School Me On This Russia/Ukraine Kerfuffle

[sneeker]

This is more engaging than fargin random, unhinged confusing rants. It's important to note that the information you shared may not be completely accurate. I am unsure whether you intended to give the impression that the number you cited represents the majority of the military aid that the US has provided to the Ukraine, or if you simply found it quickly and shared it without verifying its accuracy.
The US has sent $47 billion(could be more) in military aid, not including the additional $27 billion in financial assistance. A huge chunk of that isn't refurbished equipment. But please do go on.

so what is exactly your point? are you against war in general and government spending on Ukraine or against it because it is not Trump that is doing it?

 

[tomdiginson]

so what is exactly your point? are you against war in general and government spending on Ukraine or against it because it is not Trump that is doing it?

My point was clear. Check your reading comprehension . What does this have to do with Trump? Are you voting for him? Do you wear the red hat? Were you excited about January 6th? Please do tell.

 

[gry60]

This is more engaging than fargin random, unhinged confusing rants. It's important to note that the information you shared may not be completely accurate. I am unsure whether you intended to give the impression that the number you cited represents the majority of the military aid that the US has provided to the Ukraine, or if you simply found it quickly and shared it without verifying its accuracy.
The US has sent $47 billion(could be more) in military aid, not including the additional $27 billion in financial assistance. A huge chunk of that isn't refurbished equipment. But please do go on.

You can read the article yourself for the breakdown in the type of military aid that has been provided, as well as when the US military produced some of this equipment and when they phased it out.

You say that "a huge chunk" of it is not near-obsolete equipment; do you have anything that quantifies what is meant by "a huge chunk"?

 

[tomdiginson]

You can read the article yourself for the breakdown in the type of military aid that has been provided, as well as when the US military produced some of this equipment and when they phased it out.

You say that "a huge chunk" of it is not near-obsolete equipment; do you have anything that quantifies what is meant by "a huge chunk"?

The information is readily available at your finger tips, but knowing you lot, you will suddenly have dexterity issues out the blue that prevent you from searching it up.

 

[sneeker]

My point was clear. Check your reading comprehension . What does this have to do with Trump? Are you voting for him? Do you wear the red hat? Were you excited about January 6th? Please do tell.

the only point that is clear here is that you got some personal issues and easily get triggered. man, a simple inquiry and you get on the attack like mad crazy. it's really funny like how you perceive yourself as the voice of reason yet you reply in a condenscending manner. I hope you stop here as any further aggressive reply on my post would just prove my point. also, you haven't posted anything of value to my inquiry. just pure anger.

 

[gry60]

The information is readily available at your finger tips, but knowing you lot, you will suddenly have dexterity issues out the blue that prevent you from searching it up.

I already saw this graph, and it doesn't answer my question, nor does it support your point.

The majority of the help package is military. About 1/3 of it is equipment, while the second third (security assistance) also includes equipment, weapons, logistics support (trucks? communication stuff?) that can also be assumed to also be surplus equipment (aka money already spent). In other words, the actual cash disbursed to Ukraine doesn't appear to constitute the majority proportion of the total package; furthermore, this presumed cash amount would be the rough equivalent of the cost a naval ship (according to that Forbes article).

What kind of sense does it make to withhold this little cash today and watch Ukraine fall, only to face the possibility of sending US troops to Eastern Europe once Russia sets its sights on former Soviet satellites that are now members of NATO?

 

[tomdiginson]

the only point that is clear here is that you got some personal issues and easily get triggered. man, a simple inquiry and you get on the attack like mad crazy. it's really funny like how you perceive yourself as the voice of reason yet you reply in a condenscending manner. I hope you stop here as any further aggressive reply on my post would just prove my point. also, you haven't posted anything of value to my inquiry. just pure anger.

This is rich. So much projectuon Have you seen yourself in the NBA thread?

 

[tomdiginson]

I already saw this graph, and it doesn't answer my question, nor does it support your point.

