8 ms·

American failure to fund Ukraine is possibly our greatest failure in 20 years. And we've made some doozies in that time. To take a concrete and financial tack:

American failure to fund Ukraine is possibly our greatest failure in 20 years. And we've made some doozies in that time. To take a concrete and financial tack: The alternative to funding Ukraine right now is an increase in western annual defense spending of 1% of GDP. Indefinitely. But this is also possibly the first just war since world war 2.

DoesntMatter22 3y ago
I thought the US was sending billions over there? Is that not the case?
- dilyevsky 3y ago
  Not anymore - the latest aid package is stuck in the House for months now...
  - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
    Okay but they have sent billions as far as I know which makes the original comment not really make any sense.
    - koube 3y ago
      We were funding them before, but now we are not, and I believe the op of this thread was commenting on how we are not funding then right now. By the time the election season is over and we have another chance at funding Ukraine, it will have been a year of blocked funding. Personally I find it fundamentally unserious that a participant in a war leaves for a year or more, let alone the world's top superpower.
      - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
        Was there ever really a chance Ukraine would win? Idk how they could. Russia has more people. Napoleon and hitler both learned that the hard way. I can't see what winning would even look like
        StewardMcOy 3y ago
        It has never been as simple as whichever side has more people, and that has only become more true as military technology has advanced. Many lessons came out of the first two world wars about how modern warfare would be fought. One of them was that it didn't matter how many well-rested soldiers you had willing to fight. If you ran out of ammunition and your opponents have enough left to annihilate you, you'll probably lose. We'll never know for certain, but there's a real possibility that if it hadn't been for the Lend-Lease program, the USSR would have run out of weapons and supplies, and Hitler would have defeated the Soviets. Obviously, there's limits. One soldier sitting on warehouses of ammo isn't going to take out a force of ten thousand. But at the outset of the war, active Russian troops outnumbered Ukrainian troops by only 4 to 1. In the right circumstances, those are winnable numbers. And even better for the Ukrainians, Russia couldn't send all of their troops in. They needed to keep the bulk of them in Russia for defense. Estimates of causalities in the war range from 1:3 to 1:5 in favor of Ukraine. So even if Russian troops outnumbered Ukrainian troops 2:1, all Ukraine has to do is continue killing Russian soldiers at the same rate, and eventually Russia will run out of soldiers to send. That's what "winning" looks like for Ukraine. This is a war of attrition. They win by exhausting the enemy before the enemy exhausts them. But it relies on Ukraine continuing to have enough ammo to kill the Russian soldiers at that rate. This is a war of attrition. Russia's firmly on a wartime economy, and unless the bottom falls out on them, they'll continue to produce weapons and ammo for the duration of the war. Enough for every solider they field? Maybe, maybe not, but they won't run out. Ukraine, on the other hand, relies on the West for weapons and ammo. If it runs out, it loses, and that's why so many people are upset about Western countries dropping support. It's a winnable war for Ukraine, but only if Russia's enemies stay committed.
        DoesntMatter22 3y ago
        I don't trust any of the sources as far as 1:3 vs 1:5. They said they same stuff in every war just to make things sound better for their side. Russia's economy is actually doing quite well. https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-economy-grew-in-2023-despite-war-and-sanctions/7478952.html https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-economy-grew-in-2023-despit... I don't think there is any actual way that Ukraine is going to beat Russia in any actual sense. They have been losing territory (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682) and Europe is suffering without Russian gas. I don't have a horse in the race, I just think it's absurd to think you are going to "win" in any sense. Ultimately I think Putin would drop some sort of nuke on the Ukraine before admitting defeat.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > We were funding them before, but now we are now Its been less than two weeks since the last aid package. > By the time the election season is over and we have another chance at funding Ukraine I wouldn't discount the chance of a discharge petition succeeding. Heck, I wouldn't even entirely discount the chance of the spate of resignations continuing and Republicans losing their House majority before the election, though that's less likely.
        koube 3y ago
