The "Support Ukraine" Calculus #1

[TU Curmudgeon]

The real question is much too complex for a simple "Yes"/"No" dichotomy, so try this one.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Is this asking what will happen or what should happen?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Is this asking what will happen or what should happen?

I'm asking what people think WILL happen.

 

[SkyChief]

Of course the U.S. will continue to support Ukraine. The question is: what kind of support will Ukraine be getting?

Right now they have moral support, humanitarian support and defensive weapons, including 155mm howitzers and 40,000 artillery rounds, 200 M113 APCs, 11 Mi-17 helicopters, and 100 armored multi-purpose vehicles. In addendum, it also includes 10 AN/TPQ-3G counter-artillery radars, two AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel air surveillance radars, 300 Switchblade drones, and 500 Javelin anti-armor missiles, unmanned coastal defense vessels, chemical, biological, and nuclear protective equipment, 30,000 sets of body armor and helmets, C-4 explosives and M18A1 Claymore anti-personnel mines.

Lots of stuff to stymie Russian troops.

Yesterday, Biden approved an additional $800M in military and security aid to Ukraine, but Fighter jets and heavy tanks won't be given (for obvious reasons).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Of course the U.S. will continue to support Ukraine.

There isn't any "of course" about it.

The way that the American electoral politics game is played today would most likely mean that NEITHER the "Republicans" (whatever that means) NOR the "Democrats" (whatever that means) would support Ukraine IF doing so would mean that they would almost certainly NOT end up in control of Congress.

NOT ONLY THAT, but BOTH the "Republicans" (whatever that means) AND the "Democrats" (whatever that means) would NOT support Ukraine IF doing so would mean that they would almost certainly end up in control of Congress.

The question is: what kind of support will Ukraine be getting?

Right now they have moral support, humanitarian support and defensive weapons, including 155mm howitzers and 40,000 artillery rounds, 200 M113 APCs, 11 Mi-17 helicopters, and 100 armored multi-purpose vehicles. In addendum, it also includes 10 AN/TPQ-3G counter-artillery radars, two AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel air surveillance radars, 300 Switchblade drones, and 500 Javelin anti-armor missiles, unmanned coastal defense vessels, chemical, biological, and nuclear protective equipment, 30,000 sets of body armor and helmets, C-4 explosives and M18A1 Claymore anti-personnel mines.

Lots of stuff to stymie Russian troops.

Yesterday, Biden approved an additional $800M in military and security aid to Ukraine, but Fighter jets and heavy tanks won't be given (for obvious reasons).

"(for obvious reasons)" - does that mean that the Ukrainians don't have the money to pay for them? Or does it mean that the Ukrainians don't have the trained personnel required to operate them in an effective manner (and won't have them unless the US government openly trains Ukrainian soldiers)?

PS - Check the B-B4 dates on those artillery rounds. If the manufacturing date is prior to 2007, then they have passed their B-B4 date and cannot be used by the US military (absent an actual war situation in which the US is an acknowledged belligerent).

PPS - In the U.S. Army, the M113 series have long been replaced as front-line combat vehicles by the M2 and M3 Bradleys, but large numbers are still used in support roles such as armored ambulance, mortar carrier, engineer vehicle, and command vehicle. [SOURCE] In short, they are about as close to being "military surplus" as you can get. (Mind you, well trained and highly motivated troops can get performance out of "military surplus" equipment that poorly trained and poorly motivated troops can get out of "first line" equipment. <SARC>So maybe the US is just trying to keep the two sides even</SARC> by giving the better soldiers equipment that isn't as good as the worse soldiers have.)

 

[SkyChief]

. . . NOT ONLY THAT, but BOTH the "Republicans" (whatever that means) AND the "Democrats" (whatever that means) would NOT support Ukraine IF doing so would mean that they would almost certainly end up in control of Congress.

Both the republicans and the democrats are behind providing support to Ukraine. It's the one thing they agree on.

