- Joined
- Sep 30, 2019
- Messages
- 52,853
- Reaction score
- 79,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Vlad thanks you for your support.Let's get that US percentage down to zero.
Vlad thanks you for your support.Let's get that US percentage down to zero.
But are you counting as contributions those munitions that were close to going stale and needed to be replaced anyway?No they haven’t. And then you will quote Hamish’s numbers which conveniently split the U.S. contribution into two categories.
The truth is that the U.S. has spent $182 billion on Ukraine, which is $44 billion more than the EU.
If NATO doesn't back Trump, then Trump will likely pull out of NATO and it will be more than tariffs they face.
No they haven’t. And then you will quote Hamish’s numbers which conveniently split the U.S. contribution into two categories.
The truth is that the U.S. has spent $182 billion on Ukraine, which is $44 billion more than the EU.
No they haven’t. And then you will quote Hamish’s numbers which conveniently split the U.S. contribution into two categories.
The truth is that the U.S. has spent $182 billion on Ukraine, which is $44 billion more than the EU.
Your last verse is always the same as the first. You'll still be whining tomorrow and it won't change a damn thing. Trump will still be my president.No, I don't have TDS, but I guess you have to say shit like that to cover for the fact that you support a felon who lied his way into the presidency and you fell for it like a naive teenager.
And your article uses data from the Kiel Institute not the DoD. And the Kiel Institute even used a shorter period of time. Sounds like they cherry picked data.
View attachment 67558622
I figured that.
But what are the actual figures?
You think?I suspect they feel Trump pulling out of NATO is pretty much a done deal.
So we can agree that the US has spent in excess of $180 billion in support of Ukraine. Thanks.The discrapancies for Kiel institute and DOD are easy to explain. It is not the time, it is not the deliveries but methedologies to count:
1) US DOD counts all operations relating deliviries and support aka salaries, logistics, donation size even if from stockpile in monetary terms etc etc
2) Kiel institute only counts deliveries to Ukraine of equipment.
So reality is that both numbers are correct but because of different methodologies. Just pure deliviries of equipment either from stockpile or somewhere else in monetary value: 120 Billion. If you add all salaries and infrastructure and logistics that went in to it then 182 billion. Kiel obviously has no way to measure the US salaries and all the other internal stuff that goes in the US industry and military.
NATO would like for you to pay your fair share. Canada is not doing their part.Vlad thanks you for your support.
So you think that if it mentions something at all you can use it to imply anything you want even if that was not in the actual context. That’s a pretty dishonest take. Bit no surprise from you.Yet those quotes of yours clearly mention multiple times; other country's "pathetic" militaries and the Ukraine.
My problem seems to be one of you calling me a liar when it is you doing the tap dancing.
The fact is; on multiple occasions you have condescendingly implied the Ukraine cannot win this war without U.S. support.
That's because they ARE two categories.No they haven’t. And then you will quote Hamish’s numbers which conveniently split the U.S. contribution into two categories.
Bold of you to speak for NATO after yesterday.NATO would like for you to pay your fair share.
As a % of GDP we've contributed more than the US to Ukraine.NATO would like for you to pay your fair share. Canada is not doing their part.
So we can agree that the US has spent in excess of $180 billion in support of Ukraine. Thanks.
Where does that leave aid to Israel?We are done with getting involved in endless wars.
We do not need NATO to support Israel. Trump his first term brought peace to the region.Where does that leave aid to Israel?
That's because they ARE two categories.
We donated X dollars in old stocks at Y value, as determined by date of purchase and expected end of shelf life. The restock is of course more costly, but isn't going to Ukraine.
What isn't brought up, and something you of all people should know, is that disposing of expired weapons is even more costly than the replacement of the weapons.
IOW, that $44 Bn is less than the cost of destroying and replacing weapons that went past their shelf life. We would have had to pay that out regardless, and more of it, even if we never sent a single bullet to Ukraine.
That wasn't the question. Why do you keep fixating on NATO? This is about Ukraine.We do not need NATO to support Israel.
We do not need NATO to support Israel. Trump his first term brought peace to the region.
Europe has donated more than the US.
Regarding NATO, to withdraw, Trump would need congressional consent. It's not his decision.
No, Donald Trump, as President of the United States, would not need explicit permission from another authority to initiate the process of withdrawing from NATO. The U.S. Constitution grants the president significant authority over foreign affairs, including the power to negotiate and terminate treaties as part of the executive branch's role. NATO, formally established by the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, includes a withdrawal provision in Article 13, which states that any member country can leave by providing one year's notice to the U.S. government, which serves as the treaty's depositary. As president, Trump would have the unilateral ability to issue this notice.
However, there are practical and political considerations. While the president can legally act without Congressional approval to withdraw, doing so might face significant pushback from Congress, allies, and the public. Congress could attempt to resist through legislation, funding restrictions, or resolutions, but it lacks a clear constitutional mechanism to outright block a withdrawal if the president insists. Historical precedent—like the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene in treaty termination disputes (e.g., Goldwater v. Carter in 1979 over the Taiwan treaty)—suggests courts would likely treat this as a political question, leaving it to the executive branch.
In short: legally, no permission is required, but politically, it’s a different story. Trump could start the process on his own, but the fallout would depend on how others respond.
They have when you look at the accurate numbers and not the fictional 350 billion Trump keeps harping about.No they haven't