The majority of the help package is military. About 1/3 of it is equipment, while the second third (security assistance) also includes equipment, weapons, logistics support (trucks? communication stuff?) that can also be assumed to also be surplus equipment (aka money already spent). In other words, the actual cash disbursed to Ukraine doesn't appear to constitute the majority proportion of the total package; furthermore, this presumed cash amount would be the rough equivalent of the cost a naval ship (according to that Forbes article).

What kind of sense does it make to withhold this little cash today and watch Ukraine fall, only to face the possibility of sending US troops to Eastern Europe once Russia sets its sights on former Soviet satellites that are now members of NATO?

Sir, the math is there. Unless you're reading the graph wrong or you're trying to redefine what is military aid even though it's explicitly stated there, then you're disagreeing for the sake of. According to the article you shared, 22 billion of the military aid that was sent consisted of refurbished or excessive equipment. The total amount of military aid sent was 47 billion. By subtracting 22 billion from 47 billion, we get 25 billion, which represents the portion of the aid that was not refurbished equipment and had not been previously paid for. That 25 billion can be broken down into new equipment, new weapons, trainings, etc. But sure, go on.

 

[gry60]

Sir, the math is there. Unless you're reading the graph wrong or you're trying to redefine what is military aid even though it's explicitly stated there, then you're disagreeing for the sake of. According to the article you shared, 22 billion of the military aid that was sent consisted of refurbished or excessive equipment. The total amount of military aid sent was 47 billion. By subtracting 22 billion from 47 billion, we get 25 billion, which represents the portion of the aid that was not refurbished equipment and had not been previously paid for. That 25 billion can be broken down into new equipment, new weapons, trainings, etc. But sure, go on.

There's a one year gap between the Forbes and the CFR articles, so I don't know if I trust your math.

The point of posting the Forbes article was to show that part of the aid package had already been paid for, so all the hand wringing about money is disingenuous at best. Furthermore, the $29 billion figure specified may or may not be the total figure of the aid package that has already been paid for, since the article itself focused on weaponry, which is not the only category within military aid.

All of this is a side discussion to the real issue. From a foreign policy perspective, which solution costs less and comes with less risk: a multiple trillion dollar engagement with another superpower (and the possibility of ending human life), or a few billions to stave off an invasion that shows no signs of stopping in Ukraine? I think you're smart enough to know the answer to this question.

 

[trynafeelmink]

Imagine being funded By America of all people & in the very same sentence talking about cutting off "evil SOB"

Killing Nazis why simultaeneously being Nazis

ya'll really believe this G.I joe level propoganda they fed ya'll

Godbless

 

[slaughterx]

So youre saying all Americans are Nazis?

 

[tomdiginson]

There's a one year gap between the Forbes and the CFR articles, so I don't know if I trust your math.

The point of posting the Forbes article was to show that part of the aid package had already been paid for, so all the hand wringing about money is disingenuous at best. Furthermore, the $29 billion figure specified may or may not be the total figure of the aid package that has already been paid for, since the article itself focused on weaponry, which is not the only category within military aid.

All of this is a side discussion to the real issue. From a foreign policy perspective, which solution costs less and comes with less risk: a multiple trillion dollar engagement with another superpower (and the possibility of ending human life), or a few billions to stave off an invasion that shows no signs of stopping in Ukraine? I think you're smart enough to know the answer to this question.

The graph I posted clearly encompasses all of the aid provided since the war started until May 2023, which leads me to believe that you haven't even looked at the graph properly and you're just being disagreeable to side with your thread buddies. Whereas your article is from December 2022. But Somehow there is a 1 year gap? You're just being argumentitive for the sake of. The CFR article was updated in July 2023, but please, keep moving the goal post and making excuses.

 

[fargin]

Swedish weapon deliveries....