"(for obvious reasons)" - does that mean that the Ukrainians don't have the money to pay for them? Or does it mean that the Ukrainians don't have the trained personnel required to operate them in an effective manner (and won't have them unless the US government openly trains Ukrainian soldiers)?

hmmm. . . . . . I guess it's not obvious - - my bad. The reason why U.S will not provide battle tanks and fighter jets to Ukraine is because these are offensive weapons and could potentially be used to attack Russia. This could trigger a nuclear war, and that is unacceptable.

PS - Check the B-B4 dates on those artillery rounds. If the manufacturing date is prior to 2007, then they have passed their B-B4 date and cannot be used by the US military (absent an actual war situation in which the US is an acknowledged belligerent).

The point made is that The U.S. is supporting Ukraine's defense against Russia more than any other country on the planet. So there's no need for Americans to feel any guilt for not providing support. We are the #1 supporters.

PPS - In the U.S. Army, the M113 series have long been replaced as front-line combat vehicles by the M2 and M3 Bradleys, but large numbers are still used in support roles such as armored ambulance, mortar carrier, engineer vehicle, and command vehicle. [SOURCE] In short, they are about as close to being "military surplus" as you can get. (Mind you, well trained and highly motivated troops can get performance out of "military surplus" equipment that poorly trained and poorly motivated troops can get out of "first line" equipment. <SARC>So maybe the US is just trying to keep the two sides even</SARC> by giving the better soldiers equipment that isn't as good as the worse soldiers have.)

OK.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Both the republicans and the democrats are behind providing support to Ukraine. It's the one thing they agree on.

What I actually said was "... BOTH the "Republicans" (whatever that means) AND the "Democrats" (whatever that means) would NOT support Ukraine IF doing so would mean that they would almost certainly end up in control of Congress." and "The way that the American electoral politics game is played today would most likely mean that NEITHER the "Republicans" (whatever that means) NOR the "Democrats" (whatever that means) would support Ukraine IF doing so would mean that they would almost certainly NOT end up in control of Congress." (emphasis added).

Since both the "Republicans" and the "Democrats" are almost sure that IF they DO NOT support Ukraine THEN that would mean that their chances of ending up in control of Congress would be lower than if they DO support Ukraine, the "political calculus" says that "The RIGHT Thing To Do" is to support Ukraine.

hmmm. . . . . . I guess it's not obvious - - my bad. The reason why U.S will not provide battle tanks and fighter jets to Ukraine is because these are offensive weapons and could potentially be used to attack Russia. This could trigger a nuclear war, and that is unacceptable.

Ukraine already has battle tanks and fighter jets. So far Ukraine has not used them to "attack Russia". Admittedly Ukraine has sunk Russian naval vessels "Russian warship: Moskva sinks in Black Sea" (from the BBC) and there are some voices in Russia decrying this "act of war" committed by Ukraine.

The point made is that The U.S. is supporting Ukraine's defense against Russia more than any other country on the planet. So there's no need for Americans to feel any guilt for not providing support. We are the #1 supporters.

OK.

You are correct, the US is providing more (in absolute terms) aid to Ukraine than any other country is. HOWEVER, when you normalize the amounts with respect to GDP, the gap isn't anywhere near as great. For example, the US is sending US$1,000,000,000 in aid to the EU is sending $502,000,000 (50.2% of the US)and Canada is sending $394,000,000 (39.4% of the US). Normalized to population that means

• US - $1,000,000,000
• EU - $ 379,588,366 ( 37.9% of the US)
• Canada - $3,463,052,631 (346.3% of the US)

and normalized by per capita GDP that works out to

• US - $1,000,000,000
• EU - $1,454,797,914 (145.4% of the US)
• Canada - $ 459,210,526 ( 45.9% of the US)

and normalized by gross GDP that works out to

• US - $1,000,000,000
• EU - $ 614,729,824 ( 61.4% of the US)
• Canada - $5,021,521,606 (502.1% of the US)

so the calculus really amounts to how you want to count to determine whether a 10 cu.ft. crate contains "more" grapes than an identical 10cu.ft. crate contains oranges.

If you want to look at it in another way, please answer the question

"Who 'gives more to charity', the person who earns $50,000 p.a. and donates $1,000 (2.0%) or the person who earns $1,000,000 p.a. and donates $5,000 (0.5%)?".

