Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Majestik Møøse]

On 12/30/2024 at 7:40 AM, brabus said:

Another $2.5B to UKR…totally nothing that needs money here in the US, this makes complete sense. 

That’s $2.5B of weapons out of our stockpiles, not cash. The money goes to defense contractors.

[brabus]

11 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

That’s $2.5B of weapons out of our stockpiles, not cash. The money goes to defense contractors.

I didn’t say it was cash. Also I need to correct my earlier statement, it’s actually $6B we just tacked onto our UKR bill (now a total of ~$175B over the last three years). We’ve achieved a lot, time to stop and focus a lot more on all the massive problems at home.

[Majestik Møøse]

20 hours ago, brabus said:

I didn’t say it was cash. Also I need to correct my earlier statement, it’s actually $6B we just tacked onto our UKR bill (now a total of ~$175B over the last three years). We’ve achieved a lot, time to stop and focus a lot more on all the massive problems at home.

$175B over 3 years to buy new munitions and send the old ones to a friendly democracy where they used them to dismantle the Russian military is the wisest use of treasury funds in decades. We spend trillions on nothing most of the time.

I’ll never understand how so many Americans have fallen for the line that we’re spending money on Ukraine that would otherwise go to Americans. That money literally goes to American companies.

The Russians sure are good at foolin people.

[Stoker]

28 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

The Russians sure are good at foolin people.

They're not really that good, it's just that for a lot of people, it's more important to feel smart and correct than for their country to succeed.

[Boomer6]

31 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

 I’ll never understand how so many Americans have fallen for the line that we’re spending money on Ukraine that would otherwise go to Americans. That money literally goes to American companies.

The Russians sure are good at foolin people.

Do you understand that the ppl you're engaging with on here actually have at a minimum a college education, decades of military service, and many with time at the Pentagon seeing behind the curtain?

In other words, these aren't the ppl of Walmart with a cart full of mtn dew and ding dongs questioning why the gubment' is spending money on things they don't understand.

This isn't a black and white issue. It's evolved since the start of the war and our policy needs to evolve as well. Just because it made sense to throw billions in resources/cash previously doesn't mean we're locked into that gameplan in perpetuity. People questioning the sense of continued support by us, especially when it exceeds those on the continent that are actually being threatened, have a valid concern.

Edited yesterday at 01:41 AM by Boomer6

[Clark Griswold]

$175B over 3 years to buy new munitions and send the old ones to a friendly democracy where they used them to dismantle the Russian military is the wisest use of treasury funds in decades. We spend trillions on nothing most of the time.
I’ll never understand how so many Americans have fallen for the line that we’re spending money on Ukraine that would otherwise go to Americans. That money literally goes to American companies.
The Russians sure are good at foolin people.

Because they could have been spending the same or even half for the actual country that generated the money to give to Ukraine to then give to the MIC to then fund the corporate, chattering and upper classes that seem to profit from every policy that screws over fly over country
I’m for a free Ukraine but more for a free, secure, sovereign and fair USA
We’re skeptical of power, aloof people who never feel the negative effects of policies they implement and while they tell us that events across the globe are more important than our borders, cities and towns
Yeah, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can have secure borders, intelligent interpretation of immigration, drug and crime policies at the same time but we actually don’t have that now, at least not for a few more weeks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

57 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

$175B over 3 years to buy new munitions and send the old ones to a friendly democracy

 

lol the same democracy that suspended elections? ok...

the same country where the then sitting vice president had his crack head son on the BoD of a major ukranian energy company.

same country which fired a prosecutor looking into crack head vice president son's company...fired after the US vice president threatened to withhold US government funding?

yeah nothing to see here

[brabus]

@Majestik Møøse Boomer pretty much nailed it. I’ll say this: it was a good strategic move for us to do what we did for a time, and we accomplished significant weakening of a major adversary via supporting another’s direct actions - that’s a win. But, at this point we have well passed the sensible ROI and are now playing bullshit games with taxpayer funded property. Its time to KIO. 

[BashiChuni]

with a lame duck president (who uses the baby stairs to enter AF1) knowing the incoming president is going to change course.

spiteful and not in the best interests of the country.

[Biff_T]

 

The Ukrainians shot down a Russian helicopter with a sea drone.   That's nuts.  

[Majestik Møøse]

Sorry dudes, not buying it, when it’s been politicized like it has even the smart college-educated guys can lose their minds. It’s now somehow “liberal” to send weapons to Ukraine. Fuck that noise.

It’s a false choice to think that there’s a choice between sending old weapons to Ukraine and securing borders or whatever. It’s a minuscule amount of the budget, and something that nearly everyone in Congress agreed on until key MAGA mouthpieces (that are literally paid by Russian media) started focusing on it.

Quitting on the Ukraine is cowardly and reprehensible, don’t care what your airplane quals are.

[ClearedHot]

5 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Sorry dudes, not buying it, when it’s been politicized like it has even the smart college-educated guys can lose their minds. It’s now somehow “liberal” to send weapons to Ukraine. Fuck that noise.

It’s a false choice to think that there’s a choice between sending old weapons to Ukraine and securing borders or whatever. It’s a minuscule amount of the budget, and something that nearly everyone in Congress agreed on until key MAGA mouthpieces (that are literally paid by Russian media) started focusing on it.

Quitting on the Ukraine is cowardly and reprehensible, don’t care what your airplane quals are.

Concur...for pennies on the dollar Russia has been neutralized as peer adversary.  I've said it many times, the impact of this war on the Russian population will last for generations.

A U.S. think tank, not the Ukrainian propaganda machine, has estimated Russian losses as epic.  They've lost 40 soldiers for every square mile of ground they have seized.