 

[gry60]

The graph I posted clearly encompasses all of the aid provided since the war started until May 2023, which leads me to believe that you haven't even looked at the graph properly and you're just being disagreeable to side with your thread buddies. Whereas your article is from December 2022. But Somehow there is a 1 year gap? You're just being argumentitive for the sake of. The CFR article was updated in July 2023, but please, keep moving the goal post and making excuses.

You made the assumption that $21.9B was the total amount of obsolete US material provided to Ukraine. Here's what I said:

Furthermore, the $21.9 billion figure specified may or may not be the total figure of the aid package that has already been paid for, since the article itself focused on weaponry, which is not the only category within military aid.

What the Forbes article says is "$21.9b is the value of the obsolete weaponry sent." It doesn't say, "all the obsolete equipment sent to Ukraine amounts to $21.9B." I'm pretty sure the US military stocks up more than enough MRE, tools, training documents, base building ****, etc... that could go into the category of supplies and logistics the Biden administration is not spending money to produce/purchase. Neither article dives into these details, so until you can provide additional info that shows that all the obsolete equipment sent is valued at $21.9B, your assumption is speculation, and your math can't be trusted.

**Edited to correct a very obvious typo**

 

[tomdiginson]

You made the assumption that $29B was the total amount of obsolete US material provided to Ukraine. Here's what I said:

What the Forbes article says is "$29b is the value of the obsolete weaponry sent." It doesn't say, "all the obsolete equipment sent to Ukraine amounts to $29B." I'm pretty sure the US military stocks up more than enough MRE, tools, training documents, base building ****, etc... that could go into the category of supplies and logistics the Biden administration is not spending money to produce/purchase. Neither article dives into these details, so until you can provide additional info that shows that all the obsolete equipment sent is valued at $29B, your assumption is speculation, and your math can't be trusted.

False. You're claiming my math can't be trusted, yet you're the one having problems with numbers and values. First, you mentioned a year discrepancy between the graph and article, but the graph clearly displays its time period. Now, you're further inflating the excess/refurbished equipment value from 21.9 to 29. Your math ain't mathing.

The article clearly states that the value is 21.9 billion. We are using this information to correlate it with the data shown on the graph. You can rephrase and further try to move from the point, but that is the value that is being used.

You're doing exactly what you're claiming I'm doing by making assumptions about the equipment's value. Youre assuming that it is more than what the article stated. When it doesn't specify that. It gives a value and that is the value being used.


It's important to avoid making assumptions regarding the value of the equipment mentioned in the article. , the article did not provide any indication that it is worth more than what was reported. It may be best to refrain from commenting cause at this point it appears you're being disingenuous and flat out making things up.

 

[gry60]

False. You're claiming my math can't be trusted, yet you're the one having problems with numbers and values. First, you mentioned a year discrepancy between the graph and article,

I mentioned the discrepancy between the published dates of the CFR and Forbes articles.

but the graph clearly displays its time period. Now, you're further inflating the excess/refurbished equipment value from 21.9 to 29. Your math ain't mathing.

You'd have realized that I made a typo if you understood my position:
- the general public doesn't have enough info to assess how much of this aid is actual money spent vs the value of the material provided (and how much material was going to be discarded)
- the overall value of the aid package to Ukraine is little money spent today to prevent dedicating trillions of dollars to a more direct engagement in Eastern Europe and to reduce the likelihood of a nuclear engagement.

 

[tomdiginson]

I mentioned the discrepancy between the published dates of the CFR and Forbes articles.

You claimed the CFR article was unreliable due to its age, but this was another falsehood.

You'd have realized that I made a typo if you understood my position:
- the general public doesn't have enough info to assess how much of this aid is actual money spent vs the value of the material provided (and how much material was going to be discarded)
- the overall value of the aid package to Ukraine is little money spent today to prevent dedicating trillions of dollars to a more direct engagement in Eastern Europe and to reduce the likelihood of a nuclear engagement.

