I don't think it does. It implies that overspending is harmful, while implicitly acknowledging that some level is spending is necessary for law and order.