        https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/25/congress-approved-300m-for-ukraine-last-week-the-pentagon-spent-it-4-months-ago-00148855 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/25/congress-approved-3...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Arnt 3y ago
      No, you sent lots of things from warehouses that ① originally cost billions to buy and ② have limited shelf life. You've seen the Patriot missiles that the Ukrainians have used to such good effect. Those were made thirty years ago. They were expensive to make, then. Sending them is a great thing to do, no question about it. But if you want to talk about billions of crrent expenses, then I it's wrong to talk about money spent in the nineties. You should instead think about their replacement cost. You need to replace them now. But how long was their shelf life — would you need to replace them soon anyway?
      - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
        Why are you referring to me as if I am the United States?
        yownie 3y ago
        we all know it was you! your UPS bill must be huge.
    - verdverm 3y ago
      Europe is close to 3x what America has sent now. Less direct military support, but much of the funding buys weapons anyhow. The US has a ton of mil equipment, built for the European theater, that is sitting in storage. Significant amounts (over half) goes back into replacement with new & upgraded kit for the US Mil
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    No, the latest proposed aid appropriation for Ukraine is stuck in the House for months. The latest aid package (insifar as appropriation was required, it is from remaining authority on other appropriations) was a $300 million value package announced 11 days ago: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-preparing-new-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-2024-03-12/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-prepar...
- cempaka 3y ago
  There's a certain breed of neoliberal commenter that seems to believe that the West is financially and militarily invincible, and can simply spend any colossal amounts of money it wants to wipe strategic opponents from the map at will. I think in many cases it comes from watching too many Marvel movies.
murderfs 3y ago
[flagged]
- mmoskal 3y ago
  This year 18/28 European NATO members will hit the 2% target. They will have to hit 3% or so even if Ukraine holds Russia off [0]. If the tanks roll to Polish and Baltic states borders it will be much more expensive. [0] https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/18/can-europe-defend-itself-without-america https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/18/can-europe-def...
  - murderfs 3y ago
    [flagged]
- smcin 3y ago
  > "freeloading and relying on the U.S. to protect them from everything?" The US famously has routinely run a billion-dollar deficit in its dues to the UN since the late 1980s through the early 2000s [0][1][2], and then again when Trump suspended paying dues 2016-2020 and owed $2b [3]. In the 1990s, CNN ex-owner Ted Turner even donated part of the dues. US commitment to multilateralism is pretty transactional. (The standoff was not completely resolved by the Helms-Biden Act/"United Nations Reform Act of 1999"), which linked payment of $926 million arrears to a series of reform benchmarks). [0]: U.S. Department of State: 97/11/28 Fact Sheet: U.S. Arrears to the UN https://1997-2001.state.gov/issues/fs_us_arrears_un_0997.html https://1997-2001.state.gov/issues/fs_us_arrears_un_0997.htm... [1]: United States and the United Nations - Arrears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#Arrears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_N... [2]: NYT, 1988 "THE WORLD; Why Does the United States Refuse to Pay Its U.N. Bill?" https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/07/weekinreview/the-world-why-does-the-united-states-refuse-to-pay-its-un-bill.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/07/weekinreview/the-world-wh... [3]: https://www.devex.com/news/with-the-us-still-owing-nearly-2b-un-looks-at-how-to-fund-2021-98866 https://www.devex.com/news/with-the-us-still-owing-nearly-2b...
cempaka 3y ago
[flagged]
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  Is there anything suggesting Russia was open to that? Given they went straight for Kyiv at the start, their goal was not to modestly expand what they already had.
- quattrofan 3y ago
  [dead]
- piva00 3y ago
  Russia should have withdrawn its troops and saved hundreds of thousands of their men. See how that works in reverse?
readthenotes1 3y ago
"just war"? Hardly, on either side.
- tim333 3y ago
  Not just for the Ukrainians to defend themselves from an invasion?
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    Which was fairly well instigated by NATO members in the preceding decade. Ukraine seems more a pawn here than a prime driver.
    - tim333 3y ago
      Or a victim perhaps? Russia seems to have invaded a couple of dozen pawns over the years for looking at them funny or thinking of defending themselves or whatever.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