Russia seized 1,600 square miles of Ukraine's territory in 2024 while losing 427,000 troops, ISW says

[brabus]

@Majestik Møøse Here’s a few financial points you’re either ignorant on or purposely misrepresenting:

- Of the $175B “for” UKR, roughly $69B didn’t even go to them

- Approx $70B of what they did receive is actual war materiel

- Approx $40B of what they received has been spent on their economic recovery and humanitarian aid

I am not saying all of that sum is a bad thing or foolishly spent, but there are lots of Billions that are not simply “sending our old stuff and making new stuff” as you threw out earlier. To be clear, your post about what the $175B has been spent on is incorrect. 
 

What you, and maybe CH, aren’t seeming to grasp on this specifically is two things can be true simultaneously:  the money (and associated efforts) broadly discussed above achieved great national security objectives, and one would be very ignorant to argue otherwise. But, there is a point of diminishing returns and going too far at the expense of other things (such as addressing domestic issues, putting more towards addressing the PRC threat, etc.) Of course the defense industry and all their politician friends love this - they DGAF about our country, they care about money, and UKR is a cash cow for these blood suckers. 

Given the current state of affairs, arguing “quitting is cowardly and reprehensible” is retarded. Talk about myopic emotions.

[Day Man]

27 minutes ago, brabus said:

Here’s a few financial points you’re either ignorant on or purposely misrepresenting:

- Of the $175B “for” UKR, roughly $69B didn’t even go to them

- Approx $70B of what they did receive is actual war materiel

- Approx $40B of what they received has been spent on their economic recovery and humanitarian aid

source?

[ClearedHot]

26 minutes ago, brabus said:

@Majestik Møøse Here’s a few financial points you’re either ignorant on or purposely misrepresenting:

- Of the $175B “for” UKR, roughly $69B didn’t even go to them

- Approx $70B of what they did receive is actual war materiel

- Approx $40B of what they received has been spent on their economic recovery and humanitarian aid

I am not saying all of that sum is a bad thing or foolishly spent, but there are lots of Billions that are not simply “sending our old stuff and making new stuff” as you threw out earlier. To be clear, your post about what the $175B has been spent on is incorrect. 
 

What you, and maybe CH, aren’t seeming to grasp on this specifically is two things can be true simultaneously:  the money (and associated efforts) broadly discussed above achieved great national security objectives, and one would be very ignorant to argue otherwise. But, there is a point of diminishing returns and going too far at the expense of other things (such as addressing domestic issues, putting more towards addressing the PRC threat, etc.) Of course the defense industry and all their politician friends love this - they DGAF about our country, they care about money, and UKR is a cash cow for these blood suckers. 

Given the current state of affairs, arguing “quitting is cowardly and reprehensible” is retarded. Talk about myopic emotions.

Slow your roll bro...I made ZERO disparaging personal remarks about you or anyone else. 

And for the record, I can comprehend that multiple things can be true at the same time...keep in mind much of this is subjective.

The point of diminishing returns is certainly subjective and probably tracks more closely with our national objectives.  Relegating Russia to non-peer is definitely worth continued investment.  Check the Economist and few other news sources that are now reporting on Russia's worsening economic issues.  Inflation is now rampant and some think Putin has a tenuous grip on power. 

This is the great game and should be viewed that way instead of a simple fight in Ukraine.

[brabus]

@ClearedHot Rog, I get it. I’m all about what has been done to RUS, but I’m also good with acknowledging we have indirectly achieved some great shit, the RUS horse has been beat to death x69, so let’s pivot to more important things. Of course we keep an eye on things and can pivot back if necessary, but I don’t think it’s likely that’d be necessary anytime soon.

@Day Man Doesn’t take much effort to find this open source info, but here’s a few items for you. There’s plenty more; #1 is a broad overview while #2 and #3 are specific examples to make the point, which is $175B isn’t simply just war materiel support, and it’s incorrect to say no money has gone to UKR that could have been earmarked elsewhere.

CFR (Sep 24): Good big pic overview 

USAID (Dec 24): $3.4B that “enables healthcare, education, first responders, and other vital services to reach the people of Ukraine.”

CSIS (May 22): $16B for economic support

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by brabus

[ClearedHot]

25 minutes ago, brabus said:

@ClearedHot Rog, I get it. I’m all about what has been done to RUS, but I’m also good with acknowledging we have indirectly achieved some great shit, the RUS horse has been beat to death x69, so let’s pivot to more important things. Of course we keep an eye on things and can pivot back if necessary, but I don’t think it’s likely that’d be necessary anytime soon.

@Day Man Doesn’t take much effort to find this open source info, but here’s a few items for you. There’s plenty more; #1 is a broad overview while #2 and #3 are specific examples to make the point, which is $175B isn’t simply just war materiel support, and it’s incorrect to say no money has gone to UKR that could have been earmarked elsewhere.

CFR (Sep 24): Good big pic overview 

USAID (Dec 24): $3.4B that “enables healthcare, education, first responders, and other vital services to reach the people of Ukraine.”

CSIS (May 22): $16B for economic support

I am just an internet troll but if I were POTUS I would keep the pressure on for a bit longer.  If we go all stop and Russia gets to keep all the land gains Putin can declare victory.  Access tot he Black Sea is one of the keys to a prosperous and self-sustaining Ukraine.  Losing the Crimea was a big hit, Putin has pushed hard at Kherson and everything around the Tendrivs'ka Gulf because it lets him hold all sea-born Ukraine trade at risk...he effectively controls the black sea.  If Ukraine gives up other land but gets some of the coast back then we have good grounds to end it.  Putin is feeling the pain, I would keep the pressure on until he is willing to give up more.