General control line discussion > Ukraine Info

Ukraine Needs Bullets

<< < (2/3) > >>

Paul Smith:
The art of compromise doesn't give everybody everything they want.
My package  includes everything Israel and The Ukraine need to defend themselves and the total closure of US borders to illegal entry.
The price to achieve these goals is a tiny percentage of "stimulus" money that is blindly scattered about.
Once lost, Israel, The Ukraine and the USA will not rise again. 

Bill Schluckbier:
Paul,

Much of the direct aid provided by the US to the Ukraine came from stocks which were already in Europe for the purpose of fighting the USSR.  The Bradley's which the US committed to providing generally fall under this category.  Although they still have "value", they were already paid for a long time ago.  Much of the military aid that provided early on fell in this category.  Newer equipment such as the HIMARS, ATACMS and others cannot be lumped into this category.  You may not remember but the US kept saying that the Russians were coming before the war started and warned the Ukraine.  Other countries did not, for example, in France, the President fired his Minister of Defense (or similar) for not interpreting the intelligence correctly.

Politically, in the lower house of Congress, providing aid to the Ukraine has proven unpopular and based on the comments made by one of the candidates regarding NATO it would appear to me that he would be willing to let the Ukraine go to Putin along with a few other European countries.

Although in terms of the gross amount, the US has provided the largest share of aid, other countries have provided more as a percentage of their GDP, including one of the countries (Germany) which one of the candidates has been critical of in the past:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/

The summer offensive did not achieve what they were hoping to and a few days they lost one of the key cities (at least symbolically) that they had retaken. Personally, I would like to see them win but realistically I no longer think that it is possible unless something drastically changes within Russia.

This has been a coming to Jesus moment for the US and other countries, not only in Europe but Asia as well.  It was estimated that if NATO had committed all of their air assets they might have been able to establish air superiority over portions of the Ukraine for a maximum of two weeks.  Probably not enough to win the war.  The RAF is stretched thin with too many commitments around the world; good training for the aircrews but rough on the equipment. The US strategy has always been to establish air superiority first which meant having plenty of missiles and bombs but as we have been, in a near peer scenario, that might not be possible. 

Although the Ukraine needs the 155 mm shells, they US has come to realize that it needs them as well.  In broader terms, the US military has come to realize that how they fight the next war might be different from what they had expected.  For example, the Air Force relies on the Navy Growlers for electronic warfare, something they gave up after the F111 was retired.  One of the first things sent to Europe when the war started were 6 Growlers to collect electronic data (ELINT).  Further, the Navy is starting to become a larger part of the budget as they try maintain and improve their capabilities with an eye on China.  The new frigate program is an example of that; they are also thinking about fighting in smaller, more dispersed groups. Drones will also play an important part as well.  Canada is getting new ships, so are Australia and Japan.  And we will need their help if Taiwan becomes a thing.

Paul Smith:
Under the Romanov's Russia tried to take land whenever it was weakly defended for 305 years.
The USSR did the same from 1917 to 1991.
I don't know what they call the current regime, but the expansionism continues.

In the absence of a kill shot to Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the ongoing response to continue stepping on their stepping on their fingers when they make a land grab.  I'm all in favor of peace with Russia, as long as they remain in Russia.  This has not been any different since 1605. 

Dennis Leonhardi:
Oh my!  Me thinks there are some glaring omissions here ...

(1) Even as Russia massed tens of thousands of troops on the border with Ukraine, Ole Joe put a hold on American aid.  (a bird in the hand ...)  Quick, go back and do some reading again, then please - for the sake of intellectual integrity - acknowledge the FACT.  He was going to use "diplomacy", remember!?!

(2) House Republicans have a simple request of the Administration's proposals for aid: tell us how to PAY for it.  I doubt any of us want to bankrupt our grandchildren's futures any further by financing proxy wars with Russia.  And a reminder: The Soviet Union didn't crumble because of cold winters or because its citizens drank too much Vodka, but because of a lack of $.  Reagan seemed to understand that would be their downfall and helped engineer it.

And, while I'm at it, (3) We, like Israel and much of the rest of the civilized world, are in a much less stable place today because of the administration of a man named Obama.  Can you find ONE - JUST ONE - instance of a President Obama referring to the threat of Islamic Terrorism?  I thought not ...

But you will find that when an Army Doctor proudly claimed killing 13 American soldiers in the name of jihad, his administration labeled it ... "workplace violence."  That when the Yemeni government announced to the delight of Islamic militants that we closed our embassy in Yemen, Obama's Press Secretary labeled it ... "a reduction in staff."  That "the global war on terror" became ... "an overseas contingency operation."

'Nuff said?

Bill Schluckbier:
A little light reading...

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040

I do recall some of the US aid being held back, but I believe that it was before the invasion and it was tied to the Ukrainians being able to address some of the rampant corruption.  I could not find any solid references, maybe if you have some, you could share.  This is the best I could find:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact-check-joe-biden-leveraged-ukraine-aid-oust-corrupt-prosecutor/5991434002/

The other thing to keep in mind is that the nature of the military aid changed over time, initially it focused on providing them with equipment that they were familiar with (i.e. old Soviet Block stuff) and once that dried the emphasis shifted to Western equipment.  Much of it was done based on promises to countries such as Poland that whatever military aid they gave would be replaced.

If you recall, none or very little of the initial funding for the war in Iraq was part of the budget process and that happened under a Republican administration. The point is, it is very difficult to say that one side did something when in all likelihood, the accusing side had also done the same.  Neither one is right but it undermines the point.  I understand that they now want to give the impression of being fiscally responsible but that is not what history shows.  An yes, I am expecting you to show me the accumulation of US debt next...

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page