4 ms·

> war effort "War effort" implies military aid, in which case the US has supplied nearly double all other countries combined.

by krona 2y ago

mopsi 2y ago
That's not true. As of 2024-12-31, the US had provided 64bn EUR of military aid to Ukraine, and Europe had provided 62bn. The US had pledged further 66bn and Europe 100bn. Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43073733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43073733
apelapan 2y ago
I have never seen a number similar to that quoted anywhere before. Can you name a source? The BBC:s most recent rundown[1] has the strictly military support from the US accounting for a bit more than half of the total of the top-ten contributors (of which it is number one, of course). When comparing dollar values for military equipment with other types of support, we should keep in mind that they are inflated. A lot of the equipment (ammunition, vehicles etc) are old things that were due to be rotated out of the stockpiles anyway. This is true for many (perhaps all) donor countries. Example: GMLRS rockets have a shelf-life of 10-15 years and their disposal costs at end-of-life is not zero. Sending them off to Ukraine as they approach their best-before date does not incur much real cost on the donor, but the gift can be labeled as "253 gazillion dollars worth of ammunition." The value description is sort of true, as they will be used in their full capacity by Ukraine, but it might even save money for the donor who is the off the hook for disposal and was going to replace them anyway. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218
epolanski 2y ago
Except that since "war effort" is measured in $ the devil is in the details. It's very simple to claim "we have given the most in military aid, in $" but much harder to look into it. Then you find out that everything is priced insanely high, bullets and artillery that is identical to European (due to nato standards) can cost dozens of times more. Then you find out that billions have been spent in private "consultancies" (I guess US military and navies have no clue how to organize logistical transports, even though we're talking about the biggest naval power on the planet). Then you find out that Ukraine offered to come pick the weapons itself with their own ships to make it faster and save US taxpayers money and US said nope, we got people to feed with those contracts.
- WD-42 2y ago
  This is what people don't get. US military spending IS a huge part of the economy. It's jobs. It's not like all the money goes up in smoke. Some of it does, in the form of munitions, but someone has to make those too and the US pays for them.
  - exe34 2y ago
    it's a corporate welfare programme.
kombine 2y ago
US sent Ukraine 31 Abrams tanks so far. This is for the largest land war in Europe since WW2. Now, can we compare this to the amount of military assistance by the US to USSR during WW2? The US could have helped Ukraine win the war, but chose not to.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Out of 8800 tanks produced.

> war effort "War effort" implies military aid, in which case the US has supplied nearly double all other countries combined.

by krona 2y ago

> war effort "War effort" implies military aid, in which case the US has supplied nearly double all other countries combined.

mopsi 2y ago

That's not true. As of 2024-12-31, the US had provided 64bn EUR of military aid to Ukraine, and Europe had provided 62bn. The US had pledged further 66bn and Europe 100bn. Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43073733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43073733

apelapan 2y ago

I have never seen a number similar to that quoted anywhere before. Can you name a source? The BBC:s most recent rundown[1] has the strictly military support from the US accounting for a bit more than half of the total of the top-ten contributors (of which it is number one, of course). When comparing dollar values for military equipment with other types of support, we should keep in mind that they are inflated. A lot of the equipment (ammunition, vehicles etc) are old things that were due to be rotated out of the stockpiles anyway. This is true for many (perhaps all) donor countries. Example: GMLRS rockets have a shelf-life of 10-15 years and their disposal costs at end-of-life is not zero. Sending them off to Ukraine as they approach their best-before date does not incur much real cost on the donor, but the gift can be labeled as "253 gazillion dollars worth of ammunition." The value description is sort of true, as they will be used in their full capacity by Ukraine, but it might even save money for the donor who is the off the hook for disposal and was going to replace them anyway. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218

epolanski 2y ago

Except that since "war effort" is measured in $ the devil is in the details. It's very simple to claim "we have given the most in military aid, in $" but much harder to look into it. Then you find out that everything is priced insanely high, bullets and artillery that is identical to European (due to nato standards) can cost dozens of times more. Then you find out that billions have been spent in private "consultancies" (I guess US military and navies have no clue how to organize logistical transports, even though we're talking about the biggest naval power on the planet). Then you find out that Ukraine offered to come pick the weapons itself with their own ships to make it faster and save US taxpayers money and US said nope, we got people to feed with those contracts.

WD-42 2y ago
This is what people don't get. US military spending IS a huge part of the economy. It's jobs. It's not like all the money goes up in smoke. Some of it does, in the form of munitions, but someone has to make those too and the US pays for them.
- exe34 2y ago
  it's a corporate welfare programme.

kombine 2y ago

US sent Ukraine 31 Abrams tanks so far. This is for the largest land war in Europe since WW2. Now, can we compare this to the amount of military assistance by the US to USSR during WW2? The US could have helped Ukraine win the war, but chose not to.

actionfromafar 2y ago
Out of 8800 tanks produced.