Ah, so the numbers were valid when you found your Reddit post. But once the graph was introduced, the actual numbers became unclear to the public.

 

[fargin]

 

[heelsandeers]

Always wonder if the people who complain about the US giving "too much aid" to other counties realize most of that money is getting spent within the US

Not that that's most important (politically it is) but it seems like the type of thing a person who complains about giving too much aid would care about

 

[tomdiginson]

Always wonder if the people who complain about the US giving "too much aid" to other counties realize most of that money is getting spent within the US

Not that that's most important (politically it is) but it seems like the type of thing a person who complains about giving too much aid would care about

The countries infrastructure is failing, and we have a migrant crisis happening and the government has failed to adequately fund the states who are on the front line facing it. But sure, we're "spending" this money already, allegedly. So, let's ignore the present issues here and send some more billions to Ukraine.

 

[heelsandeers]

The countries infrastructure is failing, and we have a migrant crisis happening and the government has failed to adequately fund the states who are on the front line facing it. But sure, we're "spending" this money already, allegedly. So, let's ignore the present issues here and send some more billions to Ukraine.

What does one have to do with the other?

 

[gry60]

You claimed the CFR article was unreliable due to its age, but this was another falsehood.

No. I didn't say the CFR numbers were unreliable. I said your math was because you took the 21.9b from the Forbes article to run the numbers presented in the CFR article.

Me pointing out the long time difference between the publication of both articles was another way to say the Forbes numbers may be too old to give you an accurate picture of the aid package.

Ah, so the numbers were valid when you found your Reddit post. But once the graph was introduced, the actual numbers became unclear to the public.

The numbers are still valid (typos notwithstanding). The CFR numbers show broad categories of the aid package; the Forbes article says this amount of weapons has already been paid for and would've been trashed.

What neither of these articles present is a full account of what the US government has already paid for and just giving away (not just weapons, but everything else), and what it's disbursing right now from the defense budget.

Reading comprehension is lacking in here....

 

[heelsandeers]

Putin’s Forever War (Published 2023)

Vladimir Putin wants to lead Russians into a civilizational conflict with the West far larger than Ukraine. Will they follow him?

www.nytimes.com

 

[gry60]

Putin’s Forever War (Published 2023)

Vladimir Putin wants to lead Russians into a civilizational conflict with the West far larger than Ukraine. Will they follow him?

www.nytimes.com

“Our values are different,” Mr. Tolstoy said. “For Russians, freedom and economic factors are secondary to the integrity of our state and the safeguarding of the Russian world.”

The problems of Yevgeny Vlasov, 39, started late last year when he began posting critical commentary on Vkontakte, or VK, a Russian version of Facebook.

A tall, lean man with a disarming frankness and fearlessness, Mr. Vlasov, an electrical engineer in Ulan-Ude, posted a graphic from an opposition website illustrating the war’s toll.
It showed that for every Muscovite who dies in the war, 87.5 people die in Dagestan, Russia’s southernmost republic; 275 people in Buryatia, where he lives; and 350 people in Tuva, home to an Asian minority and the poorest region of Russia.
In contrast to all the recruitment billboards, whose images are almost exclusively of white ethnic Russians, a disproportionate number of those dying at the front come from Russia’s ethnic minorities, a pattern confirmed by Mediazona, among other independent news outlets. That was Mr. Vlasov’s point.

 

[tomdiginson]

What does one have to do with the other?

Not sure if serious...

No. I didn't say the CFR numbers were unreliable. I said your math was because you took the 21.9b from the Forbes article to run the numbers presented in the CFR article.

Me pointing out the long time difference between the publication of both articles was another way to say the Forbes numbers may be too old to give you an accurate picture of the aid package.


The numbers are still valid (typos notwithstanding). The CFR numbers show broad categories of the aid package; the Forbes article says this amount of weapons has already been paid for and would've been trashed.

What neither of these articles present is a full account of what the US government has already paid for and just giving away (not just weapons, but everything else), and what it's disbursing right now from the defense budget.