DoesntMatter22 3y ago

I thought the US was sending billions over there? Is that not the case?

dilyevsky 3y ago
Not anymore - the latest aid package is stuck in the House for months now...
- DoesntMatter22 3y ago
  Okay but they have sent billions as far as I know which makes the original comment not really make any sense.
  - koube 3y ago
    We were funding them before, but now we are not, and I believe the op of this thread was commenting on how we are not funding then right now. By the time the election season is over and we have another chance at funding Ukraine, it will have been a year of blocked funding. Personally I find it fundamentally unserious that a participant in a war leaves for a year or more, let alone the world's top superpower.
    - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
      Was there ever really a chance Ukraine would win? Idk how they could. Russia has more people. Napoleon and hitler both learned that the hard way. I can't see what winning would even look like
      - StewardMcOy 3y ago
        It has never been as simple as whichever side has more people, and that has only become more true as military technology has advanced. Many lessons came out of the first two world wars about how modern warfare would be fought. One of them was that it didn't matter how many well-rested soldiers you had willing to fight. If you ran out of ammunition and your opponents have enough left to annihilate you, you'll probably lose. We'll never know for certain, but there's a real possibility that if it hadn't been for the Lend-Lease program, the USSR would have run out of weapons and supplies, and Hitler would have defeated the Soviets. Obviously, there's limits. One soldier sitting on warehouses of ammo isn't going to take out a force of ten thousand. But at the outset of the war, active Russian troops outnumbered Ukrainian troops by only 4 to 1. In the right circumstances, those are winnable numbers. And even better for the Ukrainians, Russia couldn't send all of their troops in. They needed to keep the bulk of them in Russia for defense. Estimates of causalities in the war range from 1:3 to 1:5 in favor of Ukraine. So even if Russian troops outnumbered Ukrainian troops 2:1, all Ukraine has to do is continue killing Russian soldiers at the same rate, and eventually Russia will run out of soldiers to send. That's what "winning" looks like for Ukraine. This is a war of attrition. They win by exhausting the enemy before the enemy exhausts them. But it relies on Ukraine continuing to have enough ammo to kill the Russian soldiers at that rate. This is a war of attrition. Russia's firmly on a wartime economy, and unless the bottom falls out on them, they'll continue to produce weapons and ammo for the duration of the war. Enough for every solider they field? Maybe, maybe not, but they won't run out. Ukraine, on the other hand, relies on the West for weapons and ammo. If it runs out, it loses, and that's why so many people are upset about Western countries dropping support. It's a winnable war for Ukraine, but only if Russia's enemies stay committed.
        DoesntMatter22 3y ago
        I don't trust any of the sources as far as 1:3 vs 1:5. They said they same stuff in every war just to make things sound better for their side. Russia's economy is actually doing quite well. https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-economy-grew-in-2023-despite-war-and-sanctions/7478952.html https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-economy-grew-in-2023-despit... I don't think there is any actual way that Ukraine is going to beat Russia in any actual sense. They have been losing territory (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682) and Europe is suffering without Russian gas. I don't have a horse in the race, I just think it's absurd to think you are going to "win" in any sense. Ultimately I think Putin would drop some sort of nuke on the Ukraine before admitting defeat.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > We were funding them before, but now we are now Its been less than two weeks since the last aid package. > By the time the election season is over and we have another chance at funding Ukraine I wouldn't discount the chance of a discharge petition succeeding. Heck, I wouldn't even entirely discount the chance of the spate of resignations continuing and Republicans losing their House majority before the election, though that's less likely.
      - koube 3y ago
        https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/25/congress-approved-300m-for-ukraine-last-week-the-pentagon-spent-it-4-months-ago-00148855 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/25/congress-approved-3...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Arnt 3y ago
    No, you sent lots of things from warehouses that ① originally cost billions to buy and ② have limited shelf life. You've seen the Patriot missiles that the Ukrainians have used to such good effect. Those were made thirty years ago. They were expensive to make, then. Sending them is a great thing to do, no question about it. But if you want to talk about billions of crrent expenses, then I it's wrong to talk about money spent in the nineties. You should instead think about their replacement cost. You need to replace them now. But how long was their shelf life — would you need to replace them soon anyway?
    - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
      Why are you referring to me as if I am the United States?
      - yownie 3y ago
        we all know it was you! your UPS bill must be huge.
  - verdverm 3y ago
    Europe is close to 3x what America has sent now. Less direct military support, but much of the funding buys weapons anyhow. The US has a ton of mil equipment, built for the European theater, that is sitting in storage. Significant amounts (over half) goes back into replacement with new & upgraded kit for the US Mil
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  No, the latest proposed aid appropriation for Ukraine is stuck in the House for months. The latest aid package (insifar as appropriation was required, it is from remaining authority on other appropriations) was a $300 million value package announced 11 days ago: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-preparing-new-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-2024-03-12/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-prepar...
cempaka 3y ago
There's a certain breed of neoliberal commenter that seems to believe that the West is financially and militarily invincible, and can simply spend any colossal amounts of money it wants to wipe strategic opponents from the map at will. I think in many cases it comes from watching too many Marvel movies.