 

[SkyChief]

What I actually said was "... BOTH the "Republicans" (whatever that means) AND the "Democrats" (whatever that means) would NOT support Ukraine IF doing so would mean that they would almost certainly end up in control of Congress." and "The way that the American electoral politics game is played today would most likely mean that NEITHER the "Republicans" (whatever that means) NOR the "Democrats" (whatever that means) would support Ukraine IF doing so would mean that they would almost certainly NOT end up in control of Congress." (emphasis added).

Since both the "Republicans" and the "Democrats" are almost sure that IF they DO NOT support Ukraine THEN that would mean that their chances of ending up in control of Congress would be lower than if they DO support Ukraine, the "political calculus" says that "The RIGHT Thing To Do" is to support Ukraine.

I think your premise is flawed - I don't believe that Americans' desire for Ukraine to ultimately prevail in this conflict has anything to do with how they want mid-terms to turn out. If people DO base their support for Ukraine based on election outcomes - then shame on them.

U Normalized to population that means

• US - $1,000,000,000
• EU - $ 379,588,366 ( 37.9% of the US)
• Canada - $3,463,052,631 (346.3% of the US)

and normalized by per capita GDP that works out to

• US - $1,000,000,000
• EU - $1,454,797,914 (145.4% of the US)
• Canada - $ 459,210,526 ( 45.9% of the US)

and normalized by gross GDP that works out to

• US - $1,000,000,000
• EU - $ 614,729,824 ( 61.4% of the US)
• Canada - $5,021,521,606 (502.1% of the US)

so the calculus really amounts to how you want to count to determine whether a 10 cu.ft. crate contains "more" grapes than an identical 10cu.ft. crate contains oranges.

If you want to look at it in another way, please answer the question

"Who 'gives more to charity', the person who earns $50,000 p.a. and donates $1,000 (2.0%) or the person who earns $1,000,000 p.a. and donates $5,000 (0.5%)?".

The statement I made is true. The U.S. is the #1 supporter of Ukraine's defense against Russia. Period.

There is no reason for any finger-wagging by anyone towards the U.S.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I think your premise is flawed - I don't believe that Americans' desire for Ukraine to ultimately prevail in this conflict has anything to do with how they want mid-terms to turn out. If people DO base their support for Ukraine based on election outcomes - then shame on them.

My apologies, I wasn't clear enough. When I said "... the "Republicans" (whatever that means) AND the "Democrats" (whatever that means) would ..." I didn't mean individual Americans who supported what they thought the positions of the Republican and Democratic parties were - I was referring to the (institutional) "Republican Party" and the (institutional) "Democratic Party".

The "Republicans" will continue to support the "Republican Party" position - regardless of whether or not the "Republican Party" favours supporting (or not supporting) Ukraine and the "Democrats" will continue to support the "Democratic Party" position - regardless of whether or not the "Democratic Party" favours supporting (or not supporting) Ukraine. AND, whether either party favours supporting (or not supporting) Ukraine depends on their assessment of which position gives them the better chance of ending up in control of the government of the United States of America - regardless of the effect of their decision has on Ukraine.

The statement I made is true. The U.S. is the #1 supporter of Ukraine's defense against Russia. Period.

In absolute dollar terms, you are 100% correct.

However, in terms of what it COULD do to support Ukraine, you aren't.

After all would you say that someone with $1,000,000 who gives $5,000 to charity gives more of what they have to charity than someone who has than someone who has $50,000 and gives $1,000 to charity?

There is no reason for any finger-wagging by anyone towards the U.S.

And there is no reason for false pride either.

 

[Antiwar]

There is no reason for any finger-wagging by anyone towards the U.S.

There are all kinds of reasons.
----


"Libertarians are generally against any military intervention in other countries. Other libertarians are also opposed to strategic alliances with foreign countries."

 

[SkyChief]

In absolute dollar terms, you are 100% correct.

However, in terms of what it COULD do to support Ukraine, you aren't.

After all would you say that someone with $1,000,000 who gives $5,000 to charity gives more of what they have to charity than someone who has than someone who has $50,000 and gives $1,000 to charity?

