It's costing peanuts for the USA to destroy Russia.

Should have listened to Trump. Europe put themselves in this position by weaning themselves off of nuclear energy while trying to go full green energy

 

"Admire Russians"?

I'd be embarrassed.....a vanquished empire who lost Warsaw Pact, lost in Afghanistan, lost the former USSR republics, ....still continues losing.

 

If Russia is so dominant, economically, why did they need to resort to invading a neighbor? China has thrived, economically, and been militarily secure, without attacking its neighbors.


Also, not sure what your comment about "murder" is referring to; Putin is the only leader, known to murder people, in other European countries-- you've heard of Novichok?

 

Europeans give zero F's for Europeans. They are doing this to themselves.

 

lol... I stopped reading after "These sums pale into insignificance when set against a total US defense budget of $715bn for 2022. The assistance represents 5.6% of total US defense spending. But Russia is a primary adversary of the US, a top tier rival not too far behind China, its number one strategic challenger. In cold, geopolitical terms, this war provides a prime opportunity for the US to erode and degrade Russia’s conventional defense capability, with no boots on the ground and little risk to US lives."

The underlined is pure BS. The emboldenned, however, is entirely true. All attempts at competition must be squashed. That is the globalist/corporatist way.

 

Well let NATO park their asses in Taiwan and let's see what happens.

 

US ships have docked there numerous times ...Bill.

China let off some steam...otherwise not much.

 

Um no it was because of the hostile takeover attempt of Ukraine.

 

It made a lot of sense to me. It's actually money spent either way because it was earmaked for defense, and it's not like cutting that funding was really on the table anyway. Proxy wars are a good use of stuff we have anyway without our guys getting killed. Another point it didn't make is this is mostly stuff we wouldn't be using anyway, older stuff that we would otherwise need to retire in some other way.

I don't like the narrative of destroying Russia. A prosperous but peaceful Russia would be better. But doubtless so far this has been a deserved disaster for Putin.

 

Understand it is less expensive to destroy such inventories than to attempt to dismantle them or keep them in storage largely due to the safety risk and Stockpile Reliability Testing (SRT-makes sure they still work after storage). Which is why they were slated for demolition if they weren't utilized for training or some other purpose in the next couple of years. The cost of demolition would have been on the order of tens or perhaps $100M. The ordinance slated for demolition was about double that provided or earmarked for Ukraine to date. In other words, these stockpiles have been reduced by about 50% and we could continue to supply similar ordinance for about another year. Therefore, it doesn't cost us much if anything, as the costs to transport to Ukraine are on par with the cost of demolition and SRT. These ordinances in no way reduce the projected needs our military requires for its own purposes (e.g., North Korea, and a myriad of other locations throughout the world, including training). But mind you, these are conservative projections with some spare should our military outlook change due to some hotspot elsewhere. Should no such hotspot materialize more ordinance which would otherwise be slated for demolition in the coming years could likewise be supplied to Ukraine in perpetuity.

The numbers publicized regarding military support should be looked upon as an accounting measure. Even much of the costs for indirect supplies such as winter gear, food, medicine, infrastructure etc. are kind of fuzzy as to the costs (of course these aren't slated for demolition). It is these indirect non-military supplies which actually constitute the bulk of what is currently provided to Ukraine (in terms of additional cost), since in most cases contracts are issued to replenish much of these supplies.

BTW, I suspect based on what I have seen on video the Russians aren't nearly so diligent regarding SRT and maintenance of their equipment in general. So one benefit is the Ukrainians can rely of the proper functionality of that supplied, whereas the Russian soldiers I am convinced are enduring a maintenance nightmare.

 

problem is that stuff has to be replaced to maintain readiness.

 

See my explanation above. It has already been replaced. Stockpiles are already produced and paid for in expectation they might be needed. We always have stockpiles transitioning out-of-service when that potential need didn't materialize. It is wise to overestimate the need than to find yourself deficient. After all, "you always go to war with what you got". "In times of peace prepare for war". That being provided is a small percentage of what we keep on-hand and not the latest.

Incidentally, no one has mentioned the costs of training. Poland in particular has stepped up in a major way in this regard and should be commended. Training is expensive.

 

And when we take stuff from the stockpile to send to Ukraine, isn't it replaced?

 

Usually... no.

 

AARguy is correct. It is usually not replaced. It is sent to Ukraine saving us the cost of demolition and SRT (see above). There is almost always a surplus every year, beyond that needed by our military as new ordinance is produced. The only circumstance these ordinance will be needed would be if we got into a series of major conflicts throughout the world at the same time. For instance, if Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran all decided to attack at once then we would use the surplus stockpiles as we ramped up new production. In such a scenario it would likely result in increased defense expenditures in the future. Otherwise, as in the case with Ukraine it just means we send it to Ukraine rather than demolition and the effect is almost without impact to the taxpayers.

