Five Russian jets have been blown up by Ukraine in the past three days, as Britain said drone attacks on targets within Russia were being launched from inside its own territory.
Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets. Assets that were constructed to fight China and Russia at the same time if needed. They were literally built and maintained in waiting for a fight with Russia. Sending them to make Russia weaker lowers the stockpile we need to maintain. The number of dollars sent over isn’t real dollars, it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced). We were literally spending money to keep them ready in case they were needed, and now they’re needed and we no longer have to spend money on them.
We are spending some new money on aid and things, but most of the military stuff is stuff we already had kicking around, not new spending to build new stuff to send over. Also, sure we’ll have to replace some, but we would anyway as technology advances, and it also won’t be to the same level as Russia is weaker.
it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced).
Arguably much of it should be valued at negative monetary value as with Ukraine taking it the US won’t have to pay to decommission it. Especially ammunition gets expensive (tanks you can just dump in a desert somewhere).
No, the assets can’t really just be liquidated for capital. They’re military equipment, and they’ve lost value over time anyway so the real value is less than the listed price. What can be done is giving them to another country for promises in the future.
In some ways it’s a great move beyond the human cost, Russian uses up their military personnel, equipment, and resources while NATO and the US commit some of their resources and older equipment to the cause but nothing new and no losses of people beyond the Ukrainians in theory for the most part.
I know many in the US think the Russians are good guys now (Patton is probably doing cartwheels in his grave at the thought, but Nazis are good now too so maybe not) but if there is going to be future conflict, the Russian machine will be spent and tired which will help some.
Slava Ukraini. Now to deliver more of those F-16s for Ukraine.
The heat wave is causing potentially disastrous issues for US infrastructure, but sure, absolutely, let’s go further into debt for another country’s war. Ukraine should absolutely be the priority when it comes to appropriations.
At least it’ll make the chickenhawks happy.
Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets. Assets that were constructed to fight China and Russia at the same time if needed. They were literally built and maintained in waiting for a fight with Russia. Sending them to make Russia weaker lowers the stockpile we need to maintain. The number of dollars sent over isn’t real dollars, it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced). We were literally spending money to keep them ready in case they were needed, and now they’re needed and we no longer have to spend money on them.
We are spending some new money on aid and things, but most of the military stuff is stuff we already had kicking around, not new spending to build new stuff to send over. Also, sure we’ll have to replace some, but we would anyway as technology advances, and it also won’t be to the same level as Russia is weaker.
Arguably much of it should be valued at negative monetary value as with Ukraine taking it the US won’t have to pay to decommission it. Especially ammunition gets expensive (tanks you can just dump in a desert somewhere).
Err… what? Who paid for those ‘assets’? Those ‘assets’ can’t be liquidated for capital?
Lol, 35 upvotes. Man, this next generation sucks. Not a critical thinker among you.
No, the assets can’t really just be liquidated for capital. They’re military equipment, and they’ve lost value over time anyway so the real value is less than the listed price. What can be done is giving them to another country for promises in the future.
We can always tax the rich to solve our problems.
It’s not that the money isn’t there, lol. We just choose not to use it.
In some ways it’s a great move beyond the human cost, Russian uses up their military personnel, equipment, and resources while NATO and the US commit some of their resources and older equipment to the cause but nothing new and no losses of people beyond the Ukrainians in theory for the most part.
I know many in the US think the Russians are good guys now (Patton is probably doing cartwheels in his grave at the thought, but Nazis are good now too so maybe not) but if there is going to be future conflict, the Russian machine will be spent and tired which will help some.
No losses of people, beyond THOSE people…kinda? Maybe? Theoretically?
Shame.
There would be a lot more dead Ukrainians if the West hadn’t supplied them with weapons. Particularly artillery, ammunition and air defense.
Prolonging a proxy war saves lives. Got it.