Not saying your calculus is wrong - - only that it's unnecessary. The U.S. is exemplary with regards to humanitarian aid military support to Ukraine. Zelensky has acknowledged that on a couple of occasions.

And there is no reason for false pride either.

My pride is genuine, I assure you.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not saying your calculus is wrong - - only that it's unnecessary. The U.S. is exemplary with regards to humanitarian aid military support to Ukraine.

Is someone with $1,000,000 who gives $5,000 to charity "exemplary" or is someone who has $50,000 and gives $1,000 to charity "exemplary"?

Should the person who has $50,000 follow the "example" set by the person with $1,000,000 and only give $25, of should the person who has $1,000,000 follow the "example" set by the person with $50,000 and give $20,000?

Zelensky has acknowledged that on a couple of occasions.

Mr. Zelensky has thanked the leadership of every country that is helping the Ukraine resist the Russians - so why would his thanks to the US be of some different nature than the thanks to any other country?

My pride is genuine, I assure you.

Being proud that your country is doing less than it can is rather a weak basis for pride. However, being proud that your country is doing something is OK.

 

[The Mark]

The real question is much too complex for a simple "Yes"/"No" dichotomy, so try this one.

If any of them don't support Ukraine, they're likely going to take a hit politically.

The majority of public opinion in USA is in favor of supporting Ukraine at the moment, and they have to know that.

That said, the majority of public opinion in the USA is in favor of federal legalization of marihuana. And a probably slightly smaller percentage is in favor of releasing and exonerating a bunch of people unjustly (IMO) jailed as a result of laws against it.

But that hasn't happened yet.


Which makes me think corporations and money are on the side of keeping it unreasonably illegal at the federal level.



Well that was a bit of a digression.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If any of them don't support Ukraine, they're likely going to take a hit politically.

The majority of public opinion in USA is in favor of supporting Ukraine at the moment, and they have to know that.

Which is to say that if the majority of public opinion is NOT in favor of supporting Ukraine then neither of the two parties will be in favor of supporting Ukraine - right?

That said, the majority of public opinion in the USA is in favor of federal legalization of marihuana. And a probably slightly smaller percentage is in favor of releasing and exonerating a bunch of people unjustly (IMO) jailed as a result of laws against it.

But that hasn't happened yet.

True.

Which makes me think corporations and money are on the side of keeping it unreasonably illegal at the federal level.

Well, them and the entire "Drug Police" infrastructure.

Well that was a bit of a digression.

Sort of.

To parallel the two, IF the majority of the public did NOT favor supporting Ukraine BUT the "War Industry" infrastructure did favor supporting Ukraine (because of the profits to be made from doing so), THEN the shift to NOT supporting Ukraine would likely be more than 'slightly' delayed.

 

[mrdeltoid]

There isn't any "of course" about it.

The way that the American electoral politics game is played today would most likely mean that NEITHER the "Republicans" (whatever that means) NOR the "Democrats" (whatever that means) would support Ukraine IF doing so would mean that they would almost certainly NOT end up in control of Congress.

NOT ONLY THAT, but BOTH the "Republicans" (whatever that means) AND the "Democrats" (whatever that means) would NOT support Ukraine IF doing so would mean that they would almost certainly end up in control of Congress.

"(for obvious reasons)" - does that mean that the Ukrainians don't have the money to pay for them? Or does it mean that the Ukrainians don't have the trained personnel required to operate them in an effective manner (and won't have them unless the US government openly trains Ukrainian soldiers)?

PS - Check the B-B4 dates on those artillery rounds. If the manufacturing date is prior to 2007, then they have passed their B-B4 date and cannot be used by the US military (absent an actual war situation in which the US is an acknowledged belligerent).

PPS - In the U.S. Army, the M113 series have long been replaced as front-line combat vehicles by the M2 and M3 Bradleys, but large numbers are still used in support roles such as armored ambulance, mortar carrier, engineer vehicle, and command vehicle. [SOURCE] In short, they are about as close to being "military surplus" as you can get. (Mind you, well trained and highly motivated troops can get performance out of "military surplus" equipment that poorly trained and poorly motivated troops can get out of "first line" equipment. <SARC>So maybe the US is just trying to keep the two sides even</SARC> by giving the better soldiers equipment that isn't as good as the worse soldiers have.)