Reading comprehension is lacking in here....

I understand the information clearly, but it seems like you're being dishonest. The CFR article provides a clear breakdown of categories, such as Weapons and Equipment, which distinguishes aid that comes from the Defense Department's excess equipment stocks(by way of the Presidential drawdown), as mentioned in the Forbes article. This is why I subtracted the numbers from the Forbes article directly from the numbers in the CFR article. You can also look this information up on the DOD website. Which for the most part is in alightment with the numbers from the CFR article.

Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) Announcements​

• PDA 2 FY 2022 December 23, 2021 $200M
• PDA 3 FY 2022 February 25, 2022 $350M
• PDA 4 FY 2022 March 12, 2022 $200M
• PDA 5 FY 2022 March 16, 2022 $800M
• PDA 6 FY 2022 April 6, 2022 $100M
• PDA 7 FY 2022 April 13, 2022 $800M
• PDA 8 FY 2022 April 21, 2022 $800M
• PDA 9 FY 2022 May 6, 2022 $150M
• PDA 10 FY2022 May 19, 2022 $100M
• PDA 11 FY 2022 June 1, 2022 $700M
• PDA 12 FY 2022_June 15, 2022_$350M
• PDA 13 FY 2022 June 23, 2022 $450M
• PDA 14 FY 2022 July 1, 2022 $50M
• PDA 15 FY 2022_July 8, 2022 $400M
• PDA 16 FY 2022 July 22, 2022 $175M
• PDA 17 FY 2022 August 1, 2022 $550
• PDA 18 FY 2022 August 8, 2022 $1,000M
• PDA 19 FY 2022 August 19, 2022 $775M
• PDA 20 FY 2022 September 8, 2022 $675M
• PDA 21 FY 2022 September 15, 2022 $600M
• PDA 22 FY 2022 October 4, 2022 $625M
• PDA 23 FY 2022 October 14, 2022 $725M
• PDA 24 FY 2022 October 28, 2022 $275M
• PDA 25 FY 2023 November 10, 2022 $400M
• PDA 26 FY 2023 November 23, 2022 $400M
• PDA 27 FY 2023 December 09, 2022 $275M
• PDA 28 FY 2023 December 21, 2022 $1,000M
• PDA 29 FY 2023 January 6, 2023 $2,850M
• PDA 30 FY 2023 January 19, 2023 $2,500M
• PDA 31 FY 2023 February 3, 2023 $425M
• PDA 32 FY 2023 February 20, 2023 $450M
• PDA 33 FY 2023 March 3, 2023 $400M
• PDA 34 FY 2023 March 20, 2023 $350M
• PDA 35 FY 2023 April 4, 2023 $500M
• PDA 36 FY 2023 April 19, 2023 $325M
• PDA 37 FY 2023 May 3, 2023 $300M
• PDA 38 FY 2023 May 21, 2023 $375M
• PDA 39 FY 2023 May 31, 2023 $300M
• PDA 40 FY 2023 June 13, 2023 $325M
• PDA 41 FY 2023 June 27, 2023 $500M
• PDA 42 FY 2023 July 7, 2023 $800M
• PDA 43 FY 2023 July 25, 2023 $400M
• PDA 44 FY 2023 August 14, 2023 $200M
• PDA 45 FY 2023 August 29, 2023 $250M

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) > Budget Execution > PDA_Announcements

To provide a clear context for this discussion, we are relying on the available numbers. However, it's important to note that these numbers may change with new information. It was you who initially brought up the numbers in this conversation, so let's stick to discussing them.


You alleged that there was a one-year gap between the Forbes article and the CFR article, which is false. The CFR article was revised in July of this year, while the Forbes article was from last December. Therefore, the CFR article is more reliable because both sources obtained their information from the DOD. Perhaps it is your understanding that needs to be scrutinized instead of blaming typos.