This isn't to say there is NO cost. But this actually tends to result from non-military support like training and humanitarian supplies like food, winter clothing, etc.

What is considered surplus versus needed is in and of itself largely conjecture. They always tend to estimate needs conservatively and keep more on hand than they think likely. It isn't a perfect science because no one can predict the future with certainty.

 

Foreign arms sales are done differently. Especially in the case of say Israel.

 

Here's a message from the USA to Russia:
"We will defeat you"!!!!!

 

Its a lot more complex than that (isn't everything?). When we give "assistance" to another nation it is called Foreign Military Aid. That's generally a gift to another nation. We pick up the tab. Then there is FMS (Foreign Military Sales) where we simply SELL the stuff. It can get even more complex when a nation like Israel can give us something... like their IRON DOME technology and, in return, we give them ammunition. Or a similar "swap" when Israel gave us their ARROW MISSILE guidance system which we now use in our PATRIOT PAC-3.

But when we give massive amounts of weaponry to someone like Ukraine, it becomes a problem. The "lead time" to replace complex systems like Javelin and Stinger often require production of sophisticated subsystems that take a year to do things like "grow crystals". In addition, the contracting process can be long and complicated. There are laws about required competition and such. And the money must also be approved through the long, time consuming, and slithery halls of Congress.

 

reAnd they're usually planned well in advance - Our aid to Ukraine is more spontaneous and ad hoc

 

Yes, FMS (Foreign Military Sales) is totally different FMS isn't freebie "aid" at all.

 

Agreed. Kind of a black art. It is also heavily influenced by the particular nation. For instance, England can purchase virtually anything we have on the same footing we do from what I can tell. Perhaps restrictions on nukes or something. Not sure. But for the most part they can negotiate with defense contractors at equal cost. The only exceptions I've noticed are when they need something custom to fit slightly different needs. In such cases they pay for the cost of the customization but pretty much what is ours is theirs and vice versa. In fact, in many cases the equipment is designed both here and there. Same for Germany, France, Italy and others. Each determines their needs and sort of just goes to the NATO grocery store to purchase what they need or use their funds to design their own stuff to put on the shelf. In the case of Israel, we sort of give them what I think of as coupons. Like, "Here is $5B in coupons to purchase what you need as long as it is our product". They then come and negotiate prices much like other NATO nations with coupons in hand. Of course, in practice, these defense companies know they are getting a break and have to spend the coupons on US arms, so they jack up the price a bit. So, it is really kind of a payoff to the defense industry as it increases their competitive position. Sort of like Wal Mart giving you a coupon for 1$ off a gallon of Great Value milk. They can jack up the price on you knowing you have a coupon as incentive. Of course, in this case it is the US taxpayer which pays the cost of the coupon. I'm sure there is some graft in there somewhere.

This became evident during the whole Iran-Contra controversy, remember?

 

Is the stuff going to Ukraine part of FMS? Is Ukraine actually paying for it?

 

Israel is great at "trading". Years ago when we introduced the F-16, Israel wangled a deal with us that they would not compete with us internationally with their KFIR fighter. That was how they started getting F-16's from us.
And then there was the ARROW missile guidance. Our original Patriot missiles were "proximity" weapons just designed to knock down incoming and let the wreckage fall where it may. In Desert Storm some of that wreckage was falling on Israeli towns, so they gave us their ARROW missile system which was much more precise and would destroy the incoming.
Today we use the Israeli "IRON DOME" system (we call it C-RAM... Counter Rocket Artillery Mortar). They gave us the design and we gave them ammunition for it.
Back in the 1980's Britain decided to acquire the Apache Helicopter. They worked a deal with Boeing to build it themselves under license. Things were going well until they found a technical capability required to build Apaches that the Brits simply did not have. So it turned into a straight buy from Boeing.
Interesting stuff.

 

No... its a freebie.

 

Nope. The supplies are given to Ukraine free of charge. But again, beggars can't be choosers and they are given arms slated for demolition over the next year or two. Still good stuff and high quality, just not the latest and greatest like the longer range HIMARS and MLRS because these aren't surplus and due for salvage. Unlike FMS where let's say England can purchase our latest and greatest equipment and the defense contractor just cuts a contract and produces whatever England wants. Ukraine could purchase more over and above that offered free of charge, but that would have to be purchased by some means (credit or cash). Even so, because Ukraine is likely not considered on par with England or Germany there may well be some items not considered purchasable by Ukraine. Our closest allies enjoy a more trusting relationship and I'm not sure Ukraine has been elevated to this status.