The American dilemma in a nutshell about every single issue.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The American dilemma in a nutshell about every single issue.

When you have two political parties that have the same three "planks"

​

[1] Get into power;​

​

[2] Stay in power;​

​

[3] Reward the people who gave you the money to get into power or stay in power (and damn the consequences for anyone else);​

NOTE:- Do NOT print those in the public documents and renumber everything else starting with #1.​

as the first three in their "platform" that is what you end up with.

 

[mrdeltoid]

When you have two political parties that have the same three "planks"

​

[1] Get into power;​

​

[2] Stay in power;​

​

[3] Reward the people who gave you the money to get into power or stay in power (and damn the consequences for anyone else);​

NOTE:- Do NOT print those in the public documents and renumber everything else starting with #1.​

as the first three in their "platform" that is what you end up with.

I used to think term limits would help, but then it limits our choices. If one is a great public servant, let them serve as long as they can get re-elected. I was thinking more along the lines of a salary cap, with no other types of income allowed. They should not be allowed to benefit from their time in congress in any way shape or form. No $100,000 for a 50 minute speech, or, half million dollars for finger painting, etc. There are politicians that were elected that were barely middle class income earners, and after being in congress, become millionaires. Congress are supposed to be public servants. I know it's a pipe dream, but, hey, one can dream......

 

[The Mark]

Which is to say that if the majority of public opinion is NOT in favor of supporting Ukraine then neither of the two parties will be in favor of supporting Ukraine - right?

I expect it will be delayed, and part of that might be knowledge they have which we don't.

To parallel the two, IF the majority of the public did NOT favor supporting Ukraine BUT the "War Industry" infrastructure did favor supporting Ukraine (because of the profits to be made from doing so), THEN the shift to NOT supporting Ukraine would likely be more than 'slightly' delayed.

Highly likely.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I used to think term limits would help, but then it limits our choices. If one is a great public servant, let them serve as long as they can get re-elected. I was thinking more along the lines of a salary cap, with no other types of income allowed. They should not be allowed to benefit from their time in congress in any way shape or form. No $100,000 for a 50 minute speech, or, half million dollars for finger painting, etc. There are politicians that were elected that were barely middle class income earners, and after being in congress, become millionaires. Congress are supposed to be public servants. I know it's a pipe dream, but, hey, one can dream......

The real problem with "term limits" is that they inevitably result in the government actually being run by the people who have been around long enough to learn how to make it function. That means "career civil servants" and you don't really have any say in who those people are (in fact NEW civil servants tend to be selected by the existing "career civil servants" and those civil servants who get chosen for promotion to more powerful positions also tend to be selected by the existing "career civil servants").

As far as "not be allowed to benefit from their time in congress [sic]" is concerned, that would be pretty difficult to make workable. Restricting the person's ability to interact with sitting members of Congress (or any agency of the US government) for a set period of time (let's say 5 years PLUS however long they were an elected federal politician [or appointed cabinet member]) - that you could probably accomplish.

As far as remuneration is concerned, why not build "The Congressional Residence" and supply every elected Representative and Senator with a 2,500 sq.ft. apartment rent (utilities included) free? [They wouldn't be required to live in it {but could NOT rent it out} but they would have to provide their own alternative accommodation out of their own pockets {and reveal where that money was coming from <the details would be made public immediately>}.]

They could be paid (let's say) 1.5 times that average American household income (make that tax free as well). They would NOT be allowed to charge for their services while holding elected office REGARDLESS of what those services are (and that would include a ban on "deferred payment" in the form of contracts that would pay them for doing something AFTER they were no longer an elected person. [They could spend more than they were being paid, but they would have to reveal where the extra money was coming from {the details would be made public immediately}.]

 

[mrdeltoid]

The real problem with "term limits" is that they inevitably result in the government actually being run by the people who have been around long enough to learn how to make it function. That means "career civil servants" and you don't really have any say in who those people are (in fact NEW civil servants tend to be selected by the existing "career civil servants" and those civil servants who get chosen for promotion to more powerful positions also tend to be selected by the existing "career civil servants").