murderfs 3y ago

[flagged]

mmoskal 3y ago
This year 18/28 European NATO members will hit the 2% target. They will have to hit 3% or so even if Ukraine holds Russia off [0]. If the tanks roll to Polish and Baltic states borders it will be much more expensive. [0] https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/18/can-europe-defend-itself-without-america https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/18/can-europe-def...
- murderfs 3y ago
  [flagged]
smcin 3y ago
> "freeloading and relying on the U.S. to protect them from everything?" The US famously has routinely run a billion-dollar deficit in its dues to the UN since the late 1980s through the early 2000s [0][1][2], and then again when Trump suspended paying dues 2016-2020 and owed $2b [3]. In the 1990s, CNN ex-owner Ted Turner even donated part of the dues. US commitment to multilateralism is pretty transactional. (The standoff was not completely resolved by the Helms-Biden Act/"United Nations Reform Act of 1999"), which linked payment of $926 million arrears to a series of reform benchmarks). [0]: U.S. Department of State: 97/11/28 Fact Sheet: U.S. Arrears to the UN https://1997-2001.state.gov/issues/fs_us_arrears_un_0997.html https://1997-2001.state.gov/issues/fs_us_arrears_un_0997.htm... [1]: United States and the United Nations - Arrears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#Arrears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_N... [2]: NYT, 1988 "THE WORLD; Why Does the United States Refuse to Pay Its U.N. Bill?" https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/07/weekinreview/the-world-why-does-the-united-states-refuse-to-pay-its-un-bill.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/07/weekinreview/the-world-wh... [3]: https://www.devex.com/news/with-the-us-still-owing-nearly-2b-un-looks-at-how-to-fund-2021-98866 https://www.devex.com/news/with-the-us-still-owing-nearly-2b...

cempaka 3y ago

[flagged]

dukeyukey 3y ago
Is there anything suggesting Russia was open to that? Given they went straight for Kyiv at the start, their goal was not to modestly expand what they already had.
quattrofan 3y ago
[dead]
piva00 3y ago
Russia should have withdrawn its troops and saved hundreds of thousands of their men. See how that works in reverse?

readthenotes1 3y ago

"just war"? Hardly, on either side.

tim333 3y ago
Not just for the Ukrainians to defend themselves from an invasion?
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  Which was fairly well instigated by NATO members in the preceding decade. Ukraine seems more a pawn here than a prime driver.
  - tim333 3y ago
    Or a victim perhaps? Russia seems to have invaded a couple of dozen pawns over the years for looking at them funny or thinking of defending themselves or whatever.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]