As far as "not be allowed to benefit from their time in congress [sic]" is concerned, that would be pretty difficult to make workable. Restricting the person's ability to interact with sitting members of Congress (or any agency of the US government) for a set period of time (let's say 5 years PLUS however long they were an elected federal politician [or appointed cabinet member]) - that you could probably accomplish.

As far as remuneration is concerned, why not build "The Congressional Residence" and supply every elected Representative and Senator with a 2,500 sq.ft. apartment rent (utilities included) free? [They wouldn't be required to live in it {but could NOT rent it out} but they would have to provide their own alternative accommodation out of their own pockets {and reveal where that money was coming from <the details would be made public immediately>}.]

They could be paid (let's say) 1.5 times that average American household income (make that tax free as well). They would NOT be allowed to charge for their services while holding elected office REGARDLESS of what those services are (and that would include a ban on "deferred payment" in the form of contracts that would pay them for doing something AFTER they were no longer an elected person. [They could spend more than they were being paid, but they would have to reveal where the extra money was coming from {the details would be made public immediately}.]

That sounds workable. I'd be willing to give it a try. We need some kind of alternative. The way things are now, I'm afraid this great American experiment is in the early stages of failure.

 

[SkyChief]

Is someone with $1,000,000 who gives $5,000 to charity "exemplary" or is someone who has $50,000 and gives $1,000 to charity "exemplary"?

Any charity is welcome. The only time the dollar amount is relevant is when an individual (or a corporation) is claiming a tax deduction.

There's a saying here in America ; "Never look a gift horse in the mouth."

This means that if/when someone offers you a gift, don't complain about the monetary amount or value of the gift. Accept it graciously. And Zelensky did, in my opinion.

.. . . . .. Mr. Zelensky has thanked the leadership of every country that is helping the Ukraine resist the Russians - so why would his thanks to the US be of some different nature than the thanks to any other country?

Yes, Zelensky thanked other countries at the same time, but he thanked U.S. and Germany because our contributions have had the greatest impact in keeping Russian forces at bay.

Being proud that your country is doing less than it can is rather a weak basis for pride. However, being proud that your country is doing something is OK.

But that's not why so many Americans are proud of our generous support of Ukraine. We're not proud that our "country is doing less than it can", as you put it.

We are proud because we're #1 in offering humanitarian and military support to Ukraine. On March 15th, Biden signed the bipartisan Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act to provide an additional $13.6 billion in military, humanitarian, and economic assistance to Ukraine - the most of any NATO (and non-NATO) country. (source: https://www.state.gov/united-with-ukraine/)

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That sounds workable. I'd be willing to give it a try. We need some kind of alternative. The way things are now, I'm afraid this great American experiment is in the early stages of failure.

And the actual condition of the "great American experiment" is more easy to discern if you are NOT caught up in the middle of trying to defend its original and ongoing perfection.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Any charity is welcome. The only time the dollar amount is relevant is when an individual (or a corporation) is claiming a tax deduction.

There's a saying here in America ; "Never look a gift horse in the mouth."

I never knew that St. Gerome (who wrote "Noli equi dentes inspicere donati." [Never inspect the teeth of a given horse.] someplace around 400 CE or John Hayward (who wrote "No man ought to looke a geuen hors in the mouth." in 1546) were Americans.

This means that if/when someone offers you a gift, don't complain about the monetary amount or value of the gift. Accept it graciously. And Zelensky did, in my opinion.

Yes, Zelensky thanked other countries at the same time, but he thanked U.S. and Germany because our contributions have had the greatest impact in keeping Russian forces at bay.

I see, so the US is claiming a tax deduction on its "charity" is it?

But that's not why so many Americans are proud of our generous support of Ukraine. We're not proud that our "country is doing less than it can", as you put it.

Most Americans do not realize how little of what the US could be doing for Ukraine it is doing.

We are proud because we're #1 in offering humanitarian and military support to Ukraine. On March 15th, Biden signed the bipartisan Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act to provide an additional $13.6 billion in military, humanitarian, and economic assistance to Ukraine - the most of any NATO (and non-NATO) country. (source: https://www.state.gov/united-with-ukraine/)

If you will pay a bit closer attention to the Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, you will see that almost every paragraph describing what the US is "giving" to Ukraine included the clause "to remain available". That does NOT mean that the assistance will actually be asked for, or - if asked for - delivered.

You will also note, if you follow the internal links, that there is no requirement that that assistance be provided at no cost to Ukraine. Yes, it MAY be provided at no cost, but that is not the same thing as saying that it WILL be provided at no cost.

Now, lets take a look at "Military Procurement". Can you imagine the US government handing over the $227,952,000 allocated for military procurement if the Ukrainians wanted to use the money to purchase nothing but European manufactured weapons?

PS - Did you happen to notice that EVERY allocation was "to respond to the situation in Ukraine and for related expenses" (emphasis added)? Are you sufficiently versed in bureaucratese to understand that that can also mean that not a dime of the money would actually have to be spend providing assistance? Did you notice that almost all of the other "Ukrainian support" spending would be either inside the United States of America or for the US military? (How the Space Cadets managed to miss the boat on getting more boodle out of the situation is totally beyond me. (and the head of the United States Space Force

unfortunately, isn't available for comment.

 

[SkyChief]

I never knew that St. Gerome (who wrote "Noli equi dentes inspicere donati." [Never inspect the teeth of a given horse.] someplace around 400 CE or John Hayward (who wrote "No man ought to looke a geuen hors in the mouth." in 1546) were Americans.

I never said (or implied) that the saying originated here - I merely stated that we use the saying here.

. . . I see, so the US is claiming a tax deduction on its "charity" is it?

I did not say (or imply) that "the US is claiming a tax deduction." Good God. This is a textbook straw-man argument.

. . . .PS - Did you happen to notice that EVERY allocation was "to respond to the situation in Ukraine and for related expenses" (emphasis added)? Are you sufficiently versed in bureaucratese to understand that that can also mean that not a dime of the money would actually have to be spend providing assistance? Did you notice that almost all of the other "Ukrainian support" spending would be either inside the United States of America or for the US military?

I did notice the clause "and for related expenses." tag at the end of each atricle. I presume that this clause was integrated into the Act to allow some wiggle-room where/when needed. (only a guess)
Biden has made a clear distinction between offensive and defensive weaponry. Biden repeatedly refused to allow the transfer of Polish jets through an American airbase in Germany because those fighter jet could potentially be used to attack Russia. That of course would demand retaliation from Putin. Putin is a madman, and Biden doesn't want to give Putin any reason to engage the U.S..

The U.S. has provided portable Javelin anti-tank and Stinger anti-aircraft weapons, which are defensive weapons. Biden is right to consider the risk of reckless escalation, and possibly triggering a 3rd world war.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I never said (or implied) that the saying originated here - I merely stated that we use the saying here.

I did not say (or imply) that "the US is claiming a tax deduction." Good God. This is a textbook straw-man argument.


I did notice the clause "and for related expenses." tag at the end of each atricle. I presume that this clause was integrated into the Act to allow some wiggle-room where/when needed. (only a guess)
Biden has made a clear distinction between offensive and defensive weaponry. Biden repeatedly refused to allow the transfer of Polish jets through an American airbase in Germany because those fighter jet could potentially be used to attack Russia. That of course would demand retaliation from Putin. Putin is a madman, and Biden doesn't want to give Putin any reason to engage the U.S..

The U.S. has provided portable Javelin anti-tank and Stinger anti-aircraft weapons, which are defensive weapons. Biden is right to consider the risk of reckless escalation, and possibly triggering a 3rd world war.

The Ukrainian Air Force already has

Mikoyan MiG-29	Soviet Union	Multirole		37~70	8 used for conversion training[54][55]
Sukhoi Su-24	Soviet Union	Attack		12[54]
Sukhoi Su-25	Soviet Union	Attack / Close air support		17[54]
Sukhoi Su-27	Soviet Union	Multirole		32	6 used for conversion training[54]

in inventory and all of those can be used "to attack Russia".

Or were you of the opinion that they would simply fall out of the air the moment that they crossed out over the Ukrainian border?